Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

cp123
Posts: 1498
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby cp123 » Mon Nov 16, 2015 11:21 am

softy wrote:
human909 wrote:More research confirming what is abundantly clear to most in this thread.

Helmet laws don't reduce hospitilisations.
More cycling does reduce hospitilisations.
Being female reduces hospitalisations.

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/11/e00 ... l.pdf+html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Well i can cycle more, but I'm not sure about getting a sex change ;)

oh well, lets hope I'm safe! :lol:

User avatar
yugyug
Posts: 1826
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:27 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby yugyug » Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:19 pm

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/helme ... kzzqb.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

first press after the Senate hearing earlier today in Melbourne on bicycle helmets.

Its a mixed bag. Perhaps tilted slightly towards pro-choice.

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Sat Nov 21, 2015 10:23 am

Image


:P
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Sat Nov 21, 2015 11:51 am

Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 6606
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Thoglette » Sat Nov 21, 2015 2:20 pm

il padrone wrote:Yehuda Moon ... :P
That's sooooo tempting. :mrgreen:
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
Xplora
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Sat Nov 21, 2015 6:09 pm

The hypocritical oafs who say otherwise should be ignored. They merely prove that there is something far, far worse than being injured playing sport, and that is to become a bitter, sanctimonious bore who wants to tell others how to live their lives.
Leyonholm for President :mrgreen:

User avatar
outnabike
Posts: 2455
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:53 pm
Location: Melbourne Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby outnabike » Mon Nov 23, 2015 4:31 pm

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/nanny-sta ... l2mst.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
As one teenage girl wrote, "it is basically impossible to look fashionable whilst wearing a helmet".

I like that comment from a fashion point of view as fashion is in the eye of the beholder. But if helmets were more in the trend setting mode they would be more popular.

Image
Vivente World Randonneur complete with panniers

User avatar
yugyug
Posts: 1826
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:27 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby yugyug » Mon Nov 23, 2015 8:50 pm

That's a pretty weak article. The libertarian-statist conflict isn't really dealt with in any substantial way and nor is the libertarian aspects of MHL. And anyway, the libertarian arguments to MHL repeal are also its weakest arguments - they are really not needed when it can argued from a statist position that MHL actually increases death, ill health and injury.

[quote="outnabike"]http://www.smh.com.au/comment/nanny-sta ... l2mst.html
As one teenage girl wrote, "it is basically impossible to look fashionable whilst wearing a helmet".

I like that comment from a fashion point of view as fashion is in the eye of the beholder. But if helmets were more in the trend setting mode they would be more popular.

I like that comment too and its characteristically needed for a teenage girl to say it. IMO The aesthetic/fashion problems of helmets are much more important than most consider, perhaps because they are so easily ridiculed, but I reckon we need more teenage girls making comments and putting forth the idea that beauty is just as significant in human society as safety, and both can be addressed by repealing the one law.

IMO helmets the fashionability of helmets will never improve the popularity of helmets much, simply because we don't wear helmets in activities we typically associate with beauty. Not on the catwalk, not on the beach, not at the nightclub, not under the sheets.

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:04 pm

yugyug wrote:IMO helmets the fashionability of helmets will never improve the popularity of helmets much, simply because we don't wear helmets in activities we typically associate with beauty. Not on the catwalk, not on the beach, not at the nightclub, not under the sheets.

Well...... never say never :o

Image

Image

Image
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
Xplora
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:24 pm

Your pics support the abolition of MHL even more persuasively, outnabike. Bad ideas, given time, will disappear. The only time bad ideas stay is because of corruption or legislation. Those hairstyles are gone, yet the helmet remains. There is nothing attractive about a helmet, and given the opportunity, most people would not use one. The global experience proves this.

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Mon Nov 23, 2015 9:55 pm

Its alot more than just fashion. Helmets of all sort are a pain and an annoyance to wear. Most helmet wearers are very quick to take their helmets off once the need for them is over. Whether it is a construction worker stepping outside the front gate or a rock climber finishing their climb, or a cycling stopping for a breather. The helmet quickly comes off.

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Tue Nov 24, 2015 12:03 pm

ECONOMICS REFERENCES COMMITTEE
Personal choice and community impacts


Bicycle helmet laws, including any impact on the health, enjoyment and finances of cyclists and non-cyclists;

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... cation/pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


A comprehensive read. I've skimmed through a fair bit of it. The overwhelming theme seems to be the same stuff as here.
Pro-MHL: "Duh, helmets save lives!"
Pro-choice: "Well actually, we should look at the full picture here...."
Pro-MHL: "Duh, helmets save lives!"

One fun little exchange:
Senator CANAVAN: Thank you all for your evidence and your work in this area. I want to start with
Professor Rosenfeld. Professor, you said words to the effect that we should do everything we can to reduce brain
injury. If that is true, though, why wouldn't we just ban cycling altogether, because that would get rid of all brain
injury, at least for cycling?

Prof. Rosenfeld: You cannot ban something that is part of normal life. People are not going to stop cycling. I
do not think it is a practical proposition. What you have to try do for people who are cycling is to make it as safe
as possible for them when they do ride their bikes.

Senator CANAVAN: I approach this from the position that there should be some level of cost-benefit
analysis about whether this particular intervention is best for the community rather than targeting just one
particular metric, which is brain injury.
The evidence we have heard this morning is that, yes, it might reduce
brain injuries but it might also reduce exercise and have consequent effects of people's health and potentially
cardiovascular illnesses. Are you saying we should not weigh that up, that we should just target brain injury? Or
do we need to look at the holistic impacts?

Prof. Rosenfeld: We need to look at the holistic impact but the head injury aspect is the most expensive for
society and, as I said, for the individuals and the families who are affected in terms of their health and wellbeing.
But the monetary cost is enormous. If we can reduce all of that, it is well worth doing, and it is our mission as
neurosurgeons to do that. I did not say that I represent a large society of all the neurosurgeons in Australia, and
we are all of one mind: we need to have helmets to protect people's brains. That is our mission.
I think the argument you are getting onto about obesity and more people would ride their bikes if they did not
have to wear a helmet, and they might lose some weight, we all do not accept that argument. There is no evidence
for that at the moment. Mind you, there have not been any large studies of that, but actually we feel that the
people who are obese do not necessarily look at cycling to reduce their obesity. They might look at other things,
like diet, but cycling is not necessarily high on their list. So we do not see that as a major argument to say, 'Let's
get rid of helmets and more people are going to ride bikes', because the evidence is not there for that
.

Senator CANAVAN: With all due respect, I think it is perhaps a little bit strong to say there is no evidence. I
do not know if you have seen the other submissions, and I am not picking on you, Professor Rosenfeld; I am
happy for anybody to answer this question. There was some quite compelling evidence presented by Dr Robinson
on census data. It is just an indicator, and like all data it could have other reasons—and I am happy for that to be
brought to bear. But it quite clearly showed that at the time these laws were introduced in Australia there was a
substantial reduction in the percentage of people cycling to work. Do you have other data to say that is wrong, or
incorrect, or there is another way to interpret that?

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:00 pm

The is laughter to be had throughout that document. The Chair and the Senator asking the tough questions and the pro-MHL lobby fumbling to answer them. :D
Senator CANAVAN: With all due respect, Dr Kenfield, we have had reams of evidence about how mandatory helmet laws have reduced bicycle use. I will admit I do not know a lot about this topic, but I have spent the day googling and I have just found a National Bureau of Economic Research paper, which looks at 20 US states that have mandatory helmet laws and other states in the US who do not. The US is a great little laboratory in that regard for these types of things. It is fairly monocultural across the country and has a proper federation, where states do different things. These economists show very clearly that there is a statistically significant reduction in bicycle use, particularly among youth, in those states that have introduced these laws. We can completely have different values about weighing those up—whether it is more important to protect brain injuries and have mandatory helmet laws, not withstanding the potential downsides of lower bicycle use. But I have just not seen any evidence to contradict the weight of evidence on the other side that there is this impact. To deny that impact seems to me obstinate, but I completely understand that you have a different value base, and that is fine. We all—

Prof. Rosenfeld: Why don't you come and visit us in the hospitals? You will see what impact head injuries
have.

Yep. Professor Rosenfeld did just resort to that! :mrgreen:

geoff_tewierik
Posts: 304
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:00 pm
Location: Holland Park West, Brisbane

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby geoff_tewierik » Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:23 pm

The Senator would have a long time to wait at Prof. Rosenfelds hospital for a cyclist to be admitted with head injuries. They're just not that common.

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:51 pm

Unless, you include all head injuries, car accidents, ladders, other sporting injuries etc.... Then one might conclude that we would need helmets for a WHOLE bunch of other things. ;-)

User avatar
CXCommuter
Posts: 1885
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:18 pm
Location: Lane Cove NSW

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby CXCommuter » Tue Nov 24, 2015 4:09 pm

Didn't you know when a cyclist crashes the only thing they injure is their head (according to the above professor).
Image

User avatar
Xplora
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Tue Nov 24, 2015 4:33 pm

Rosenfeld trips up with the "Won't someone think of the children!" defence :lol:

I feel he would be well served leaving the hospital and witness the hundreds of thousands of trips made without head impacts.

Seriously, I would avoid anything that regularly hit my head hard enough to require a helmet to protect. Dunno if it would make a difference, but it's there :lol:

User avatar
AlexHuggs
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:12 pm
Location: Perth, WA

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby AlexHuggs » Tue Nov 24, 2015 6:18 pm

I think the problem with specialist doctors is they're a lot like carpenters - when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail.

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 29060
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Mulger bill » Tue Nov 24, 2015 7:02 pm

Poor old prof, that moment when...

Do you think a forest magically materialised around him? :D
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

User avatar
outnabike
Posts: 2455
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:53 pm
Location: Melbourne Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby outnabike » Tue Nov 24, 2015 9:12 pm

We finally get a good idea and people start laughing.....Where do you buy those arm helmets.
Vivente World Randonneur complete with panniers

User avatar
Xplora
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Tue Nov 24, 2015 10:16 pm

In the Downhillers section of the store, outna... but those guys are simply waiting for the next crash as they ride, bit different to a road biker :lol:

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Sat Dec 05, 2015 9:07 am

"It's just the vibe, your honour"

Some positive outlooks from the Senate enquiry.
It was clear from this hearing that change is in the air. The foundations of the MHLs are shaky. Australia’s example has not proven worthy of widespread replication globally. Resistance to reform is not dead, however, it took a major beating when weighed against the evidence of those seeking reform and under the scrutiny of the senators’ questions. It seems likely that this law will be reformed eventually. The questions now are: when and how far – complete repeal or modifications such as adult exemptions or geographic exemptions?
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

fat and old
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby fat and old » Sun Dec 06, 2015 4:35 pm

That article you linked was pretty good until they mentioned the "renowned academic" Chris Rissell :lol:

Even better is the story on the Boulie tack saga that puts the cleaning cost at $330,000+ that shows the Vic Roads tweet at the bottom that states costs as being $100,000 to date :lol:

Advocacy groups shoot themselves in the foot again. :(

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Sun Dec 06, 2015 4:47 pm

fat and old wrote:That article you linked was pretty good until they mentioned the "renowned academic" Chris Rissell :lol:
Did you even read the source? Chris Rissel was farm more informed and rational than most of the pro-MHLs. I'm not sure why you are trying to discredit the argument by personal attacks on Prof Rissel. The "renowned academic" is certainly and apt description in the context.

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Sun Dec 06, 2015 7:10 pm

He made one error of fact in one of his studies. Apparently that then deletes the relevance or accuracy of all his prior and subsequent research work.


:roll: :P
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users