Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[mikesbytes]

Unfortunately Sydney roads are narrow and busy

Always trawled up by the roads lobby, and even cyclists about Australian cities. On the one hand we have too dispersed and open urban areas, in the next breath our streets are too narrow. It is really all a question of attitude and willingness to make change - to GAF about doing anything.

Bike lanes and segregated cycle lanes on narrow streets in Amsterdam:

It would be a dream for Sydney to end up like this. Every separated bike path that gets put in suffers a bum fight from the cycle haters, even though they have hardly any impact on moving and parked traffic.

[hunch]

Repealing MHL is practically costless and could be more or less instantaneous. This gives it an impetus equal or greater than infrastructure. But it's not a question of priority - they are both important and do not compete as policy aims.

In NSW, I can't see it happening, seems to be heading the opposite way in fact!

Last night on the news, they had compulsory life jackets for rock fisherman....if accurate reporting (which I'd query), only eastern suburbs and central coast application. While they have merit for people who can't swim or are unconscious, usually the circumstances of being swept off rocks implies swell, which means it's helpful to dive under unless there's a deep channel nearby - probably makes finding the corpse with head injuries wedged in the rocks easier later though.

This one from a few weeks back seems to show how deeply entrenched the idea of safety of helmets is v high speed vehicle operation is in the general population....

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/teenager-kill ... mcnd3.html

spurred a helmetsarecool campaign on TV news and facebook, for skateboarders, scooters, etc....maybe we'll get those long-awaited get out of bed helmets yet!

I'd say the direction the scooter was travelling would be wrong in the story too, slope of the road goes the opposite way. If the car was travelling at sign posted speed, probably a 50/50 chance of survival in any event, helmet or no.

[yugyug]

Repealing MHL is practically costless and could be more or less instantaneous. This gives it an impetus equal or greater than infrastructure. But it's not a question of priority - they are both important and do not compete as policy aims.

In NSW, I can't see it happening, seems to be heading the opposite way in fact!

Last night on the news, they had compulsory life jackets for rock fisherman....if accurate reporting (which I'd query), only eastern suburbs and central coast application. While they have merit for people who can't swim or are unconscious, usually the circumstances of being swept off rocks implies swell, which means it's helpful to dive under unless there's a deep channel nearby - probably makes finding the corpse with head injuries wedged in the rocks easier later though.

I don't rockfish, but I am an underwater spearfisher. If I was washed in off the rocks, there is no way I would want to wear a lifejacket, it would totally inhibit your ability to move away from danger.

Admittedly, it might be right that some of these rock fisherman can't even swim - but mandating lifejackets is an insult to those that can.

I guess rock fishing might be one of those activities where I'd want to wear a helmet though!

Mandatory life jackets for people on small boats comes up all the time too. Obviously thats ridiculous for spearfishers.

This one from a few weeks back seems to show how deeply entrenched the idea of safety of helmets is v high speed vehicle operation is in the general population....

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/teenager-kill ... mcnd3.html

spurred a helmetsarecool campaign on TV news and facebook, for skateboarders, scooters, etc....maybe we'll get those long-awaited get out of bed helmets yet!

I'd say the direction the scooter was travelling would be wrong in the story too, slope of the road goes the opposite way. If the car was travelling at sign posted speed, probably a 50/50 chance of survival in any event, helmet or no.

What depressed me about all that reporting was the complete lack of criticism levelled at the driver or the problem of the motorcar in general. People just assume that driver is utterly faultless provided they were driving at the speed limit. Cos that's what they do. The call to mandate helmets for scooters and skateboards is a sick scapegoat for their lack of desire to diminish their own motoring convenience - darkly supported by the parents of the dead even.

[human909]

The call to mandate helmets for scooters and skateboards is a sick scapegoat for their lack of desire to diminish their own motoring convenience - darkly supported by the parents of the dead even.

The families affected by tragedy can be a powerful source for change. Often change for the good, but not always. When the victim is considered at fault there is a desire to blame somebody or something else. All of a sudden we have mandatory helmet, mandatory life jackets etc....

When car thieves or other criminals die in high speed pursuits the families blame the police rather than their own son.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/polic ... mo0m9.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[softy]

The call to mandate helmets for scooters and skateboards is a sick scapegoat for their lack of desire to diminish their own motoring convenience - darkly supported by the parents of the dead even.

The families affected by tragedy can be a powerful source for change. Often change for the good, but not always. When the victim is considered at fault there is a desire to blame somebody or something else. All of a sudden we have mandatory helmet, mandatory life jackets etc....

When car thieves or other criminals die in high speed pursuits the families blame the police rather than their own son.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/polic ... mo0m9.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is all pretty ridiculous, there is no evidence to prove or show a helmet would of lessened the injuries, just total PPE perception! Which by the way is the lowest form of risk management.

[il padrone]

This one from a few weeks back seems to show how deeply entrenched the idea of safety of helmets is v high speed vehicle operation is in the general population....

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/teenager-kill ... mcnd3.html

spurred a helmetsarecool campaign on TV news and facebook, for skateboarders, scooters, etc....maybe we'll get those long-awaited get out of bed helmets yet!

I'd say the direction the scooter was travelling would be wrong in the story too, slope of the road goes the opposite way. If the car was travelling at sign posted speed, probably a 50/50 chance of survival in any event, helmet or no.

May not be the case in NSW, but right now in Vic, it is actually legally-required to wear a helmet on scooters. Not many people are aware of this one however.

244B Wearing of helmets and other requirements for users of scooters
(1) A person who is travelling on a scooter on a road or road related area must wear an approved bicycle helmet securely fitted and fastened on the rider's head, unless—

Scooters must also be equipped with a bell or horn, working brake, and lights and reflector if ridden at night as well. All this applies on roads, and road-related areas ie. footpaths, bike paths etc.




However, re. the Helmetsarecool campaign:

On the same day as the crash, as double demerit points were in place across the state, police issued 1064 speeding infringements and charged 60 people with drink driving.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/teenager-kill ... z3zcEG9z2j" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

Where does the responsibility lie??

[mikesbytes]

Helmets should be mandatory for all people venturing outside http://www.space.com/31866-did-meteorit ... n-man.html

[il padrone]

Overseas awareness of the silly Australian rule.

The state of New South Wales is bringing in new legislation which will see the fine for not wearing a helmet rise from $71 to $319 in March – and it will also become compulsory for cyclists to carry photographic identification as well. Needless to say, many are unhappy with the mandatory helmet law and one cyclist who has been fighting it for a number of years is Sue Abbott (link is external). Abbott has been charged with not wearing a bicycle helmet on a number of occasions. She refuses to pay the fines and takes the matter to court. One fine in particular, from March 2014, resulted in six court appearances. In November 2015 she was found guilty and penalised a total of $560, which included a "victim of crime" levy. She was also handed a criminal conviction. - See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/177585-aust ... exguU.dpuf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[richbee]

In 455 BC, Aeschylus, the playwriter known as the Father of Greek Tragedy, was killed by a tortoise which was dropped by an eagle that had mistaken his head for a rock suitable for shattering the shell of the reptile.
Clearly a case to make a mandatory helmet law for all who dare venture outside the safety of their homes...
A few more examples here: http://www.oddee.com/item_99118.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[il padrone]

[il padrone]

The problem is:

Vulnerability is confused with danger when it comes to bike helmets.

From Sarah Wilson

[il padrone]

Some of the carry-on at the Senate hearings into the Nanny-state laws (including mandatory helmet laws).

The abuse of data, ignorance of actual situations, and befuddling of any contrary claims supported by data. is breathtakingly stupid. Why do we have legislators who have swallowed this guff, and maintain the stupid law?

[human909]

Some of the carry-on at the Senate hearings into the Nanny-state laws (including mandatory helmet laws).

The abuse of data, ignorance of actual situations, and befuddling of any contrary claims supported by data. is breathtakingly stupid. Why do we have legislators who have swallowed this guff, and maintain the stupid law?

And that is only 5% of it. The other 95% of it is just as absurd and ridiculous. Oh and look what I just stumbled across...

Remember this question?
“CHAIR: Does Australia have a significantly lower rate of serious head injuries and deaths amongst cyclists than other countries in the OECD?
Mr Healy : We would have to take that question on notice.”

Well it looks like Mr Healy took the question on notice and managed to answer it. Complete with confidence intervals and everything.

The respective population estimates for 2014 are 23,472,138 for Australia and 16,877,351 for the Netherlands. The rate of cycling fatalities per
100,000 population for 2014 is therefore 0.19 for Australia and 1.05 for the Netherlands. Although an imperfect comparison, the rate ratio is 0.18 (95% CI: 0.13 – 0.25) in the direction that Australia is better.

YES you read that correctly.

The Australasian College of Road Safety believes that cycling in Australia is safer than cycling in the Netherlands!

[human909]

Their answer to the next question again fails basic scientific rigor that an undergrad would get pulled up on. Yet they have the gall in their opening that evidence needs to be "peer-reviewed scientific evidence". Honestly this is gob-smacking incompetence/ignorance/obfuscation.

[il padrone]

Umm...... der........

That is quite an insult to the intellect of the Senate Committee. They really must think the Senators are doofusses ?? They have the gall to put out a rate per 100,000 population, rather than per 100,000 cyclists ! Only a slight and subtle difference

I sure hope the good Senators were not hoodwinked by such statistical trickery. What a bunch of evil scum these people are.

[il padrone]

Australian College of Road Ignorance. Pah!

[il padrone]

Canadian study, comparing provinces with helmet laws and provinces that don't have the laws. Which provinces are safer for cyclists?

In our view, the most important implication of our results is that factors other than helmet legislation influenced bicycling hospitalisation rates, whereas helmet legislation did not. Females had lower rates in our study and they have been shown to cycle more slowly, and to choose routes on quiet streets and with bike-specific infrastructure. We also found lower traffic-related hospitalisation rates with higher cycling mode shares. Here too there is a reasonable link to safer bicycling infrastructure, since it has been shown to draw more people to bicycling.

Basically the path to safer cycling is pretty clear: Instead of scaring people off the road with helmet rules and high-visibility campaigns, why not just build the safe infrastructure needed to attract all kinds of people onto bikes. As the study shows, it is a lot more effective and has so many other benefits for society.

[Mulger bill]

Lawd I hope there's hefty penalties for telling lies to a Senate committee.

Or is that Damned lies?

[DavidS]

Some of the carry-on at the Senate hearings into the Nanny-state laws (including mandatory helmet laws).

The abuse of data, ignorance of actual situations, and befuddling of any contrary claims supported by data. is breathtakingly stupid. Why do we have legislators who have swallowed this guff, and maintain the stupid law?

And that is only 5% of it. The other 95% of it is just as absurd and ridiculous. Oh and look what I just stumbled across...

Remember this question?
“CHAIR: Does Australia have a significantly lower rate of serious head injuries and deaths amongst cyclists than other countries in the OECD?
Mr Healy : We would have to take that question on notice.”

Well it looks like Mr Healy took the question on notice and managed to answer it. Complete with confidence intervals and everything.

The respective population estimates for 2014 are 23,472,138 for Australia and 16,877,351 for the Netherlands. The rate of cycling fatalities per
100,000 population for 2014 is therefore 0.19 for Australia and 1.05 for the Netherlands. Although an imperfect comparison, the rate ratio is 0.18 (95% CI: 0.13 – 0.25) in the direction that Australia is better.

YES you read that correctly.

The Australasian College of Road Safety believes that cycling in Australia is safer than cycling in the Netherlands!

I'm tempted to find their email address and pull them up on that one. I assume that they would also maintain that Kiribati is a much safer place to drive a car, after all, they only have 2.9 road fatalities per 100,000 population per year compared to 5.4 in Australia. Of course we'll just ignore the fact that Australia has 7.3 road fatalities per 100,000 vehicles whereas Kiribati has 86.9 road fatalities per 100,000 vehicles. I think I'll ask them about this.

DS

[human909]

I'm tempted to find their email address and pull them up on that one. I assume that they would also maintain that Kiribati is a much safer place to drive a car, after all, they only have 2.9 road fatalities per 100,000 population per year compared to 5.4 in Australia. Of course we'll just ignore the fact that Australia has 7.3 road fatalities per 100,000 vehicles whereas Kiribati has 86.9 road fatalities per 100,000 vehicles. I think I'll ask them about this.

The follow up submission was:

Submitted via Claire Howe, ACRS Executive Officer (eo@acrs.org.au), on behalf of:
The Australasian College of Road Safety (ACRS)
The Australian Injury Prevention Network (AIPN)
The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS)

For further information please contact:
Mr Lauchlan McIntosh AM: President, ACRS
A/Prof Kerrianne Watt: President, AIPN
Dr John Crozier, Chair: Trauma Committee, RACS
Mrs Claire Howe: Executive Officer, ACRS
Dr Alexia Lennon: Secretary, AIPN
Ms Lyn Journeaux: Trauma Committee Secretary, RACS

Other email addresses are available in the document.

[mikesbytes]

http://motorbikewriter.com/bbc-says-hel ... eras-safe/

The testing described in this article is not seeing any greater risk adding a camera to the helmet however both the helmet and camera manufactures so no, which is pretty clearly a way of avoiding litigation

[jpgibson]

I've said this before and most of you have disagreed with me before;
In Sydney the most important thing to increase cycling participation is the rollout of separated cycleways. Unfortunately Sydney roads are narrow and busy

+1000. Although it wasnt a 'study', if you ask people why they dont ride a bike (pushy or motor) it is the same answer: 'you're joking right, too dangerous'.

[hunch]

This one from a few weeks back seems to show how deeply entrenched the idea of safety of helmets is v high speed vehicle operation is in the general population....

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/teenager-kill ... mcnd3.html

spurred a helmetsarecool campaign on TV news and facebook, for skateboarders, scooters, etc....maybe we'll get those long-awaited get out of bed helmets yet!

I'd say the direction the scooter was travelling would be wrong in the story too, slope of the road goes the opposite way. If the car was travelling at sign posted speed, probably a 50/50 chance of survival in any event, helmet or no.

May not be the case in NSW, but right now in Vic, it is actually legally-required to wear a helmet on scooters. Not many people are aware of this one however.

I think here, there's only a recommendation. Most kids here seem to wear them, older folk rarely. Remembering back, the introduction of MHL for bicycles in NSW was sold as setting a good example for kids with compulsion for adults kicking in 6 months prior, seems parents might have some say on their offspring's safety attire after all!

Now, the sales job is so good, we have people like this believing a bit of foam will save you in 50kph T-bone impacts with 1 tonne plus vehicles...pity the rest of the interview isn't there any more, a real charmer.

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/0 ... met-safety

[il padrone]

I've said this before and most of you have disagreed with me before;
In Sydney the most important thing to increase cycling participation is the rollout of separated cycleways. Unfortunately Sydney roads are narrow and busy

+1000. Although it wasnt a 'study', if you ask people why they dont ride a bike (pushy or motor) it is the same answer: 'you're joking right, too dangerous'.

Translation - "because you legally need to wear a helmet, of course that shows how dangerous it is"

[DavidS]

I've said this before and most of you have disagreed with me before;
In Sydney the most important thing to increase cycling participation is the rollout of separated cycleways. Unfortunately Sydney roads are narrow and busy

+1000. Although it wasnt a 'study', if you ask people why they dont ride a bike (pushy or motor) it is the same answer: 'you're joking right, too dangerous'.

Translation - "because you legally need to wear a helmet, of course that shows how dangerous it is"

Yep, really have an issue with how hard this seems to be to understand. Mandating helmet wearing for cyclists and not for other road users screams "cycling is bloody dangerous". I've had a few arguments with people about this one, and quoting the probability of being injured in a cycling accident (vanishingly low) and the fact that a flimsy bit of foam will do you no good when hit by a car, has no effect whatsoever.

DS