Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[BobtheBuilder]

Apart from the indirect link of oppression and disregard of 'out groups' to which cyclists are definitely one in our society. Cyclists are treated like dirt by many in society and this includes the police.

[/quote]

There are outgroups and there are outgroups. The cashed-up MAMILs are a strange mixture of both and often don't seem to have much compunction is disassociating themselves with other outgroups.

More to the point, I did think the topic had wandered off topic, but your perspective has changed my view. MHLs are one of a suite of administrative laws that can be used with wide discretion to police certain groups more than others, like the old loitering laws were, for instance.

[warthog1]

There are outgroups and there are outgroups. The cashed-up MAMILs are a strange mixture of both and often don't seem to have much compunction is disassociating themselves with other outgroups.

Meaning what exactly with respect to the topic at hand?

Somehow those who wear Lycra can be identified as a seperate group who support MHLs?

I am not cashed up, however I am a sporting cyclist.
I don't support compulsory helmets for cyclists despite the fact I would choose to wear one most of the time even without the compunction. As a result of my risk assessment based on experience and the type of cycling I participate in.

I see that as a divisive and unhelpful comment if that was the suggestion.

[fat and old]

Yeah, but mamils and sporting cyclists are happy people. And we all know that nothing is as upsetting as happy people when you’re pursuing an agenda.

Silence is violence.

[BobtheBuilder]

I am not cashed up, however I am a sporting cyclist.

In which case, you're not a cashed-up MAMIL.

[warthog1]

I am not cashed up, however I am a sporting cyclist.

In which case, you're not a cashed-up MAMIL.

I ride with a number who are. Your comment has no basis in fact, ime.

It serves to seperate cyclists into disparate groups. Unproductive imo.

[BobtheBuilder]

It serves to seperate cyclists into disparate groups. Unproductive imo.

If you read the vitriolic pro-MHL comments on this forum and others and from leading bicycle 'advocacy' groups that are often full of invective and derision you might think the division has already happened.

[Thoglette]

It serves to seperate cyclists into disparate groups. Unproductive imo.

Let me see if I can get the worms identified and back in the can
a) the AGF is on the record as supporting MHLs. I''ll leave the rest of the UCI related mobs (and those businesses sucking on that nipple) alone simply to spare my breath.

b) It is a key failure of pro-MHL arguments that they bundle all cycling activities (not cyclists) into one pot. (See Zeegers 2015 for the math)

As you point out, the risk profiles of road or down hill racing warrant helmet use. However, toddling off to the local shops on footpaths, back streets and shared paths has a radically different risk profile.
Note that the same cyclist may do several different types of cycling, all with different risk profiles, in the same day

c) It is an unfortunate feature of Australian cycling (which has at least two threads all of it's own in the last few years) that the various competitive organisations (and by inference some of their members and followers) are blind to the fact that they do not, and cannot, represent all Australian cyclists. And are equally blind to the face that "competitive cycling" is not the be-all and end-all of cycling. After all, for some people, competition is the only reason they get onto a bike.
See a) above.

So one needs to be very careful with one's words and even more careful to read what is actually written and avoid stabbing rashly at "rats" behind the curtain. Pointing out that Cycling Australia's office bearers are blind to their prejudices is no more a condemnation of lycra users than noting that truck-and-dogs are over represented in inner city deaths indicates a hatred of truck drivers. Likewise one needs to try and qualify the use of the phrase "MAMIL" if one is referring to those who think like the AGF. Not quite sure how best to do that. Any takers?


Finally...and back on topic

d) cyclists are, on the whole, pretty darn good at working out whether wearing a helmet will be beneficial. And acting accordingly. I.E. any laws will do next to **** all that is positive.

There is, I believe, a strong correlation between the use of "foot retention devices" and the likelihood that a given rider would also think a helmet worth wearing. If there is a political necessity for MHLs, perhaps this should be the basis for them?

[BobtheBuilder]

Far, far better said than I managed.

Thank you for ignoring my incivility and returning the conversation to a more reasoned tone.

[warthog1]

Let me see if I can get the worms identified and back in the can
a) the AGF is on the record as supporting MHLs. I''ll leave the rest of the UCI related mobs (and those businesses sucking on that nipple) alone simply to spare my breath.

The AGF is about as representative of the average sporting cyclist as a horse's arse.
Attempting to conflate what they may advocate with the average lycra wearing punter is simply unsupported.
Nobody I cycle with has ever mentioned them.
They are not considered let alone supported.

b) It is a key failure of pro-MHL arguments that they bundle all cycling activities (not cyclists) into one pot. (See Zeegers 2015 for the math)

Note that the same cyclist may do several different types of cycling, all with different risk profiles, in the same day

Which goes a large way to explaining why most aren't clamouring for mandated helmet use to be retained

c) It is an unfortunate feature of Australian cycling (which has at least two threads all of it's own in the last few years) that the various competitive organisations (and by inference some of their members and followers) are blind to the fact that they do not, and cannot, represent all Australian cyclists. And are equally blind to the face that "competitive cycling" is not the be-all and end-all of cycling. After all, for some people, competition is the only reason they get onto a bike.
See a) above.

They may or may not claim to represent all cyclists to maximise their perceived sway but it takes not much perceptive ability to determine that the average punter, utility cycling to work, or the shops, or wherever, in regular clothing, it is quite likely, does not give a rat's arse about competitive cycling and the organisations that represent the sport.

There is, I believe, a strong correlation between the use of "foot retention devices" and the likelihood that a given rider would also think a helmet worth wearing. If there is a political necessity for MHLs, perhaps this should be the basis for them?

How about we just allow people to choose when they wear them. No cyclist I mix with would have a problem with that I believe.

[baabaa]

So, quickly back to the endless waffle repeated by the same people who do FA but type comments that they alone consider are so important that others should read.
This is topic on this website is a prime example that nothing good ever comes from the people who do nothing but complain.

Meanwhile in Manly, we have finally achieved 30 kmph in the CBD to take the road bias away from cars and back to walking and biking. This will continue to make a improvement to people and children who bike now, wish to or have even started to think that being on a bike can be safe.

[baabaa]

More to the point, I did think the topic had wandered off topic, but your perspective has changed my view. MHLs are one of a suite of administrative laws that can be used with wide discretion to police certain groups more than others, like the old loitering laws were, for instance.
[/quote

Fact check time about police and remote communities...
watch...
Building Bourke - The Story of Maranguka and Just Reinvest in Bourke

read...
Caring for others, the Maranguka way
http://www.justreinvest.org.au/the-maranguka-way/

and funny enough the local police are involved in these programs and not out and about harrasing people for what they may or may not wear on a bike.

[fat and old]

Just listen to the young people, they’ll tell you what they want.

Something there for everyone, aye?

[BobtheBuilder]

Justice reinvestment in Bourke is the exception that proves the rule ...

I've been privileged to meet and speak with Alastair Ferguson at length and it's him and other Aboriginal people who've kick-started amazing things out there.


Not sure how this is relevant to MHLs, though I'm sure no-one would be keen on them being used to target anyone, as the data (a big theme of that little clip!) shows they are used to target vulnerable groups across the country. Maybe not Bourke, because they've got strong Aboriginal leadership working with police, but in many other areas empirical evidence is clear that MHLs and other administrative-judicial instruments are used disproportionately against vulnerable populations.

PS The video doesn't show "the young people" asking for MHLs!

[g-boaf]

So, quickly back to the endless waffle repeated by the same people who do FA but type comments that they alone consider are so important that others should read.
This is topic on this website is a prime example that nothing good ever comes from the people who do nothing but complain.

Meanwhile in Manly, we have finally achieved 30 kmph in the CBD to take the road bias away from cars and back to walking and biking. This will continue to make a improvement to people and children who bike now, wish to or have even started to think that being on a bike can be safe.

Well said!!

Making the road safer to ride on is what is really going to get more people riding, along with properly connected networks of cycleways.

But any time someone mentions that, it gets shot down in flames.

[BobtheBuilder]

Making the road safer to ride on is what is really going to get more people riding, along with properly connected networks of cycleways.

The evidence suggests that MHLs are a bigger impediment.

But any time someone mentions that, it gets shot down in flames.

Not by me. But this is an MHL forum, not a 'what stops people riding' forum. Pro-MHL advocates often suggest it's mostly road design and cycleway infrastructure that is holding riding back, which is simply not true.

I for one applaud the improvements at Manly.

[baabaa]

Well if you feel that way then really do something.

I have been on to the current mayors case about reducing speed from early 2006 when he was a simple councillor in a neighbouring council.
With amalgamation in 2016 he became a Mayor. Other people and a few councillors have also been on his case since he became Mayor. He was against reducing speed in his area back then, but has since swung around and now we have gone from 60 to 50 to 40 and finally 30...

So get off here, and start on working on MHL.
As it will take about 14 years, people here wont have to put up with words made out as facts without citations or references for at least another 14 years.....

[BobtheBuilder]

Well if you feel that way then really do something.

I have been on to the current mayors case about reducing speed from early 2006 when he was a simple councillor in a neighbouring council.
With amalgamation in 2016 he became a Mayor. Other people and a few councillors have also been on his case since he became Mayor. He was against reducing speed in his area back then, but has since swung around and now we have gone from 60 to 50 to 40 and finally 30...

So get off here, and start on working on MHL.
As it will take about 14 years, people here wont have to put up with words made out as facts without citations or references for at least another 14 years.....

I've included citations and references in the past, as have many other people, but it doesn't matter how much facts some people get, it's still "helmets save lives!!!" ad nauseam.

And thanks for the life advice, I wonder how you know so much about what I do - and don't do - in my life.

[warthog1]

So, quickly back to the endless waffle repeated by the same people who do FA but type comments that they alone consider are so important that others should read.
This is topic on this website is a prime example that nothing good ever comes from the people who do nothing but complain.

Meanwhile in Manly, we have finally achieved 30 kmph in the CBD to take the road bias away from cars and back to walking and biking. This will continue to make a improvement to people and children who bike now, wish to or have even started to think that being on a bike can be safe.

Well said!!

Making the road safer to ride on is what is really going to get more people riding, along with properly connected networks of cycleways.

But any time someone mentions that, it gets shot down in flames.

7.1 Ideas: the bicycle as standard
Cycling will remain a fringe movement until governments and planners treat cycling
as an integral and normal part of transport and infrastructure planning. As long as the
assumption holds that bicycling is an accessory to regular planning, it will forever be an
optional road element or treated as an afterthought. Bicycle lanes and other measures (as
appropriate by location) must be a standard element of approved street templates and guidelines, just like car lanes, sidewalks, public trees, and utility lines. No new road
should be built which does not cater to cyclists at a high standard. The retrofitting and
upgrading of existing roads too should include provisions and consideration for bicycle
travel. Nationally promoted, standardised traffic control and safety plans should
incorporate cycling permanently. Cities should be required to become rigorous and
consistent in pursuing a cycling agenda.
https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/U ... 9_2018.pdf


Yes.
It is scary sharing the roads with vehicles that don't give sufficient room. As enthusiasts we have learned to cope and manage the situation, claiming the lane when needed and choosing our route to minimise danger.
Most people just aren't prepared to deal with traffic and fear is a significant obstacle to be overcome.
Decent cycling infrastructure, particularly that which separates cars from bicycles, is a significant way to reduce fear and make cycling more attractive to the masses.
We need more.

[g-boaf]

So, quickly back to the endless waffle repeated by the same people who do FA but type comments that they alone consider are so important that others should read.
This is topic on this website is a prime example that nothing good ever comes from the people who do nothing but complain.

Meanwhile in Manly, we have finally achieved 30 kmph in the CBD to take the road bias away from cars and back to walking and biking. This will continue to make a improvement to people and children who bike now, wish to or have even started to think that being on a bike can be safe.

Well said!!

Making the road safer to ride on is what is really going to get more people riding, along with properly connected networks of cycleways.

But any time someone mentions that, it gets shot down in flames.

7.1 Ideas: the bicycle as standard
Cycling will remain a fringe movement until governments and planners treat cycling
as an integral and normal part of transport and infrastructure planning. As long as the
assumption holds that bicycling is an accessory to regular planning, it will forever be an
optional road element or treated as an afterthought. Bicycle lanes and other measures (as
appropriate by location) must be a standard element of approved street templates and guidelines, just like car lanes, sidewalks, public trees, and utility lines. No new road
should be built which does not cater to cyclists at a high standard. The retrofitting and
upgrading of existing roads too should include provisions and consideration for bicycle
travel. Nationally promoted, standardised traffic control and safety plans should
incorporate cycling permanently. Cities should be required to become rigorous and
consistent in pursuing a cycling agenda.
https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/U ... 9_2018.pdf


Yes.
It is scary sharing the roads with vehicles that don't give sufficient room. As enthusiasts we have learned to cope and manage the situation, claiming the lane when needed and choosing our route to minimise danger.
Most people just aren't prepared to deal with traffic and fear is a significant obstacle to be overcome.
Decent cycling infrastructure, particularly that which separates cars from bicycles, is a significant way to reduce fear and make cycling more attractive to the masses.
We need more.

The locations where I ride overseas, nobody cares if you ride on the road, they all just give you room and a quite considerate. And this behaviour remains identical if you are wearing a helmet as well.

If I could find myself a place in Guillestre I’d be perfectly happy to retire there and ride up to Risoul every day (1200m over ~11km), the descent down is easy, the road is very wide. And traffic is so easy.

[warthog1]

The locations where I ride overseas, nobody cares if you ride on the road, they all just give you room and a quite considerate. And this behaviour remains identical if you are wearing a helmet as well.

If I could find myself a place in Guillestre I’d be perfectly happy to retire there and ride up to Risoul every day (1200m over ~11km), the descent down is easy, the road is very wide. And traffic is so easy.

Yep. We have a significant proportion of selfish, arrogant meat heads in this country.
I hold more hope in separate infrastructure improving participation rates than driver attitudinal change.

There is also the growing driver distraction trend. That aint improving where I live.

[baabaa]

The locations where I ride overseas, nobody cares if you ride on the road, they all just give you room and a quite considerate. And this behaviour remains identical if you are wearing a helmet as well.

If I could find myself a place in Guillestre I’d be perfectly happy to retire there and ride up to Risoul every day (1200m over ~11km), the descent down is easy, the road is very wide. And traffic is so easy.

Yep. We have a significant proportion of selfish, arrogant meat heads in this country.
I hold more hope in separate infrastructure improving participation rates than driver attitudinal change.

There is also the growing driver distraction trend. That aint improving where I live.

and a big yes from within our house as well that the os pull is indeed very strong.

At least in the meantime, we can all look forward to the spin on these pages about the MHL deterrent being so strong, that even with Aust taking on pop-up lanes and better biking and walking conditions, that the bike shops here in Aust for the first six months of 2020 are flooding with stock they just cannot possibly sell.....

[fat and old]

Pro-MHL advocates often suggest it's mostly road design and cycleway infrastructure that is holding riding back, which is simply not true.

BTB, you’ve pointed out my various deficiencies here, and fair enough, I’ll cop that you see things that way. So let me be clear. Unambiguous. Straight to the point.

That’s bollocks on multiple levels.

Cycling advocates and those they survey ( that’s the important bit mate), not solely MHL advocates all put road design and infra way above MHLs as a deterrent to cycling. I have never seen anything that suggests otherwise. If you have, I’d like to see it and stick my foot back in my mouth.

[fat and old]

I hold more hope in separate infrastructure improving participation rates than driver attitudinal change.

There is also the growing driver distraction trend. That aint improving where I live.

Which sucks. Given the present situation the natural line of evolution I foresee is a division into clans, constantly at war with each other over their perceived rights, our transport lanes fenced in like the Warburton Caravan Park to stop the “others” encroaching on said rights.

I think we’ve missed our easy chance. Back in the 70’s when vehicle caused deaths were at their peak here and O/S was the time to do it. Apart from the existing Euro background of cycling (which WWII had a lot to do with... something else we didn’t have to deal with) that seems to be the major impetus for many countries to protect their cyclists.

[g-boaf]

Pro-MHL advocates often suggest it's mostly road design and cycleway infrastructure that is holding riding back, which is simply not true.

BTB, you’ve pointed out my various deficiencies here, and fair enough, I’ll cop that you see things that way. So let me be clear. Unambiguous. Straight to the point.

That’s bollocks on multiple levels.

Cycling advocates and those they survey ( that’s the important bit mate), not solely MHL advocates all put road design and infra way above MHLs as a deterrent to cycling. I have never seen anything that suggests otherwise. If you have, I’d like to see it and stick my foot back in my mouth.

Anti-MHL advocates often use the MHL argument as a way to prevent any progress on cycling infrastructure because they don't want more people to take up riding. There, how's that for another outrageous, sweeping statement like the one before about Pro-MHL advocates.

Surveys are often not worth the paper they are written on, they can be skewed so easily to get the result the organisers want.

But it's reasonable to say that even if the helmet laws went tomorrow, you'd be unlikely to see any more riders than what we have now, because the behaviour of traffic on the roads is poor. Getting rid of the helmet laws alone won't do much at all. I can't see anything changing in the next 5 years.

[DavidS]

The thing is that these issues are linked.

A few people above have mentioned that riding on roads overseas is far less of a problem than riding on roads in Australia. One can also mention that bikes and cars shared Australian roads for decades, without the need for separate infrastructure, until, what, the last 20-30 years?

Part of the issue of mandating the wearing of helmets is that it gives off a perception that cycling is a specifically and particularly dangerous activity. After all, most activities don't have legally mandated head protection. Cycling must be dangerous. I've had this very argument with a number of people, the argument usually ends when they say "but then why do you have to wear a helmet when cycling, it must be dangerous".

Of course, we know one thing about cycling safety: more bikes on the roads leads to more room for cyclists on the roads.

So, take away the anti-cycling MHLs, positively promote cycling, do something about the perception cycling is a particularly dangerous activity (it isn't, even though most Australian drivers are clueless) and we can make the roads safer.

Always remember: roads are not infrastructure for motor vehicles, they are infrastructure for road vehicles: bicycles are road vehicles. If the roads do not cater for all road vehicles then something is wrong.

In any case, mandating safety equipment for an activity which is seen as normal and not dangerous in the vast majority of countries is really admitting that something has gone very wrong. It is a policy which is the wrong way around - the first thing policy should do is to remove danger, not try and protect against danger. They are also a failed law: helmets protect one part of the body and one part only: the head. Have head injuries as a proportion of total injuries suffered by cyclists gone down? No - law has failed even on its own terms, get rid of it.

DS