Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[DavidS]

I can understand the argument about lobbying on other topics because the MHLs are unlikely to change any time soon, but I still think we need to keep lobbying. Just keep mentioning it until they are sick of hearing about the silliness of their laws.

I also understand the logic of advocating for separated infrastructure, but it is only ever going to cover a small proportion of roads and there is always the fear of normalising the idea that bicycles are not supposed to be on the road.

London Boy is correct in the hierarchy of control, PPE is the last resort, prevention is the first and best resort.

DS

[BobtheBuilder]

What research is that, do you have it available to show here now? Numbers, facts please.

Walker, I., 2007. Drivers overtaking bicyclists: objective data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent gender. Accid. Anal. Prev. 39 (2), 417–425.
This is the most pertinent to the discussion above.

Walker, I., Garrard, I., Jowitt, F. (2014). The influence of a bicycle commuter's appearance on drivers’ overtaking proximities: An on-road test of bicyclist stereotypes, high- visibility clothing and safety aids in the United Kingdom. Accident Analysis & Prevention 64, 69-77. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2013.117.
This is pertinent also.


Gamble, T., & Walker, I. (2016). Wearing a bicycle helmet can increase risk taking and sensation seeking in adults. Psychological Science, 27, 289–294. doi:10.1177/0956797615620784
This one's more about the effect of the risk-taking behaviour of cyclists wearing helmets.

Kovaceva, J., Nero, G., Bärgman, J., Dozza, M. Drivers overtaking cyclists in the
real-world: Evidence from a naturalistic driving study. Safety Science.
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2018.08.022
Not directly helmet-related, but a good overview of factors influencing driver behaviour

[BobtheBuilder]

I can see more drivers having an attitude along the lines of “Hey, you didn’t want to look after your own safety so buggered if I’m gonna worry about it. So cop this”.

Except the research suggests the opposite to your thought bubble.

Sure, in the atypical environment of MHLs, unhelmeted riders might cop more abuse from angry men in fast cars, but on the whole the data shows they get more distance.

[fat and old]

I can see more drivers having an attitude along the lines of “Hey, you didn’t want to look after your own safety so buggered if I’m gonna worry about it. So cop this”.

Except the research suggests the opposite to your thought bubble.

Sure, in the atypical environment of MHLs, unhelmeted riders might cop more abuse from angry men in fast cars, but on the whole the data shows they get more distance.

Sure, whatever scant data you can produce supports that now, with the MHL's in place. No such data exists for a society that had MHL's for 30 years then repealed them, because no such society exists as yet...we can only hope. So my "thought bubble" has as much substance as your "data". Are you incapable of thinking outside of the here and now?

And here, the mighty Olivier's rebuttal to Walker

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24086528/

If data's your thing.....

[fat and old]

London Boy, what is the procedure in your mine experience for LV/HV interactions?

[baabaa]

We are now in Pete Evans world.

[BobtheBuilder]

Sure, whatever scant data you can produce supports that now, with the MHL's in place.

As I said ...

What little research there is on this demonstrates that drivers behave on average more dangerously around helmeted riders.

The research is scant.

No such data exists for a society that had MHL's for 30 years then repealed them, because no such society exists as yet...we can only hope. So my "thought bubble" has as much substance as your "data". Are you incapable of thinking outside of the here and now?

So, your argument for keeping MHLs is we have had them longer than anyone else and we can’t be sure driver behaviour wouldn’t be totally different to anywhere else if we repealed them. Brilliant.

And here, the mighty Olivier's rebuttal to Walker

Fairly sure this is you just being a troll again ...

[fat and old]

So, your argument for keeping MHLs is we have had them longer than anyone else and we can’t be sure driver behaviour wouldn’t be totally different to anywhere else if we repealed them. Brilliant.

Geez, BTB, don't you read anything I write properly? I have no interest in keeping MHL's. I'm anti-MHL's. I don't want 'em, I don't always use one myself, I want people to be free to choose. What I'm doing is pointing out a possible (I think likely tbh) consequence of repealing them. Should it make a difference to repealing them? No. But I'm not gonna be told that repealing MHL's is all sunshine and lollypops that will lead to a greater cycling participation rate than Hollands and make car drivers give us 2 meters space. I simply don't like misrepresentations, half truths, and all of the rest of the crap that both sides chuck around. I especially hate the misuse of data (See Rissell and his love in crowd....although he is apparently a good bloke.)

Besides which, totally different to which society that has had MHL's for 30 years? If you think that makes no difference you have no right spouting out your chosen studies.

On Walker/Olivier....if you don't like it that one of your references has been challenged and I point that you call me names? Sticks and stones you know.....You're the one who cries data, data. Not me.

[warthog1]

You are a patient man F&O

[BobtheBuilder]

Ok, boomer.

[fat and old]

Ok, boomer.

OK Boomer?? I'm not right up with you young fellas bizzo, so I had to look that up.

The phrase "OK boomer" is a pejorative retort used to dismiss or mock the attitudes of older people, particularly baby boomers. The term has been used as a retort for perceived resistance to technological change, climate change denial, marginalization of members of minority groups or opposition to younger generations' ideals.

Yep, that seems to describe most Freestyle Cyclists.

Yearning for the good old days of cycling, steel frames, sandals and hair in the wind (or beneath a stylish Rapha cap ). Hostile towards the younger, sporting cyclists who tacitly support MHL's through their bold actions of....gasp.....riding a bike with special pedals made of unobtanium. Marginalising those cyclists through any number of creaking, ancient phbb message boards that don't even support direct hosting of pics. Ensuring the continuing status of cyclists as a minority through their inability to engage with any substantive advocacy until their demands are met when dealing with those in power, because like, they know better, you know?

That was your intent, yeah?

[BobtheBuilder]

That was your intent, yeah?

Ouch, you got me.

[London Boy]

London Boy, what is the procedure in your mine experience for LV/HV interactions?

Don't, essentially.

The safety and health management system has rules about it, lots of rules. As far as possible the two kinds of traffic are separated, so you'd try to keep LVs of the haul roads. Roads are designed so that junctions etc. make vehicle movements obvious, e.g. no slipways, junctions at right angles, that kind of thing. SOP's including speed limits, are enforced (as in breach them and you get to leave the site earlier than you maybe planned). There is radio contact with all vehicles, so LV and HV operators can make their movements known, e.g. if a LV needs to cross a haul road. LV operators are warned of HV activity wherever it is they are proposing to go. Vehicles are lit up with the usual flashing lights. Drivers are trained before they are allowed on the mine site, in addition to the usual site induction. Even office staff get some training, usually with a video of a LV/HV 'interaction'. I got that one at Peak Downs first time I went.

[London Boy]

Ok, boomer.

OK Boomer?? I'm not right up with you young fellas bizzo, so I had to look that up.

The phrase "OK boomer" is a pejorative retort used to dismiss or mock the attitudes of older people, particularly baby boomers. The term has been used as a retort for perceived resistance to technological change, climate change denial, marginalization of members of minority groups or opposition to younger generations' ideals.

Yep, that seems to describe most Freestyle Cyclists.

Yearning for the good old days of cycling, steel frames, sandals and hair in the wind (or beneath a stylish Rapha cap ). Hostile towards the younger, sporting cyclists who tacitly support MHL's through their bold actions of....gasp.....riding a bike with special pedals made of unobtanium. Marginalising those cyclists through any number of creaking, ancient phbb message boards that don't even support direct hosting of pics. Ensuring the continuing status of cyclists as a minority through their inability to engage with any substantive advocacy until their demands are met when dealing with those in power, because like, they know better, you know?

That was your intent, yeah?

My preferred response:

"Tired of being harassed by your stupid parents? Act now! Move out, get a job, pay your own bills, while you still know everything."

[BobtheBuilder]

My preferred response:

"Tired of being harassed by your stupid parents? Act now! Move out, get a job, pay your own bills, while you still know everything."

Because everyone younger than a Boomer is a child ...

[Thoglette]

Because everyone younger than a Boomer is a child ...

Nup.
A sixteen year old has informed me that “Boomer“ is an attitude, not an age thing. He was correcting me for noting that Lily Tomlinson was a Boomer.

He was actually correct: she’s pre-boomer

[uart]

Nup.
A sixteen year old has informed me that “Boomer“ is an attitude, not an age thing.

In the context of this thread, it is unambiguously just a pointless pejorative.

[BobtheBuilder]

In the context of this thread, it is unambiguously just a pointless pejorative.

Absolutely correct. Like begets like. Pointless pejoratives seem like fat and old's preferred approach.

[warthog1]

In the context of this thread, it is unambiguously just a pointless pejorative.

Absolutely correct. Like begets like. Pointless pejoratives seem like fat and old's preferred approach.

I have been a reader of F& O's posts within multiple threads on this forum for a long time.
It most definitely is not his preferred approach.

[BobtheBuilder]

Ok.

Let's just get back to mandatory helmet laws and give over the flaming, trolling and passive-aggressive stirring which most of us, me included, have been guilty of at times.

[fat and old]

London Boy, what is the procedure in your mine experience for LV/HV interactions?

Don't, essentially.

The safety and health management system has rules about it, lots of rules. As far as possible the two kinds of traffic are separated, so you'd try to keep LVs of the haul roads. Roads are designed so that junctions etc. make vehicle movements obvious, e.g. no slipways, junctions at right angles, that kind of thing. SOP's including speed limits, are enforced (as in breach them and you get to leave the site earlier than you maybe planned). There is radio contact with all vehicles, so LV and HV operators can make their movements known, e.g. if a LV needs to cross a haul road. LV operators are warned of HV activity wherever it is they are proposing to go. Vehicles are lit up with the usual flashing lights. Drivers are trained before they are allowed on the mine site, in addition to the usual site induction. Even office staff get some training, usually with a video of a LV/HV 'interaction'. I got that one at Peak Downs first time I went.

Much the same in my experience on large infra jobs in Victoria (whatever mine OH&S adopts eventually trickles down. The venture capital backers and rates paid don’t, but that’s another story).

That’s “eliminating” the hazard. The flashing light on the LV is akin to PPE for vehicles. If we adopt this practice/example in cycling the helmet is the flashing light, the separate haul routes and designated intersections are cycling lanes separating cycles from motor vehicles.

Which is more effective at protecting the vulnerable user?

Which would have more influence on the general uptake of cycling?

Which should have resources allocated?

Edit....yeah, that’s my preferred reply as well

[outnabike]

I am just relieved we got the Boomer thing sorted. After 426 pages I thought I would get nothing new from this tedious thread.

I reckon there is a ton of life still in the topic.....I don't think we have even started on Luminous helmets yet, maybe powering them with a solar panel.

[London Boy]

That’s “eliminating” the hazard. The flashing light on the LV is akin to PPE for vehicles. If we adopt this practice/example in cycling the helmet is the flashing light, the separate haul routes and designated intersections are cycling lanes separating cycles from motor vehicles.

Which is more effective at protecting the vulnerable user?

Which would have more influence on the general uptake of cycling?

Which should have resources allocated?

Edit....yeah, that’s my preferred reply as well

Well, I'd question the detail of your analogy but yes, PPE is the least effective way to control the risk. The bottom of the hierarchy. What you do when all else fails or, in this case, is not attempted.

[London Boy]

My preferred response:

"Tired of being harassed by your stupid parents? Act now! Move out, get a job, pay your own bills, while you still know everything."

Because everyone younger than a Boomer is a child ...

Anyone who uses the phrase is acting like one ...

[jasonc]

https://cyclingindustry.news/discussion ... -revision/
Unsurprisingly, helmets don't help in collisions with motor vehicles...