Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[Thoglette]

I would be happy if you were successful and rendered my thoughts on the subject completely wrong. I just don't believe it likely.

Maybe participate somewhere else where you actually have some interest?

Tubeless road tyres, maybe

I'll thank Wartie for reminding the collective "us" that it's not going to fix itself.

And that step #1 is convincing our fellow riders to stop unknowingly or explicitly supporting MHLs. Or just poo-pooing the topic

We had a bit of a high point about 5 years ago, after the senate committee gently trashed MHLs and CA softened their views. Councils had been calling for "helmet free" trials.

Unfortunately, two years later the official Govt. response basically ignored the inquiry via the same Olivier study that has been debunked regularly including at the enquiry (warning,CRAG fanatics - the language is OTT but the analysis is basically correct and it's easier than reading the transcripts)

I know I ran out of energy.

[fat and old]

Fair dinkum, there's more to cycling than MHL's

Very perspicacious. But, have you seen the title of this thread?

I have. Your point?

See, one of the reasons I and maybe others come back is this

And that step #1 is convincing our fellow riders to stop unknowingly or explicitly supporting MHLs. Or just poo-pooing the topic

I know that the link was referring to a supposed "peak" group, but the statement applies to everyone here that does not toe the party line, blindly and without question. It seems that if you question the discredited Rissel study, point out inconsistencies with some of the statements and claims made hereabouts you are Pro MHL and part of the problem. If you dare to claim a helmet helped minimise your injuries in an accident you're told that you don't have enough data to prove it. If you support helmet wearing for children.....just like the laws in over 20 countries mandate!.....you're promoting the death of the bicycle.

If we accept that the act of wearing a helmet is unknowingly supporting MHL's, and that Step #1 is as Thoglette states, and we are citicised because of it......then that's why we're here. Well, me anyway.

[BobtheBuilder]

I've just deleted the straw man arguments.

We're all up for a discussion and debate, but if someone throws their hands up and says "there's more to cycling - stop talking about this!", then I wonder why they're here.

If someone says "get over it, nothing will ever change" I wonder why they're here.

For the record, for 95% of the time 'fat and old' I think your contributions are useful and thought-provoking (which is more than I can say for mine!).

[warthog1]

I've just deleted the straw man arguments.

We're all up for a discussion and debate, but if someone throws their hands up and says "there's more to cycling - stop talking about this!", then I wonder why they're here.

If someone says "get over it, nothing will ever change" I wonder why they're here.

For the record, for 95% of the time 'fat and old' I think your contributions are useful and thought-provoking (which is more than I can say for mine!).

F & O said it very well.
I have issue that this highly repetitive thread is thousands of posts long with no viable strategy for doing a damn thing about the laws.
It appears ok for people to make repeated claims that removing helmet laws will fix road safety with respect to cycling, but question that statement or suggest somebody do something about them rather than just whinge to the very limited audience we are here and apparently you have no place in this thread.
I do not see removing helmet laws suddenly making everybody, obey the speed limit, become patient and considerate, stop looking at their phone whilst driving or waiting behind me until there is room to pass safely.
Sorry mate, 20+ years attending road trauma has taught me the standard of our driving is appaling. 150k+ road km by bicycle hasn't made me reassess that conclusion, it has verified it.
Yes I don't think a helmet needs to be worn everytime somebody gets on a bike but neither do I see removal of the law fixing many of our driving issues and making my time as a road cyclist safer.
I do not see any plan to remove the law and until there is perhaps the thread should be renamed "pointless helmet whinge fest".

Maybe start posting ideas about how to remove it? The limited number of people who read the thread are already convinced about its' injustice or they aren't. Repeating over and over the same complaints isn't fixing it and isn't convincing enough people to suddenly leap up and change the law.

[uart]

We had a bit of a high point about 5 years ago, after the senate committee gently trashed MHLs and CA softened their views. Councils had been calling for "helmet free" trials.

Unfortunately, two years later the official Govt. response basically ignored the inquiry via the same Olivier study that has been debunked regularly including at the enquiry

What I see as the biggest problem in repealing MHL is that politically it's a very dangerous thing to do, particularly with media that is often sensationalist or partisan. Imagine how they would play up any cyclist injuries post MHL. Instead of seeing the accident scene on the TV new, we'd probably just get a huge mug shot of the roads minister who repealed the law, with all sorts of criticism an implications of a stuff up. It wouldn't matter if cycling deaths were lower or the same, the reporting would go for the partisan or sensationalist angle and give maximal coverage to all and any lidless cyclist injuries. Whatever the actual facts, the public perception would be one of a government stuff up and increased cyclist injuries.

If you look at the situation in NT in this context, then suddenly the "aboriginal kiddies" angle really makes sense. In NT (as with everywhere in Aus), repealing MHL was politically very dangerous. But by linking it to a reduction in adverse police interactions for aboriginal kids, then you have a very politically powerful shield to deflect any perceived negative outcomes.

[BobtheBuilder]

I do not see any plan to remove the law and until there is perhaps the thread should be renamed "pointless helmet whinge fest".

Or "pointless whinge-fest about other people supposedly whingeing"?

If you don't like it, why don't you just go somewhere else?

[warthog1]

I do not see any plan to remove the law and until there is perhaps the thread should be renamed "pointless helmet whinge fest".

Or "pointless whinge-fest about other people supposedly whingeing"?

If you don't like it, why don't you just go somewhere else?

I fail to see how my pointing out that just complaining about it wont change a thing, is any less valid or more repetitive than just complaining.

[uart]

Or "pointless whinge-fest about other people supposedly whingeing"?

Oh the irony of people complaining about this thread being long winded, and yet them being the ones providing at least half of the posts, and posts which are little more than trolling or complaining about people complaining.

Look at the recent activity in this thread. Was completely silent for two year until you (Bob) provided a simple two line post to link to a paper that others interested in this topic might like to read. Six pages later, take a look at how many lines of posting are by those, or replying to those, who are just trolling or whinging about whinging. It's actually a majority of the bandwidth here.

[uart]

I fail to see how my pointing out that just complaining about it wont change a thing is any less valid or repetitive than just complaining.

Because the bandwidth wasting actions of many in this thread are literally the primary tactic used by trolls to shut down any discussion that they don't want to allow others to have.

[warthog1]

Or "pointless whinge-fest about other people supposedly whingeing"?

Oh the irony of people complaining about this thread being long winded, and yet them being the ones providing at least half of the posts, and posts which are little more than trolling or complaining about people complaining.

Look at the recent activity in this thread. Was completely silent for two year until you (Bob) provided a simple two line post to link to a paper that others interested in this topic might like to read. Six pages later, take a look at how many lines of posting are by those, or replying to those, who are just trolling or whinging about whinging. It's actually a majority of the bandwidth here.

Which pales into insignificance when you recognise that there is no proposal for a valid path to remove the law in this thread.

[warthog1]

I fail to see how my pointing out that just complaining about it wont change a thing is any less valid or repetitive than just complaining.

Because the bandwidth wasting actions of many in this thread are literally the primary tactic used by trolls to shut down any discussion that they don't want to allow others to have.

Is that your way of saying you have no idea of what would be a valid path to change the law?
Dare not point out the futility of just complaining or point out that perhaps it won't be miraculous change in driving standards should it go.

[fat and old]

For the record, for 95% of the time 'fat and old' I think your contributions are useful and thought-provoking (which is more than I can say for mine!).

It’s that missing 5% that keeps me coming back .

You know, I only use the “enough” line when the discussion reaches silly stage (imo). Sometimes a circuit breaker is needed (again, imo). Otherwise, hey, it’s a free country. Let’s argue back and forth, all day long.

Nothing wrong with your posts Bob. I question that site you use for reference but resources for a solid anti MHL stance are spread thin across a wide area. That site sorta makes it easy.

[fat and old]

I fail to see how my pointing out that just complaining about it wont change a thing is any less valid or repetitive than just complaining.

Because the bandwidth wasting actions of many in this thread are literally the primary tactic used by trolls to shut down any discussion that they don't want to allow others to have.

You’re confused. Questioning a stance is not suppressing a stance

[BobtheBuilder]

Which pales into insignificance when you recognise that there is no proposal for a valid path to remove the law in this thread.

Maybe you should start a thread called "How to remove MHLs" and then tell everyone they have no idea.

This thread is called "Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)". Just because there's no clear to path to changing the law tomorrow, doesn't mean some people can't talk about it.

Again, no-one's forcing you onto this niche thread to get all hot and bothered about the uselessness of it all.

[warthog1]

Again, no-one's forcing you onto this niche thread to get all hot and bothered about the uselessness of it all.

I am not hot and bothered at all.
You would appear to be further down that path than I.
I am an active cyclist and am just adding my perspective.
Nobody appears able to address it, nor can I.

[BobtheBuilder]

I am an active cyclist and am just adding my perspective.
Nobody appears able to address it, nor can I.

So, maybe time to move on? Continually repeating "no-one knows how to change the law" isn't adding much to the discussion.

[warthog1]

I am an active cyclist and am just adding my perspective.
Nobody appears able to address it, nor can I.

So, maybe time to move on? Continually repeating "no-one knows how to change the law" isn't adding much to the discussion.

Ditto for you
Continuing to rail against the injustice by repeating the same points over with no attempt to change anything appears futile and tired. How is it adding anything to repeat the same points ad nauseum when you do it?

Part of an active positive discussion on a topic would be to seek to address the problems it causes. Maybe there are those more focused and driven than you and I attempting to do just that now?

[outnabike]

Yep it seems that entering this subject is a wheel spinning exercise and those that say it is a waste of time and no solutions, might not have seen some of the answers that simply cannot be employed in the matter. I can repeat what I once wrote to say it is not a shut case to get rid of Helmets; just the process and will is required.
You get rid of some thing or acquire something slowly. Smoking was banned in a slow manner slowly but surely undermining one venue at a time. Now they are even banning it in hell….sort off.
So if we began with say Helmets not needed on bike paths…bicycle paths… That is a small step. Then like exercising on a bike path and not being allowed to throw the bike in the car cos you were out of the 5 klm travel zone during Covid it can be said if you stay on paths you don’t need to wear a helmet.
But no one is allowing the first step cos no one is fighting for us to say ride on a ped path to get to a bike path.
No one cares that peds can make your life a misery on bike paths with their roaming at will. That dogs are on a four metre lead if at all. That when you ring a bell as directed by law, they tell you to stick the bell up your whatever. But you gotta have a helmet on….Cos they might cause you to have a spill. Cyclists have been made the brunt of well-meaning folks who want to assume our protection status. Despite the fact that these same folks probably do not ride a bike.
Yep it seems that entering this subject is a wheel spinning exercise….

[fat and old]

Somebody linked a page from this site earlier.

https://crag.asn.au/

Is this site still running/updated or dead? It seems to have been updated rcently but maybe someone here knows better?

[tpcycle]

Why does removing MHLs have to be a panacea for fixing road safety ills before it should even be considered? Who cares? The thing is MHLs have not been adopted by the world in general and there is good reason for that. In fact Australia is an outlier with the highest helmet fines in the world. All those punters who keep repeating that MHLs have no real impact on cycling and it's easy to don a helmet obviously didn't live through the crackdown in rural NSW when MHLs were first introduced. It basically killed casual cycling for short trips to the shops, to the beach, etc. In the town where I lived I was about the only person left cycling and that is because I will always ride a bicycle - most people don't share my fanaticism and their first brush with the MHL law and the local plod getting their jollies enforcing it was reason enough to throw their cheapo bicycles in the hard rubbish and stop riding. Riding a bicycle was normal, then it became abnormal.

[trailgumby]

Why does removing MHLs have to be a panacea for fixing road safety ills before it should even be considered? Who cares? The thing is MHLs have not been adopted by the world in general and there is good reason for that. In fact Australia is an outlier with the highest helmet fines in the world. All those punters who keep repeating that MHLs have no real impact on cycling and it's easy to don a helmet obviously didn't live through the crackdown in rural NSW when MHLs were first introduced. It basically killed casual cycling for short trips to the shops, to the beach, etc. In the town where I lived I was about the only person left cycling and that is because I will always ride a bicycle - most people don't share my fanaticism and their first brush with the MHL law and the local plod getting their jollies enforcing it was reason enough to throw their cheapo bicycles in the hard rubbish and stop riding. Riding a bicycle was normal, then it became abnormal.

Bingo.

There was a member here, Peter Signorini, who was a teacher when all that occurred. The bike sheds at his school went from full to empty in a matter of weeks, and never recovered.

[DavidS]

The reason MHLs need debating here is that we can't even convince a lot of cyclists they are bad law.

I've never understood why cyclists would support anti-cycling laws, but there you go, I have trouble understanding why people support laws which work against their interests.

As for claim above that people make repeated claims that removing helmet laws will fix road safety with respect to cycling, really? Where has anyone said that? Anywhere? It is this sort of BS that helps to perpetuate these silly laws.

Yes, it is very difficult to work out how to remove the stupid laws, but at least we should try. I figure COVID led to the helmet optional rides being cancelled but I'll be back if they start again, can't see much else we can do, maybe lobby the Greens and appeal to promotion of sustainable travel.

Just claiming we don't know how to get these laws repealed is a total cop out and worse than useless.

DS

[warthog1]

You don't need to go back very far at all to find the suggestion that helmet use stongly contributes to making us an outgroup.
That being an outgroup means we are treated like sh it.
There is an element of that but there is also negative press by sections of the conservative media.
There are also many other elements of our drving culture that will not be fixed by removal of the helmet law.


I encourage someone to come up with a strategy to repeal the law.
It would be a nice change from just complaining about it and exaggerating the effect it actually has on certain types of riding

[fat and old]

As for claim above that people make repeated claims that removing helmet laws will fix road safety with respect to cycling, really? Where has anyone said that? Anywhere? It is this sort of BS that helps to perpetuate these silly laws.

MHLs make cycling more dangerous and give drivers an excuse to be less respectful of cyclists on the road. Just a stupid law as reflected in the fact it is a rare law on, what, 3 countries on the planet.

A common occurrence. Many anti MHL'ers have linked MHL's to road safety, through drivers perceptions to numbers of cyclists on the road. I believe that to be correct, btw.

[fat and old]

oops....