Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[am50em]

Key difference: The primary difference between cause and reason is the fact that cause is something that directly leads to something. It is basically a cause and effect relationship. A reason, however, is a reasoning or explanation for why something happened.

[brumby33]

Sure, I think MHL's do deter some people but mostly it's about the ease of getting around on bicycle.

I've often observed those who live closer to the City of Sydney and even Melbourne during visits that in the City, there's quite a lot of people going about their daily commutes on 2 wheels, all with Helmets and don't seem deterred by the fact they have to wear them, but get out further, say 10kms or more out of the City and the amount of cyclists drops dramatically especially when there's major busy roads are involved with not even any bicycle lanes let along paths.
I believe that if there were huge networks of bicycle paths, through Suburban Business districts, connecting schools and other educational institutions, workplaces that provided facilities promoting healthy active Transport, then the amount of people riding bikes will double if not triple very quickly, whether or not MHL's exist.

As a kid in the early to Mid 70's, I used to ride my bike to Highschool every day except maybe wet days where I'd take a brolly and get the school bus, there really is no need for so many Mum's Taxi's around school time, it just adds to the danger. As a former Bus Driver doing school runs, I've seen it first hand, cars everywhere and not a bicycle in sight.

On saying that, I think the MHL's should be relaxed and fines quashed and allow people the choice whether or not to wear one, times like in Winter where people would prefer to wear a warmer head cover which some are impossible under or over Helmets.

Mostly I would decide to wear a Helmet if I know if I'm going to cover some distance for the day but on very short rides, perhaps I may not, again, especially in Winter where I'd prefer to wear a Beanie.

brumby33

[am50em]

Something like this https://www.this link is broken.au/dhb-merino-hat-m-200 works fine under a helmet and is (can be too) warm.

[baabaa]

I'm not arguing 'causation', I'm enquiring 'why'.

Quote of the day!

You are arguing causation. Causation is 'why' something happens, what causes it. In scientific inquiry this is generally secondary - empiricism is about establishing what is happening. You can then hypothesise about why.

The introduction of mandatory helmet laws is associated with diminished rates of cycling. Countries, like Australia, that have had MHLs for a long time have far lower rates of cycling than comparable countries and very different cycling populations (skewed towards sport/risk cycling and against normal, everyday utility cycling)

There are some pretty obvious, well-documented suggested explanations of why that may be, but even if they're wrong, it's still a phenomenon.

And arguing that people "shouldn't" feel the way they do about helmets, or that you don't let it stop you (clearly, because you're a cyclist!), doesn't change what MHLs do.

Sorry Bob but comparable countries wont cut it - please throw up a country, any country which is a comparable country to Aust in terms of space and worst still geography let alone population. It is hard enough to compare cities in Aust - see pages 36-38 and then 44 in this now older but still very good report and get back to us. I know that Rebecca, who is Canadian by origin, and wrote a large part of this paper could not believe the differences in the landscape and populations within each state but once she visited other cities around Aust found it difficult to find two major cities that she could compare to Sydney

https://irp.cdn-website.com/541aa469/fi ... lls-Us.pdf

Other countries went the right way of investing in bike infra, we went the wrong and cheap way of MHL and to just blame MHL for lack of biking in Aust is letting the people who made this call off the hook - it was wrong policy then and people spoke strongly against it back then - Anyone who bikes now or wants to bike should keep pushing for better infra - just blaming MHL is a cop out.

Also good to know you did some bike courier work in the Sydney CBD so you must know just how few people rode bikes back then - pre MHL you barely saw a biker in the CBD - the numbers of people who continue to bike in and out of the CBD compared to then continued to rise and /or have jumped in"vast" numbers even with MHL when you think of the 1990s/ 2000s to now.

But think about why the world still has regular international meetings and forums about bicycle infrastructure -it never sleeps it can always get better and it is the how and why you get more people to ride bikes - it happened in Manly - better off the road biking led to more people biking and while it always had in my living memory low helmet use pre and post MHL the police stopped policing the lack of helmet usage because biking was made safer*.

And "everyday utility cycling" is just another meaningless term and is quite out of touch. Use the ACT as a base example for the nation and people who bike in the ACT often are car drivers, people who bike fast or go touring or ride mountain bikes or gravel bikes of triathlons or....also can and do everyday / anyday utility cycling.

(*Of course we don't have any real data on pre and post MHL biking so the whole then vs now argument used in this discussion against MHL is seen and deemed quite rightly as just gossip and fluff by the legislators in each state)

[BobtheBuilder]

Key difference: The primary difference between cause and reason is the fact that cause is something that directly leads to something. It is basically a cause and effect relationship. A reason, however, is a reasoning or explanation for why something happened.

No.

[BobtheBuilder]

Sorry Bob but comparable countries wont cut it - please throw up a country, any country which is a comparable country to Aust in terms of space and worst still geography let alone population.

This has been done to death. But you don't even have to compare countries. You can compare the NT, where I live, which has probably the least dense cities and towns in Australia, the worst cycling weather for much of the year and very limited cycling infrastructure.
MHL is basically not enforced and most people who aren't sport/risk cycling don't wear helmets.
Surprise, surprise, cycling rates are far higher here and utility cycling especially so.

it was wrong policy then and people spoke strongly against it back then - Anyone who bikes now or wants to bike should keep pushing for better infra - just blaming MHL is a cop out.

There might be some people who "just blame" MHL, but I haven't seen them. Being anti-MHL is not denying there are other factors involved in our low cycling rates. Straw man arguments like that are silly.

[am50em]

Key difference: The primary difference between cause and reason is the fact that cause is something that directly leads to something. It is basically a cause and effect relationship. A reason, however, is a reasoning or explanation for why something happened.

No.

Yes.

[MichaelB]

I'm not arguing 'causation', I'm enquiring 'why'.

Quote of the day!

You are arguing causation. Causation is 'why' something happens, what causes it. In scientific inquiry this is generally secondary - empiricism is about establishing what is happening. You can then hypothesise about why.

The introduction of mandatory helmet laws is associated with diminished rates of cycling. Countries, like Australia, that have had MHLs for a long time have far lower rates of cycling than comparable countries and very different cycling populations (skewed towards sport/risk cycling and against normal, everyday utility cycling).

There are some pretty obvious, well-documented suggested explanations of why that may be, but even if they're wrong, it's still a phenomenon.

And arguing that people "shouldn't" feel the way they do about helmets, or that you don't let it stop you (clearly, because you're a cyclist!), doesn't change what MHLs do.

So you still can't/wont answer the question ....


Cheers (AT) bychosis - that's what I'm after, thanks. (see Bob, it ain't that hard ... )

Not planning on judging the why's, just curious (BTW, agree with the inside caravan park and on the beach scenario ).

[BobtheBuilder]

So you still can't/wont answer the question ....

...

Not planning on judging the why's, just curious (BTW, agree with the inside caravan park and on the beach scenario ).

You don't need to provide causation to demonstrate that something's happening. For instance, lots of common medicines are demonstrated to have an effect, but the causative mechanisms aren't well understood.

Any anecdotal evidence is interesting, but can lead to irrelevant arguments of the "well, it doesn't stop me, so it shouldn't stop others" type.

However, some of the common reasons cited are:

* the extra hassle of having to put on a helmet and/or carry one around and/or always have to remember to have it
* the sense that helmets connote danger, so people don't want to cycle because it's seen as a dangerous activity (although injury rates are similar to jogging and gardening and lower than driving)
* not wanting to muck your hair up / not having the freedom of wind in the hair / having to give up on sun protection

Now, let's see the avalanche of pro-MHLers dismantle all these reasons ... despite the fact the reasons are irrelevant when the phenomenon is well established. MHLs lead to lower cycling rates. Causation is interesting, but arguing over it doesn't change what's happening.

[am50em]

And we should not argue about the reasons the MHL laws were introduced as it does not change what has happened.

[Cyclophiliac]

And we should not argue about the reasons the MHL laws were introduced as it does not change what has happened.

Yes, we should. If we could discredit the reasons for introducing the MHL laws, then we're 1 step closer to convincing the authorities to repeal the laws.

[am50em]

I was being facetious.
Some of the anti-MHL group keep wanting to tell others what they can and cannot say.

[MichaelB]

....

You don't need to provide causation to demonstrate that something's happening. ...

For the umpteenth time, I'm not trying to demonstate it's happening, I know it is, I've seen it.

I'm asking those that choose to do it, "Why?".

It's not hard.

I'm not arguing against it, or for it, although for my riding (where and when) I choose to for my reasons.

So I'm curious for those against it and consequently then choose not to ride even without a helmet, what their reason personally is. No judgement involved. Just plain curiousity.

You seem to keep repeating the same issue/comment without providing your reason. Why (x2) ?

[BobtheBuilder]

You seem to keep repeating the same issue/comment without providing your reason. Why (x2) ?

I do ride with a helmet out of the NT in Australia because MHL is enforced.

I don't ride with a helmet here in the NT because MHL isn't enforced.

I don't walk with a helmet because there's no MHL for walking.

I don't jog with a helmet because there's no MHL for jogging (actually, I don't jog!).

I don't garden with a helmet because there's no MHL for gardening.

I don't drive with a helmet because there's no MHL for driving (though the best argument for MHLs is in motor vehicles).


So, the reason I don't ride with a helmet is because I'm not forced to.

[MichaelB]

You seem to keep repeating the same issue/comment without providing your reason. Why (x2) ?

I do ride with a helmet out of the NT in Australia because MHL is enforced.

I don't ride with a helmet here in the NT because MHL isn't enforced.

I don't walk with a helmet because there's no MHL for walking.

I don't jog with a helmet because there's no MHL for jogging (actually, I don't jog!).

I don't garden with a helmet because there's no MHL for gardening.

I don't drive with a helmet because there's no MHL for driving (though the best argument for MHLs is in motor vehicles).


So, the reason I don't ride with a helmet is because I'm not forced to.

Thanks, that wasn't hard was it ?

PS - struck out the detail I didn't ask for as it's as relevant as avocados.

[BobtheBuilder]

Thanks

No worries. Still don't know why my particular motivations are relevant.

The thing about MHL is population-wide effects, not individual effects (unless you happed to get fined).

[fat and old]

You are arguing causation. Causation is 'why' something happens, what causes it. In scientific inquiry this is generally secondary - empiricism is about establishing what is happening. You can then hypothesise about why.

Hey Bob, how's it going up there?

FWIW, Thoglette has pointed out repeatedly, ad nauseum, over and over agin for years and years, there was nothing scientific about the introduction of MHL's in Australia. It was all based on an emotional argument backed with skewed statistics and has been argued over ever since by both sides using the same stupid approach. Supposedly reputable scientists and academics throwing numbers at a wall and seeing which one's stick.

Even worse are the fellow travelers, with just enough education to use a few fancy words looked up on Wikipedia who wield their knowledge like a club, striking down all those who dare to disagree or have a different POV. On both sides.

So, I totally reject the whole 'scientific' approach to arguing about MHL's. It's all emotional. I won't be offended if someone wants to use an emotional argument to support their POV. What's the point? It's important enough for them so fair play.

[am50em]

Yes, non researched emotional arguments will help reverse the MHLs.

[baabaa]

Sorry Bob but comparable countries wont cut it - please throw up a country, any country which is a comparable country to Aust in terms of space and worst still geography let alone population.

This has been done to death. But you don't even have to compare countries. You can compare the NT, where I live, which has probably the least dense cities and towns in Australia, the worst cycling weather for much of the year and very limited cycling infrastructure.
MHL is basically not enforced and most people who aren't sport/risk cycling don't wear helmets.
Surprise, surprise, cycling rates are far higher here and utility cycling especially so.

I was actually keen to know your thoughts around this as I recall brain storming this very issue with Rebecca at the time and we could not come up with anything - South Africa and Uruguay were the closest we could come up with.

[fat and old]

Yes, non researched emotional arguments will help reverse the MHLs.

Not looking to reverse them. Not looking to support them. They make no difference to my riding. And my safety is not someone else's responsibility, it's mine.

[am50em]

Yes, non researched emotional arguments will help reverse the MHLs.

Not looking to reverse them. Not looking to support them. They make no difference to my riding. And my safety is not someone else's responsibility, it's mine.

+1

[baabaa]

Yes, non researched emotional arguments will help reverse the MHLs.

Not looking to reverse them. Not looking to support them. They make no difference to my riding. And my safety is not someone else's responsibility, it's mine.

+1

Same, as is my risk analysis of the chance of being fined for not wearing a helmet - almost zilch.

[am50em]

Still reading report from https://www.cwanz.com.au/national-walki ... rvey-2021/.
In reasons for not riding a bicycle, MHL did not show up. It was not an explicit option in question (but there was Other option). Surprisingly, for me, was that the Danger option was a low response.
Cycling participation was up arresting the downward trend, most likely due to Covid.
ACT participation was similar level to NT (and WA) presumably mainly due to the better cycling infrastructure (and population demographics?)

[tpcycle]

Not looking to reverse them. Not looking to support them. They make no difference to my riding. And my safety is not someone else's responsibility, it's mine.

+1

Same, as is my risk analysis of the chance of being fined for not wearing a helmet - almost zilch.

Unsure why your experience is the polar opposite of mine (and by the statistics regarding helmet fines, many others). I cycle in Adelaide and on the lower north shore of Sydney. My experience is that the police are chomping at the bit to hand out helmet fines - I've had one perform a crazy traffic stunt in busy traffic with lights and siren blaring to pull me over. I don't bother tempting fate but sometimes when I've been out of the country for a while I don't put one on by mistake. My foreign id and grovelling has saved me from wasting money - but having to listen to a sermon about the dangers of riding without a helmet (while biting my tongue) is very effective aversion therapy.

[fat and old]

Sydney sucks aye? I’ve never had an issue in Melbourne despite actually wanting the opportunity to argue in court, but have seen people of varying ages pulled up. RNG.