Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[brumby33]

I think also in certain regions of socio economic differences there is some discrimination towards the good people when it comes to MHLs.
I'm sure you've all seen it, youths from 14 to 30 riding MTBs and BMX bikes around the streets with just baseball caps on or a beanie or a balaclava lol. But these dudes are rarely pulled over mostly because the cops know who they are, what's the point when they'll go to court, get the usual wrist slap and ok you're free to go. They don't care and the cops know it's useless to even pull them over for it.
I could be wrong but I've never seen nor heard of an Operation Pedro in a regional town, large or small but even here in Sydney, I've often seen youths riding bikes around the beaches of Bondi and Coogee , baseball cops on, no helmets and no lights in the dark and cars full of cops just drive by as is they weren't even there.....but I bet if I did it, a middle aged male that looks like he's still working and doesn't own a el-cheapo bike, I bet that cop car would stop on a 5 cent piece.

[Thoglette]

It still amazes me that people will spend hundreds to thousands of $$$$$$$$'s on bikes but won't spend $30-$50 on a helmet. I wonder when the argument for not using lights at night on a bike will start!

Foo

This is a *%&!** comment. There are 11 221 posts on this topic. Cost plays no part in reasons for not agreeing with MHL.

If you are interested in this topic, read back on the many arguments on both sides.

Easy there - no need to start with the swearing. Foo has also been here a lot longer than you as well.

I've been here as long as most and I share BB's frustration at Foo's (hopefully flippant) comments.

The first sentence (on people's reputed purchasing plans) indicates another failure to listen to what's been said* time and time again in this thread.

And then adds a general purpose ad hominen attack to add injury to insult in the second sentence.

What's not to like?

*
To remind: "what's been said"
a) that "cycling" is not a single, uniform activity with a single, uniform risk profile.
b) that cyclists are pretty good at working out when helmets are useful and tend to wear helmets when the risk is higher
and
c) there's a range of cycling activities for which helmets are a waste of time.

Specifically, MHLs "solved" a problem that didn't exist. If the LAWS actually had a positive impact, clever people like Jake Olivier would have found them years (decades) ago.

Do I really, really have to mention the Dutch (and specifically their approach to safety analysis), yet again?

[baabaa]

I think also in certain regions of socio economic differences there is some discrimination towards the good people when it comes to MHLs.
I'm sure you've all seen it, youths from 14 to 30 riding MTBs and BMX bikes around the streets with just baseball caps on or a beanie or a balaclava lol. But these dudes are rarely pulled over mostly because the cops know who they are, what's the point when they'll go to court, get the usual wrist slap and ok you're free to go. They don't care and the cops know it's useless to even pull them over for it.
I could be wrong but I've never seen nor heard of an Operation Pedro in a regional town, large or small but even here in Sydney, I've often seen youths riding bikes around the beaches of Bondi and Coogee , baseball cops on, no helmets and no lights in the dark and cars full of cops just drive by as is they weren't even there.....but I bet if I did it, a middle aged male that looks like he's still working and doesn't own a el-cheapo bike, I bet that cop car would stop on a 5 cent piece.

Indeed - and this vagueness in the management part of MHLs in NSW really gets my goat - the ACT seems to have worked it out - but on your other point, why on earth in 2022 can any property developer sell blocks of land in the newer outer suburbs without off the road paths for all ages non car activities - it costs a bomb to put in later so why not do it first up - and dont get me started on the curse of modern curb and guttering on cycling.

People off the road = safety in riding and more safety in turn means less need to enforce personal behaviors which......
you know they endless carrot and stick cycle of all this goes on and on but you being a Busie across Sydney would have seen more than most of the amount of rubbish and stupid things that go on across the roads.

The local district police office in Manly (and I think up the northern beaches and I cant recall his name just now) went on record stating they do not chase people on bikes as the conditions, with slower traffic and the increasing bike infra made biking in the area mostly safe. Also he fobbed it off by stating they do have other issues to consider.

In some NSW "regionals" the police do know a lot of the kids if not the families of these kids and if they pull them up for any mischief they may get a warning. The police wish to integrate into the communities they work and live in and a fine any fine wont help in doing that. The highway police on a bad day in the regionals can be a different story but I guess they get to see a whole lot of stuff that people should not really have to see.


Oh,and my partner just got back from 8 weeks in Japan and more or less repeated your tale of the joy of riding a bike without private cars parked on public roads. Was also very keen on the size of the cars.
All this is really quite simple stuff but in Aust we seem to want to keep voting for people who do just the opposite .

[Mr Purple]

Someone on one of the Facebook groups I'm on pointed out the stupidity of people getting upset when they're stopped from storing their private property (cars) on a public space (roads).

Even worse in my neighbourhood is the number of people who buy massive caravans/boats/trailers and just leave them permanently parked on the road. Absolutely legal if they're registered, but why should it be? What right should you have to store your private property in a place where it puts other people's safety at risk?

I'm still refusing to get involved in the MHL discussion here. Personally I think both sides have reasonable points, but we're long past the point where anyone is able to have a rational discussion about it at a governmental level to result in any change. Can you give me an example of where they've repealed a law introduced in an attempt to increase safety? I know our speed limits just continue to go down despite the roads being a much safer (for motorists at least) place than they were 50 years ago.

Personally I know how vulnerable the temporal bone of your skull is to fracture, and just how big the artery is below it. This is exactly the sort of injury a helmet will stop, so I wear one at all times. Otherwise a fairly simple fall at walking space could well be fatal if you're unlucky enough. That is irrelevant to any MHL discussion though, that's just my personal preference.

[tpcycle]

Can you give me an example of where they've repealed a law introduced in an attempt to increase safety?

https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-saf ... epeal.html

[tpcycle]

It still amazes me that people will spend hundreds to thousands of $$$$$$$$'s on bikes but won't spend $30-$50 on a helmet. I wonder when the argument for not using lights at night on a bike will start!

Foo

So I guess you cheer the guy who said "People who aren't willing to wear a helmet don't deserve to ride a bicycle"?

And the guy at the bike shop who stridently told me I would die if I continued to use a $10 k-mart helmet instead of one of his $180 lumps of foam?

Just cause you've read a forum for a long time doesn't give your comments any additional intrinsic value. In fact from the content of the above it seems that the opposite is true. I'm so glad I cycle in Japan a lot without any of this nonsense.

Oh and the bike I ride to work everyday cost $50. It's a Trek so not a K-mart BSO - but I don't want to leave $$$$$$$$$$$$$ in a public bicycle parking spot.

[BobtheBuilder]

I think also in certain regions of socio economic differences there is some discrimination towards the good people when it comes to MHLs.

Quite apart from your offensive use of "good people" when you mean rich people (let's hope that was a slip of the tongue), you've got it wrong.

Police harassment for minor offences, including fines for bicycle helmets, is systematically higher in lower income areas.

This was seen during Covid lockdowns very starkly, but it's a feature of Australian policing nationwide.

[Mr Purple]

Can you give me an example of where they've repealed a law introduced in an attempt to increase safety?

https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-saf ... epeal.html

Sorry, I should have specified 'in Australia'.

It's not something our various governments are happy to do. Which is why we get regulations upon regulations upon regulations to the point of which it's almost impossible to do anything. Every year my job gets a fair bit harder as a result.

[foo on patrol]

This is a *%&!** comment. There are 11 221 posts on this topic. Cost plays no part in reasons for not agreeing with MHL.

If you are interested in this topic, read back on the many arguments on both sides.

Easy there - no need to start with the swearing. Foo has also been here a lot longer than you as well.

I've been here as long as most and I share BB's frustration at Foo's (hopefully flippant) comments.

The first sentence (on people's reputed purchasing plans) indicates another failure to listen to what's been said* time and time again in this thread.

And then adds a general purpose ad hominen attack to add injury to insult in the second sentence.

What's not to like?

*
To remind: "what's been said"
a) that "cycling" is not a single, uniform activity with a single, uniform risk profile.
b) that cyclists are pretty good at working out when helmets are useful and tend to wear helmets when the risk is higher
and
c) there's a range of cycling activities for which helmets are a waste of time.

Specifically, MHLs "solved" a problem that didn't exist. If the LAWS actually had a positive impact, clever people like Jake Olivier would have found them years (decades) ago.

Do I really, really have to mention the Dutch (and specifically their approach to safety analysis), yet again?

Attack give me a break.

Yeah, these people don't know anything.

https://road.cc/content/news/dutch-neur ... ets-286871

Just so you can't say that I'm not trying to have a balanced view on things.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7106828/

You have less chance of damage on grass and sand granted but on paved areas, as long as you accept full responsibility and don't burden the public hospitals and pay for your own treatment, then go for it.

I forgot that we aren't allowed free speech here anymore and must adhere to those that think differently about safety issues. Anyway I've said my bit, so you just keep fighting amognst yourselves on the issue.

Foo

[BobtheBuilder]

I forgot that we aren't allowed free speech here anymore

Your free speech is allowed, as is mine, pointing out that your comment was #$?!**.


It's very doubtful you've read this forum, as your points below have been comprehensively dealt with, again and again and again. This is why this forum sometimes goes around in circles - the same debunked points get raised over and over and over.

People have a wide range of (good faith) views on MHLs, but the views of neurologists or studies that view MHLs mechanistically and out of context, don't add to a productive conversation on this complex topic.

Yeah, these people don't know anything.
https://road.cc/content/news/dutch-neur ... ets-286871

They specialise in the brain and injuries to the head. Not in the physics of helmets or the effects of helmet laws. Nor the public health benefits of higher levels of cycling compared to marginal increases in head injuries (a disputed area, as it is).

Just so you can't say that I'm not trying to have a balanced view on things.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7106828/

Yes I can.

This flawed study doesn't even consider the well-known dampening effects on cycling rates that MHLs cause and the far greater effect on public health this has, compared to the (possible) benefits of mandating helmets.

[g-boaf]

Things are getting heated again.

[human909]

Just so you can't say that I'm not trying to have a balanced view on things.

If you say you are trying then I am in no position to dispute that. But just because you are 'trying' doesn't mean you are being at all successful. In fact you are failing badly.

You have less chance of damage on grass and sand granted but on paved areas, as long as you accept full responsibility and don't burden the public hospitals and pay for your own treatment, then go for it.

Oh, give me a break.

Why should you be covered by public hospitals if you are choosing to cycling but not somebody else? Should motorists not be covered by our public health system? What about motorcyclists? Rock climbers? Skiiers?

No apparently it seems that only cyclist not wearing helmets are deemed so insanely dangerous that they don't deserve compassion in our society.

[brumby33]

I think also in certain regions of socio economic differences there is some discrimination towards the good people when it comes to MHLs.

Quite apart from your offensive use of "good people" when you mean rich people (let's hope that was a slip of the tongue), you've got it wrong.

Police harassment for minor offences, including fines for bicycle helmets, is systematically higher in lower income areas.

This was seen during Covid lockdowns very starkly, but it's a feature of Australian policing nationwide.

Oh my Offensive use of good people.....are you the Post Police now?

Oh I could put it another way to make steam come out of your ears but i won't want you to become more offended would I. Good people have nothing to do with rich people, there's good people everywhere even in lower social economic locations. Hey the news media is allowed to make those terms, well so can I. No slip of the tongue btb I meant what I wrote, I've driven public Transport buses for over 35 years in some of the roughest areas of Sydney and Newcastle so I think I know what I'm on about.
Some people flout the laws that everyone is supposed to go by but it's often those who look like they can pay for it eg: a worker who can afford a fine as apposed to those who do not work, may get fined but never pay and it gets thrown out of court due to their inability to pay, so it's very discriminative in this way.
Most Police Harassment as you put it, in lower income areas usually is about other stuff like drugs, break-ins, stolen goods but rarely about MHLs.
Oh yeah the lockdowns, where Police were used as the Premier's private army, it wasn't just in lower economic areas but there were very discriminative actions going on for sure, almost to Gestapo level and I can go only on Sydney, but there was thousands of people flocking to the beaches all over Sydney however the Bankstown area were in tight full lockdowns for nearly 3 Months and the amount of cases weren't as high as the East and it was started when a hire car driver from the Eastern Suburbs decided he'd go to a party out near Liverpool after he spread his Covid to the Northern Sydney Suburbs beforehand. Hope I didn't offend you again Bob.

[brumby33]

Can you give me an example of where they've repealed a law introduced in an attempt to increase safety?

https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-saf ... epeal.html

This tpcycle is interesting and I agree that MHLs were repealed because of the wanting to encourage the use of the public hire bike system and it made interesting reference (basically pointing the stick) of Strict Australian MHL's and any Cities who wanted to encourage cycling and the hire bike systems that are becoming popular, don't do it until you repeal the laws. The Countries in Question are Mexico and Isreal, both having larger populations that our Cities here in Australia.
I agree entirely, if I was riding my own bike it's my choice but if I wanted to hire a city bike for an hour, I don't want to put a used helmet on my head, you don't know whose head has been in that thing, skin diseases, dandruff, Covid and just having to wear someone else's sweat.

[human909]

Electric scooters are out in force in Melbourne and helmet compliance is low. I'm enthused on hope we get enough critical mass to help get rid of the enforcement of this silly law.

I occasionally ride lidless either a short trip to get milk or on the very occasional group ride with the Freestyle cyclists. On longer rides I haven't found the need nor the desire to draw attention.

[fat and old]

Things are getting heated again.

Meh, ignore it. Just one bunch of ill informed £%~#•wits arguing with another bunch of equally ill informed %*!<|wits.

[fat and old]

Can you give me an example of where they've repealed a law introduced in an attempt to increase safety?

https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-saf ... epeal.html

Sorry, I should have specified 'in Australia'.

Why? Answer was incorrect. Once again the Anti MHLers incorrectly co-opt a decision to prove a point.

From the linked article

Basically, the helmet law in both places stood in the way of bike sharing programmes that would serve to encourage more people to cycle.

The laws in Mexico were repealed for economic reasons, not to “increase safety”. The laws in Israel at the time of writing were in review, for the same reasons. Economic reasons.

[fat and old]

Police harassment for minor offences, including fines for bicycle helmets, is systematically higher in lower income areas.

This was seen during Covid lockdowns very starkly, but it's a feature of Australian policing nationwide.

Not disputing this, it’s well documented. However, having grown up in and lived in these disadvantaged areas I would like to see some study on the behaviour of the people being persecuted. What is the general attitude towards laws and compliance? What is the general attitude to social responsibility? Many anti-MHLers here wear the helmet only in order to avoid fines, so the concept is not new nor difficult to understand or implement. It’s not a question of intelligence.

[fat and old]

No apparently it seems that only cyclist not wearing helmets are deemed so insanely dangerous that they don't deserve compassion in our society.

Give a break human. Go look at any of the “Moron” threads and see how many times the “Darwin at work” line has been trotted out. Cyclists, pedestrians, motorists….and being a cycling forum especially obese people…….every cohort has copped it. Stop playing the poor victimised outlier.

[fat and old]

but on your other point, why on earth in 2022 can any property developer sell blocks of land in the newer outer suburbs without off the road paths for all ages non car activities - it costs a bomb to put in later so why not do it first up - and dont get me started on the curse of modern curb and guttering on cycling.

One thing I’ll give the Victorian DOT credit for, every new construction has an adjacent shared path (with facilities such as rest areas, water etc) and/or cycle lanes. Every rail xing job has built in shared paths. It’s actually pretty good.

[baabaa]

but on your other point, why on earth in 2022 can any property developer sell blocks of land in the newer outer suburbs without off the road paths for all ages non car activities - it costs a bomb to put in later so why not do it first up - and dont get me started on the curse of modern curb and guttering on cycling.

One thing I’ll give the Victorian DOT credit for, every new construction has an adjacent shared path (with facilities such as rest areas, water etc) and/or cycle lanes. Every rail xing job has built in shared paths. It’s actually pretty good.

Good news* and big thumbs up (but not in a trumpian way) to Vic DOT

*being a long termer in the anti anti-MHLers camp I am happy to be corrected and, acknowledge and regret any misinformation that I may have added to this discussion.

[fat and old]

Going on right now. Princess Bridge, Melbourne CBD



What cycling lanes should look like. Took over 7 years and a pandemic to see it but it’s here.

[fat and old]

[quote =brumby33 post_id=1580639 time=1667644714 user_id=26790]
The Countries in Question are Mexico and Isreal, both having larger populations that our Cities here in Australia.

[/quote]

Mexico City at 22odd million is larger than any Australian city, but Israel’s total of 9.2 million barely equals Melbourne and Sydney mate.

[brumby33]

[quote =brumby33 post_id=1580639 time=1667644714 user_id=26790]
The Countries in Question are Mexico and Isreal, both having larger populations that our Cities here in Australia.

Mexico City at 22odd million is larger than any Australian city, but Israel’s total of 9.2 million barely equals Melbourne and Sydney mate.
[/quote]

Yes F&O but individual cities have a lot less, Syd being roughly 5-6million and Melbourne not far behind so my post and that post is still valid. Isreal as you pointed out has almost the same as Our two biggest cities combined, so if they can can the mandatory rules, we can.

[fat and old]

The Countries in Question are Mexico and Isreal, both having larger populations that our Cities here in Australia.

Mexico City at 22odd million is larger than any Australian city, but Israel’s total of 9.2 million barely equals Melbourne and Sydney mate.

Yes F&O but individual cities have a lot less, Syd being roughly 5-6million and Melbourne not far behind so my post and that post is still valid. Isreal as you pointed out has almost the same as Our two biggest cities combined, so if they can can the mandatory rules, we can.

Tel Aviv has 980,000 odd. Lot easier to make less people happy than more. So no, I disagree that Isreal and Australia are comparable. Mexico is another story. Given that the right amount of money can buy a suite in the Presedential lodgings I’d say it’s probably odds on easier to have an obscure law that matters little repealed.

Which goes to the heart of the law change. Money, not safety. Don’t get between a Mexican or Israeli and a wad full of cash.