Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[BobtheBuilder]

Oh dear. Time to bail out again. Otherwise …

Shut the door on the way out.

DS

hi David,
I did compose a lengthy and erudite message, but family life seems to have got in between ...
However ...

I propose simply ignoring the bait and discussing the actual issues.

No rebuttals, no responses, just get on with the adult talk.

[Thoglette]

I’m now completely confused as to who’s saying what to whom and why they’re getting upset.


I’ll get back to the topic ‘ron .

[BobtheBuilder]

I’m now completely confused as to who’s saying what to whom and why they’re getting upset.


I’ll get back to the topic ‘ron .

I think a good start would be classifying the different types of anti-MHL positions.

1) ultra libertarians - don't believe the state has any role to play in restricting individual choice

2) moderate libertarians - believe helmets are of some value, but don't believe the state should be mandating use

3) public health perspective - believe the relative disbenefits of mandating helmets outweighs the benefits (the population level health benefit of cycling outweighs the injuries due to no helmets)

4) somewhat sceptical of the claims of helmet supporters - may be on the fence about the benefits of helmets in all situations, but are sceptical about the broad claims of widespread protection

5) reject all claims of helmet benefit

That's a rough sketch. A civil conversation exploring these categories would be good, followed by identifying common ground and strategies that lead to meaningful conversation about how to repeal these laws.


Don't respond to the bait!

[fat and old]

[
I think a good start would be classifying the different types of anti-MHL positions.

1) ultra libertarians - don't believe the state has any role to play in restricting individual choice

2) moderate libertarians - believe helmets are of some value, but don't believe the state should be mandating use

3) public health perspective - believe the relative disbenefits of mandating helmets outweighs the benefits (the population level health benefit of cycling outweighs the injuries due to no helmets)

4) somewhat sceptical of the claims of helmet supporters - may be on the fence about the benefits of helmets in all situations, but are sceptical about the broad claims of widespread protection

5) reject all claims of helmet benefit

That's a rough sketch. A civil conversation exploring these categories would be good, followed by identifying common ground and strategies that lead to meaningful conversation about how to repeal these laws.


Don't respond to the bait!

I reckon there’s a gap between 1 and 2. I’m against MHL on a libertarian standpoint, but I don’t believe that the Feds shouldn’t be able to mandate anything .. ..the recent pandemic being a case in point. Masks and vaccinations yes. And I believe helmets have more than some value. Best case scenario Knee pads will save my knee, a truss would have saved Gordon Ramsay’s gut. A helmet will save your brain.

In Victoria if you’re in a boat under 4.8m length you must wear a life jacket. If you’re a P plater on a motorcycle you must wear hivis. It happens.

[baabaa]

I’m now completely confused as to who’s saying what to whom and why they’re getting upset.


I’ll get back to the topic ‘ron .

I think a good start would be classifying the different types of anti-MHL positions.

1) ultra libertarians - don't believe the state has any role to play in restricting individual choice

2) moderate libertarians - believe helmets are of some value, but don't believe the state should be mandating use

3) public health perspective - believe the relative disbenefits of mandating helmets outweighs the benefits (the population level health benefit of cycling outweighs the injuries due to no helmets)

4) somewhat sceptical of the claims of helmet supporters - may be on the fence about the benefits of helmets in all situations, but are sceptical about the broad claims of widespread protection

5) reject all claims of helmet benefit

That's a rough sketch. A civil conversation exploring these categories would be good, followed by identifying common ground and strategies that lead to meaningful conversation about how to repeal these laws.


Don't respond to the bait!

In the old Sydney Cyclist and Brisbane Cyclist forums, (http://www.sydneycyclist.com/ ) we had a MHL group and pretty solid discussions around the topic. We would even meet face to face from time to time when events like tweed runs or City of Sydney and /or Bike Sydney events made it easy to do so.
In part, many good things came from it.

The rough group was lawyers, IT and web designers, an epidemiologists, local/ council and state govt members, an anaesthetist ( from Brisbane), a range of current and past leaders and managers who had done time in bicycling communities and cycling advocacy groups like Bicycle NSW and Bike Sydney, a few journalists and a collection of people who just liked to bike both fast and slow. The whole MHL online and face to face discussions worked as it was done in an informative and even fun manner.

Traction in MHL is very important and to get this you need people to both engage and then put time and effort. Having like minded peers helps but to make a difference you need that core single minded group just based on working in and around the legislation and then someone who knows how to steer cats. At one stage I think we came (very) close to making changes in MHL in NSW but along came Duncan Gay and it all went belly up.

The one and only thing on the loose agenda was a agreement that as soon as someone, anyone, mentioned helmet efficiency or the manipulation of verified statistics “the meetings” would just close.

I like others in this group have had the chance to sit around the big tables of local, state and federal policy makers about biking in Sydney and NSW and had seen as soon as anyone mentioned anything around helmet efficiency, how a positive meeting to that point in time would see folders closed and people just shut down and start looking for a cup of coffee.

I would normally have been “happy” to help and have done so in the past, but based around the endless pages of unverified factoids and half cocked opinions in this discussion, I can't see any strategy here that will work with the five minutes you may get with policy doers and the legislative makers.
It is also hard/ impossible to see any fun can be had by being involved in any of this.

With the recent cold snap in NSW a mate saw these long forgotten pics of me with dirty hands and asked the question, why don’t we try and rework this in Sydney and then into the smaller communities across NSW?
These are the types of projects that everyone can get involved in and yes, they are worth the time and effort and do make a difference.
https://bikesydney.org/homeless-connect-4-june-2013/

So Bob, will this “project” of yours really make a difference?
Honestly, I consider from my past experiences that you are not the right fit to get this up and running, so sorry, I am a no. (And now feel have wasted far too much time even typing this out...)

[fat and old]

as soon as anyone mentioned anything around helmet efficiency, how a positive meeting to that point in time would see folders closed and people just shut down and start looking for a cup of coffee.

Interesting. I would have thought that would be the case, but for reasons probably a mile away from the reality. I'd have thought that the people who have the power to change laws are very vulnerable to public perception. If enough of the public perceives them as doing a good job (whether or not they are) the reward is re-election. If the public perceives them as doing a bad job, then next election they're out. All lawmakers have their personal and party focal points and would be eager to not do anything that may draw attention away from them or make them look foolish enough to not be able to continue their policy agenda. If they're anything like the higher ups that I deal with, then mostly they're open to ready-made solutions that cost little and reward big. Get bogged down in the detail or propose something that their constituents will perceive as foolish (and by extension they appear foolish) and sorry, you're out the door, next please. I've spent years drumming this into my son.

Besides which the issue of re-establishing cycling as a normal, everyday activity that has multiple societal benefits would seem to be the horse, MHL's the cart? Yes, I'm aware of the idea that MHL's reinforce the idea that cycling isn't a normal activity as far as many are concerned but the implementation of other safety measures for other activities (such as lifejackets for boats, gloves for gardening etc) doesn't seem to be regarded as such?

I still say that the refusal to embrace e-bikes and pmd's by most who comment on these things is a missed opportunity. More bikes, more VRU's, more awareness. Simple and irrefutable.

[zebee]

Many people are drowned every year rockfishing without life jackets. THey are mandatory in some boats but people still don't use them. I wonder if there have ever been prosecutions for not using them?

Enforcement is key. Enforcement of helmets is easy as cops and riders often see each other and it is blindingly obvious if you aren't wearing one. I wonder how many people are not wearing seatbelts and how many prosecutions there are?

I remember when seatbelts were mandated. There was a strong outcry about it and a lot of resisters[1]. But cars are pretty much required so people don't use something else. most just put the belt on but even now a generation later some people don't.

Lifejackets on boats are a closer match as boats aren't required for daily life. But there isn't enforcement, I see boaties on the water without them if I go looking. Without enforcement is it a deterrent? Are jackets the same gut level feel as a helmet of any kind? Body vs head?

Has the deterrent deterred all those who can be? I have seen a lot of share bike riders without helmets. A few years ago I saw no helmetless riders now I see one or two a month even not on share bikes. Mind you, all young and male and overwhelmingly white that is the strong "do what I want" demographic.

Zebee

[1] My father was one. I remember badgering him one day to put it on as we'd just had a lesson about them in school. No one can badger like a primary school kid! About half an hour later Mum and I were driving down the road and saw a car on its side in the ditch. It was his. The seatbelt had saved his life I believe, or at least saved him from serious injury. But people being people (and him being him) he was still quite likely not to wear it.

[fat and old]

Many people are drowned every year rockfishing without life jackets. THey are mandatory in some boats but people still don't use them. I wonder if there have ever been prosecutions for not using them?

I wonder how many people are not wearing seatbelts and how many prosecutions there are?
ithout enforcement is it a deterrent? Are jackets the same gut level feel as a helmet of any kind? Body vs head?

Water Police are pretty hot here on the Peninsula with life jackets, and I’ve encountered them as far away as Lake Dartmouth. I have in fact been fined for not wearing one up there! Challenged and won, I knew I was in the right so had no issues. But yeah, it is policed. For me, a life jacket is absolutely essential in anything other than very slight chop. Even a change of wind direction has me checking it’s at arms reach. Anything over 15 kmh and it’s on, especially on Dartmouth with the mountains hiding squalls until they’re pretty well on you

Have racked up 3 or 4 fines for the seatbelt, one 3 month suspension pre on the spot fine days. That too is well policed here.

[zebee]

Been thinking a bit more about boats vs bikes.

ALmost no one uses a small boat for a quick nick somewhere. (OK, people on an island, but they come under "almost"). To use a boat is a focused job where you travel to where it is and it is the reason for the trip. Sorta like someone training for a race or going out for a long ride just to ride.

People not currently wearing helmets seem to be transport riders. The bike isn't the reason, it's the vehicle.

You see the same with people riding scooters and some motorcycles. Bugger all protective gear, whereas the ones who are riding for fun are kitted up. (And those of us who do both are always kitted up because it is habit I guess!)

In Sydney at least the no-helmet is distorted by the share bikes as helmets on those are a problem. If there's one there when the bike is hired it tends to be manky and probably the wrong size. But I do see more no helmet riders around now than I used to. I wonder why that is?

Seatbelts are there. And more or less comfortable for most. (Not for me... Being short I find them a) uncomfortable and b) likely to be actively dangerous is a crash...). So wearing them isn't a big hassle. But a helmet can be a hassle. Has to be there, has to fit (a general problem really), and no one with expensively styled hair is going to want to wear one Not a problem you have with seatbelts.

I think hire schemes - bikes or scooters - make a mess of MHL. If the schemes are going to be viable they can't manage to ensure the right lid for each rider is going to be with the vehicle, and exempting them makes a mockery of the whole thing. I'm not fond of such schemes because of the way they are abused but many see them as a last mile solution.

[brumby33]

Been thinking a bit more about boats vs bikes.

ALmost no one uses a small boat for a quick nick somewhere. (OK, people on an island, but they come under "almost"). To use a boat is a focused job where you travel to where it is and it is the reason for the trip. Sorta like someone training for a race or going out for a long ride just to ride.

People not currently wearing helmets seem to be transport riders. The bike isn't the reason, it's the vehicle.

You see the same with people riding scooters and some motorcycles. Bugger all protective gear, whereas the ones who are riding for fun are kitted up. (And those of us who do both are always kitted up because it is habit I guess!)

In Sydney at least the no-helmet is distorted by the share bikes as helmets on those are a problem. If there's one there when the bike is hired it tends to be manky and probably the wrong size. But I do see more no helmet riders around now than I used to. I wonder why that is?

Seatbelts are there. And more or less comfortable for most. (Not for me... Being short I find them a) uncomfortable and b) likely to be actively dangerous is a crash...). So wearing them isn't a big hassle. But a helmet can be a hassle. Has to be there, has to fit (a general problem really), and no one with expensively styled hair is going to want to wear one Not a problem you have with seatbelts.

I think hire schemes - bikes or scooters - make a mess of MHL. If the schemes are going to be viable they can't manage to ensure the right lid for each rider is going to be with the vehicle, and exempting them makes a mockery of the whole thing. I'm not fond of such schemes because of the way they are abused but many see them as a last mile solution.

Yes, this point really needs to be pointed out to Transport Minister Jo Haylen that if hire bikes are to have any future, MHL's have to be relaxed. There's no point having drastic fines for those lids and there's no point to Operation Pedros either.

In the CBD of Sydney, the maximum speed is 40kph, the same as it is in school zones so the main danger has been reduced quite considerably. I as with many may keep wearing the helmets in general riding but we should be able to take it off in safe areas without penalty. It's about time our Nanny's in NSW understand that we are not Children anymore.

I've often seen kids riding without helmets but the cops can't touch them due to their age so they are not liable for any fines, but, if you're over 18 and look as though you can afford it....you're fair game getting pulled up....the cops know which ones are worth fining and who is not.....some get a little smack on the wrist and allowed to walk without conviction even though they might've been before courts a number of times, so it's a law that can be discriminately biased pending on financial demographics so therefore the entire law should be scrapped and allow us to decide whether they should be worn or not......this can only be done on a parliamentary level.

[baabaa]

Been thinking a bit more about boats vs bikes.


-------

I think hire schemes - bikes or scooters - make a mess of MHL. If the schemes are going to be viable they can't manage to ensure the right lid for each rider is going to be with the vehicle, and exempting them makes a mockery of the whole thing. I'm not fond of such schemes because of the way they are abused but many see them as a last mile solution.

So from my quick best guess -
In NSW need a jacket for -
motor, sailing from yacht to dinghy, kayaks off shore and estuary and inland...
No need -
SUP, rowing sculls, surf skis...
Will look up later but I think you are on the right track.
Pre legislation to life jackets - they were clunky foam filled things that kept you afloat but could not be said to be a good fit or really that comfortable for long use, so people just did not wear them beyond when they really should have.

Modern day Personal Flotation Devices, have modern tech and you can choose your level of flotation around a variety of types.

Also if you hire a kayak / canoe they normally come with a life jacket which will be sorted out by the hire crowd to be both suitable and a good fit.

No doubt a modern day bike helmet is a very different beast to the days of pre MHL - think bell biker, but the change in PDFs and real life jackets tech has changed for the better.

[BobtheBuilder]

Yes, this point really needs to be pointed out to Transport Minister Jo Haylen that if hire bikes are to have any future, MHL's have to be relaxed. There's no point having drastic fines for those lids and there's no point to Operation Pedros either.

In the CBD of Sydney, the maximum speed is 40kph, the same as it is in school zones so the main danger has been reduced quite considerably. I as with many may keep wearing the helmets in general riding but we should be able to take it off in safe areas without penalty. It's about time our Nanny's in NSW understand that we are not Children anymore.

This is kinda the situation here in the NT, where on a footpath (yes, we're allowed to ride on the footpath) adults don't need them. Kids need them everywhere. In actual terms, it's not policed and the fine is $25 and the rate of non-helmet wearing is very high (but the rate of hat wearing is almost 100%).
As an aside, we also don't require lifejackets or a boat licence.
What stands out in the NT is that cycling rates (particularly utility cycling rates (also referred to as everyday or transport cycling) are the highest in the country (from memory roughly sharing first spot with the ACT) and serious injury and fatality rates from cycling are roughly the same. This is in contrast to motor vehicle serious injury and death rates (and many other types of morbidity and mortality indicators), which are far worse here - possibly including boating-related ones.

The public health benefits of MHLs seem so hard to prove, whereas those of seatbelts, drink driving laws and motorcycle helmets, amongst a range of others, are easily demonstrated with a simple graph. I'm on the fence about compulsory lifejackets - I wear one in rough seas, alone on deck and at night, and any kids wear them when out of the cockpit, but there has to be a tolerance for risk somewhere along the continuum. For instance, in the NT (like almost the whole world), you can still buy fireworks and let them off on the street, in your backyard, or wherever - this undoubtedly does lead to some injury, some pretty horrific, but the kids love it (and so do the adults!) and most countries in the world have made a decision to allow citizens to make their own risk assessment.

As "risky playgrounds" are being re-introduced to children's lives in acknowledgement of the harmful effects of over-protective upbringings, perhaps we are seeing a shift to an acceptance of risk amongst Australians when the relative gain in preventing it is so small (e.g. making laws compelling people to wear helmets on bikes at all times, in all situations).

so it's a law that can be discriminately biased pending on financial demographics so therefore the entire law should be scrapped and allow us to decide whether they should be worn or not......this can only be done on a parliamentary level.

That could be said of many laws, but the contemporary focus on equity may be appealing to many people. But yes, the parliament is where it has to happen - but the electorate has to be convinced (or not care enough) that this is worth doing.

It's harder to repeal a law that's seen as necessary to our safety than to introduce one that's seen as unnecessary (at the time).

If we want to repeal this law, we have to understand what broad groups of attitudes are out there, in the pro-, anti- and neutral parts of the population.

[brumby33]

Bob,

You can't compare Darwin, Alice Springs or Tennant Creek with the Eastern States or Capitols really and because it's Territory rather than a State, I think it differs when it comes to Laws that affect the States.....It's mostly ran by either Federal Government as well as a Local Council.

Population wise, Darwin has just over 50% of the Territories Population so it's a bit difficult to compared such a place to anywhere else. It's even got less than half than the Other Territory of the ACT.

So danger wise, I assume it'd be nowhere like the other Capitols that are Multi Millions in Populations.....Darwin's Population would be covered in only a couple of Sydney or Melbourne's suburbs.

And I think the Government departments have more on their plates than to worry about bicycle Helmets when you got people running around the streets of Alice Springs branding Machetes every Saturday night.

I remember as a Kid riding my bicycle around Newcastle NSW with no helmets, long before any laws came about, one of the kids in my street, same age as me at the time got hit by a car when riding his bike and he did have a concussed head but luckily suffered no brain damage although other kids may have disputed that lol...if ya know...ya know!! His Parents forced him to wear a padded helmet (looked like those ones boxers wear) when riding his bike, he wasn't happy about it of course bat back then, most of us kids never defied our Parents if we knew what was good for us

Being mostly a hot and humid place, I'd take it that besides the wet season, you'd never suffer the cold down there and it'd be T-shirts and shorts all year round......ideal cycling weather me thinks.

It's mostly always the State Governments who make things like Helmets Mandatory as we have State Ministers as well as Federal but they don't bother with the running of the State mostly......Up there it seems you've only got the Feds and Councils.....think yourselves lucky.

Damn it...I'd love to go up there and try my hand at catching a Barra or GT (Giant Trevally) It's on my bucket list.....also to watch the Crocs eat American Tourists for lunch

[zebee]

The problem with anecdotes about people falling off with or without helmets is there is not enough data. How many times where heads hit with no effect? HOw may times with an effect that a helmet may have prevented? How many where a helmet made no difference? How many head hits compared to falls of any kind?

I wear an openface motorcycle helmet because sue to needing size XS in helmets and having no neck compare to THe Average Male I can't easily look behind me with a full face, the chinbar gets in the way.

I get a hell of a lot of people telling me I will get hurt (never wondering if anyone else has said it before them...).

I went hunting stats and the only thing I found was a study of motorcycle protective clothing done in Melbourne. They talked to riders who had crashed, and matched what they were wearing to their injuries to get a feel for what was useful and what wasn't.

They could not find enough riders whose helmets had hit the ground anywhere near the chinbar to study,. "Enough" meaning "any at all"

[am50em]

I am still haunted by an photo I saw 30 years ago of a motorcyclist who was wearing an open face helmet and had his nose ground away in a crash.

[baabaa]

Bob,

You can't compare Darwin, Alice Springs or Tennant Creek with the Eastern States or Capitols really and because it's Territory rather than a State, I think it differs when it comes to Laws that affect the States.....It's mostly ran by either Federal Government as well as a Local Council.

Population wise, Darwin has just over 50% of the Territories Population so it's a bit difficult to compared such a place to anywhere else. It's even got less than half than the Other Territory of the ACT.

So danger wise, I assume it'd be nowhere like the other Capitols that are Multi Millions in Populations.....Darwin's Population would be covered in only a couple of Sydney or Melbourne's suburbs.

And I think the Government departments have more on their plates than to worry about bicycle Helmets when you got people running around the streets of Alice Springs branding Machetes every Saturday night.

I remember as a Kid riding my bicycle around Newcastle NSW with no helmets, long before any laws came about, one of the kids in my street, same age as me at the time got hit by a car when riding his bike and he did have a concussed head but luckily suffered no brain damage although other kids may have disputed that lol...if ya know...ya know!! His Parents forced him to wear a padded helmet (looked like those ones boxers wear) when riding his bike, he wasn't happy about it of course bat back then, most of us kids never defied our Parents if we knew what was good for us

Being mostly a hot and humid place, I'd take it that besides the wet season, you'd never suffer the cold down there and it'd be T-shirts and shorts all year round......ideal cycling weather me thinks.

It's mostly always the State Governments who make things like Helmets Mandatory as we have State Ministers as well as Federal but they don't bother with the running of the State mostly......Up there it seems you've only got the Feds and Councils.....think yourselves lucky.

Damn it...I'd love to go up there and try my hand at catching a Barra or GT (Giant Trevally) It's on my bucket list.....also to watch the Crocs eat American Tourists for lunch

Indeed
Census data hey? Next to no value whatsoever.
Also look at the August temps in Darwin vs Canberra*.
Ave 32°C /low of 20°C vs14°C /1°C
Of course the NT is high during that census month but the ACT is full of all types of biking in most of the warmer months. Even this month everywhere you look is littered with e- scooters waiting to be collected. It is not just about biking, but getting people to not drive. Also people in the ACT just walk more and bike far less in winter, commuters and school kiddies opt for the warm bus over the frosty bike

Same can be “seen” ( and said subjectively ) with the number of bikes that cross the Sydney Harbour bridge on a day or are parked in the bike racks at Manly Wharf for biking to the ferries in August vs say October.

Also talking rate of biking as %?
Better to have and talk around a low % in a dense population than a high % in a low population as that simply equates to more people just riding.

Re data and stats, pushing to try and change laws by using only one data set is hardly objective. Look at why any data sets in biking are more or less rubbish from page 8 of this...
Cycling in New South Wales - What the data tells us
https://irp.cdn-website.com/541aa469/fi ... lls-Us.pdf

Brumby is correct, ACT and NT scarcely count as they are both territories. Across Aust most of the population live and ride in the states and then in local council(s) areas (who are responsible for roads management safety, funding and maintenance).
I also agree with Brumby in that is what you see ( and cannot read about) is more people without helmets and/or over 16 year olds riding on footpaths, happens when you have a strong pro biking local council that puts down proper facilities that allow safer biking and help with off the road biking. More people can and do bike when they feel safe not by removing helmet laws that don’t pertain to them if they don’t bike safely in the first place.
The Police are far less likely to do anything if they can see things in a risk management balance.

If you want a subjective POV, to me the worst thing to happen to urban biking is curb and guttering as it formalises the on and the off the tar biking when most people would prefer a combination of when you can use both.

So Bob, take a holiday around dec or jan on say the south coast of NSW and see for yourself what is happening and how people have MHLs sorted out ( they just dont care). It is hard not to be optimistic of what biking will be in Aust in the next 10 years

* Daughter went to a David Pocock talk at parliament house on last night. Her bike was the only one seen in the racks. The temp in Canberra this morning at 7:30 am was -1.8 with a feels like of – 4.8 .
How many people in the NT with NT laws would bike in that?

[brumby33]

Even the wording in general articles such as the Australian Bicycle Council are pretty vague and no real data has been given, only why the MHLs were introduced https://www.bicyclecouncil.com.au/bicyc ... elmet-laws
Sentences such as a Helmet 'COULD' have saved a head injury or life, not 'WILL' so it's basically stating a "what if" a person has an accident.

Personally, I don't have a problem with bike helmets and if the law was repealed tomorrow, I'd still wear one, I'm used to it and would now feel a bit naked without it as it's something that has been subconsciously associated in riding a bike in most states in Australia. On saying that, I do feel they should be somewhat decriminalised and the fine for not wearing a helmet reduced to where it was before that A/Hole Transport Minister Duncan Gay tripled the fine practically overnight, the fat 'basket' could've well been better to get on a bike himself.....he had a bit of girth if I remember correctly.

I don't think it's the Helmet laws so much today that have a great impact on people cycling, it's more to do with infrastructure rather than Helmet laws, it's being able to go from point A to B and even C and not being placed in danger by being put in amongst motor vehicles.

When people say "no way, bicycles are just too dangerous" they aren't talking about much about the Helmet, they are referring to being out amongst the traffic.
Taking those hire bikes out of the equation, the majority of people know when they are going to buy a bike, they need to have a helmet, they'll buy their own and not have to be concerned about other people wearing it so it mostly becomes a Non-concern.
The chances of hitting your head on the pavement is pretty much low but.....if you did, you don't know if it's going to be a low impact or a hard impact, you might be able to control a fall if it's just you having a stack, you know it's going to happen as it's happening in most cases, you know when you're going to kiss the ground when you past a certain point of a fall, but, you have no way of knowing how you'll land if been hit by a car, maybe it'll happen so quickly like someone opening a car door on you at the last second or you fly over someone's car bonnet or roof, there's no way in knowing how you're going to land, on your back or on your head.

I think they had to make the law otherwise most people would have ignored it, most don't ignore laws if they know there's a big chance of getting nabbed for it and costing more money......

I can only speak for NSW at present but Police just don't have the resources right now to police those laws as they are very short of Officers right across the board and their general workload is pretty heavy, so you might get away without wearing a helmet but if you have an accident whether you hit your head or not, they'll have that pen and infringement book out quick smart.

Cheers

brumby33

[DavidS]

Yes, a lot of people would have ignored recommendations to wear a helmet, but that is the point.

I just don't agree with cycling being singled out for compulsory safety equipment, I don't think it is justified. Lots of car accidents where a helmet would help but it isn't mandated.

DS

[brumby33]

Yes, a lot of people would have ignored recommendations to wear a helmet, but that is the point.

I just don't agree with cycling being singled out for compulsory safety equipment, I don't think it is justified. Lots of car accidents where a helmet would help but it isn't mandated.

DS

Yeah but Car drivers have seat belts and airbags and they still manage to wipe themselves out!!

[BobtheBuilder]

You can't compare Darwin, Alice Springs or Tennant Creek with the Eastern States or Capitols really and because it's Territory rather than a State, I think it differs when it comes to Laws that affect the States.....It's mostly ran by either Federal Government as well as a Local Council.

My understanding is that MHLs are part of the Australian Road Rules. Their exact iteration is determined by the relevant State or Territory government.

Population wise, Darwin has just over 50% of the Territories Population so it's a bit difficult to compared such a place to anywhere else. It's even got less than half than the Other Territory of the ACT.

So danger wise, I assume it'd be nowhere like the other Capitols that are Multi Millions in Populations.....Darwin's Population would be covered in only a couple of Sydney or Melbourne's suburbs.

The figures are per capita, not absolute.

And your reasoning doesn't account for the far higher road trauma and other misadventure rates we have.

[BobtheBuilder]

Yes, a lot of people would have ignored recommendations to wear a helmet, but that is the point.

I just don't agree with cycling being singled out for compulsory safety equipment, I don't think it is justified. Lots of car accidents where a helmet would help but it isn't mandated.

DS

Indeed. There are many activities with a similar risk profile to cycling for head strikes (particularly if you take high-risk cycling out of the equation), such as jogging, let alone being in a motor vehicle, that don't require a helmet.
I've sailed on and off for a while, but in total, compared to cycling hardly at all. The amount of knocks to the head I've had from a stray boom or just falling against something is much higher than those from constant cycling since I was a kid (to school, around the burbs, to school, to work, as a bike courier in Sydney for a bit, a few multi-1000km tours, drunken returns from the pub, etc.). In fact, I've never had a headstrike while cycling. Yet there are no calls for helmets on boats, let alone compulsory helmets.
Regardless of what might protect the head, what could have protected the head, etc., there is very little evidence to show MHLs have changed much at a population level - unlike many other public health measures such as vehicle seatbelts, drink driving laws, motorcycle helmets or heavy tobacco taxes, which have clear, demonstrable public health benefits.

[fat and old]

Yes, a lot of people would have ignored recommendations to wear a helmet, but that is the point.

I just don't agree with cycling being singled out for compulsory safety equipment, I don't think it is justified. Lots of car accidents where a helmet would help but it isn't mandated.

DS

Indeed. There are many activities with a similar risk profile to cycling for head strikes (particularly if you take high-risk cycling out of the equation), such as jogging, let alone being in a motor vehicle, that don't require a helmet.
I've sailed on and off for a while, but in total, compared to cycling hardly at all. The amount of knocks to the head I've had from a stray boom or just falling against something is much higher than those from constant cycling since I was a kid (to school, around the burbs, to school, to work, as a bike courier in Sydney for a bit, a few multi-1000km tours, drunken returns from the pub, etc.). In fact, I've never had a headstrike while cycling. Yet there are no calls for helmets on boats, let alone compulsory helmets.

Yes, but as pointed out, cyclists are not singled out for compulsory safety equipment, are they? Mandatory life jackets in vessels less than 4.8m hull length, Hi Vis jackets/tops for L plate Motorcyclists. Both Victorian, not sure about other states.

I'm pretty sure that hivis tops for cyclists who use the same roads as L plate motorcyclists would go down like a lead balloon

[zebee]

I'm pretty sure that hivis tops for cyclists who use the same roads as L plate motorcyclists would go down like a lead balloon

Amongst cyclists maybe but then MHLs weren't popular amongst cyclists either.

Amongst drivers - the vast majority - it would be popular because it is "doing something" and no skin off their noses. Plus it emphasises the "hard to see" thing, meaning it isn't the driver's fault.

Be careful what you wish for!

[fat and old]

I'm pretty sure that hivis tops for cyclists who use the same roads as L plate motorcyclists would go down like a lead balloon

Amongst cyclists maybe but then MHLs weren't popular amongst cyclists either.

Amongst drivers - the vast majority - it would be popular because it is "doing something" and no skin off their noses. Plus it emphasises the "hard to see" thing, meaning it isn't the driver's fault.

Be careful what you wish for!

Don't look at me! I was arguing against adopting an OH&S framework for cycling a decade ago right here! I've said it before, if bicycles (and motorcycles, scooters etc) were invented today there's no way on earth they'd be legal to use as we do now.

My only point was that bicycles don't exist in a punitive legislative vacuum. There are more activities that require mandatory safety equipment (by the way, that's DavidS's wording, not mine. I don't think a bicycle helmet is really a safety item. More a fine prevention device ) than just cycling.

Oh, and full transparency: I'm on record as stating that Hi vis/flouro socks and shoe covers are one of the best "look at me" devices out there for cyclists, and stand by that. The movement makes the difference. I'm not arguing about who's responsibility it is to be seen. Not from the grave.

[DavidS]

I'm pretty sure that hivis tops for cyclists who use the same roads as L plate motorcyclists would go down like a lead balloon

Amongst cyclists maybe but then MHLs weren't popular amongst cyclists either.

Amongst drivers - the vast majority - it would be popular because it is "doing something" and no skin off their noses. Plus it emphasises the "hard to see" thing, meaning it isn't the driver's fault.

Be careful what you wish for!

Don't look at me! I was arguing against adopting an OH&S framework for cycling a decade ago right here! I've said it before, if bicycles (and motorcycles, scooters etc) were invented today there's no way on earth they'd be legal to use as we do now.

My only point was that bicycles don't exist in a punitive legislative vacuum. There are more activities that require mandatory safety equipment (by the way, that's DavidS's wording, not mine. I don't think a bicycle helmet is really a safety item. More a fine prevention device ) than just cycling.

Oh, and full transparency: I'm on record as stating that Hi vis/flouro socks and shoe covers are one of the best "look at me" devices out there for cyclists, and stand by that. The movement makes the difference. I'm not arguing about who's responsibility it is to be seen. Not from the grave.

Yep, I consider it a fine prevention device, it is all any of my helmets have been useful for.

I don't want to be forced to wear hi vis either, but I reckon lights are better anyway. With rechargeable lights I run them all the time - 2 flashing on the back and one steady on the front. No issue with doing this, it is easy although maybe expensive for some. Hey, maybe we could repeal the helmet laws and then people could afford lights running all the time, would help to prevent accidents rather than trying to mitigate the damage after the fact.

DS