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.
Postby BobtheBuilder » Thu Jun 20, 2024 11:06 pm
hi David,
Postby Thoglette » Thu Jun 20, 2024 11:22 pm
Postby BobtheBuilder » Thu Jun 20, 2024 11:34 pm
I think a good start would be classifying the different types of anti-MHL positions.
Postby fat and old » Fri Jun 21, 2024 4:36 am
BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 11:34 pm[
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!
Postby baabaa » Fri Jun 21, 2024 7:52 am
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.BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 11:34 pmI 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!
Postby fat and old » Fri Jun 21, 2024 12:35 pm
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.
Postby zebee » Fri Jun 21, 2024 3:46 pm
Postby fat and old » Fri Jun 21, 2024 5:55 pm
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 youzebee wrote: ↑Fri Jun 21, 2024 3:46 pmMany 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?
Postby zebee » Mon Jun 24, 2024 5:51 pm
Postby brumby33 » Mon Jun 24, 2024 6:13 pm
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.zebee wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2024 5:51 pmBeen 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.
Postby baabaa » Tue Jun 25, 2024 8:02 am
So from my quick best guess -zebee wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2024 5:51 pmBeen 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.
Postby BobtheBuilder » Tue Jun 25, 2024 8:22 am
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%).brumby33 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2024 6:13 pmYes, 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.
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.
Postby brumby33 » Tue Jun 25, 2024 2:25 pm
Postby zebee » Tue Jun 25, 2024 4:54 pm
Postby am50em » Tue Jun 25, 2024 5:38 pm
Postby baabaa » Tue Jun 25, 2024 6:22 pm
Indeedbrumby33 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 2:25 pmBob,
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
Postby brumby33 » Tue Jun 25, 2024 9:17 pm
Postby DavidS » Tue Jun 25, 2024 9:46 pm
Postby brumby33 » Tue Jun 25, 2024 11:53 pm
Yeah but Car drivers have seat belts and airbags and they still manage to wipe themselves out!!DavidS wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 9:46 pmYes, 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
Postby BobtheBuilder » Tue Jun 25, 2024 11:58 pm
My understanding is that MHLs are part of the Australian Road Rules. Their exact iteration is determined by the relevant State or Territory government.brumby33 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 2:25 pmYou 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.
The figures are per capita, not absolute.brumby33 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 2:25 pm
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.
Postby BobtheBuilder » Wed Jun 26, 2024 12:11 am
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.DavidS wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 9:46 pmYes, 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
Postby fat and old » Wed Jun 26, 2024 3:35 pm
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.BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 12:11 amIndeed. 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.DavidS wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 9:46 pmYes, 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
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.
Postby zebee » Wed Jun 26, 2024 4:02 pm
Amongst cyclists maybe but then MHLs weren't popular amongst cyclists either.fat and old wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 3:35 pm
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
Postby fat and old » Wed Jun 26, 2024 4:19 pm
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.zebee wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 4:02 pmAmongst cyclists maybe but then MHLs weren't popular amongst cyclists either.fat and old wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 3:35 pm
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 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!
Postby DavidS » Wed Jun 26, 2024 11:26 pm
Yep, I consider it a fine prevention device, it is all any of my helmets have been useful for.fat and old wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 4:19 pmDon'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.zebee wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 4:02 pmAmongst cyclists maybe but then MHLs weren't popular amongst cyclists either.fat and old wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 3:35 pm
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 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!
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.
Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.