Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

find_bruce wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 06, 2020 8:45 am

H909 plenty of people ignore everything that former senator said. Sure he wasn't the worst senator, but gee that's a low bar

Come on, look at his attitude towards women. He's a damn fine role model!! The anti MHL'ers are welcome to use him as a standard bearer

uart wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 3:32 pm

More importantly though, in your comparison of the oft quoted 30% initial reduction due to MHL and your 2.4% figure (where ever you got that from), is that they correspond to different bases so are not even directly comparable. If there was indeed a 30% initial reduction post MHL, then that figure would have corresponded to 30% of the cyclist at the time, not 30% of the entire population. So you were either being deliberately misleading or you are are making some pretty novice mistakes re the statistics.

This is the issue? Ok, I'm having trouble seeing the issue.

The 30% figure was indeed 30% of cyclists as you note.

The 2.4% figure I gave was 2.5% of the respondents who used or had access to a bicycle. Cyclists.

The figures are taken from a base of cyclists, not population. My apologies in advance, but please explain why this is not comparable?

I find it odd that people are so ready to dismiss a 40 page senate committee inquiry just because they dislike one politician.

Have you guys even read the report? Many of the issues strike at the heart of what is being discussed

fat and old wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 06, 2020 1:47 pm

The 2.4% figure I gave was 2.5% of the respondents who used or had access to a bicycle. Cyclists.

The figures are taken from a base of cyclists, not population. My apologies in advance, but please explain why this is not comparable?

I believe this has been adequately covered. Don't switch your denominators around.

OK, app. 30% of cyclists stopped cycling within 12 months of MHL introduction. This has never been questioned, and is used constantly to show that MHL's decimated cycling. I'm assuming (because the peer reviewed smart people told me so) that means that app. 30% of cyclists decided MHL's were too great a barrier to cycling to make it worthwhile to them.

Show me something that says 30% of todays cyclists (Which is obviously less than the 30% who gave up) care enough about MHL's to actively advocate against them in any form you please. Protest rides, forum nerds, letters to the editor......anything.

fat and old wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 06, 2020 5:44 pm

OK, app. 30% of cyclists stopped cycling within 12 months of MHL introduction. This has never been questioned, and is used constantly to show that MHL's decimated cycling. I'm assuming (because the peer reviewed smart people told me so) that means that app. 30% of cyclists decided MHL's were too great a barrier to cycling to make it worthwhile to them.

Show me something that says 30% of todays cyclists (Which is obviously less than the 30% who gave up) care enough about MHL's to actively advocate against them in any form you please. Protest rides, forum nerds, letters to the editor......anything.

Yeah but that's the point. If you cycle in Australia now - you don't have a problem with MHL or you would have been hounded off your bike.

And motorists obviously don't have a problem with MHL because the inconveniences are not their problem, and they think perhaps they will be less responsible if they accidentally hit a cyclist (the irony is with MHL if the cyclist isn't wearing a helmet they assume all responsibility for their injuries regardless of fault).

And that's why the law is unlikely to change. MHL is accepted by current cyclists and approved of by motorists.

fat and old wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 06, 2020 5:44 pm

Show me something that says 30% of todays cyclists (Which is obviously less than the 30% who gave up) care enough about MHL's to actively advocate against them in any form you please. Protest rides, forum nerds, letters to the editor......anything.

"A survey of almost 20,000 people has found that nearly two-thirds don’t believe you should have to wear a helmet every time you ride a bike in Australia."

"Respondents were mostly Bicycle Network members and people who ride bikes with varying regularity. 2.6% of respondents were from overseas, and 1.9% of respondents said they never ride a bike."

https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsr ... y-results/

I guess responding to a survey doesn't meet your test for active advocacy. But what's your point? As far as I can see most times you seem to post just to create reaction rather than contribute anything of value - but that's just my opinion - and you now what they say about opinions?

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 06, 2020 6:35 pm

I guess responding to a survey doesn't meet your test for active advocacy.

Not really. Answering a question on line or over the phone isn't actually advocating, it's more like giving an opinion. And you've pointed out what that's worth.

But what's your point?

That engaging cyclists on the matter is pointless. They already ride. You want more cyclists, so engage those who may ride given the right conditions. MHL's are way down the list in any study, survey or conversation. I can see how some people get annoyed with our "peak bodies" refusal to engage at all on the matter, but maybe the bicycle network approach of softly softly is as much as the issue deserves or can handle.

As far as I can see most times you seem to post just to create reaction rather than contribute anything of value

And 414 pages in on this particular thread is adding exactly what value to the conversation? It was all said and done in the first month. There's not one survey, study or conversation that has satisfied the anti-MHL'ers that there is value in MHL's, likewise not one study, survey or conversation that has satisfied the pro-MHL side. Sure a few have changed their opinion (there's that boogyman word again!), usually based on cycling numbers as a libertarian like me made up his mind when he was born but they're a drop in the ocean.

I'm just helping to keep the thread from falling to page 3. You can only circle jerk so far.....you need to be challenged and outraged to keep the flame of righteous indignation burning.

fat and old wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:05 am

And 414 pages in on this particular thread is adding exactly what value to the conversation? It was all said and done in the first month. There's not one survey, study or conversation that has satisfied the anti-MHL'ers that there is value in MHL's, likewise not one study, survey or conversation that has satisfied the pro-MHL side. Sure a few have changed their opinion (there's that boogyman word again!), usually based on cycling numbers as a libertarian like me made up his mind when he was born but they're a drop in the ocean.

I'm just helping to keep the thread from falling to page 3. You can only circle jerk so far.....you need to be challenged and outraged to keep the flame of righteous indignation burning.

And that's the point too isn't it. If there is no strong evidence one way or another then the default position should be to repeal.

A good friend who is a MD said "If you have a condition.. and there are several drugs that can treat it then it probably means that none of them are very effective. What you want to see is a situation where if you get this then you take that and you'll be fixed. Helmet effectiveness is like that.. one study says they are effective and another one says they aren't so clearly they aren't decisively effective"

So the law should just be repealed and give people the choice.

On that I can only agree Problem is that you still have to engage the wider public and convince them that it’s just not dangerous to ride a bike. As baa baa pointed out, whip out the stats and you’ll only piss people off....nobody likes a smarty pants. Or tell them how backwards we are in Australia and how far behind some Euro trash country we are. That’d be page 10 of How to win friends and influence people.

Good luck with that. “Helmets don’t help!” sounds pretty hard to believe, and borderline stupid to our cotton candy ooaahhh population. I dunno... maybe mass immigration from one of those countries that rates your life equal to or less than a loaf of bread will help?

fat and old wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:45 am

On that I can only agree Problem is that you still have to engage the wider public and convince them that it’s just not dangerous to ride a bike. As baa baa pointed out, whip out the stats and you’ll only piss people off....nobody likes a smarty pants. Or tell them how backwards we are in Australia and how far behind some Euro trash country we are. That’d be page 10 of How to win friends and influence people.

Good luck with that. “Helmets don’t help!” sounds pretty hard to believe, and borderline stupid to our cotton candy ooaahhh population. I dunno... maybe mass immigration from one of those countries that rates your life equal to or less than a loaf of bread will help?

I doubt this issue (mhl) or the wider adoption of cycling as anything other than a sport is ever going to change in Aus. Everyone drives everywhere, and drivers just don't care about cycling or this issue. It's just not their problem.

The only way I think we'll ever see change is if we have chronic crippling congestion and someone can convince drivers they will have a quicker better car trip if we make cycling more attractive.

Comedian wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 07, 2020 1:29 pm

fat and old wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:45 am

On that I can only agree Problem is that you still have to engage the wider public and convince them that it’s just not dangerous to ride a bike. As baa baa pointed out, whip out the stats and you’ll only piss people off....nobody likes a smarty pants. Or tell them how backwards we are in Australia and how far behind some Euro trash country we are. That’d be page 10 of How to win friends and influence people.

Good luck with that. “Helmets don’t help!” sounds pretty hard to believe, and borderline stupid to our cotton candy ooaahhh population. I dunno... maybe mass immigration from one of those countries that rates your life equal to or less than a loaf of bread will help?

I doubt this issue (mhl) or the wider adoption of cycling as anything other than a sport is ever going to change in Aus. Everyone drives everywhere, and drivers just don't care about cycling or this issue. It's just not their problem.

The only way I think we'll ever see change is if we have chronic crippling congestion and someone can convince drivers they will have a quicker better car trip if we make cycling more attractive.

I reckon that it will change when some state government somewhere gets elected from opposition in a huge sweeping victory, and they say: "Oh by the way...in addition to all those election promises...we've decided to trial making bike helmets non-compulsory. If you're worried about your safety, then by all means still wear one."

There will be 5 minutes of hullabaloo and then it will be forgotten.

RobertL wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:06 pm

I reckon that it will change when some state government somewhere gets elected from opposition in a huge sweeping victory, and they say: "Oh by the way...in addition to all those election promises...we've decided to trial making bike helmets non-compulsory. If you're worried about your safety, then by all means still wear one."

There will be 5 minutes of hullabaloo and then it will be forgotten.

Quite true. And it has happens before in the NT. But it is a roll of the dice regarding how long until we see that happening again.

The only argument I can think of is to try and upset the drivers by asking why they are so crap in Aus that we have to wear head protection. Surely Aussie drivers don't think they are worse than the rest of the world. A long shot but appeal to their pride . . . if they give a crap (which they probably don't).

DS

RobertL wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:06 pm

Comedian wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 07, 2020 1:29 pm

fat and old wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:45 am

On that I can only agree Problem is that you still have to engage the wider public and convince them that it’s just not dangerous to ride a bike. As baa baa pointed out, whip out the stats and you’ll only piss people off....nobody likes a smarty pants. Or tell them how backwards we are in Australia and how far behind some Euro trash country we are. That’d be page 10 of How to win friends and influence people.

Good luck with that. “Helmets don’t help!” sounds pretty hard to believe, and borderline stupid to our cotton candy ooaahhh population. I dunno... maybe mass immigration from one of those countries that rates your life equal to or less than a loaf of bread will help?

I doubt this issue (mhl) or the wider adoption of cycling as anything other than a sport is ever going to change in Aus. Everyone drives everywhere, and drivers just don't care about cycling or this issue. It's just not their problem.

The only way I think we'll ever see change is if we have chronic crippling congestion and someone can convince drivers they will have a quicker better car trip if we make cycling more attractive.

I reckon that it will change when some state government somewhere gets elected from opposition in a huge sweeping victory, and they say: "Oh by the way...in addition to all those election promises...we've decided to trial making bike helmets non-compulsory. If you're worried about your safety, then by all means still wear one."

There will be 5 minutes of hullabaloo and then it will be forgotten.

Quite possibly. If this happens, when the world doesn't end it would could well create the inertia to change it in other jurisdictions. For example if commuter mode share jumped from 1.5% which it's been since forever to 5% over night that would be very inconvenient.

Currently the example in the NT is different enough that it can be easily dismissed.

That would be an extraordinarily progressive state government, or one with a likely minority that needs votes on the floor. It will be a long time before any gov. gets into bed with the greens and I don't thing the Shooters care about cyclists (although the concept of free choice is central to both issues and they may well be the best hope in NSW for cyclists). The head honcho pointed out elsewhere that the euro style of multi-party governments would be the best result for cyclists and I agree, but personally I cannot put cycling before other issues that I have with such coalitions.

I'm also thinking that the ongoing uptake in Melbourne could go either way with ref to the relaxing of MHL's. On one hand it can be seen as the final barrier to pushing cycling mode share over the top and aspirational. On the other it can be argued that cycling is booming thanks to the various local and state initiatives already, so why touch MHL's.

I'm thinking along the same lines as Comedian re the NT experience. Unless you have a minority who gathers enough fines and has enough support and media presence I cannot see it happening anywhere else.

DavidS wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:39 pm

The only argument I can think of is to try and upset the drivers by asking why they are so crap in Aus that we have to wear head protection. Surely Aussie drivers don't think they are worse than the rest of the world. A long shot but appeal to their pride . . . if they give a crap (which they probably don't).

DS

Of course, this overlooks that Bicycle Helmets are not designed or rated for protection in a collision with a Motor Vehicle. They will not save your life if you are mowed down by a car. The only reason we have an MHL now is because of politics, not safety for cyclists. Police are not interested in cyclist safety either, because they just plonk themselves on a CBD street corner and hand out fines to cyclists not complying with the MHL. It's easy money for them and they don't even have to move to rake in that revenue...revenue which has increased significantly since the fine was increased to over $300 "to be fair to motorists".

I wonder what would happen in the Federal Govt went to the States and said "Look, we've got this funding for road upgrades to hand out, but we've decided that unless you make helmets mandatory for everyone in motor vehicles, you aren't going to get that funding"? Do you think the States would go "Yeah, fair enough", or would there be a riot?

queequeg wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:57 am

I wonder what would happen in the Federal Govt went to the States and said "Look, we've got this funding for road upgrades to hand out, but we've decided that unless you make helmets mandatory for everyone in motor vehicles, you aren't going to get that funding"? Do you think the States would go "Yeah, fair enough", or would there be a riot?

There would be a riot... would never happen. although.. as I've posted many times.. it really should happen. Would be a great outcome for public safety and health. Many lives would be saved, and TBI's avoided. If anything.. bike helmets are probably potentially more effective in vehicles than on bikes.

Further it would be absolutely great for cycling. By balancing the inconvenience of having to wear a helmet for a drive or a cycle to the shops it would make cycling relatively less inconvenient if that makes sense.

https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pd ... tsb160.pdf

Comedian wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:58 am

There would be a riot... would never happen. although.. as I've posted many times.. it really should happen. Would be a great outcome for public safety and health. Many lives would be saved, and TBI's avoided. If anything.. bike helmets are probably potentially more effective in vehicles than on bikes.

Further it would be absolutely great for cycling. By balancing the inconvenience of having to wear a helmet for a drive or a cycle to the shops it would make cycling relatively less inconvenient if that makes sense.

https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pd ... tsb160.pdf

I actually agree, but there doesn't seem to be any logic in the debate. If cycling was deemed so dangerous as to require helmets due to the apparent drain on the health system, then I just can't follow why the same does not apply to Motor Vehicle Occupants, except of course that pretty much everyone drives and there would be a riot...hence it is only for political reasons. Although just think how much money a potential helmet manufacturer stands to make from lobbying their govt mates to introduce it.

Meanwhile, Mikael Colville-Andersen puts forward the case for Motoring Helmets...


https://medium.com/@colville_andersen/t ... d6c4ae3ed2

Let me be frank. People who naggingly promote bicycle helmets or mandatory helmet laws either privately or publicly — but who DON’T simultaneously support helmets for motorists or even pedestrians — are no friends of urban cycling. They are tiresome pests. Singling out bicycle users with sanctimonious finger-wagging about head gear is destructive to the public health, irrational and unintelligent.

He cites this interesting newspaper article from April/May 1989, while the laws were being debated
http://www.alanparker-pest.org/Publicat ... elmets.pdf

queequeg wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:31 pm

He cites this interesting newspaper article from April/May 1989, while the laws were being debated
http://www.alanparker-pest.org/Publicat ... elmets.pdf

Old mate Alan Parker was way off on his assumptions aye? We're just not an angry country. Growing up with predominately European first generation kids as we got into our 20's quite a few of them used to bemoan our (Australians in general) lack of militancy and easy acceptance of "the way things are". I guess that happens in the Lucky Country

Further down the page is an ad for BINSW spruiking for cash donations...nothing changes ....for …get this....computers!!! The interseting thing was the reference to the Sydney Spring Cycle event. 4,000 riders in 1988. It would be interesting to see the numbers for '89 through to '92, see what effects MHL's had on numbers.

Even further, falling into the rabbit hole of links etc I see quite a number of articles on the historic numbers of cyclists in this country, and it sure does correlate with many thoughts I've had on the decline of cycling over the last century. Very interesting and a nice dose of confirmation bias. However, there are some serious points being made, one that struck home was this

But overall, one thing in particular should worry cycling advocates about the debate sparked by the Rissell and Gillham study. It’s this: some who’re opposed to the helmet law are so convinced of the rightness of their position, they’re effectively prepared to talk cycling down to make their point.

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist ... the-1980s/ July 4, 2012

queequeg wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:31 pm

Comedian wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:58 am

There would be a riot... would never happen. although.. as I've posted many times.. it really should happen. Would be a great outcome for public safety and health. Many lives would be saved, and TBI's avoided. If anything.. bike helmets are probably potentially more effective in vehicles than on bikes.

Further it would be absolutely great for cycling. By balancing the inconvenience of having to wear a helmet for a drive or a cycle to the shops it would make cycling relatively less inconvenient if that makes sense.

https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pd ... tsb160.pdf

I actually agree, but there doesn't seem to be any logic in the debate. If cycling was deemed so dangerous as to require helmets due to the apparent drain on the health system, then I just can't follow why the same does not apply to Motor Vehicle Occupants, except of course that pretty much everyone drives and there would be a riot...hence it is only for political reasons. Although just think how much money a potential helmet manufacturer stands to make from lobbying their govt mates to introduce it.

Meanwhile, Mikael Colville-Andersen puts forward the case for Motoring Helmets...


https://medium.com/@colville_andersen/t ... d6c4ae3ed2

Let me be frank. People who naggingly promote bicycle helmets or mandatory helmet laws either privately or publicly — but who DON’T simultaneously support helmets for motorists or even pedestrians — are no friends of urban cycling. They are tiresome pests. Singling out bicycle users with sanctimonious finger-wagging about head gear is destructive to the public health, irrational and unintelligent.

He cites this interesting newspaper article from April/May 1989, while the laws were being debated
http://www.alanparker-pest.org/Publicat ... elmets.pdf

I will literally never understand it. There are so many "Cyclists" who are completely passionate about helmets and their safety to cycling - who when driving seem to completely bypass all the thought processes they allocate to cycling helmets and just not worry about it. If you suggest they should wear a helmet in their car they typically just go quiet or will frantically try and divert the discussion.

In all the internet debates I've realised that the vast majority of Australian cyclists support MHL. However, of the tiny tiny portion of those who actually cycle as their main form of transport... they are rarely so committed. Most utility cyclists would rather MHL disappear.

I think that there has been no university work since that first Monash study shows that regardless of their potential to save lives - motoring helmets are just a bridge too far.

Comedian wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:23 pm

In all the internet debates I've realised that the vast majority of Australian cyclists support MHL. However, of the tiny tiny portion of those who actually cycle as their main form of transport... they are rarely so committed. Most utility cyclists would rather MHL disappear.

Hear hear: 11,000KMs in 2019, of which about 500 were not commuting. It is my main form of transport.

You want to go on your sporty ride with a helmet on, go ahead, but why am I forced to wear one when I'm riding to work?

DS

DavidS wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:57 pm

Comedian wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:23 pm

In all the internet debates I've realised that the vast majority of Australian cyclists support MHL. However, of the tiny tiny portion of those who actually cycle as their main form of transport... they are rarely so committed. Most utility cyclists would rather MHL disappear.

Hear hear: 11,000KMs in 2019, of which about 500 were not commuting. It is my main form of transport.

You want to go on your sporty ride with a helmet on, go ahead, but why am I forced to wear one when I'm riding to work?

DS

I'm with you on helmets. But I am in the "wear them when you want to department". I mean 11.000 klm in traffic might in some folks generate a need for a helmet. If you regularly hit 60 klm as regards the route, in traffic. A helmet might not be a bad decision.

Laws are supposedly made to protect us from our own bad decisions. Having made one or two bad ones in my life I see the point. Justifying a law one way or the other has an element of futility about it.
If you agree that obesity kills a 100% more people than a bike accident, then make a law to limit food quantities or types.
That would go over like a lead balloon.

But it is the way laws are thought up just the same. It is necessary to take freedoms "perceived harmful" in order to prevent an action.

What I see is illogical opposition to the real problem, and that is to prove that helmets aren't required.

I don't get that bike organizations are not actively trying to get helmets made removable for known safe activities.Laws are not simply removed , they are whittled away slowly over time which brings proof and supportive stats. Those that advocate total sudden change are doomed to disappointment. Just my view of course.

outnabike wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:01 am

I don't get that bike organizations are not actively trying to get helmets made removable for known safe activities.Laws are not simply removed , they are whittled away slowly over time which brings proof and supportive stats. Those that advocate total sudden change are doomed to disappointment. Just my view of course.

Agree. Aim for helmets not mandatory for adults on the footpath, sharepath and roads with a speed limit of 50 or less. I’m sure we could even word the law so that it reads such that helmets are still mandatory with an exception, rather than ‘you only need a helmet on the roads’.

outnabike wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:01 am

I don't get that bike organizations are not actively trying to get helmets made removable for known safe activities.Laws are not simply removed , they are whittled away slowly over time which brings proof and supportive stats.

The bike organisations don't only not seem to be whittling away at MHL but they seem to be actively supporting more draconian fines and more enforcement.

Outnabike, I can see the point of choosing to wear a helmet if you go 60KMh, I would generally only get to 40-45KMh on a good day commuting. The one issue I have with this is that bicycle helmets are really not rated for that sort of speed so I reckon it is more psychological than actually contributing much to safety.

DS