Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[trailgumby]

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-li ... 022-295277

Oh baby, I'm already all over this!

I've passed this through to one of my fellow directors, who is an Associate Professor of Community Health. If nothing else, she is Ms Data personified, and it's right up her alley... if she can get funding.

[fat and old]

Oh baby, I'm already all over this!

I've passed this through to one of my fellow directors, who is an Associate Professor of Community Health. If nothing else, she is Ms Data personified, and it's right up her alley... if she can get funding.

Well, I'm a labourer, but I'll try

[warthog1]

Regardless of any law I will still be wearing it for my type of cycling.

A key point..

Rather than just whinge about what is a stupid law I would still like to see the plan to get it removed that hasn't yet been presented in the thousands of posts in this thread.

I am not sure that it can be removed: it’s existence is political and support a shibboleth for getting “taken seriously” by govt.

What can be done is to pull its teeth: make helmet use mandatory only for those who’d be wearing one anyway. E.g. “while using a foot retention device on a road with a speed limit over 50kph”.

The multi point plan is still a work in progress but it clearly (still) includes educating those who chose to wear & convincing them to stop supporting MHLs (hello MTBers); explaining to “industry” how much $$$ they’re missing out on; generally spreading the message that MHLs cost lives not save them; & encourage Mr Plod to focus on “real” Police matters.

This needs to deal with MHLs as one of a range of transport and justice issues: outside Operation Pedro, when was the last time anyone got a ticket for “Jaywalking” (except when doing so while Black)?

This also requires some slightly “bolshi” transport activist groups (like the old BTA but broader) to be the voice in the media & to govt. as the increasingly centralised “peak bodies” are far too busy sucking up to Govt (and the UCI & AOC) to risk disturbing the peace.

So, still not “A Proper Plan” but some themes and strategic thoughts.

What have I missed?

A viable plan and process to remove the law
You have some thoughts about what might be modified and by which groups.
No strategy for implementing actions that will actually change anything

It aint happening.

Not a simple task and it would require cyclists to be a unified community with a common aim and resolve in acting toward that aim.
Where and how is that going to come about?

Your quote of mine and assertion that is a "key point". Missed the reason I have for using it. An ICH as a result of a head strike whilst wearing a helmet

My type of cycling it makes sense to use one imo and ime. It doesn't follow that I support the law or support compelling anybody to wear one.

I do not see it going, however were it to, I don't see our driving standards drastically improving as a direct result. No more impatience, no more aggression, no more device use whilst driving, no more sheer incompetence and lack of care.
I don't see that resolving any time soon regardless of any law.
We are a nation of r-soles in our attitude toward others in many ways. Treatment of cyclists and other road users is an observable result.
Good luck fixing that on top of removing the helmet law.

I have crapped on enough in this thread anyway and am happy to bow out.

[Thoglette]

Reality. What "peak representative group" is gonna back down on MHL's?

Agree: none of them.

Hence my point about needing alternative groups, representing the broader non-car&truck transport community.

[fat and old]

Reality. What "peak representative group" is gonna back down on MHL's?

Agree: none of them.

Hence my point about needing alternative groups, representing the broader non-car&truck transport community.

Good luck with that. I've seen what can happen when an established representative group is challenged by an upstart. Especially if they're the self proclaimed "peak" group.

I think the biggest issue in this debate is the ease with which a helmet can be slapped on and off. It's not exactly hard, so why take time from other things in your life to spend advocating for the repeal of the law?

[Thoglette]

I think the biggest issue in this debate is the ease with which a helmet can be slapped on and off. It's not exactly hard,

Which indicates you're either a sporting cyclist or a long-distance commuter/tourer.

If you'reeveryone who rides a bicycle is wearing bicycle specific clothing and are going to have a shower at the end, then your comment makes sense.

On the other hand, if you're going to a meeting, or dinner, or an interview, or the shops, just around the corner you're out of your mind.

This is normality in the sane parts of the world.

Even if you have Bruce Willis' haircut, helmet are sweaty & bloody inconvenient to cart around (yes, I'm old enough to have been riding before MHLs). All for basically zero benefit: .

The other reality is with MHLs that most teens simply stop riding & bum lifts instead. My lot are a case in point: they all stopped (bar one who just refused to wear a plastic hat and we pretended not to see ).

so why take time from other things in your life to spend advocating for the repeal of the law?

Because more people would be out riding without MHLs. (e.g. RAC 2015)
Because it's costing lives. (e.g. BMJ (Goldacre, B; Spiegelhalter, D (2013) DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f3817). )
Because it's a bloody stupid law. (e.g. victim blaming)

[baabaa]

Because more people would be out riding without MHLs. (e.g. RAC 2015)

Nah not until we turn this trend around. When MHL came in it was spot the SUV and they were true 4x4 with agricultural gearing that would slow down traffic, now they are bigger and faster off the mark than a mid 1980s V8 ford or holden
Dont drive a lot in any cities other than Canberra now but these things pushed most of my biking off the tar and onto dirt roads.
Maybe a guess but not only people born in Aust from the mid 1990s are biking less they are also driving less - everyone wanting a suv has turned the roads into a jungle.

[bychosis]

I think the biggest issue in this debate is the ease with which a helmet can be slapped on and off. It's not exactly hard, so why take time from other things in your life to spend advocating for the repeal of the law?

Yes it’s easy to put on a helmet, if you have one with you. If you don’t, essentially you can’t ride at the moment which is a bit silly. I’d hazard that even the most helmet hardened cyclist would still ride sans lid between the caravan and toilet block or out the driveway and down the street to test if the adjusted gears still move smoothly etc - or given the option down to the shops on the footpath our of traffic. I believe many serious cyclists would choose to ride more if they didn’t need a helmet, despite still always wearing a lid when out for a serious ride.

My old workplace implemented e-bikes to transit between two sites about 1km apart. You needed an induction, then a helmet and hi vis vest to use the bikes. I’ll bet that only the most hardened ecowarriors chose the e-bike option because of those hurdles. It’s just easier to grab the keys of a car (especially since they got some EVs charged off the sun)

Personally I’d still wear a helmet most of the time, but would likely stop short at a shopping trip that I can do off the streets and on paths. I currently go without when I duck down to the local bike shop or a couple of other locations that I can get to by simply crossing a main road once out of my subdivision. Grab bike and go. No special clothing, gloves, shoes etc just whatever I’m wearing with a bike under. I can do that quicker than getting car keys and driving. If I needed to get kittens up, the car is quicker. I’m sure I’m not in the minority.

[BobtheBuilder]

Grab bike and go. No special clothing, gloves, shoes etc just whatever I’m wearing with a bike under.

That's pretty much our reality in the NT and yes, way more people (like me!) do normal (i.e. non-sport) riding. So nice just to pop over to friends or down the shops with a hat for the sun and your normal clothes on, than fiddle around with a helmet.

Going to Adelaide next week and the bike scheme doesn't supply helmets, but MHL is enforced (so I believe). While I will probably pack a helmet, even me, a dedicated cyclist, is on the fence with the hassle of especially packing a bulky helmet.

[fat and old]

Because more people would be out riding without MHLs. (e.g. RAC 2015)

Nah not until we turn this trend around. When MHL came in it was spot the SUV and they were true 4x4 with agricultural gearing that would slow down traffic, now they are bigger and faster off the mark than a mid 1980s V8 ford or holden
Dont drive a lot in any cities other than Canberra now but these things pushed most of my biking off the tar and onto dirt roads.
Maybe a guess but not only people born in Aust from the mid 1990s are biking less they are also driving less - everyone wanting a suv has turned the roads into a jungle.

I'm not disagreeing with the basics there, not at all. But a Golf was a family car in 1980? In what country? My memory recalls the standard family car as being a Commodore (at 1750 wide) or Falcon (at 1860 wide), sedan or wagon. In 2022, the standard family car is an SUV, but not a RR. Not by a long shot. RAV4 (at 1850 wide) or CX5 (1845 wide) are top sellers apart from the DC utes. (Toyota Hilux 4x4 DC at 1850 wide).

If you could deal with a 1980 Falcon, then a 2021 hilux is no issue.

[g-boaf]

The image is probably from UK or somewhere else in Europe that was pulled from a Twitter account somewhere to support the argument.

I also don't remember the Golf Mk.1 being a very common car when I was younger. It was Falcons, Commodores, Landcruisers, Pajeros (which were big even then), Corollas (bigger than Golf), Magnas and whatever else.

A modern Hi-Lux lifted up on big balloon tyres is a different proposition to a 1980s Falcon -the ones I see are a heck of a lot taller than the Falcon was, not to mention damn heavy

2022 Toyota Hilux Rogue: 2231kg unladen weight.
1980 4.1L Ford Falcon: 1362 kg

[baabaa]

The image is probably from UK or somewhere else in Europe that was pulled from a Twitter account somewhere to support the argument.

Yes it was, but plenty of smaller Japanese cars about in the 1980s
And yes it is the height more than width of commercial vehicles being used as family run a-bouts that bugs me - I am 195 cm and ride xl framed bikes and cannot see around them unless I sit up high.
We have a RAV4 in the car port which while I hardly use as is vast when compared to the Series2 mid 1960s toyota stout I learned to drive on the farm as a kiddy - when it rained back then you just stopped driving or you would get bogged, now with a hilux 4x4 you you cut up the roads really badly and still end up get bogged -
I don't see that many cars getting bogged on roads in the "burbs so when did humans stop evolving?

[uart]

It is a consequence but I would hardly blame the way I am treated on the road, or the quality of our driving, entirely on the helmet law.

Of course not, I never claimed that it was the entire cause. My point was simply that driver attitudes (to cyclist) are such an overwhelming large factor in the dangers of road cycling, that even a small change here could be a significant help.

MHL serves to outgroup cyclists, and (along with other anti cycling measures like excessive fines) also makes cycling less normalised by discouraging some forms of casual cycling.

I'd also add that if MHLs were removed tomorrow that, if it did make a difference to cycling demographics and eventually to driver attitudes, that it would probably take decades. Strongly held attitudes, once formed, don't go away very easily.

[uart]

I know it's from the UK, but still a great graphic baabaa.

And it's funny how it's always the people with the largest cars (and usually as a sole occupant) that are most likely to complain or abuse you for taking up space on "their" road.

[warthog1]

It is a consequence but I would hardly blame the way I am treated on the road, or the quality of our driving, entirely on the helmet law.

Of course not, I never claimed that it was the entire cause. My point was simply that driver attitudes (to cyclist) are such an overwhelming large factor in the dangers of road cycling, that even a small change here could be a significant help.

MHL serves to outgroup cyclists, and (along with other anti cycling measures like excessive fines) also makes cycling less normalised by discouraging some forms of casual cycling.

I'd also add that if MHLs were removed tomorrow that, if it did make a difference to cycling demographics and eventually to driver attitudes, that it would probably take decades. Strongly held attitudes, once formed, don't go away very easily.

They aren't going away, this thread has proposed no viable plan for their removal.
I hear of no viable strategy amywhere.
It aint happening.

As I said in my other post it isn't going to stop speeding, aggression, impatience, device distraction or incompetence were it for some fairy tale reason to disappear.


With respect to the size of vehicles.
Sure 4wds are higher, they don't necessarily take up more roads space however.
We had an EB foulcan wagon when I got my evil GU patrol. The ford was longer and wider.
Foulcans have sold in far greater numbers than Patrols and are certainly far more represntative of the average car than a VW golf.

00 patrol


92 falcon

Our was a wagon so longer than the sedan and the 4wd.

[warthog1]

now with a hilux 4x4 you you cut up the roads really badly and still end up get bogged -
I don't see that many cars getting bogged on roads in the "burbs so when did humans stop evolving?

Not if you have any sort of clue how to drive said 4wd and what its' capabilities are.
My Nissan has a limited slip rear differential and a mechanical locker in the front. It drives all 4 wheels when 4wd is selected.
The AU falcon that was blocking the Maldon/Castlemaine rail trail on Sunday after being stuck and sunk in a pool of water had nowhere near that capability.
It was being recovered by a tilt tray tow truck.
I rode around it on the railway.
A hilux would have plodded through that effortlessly.

With respect to needing them in the burbs, I agree there are better vehicles. Not everyone can afford multiple cars however.
Regardless yes some do just buy them for their size. That choice will be expensive currently, with diesel at $2+ a litre however.

[baabaa]

Not if you have any sort of clue how to drive said 4wd and what its' capabilities are.

True, but other than emergency vehicles next to no-one who has one "really" needs a 4x4 just the ground clearance - guess I should have pointed out we were on the black soil plains, sticks like.. and when wet hard to find a bottom and once you drive across these soils and cut up the roads and they keep getting worse - also worth noting about running costs and the size and weights, this is the reason why side-by-sides are now so popular in day to day use in agriculture.
Lots of discussions on this very site are about light bikes being more efficient, If we could down size the sheer mass of most cars by 2/3 they would still be way too big to just carry the one person they normally cart about (and sit parked going nowhere for 90% of the time)

[DavidS]

So, large cars mean cyclists have to wear helmets now . . . yeah, p!ss off.

Not that the size of the car has anything to do with this, a little Daihatsu will destroy the sad excuse for head protection those things offer, let alone a Hilux.

The whole argument that we need helmets because cars are larger is complete crap. Apart from anything else, the larger the car, the more they have to change lanes when I claim the lane, you can't fit that big SUV past me without going in the next lane.

Helmet laws discourage cycling, we know this. We also know that more bicycles on the roads makes it safer for cyclists.

MHLs make cycling more dangerous and give drivers an excuse to be less respectful of cyclists on the road. Just a stupid law as reflected in the fact it is a rare law on, what, 3 countries on the planet.

DS

[fat and old]

True, but other than emergency vehicles next to no-one who has one "really" needs a 4x4 just the ground clearance

I must be that fella. Had two of my trucks bogged and going nowhere last week on the job. Winched both out to better ground, then towed them 400m with the snatch strap. In suburban Melbourne. 10t trucks.

[bychosis]

The whole argument that we need helmets because cars are larger is complete crap. Apart from anything else, the larger the car, the more they have to change lanes when I claim the lane, you can't fit that big SUV past me without going in the next lane.

The more they *should* change lanes to pass, but unfortunately many drivers just don’t get it and try to squeeze past when there isn’t enough room because ‘YoURe HoLDiNg Me Up!’ Combine that with less confident riders hiding in the gutter when they should be claiming a lane and it’s no wonder close passes are such an issue.

[baabaa]

So, large cars mean cyclists have to wear helmets now . . . yeah, p!ss off.

Not that the size of the car has anything to do with this, a little Daihatsu will destroy the sad excuse for head protection those things offer, let alone a Hilux.

The whole argument that we need helmets because cars are larger is complete crap. Apart from anything else, the larger the car, the more they have to change lanes when I claim the lane, you can't fit that big SUV past me without going in the next lane.

Helmet laws discourage cycling, we know this. We also know that more bicycles on the roads makes it safer for cyclists.

MHLs make cycling more dangerous and give drivers an excuse to be less respectful of cyclists on the road. Just a stupid law as reflected in the fact it is a rare law on, what, 3 countries on the planet.

DS

Good to see this discussion back on track with motherhood statements that it is only helmet laws that discourage cycling in Aust from being another Denmark or Netherlands.

Oh, and that graphic was from one of the countries that does not have helmet laws. We have have large vehicles and helmet laws - could be a complex issue?
Nah, we just need more motherhood statements and no answers around how to move or change the laws.

Whispers ... from what I can see not a single link of helmets to bigger vehicles was made. Japan has been highlighted as having small cars and is a fine place for biking.

[Andy01]

Because more people would be out riding without MHLs. (e.g. RAC 2015)

Nah not until we turn this trend around. When MHL came in it was spot the SUV and they were true 4x4 with agricultural gearing that would slow down traffic, now they are bigger and faster off the mark than a mid 1980s V8 ford or holden
Dont drive a lot in any cities other than Canberra now but these things pushed most of my biking off the tar and onto dirt roads.
Maybe a guess but not only people born in Aust from the mid 1990s are biking less they are also driving less - everyone wanting a suv has turned the roads into a jungle.

Nice graphic, but not really reality (at least not where I live).

I was taken out in a head-on with a Ford Territory last year in a local suburban street near my house - in a 40km/h zone.

The road is exactly 6m (bitumen) and there is always ate least one car (a Honda Jazz) parked on the side of the road. The Jazz never parks close to the edge, so it generally takes up about 2m of the available 6m.

I was going down the hill on the same side as the Jazz (and 2 other cars on the day) was parked and gave it about 1m of clearance to avoid a potential "dooring" incident - this, of course put my wheels a little on the wrong side of the road.

The last car was parked about 10-12m from the intersection where a side road joined, and as I started moving back to my side of the road the SUV appeared around the corner and didn't check for oncoming traffic. It swung fairly wide (as is common on these narrow suburban streets) - probably at least 1-1.5m between it and the curb.

I hit the SUV just in from the driver side headlight, went over the bars and headfirst into the windscreen and driver's steel windscreen pillar (the pillar caused most of the damage).

My helmet strap probably wasn't as tight as it should have been and it did slip back a bit exposing my forehead to a fair bit of damage from the broken glass and steel pillar, but I do think the helmet helped.

The cops barely spoke to me as I was in the back of an ambulance by the time the arrived with the ambos trying to stop the (profuse) bleeding. They spoke at length with the car driver, and the conclusion of their report was that although blame was shared, I was primarily at fault because I was on the wrong side of the road (of course the driver didn't mention that she swung wide around the corner, or the fact that she said that she was very familiar with the road and omitted to mention that there is ALWAYS cars parked there narrowing it to a one lane road, so she should have known better).

Learnings for me;

- I think that the helmet did help, and if I had worn it properly (with the strap tighter), it would have reduced the damage further. I wasn't wearing bike-specific clothing, didn't have locked-in feet (flat pedals) or in a 50km/h+ speed zone.
- If the road had been almost 8m as per the image above, I think the accident would have been avoided (even with the small car parked away from the curb), but because councils (at least Brisbane) are allowing developers to build tiny narrow roads.
- Expect drivers on these narrow roads to come around corners without looking partially on your side of the road.
- Be very wary of moving to the other side to avoid a parked obstacle.
- Expect the (QLD) police to blame the cyclist irrespective of the circumstances
- Ride with cameras so that there is evidence if another incident occurs.
- The car always wins - irrespective of size.

[Peter A]

Cruise thru' this forum occasionally, take lots with a grain of salt but then read bits like this -
"MHLs make cycling more dangerous and give drivers an excuse to be less respectful of cyclists on the road."
Fair dinkum, you believe that, must be away with the fairies, never heard anything so challenging to commonsense and reality.
I know you'll have the last word, go ahead.

[fat and old]

I think the biggest issue in this debate is the ease with which a helmet can be slapped on and off. It's not exactly hard,

Which indicates you're either a sporting cyclist or a long-distance commuter/tourer.

Disagree. Apart from the fact that you don't address the mechanics of the activity....putting on a helmet.....labeling someone as being "out of their mind" because they find an activity easy is offensive. You also make the common mistake of using your own personal situation to justify a viewpoint you claim is universal. Poor form there mate.

so why take time from other things in your life to spend advocating for the repeal of the law?

Because more people would be out riding without MHLs. (e.g. RAC 2015)
Because it's costing lives. (e.g. BMJ (Goldacre, B; Spiegelhalter, D (2013) DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f3817). )
Because it's a bloody stupid law. (e.g. victim blaming)

Yes, we all know this. We also all know that it's a small minority....a miniscule minority..... of people in this country that will actually take the time to support any cause for the common good where they receive no tangible benefit. Maybe...maybe..... they will e-sign a petition that comes up on their social media because some influencer did so.

In both of your replies you have not addressed the fact that a helmet is an easy thing to don, easy enough to live with (in spite of your claims) and has been drummed into our psyche for over 30 years as being "what you do". Nor have you addressed the basic selfishness of ALL humans, not just the educated ones like Trauma Surgeons.

People will do what benefits themselves. Some people will do things that benefit others, so long as they're being seen to make a statement of solidarity with a recognised (read topical or trendy) issue. And a smaller amount of people will do things that are almost selfless.

So what's the plan to change those attitudes?

[tpcycle]

They aren't going away, this thread has proposed no viable plan for their removal.
I hear of no viable strategy amywhere.
It aint happening.

This I have to agree with. The Bicycle Victoria survey showed there is minority support for MHLs even amongst their membership. So even though the party line was shown to be non representative it still gets toed.

As you say MHLs aren't going away so I am. Tomorrow night I'll be back at my second house and able to ride helmet free without fear of prosecution. Just like I can in 98% (or is it 99%) of countries.