Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2024 12:13 pm

Seatbelts and motorbike helmets work - there is ample and unambiguous evidence.

If we wish to mandate the relatively ineffective pushbike helmets for the very small chance of head injury in normal cycling, we should mandate them for travel in motor vehicles, jogging, walking at heights and other similarly "risky" activities.

Risky cyclists (sport and high-speed) already choose to wear helmets the world over.

The rise in deaths in the Netherlands is due to elderly people riding e-bikes. E-bikes should be treated administratively as motor bikes (with similar PPE requirements) not pushbikes.

Please provide full details and explantion/examples of :
1. Relatively ineffective pushbike helmets,
2. Very small chance of head injury, and
3. Normal cycling

Thanks

P!N20 wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2024 10:10 am

Who else is happy the MHL thread has been revived?

I did, I needed a laugh today !!

my head, my choice....that's all I want

Your head, your choice, your medical expenses. I am fine with that.

am50em wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2024 4:53 pm

Your head, your choice, your medical expenses. I am fine with that.

Yeah, that's actually the problem.

If we didn't have taxpayer funded healthcare systems they probably wouldn't have the rule.

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2024 12:13 pm

Seatbelts and motorbike helmets work - there is ample and unambiguous evidence.

If we wish to mandate the relatively ineffective pushbike helmets for the very small chance of head injury in normal cycling, we should mandate them for travel in motor vehicles, jogging, walking at heights and other similarly "risky" activities.

Risky cyclists (sport and high-speed) already choose to wear helmets the world over.

The rise in deaths in the Netherlands is due to elderly people riding e-bikes. E-bikes should be treated administratively as motor bikes (with similar PPE requirements) not pushbikes.

This.

I knew this would open a can of worms, but hey, it has been quiet lately.

Cycling is quite safe, and I know this might be controversial, but, I will maintain that cycling is actually good for you.

MHLs are bad for cycling, we all know this.

Still, if some support a law which does more to discourage cycling, and as a result makes the roads more dangerous for cyclists, far be it from me to dissuade them. I prefer to oppose anti-cycling laws.

DS

Mr Purple wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2024 6:21 pm

am50em wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2024 4:53 pm

Your head, your choice, your medical expenses. I am fine with that.

Yeah, that's actually the problem.

If we didn't have taxpayer funded healthcare systems they probably wouldn't have the rule.

Yeah, 'cos all those other countries with national health systems have mandatory helmet laws . . . don't they?

You can have a private health system if you like paying double for a health system which only serves those who can pay, I prefer the much better public health system.

What pathetic reasoning for a law which actively discourages cycling when we all know that more bikes on the road and more people riding bikes makes it safer for all of us and would reduce accidents rather than vainly trying to mitigate the damage after the fact.

What is with this country that we need MHLs? What is unique about Australia that this is deemed to be necessary? Hardly anywhere else has this.

DS

DavidS wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2024 6:21 pm

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2024 12:13 pm

Seatbelts and motorbike helmets work - there is ample and unambiguous evidence.

If we wish to mandate the relatively ineffective pushbike helmets for the very small chance of head injury in normal cycling, we should mandate them for travel in motor vehicles, jogging, walking at heights and other similarly "risky" activities.

Risky cyclists (sport and high-speed) already choose to wear helmets the world over.

The rise in deaths in the Netherlands is due to elderly people riding e-bikes. E-bikes should be treated administratively as motor bikes (with similar PPE requirements) not pushbikes.

This.

I knew this would open a can of worms, but hey, it has been quiet lately.

Cycling is quite safe, and I know this might be controversial, but, I will maintain that cycling is actually good for you.

MHLs are bad for cycling, we all know this.

Still, if some support a law which does more to discourage cycling, and as a result makes the roads more dangerous for cyclists, far be it from me to dissuade them. I prefer to oppose anti-cycling laws.

DS

I will maintain a device that spreads the point of impact over a larger area and absorbs energy results in a significant reduction in the incidence and severity of head and brain injury. The evidence supports that.
I would much prefer to have one on if I smack my head into the ground hard. Indeed I have done so in a fast bunch ride whilst wearing a helmet. LOC and small subdural haemorrhage. I am more than confident it would have been worse without that helmet on my head.
I don't agree a helmet is necessary every time somebody gets on a bike.
I disagree when those against mandatory helmet use say they provide no protection anyway.
Reduction in bicycle use is plenty of reason to argue against MHLs.
Making false assertions about their lack of efficacy in preventing injury is unnecessary, false and annoying.

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2024 1:29 pm

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2024 12:13 pm

Seatbelts and motorbike helmets work - there is ample and unambiguous evidence.

If we wish to mandate the relatively ineffective pushbike helmets for the very small chance of head injury in normal cycling, we should mandate them for travel in motor vehicles, jogging, walking at heights and other similarly "risky" activities.

Risky cyclists (sport and high-speed) already choose to wear helmets the world over.

The rise in deaths in the Netherlands is due to elderly people riding e-bikes. E-bikes should be treated administratively as motor bikes (with similar PPE requirements) not pushbikes.

Please provide full details and explantion/examples of :
1. Relatively ineffective pushbike helmets,
2. Very small chance of head injury, and
3. Normal cycling

Thanks

No. It's all been done to death previously.

I get some people have a strange fascination with bicycle helmets, but what I don't get is the bad faith determination to stymie any discussion about mandatory helmet laws. You've got most of Australia on your side, why do you need to come here and reduce every conversation back to these puerile arguments.

I get some people have a strange fascination with bicycle helmets, but what I don't get is the bad faith determination to stymie any discussion about mandatory helmet laws. You've got most of Australia on your side, why do you need to come here and reduce every conversation back to these puerile arguments.

You should look in the mirror when you say this.

am50em wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2024 8:13 pm

I get some people have a strange fascination with bicycle helmets, but what I don't get is the bad faith determination to stymie any discussion about mandatory helmet laws. You've got most of Australia on your side, why do you need to come here and reduce every conversation back to these puerile arguments.

You should look in the mirror when you say this.

I want to discuss, in good faith, mandatory helmet laws. I've been here for years, positions have been established and there are different views around. That's fine. It's the insistence on undermining any discussion about challenging MHLs by re-hashing stuff that's been done to death that's the issue.

You don't need to be here. Don't worry, this forum is unlikely to change much. But maybe let those weirdos amongst you have just one little space where we can progress our discussion beyond the same old arguments?

I revived the threading with the article that suggested that the Netherlands was considering MHL which I found interesting given their cycling culture. Plus some of the statistics were eye opening. I found the actual paper that I believed was the original source and it makes very interesting reading. The suggestion about MHL in it was only one small point. There were many others, over represntation of elderly, ebikes, separated infrastructure not enough, causes of accidents...
If reading about these things upsets you, you don't need to be here hashing up your same complaints.

You do not own the thread and decide who can post or what can be posted.

am50em wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2024 8:52 pm

You do not own the thread and decide who can post or what can be posted.

Amen !

am50em wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2024 8:52 pm

You do not own the thread and decide who can post or what can be posted.

That's abundantly clear. Not sure what your point in saying the bleeding obvious is.

am50em wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2024 8:52 pm

I revived the threading with the article that suggested that the Netherlands was considering MHL which I found interesting given their cycling culture. Plus some of the statistics were eye opening. I found the actual paper that I believed was the original source and it makes very interesting reading. The suggestion about MHL in it was only one small point. There were many others, over represntation of elderly, ebikes, separated infrastructure not enough, causes of accidents...

If MHL is brought up for a part or parts of the cycling community it sounds like they need better education rather than a law.

DavidS wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2024 6:21 pm

Cycling is quite safe, and I know this might be controversial, but, I will maintain that cycling is actually good for you.

If you feel safe well good on you, but motherhood statements dont really help.
The trend is pretty clear that people (globally) who bike are moving off and away from riding on busy sealed and built up roads and onto what they deem to be safer gravel and back roads.

In fact it seems the ACT Police consider that driving a car on the road is now not "quite safe"...

https://www.policenews.act.gov.au/news/ ... -act-roads

Police urge motorists improve their behaviour after poor week on ACT roads
Saturday, 25 May 2024, Publish time:8:01am
ACT Policing is urging Canberrans to slow down and pay attention on ACT roads following numerous displays of poor driver behaviour over the past week.

Officers from ACT Policing’s Road Policing Team attended several multi-vehicle collisions along major arterial roads this week.

On Wednesday, 22 May 2024, police attended two crashes on the northbound lanes of the Tuggeranong Parkway, one involving four vehicles and the other involving seven. A third collision involving three vehicles occurred in the southbound lanes a short time later causing significant delays in both directions.

Thursday, 23 May 2024, saw another two multi-vehicle collisions along Drakeford Drive and the Tuggeranong Parkway, as well as a collision between a car and a motorbike where the motorcyclist was taken to hospital with serious injuries.

There were also a further three collisions in the northbound lanes of the Tuggeranong Parkway near the Arboretum between 5.15pm and 6.15pm yesterday evening (Friday, 24 May).

Concerningly, there were two instances of high range drink driving, with one driver returning a blood alcohol concentration of 0.153 on the Majura Parkway, Majura and the second driver returning a blood alcohol concentration of 0.140 detected on Isabella Drive, Gowrie.

In a further display of poor driver behaviour, a 47-year-old man was issued with an immediate suspension notice, suspending his licence for 90 days, and had his vehicle seized after he was caught travelling at 137km/h in an 80km/h zone. He was fined $1,841 and received a penalty of six demerit points.

Superintendent of Road and Proactive Policing, Brian Diplock, said despite the serious consequences of inattentive or impaired driving, people continued to take risks on ACT roads.

“Unfortunately, we have seen several collisions on our roads this week and people have been seriously injured. If you are getting behind the wheel, make sure you can clearly see where you’re going, pay attention to the road and leave enough room between you and the vehicle in front of you to allow you to stop in an emergency,” Superintendent Diplock said.

“We are seeing far too many incidents of people driving distracted, impaired, speeding, or not paying attention through intersections.

“Poor driving behaviour can have tragic consequences and the risks are multiplied if you’re speeding or driving impaired.

“Please consider others who are sharing the road with you. Drive to survive and make it home at the end of the day.”

baabaa wrote: ↑

Sat May 25, 2024 12:10 pm

DavidS wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2024 6:21 pm

Cycling is quite safe, and I know this might be controversial, but, I will maintain that cycling is actually good for you.

If you feel safe well good on you, but motherhood statements dont really help.
The trend is pretty clear that people (globally) who bike are moving off and away from riding on busy sealed and built up roads and onto what they deem to be safer gravel and back roads.

In fact it seems the ACT Police consider that driving a car on the road is now not "quite safe"...

I agree that cycling, in itself, is quite safe. It's the other traffic that makes it unsafe.

The more we give up the roads as cyclists the more unsafe they will become.

I understand that a lot of people feel unsafe cycling in traffic, I don't blame them, the driving is appalling a lot of the time.

But, bicycles are road vehicles and I have a real problem with surrendering to the almighty car. My road, I will ride on it and I shouldn't feel unsafe doing so with or without a lump of plastic on my head.

If it is not safe on the roads bicycle helmets make a very marginal contribution to changing this. The level of protection a cyclist wears is not the issue, and making it the issue by making helmets mandatory means that the authorities can avoid addressing the real issue which is an unwillingness to enforce basic road rules.

DS

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2024 12:13 pm

The rise in deaths in the Netherlands is due to elderly people riding e-bikes. E-bikes should be treated administratively as motor bikes (with similar PPE requirements) not pushbikes.

So the authorities in The Netherlands has got it wrong? The administrators of the World Best Gold Standard for cycling made a mistake? Tell me that isn’t so, please. Woe is me, who will I turn to for my daily dose of Australian Cringe now????

My visit to the Netherlands (Amsterdam) was 24 years ago. There were many fascinating and bothersome things about 'dam.
But what bothered me most was not the bicycle riding sans-helmets (very noticeable all the same), but the all-pervasive smoking of pot!
Just as common today as it was then. It made having a brunch for however short or long time truly uncomfortable. And if you had too much of hogging the wiff, you knew about it not long after — handstands, cartwheels and somersaults, anywhere, anytime, and without rhyme or reason...

DavidS wrote: ↑

Sat May 25, 2024 4:43 pm

The more we give up the roads as cyclists the more unsafe they will become.

I understand that a lot of people feel unsafe cycling in traffic, I don't blame them, the driving is appalling a lot of the time.

But, bicycles are road vehicles and I have a real problem with surrendering to the almighty car. My road, I will ride on it and I shouldn't feel unsafe doing so with or without a lump of plastic on my head.

If it is not safe on the roads bicycle helmets make a very marginal contribution to changing this. The level of protection a cyclist wears is not the issue, and making it the issue by making helmets mandatory means that the authorities can avoid addressing the real issue which is an unwillingness to enforce basic road rules.

DS

Twaddle from go to whoa but if you really feel that way, again happy for you.

Mr Purple wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2024 6:21 pm

am50em wrote: ↑

Fri May 24, 2024 4:53 pm

Your head, your choice, your medical expenses. I am fine with that.

Yeah, that's actually the problem.

If we didn't have taxpayer funded healthcare systems they probably wouldn't have the rule.

So no football of any code, and for all our sakes stop middle aged and older men climbing ladders. Ask any neurosurgeon what the head injury dangers are, and they'll all curse ladders.

zebee wrote: ↑

Sat May 25, 2024 5:29 pm

So no football of any code, and for all our sakes stop middle aged and older men climbing ladders. Ask any neurosurgeon what the head injury dangers are, and they'll all curse ladders.

I'm sort of surprised motorbikes are still actually legal.

One weekend I worked in ED we had 15 fractures come out of one cross country motorbike event. It was a kids event. A colleague reported it to the department of child safety.

I didn't say it's a good reason we have MHL, but it is one reason. I'm actually pretty impressed by the NT law - which is if you're over 17 and not actually on the road you don't need a helmet. That makes sense.

Mr Purple wrote: ↑

Sat May 25, 2024 5:53 pm

zebee wrote: ↑

Sat May 25, 2024 5:29 pm

So no football of any code, and for all our sakes stop middle aged and older men climbing ladders. Ask any neurosurgeon what the head injury dangers are, and they'll all curse ladders.

I'm sort of surprised motorbikes are still actually legal.

One weekend I worked in ED we had 15 fractures come out of one cross country motorbike event. It was a kids event. A colleague reported it to the department of child safety.

I didn't say it's a good reason we have MHL, but it is one reason. I'm actually pretty impressed by the NT law - which is if you're over 17 and not actually on the road you don't need a helmet. That makes sense.

And not policed on road either (sports cyclists still make the voluntary choice to wear them for the most part). And, despite the extreme heat, we have the highest rate of cyclist usage and actually have a functional segment of utility cyclists, much closer to norms in countries (almost every other one) where cycling is seen as a marginally risky activity that doesn't need special safety equipment to undertake.