Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

Yep, it is just that attitude that somehow bicycles are not road vehicles which is a major part of the problem.

I don't know where the straw man of not choosing a safe route came into this, clutching st straws I suppose.

I really don't care who that bloke in the old pic is, nor whether he puts a lump of foam on his head.

Vehicular cycling, is that not a tautology given bicycles are vehicles, and indeed road vehicles.

DS

DavidS wrote: I don't know where the straw man of not choosing a safe route came into this, clutching st straws I suppose.
DS

DavidS wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2024 6:34 pm

So you agree with drivers when they tell you to get your road vehicle off the road?
Where do you ride? What if there is no bike path?

DS

You asked the question and it is a very easy answer back which everyone who bikes will choose (but you already knew the answer and yet still dont seem like it).


So, a question back and on the topic ..... Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)
How is your individual "work" going in and around changing the helmet laws?
Keen to know as been a few months so must be something* good by now?
(*the recent grumbling on this forum does not count)

baabaa wrote: ↑

Wed May 29, 2024 8:31 am

Vehicular cycling
A term coined by John Forester to describe riding a bicycle as if it were a motor vehicle. The Embassy does not believe vehicular cycling is an option that most people would choose; it effectively excludes the majority of the population from cycling.
In the vehicular cycling model, cyclists must constantly evaluate traffic, looking back, signalling, adjusting lateral position and speed, sometimes blocking a lane and sometimes yielding, always trying to fit into the “dance” that is traffic. Research shows that most people feel very unsafe engaging in this kind of dance, in which a single mistake could be fatal. Children as well as many women and elders are excluded. While some people, especially young men, may find the challenge stimulating, it is stressful and unpleasant for the vast majority. It is no wonder that the model of vehicular cycling, which the USA has followed de facto for the past forty years, has led to extremely low levels of bicycling use.
From The Walkable City, by Jeff Speck.

and then for a current take on life with less cars this is well worth a look

I'm refusing to engage in any helmet debate, but am a vehicular cyclist by necessity on quite a few occasions. This is definitely not an option for the vast majority.

To do this you need to be fast, confident and have perfect judgement in pretty much every situation. And even then it often leads to a situation where a motorist refuses to recognise you as a vehicle - as my recent footage showing the Kia refusing to let me in and then deliberately narrow passing me showed. That is a classical situation of someone being forced by the road circumstances to ride their bike as one would drive a car, and even then it led me to situation where I was forced to rely on someone being a reasonable human being to remain safe, and they weren't.

The more vehicular cycling I'm forced to do, the less I want to do it. Drivers in this country simply don't have the maturity to see a bicycle as a vehicle, even if you're riding in vehicle positions at vehicle speeds. They will go out of their way to remind you they're heavier, faster and they feel the roads belong entirely to them. As a confident vehicular cyclist there are a number of roads I simply avoid because they're the perfect intersection between poor infrastructure and poor drivers and there's just no way to negotiate them safely. Give me an off road bike path every time.

If you're a vehicular cyclist and not wearing a helmet you're far braver than I am. That's all I am going to comment on in that space.

That is if they see you at all. We drive on the highway at work, we travel between Bendigo and Echuca regularly. A single lane each way, undivided road, that has a 100kmh posted limit. I make a point of observing the drivers coming toward us when I am driving and not in the back. Almost every single time I note at least one driver, often multiple drivers, heading toward us glancing at their lap or elsewhere instead of the road.
I do not see that situation resolving;

https://www.sbs.com.au/sport/article/dr ... /3yl2saxha

I expect our collective driving standard will continue to decline.
I still ride the road and have just bought a new roadie to go with the gravel bike I bought 3 years or so ago.
I am very selective about where and when I ride it now and have a radar to warn me of approaching cars. Multiple, multiple very dangerous close passes over the years. Minimum safe passing distance has helped inform the considerate drivers what to do so there are less close passes now ime. The inconsiderate bastards do not comply however.

Baabaa, I assume you mean that you ride on the road when there are no bike paths?

DS

Mr Purple wrote: ↑

Thu May 30, 2024 11:12 am

I'm refusing to engage in any helmet debate, but am a vehicular cyclist by necessity on quite a few occasions. This is definitely not an option for the vast majority.

I also ride a bicycle as if I'm a vehicle. I don't want to be relegated to paths or simply be stuck to where some embassy reckons I should be riding according to their doctrines and particular riding styles.

All riders should be able to safely ride where they want to or need to go without fear of traffic. A beautiful connected network of off-road cycle paths is not going to happen overnight or ever really, so the on-road experience has to be sorted out and very quickly.

Overseas I don't have problems on any roads with motorists, they are courteous and respectful. I'm far away from anywhere with dedicated cycling infrastructure and often on narrow (and sometimes very busy) roads but it's not a problem.

g-boaf wrote: ↑

Fri May 31, 2024 9:34 am

I also ride a bicycle as if I'm a vehicle. I don't want to be relegated to paths or simply be stuck to where some embassy reckons I should be riding according to their doctrines and particular riding styles.

All riders should be able to safely ride where they want to or need to go without fear of traffic. A beautiful connected network of off-road cycle paths is not going to happen overnight or ever really, so the on-road experience has to be sorted out and very quickly.

Overseas I don't have problems on any roads with motorists, they are courteous and respectful. I'm far away from anywhere with dedicated cycling infrastructure and often on narrow (and sometimes very busy) roads but it's not a problem.

The problem is the occasional driver in Australia doesn't even recognise you as a human, let alone a vehicle. As in that example I posted - that moron put me in a situation where he both wouldn't let me in, and then wouldn't give me the slightest margin to ride in the shoulder. I was actually a little surprised that a couple of cyclists pointed out I was technically in the wrong - yes, this is correct but I believe my only mistake in that situation was to trust someone to have the slightest degree of consideration when they clearly didn't.

That's the problem with vehicular cycling in this country. You do it properly and motorists and even other cyclists will point out things like 'you were going too fast' or ' what were you doing riding in the middle of the lane?' That's the only way to safely do it - as fast and as aggressively as possible, otherwise you're just another target. The problem is that drivers won't recognise you as a legitimate road user even if you're going faster than the speed limit. I've had drivers go absolutely ape at me because I'm 'holding them up', when I'm actually doing the exactly same speed of the queue of car traffic I'm riding in. Bizarre stuff. Drivers in this country are simply too immature to realise this.

You're quite right though - there's never going to be a bike path network that doesn't involve us riding in places we really don't want to be a lot of the time. It's compounded in Brisbane by many of the excellent bikeways having their only access via roads which really aren't a safe place for cycling in the slightest. They never seem to consider that.

Mr Purple wrote: ↑

Fri May 31, 2024 10:39 am

You're quite right though - there's never going to be a bike path network that doesn't involve us riding in places we really don't want to be a lot of the time. It's compounded in Brisbane by many of the excellent bikeways having their only access via roads which really aren't a safe place for cycling in the slightest. They never seem to consider that.

Councils just want to tick boxes without upsetting the majority.

British Chef Gordon Ramsay had a massive bicycle accident around the weekend in the USA, apparently he's an avid Cyclist .....anyway, he's black n bruised all over and now on the Helmet crusade.
Now I know that doesn't affect us here but let me tell you, Governments around the world have taken notice of the Mandatory laws here in Australia, it's pretty well known.

So, will Mr Ramsay go on a further crusade and push for Helmet laws in either the UK and/or the US.

I bet his fall was followed by an extremely lengthy string of explicative words a bit more than "Golly Gosh" I know I would've!!

I hope he heals well, he looks like he's in a hell of a lot of pain and he's definitely got a shake about him....it's obviously really scared him.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8Qz4eap ... _copy_link

_If_ he calls for MHLs it would be yet another case of a “sporting” cyclist, who had already chosen to wear a helmet (along with padded shorts, Lycra top and silly shoes) to mitigate the risks of “sporting” cycling, telling people who aren’t taking the same sort of risks what we should do.

It’s would be as stupid as the MRB crowd (who don’t even ride on the road) turning up at a Senate enquiry to support MHLs. Oh.

Thoglette wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 16, 2024 9:59 pm

_If_ he calls for MHLs it would be yet another case of a “sporting” cyclist, who had already chosen to wear a helmet (along with padded shorts, Lycra top and silly shoes) to mitigate the risks of “sporting” cycling, telling people who aren’t taking the same sort of risks what we should do.

It’s would be as stupid as the MRB crowd (who don’t even ride on the road) turning up at a Senate enquiry to support MHLs. Oh.

Indeed. By the looks of his injuries he should have been wearing hip or torso padding. Something from the cricket section of his local sports shop would do the trick.

More to the point, why don't we hear people who have car accidents (or fall over whilst jogging) telling us we should wear helmets?

A narrative (not based on facts) has been established, that's why.

Mandatory helmet laws have a contested impact at a population level - negligible positive impact (if any) on traumatic injury and a more significant (also contested) impact on public health by discouraging cycling. Yet the issue is treated in the same league as mandatory seat belts and drink driving laws, both of which have a clear, demonstrable and massive positive impact on both rates of traumatic injury and public health.

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2024 8:45 am

.....

Mandatory helmet laws have a contested impact at a population level - negligible positive impact (if any) on traumatic injury and a more significant (also contested) impact on public health by discouraging cycling. Yet the issue is treated in the same league as mandatory seat belts and drink driving laws, both of which have a clear, demonstrable and massive positive impact on both rates of traumatic injury and public health.

Re Blue comment - I still fail to see that a helmet DOES NOT prevent injury, (what your definition of traumatic actually is would be interesting) whether traumatic or not.


Re Red comment - This has oft been cited, and understand and accept that some have 'reported' not cycling because of MHL, but also seen more evidence that the traffic conditions/MM prevent even more.

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:38 am

Re Blue comment - I still fail to see that a helmet DOES NOT prevent injury, (what your definition of traumatic actually is would be interesting) whether traumatic or not.

They always put particular words in there - much like a politician uses "core" and "non-core" promises so that if you disagree or want to prove otherwise, they can say "oh, that's not what I mean, actually I only meant this or that".

I am not going to go further because it's no use. The topic will still be going around in circles in another 10 years with the same old arguments.

g-boaf wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:47 am

They always put particular words in there...

"They" being the true believers or the true disbelievers? Anecdotally I know people who do not cycle because of MHLs but I do not know anyone who cycles because of MHLs - that may just be because of the company I keep. I'm sure "they" will tell me I am wrong.

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:38 am

Re Blue comment - I still fail to see that a helmet DOES NOT prevent injury, (what your definition of traumatic actually is would be interesting) whether traumatic or not.

Fail is the right word. We are talking about the impact of MHLs, not the efficacy of helmets per se. It turns out that cyclists are pretty good at judging risk and tend to wear helmets in high risk situations (peletons, long commutes, MTB) anyway.

Once again, despite the best efforts of pro-MHL researchers over decades, no one has come close to showing a positive impact from them.

Is that clear enough?

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:38 am

Re Red comment - This has oft been cited, and understand and accept that some have 'reported' not cycling because of MHL, but also seen more evidence that the traffic conditions/MM prevent even more.

So, should we ignore all three of them, then?

The very few studies and surveys that dare ask That Question (e.g. RAC 2015) universally find that MHLs are a top three issue, well above all the other options provided (e.g. weather) for (everyday) cycling.

Let me be clear: these are studies with large numbers of respondents and high quality outcomes indicating that MHLs significantly reduce (everyday) cycling.

The solitary before-and-after study I’ve been able to find (NSW Govt) showed a massive drop in school-age cycling. The author spent quite a bit of time trying to avoid the obvious conclusion.

Now we have two generations of parents who have been mislead about the inherent risk of (everyday) cycling by the pro-MHL crowd. And an actual higher risk due to reduction in “visible cyclists”, more driven trips, and more pro-car infrastructure.

Meanwhile, (everyday) cycling is linked with positive health outcomes every time anybody looks.

Given the failure of MHLs to deliver on their promise, one only needs a very, very small reduction in participation rates to result in a nett negative outcome. A few pages back you’ll find two Dutch studies comparing the pair and demonstrating exactly this.

In short, helmets save lives but MHLs cost lives.

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2024 2:16 pm

g-boaf wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:47 am

They always put particular words in there...

"They" being the true believers or the true disbelievers? Anecdotally I know people who do not cycle because of MHLs but I do not know anyone who cycles because of MHLs - that may just be because of the company I keep. I'm sure "they" will tell me I am wrong.

I'm not getting dragged into that - that's for someone else to debate. Otherwise things always get into a "I never said that" or "you must have misunderstood what I said", etc.

brumby33 wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 16, 2024 6:44 pm

British Chef Gordon Ramsay had a massive bicycle accident around the weekend in the USA, apparently he's an avid Cyclist .....anyway, he's black n bruised all over and now on the Helmet crusade.
Now I know that doesn't affect us here but let me tell you, Governments around the world have taken notice of the Mandatory laws here in Australia, it's pretty well known.

So, will Mr Ramsay go on a further crusade and push for Helmet laws in either the UK and/or the US.

I bet his fall was followed by an extremely lengthy string of explicative words a bit more than "Golly Gosh" I know I would've!!

I hope he heals well, he looks like he's in a hell of a lot of pain and he's definitely got a shake about him....it's obviously really scared him.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8Qz4eap ... _copy_link

Heres a follow up article in reference to Helmets and Gordon's Ramsay's stack.....

https://www.msn.com/en-au/motoring/othe ... 1ece&ei=29

brumby33 wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 18, 2024 6:29 am

Heres a follow up article in reference to Helmets and Gordon's Ramsay's stack.....

https://www.msn.com/en-au/motoring/othe ... 1ece&ei=29

Was that written by ChatGPT, GPT-4 or Google Gemini?

brumby33 wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 18, 2024 6:29 am

Heres a follow up article in reference to Helmets and Gordon's Ramsay's stack.....
https://www.msn.com/en-au/motoring/othe ... 1ece&ei=29

I'm still looking forward to the article showing Random Geordy with a massive big bruise on his arse and the caption "if I wasn't wearing padded shorts then I could have suffered brain damage".

LMAO

Maybe he should stick to corsets haha

For his age though, he does look rather fit....but does anyone trust a skinny chef!!

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:38 am

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2024 8:45 am

.....

Re Blue comment - I still fail to see that a helmet DOES NOT prevent injury, (what your definition of traumatic actually is would be interesting) whether traumatic or not.

At a POPULATION LEVEL the evidence that MHLs have led to a meaningful change in injury rates is CONTESTED.

Definition of traumatic injury: physical injuries of sudden onset and severity which require immediate medical attention

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:38 am

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2024 8:45 am

Re Red comment - This has oft been cited, and understand and accept that some have 'reported' not cycling because of MHL, but also seen more evidence that the traffic conditions/MM prevent even more.

At a POPULATION LEVEL there is CONTESTED evidence that MHLs have had a meaningful impact on cycling rates.

g-boaf wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:47 am

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:38 am

Re Blue comment - I still fail to see that a helmet DOES NOT prevent injury, (what your definition of traumatic actually is would be interesting) whether traumatic or not.

They always put particular words in there - much like a politician uses "core" and "non-core" promises so that if you disagree or want to prove otherwise, they can say "oh, that's not what I mean, actually I only meant this or that".

I am not going to go further because it's no use. The topic will still be going around in circles in another 10 years with the same old arguments.

Yes, indeed.

It's impossible on this forum to get ahead with actually DOING anything about MHL's because someone always drags things back to first principles (usually in good faith, sometimes not) and you have to demonstrate the same thing over and over again.

I've previously suggested to admin creating a separate topic/thread for people who accept the (yes, contested) evidence against MHLs and want to move the discussion forward, but it wasn't received favourably.

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 18, 2024 11:50 am

At a POPULATION LEVEL there is CONTESTED evidence that MHLs have had a meaningful impact on cycling rates.

Only in the sense that the link between fossil carbon emissions and global warming is ‘contested’.

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 18, 2024 12:00 pm

g-boaf wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:47 am

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:38 am

Re Blue comment - I still fail to see that a helmet DOES NOT prevent injury, (what your definition of traumatic actually is would be interesting) whether traumatic or not.

They always put particular words in there - much like a politician uses "core" and "non-core" promises so that if you disagree or want to prove otherwise, they can say "oh, that's not what I mean, actually I only meant this or that".

I am not going to go further because it's no use. The topic will still be going around in circles in another 10 years with the same old arguments.

Yes, indeed.

It's impossible on this forum to get ahead with actually DOING anything about MHL's because someone always drags things back to first principles (usually in good faith, sometimes not) and you have to demonstrate the same thing over and over again.

I've previously suggested to admin creating a separate topic/thread for people who accept the (yes, contested) evidence against MHLs and want to move the discussion forward, but it wasn't received favourably.

This discussion is full of a lot of misinformation, but to state that this place (or the admin) has or is stopping you from doing anything about MHL is a plain and simple disinformation.

baabaa wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 18, 2024 1:53 pm

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Tue Jun 18, 2024 12:00 pm

g-boaf wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 17, 2024 9:47 am

They always put particular words in there - much like a politician uses "core" and "non-core" promises so that if you disagree or want to prove otherwise, they can say "oh, that's not what I mean, actually I only meant this or that".

I am not going to go further because it's no use. The topic will still be going around in circles in another 10 years with the same old arguments.

Yes, indeed.

It's impossible on this forum to get ahead with actually DOING anything about MHL's because someone always drags things back to first principles (usually in good faith, sometimes not) and you have to demonstrate the same thing over and over again.

I've previously suggested to admin creating a separate topic/thread for people who accept the (yes, contested) evidence against MHLs and want to move the discussion forward, but it wasn't received favourably.

This discussion is full of a lot of misinformation, but to state that this place (or the admin) has or is stopping you from doing anything about MHL is a plain and simple disinformation.

Not sure what you're reading, but I didn't say that.

I said that any attempt to move the conversation forward is derailed by people wanting to go back over ground that's been covered in depth for many years. Most of it in good faith, some just for a good old Aussie stir.

A solution would be to have a thread for people who agree on certain basic premises (e.g. they fall on one side of the contested debate on the evidence), so those of us who are convinced MHLs are a bad idea can move forward (pro-MHL people can have all the other threads!). This suggestion was shut down in no uncertain terms in one to one messaging with a member of the admin team.

Just stating that to avoid any confusion and/or misinformation. Not suggesting anyone is "stopping me" from doing anything about MHL.