Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[warthog1]

As a nation we are becoming more obese and our health is declining as a result. This carries with it a significant cost to the tax payer through our public health system.
Our major population centres are becoming more and more congested. Getting people out of cars and onto bikes would be part of a solution in terms of health by making us more active. It would reduce congestion by removing cars from the roads.
Linking MHLs to lower rates of cycling would be a step toward addressing the removal of the law.
How to do that? Dunno, no history in activism at all.

[BobtheBuilder]

Linking MHLs to lower rates of cycling would be a step toward addressing the removal of the law.
How to do that? Dunno, no history in activism at all.

This is where many of us agree.

There are strong, and differing, views on the efficacy of helmets in individual cases and I don't think it's productive to have the same arguments - clearly after all these years we're not going to agree!

If we agree (regardless of views on individual efficacy) that making helmet wearing mandatory has an overall negative effect on public health at a population level then we've got a strong basis to work towards doing something positive about it.

As Covid demonstrated, the Australian public is very well able to understand epidemiological processes, so getting clear information out about the negative impacts of MHLs must be part of the solution.

Having been part of activist movements in my earlier days, including Critical Mass, I do see a part for organised mass protest. This, after all, was a key reason for the Dutch miracle - radical, organised, mass protests against the (then) encroaching car culture, combined with other mass forms of civic activism for those less ready for the argy-bargy. We think that the Netherlands "just happened", but it didn't - it was the result of mass citizen engagement and political action.

Whatever the response, we need to concentrate on what we agree on (and I am fully aware that I've been as guilty as anyone on this thread at times of getting caught up in the trench warfare), both in terms of analysis and response. But also agree that a diversity of responses (for instance legal action, letter writing, petitions, blockades, mass protest) are needed and we should encourage all those responses if they're working towards the same goal.

Then, one day, everyone can enjoy something I enjoy every day (in the NT) - hopping on the treadly as unthinkingly as if I was heading out the gate for a walk, and just going to the shops, the pub, the springs or a friend's, with a helmet the furthest thing from my mind!

[g-boaf]

It’s not possible to get a unified response on action against bad driver behaviour- cyclists here even object to that, so it’s difficult to expect anything more.

They will whinge about the status quo and then come election time vote for the same anti cycling parties and policies.

[brumby33]

From what i've read, in the lead up to Amsterdam being bicycle Nirvana, there were a lot of issues with that and a lot of foot stomping by motorists however the difference over there was apparently the law made it that if you came into contact with a bicycle rider, you'll want to have a bloody good reason or you could be in hot water.....a nice deterrent for those who want to bully bicycles.
So be it that most people gave up driving their cars to work and rode their bikes because it was safe and pleasurable to do so.

One reason why helmets make little sense in places like Amsterdam, Japan, Canada, USA & Denmark is the icy cold Winters, over there people put snow tyres on their bikes and they often wear thick bulky warm clothes and furry headwear which is pretty hard to do when you've got a helmet on. People don't tend to ride fast in those conditions anyway.

Lets face it....Australia is a Nanny State Country, it's a way that Pollies and beaurocrats can control the masses like we can't make decisions for ourselves.....this control is near impossible to give up.
Unfortunately nowadays, I've forgotten now what it's like to ride without a helmet, it's been so long this law has been in. How many are prepared to march against Parliament house to get the law overturned?

Cheers

brumby33

[BobtheBuilder]

There is a wealth of material describing how Dutch "cycling culture" came about, e.g.:

https://www.themarginalian.org/2012/01/ ... ike-paths/
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015 ... indermoord
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/20 ... cling.html

It wasn't due to some magical cyclophilic predisposition or individual laws, it was in great measure due to citizens organising - in many and varied ways - to oppose the dominance of cars and car culture.

Discussions here are one part of the mix. After years on this thread I've seen a real shift to a more nuanced debate and a more general acceptance that helmets are not needed in every situation. Clearly there are still a wide range of views on when - or if - helmets are needed, but almost no-one is saying you should wear them in any situation whatsoever.
In my view, an important part of shifting the dial on MHLs is challenging the unscientific views about the necessity of helmets any time you're on a bike, as well as comparing the relative risk of head injury to the public health risk that MHLs pose.
Covid demonstrated the Australian public is very able to understand epidemiological processes. It's rare that the population health implications of MHL are given a fair hearing - or even any hearing - so the public isn't exposed to good arguments, which I'm sure many would understand and agree with.

It's not all about marching on Parliament House or lying down with your bike in the middle of the road.

There are many positive actions that can be taken.

[g-boaf]

You know what also might help, better enforcement actions against bad drivers like hinted before.

If only folks would put as much effort into arguing for that as they did the for and against MHL trench warfare.

[zebee]

Bad driving is a problem. I think of the recent court case in WA where a tourist missed a sign and killed people in another car https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-24/ ... /104512438

The problem with cars is that a moment's inattention can cause serious damage but because we are a big wide country that has been designed for cars for several generations now, we expect people to be able to handle long car drives. It's hard to concentrate at full attention for more than an hour. Even on a motorcycle never mind a comfortable quiet car. Especially when there's not a lot to pay attention to.

No one won in that court case. No one was resurrected and while one person may drive differently now it won't change the way anyone else does.

I want people to think that paying full attention is normal and you are weird if you don't. But I can't see how that can be done. Even if you just look at cities rather than the long boring open road how can it be done? The Dutch changed the roads a lot but it's a very small country. I dunno how many had an hour or more commute. (When I was motorcycle commuting peak hour was 45 min and that was on a motorcycle meaning I was lane splitting like crazy. A friend tried a car at the same time and his was over an hour). Not all drives are slow commutes but that's a lot of the driving most people do so get them on a non commute drive they aren't going to wake up and pay attention because their habits are set.

[BobtheBuilder]

You know what also might help, better enforcement actions against bad drivers like hinted before.

If only folks would put as much effort into arguing for that as they did the for and against MHL trench warfare.

No-one's stopping you or anyone else doing that.

But this is an MHL thread, not a bad drivers thread. There is a whole "moron motorists" thread if you want to contribute there.

[g-boaf]

You know what also might help, better enforcement actions against bad drivers like hinted before.

If only folks would put as much effort into arguing for that as they did the for and against MHL trench warfare.

No-one's stopping you or anyone else doing that.

But this is an MHL thread, not a bad drivers thread. There is a whole "moron motorists" thread if you want to contribute there.

But remember, we aren’t allowed to say anything about bad motorists or propose solid effective law enforcement against them, because “cyclists” in this forum immediately get upset about it. Search the history for any talk about protections against vulnerable road users.

I do my part to encourage more people to ride, not that it means anything and I might as well be anti cycling.

[Mr Purple]

But remember, we aren’t allowed to say anything about bad motorists or propose solid effective law enforcement against them, because “cyclists” in this forum immediately get upset about it. Search the history for any talk about protections against vulnerable road users.

I do my part to encourage more people to ride, not that it means anything and I might as well be anti cycling.

I too, find this interesting. Suggest something 'outlandish' like 'presumed liability' laws for motorists when it comes to car versus cyclist/pedestrian crashes and there is an element even on this forum that will shout you down.

Yet in about 80% of cases it is the motorist responsible for the crash. Motorists need to see a cyclist and be absolutely terrified of the legal ramifications of hitting them, because at the moment there is next to no punishment and apparently fear of taking a human life or horribly injuring someone is not enough disincentive for many.

Such a move would likely save more lives than helmets. But it appears to be hugely unpopular in this country for some reason. Presumably because it might initially lump in the 20% 'innocent' drivers in with the 80% 'guilty'.

[bychosis]

I too, find this interesting. Suggest something 'outlandish' like 'presumed liability' laws for motorists when it comes to car versus cyclist/pedestrian crashes and there is an element even on this forum that will shout you down.

Yet in about 80% of cases it is the motorist responsible for the crash. Motorists need to see a cyclist and be absolutely terrified of the legal ramifications of hitting them, because at the moment there is next to no punishment and apparently fear of taking a human life or horribly injuring someone is not enough disincentive for many.

Such a move would likely save more lives than helmets. But it appears to be hugely unpopular in this country for some reason. Presumably because it might initially lump in the 20% 'innocent' drivers in with the 80% 'guilty'.

We got long a history of car crashes being 'accidents' or just an oopsie. I think that's what makes people concerned about presumed liability. They worry about the cpotential consequences of a crash that until now is often pretty much resolved by a small payment to an insurance company. Plus, any really serious crashes tend to be thought of as not happening to them either. I can think of plenty of friends that have been in crashes that have written off cars, but fortunately very few that have suffered any long term injuries.

There seems to be a disconnect between 'it wont happen to me' and 'if it does happen to me I shouldn't be punished for an accident that was only a minor lapse in attention'

Back on topic. NSW is contemplating allowing e-scooters to be legal - with helmets. Presumably because they are mandatory for bikes, why not everything else rather than really looking at data.

[g-boaf]

Our fearless advocacy groups in action:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/lon ... 5kknd.html

“More people are deterred from cycling because they are afraid of cars, it is not the act of needing to wear a helmet,” he said.

Bicycle NSW chief executive Peter McLean said he supported compulsory helmet laws, even though they were “clearly a barrier to entry”.

“Other places have far better cycling infrastructure and a different road-safety culture that makes for a safer environment,” he said.

Then damn well start making a really loud noise about both. We know the poor behaviour of motorists on the road is the biggest barrier to riding among everyone you talk to, then infrastructure and helmets.

It’s crap to support helmet laws because the behaviour of motorists on the road is bad. Fix the behaviour of bad motorists by hitting them with hefty fines and other severe penalties and reduce the burden of proof. Don’t require calibrated cameras and all the other things law enforcement folks come up with to get out of enforcing the law.

Let’s see, bet there will be a big Operation Pedro blitz soon with riot squad officers and cars at the ready to tackle people to the ground…

[BobtheBuilder]

Our fearless advocacy groups in action:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/lon ... 5kknd.html

Bicycle NSW chief executive Peter McLean said he supported compulsory helmet laws, even though they were “clearly a barrier to entry”.

Some little silver lining is that even the rabid pro-MHLers aren't supporting the fiction that MHLs don't dampen cycling rates.

But FFS how can a cycling advocacy organisation support something that reduces the level of cycling ...

[g-boaf]

Our fearless advocacy groups in action:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/lon ... 5kknd.html

Bicycle NSW chief executive Peter McLean said he supported compulsory helmet laws, even though they were “clearly a barrier to entry”.

Some little silver lining is that even the rabid pro-MHLers aren't supporting the fiction that MHLs don't dampen cycling rates.

But FFS how can a cycling advocacy organisation support something that reduces the level of cycling ...

Cycling (and cycling communities as well) have always had “I’m a cyclist but…” types.

You know, the ones who mysteriously side with motorists on everything and take the anti-cycling views but do just enough to proclaim to be cyclists.

Then there are the cycling advocacy types who want to push their preferred view of cycling and love stirring up a hornets nest poking the other types of riding they don’t like or approve of.

Then types like me who don’t give a damn about the tribalism, I just want a better, safer road environment and better, connected infrastructure for everyone who wants to ride a bike regardless of what kind of riding they are doing.

I can remember arguing for better connected infrastructure only to be told that’s wrong and we should only focus on infrastructure to get people to the corner shop and no further. never mind enabling people to safely and easily ride longer distances, for example, to and from work… No, that might achieve less cars on the road and more people riding, couldn’t have that.

[Mr Purple]

Cycling (and cycling communities as well) have always had “I’m a cyclist but…” types.

You know, the ones who mysteriously side with motorists on everything and take the anti-cycling views but do just enough to proclaim to be cyclists.

Then there are the cycling advocacy types who want to push their preferred view of cycling and love stirring up a hornets nest poking the other types of riding they don’t like or approve of.

This is true. And I imagine none of these 'I'm a cyclist, but' types can recall the last time they actually rode a bike.

I too hate the tribalism. A lot of the specific Facebook groups I'm in regarding cycling seem to have a hatred of 'lycra clad hoons'. Strangely I've never seen a 'lycra clad hoon' complain about casual riders or e-bike riders. Despite both those groups being far more dangerous to ride around. I think we just accept people have to start somewhere.

[bychosis]

.i can remember arguing for better connected infrastructure only to be told that’s wrong and we should only focus on infrastructure to get people to the corner shop and no further. never mind enabling people to safely and easily ride longer distances, for example, to and from work… No, that might achieve less cars on the road and more people riding, couldn’t have that.

Some people think you can only do one thing at a time, or that appeasing one group will end your problems. The reality is that there is a need for both so we should be aiming for both. Doing a bit at a time is how we've got this far. Gotta keep going doing the easy bits first, but not forgetting that sometimes you have to do a hard bit at times to make the easy stuff even better.

[BobtheBuilder]

Strangely no calls for mandatory helmets on sailing vessels (or blaming the sailors for dying):

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/ ... ors-killed

"The Cruising Yacht Club of Australia (CYCA), which administers the yacht race, said that one sailor each on entrants Flying Fish Arctos and Bowline were killed after being struck by the boom, a large horizontal pole at the bottom of the sail."

Having done a modest amount of sailing and a lot of cycling, I can report never having a head strike on a bike and having quite a few head strikes while sailing (thankfully only in little dinghies).

[bychosis]

Strangely no calls for mandatory helmets on sailing vessels (or blaming the sailors for dying):

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/ ... ors-killed

"The Cruising Yacht Club of Australia (CYCA), which administers the yacht race, said that one sailor each on entrants Flying Fish Arctos and Bowline were killed after being struck by the boom, a large horizontal pole at the bottom of the sail."

Having done a modest amount of sailing and a lot of cycling, I can report never having a head strike on a bike and having quite a few head strikes while sailing (thankfully only in little dinghies).

I've seen some boom strikes and probably had a few as well (I don't remember, but not due to concussion). We've not long had life jackets being compulsory, helmets are gping to take a while longer. Although, I suspect racing sailors may well start to wear them, and think I've seen them worn in some cases. When racing you'd be covered by some sort of insurance. The sort of insurance that can be made a lot cheaper by implementing safety practices.

[find_bruce]

Already mandatory for a bunch of classes, esp foils such as SailGP & America’s cup

[g-boaf]

Seems like a helmet might not do too much in those cases:

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/sailing/th ... 5l0vc.html

(Disable JavaScript temporarily to view article)

Supposedly participants in the race agree to this:

“... the Crew Member acknowledges that their participation in the Race … is entirely at their risk and responsibility and that CYCA and each Beneficiary are not responsible for the boat or its crew.”

Elsewhere, the disclaimer requires each crew member to “accept the risks” of racing, and that he or she “waives all rights against and releases the CYCA from any and all claims and liability in respect to loss of life or injury to persons ...”

I’m sure having a helmet is better than nothing but being hit by something very large and with a lot of momentum you are probably gone.

I wonder if there is insurance that covers this? I would have thought most insurers would charge a massive amount or run for the hills.

Racing boats is not particularly my thing and I don’t pay much attention to it.

[Mr Purple]

They're probably covered under life insurance.

That tends to have very few exceptions. I'm not allowed to scuba dive (of all things, actually quite safe) or be involved in motor racing. At the time I took out the policy I had a 650cc road bike, which was far more dangerous than either of those things.

Must have been a nasty night. I'm sure both were experienced sailors and don't imagine they get taken out by booms very often.

[fat and old]

Already mandatory for a bunch of classes, esp foils such as SailGP & America’s cup

Trouble maker!

[baabaa]

So Bob you are back again? Bit of time on your hands hey?
Maybe tell us what have you been doing about changing MHL during this time?
Thanks and looking forward to even just a few key points.

Having done a modest amount of sailing and a lot of cycling, I can report never having a head strike on a bike and having quite a few head strikes while sailing (thankfully only in little dinghies).

I have had both and can expect both may happen again – (even a boom hit from a Manly Junior when you are a kiddy hurts like hell - I have a scar on my scalp to show) and maybe be a little bit more careful in the next few weeks on the boat as both sets of masts and booms have just been re-varnished...

One of my best mates when growing up had an older brother who was hit by a boom and went over between the Heads and Grotto Point during a winter twilight sailing race from Middle Harbour Yacht Club.
He was a seasoned racer on a crew that knew boats and racing.
He sank like a rock and they never found his body and his loss more or less broke the family.

And yes, people use helmets on boats for many reasons so just another very daft comment to add to this "discussion".

[BobtheBuilder]

And yes, people use helmets on boats for many reasons so just another very daft comment to add to this "discussion".

My simple point was that no-one's suggesting helmets be made compulsory and/or blaming the people who got hit by the boom (turns out in at least one of the cases it may actually have been the mainsheet/landing on a winch that did it).

That's all.

A simple point about the vastly different standards applied to bicycle riding and other activities, many of which are objectively more dangerous.

[Retrobyte]

The second major change for NSW roads is an exemption for Sikhs who wear turbans, who from 2025 will no longer be required to wear helmets while riding electric scooters or bicycles.

Sikhs who are full license holders will also be exempted from wearing helmets while riding motorcycles.

Understandably the change has many opponents and no implementation date has been set as of yet. Principal lawyer at Astor legal, Avinash Singh told Yahoo News that, “there has been criticism of this bill given the obvious safety issues it presents, and that it provides an exemption to Sikhs that others in the community do not have.”

https://www.news.com.au/technology/moto ... 723928b99e