Rant: Cyclists, Oz Bureaucracy ....
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="561757" data-time="1456801529">
<div>
<p>so the law to wear helmets are at fault for making more injuries?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Surely cycling forums would be a tad bias for things, given your stance for having to carry ID as a cyclist?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes, that's what the data shows.</p> -
<p>What's ridiculous is that grown men have to wear a helmet while cycling through a park or a suburban bike path. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>It should be compulsory if you're riding on a major road and busy roads in the city centre. It should also be compulsory for children up to a certain age. I have no intention of riding on a road or in traffic, yet if I should want to cycle one of the lovely bike paths in my area (which were built at great expense and a safe distance from any traffic), I need both a helmet and (at least in NSW) a bloody ID. Madness.</p> -
<p>obviously there are issues all the time in the media in NZ about farmers not wearing helmets on their bikes too.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="561738" data-time="1456797205"><p>Crossed wires? You seem to suggest helmet regulation will drive cyclists off the road and I said who cares as this is safety we are talking about.</p></blockquote><br>It's safer if cyclists aren't permitted to ride bicycles?<br> <br><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="561743" data-time="1456797681"><p>Here's a tip for not only this idiot but anyone who can't afford to pay fines...<br> <br>DON'T BREAK THE RULES!!</p></blockquote><br>That line of argument is destroyed by recognition of the ever increasing impost of government on our lives telling us not only what we can and can't do, but of the decreasing things we can do how we're able to do it. Just because some clown enacts a law or changes a regulation doesn't mean it's a good thing. <em>'If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.'</em><br><br>So when looking to implement a solution, you need to be sure you've identified a problem first. Where's the evidence that cyclists running red lights is such a problem it requires a massive increase in the fine? Consider that in any decently run jurisdiction attempts are made to reduce the impact on those who cycle. What simpleton thinks riding a bicycle is made safer by carrying ID? That piece of arsehattery came about from the dribbling loons clamouring for bicycles to be registered; <em>"if you want to ride on the road, pay registration"</em> despite the fact that bicycles do no damage to roads and registration doesn't pay for road infrastructure anyway.<br><br>The introduction of mandatory helmet laws is strongly correlated with the decrease in cycling in Australia despite no evidence it was required or would solve a problem.<br> <br><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="561754" data-time="1456801062"><p>so is it a conspiracy from cycle helmet manufacturers to get people to wear them, cos if wearing them increases serious injuries, what other explanation is there?</p></blockquote><br>Hanlon's razor comes into effect here. It's no grand conspiracy to profit helmet manufacturers; just a bunch of fat fucking morons who want to make riding a bicycle as difficult as possible.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="561764" data-time="1456803486">
<div>
<p>Hanlon's razor comes into effect here. It's no grand conspiracy to profit helmet manufacturers; just a bunch of fat fucking morons who want to make riding a bicycle as difficult as possible.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Not sure if they're trying to make cycling difficult, although they certainly don't care either way.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Moreso local politicians pandering to overly worrying community groups (mainly populated by helicopter mums).</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="561757" data-time="1456801529">
<div>
<p>so the law to wear helmets are at fault for making more injuries?</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>isn't it due to the theory of risk compensation or something like that?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>(ie) the same reason that sky diving fatality rates haven't reduced despite the equipment getting a whole lot safer</p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;">essentially becauise the safer skydiving equipment becomes, the more chances skydivers will take, so the fatality rate remains constant".</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;">And before someone else asks, yes this theory does adjust for increased number of participants</span></p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="561755" data-time="1456801104">
<div>
<p>But has cause been proven? That stat is pretty meaningless without context. Did countries that do not enforce helmets have a flat rate of injuries? Or did it increase as well? How do they know the percentages without knowing total journies taken?</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Plenty of stats out there based both on total JOURNEYS and total Km travelled</p>
<div> </div>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="561755" data-time="1456801104">
<div>
<p> </p>
<p>Perhaps injuries have decreased as a % but increased as mean figure? </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Again, the link I provided accounts for this.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Baron Silas Greenback" data-cid="561755" data-time="1456801104">
<div>
<p> </p>
<p>How do different countries define 'serious injuries'? Cancer has also increased in countries that introduced helmets.. perhaps helmets cause cancer?</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Lisa, I want to buy your rock :)</p> -
It's really bizarre to me that there is an argument against these. I would agree with you if there was a road for cyclists alone but there isn't so the need to share and have similar rules applied seems simple to me. <br><br>
I remember when the rule came in NZ and I was gutted to have to wear a stack hat but that faded after about a week and we all kept riding our bikes. <br><br>
I seriously don't see any issue with this. The beach house has bikes and is out primary transport round there. I always wear a helmet and have a wallet so I can't see how my life would change one bit if the same rules were applied here. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="561770" data-time="1456805192">
<div>
<p>Plenty of stats out there based both on total JOURNEYS and total Km travelled</p>
<div> </div>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Again, the link I provided accounts for this.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Lisa, I want to buy your rock :)</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>You do realise that none of those stats you provided do anything at all to answer the queries I had?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="561744" data-time="1456798111">
<div>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.cycle-helmets.com/netherlands-helmets.html'>http://www.cycle-helmets.com/netherlands-helmets.html</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Seeing as we are talking about Australia here I'll elaborate based on that</p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(46,139,87);font-family:Monaco, 'Andale Mono', 'Courier New', Courier, mono;font-size:11.7px;">In the Netherlands from 2003 to 2007, 27.5% of cyclist casualties admitted to hospital had head or brain injuries.</span><br><br><span style="color:rgb(46,139,87);font-family:Monaco, 'Andale Mono', 'Courier New', Courier, mono;font-size:11.7px;">In Australia in 2005/06, 25.7% of cyclists with serious injuries had head injuries.</span><br><br><span style="color:rgb(46,139,87);font-family:Monaco, 'Andale Mono', 'Courier New', Courier, mono;font-size:11.7px;">Based on these figures, the Netherlands has a 1.8% greater proportion of cyclist head injuries than does Australia. The Netherlands had an average 2,150 cyclist head/brain injuries per year from 2003-2007, compared to 1,122 serious head injuries in Australia in 2005/06.</span><br><br><span style="color:rgb(46,139,87);font-family:Monaco, 'Andale Mono', 'Courier New', Courier, mono;font-size:11.7px;">In the Netherlands from 2003/07, an average 8,000 cyclists were admitted to hospital each year. In Australia in 2005/06, 4,370 cyclists suffered serious injury.</span></p>
<div> </div>
<div>
<p>1.8% more head injuries, wow!<br><br>
In a population where almost nobody wears a helmet when riding about town and country. Yep, that seems a fairly manageable level of increased injury. Nobody here is claiming that helmetless riding has zero risk, just that the negatives of helmet compulsion are not backed up by real benefits.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>now if we factor in that On average, every Dutch person cycles 2.5km every day and 93% of the population rides a bike at least once a week. Every Australian cycles about 0.1km every day I think the stats show that the helmets are't helping much.</p>
</div>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="561746" data-time="1456798959">
<div>
<p>is the cycling infrastructure comparable?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="561747" data-time="1456799042">
<div>
<p>OK mate.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So seeing as you are wealthy enough to afford the fines, it's OK for you to break the road rules in your car (I'm sure you've broken the speed limit before) but it's not OK for those who can't?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>TR has hit the nail on the head, the Netherlands have massive infrastructure to manage the cycling population, with dedicated bike paths throughout town and country. This is anecdotal, but 15 years of riding my bike around the Netherlands the only accidents I was involved in or witnessed was Bike v Bike or Bike vs Pedestrian.</p> -
<p>I can't speak for NZ, but here in Brisbane and many other places there are designated bike paths that run beside roads. I live about 15km outside the city and there is a path going pretty much the entire way. There are also numerous paths beside the Brisbane river and through parks. There is virtually zero chance of getting hit by a car on these paths. Why should grown adults have to wear a helmet or carry an ID when using them?</p>
-
<p>A quick google found this</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>The number of cyclists killed in traffic has fallen by 8 percent, from 200 in 2012 to 184 in 2013. Especially among children younger than 15 years, the number fell. In 2013, five young cyclists died, a year earlier that was 13. Fatalities among pedestrians fell from 68 to 56.</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p><em><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/traffic-fatalities-decreased-significantly-in-2013/'>https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/traffic-fatalities-decreased-significantly-in-2013/</a></em></p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="561771" data-time="1456805782">
<div>
<p>It's really bizarre to me that there is an argument against these. I would agree with you if there was a road for cyclists alone but there isn't so the need to share and have similar rules applied seems simple to me.<br><br>
I remember when the rule came in NZ and I was gutted to have to wear a stack hat but that faded after about a week and we all kept riding our bikes.<br><br>
I seriously don't see any issue with this. The beach house has bikes and is out primary transport round there. I always wear a helmet and have a wallet so I can't see how my life would change one bit if the same rules were applied here.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I guess I see both sides... I'd never even consider going for a "proper" ride without a helmet on.. i.e. out on the road or a mountain bike. But those activities have a degree of risk..</p>
<p> </p>
<p>whereas if I'm at the beach and I'm riding along the footpath with the kids to the playground / shops I never bother to stick a helmet on because the risk of me falling off and hitting my head is about the same as if I was walking...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Not sure it should be legislated, but I would still hate to see people interacting with cars not wearing a helmet.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I once hit a Holden Statesman at over 50kph backing out of a driveway.. probably flew 25m in the air before landing on my head and sliding along the road on it. Apart from some pretty serious shock I walked to the ambo and was fine cept for a couple of sore ankles from when I flipped over.. so I'm always happy to stick a helmet on.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>my bike was about 30 cm in length. Statesman didn't even have a mark on it. Couldnt have picked a harder car to slam into !</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="dK" data-cid="561775" data-time="1456806902">
<div>
<p>A quick google found this</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>The number of cyclists killed in traffic has fallen by 8 percent, from 200 in 2012 to 184 in 2013. Especially among children younger than 15 years, the number fell. In 2013, five young cyclists died, a year earlier that was 13. Fatalities among pedestrians fell from 68 to 56.</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p><em><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/traffic-fatalities-decreased-significantly-in-2013/'>https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/traffic-fatalities-decreased-significantly-in-2013/</a></em></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>How many of those were killed by trams? Those things scared the shit out of me when I was in Amsterdam. Silent killers.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="561744" data-time="1456798111"><p><a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.cycle-helmets.com/netherlands-helmets.html">http://www.cycle-helmets.com/netherlands-helmets.html</a><br><br>
Seeing as we are talking about Australia here I'll elaborate based on that<br><br><span style="color:rgb(46,139,87);"><span style="font-family:Monaco;"><span style="font-size:10px;">In the Netherlands from 2003 to 2007, 27.5% of cyclist casualties admitted to hospital had head or brain injuries.</span></span></span><br><br><span style="color:rgb(46,139,87);"><span style="font-family:Monaco;"><span style="font-size:10px;">In Australia in 2005/06, 25.7% of cyclists with serious injuries had head injuries.</span></span></span><br><br><span style="color:rgb(46,139,87);"><span style="font-family:Monaco;"><span style="font-size:10px;">Based on these figures, the Netherlands has a 1.8% greater proportion of cyclist head injuries than does Australia. The Netherlands had an average 2,150 cyclist head/brain injuries per year from 2003-2007, compared to 1,122 serious head injuries in Australia in 2005/06.</span></span></span><br><br><span style="color:rgb(46,139,87);"><span style="font-family:Monaco;"><span style="font-size:10px;">In the Netherlands from 2003/07, an average 8,000 cyclists were admitted to hospital each year. In Australia in 2005/06, 4,370 cyclists suffered serious injury.</span></span></span><br><br><br>
1.8% more head injuries, wow!<br><br>
In a population where almost nobody wears a helmet when riding about town and country. Yep, that seems a fairly manageable level of increased injury. Nobody here is claiming that helmetless riding has zero risk, just that the negatives of helmet compulsion are not backed up by real benefits.<br><br>
now if we factor in that On average, every Dutch person cycles 2.5km every day and 93% of the population rides a bike at least once a week. Every Australian cycles about 0.1km every day I think the stats show that the helmets are't helping much.</p></blockquote>
That looks suspiciously like pseudo-science. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="561758" data-time="1456801540"><p>
The debate is not whether wearing a bicycle helmet is safer, its whether mandatory helmet laws increase safety in the community.<br><br>
The 2 are mutually exclusive.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Que?