Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael Murray on May 7, 2012 at 21:49

Mr Neun said dedicated bike lanes and reducing car speeds in urban areas would do more to protect cyclists than helmets.

Funny how that bit wasn't used by the sub editor for a headline.  "Lower speed limits says cycling guru".

Permalink Reply by stephen on May 9, 2012 at 1:33

Plenty of areas with very few or no cars at all and yet very few people ride still.

Helmets laws do very little other then discouraging people from getting on the bike in the first place i think that is the point which he makes well.

Our roads and paths are good but with helmet laws in place it is not surprising we are barely using even the existing infrastructure.

Our government seem ignorant of the repressive effect of mandatory bike helmet laws on bike usage - even with the evidence right in front of them.! 

The hard won partial exemption enjoyed in the NT is clear proof that repeal of this law will lead to greater numbers of people using bikes and bring about positive change.
This is a short documentary of the NT bike culture - Enjoy watching :-)

.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGEewrHr2q0

I get the impression our government ministers between them have lower IQ than the average primary school starter. Our government have spent literally years trying to bash a square shape into a round hole, the average 5yo would figure out it was not going to work in seconds. !

We need to trial a repeal of helmet laws in other states and regions - which state is going to lead. ?

Permalink Reply by Jilden on May 9, 2012 at 9:11

Will repealing MHL's really get the other 90% back on bikes? I seriously doubt it. While the fear of looking dorky and the fear of getting helmet hair are often touted as excuses against cycling, I doubt that they are majority reasons. Fear of falling, fear of traffic, fear of lack of fitness showing up the newbie, fear of sore knees/joints ("My knees are too far gone to get back on a bike" is an excuse I've heard), fear of inhaling traffic fumes, fear of getting lost on unfamiliar tracks, fear of doing anything different in your life, fear of ridicule, fear of going too far etc stop far more potential cyclists that you would think.

By all means campaign against MHL's, just don't expect a resurgence of cycling numbers without addresing the other issues. I wish you luck for your run for parliament...(have you asked Nick X to help?)

Permalink Reply by Tim B on May 9, 2012 at 10:17

I'm curious to know if either Stephen or the OP would be willing to go and visit the family of a child or adult who suffered a serious head or brain injury after falling from a bike while not wearing a helmet and explain to them it was their doing the MHL laws were repealed and that everything is really ok because at least noone had helmet hair, looked dorky or was inconvenienced.....?

Also notice that the entire posting history of both Stephen and the OP on AC (as far as I can tell) is about helmets and nothing else which goes to show that they really have nothing positive to add to the cycling community other than their own narrow minded selfish agenda.

Permalink Reply by Will Matthews on May 9, 2012 at 11:34

Guys, can we please try to keep this debate about adult riders 17+ who are more capable decision makers than minors. I think we can all agree that minors need to wear helmets.

Permalink Reply by GlenM on May 9, 2012 at 11:39

If its safe for adults to not wear helmets why is it unsafe for minors to ride without helmets? 

Permalink Reply by Tim B on May 9, 2012 at 12:18

"I think we can all agree that minors need to wear helmets."

What??? I think you just blew your entire argument out of the water

and you didnt answer the question, would you visit a family of (an adult) who has a serious head or brain injury and explain to them why not wearing a helmet was a great idea?

Permalink Reply by Will Matthews on May 9, 2012 at 11:12

"Will repealing MHL's really get the other 90% back on bikes? I seriously doubt it." 

Proof is in the pudding Jilden, just take a look at the NT helmet laws and the evidence it has produced to put your doubts to rest.

The following is taken from http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1114.html

•   Helmet use is now low in NT, both off and on road, for adults and children. Estimates in 2004 suggested that 15% - 20% of cyclists continue to wear helmets, mostly 'serious' cyclists.
•   For most road users, the Northern Territory has the worst injury rate in Australia. The sole exception is cyclists, for whom the serious injury rate is the same as the national average and better than several states where helmet use remains mandatory for all cycling. (Berry and Harrison, 2008)
•   After the law was first introduced, a street survey in Darwin found that 20% of people had given up cycling as a result of the law and 42% cycled less (Mead, 1993).
•   Following the law's amendment, cycling recovered. By 2004, 4.2% of people cycled to work in NT (compared with a national average of 1.3%) and 15.3% of people cycled for recreation and sport (national average 9.5%) In particular, more women now cycle. (ABC, 2004)

Permalink Reply by Matt Jones on May 9, 2012 at 11:33

Yes, studies that are nearly a decade old are still relevant..........

btw some other interesting pieces of info in the ABC reports, I note you didn't include that in your argument

1: ACT had the largest amount of bike network in relation to road network

2: ACT and NT had the same proportion of recreational riders (15%)

3: Cycling to work is more popular in the NT (4.2%) , ACT is 2nd at 2.6%

4: Raw number of trips in NSW/Vic /Qld is roughly 6 times greater than the NT

5: There was a 33% increase in the # of cycles imported into AU between 1995 - 2003

6: The rate of cycling fatalities in the NT is double any of the other states.

Permalink Reply by Matt Jones on May 9, 2012 at 11:55

Could you also please clarify the second point of yours, my reading of the report indicates the complete opposite, according the the two below chartes

Permalink Reply by Frank on May 9, 2012 at 11:30

I spoke to Nick briefly about it as he frequents Nano(cafe off rundle st), he is too busy to even consider giving it a thought.

Its a small group of people who want it changed anyhow, most folks especially ones with kids feel the helmet law is good as it sets a good example for one.

Nick is too busy fighting pokies!!!

 

Permalink Reply by Dstone on May 9, 2012 at 10:39

Pretty sure if a helmet stops people from riding now then those peeps will find other excuses - rain and wind in winter, hot and windy in summer, magpies in spring, cars using roads 24/7, Lycra, nowhere to attach cable ties, head getting too hot because now the sun is beating directly down on it.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• Next ›
• Page