Apparently Bicycle Network after supporting MHL is having a rethink:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-12/mandatory-helmet-law-bicycle-...

Bicycle Network, which boasts a 50,000-strong membership, has supported mandatory helmet wearing for people who ride bikes since Australia introduced them in the early 1990s.

It is now undertaking a policy review to assess its long-standing position on the issue — which could lead to a change.

And there is a survey:

https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/our-campaigns/policy-reviews/helm...

MHL has been a very polarizing issue among cyclists, it will be most interesting what the survey finds.

Views: 954

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The design of a helmet could make a difference.

‘Cone-head’ inventor takes design overseas
Published by Brisbane Times on 4-Jul-2010
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/conehead-inven...
. . . In the 1980s Mr Morgan, of Yeronga and other researchers found that the liners of helmets were too hard and too stiff and did not effectively absorb the impact of a crash.
In 1993, Mr Morgan invented the new shock absorbing liner incorporating low density cones that act like a crumple zone to absorb the impact more effectively.
His invention won the 2007 Invention of the Year award on the ABC's New Inventors program and the helmet using his design has won two prizes in Germany and the United States.
After many years of trying to find an Australian manufacturer, he licensed his innovative design with Hong Kong-based Strategic Sports Limited that has two factories in mainland China. . . .

Does anyone know which helmets available in Australia use crumple cones?

If I could be totally tongue in cheek - egg cartons?

I recently bought a new MTB Helmet with MIPS,  $150 ish, can't complain. 

https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsroom/2017/11/21/bicycle-netwo...

  • 58.3% of respondents said there should be a change to helmet laws, while the remaining 41.7% said helmets should be mandatory all the time
  • 40.7% believe helmets should only be mandatory when the risk is high, for example, when racing, on road or for young people
  • 30.4% would ride more if helmets weren’t mandatory
  • If laws changed, almost all people who currently wear a helmet when they ride would continue to do so and the number of people who never wear a helmet when riding would only increase by 3.7%

From comments I've read on this forum I'm guessing the number of Adelaide Cyclists who support MHLs is much higher than the survey result!! :(

Carlos, are you overlooking that 42% for MHL is a large minority?

If a helmet prevents head injuries in 1 out of 4 crashes (my personal experience), then worth wearing.

Helmets have other advantages: add visor to reduce sun glare, headlight glare and water on cycling glasses; reduce rain on head; mounting point for light and camera; hide 'bad hair day' or receding hairline.

Oh no heather I don't overlook the 42%. When I am overseas and see all the normal people in normal clothes on normal bikes going about their normal daily business I don't overlook the 42%.

No heather, next time I get a $$$$ fine for riding without a helmet I don't overlook the 42%.

No heather I don't overlook the 42% who continue to support this asinine law.

(PS you can wear as many helmets as you want even if MHLs are repealed).

Carlos
I use a cheap bike for everyday transport while wearing casual clothing. Might even fit your definition of normal.

Less need for helmets in overseas countries that are supportive of safe cycling. Think cycling infrastructure, road design, lower vehicle speeds, vehicle design, road rules like Strict Liability, and cyclist-aware drivers when 25 to 55% of people ride every week.

Your posting style is sarcastic, which has been discouraged on AC. Instead of attacking other cyclists, some put their energies into advocating for a safe cycling environment. Success could lead to HL changes.

"Less need for helmets in overseas countries that are supportive of safe cycling. Think cycling infrastructure, road design, lower vehicle speeds, vehicle design, road rules like Strict Liability, and cyclist-aware drivers when 25 to 55% of people ride every week."

Carlos, that would just about sum up my reason for changing my mind from definitely disliking MHL to currently more a stance of keeping the helmet on even if MHL is abandoned.

I've lived 3/4 of my life in a 'cycling country'. I'd actually disagree with Heather on infrastructure, because I get the impression that ADL isn't doing too bad on that front (depends which countries/cities you choose to compare). But in terms of strict liability, cyclist awareness, cycling population that makes for strength in numbers, and general attitude from drivers towards cyclists, Australia has a long way to improve.

I am not convinced a helmet will protect every cyclist against every injury (I read more about ribs, lungs, bones & joints broken in cycling crashes than I do about head injuries), nor should MHL be required in every situation where a person gets on a bike. But overall, my current thoughts are that a helmet does not harm me and might possible benefit me in some way in the case of a fall, crash or hit. So even if MHL's are repealed I would probably keep covering up in most instances of getting on a bike even though less than a year ago I was doing 150k a week without a helmet.

Heather, just as a side note; In some cities in Europe the 'cheap bike and casual clothing' brigade actually have a worse reputation than the lycra brigade.

Actually Heather, I would add "bad hair day" as a disadvantage for MHL. Whenever I come of the bike, my hair is always shaped along the grooves of the helmet... Not a good look for Friday night dancing.

Expect 'helmet hair' depends on hair type, hairstyle and perspiration.

RSS

Support our Sponsors

© 2019   Created by Gus.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service