A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

News from down under on helmet laws, passing laws and fighting betweenso called advocacy groups.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 3rd 13, 10:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,654
Default News from down under on helmet laws, passing laws and fighting betweenso called advocacy groups.

http://helmetfreedom.org/1972/a-new-direction/

--
JS
Ads
  #2  
Old December 4th 13, 12:09 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,025
Default News from down under on helmet laws, passing laws and fightingbetween so called advocacy groups.

On 12/3/2013 1:49 PM, James wrote:
http://helmetfreedom.org/1972/a-new-direction/


I wish that these organizations would realize that starting off with
"the big lie" does nothing for their position. In fact it weakens their
position.

The big lie: "...in particular it reduces cyclist numbers..." has been
disproven so many times that they should be embarrassed to repeat it.

Adults can decide the level or risk that they are willing to accept.
There is no upside in promulgating the lies that helmet legislation
and/or promotion reduces cycling numbers or that helmets are ineffective
at reducing the severity of head injuries in head-impact crashes.

  #3  
Old December 4th 13, 12:51 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,654
Default News from down under on helmet laws, passing laws and fightingbetween so called advocacy groups.

On 04/12/13 10:09, sms wrote:
On 12/3/2013 1:49 PM, James wrote:
http://helmetfreedom.org/1972/a-new-direction/


I wish that these organizations would realize that starting off with
"the big lie" does nothing for their position. In fact it weakens their
position.


I agree.

The big lie: "...in particular it reduces cyclist numbers..." has been
disproven so many times that they should be embarrassed to repeat it.


I disagree. Statistics show marked drop in mode share when MHLs were
introduced. Recent studies show the MHL is still a key issue to
dissuade people from riding.

Page 4 of:

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/53329/1/Focus_group_paper_on_barriers_and_facilitators_to_ PBSS_use_Revision_2_29.06.12_V3.pdf

Adults can decide the level or risk that they are willing to accept.


I agree.

There is no upside in promulgating the lies that helmet legislation
and/or promotion reduces cycling numbers or that helmets are ineffective
at reducing the severity of head injuries in head-impact crashes.


No, the big lies is that everyone *must* wear a helmet because riding a
bicycle is so dangerous.

--
JS
  #4  
Old December 4th 13, 01:16 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,522
Default News from down under on helmet laws, passing laws and fightingbetween so called advocacy groups.

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 11:51:08 PM UTC, James wrote:
On 04/12/13 10:09, sms wrote:

On 12/3/2013 1:49 PM, James wrote:


http://helmetfreedom.org/1972/a-new-direction/




I wish that these organizations would realize that starting off with


"the big lie" does nothing for their position. In fact it weakens their


position.




I agree.



The big lie: "...in particular it reduces cyclist numbers..." has been


disproven so many times that they should be embarrassed to repeat it.




I disagree. Statistics show marked drop in mode share when MHLs were

introduced. Recent studies show the MHL is still a key issue to

dissuade people from riding.



Page 4 of:



http://eprints.qut.edu.au/53329/1/Focus_group_paper_on_barriers_and_facilitators_to_ PBSS_use_Revision_2_29.06.12_V3.pdf



Adults can decide the level or risk that they are willing to accept.




I agree.



There is no upside in promulgating the lies that helmet legislation


and/or promotion reduces cycling numbers or that helmets are ineffective


at reducing the severity of head injuries in head-impact crashes.






No, the big lies is that everyone *must* wear a helmet because riding a

bicycle is so dangerous.



--

JS


Whoever is right in this, those cyclists were offered an opportunity and grasped it with both hands to go put a view to the Commission that they clearly believe found an echo in recommendations that stand a chance of being passed into law. That's a first class result already. Congratulations to them, and all the other cyclists who made submissions.

Andre Jute
  #5  
Old December 4th 13, 01:21 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,025
Default News from down under on helmet laws, passing laws and fightingbetween so called advocacy groups.

On 12/3/2013 3:51 PM, James wrote:
On 04/12/13 10:09, sms wrote:
On 12/3/2013 1:49 PM, James wrote:
http://helmetfreedom.org/1972/a-new-direction/


I wish that these organizations would realize that starting off with
"the big lie" does nothing for their position. In fact it weakens their
position.


I agree.

The big lie: "...in particular it reduces cyclist numbers..." has been
disproven so many times that they should be embarrassed to repeat it.


I disagree. Statistics show marked drop in mode share when MHLs were
introduced. Recent studies show the MHL is still a key issue to
dissuade people from riding.


No way. No statistics show this. Cycling rates continued to increase
even in places where MHLs were introduced. Whether or not the rates
would have increased more without an MHL is unknown. So many factors
contribute to cycling rates that it's not possible to isolate the cause
of an increase or decrease to one specific factor.

What you'll now see from the AHZs is an admission that cycling rates
increased even after an MHL was introduced with an additional claim that
the increase did not keep up with population growth and hence was
decrease percentagewise. If this is true, then they insist that the
reason for the percentage decrease is an MHL. Of course the reality is
that it could be for a variety of reasons from the demographics of the
population increases to changes in fuel prices to global warming.

The other big lie is dependent on the first big lie--that the
non-existent decrease in cycling will lead to more obesity as all those
people that abandon cycling rather than wear a helmet will doom
themselves to a life of television viewing and junk food eating.

Why can't they just say "we're adults, we can decide if we're willing to
accept the slight extra risk?" It would be a much stronger position than
fabricating lies about helmet effectiveness or cycling rates.
  #6  
Old December 4th 13, 01:39 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,654
Default News from down under on helmet laws, passing laws and fightingbetween so called advocacy groups.

On 04/12/13 11:21, sms wrote:
On 12/3/2013 3:51 PM, James wrote:
On 04/12/13 10:09, sms wrote:
On 12/3/2013 1:49 PM, James wrote:
http://helmetfreedom.org/1972/a-new-direction/

I wish that these organizations would realize that starting off with
"the big lie" does nothing for their position. In fact it weakens their
position.


I agree.

The big lie: "...in particular it reduces cyclist numbers..." has been
disproven so many times that they should be embarrassed to repeat it.


I disagree. Statistics show marked drop in mode share when MHLs were
introduced. Recent studies show the MHL is still a key issue to
dissuade people from riding.


No way. No statistics show this. Cycling rates continued to increase
even in places where MHLs were introduced. Whether or not the rates
would have increased more without an MHL is unknown. So many factors
contribute to cycling rates that it's not possible to isolate the cause
of an increase or decrease to one specific factor.


The obvious drop in participation immediately after the laws were
enacted says otherwise. I looked at census results before and after.

--
JS
  #7  
Old December 4th 13, 03:21 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Peter Gordon[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 28
Default News from down under on helmet laws, passing laws and fighting between so called advocacy groups.

Andre Jute wrote in

Whoever is right in this, those cyclists were offered an opportunity
and grasped it with both hands to go put a view to the Commission that
they clearly believe found an echo in recommendations that stand a
chance of being passed into law. That's a first class result already.
Congratulations to them, and all the other cyclists who made
submissions.

Andre Jute

A Change to the helmet laws does not have a snowballs chance in hell
of being changed. The Transport Minister does not support it.
Below is a link to an interview with him. (Yes, our TV interviewers
are very poorly informed.)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/pex4ohw

Peter Gordon
  #8  
Old December 4th 13, 04:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Sir Ridesalot
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,588
Default News from down under on helmet laws, passing laws and fightingbetween so called advocacy groups.

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 6:09:45 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
On 12/3/2013 1:49 PM, James wrote:

http://helmetfreedom.org/1972/a-new-direction/




I wish that these organizations would realize that starting off with

"the big lie" does nothing for their position. In fact it weakens their

position.



The big lie: "...in particular it reduces cyclist numbers..." has been

disproven so many times that they should be embarrassed to repeat it.



Adults can decide the level or risk that they are willing to accept.

There is no upside in promulgating the lies that helmet legislation

and/or promotion reduces cycling numbers or that helmets are ineffective

at reducing the severity of head injuries in head-impact crashes.


Oh man that is so rich, you of all people calling someone else a liar!

Cheers
  #9  
Old December 4th 13, 04:38 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,648
Default News from down under on helmet laws, passing laws and fighting between so called advocacy groups.

On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 10:51:08 +1100, James
wrote:

On 04/12/13 10:09, sms wrote:
On 12/3/2013 1:49 PM, James wrote:
http://helmetfreedom.org/1972/a-new-direction/


I wish that these organizations would realize that starting off with
"the big lie" does nothing for their position. In fact it weakens their
position.


I agree.

The big lie: "...in particular it reduces cyclist numbers..." has been
disproven so many times that they should be embarrassed to repeat it.


I disagree. Statistics show marked drop in mode share when MHLs were
introduced. Recent studies show the MHL is still a key issue to
dissuade people from riding.

Page 4 of:

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/53329/1/Focus_group_paper_on_barriers_and_facilitators_to_ PBSS_use_Revision_2_29.06.12_V3.pdf

Adults can decide the level or risk that they are willing to accept.


I agree.

There is no upside in promulgating the lies that helmet legislation
and/or promotion reduces cycling numbers or that helmets are ineffective
at reducing the severity of head injuries in head-impact crashes.


No, the big lies is that everyone *must* wear a helmet because riding a
bicycle is so dangerous.


You have overlooked the mention of bicycle registration and licensing.
I wonder what that will do to participation.

"I'm sorry sir but I can't sell you this bicycle until you show me a
bicycle license." "But it is for my grandson, he's only 5 years old."
"Doesn't make any difference sir, the law says that to sell a bicycle
I must record the license details."
--
Cheers,

John B.
  #10  
Old December 4th 13, 04:55 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,961
Default News from down under on helmet laws, passing laws and fightingbetween so called advocacy groups.

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 7:21:18 PM UTC-5, sms wrote:
On 12/3/2013 3:51 PM, James wrote:

Statistics show marked drop in mode share when MHLs were
introduced. Recent studies show the MHL is still a key issue to
dissuade people from riding.


No way. No statistics show this.


As usual, what Mr. Scharf really means is "No statistics known to a Scharf show this."

Among people who have studied this issue - and there are very, very many - it's extremely rare to find someone claiming that mandating helmets does not reduce cycling. But then, Scharf has always been a rare bird.

The report by the government committee that generated this topic found that 16.5% of respondents said a main reason they don't cycle is that they don't like wearing a helmet. According to Scharf, those respondents must all be liars.

As James said, after the mandatory helmet laws were enacted, there was an immediate and large reduction in cycling - a drop exceeding 30%, IIRC. This paper http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...01457596000164 documents that drop, as do many other sources. Yes, there were Scharfian efforts to hide the drop, efforts by those who had worked to pass the law, but those efforts were exposed in other papers.

Then there's the incontestable effect of the MHLs on bike share schemes. Even Scharfian misinformation can't hide the fact that MHLs have kept Australian bike share from coming close to usage levels in other countries.

Cycling rates continued to increase
even in places where MHLs were introduced.


"Rate" according to what denominator? Not per capita. Not as a percentage of mode share.

Whether or not the rates
would have increased more without an MHL is unknown.


:-) Unknown to some, I suppose!

So many factors
contribute to cycling rates that it's not possible to isolate the cause
of an increase or decrease to one specific factor.


NONE of the many factors that might cause decreases in cycling changed suddenly at the same time Australia's MHLs were imposed. Things like amount of motoring, climate, fuel prices, distance traveled to get to work, condition of the road network, etc. underwent no sudden change. Yet cycling dropped suddenly and markedly, precisely when the MHLs went into effect. Furthermore, telephone surveys indicated that people gave the MHLs as the reason they rode less. What more evidence would you need?

BTW, there were other simultaneous changes that might have increased bike use: Much stricter enforcement of drunk driving laws, and harsher enforcement of other motoring laws. Those might have caused some to, say, bike to the pub instead of drive, or to say "traffic should be safer now, so I'll bike." But cycling fell over 30% anyway.

What you'll now see from the AHZs is an admission that cycling rates
increased even after an MHL was introduced with an additional claim that
the increase did not keep up with population growth and hence was
decrease percentagewise. If this is true, then they insist that the
reason for the percentage decrease is an MHL. Of course the reality is
that it could be for a variety of reasons from the demographics of the
population increases to changes in fuel prices to global warming.


I think we're dealing with a man who hasn't the dimmest idea what "correlation" means.

- Frank Krygowski
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
USA helmet laws. Simon Mason UK 24 May 6th 09 10:39 PM
Helmet laws??? munifreaker Unicycling 29 November 15th 07 02:51 PM
Helmet laws??? Mikefule Unicycling 0 November 10th 07 07:55 PM
Helmet Use Laws JJuggle Unicycling 4 August 19th 04 08:02 PM
Tasmanian helmet laws? John Henderson Australia 15 March 5th 04 01:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.