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



off course....reduction ! zaaaaaaaap

all cyclists will wear blue jerseys zaaaaaaaaaaaappppp 3% will not wear blue

cyclists caught urinating in the bushes will be sentenced to 5 years at hard labor zaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaapppp zaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaap

what, u gonna agrue with this line of reasoning ?

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 2:21:21 AM UTC, Peter Gordon wrote:
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

Whatever the statistical truth may be on the benefits of helmets, fighting mandatory helmet laws is politically a lost battle because the perception in political circles is that helmets save lives. It doesn't matter whether it is true or not. The political battle is lost, and for good. Wasting energy on a lost battle is a counterproductive idiocy. The sooner cyclists accept that and move on to battles they can win, the better for them and the better for all of us.

Andre Jute

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 11:13:21 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 2:21:21 AM UTC, Peter Gordon wrote:

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



Whatever the statistical truth may be on the benefits of helmets, fighting mandatory helmet laws is politically a lost battle because the perception in political circles is that helmets save lives. It doesn't matter whether it is true or not. The political battle is lost, and for good. Wasting energy on a lost battle is a counterproductive idiocy. The sooner cyclists accept that and move on to battles they can win, the better for them and the better for all of us.



Andre Jute

NOT SO!

Here in Ontario, Canada we were successful in kiling the mandatory for adults bicycle helmet legislation.

Cheers

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 5:19:11 AM UTC, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 11:13:21 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 2:21:21 AM UTC, Peter Gordon wrote:



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







Whatever the statistical truth may be on the benefits of helmets, fighting mandatory helmet laws is politically a lost battle because the perception in political circles is that helmets save lives. It doesn't matter whether it is true or not. The political battle is lost, and for good. Wasting energy on a lost battle is a counterproductive idiocy. The sooner cyclists accept that and move on to battles they can win, the better for them and the better for all of us.







Andre Jute



NOT SO!



Here in Ontario, Canada we were successful in kiling the mandatory for adults bicycle helmet legislation.



Cheers

Congratulations. Before or after it was passed?

Andre Jute

Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 11:13:21 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 2:21:21 AM UTC, Peter Gordon wrote:

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



Whatever the statistical truth may be on the benefits of helmets,
fighting mandatory helmet laws is politically a lost battle because the
perception in political circles is that helmets save lives. It doesn't
matter whether it is true or not. The political battle is lost, and for
good. Wasting energy on a lost battle is a counterproductive idiocy. The
sooner cyclists accept that and move on to battles they can win, the
better for them and the better for all of us.



Andre Jute

NOT SO!

Here in Ontario, Canada we were successful in kiling the mandatory for
adults bicycle helmet legislation.

Cheers

In Quebec Velo Quebec killed it for us. Also lobbied against an MHL for
kids. They support infrastructure in order to increase cycling claiming
higher cycling presence lowers risk of injury. They're not against
helmets, just the mandatory helmet laws.
--
duane

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 11:11:44 AM UTC, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 11:13:21 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 2:21:21 AM UTC, Peter Gordon wrote:



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







Whatever the statistical truth may be on the benefits of helmets,

fighting mandatory helmet laws is politically a lost battle because the

perception in political circles is that helmets save lives. It doesn't

matter whether it is true or not. The political battle is lost, and for

good. Wasting energy on a lost battle is a counterproductive idiocy. The

sooner cyclists accept that and move on to battles they can win, the

better for them and the better for all of us.







Andre Jute



NOT SO!



Here in Ontario, Canada we were successful in kiling the mandatory for

adults bicycle helmet legislation.



Cheers



In Quebec Velo Quebec killed it for us. Also lobbied against an MHL for

kids. They support infrastructure in order to increase cycling claiming

higher cycling presence lowers risk of injury. They're not against

helmets, just the mandatory helmet laws.

--

duane

You guys are working hard to prove Franki Shavelegs right! Jokes aside though, there's a difference between stopping a proposal before it is enacted as a law, and getting a law already on the books repealed, which seems to apply in this Australian case.

Andre jute

On 12/4/2013 7:03 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 11:11:44 AM UTC, Duane wrote:
Sir Ridesalot wrote:

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 11:13:21 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 2:21:21 AM UTC, Peter Gordon wrote:



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







Whatever the statistical truth may be on the benefits of helmets,

fighting mandatory helmet laws is politically a lost battle because the

perception in political circles is that helmets save lives. It doesn't

matter whether it is true or not. The political battle is lost, and for

good. Wasting energy on a lost battle is a counterproductive idiocy. The

sooner cyclists accept that and move on to battles they can win, the

better for them and the better for all of us.







Andre Jute



NOT SO!



Here in Ontario, Canada we were successful in kiling the mandatory for

adults bicycle helmet legislation.



Cheers



In Quebec Velo Quebec killed it for us. Also lobbied against an MHL for

kids. They support infrastructure in order to increase cycling claiming

higher cycling presence lowers risk of injury. They're not against

helmets, just the mandatory helmet laws.

--

duane

You guys are working hard to prove Franki Shavelegs right! Jokes aside though, there's a difference between stopping a proposal before it is enacted as a law, and getting a law already on the books repealed, which seems to apply in this Australian case.

lol. VQ doesn't insist that helmets don't offer any protection. They
don't insist that in a fall your head smashes into the ground because
the helmet is 1 inch wider and your neck would have miraculously stopped
your head millimeters short of the curb without out it. They don't
claim that helmets cause more damage than they prevent.

They aren't against helmet use. They just don't support mandatory
requirement of helmet use because the data is not conclusive one way or
another as to whether it lowers cycling numbers and their purpose is to
increase them. They also don't think that wearing a helmet is going to
protect you much when you're hit by a car going 70km/h so they're more
concerned with dealing with road safety through facilities, education
and increased cycling presence.

Not all of Canada agrees with this. Not even all of Quebec but
there's an ongoing discussion and VQ is usually consulted when the
province makes decisions with respect to cycling.

Here's an example of how the discussion goes:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1376605/

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 4:11:11 AM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 5:19:11 AM UTC, Sir Ridesalot wrote:

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 11:13:21 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:



On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 2:21:21 AM UTC, Peter Gordon wrote:

Andre Jute wrote

Whatever the statistical truth may be on the benefits of helmets, fighting mandatory helmet laws is politically a lost battle because the perception in political circles is that helmets save lives. It doesn't matter whether it is true or not. The political battle is lost, and for good. Wasting energy on a lost battle is a counterproductive idiocy. The sooner cyclists accept that and move on to battles they can win, the better for them and the better for all of us.

Andre Jute


NOT SO!

Here in Ontario, Canada we were successful in kiling the mandatory for adults bicycle helmet legislation.

Cheers

Congratulations. Before or after it was passed?

Andre Jute

BEFORE! When word of the inpending legislation got out, the bicyclists organized themselves to fight it.

Cheers

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 9:31:05 AM UTC-5, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 4:11:11 AM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 5:19:11 AM UTC, Sir Ridesalot wrote:



On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 11:13:21 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:







On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 2:21:21 AM UTC, Peter Gordon wrote:



Andre Jute wrote



Whatever the statistical truth may be on the benefits of helmets, fighting mandatory helmet laws is politically a lost battle because the perception in political circles is that helmets save lives. It doesn't matter whether it is true or not. The political battle is lost, and for good. Wasting energy on a lost battle is a counterproductive idiocy. The sooner cyclists accept that and move on to battles they can win, the better for them and the better for all of us.



Andre Jute





NOT SO!



Here in Ontario, Canada we were successful in kiling the mandatory for adults bicycle helmet legislation.



Cheers



Congratulations. Before or after it was passed?



Andre Jute



BEFORE! When word of the inpending legislation got out, the bicyclists organized themselves to fight it.

Here's a list (probably incomplete) of places where laws were repealed after enactment: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1214.html

But regarding Sir's comment on fighting laws: Data at the MHL promotion site www.bhsi.org lists U.S. laws and their dates of enactment. Those clearly show that state laws (which never apply to adults) were a phenomenon of the 1990s. One state enacted such a law for kids in 1992; two states in 1993, and a peak of five states in 1994. Three states in '95, three states in '96, followed by a mere trickle, never more than one state in any year thereafter. There hasn't been a new statewide helmet law since 2007.

I believe this may be the explanation: Bell Sports and/or the Snell Foundation backed Thompson & Rivara's distorted claims in 1989, and contributed heavily to Safe Kids Inc. in the early '90s. Safe Kids, acting as a (probably sincere, but deluded) lobbying arm of the helmet industry, used the funding to push for MHLs. Helmet promotional material was suddenly everywhere, and state legislatures were pressed to pass laws. Hearings were crowded with teary-eyed testimony. And people who were pro-bicycle were either similarly deluded, or (more often) caught completely off-guard.

But by 1996, papers had begun to appear demonstrating that helmet laws were failures. Bike advocates had noted the sudden drops in cycling in Australia and realized the push for legislation must be countered. Data became available that disproved the claims of law proponents, and logical arguments began to successfully counter the push from Safe Kids and the helmet industry. Again, statewide laws slowed to a trickle, then stopped. And even Safe Kids seems to have shifted its focus from bike helmets to child car seats.. Whether this is due to a drop in funding from Helmets Inc., I don't know..

MHLs still pop up occasionally in cities and counties, where one or a few true-believers might assault a few unsophisticated legislators. But even those laws are generally unenforced. (I've found that I've inadvertently violated several local and provincial - i.e. Canadian - MHLs, and done so with no penalty.)

I'll also mention that many fairly prominent authors in the bicycling advocacy community have gotten much more skeptical of bike helmets over the years, and have greatly tempered their former promotion. John Forester comes to mind, as well as Dave Glowacz, and I believe Richard Ballantine. And of course, this year we had a major article in _Bicycling_ magazine saying, in effect, that current helmets are not preventing concussions. And more and more articles are appearing with the message that cycling actually is quite safe.

This is the direction things are moving.

- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 10:38:46 +0700, John B. wrote:

snip

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."

That's very much like buying a television in England. They won't give it
to you without a name and address to give to the television licensing
bandits.

Just because it's an incredibly stupid and unworkable idea doesn't mean
they won't do it.

--
davethedave