Cycling in Sydney Australia
Helmets!!!!
Anyone get pinged by the bike cops at the bottom of the SHB stairs this afternoon? I asked what they were up to and they said looking for riders with no helmets.
I wonder if bike cops always get to do bike-specific work? In which case would they be better off looking for cyclist abusers in town?
Too bad there aren't any cops or ex-cops reading this...(cough)....
I wonder if bike cops always get to do bike-specific work? In which case would they be better off looking for cyclist abusers in town?
Too bad there aren't any cops or ex-cops reading this...(cough)....
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by noelbike on
-
Let's support this activity. We can then say that it is a two way street.
We can acknowledge the reality that it is bad to have a car run too close to us and it is also wrong for a bike to ride in the dark with out lights.
It is a two way street for me anyway.
-
Permalink Reply by Colin on -
(Not the anti-helmet rants, but the anti-helmet-laws rant)
It's a fairly well understood principle that there's a big difference between:
A) behaviour which may be harmful to self (eg. cyclists not wearing helmets),
B) behaviour which may be harmful to others (eg. cars running too close to cyclists).
The latter should be far more strictly regulated than the former, which perhaps shouldn't be regulated at all.
Cops cracking down on helmetless riders strikes me as an anti-cyclist move that has no benefits whatsover, unless you wish to see a reduction in the number of cyclists on the road (which leads to reduced safety for the remaining cyclists).
-
Permalink Reply by weiyun on -
Here we go. Pay your own medical and rehab costs and it won't cause any financial harm to others.
-
Permalink Reply by Colin on
-
OK, you're classing non-helmet wearing as part of (B). Can you show that the increased medical cost of unhelmeted riders (if there is an increased cost!) is greater than the cost of the sum of:
i) helmet law enforcement
ii) the costs of helmets themselves
iii) the extra medical cost caused by reduced societal health due to reduced cycling numbers caused by mandatory helmet laws
iv) the cost of reduced cyclist safety caused by lower cyclist numbers resulting from mandatory helmet laws
v) the additional pollution caused by reduced cyclists numbers
I could think of many more costs of mandatory helmet laws, but I think I've already far outweighed any "societal cost" of unhelmeted cyclists.
-
Permalink Reply by weiyun on
-
That's not the community's problem. It's your responsibility to prove that your bare head can handle a hammer test without dropping your GCS.
-
Permalink Reply by Dan on -
I agree with Weiyun that it is entirely reasonable to take a cost / benefit basis for helmet legislation, and insist that the overall burden to society in terms of costs should be as low as possible.
To do that in it's entirety is a bit time consuming, but luckily Professor Piet de Jong, an actuarial expert at Macquarie University, has done it for us in research published by the Social Science Research Network.
He developed a mathematical model that calculates various outcomes of the mandatory helmet legislation based upon known or perceived inputs, including the exercise benefits of cycling, head injury percentages and reductions in cycling popularity.
It shows that helmet laws have a direct health cost to Australia of $301 million per year and a total cost of $519 million when combined with the non-health costs of the law.
So there we go. Repealing MHL could save us all over $300 million in tax - or build a lot of bike lanes.
You can read the paper here.
-
Permalink Reply by weiyun on
-
One paper? There better be some consistent findings by other academic groups to verify this kind of over analysis. And what's to say that there's no errors in the various assumptions made by the Professor?
Until you can prove that your head can sustain the same degree of injury with or without a helmet...
In the meantime, cry all you want. The law is there and it's your job to change it. Otherwise many if not the majority believes it makes sense.
-
Permalink Reply by Dan on
-
SInce you ask, you might also try these papers, which either come to the same overall conclusion, or provide part of the jigsaw:
Promotion of safe walking and cycling in urban areas. THE PEP Steering Committee, second session, 29 and 30 March 2004. Geneva, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2004 (document ECE/AC.21/2004/13; EUR/04/5045236/13)
Andersen LB et al. All-cause mortality associated with physical activity during leisure time, work, sports and cycling to work. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2000, 160:1621–1628.
Cavill N, Kahlmeier S. Economic analyses of transport infrastructure and policies including health effects related to cycling and walking: a systematic review. Transport policy, in press.
Cavill N et al. Economic assessment of transport infra-structure and policies. Methodological guidance on the economic appraisal of health effects related to walking and cycling. Copenhagen, WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2007
Matthews CE et al. Influence of exercise, walking, cycling, and overall non exercise physical activity on mortality in Chinese women. American Journal of Epidemiology, 2007, 165:1343–1350.
Schantz P, Stigell E. Physically active commuting between home and work/study place in Greater Stockholm. In: Proceedings of Transport Research Arena Europe. Greener, safer and smarter road transport for Europe. Conference of European Directors of Roads, European Commission and European Road Transport Research
2006
Rutter H et al. Health economic assessment tool for cycling (HEAT for cycling). Copenhagen, WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2007.
Schantz P, Stigell E. Frequency of bicycle tours per week and bicycling days per year as input data in cost–benefit analyses. In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Sciences, Estoril, 9–12 July 2008: 261–262
Schantz P, Stigell E. Distance, time and velocity as input data in cost–benefit analyses of physically active transportation. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress on Physical Activity and Public Health, Amsterdam, 13–16 April 2008: 270
Unfortunately, Weiyun, I thought we were in agreement that the way to look at this was at a cost minimisation level. There is a considerable body of both Australian and international work that indicates that helmet laws add to the overall cost to society, rather than reducing it.
However, it appears that you aren't really interested in that approach at all - you'd rather talk about hitting your head with a hammer.
-
Permalink Reply by Nick on -
The argument that helmet wearing is necessary to financially 'protect' the taxpayer is completely out of proportion with attitudes to other risks in our society. Multiply the risk by the cost per person and i'm sure the cost is negligible. Society tolerates many similarly relatively 'risky' lifestyle choices without even debating it.
Apart from the offsets to cost/risk mentioned just above by colin, many other activities are just as financially risky to society but never questioned. Why don't car drivers have to wear helmets and why don't pedestrian's have to wear lights and body-armour when potential injury could cost the taxpayer? [NB: per km travelled more drivers and pedestrians are killed or seriously injured than cyclists.]
Furthermore, why are people allowed to drink alcohol or smoke given the health consequences? Or to get even more ridiculous, why are women allowed to have children later in life when there is a high risk of down-syndrome, or other complications, which would cost the taxpayer dearly over many years in disability infrastructure? In fact, why are people allowed to live to old ages never before possible supported by pills, machines and other forms of modern medicine that cost a bomb?
Arguing that helmets should be compulsory based on risk/cost to taxpayer just isn't consistent with laws that apply to other people. Especially when (as Colin points out), in theory all evidence points to the fact that the net-cost to society of compulsory helmet wearing is greater than if it were a free-choice.
Having said this, I would probably still wear a helmet most of the time. But i don't think people should be forced to.
-
Permalink Reply by paragon on -
unfortunately , this exposes the ugly side of the bill of rights advocacy. helmet and seat belt laws would come under question if we ever (i wish) get such a constitutional amendment.
i ALWAYS wear a helmet ; and doing so has saved my life a number of times.anyone who doesn't obviously has nothing to protect. it pains me every time (numerous,daily) i see commuter cyclists with their helmet hanging from the bars. what is it ?-your hair ? comfort?(buy a better one!) does it instill you with a sense of 'freedom' to shirk the very thing you purchased in the interest of your own safety?!? do you say to the cop "no! don't fine me ; my helmets right here .........i'll just bung it on , mate!"
vote , help , and wear a bloody helmet.........you idiot!!!
© 2013 Created by DamianM.
