|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
News from down under on helmet laws, passing laws and fighting betweenso called advocacy groups.
|
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 01:51 PM |
Helmet laws??? | Mikefule | Unicycling | 0 | November 10th 07 06:55 PM |
Helmet Use Laws | JJuggle | Unicycling | 4 | August 19th 04 08:02 PM |
Tasmanian helmet laws? | John Henderson | Australia | 15 | March 5th 04 12:00 PM |