Here we go again...
Not sure how to post this link from the Adelaide Now Website, if this doesn't work, perhaps someone else with better IT skills can post it please???
Pretty advertisement which skirts around the safety issues conveniently and then draws a parallel between rising obesity rates and the introduction of mandatory helmet laws...!
Understandably the QLD authorities aren't happy.
The ad is pure Crap!
Wow that's an insightful comment. Certainly the ad is unlikely to have any effect as the execution seems poor but I wholeheartedly agree with their sentiment. Whats your problem with it? Or is it a case of cement meets mind?
One thing good which came from the ad was a link to this very nice video which has some excellent commentary about cycling in Brisbane and Australia and is a great video to watch, well worth it. I'm getting old so now I can seriously consider riding a socially unacceptable recumbent - I want one.
My problem with it is that it is wrong, it's so called facts and it's premise is wrong! Helmets save lives. There are more people cycling in Australia today than ever before. Bike sales are more than car sales.
Any ad that promotes not wearing of helmets on bikes is irresponsible and unsafe.
Bike sales have exceeded car sales for some time but they all seem to gather dust in the shed after a while. It's because riding a bike on Australian roads is for most people unpleasant and feels dangerous. Forcing them to wear a helmet does not change that. It merely confirms their belief that it is a dangerous activity.
If people are convinced that polystyrene helmets save lives, they should wear them. Nobody is stopping them and this ad is not advocating that at all. 1 in 6 people in Copenhagen choose to wear a helmet. It should be a matter of choice.
What puzzles me though is just how many lives the mandatory helmet laws are supposed to have saved when before and after the introduction of the laws, there is no discernible difference in injury or fatality numbers.
Also, the images in the ad are not staged. They're real people going about their business in Italy. Nobody seems to be dying in great numbers over there. What's the difference between there and here?
Are we really that arrogant that we think we and New Zealand are the only countries in the whole world who have got this right?
People will give all sorts of reasons for not riding a bike and it's always convienient to use the word dangerous, lack of facilities,helmet hair etc. Many bicycles are sold to people who think it would be nice to go for a family ride on a Sunday afternoon or join in the fun during the TDU etc. Pretty soon they find out that the afternoon is the hottest part of the day, refreshment stations on or near off road cycle paths are virtually non existant apart from the sea side run. Kids get tired and grumpy much quicker than dad. Punctures happen and it's a long walk home and for first timers a pain in the arse and/or expensive to fix. The best football/cricket/motor racing/family functions happen on Sunday afternoon. Chains rust, tyres deflate, cobwebs gather on bicycles after a short weeks of lack of interest. Thats why so few Australians ride their bikes IMHO.
Sometimes life just get's in the way too. My current bike has sat in our shed unused for 10 years. I now ride to and from work each day.
At least if people have bikes they some opportunity to ride them. Of course the first thing I did before riding it was to go and get a new helmet - which could be a barrier to some?
I've been following this debate and I've gone from supporting no compulsory helmets to supporting compulsory helmets - in Australia. Other countries appear to have different road cultures.
Of course I may swap back in time...
There are definitely more people riding bikes on the road today than there was a few years ago. You can hardly drive a car in Adelaide today without seeing many people on bikes. 10 years ago you'd be lucky to see one in blue moon!
I agree - there seem to be many more cyclists on the road than say 5, 10 years ago. Do you know how many there are as a proportion of the population, as compared to the 70's/80's before mandatory bike helmets?
I understand that this tells a slightly different story (but don't have the stats at hand, may well be wrong)
That would be useful to know although what it says about MHLs is probably another story.
Between 2005 and 2010, cycling's modal share actually fell. See p14 of the Australian National Cycling Strategy 2011-16:
That's nationwide. What happened in individual States might be another story.
Children don't drive, thats why bikes outsell cars.
Do you have any statistics backing up your claim that velomobiles cause leg injuries? I have read the opposite and heard that they are much safer than upright "safety" bicycles. BTW, why are recumbents so marginalised? To do with their inherent safety and design problems? Or a marketing ploy run by the UCI and bicycle manufacturers? The history of the banning of recumbents from cycling events is an interesting read - the efficiency of them is surprising.
I thought the video had nice production values and I must admit I'm interested in velomobiles - basically lycra sport cycling leaves me cold. I have been riding for more than 40 years and I ride a lot and am not interested in it as a sport - much of it is elitist nonsense if you ask me. The video has some reasonable commentary regarding cycling/cycling lanes/lack of cyclists. The interlude in the kids park where they were introduced to Australian cycling by sharing the road with a big dangerous machine was particularly apt. But if it gets up your nose, then so be it.
As to emergency department people - if they are oracles of all things safety, why don't you wear a helmet when you are in a car? Its a ludicrous idea. But the number of gut churning pictures of people with smashed brains as a result of car crashes far outnumbers those you can rustle up from bicycle crashes. This is about anti-MHL, not anti-H. How about banning anything and everything which can cause injuries, or legislating for the wearing of protective wear when doing anything? I'm pretty sure you can find photos of gore from just about any human activity you can imagine and find someone who can stand up and propound how they would have been saved if only for "xxx" - fill in the blanks. But what about the societal cost? No much better not to focus on the big picture.
If helmets are hot and uncomfortable does this suggest that there is a huge market for helmets that are cool and comfortable.
Would money be better spent on this?
If the majority of roads in Australia were narrow and with minimal cars like those show in the add there may be a case for this.
The add does seem biased