10 May 2013

Do You Support Mandatory Helmet Laws in the ACT [With poll]

| howeph
Join the conversation
48

When you reflect on the following photo from Holland, what do you see?

Cyclists in Holland

What do you see in the photo?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Join the conversation

48
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

RadioVK said :

In answer to your question, you could have asked if the people in the photo were exposing themselves to a greater risk of injury or death by failing to wear a helmet.

Yes I agree.

The middle option, for people such as yourself who think that it really is a good idea to always wear a helmet but don’t think that it should be illegal, should have been more measured. Maybe I should have had something like:

“People exposing themselves to a greater risk of injury or death by failing to wear a helmet, but it’s their life, their responsibility.”

But as you say, that option wasn’t the point of the exercise.

howeph said :

However clearly a number of people who wanted to answer ‘Yes’ did find it difficult. Why?

Simple. There wasn’t a “Yes” option.

howeph said :

RadioVK said :

I think you just answered your own question by admitting that the questions were loaded…

I didn’t admit that the *questions* were loaded; only that the *answers* might be considered loaded.

Assuming that you meant “answers” above, what do you think the unbiased/non-loaded answers should have been to the same question?

If you did indeed mean “questions”, then again, please describe how my poll questions are biased.

Quite right, I did mean answers, rather than questions.

In answer to your question, you could have asked if the people in the photo were exposing themselves to a greater risk of injury or death by failing to wear a helmet.

Of course, this is largely irrelevant, as you have already admitted that this exercise was less about getting a meaningful answer to the question, and more about stimulating discussion. I can respect this, as you obviously have strong opinions on the matter, but you do risk coming across as someone with nothing but an axe to grind.

In any case, laws or no laws, you’ll never convince me that riding a bike without a helmet is a good idea, and I still think that anyone who would ride thier bike without a helmet is a bloody idiot.

I’m no fan of government over regulation or the nanny state, and I don’t actually care if the laws are abolished or not, as it won’t affect my decision on wearing a helmet, but sometimes the stupid need to be saved from themselves.

howeph said :

RadioVK said :

I think you just answered your own question by admitting that the questions were loaded…

I didn’t admit that the *questions* were loaded; only that the *answers* might be considered loaded.

Assuming that you meant “answers” above, what do you think the unbiased/non-loaded answers should have been to the same question?

If you did indeed mean “questions”, then again, please describe how my poll questions are biased.

You clearly have no idea if you didn’t think they were loaded. You create a poll from a neutral standpoint without injecting your own bias, emotion or sarcasm into it.

A simple poll with the question “Do you agree with ACT helmet laws” with ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

Instead we got a poll with a picture attached with the first option being the one you wanted and any other option being the insinuation that anyone supporting the laws is pedantic, over exaggerating the danger posed by head injuries and should be in near hysterics over seeing people (in another country no less) riding around with no helmets.

RadioVK said :

I think you just answered your own question by admitting that the questions were loaded…

I didn’t admit that the *questions* were loaded; only that the *answers* might be considered loaded.

Assuming that you meant “answers” above, what do you think the unbiased/non-loaded answers should have been to the same question?

If you did indeed mean “questions”, then again, please describe how my poll questions are biased.

RadioVK said :

I find it funny that the OP was bleating about bias on one of the other threads regarding research into bike related injury that didn’t support their point of view, and then serves up this load of tripe as a “poll”…

Please describe how my poll is biased. I agree that the answers, in the sense that they use emotive language, could be considered as being “loaded”. Even so in order for behaviour to be made illegal, surely it must be thought to be sufficiently bad and demonstrably against the social good. E.g. for behaviour to be made illegal then it should fit the definition of “irrational” or “reckless”.

I think you just answered your own question by admitting that the questions were loaded…

Well it looks like my little “poll” has run its course, so I’ll wrap it up.

First, thanks to all the Rioters who took part and to RiotACT for hosting it.

Whilst I do find the result of the poll very interesting, as you all guessed, my motivation for posting the poll was not to gauge the current community *opinion* on mandatory helmet laws, but rather to encourage those who support the law to reflect a little about the basis for their support.

Spitfire3 said :

Your heading is misleading. Before I opened this article, the heading made me think the poll would be “Do you support mandatory helmet laws in the ACT? Yes or no”. That would have been fair enough, and may have even given us a decent view of the cross section of opinion here.

Instead, I find the poll is more along the lines of “Why do you hate freedom and kill puppies!!?!!1”

Yes the heading is misleading, deliberately so, and I make no apology for it.

I wanted people to have already made up their mind, Yes or No, with respect to the laws before seeing the actual poll. People who had decided to answer ‘No’ had no difficulty, judging by the comments, in answering the actual poll question.

However clearly a number of people who wanted to answer ‘Yes’ did find it difficult. Why?

Postalgeek said :

Jezuz, talk about leading questions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

Absolutely brilliant! I love that show. But I disagree. Whilst I might have provided loaded answers, I did not ask leading questions, quite the opposite.

Leading questions step an individual along to get them to give the desired answer. Whereas I asked two questions:

* Do You Support Mandatory Helmet Laws in the ACT?

* When you reflect on the following photo from Holland, what do you see?

For those who support mandatory helmet laws, the questions are intended to be “leading” in opposite directions. The whole point was to highlight a possible contradiction in their opinion on helmet laws and their emotional reaction to the photo.

From Wikipedia on Cognitive dissonance:

“In modern psychology, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel “disequilibrium”: frustration, hunger, dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, anxiety, etc.”

johnboy said :

It’s not loading. It’s the socratic method.

Yes, exactly. Thanks Johnboy I hadn’t made the connection.

RadioVK said :

I find it funny that the OP was bleating about bias on one of the other threads regarding research into bike related injury that didn’t support their point of view, and then serves up this load of tripe as a “poll”…

Please describe how my poll is biased. I agree that the answers, in the sense that they use emotive language, could be considered as being “loaded”. Even so in order for behaviour to be made illegal, surely it must be thought to be sufficiently bad and demonstrably against the social good. E.g. for behaviour to be made illegal then it should fit the definition of “irrational” or “reckless”.

M0les said :

Where’s the option for “I’m looking at a push-poll with leading multiple choices”?

It depends on your definition of a “push poll”. If your definition is:

“A push poll is an interactive marketing technique … in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll.” [Edited extract form Wikipedia]

Then yes, guilty as charged.

If however you mean the sot of push polling, sometimes used in political campaigns by unscrupulous parties to spread propaganda and rumour mongering, masquerading as a poll; then I reject that entirely.

Which nicely brings me on to:

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Are you a politician howeph?

No I am not. Nor am I a member of any political party. I disagree with them all more or less equally.

Thanks again.

Cycling is safe.

c_c™ said :

KB1971 said :

c_c™ said :

KB1971 said :

Do you:
A) Smoke
B) drink
C) eat fatty foods
D) drive a car
E) Have a life that has no risks of injury at all
??

D – Yes, wearing a seatbelt (seatbelt is to car occupant, what helmet is to bike rider)

So, driving a car at 100km/h is no risk?

Putting aside that your perception of the world appears to be completely black and white.

Of course not, and nor will wearing a helmet completely mitigate the risk of injury.
Point is with everything you list, there’s ways to reduce the risk via reasonable methods.
You make sure you don’t smoke, you drink and eat unhealthy foods in moderation and wear a seatbelt.

Helmet massively decreases chance of head injury.

I’m curious, would you drive a car without a seatbelt? More to the point if you have kids, would you let them ride without a seatbelt?

Oh, I am not disagreeing with you on the merits of the safety of helmets and seat belts. I still have a lump on my head where I cracked my head on the ground crashing my bike in the mid 80’s pre helmets.

Its the inference that cyclists should pay for their own health care that I am disagreeing with but I do see you are differentiating that with not wearing a helmet because of the increased risk.

I have said what I was going to say about that in the above post.

The RA post vetting system can make these conversations a bit higgledy piggledy at times.

KB1971 said :

c_c™ said :

KB1971 said :

Do you:
A) Smoke
B) drink
C) eat fatty foods
D) drive a car
E) Have a life that has no risks of injury at all
??

D – Yes, wearing a seatbelt (seatbelt is to car occupant, what helmet is to bike rider)

So, driving a car at 100km/h is no risk?

Putting aside that your perception of the world appears to be completely black and white.

Of course not, and nor will wearing a helmet completely mitigate the risk of injury.
Point is with everything you list, there’s ways to reduce the risk via reasonable methods.
You make sure you don’t smoke, you drink and eat unhealthy foods in moderation and wear a seatbelt.

Helmet massively decreases chance of head injury.

I’m curious, would you drive a car without a seatbelt? More to the point if you have kids, would you let them ride without a seatbelt?

c_c™ said :

KB1971 said :

Do you:
A) Smoke
B) drink
C) eat fatty foods
D) drive a car
E) Have a life that has no risks of injury at all
??

D – Yes, wearing a seatbelt (seatbelt is to car occupant, what helmet is to bike rider)

So, driving a car at 100km/h is no risk?

I see a bunch of overweight people riding bikes without helmets in another country with significant cycling infrastructure.

This other country is very flat and well suited to cycling.

Dilandach said :

KB1971 said :

c_c™ said :

Loaded question for sure.

To the individual posing it, let me ask, when you get knocked off your bike and your head gets smacked on the road, will you elect not to accept government health care and disability benefits that sap the taxpayer’s pocket for your stupidity?

Do you:
A) Smoke
B) drink
C) eat fatty foods
D) drive a car
E) Have a life that has no risks of injury at all

??

I’m sure no one will notice you just ignored the question. Seems to be par for the course.

& you are never wrong?

You may have noticed, the conversation is not finished and there is more to add from both sides BUT public health care is there for everybody, whether they be stupid or not, risk taker or not. Just because a rescue of a hand full of people a year makes the news does not make it a massive drain on society and the health system, obesity, alcoholism, drug abuse ect have far greater affect.

There have been a few people suggest that anyone who rides a bike should not be able to access public health because of the “risks” involved.

I am pretty sure that there has not been much thought put into the suggestion me thinks.

For the record, I and my family use a helmet every time we ride and would not be without it. The fact that the laws are compulsory or not doesn’t affect me nor am I against it.

Also, just to show you how selfish I am as a cyclist, I have private health and TPI for me/my bike to protect other people if I cause an accident (anywhere in the world in fact) 😉

KB1971 said :

Do you:
A) Smoke
B) drink
C) eat fatty foods
D) drive a car
E) Have a life that has no risks of injury at all
??

D – Yes, wearing a seatbelt (seatbelt is to car occupant, what helmet is to bike rider)

Dilandach said :

KB1971 said :

c_c™ said :

Loaded question for sure.

To the individual posing it, let me ask, when you get knocked off your bike and your head gets smacked on the road, will you elect not to accept government health care and disability benefits that sap the taxpayer’s pocket for your stupidity?

Do you:
A) Smoke
B) drink
C) eat fatty foods
D) drive a car
E) Have a life that has no risks of injury at all

??

I’m sure no one will notice you just ignored the question. Seems to be par for the course.

I’ll answer C_C’s question; No, I wouldn’t elect not to use government health care or disability benefits. if you don’t like it, come and stop me.

KB1971 said :

c_c™ said :

Loaded question for sure.

To the individual posing it, let me ask, when you get knocked off your bike and your head gets smacked on the road, will you elect not to accept government health care and disability benefits that sap the taxpayer’s pocket for your stupidity?

Do you:
A) Smoke
B) drink
C) eat fatty foods
D) drive a car
E) Have a life that has no risks of injury at all

??

I’m sure no one will notice you just ignored the question. Seems to be par for the course.

You guys know that internet polls are pointless right? They can only ever be a bit of fun because they are too easy to corrupt. John, Joel and OP are having some fun. Calm the f#%$ down.

c_c™ said :

Loaded question for sure.

To the individual posing it, let me ask, when you get knocked off your bike and your head gets smacked on the road, will you elect not to accept government health care and disability benefits that sap the taxpayer’s pocket for your stupidity?

Do you:
A) Smoke
B) drink
C) eat fatty foods
D) drive a car
E) Have a life that has no risks of injury at all

??

johnboy said :

We work with the tools to hand

True, true…

Where’s the option for “I’m looking at a push-poll with leading multiple choices”?

thebrownstreak692:48 pm 10 May 13

Wahhh – the rules are the rules.

(Except when we don’t like them)

Henry82 said :

helmets required in areas where the speed limit is above 60km/hr

Make that more like 40km/h, 60 still too energetic for an unhelmeted noggin.

johnboy said :

I love that you’re linking to an article published on this site before the one you’re linking to.

http://the-riotact.com/you-really-should-wear-a-helmet-on-your-bicycle/103049

I think we need to go deeper…

helmets required in areas where the speed limit is above 60km/hr

I find it funny that the OP was bleating about bias on one of the other threads regarding research into bike related injury that didn’t support their point of view, and then serves up this load of tripe as a “poll”.

In case you’re wondering, no, I don’t care if helmets are mandatory or not. I would wear a helmet regardless, and I’d regard anyone who didn’t as a bloody idiot.

On the bright side, abolishing mandatory helmet laws would just giving natural selection another oportunity to remove stupid people from the gene pool.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Not to mention it’s a picture of a situation in a completely different country, with different infrastructure, topography and city planning and a long-standing culture of bike-riding, the acceptance of bikes as a means of transport and the acceptance of bikes on roads.

+1

The Netherlands has chosen to deal with cycling safety by massive spending on bicycling infrastructure and low speed limits. 75% of residential streets in the Netherlands has a speed limit of 30km/h. The Australian approach is “put a helmet on”.

It’s also interesting that elderly people are shown riding, getting exercise, and how no-one is wearing lycra.

However, I still support compulsory helmet laws here in Australia.

I believe you should require a helmet if you are using road bike lines. I prefer laws which protect strangers from danger, not people from themselves, but I don’t know. I don’t like wearing a helmet for short rides, but for longer rides or if I will be going through traffic, I wear one.

I see a bunch of people in an area (“Holland”) where the existence and use of bicycles is accepted by the general population and there is little, if any, animosity toward them from other road users. I also see in that picture, specific and high-quality infrastructure designed for bicycle use, and where a lot of thought is put into bicycle/vehicle interactions at intersections etc.. I also see that bicycles have right of way over everything, including pedestrians.

I wonder what happens in the rest of The Netherlands though? 🙂

johnboy said :

It’s not loading. It’s the socratic method.

The socratic method is not multiple-choice.

We work with the tools to hand

People that should GET OUT OF MY GOD DAMN WAY

The picture should have of the Naked Bike Ride instead.

Spitfire3 said :

Your heading is misleading. Before I opened this article, the heading made me think the poll would be “Do you support mandatory helmet laws in the ACT? Yes or no”. That would have been fair enough, and may have even given us a decent view of the cross section of opinion here.

Instead, I find the poll is more along the lines of “Why do you hate freedom and kill puppies!!?!!1”

You should change the end of the heading to say [With LOADED QUESTION poll].

In all fairness, the answers are no more loaded than the ones JB usually puts up when he authors a poll. And you know it to be true, JB :p

It’s not loading. It’s the socratic method.

Holden Caulfield11:35 am 10 May 13

There’s a huge mistake with the poll!

The people shown in the photo are cyclists, therefore they cannot, by definition, be “ordinary people going about their day”.

😛

Spitfire3 said :

Your heading is misleading. Before I opened this article, the heading made me think the poll would be “Do you support mandatory helmet laws in the ACT? Yes or no”. That would have been fair enough, and may have even given us a decent view of the cross section of opinion here.

Instead, I find the poll is more along the lines of “Why do you hate freedom and kill puppies!!?!!1”

You should change the end of the heading to say [With LOADED QUESTION poll].

Well said, that man.

I don’t know how to create a poll on RiotAct, but if I did I’d make one with the following options:

I live in the ACT and I AGREE with the law that cyclists must wear helmets.
I live in the ACT and I DON’T AGREE with the law that cyclists must wear helmets.
I live in the ACT and I don’t care either way.
I live outside the ACT and I AGREE with the law that cyclists must wear helmets.
I live outside the ACT and I DON’T AGREE with the law that cyclists must wear helmets.
I live outside the ACT and I don’t care either way.

Come back in a week and post your suggested poll

Jezuz, talk about leading questions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

HiddenDragon10:54 am 10 May 13

I imagine they’re all wearing those amazing airbag-style concealed helmets, which shoot out in a fraction of a second if the rider goes quickly from the vertical to the horizontal position (as seen on Stephen Fry’s gadget show last night).

Ghettosmurf8710:42 am 10 May 13

Are you a politician howeph?

Because that is a terribly biased poll that in no way reflects the question in the heading.

Not to mention it’s a picture of a situation in a completely different country, with different infrastructure, topography and city planning and a long-standing culture of bike-riding, the acceptance of bikes as a means of transport and the acceptance of bikes on roads.

Voted for the second option as there are at least two guys riding motorcycles without helmets.

I’m assuming that’s the point of this poll?

Loaded question for sure.

To the individual posing it, let me ask, when you get knocked off your bike and your head gets smacked on the road, will you elect not to accept government health care and disability benefits that sap the taxpayer’s pocket for your stupidity?

neanderthalsis10:36 am 10 May 13

Option D. A group of people on bikes riding in a nation where there is no mandatory helmet laws.

There are a lot of laws I don’t like. I am, however, too lazy to start my own political party, run candidates in multiple electorates, win enough seats to form a majority government and change the laws., I could join the Greens, KAP or the Clive for Canberra party and insert my nutjob policies in amongst the other nutjob policies and hope that the protest voters don’t read the policies.

The truth about helmet laws is that most people either don’t care or agree with them. I believe that if you were to actually word your questions to ask opinion on helmet laws, then you would discover this.

Your heading is misleading. Before I opened this article, the heading made me think the poll would be “Do you support mandatory helmet laws in the ACT? Yes or no”. That would have been fair enough, and may have even given us a decent view of the cross section of opinion here.

Instead, I find the poll is more along the lines of “Why do you hate freedom and kill puppies!!?!!1”

You should change the end of the heading to say [With LOADED QUESTION poll].

I believe that is the queue for Central coffeeshop, or maybe Rastababy or Route99.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.