Cars are allowed in the city center, but they are mostly commercial vehicles (taxis, delivery drivers, construction, etc).
Most people use public transport to commute to and from work.
Many bike share schemes have been tried, but are not popular in Melbourne because trams are free and bicycles require helmets by law.
This is not true at all, a ridiculous number of people drive to work and park in the city. Over 60% of all traffic is private cars.
So much for taking livability seriously.
I grew up in Melbourne. I've worn bike helmets since I was a kid. They have been compulsory since 1990. It's not a big deal. Everyone knows it is just common sense, just like wearing seatbelts in a car.
Over the years, I have had bike crashes and hit my head on the road three times. The one time I was seriously injured was in Amsterdam, where no one wears helmets. My front wheel jammed and I fell over the handlebars face-first onto the road. I had to go to hospital for stitches. I was very, very lucky I didn't end up brain-damaged.
Helmets reduce serious brain trauma by 50-60%. That's well worth the small inconvenience for me.
Importantly, requiring helmets deters many normal people from biking in the first place — in Australia, bike commuting rates plummeted when mandatory helmet laws went into effect
While it's obvious that wearing a helmet reduces damage if you're in an accident, there's studies suggesting that wearing a helmet makes you more likely to be in an accident in the first place - car drivers drive more dangerously around helmeted riders, and helmeted riders ride more dangerously.
It's all very interested and not as straight forward as I (or maybe you) would have thought.
Studies and factions mentioned are from here: https://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5720762/stop-forcing-people-to...
After having had three falls and having been very lucky I totally reversed that sentiment and always wear a helmet now.
It may be less freewheeling and comfortable. But I figured that maybe next time I'm less lucky, so it's definitely worth it.
I didn't wear a helmet when renting a bike in Japan. But I've seen nobody wear a helmet there.
1) almost all Dutch drivers are also cyclists. They know how bikes behave, how it feels to be a cyclist around cars, and are therefore far more conscientious of bikes
2) in an accident involving a car and a bike, Dutch road laws have a high presumption that the car is at fault.
In Amsterdam, I don't worry about a car running me over. In London and Melbourne I do, and so never ride there without a helmet.
When? In what specific situation?
He cited evidence from the University of Bath that suggests that wearing a helmet may even put cyclists at greater risk. The research showed that drivers get around 3 inches closer to cyclists who wear helmets because they perceive them as safer. [0]
So it sounds like you're more likely to get hit when you wear a helmet, that can't be safe. Why don't cyclists wear a proper fitting motorcycle helmet if helmets are safer?
One thing that does correlate -- the more cyclists there are, the fewer accidents per mile. [1]
Something else that may be uncomfortable reading, Australian helmet laws reduce levels of cycling [2] (and explain why cycle hire schemes in Melbourne don't work).
The scheme, which is costing taxpayers $5.5 million over four years, has been crippled by Melbourne's compulsory helmet laws. Bike share schemes are established in 135 cities around the world, but Melbourne's is the only one operating under such strict laws. [3]
If more cyclists is good (and I'd argue it is - as it means fewer drivers, and has the crowd benefit), you need to get rid of these helmet laws - they do more harm than good [4]
[0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10866273/Cycle-... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/may/07/cycling... [2] https://theconversation.com/australian-cycling-boom-nope-its... [3] https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/a-new-helmet-to-... [4] https://theconversation.com/make-helmets-optional-to-double-...
Given that, suggesting that helmet laws are a plot to reduce cycling puts you firmly in conspiracy theory territory in my book.
Of course adults should be free to choose for themselves what risks they are willing to take. The relevant populations are at so much lower risk for any number of misfortunes than their ancestors that helmet fans' pearl-clutching on their behalf is completely misplaced. But this too is beside the point.
Try reading my two sentences again, this time without your "conspiracy everywhere" glasses. The following propositions, which comprise the entirety of that post, are all literally true: "cycling doesn't require helmets", "helmet laws reduce cycling", "those who write helmet laws know that helmet laws reduce cycling". Every study of the effect of helmet laws shows that they reduce cycling. There might be some dangerously uninformed people writing cycling regulations, but most will have seen the relevant studies.
It's not universally the case though (see: drugs, seatbelts), and if you think it should be, you're in a small minority with that opinion. I think it's fair to consider externalities and then make laws that strike a nice balance between individual and collective interests. Bicycle helmets are a very small inconvenience, so i find it entirely appropriate to make them mandatory.
> "those who write helmet laws know that helmet laws reduce cycling"
Right, but that doesn't mean it's their motivation. That assumption, given that there are other prohibitions on dangerous behaviour, is a conspiracy theory.
Maybe in your community I would be? Where I live, it would be hard to find anyone who didn't feel adults should take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. I really don't understand this compulsion to measure oneself against the herd, however. "Oh no some randoms I've never met might disagree with me!" Why would I care about that? Perhaps you're not so experienced with reasoned discussion, but "that's fringe" and "that's conspiracy" are not really arguments. By focusing on these propositions you've conceded the factual claims I've made, which by themselves really settle the question of whether helmets ought to be mandatory for cycling.
That assumption... is a conspiracy theory.
I haven't made such an assumption. I would still question the opposite assumption, however. Are you certain that no one values the primacy of the automobile in traffic?
This is a very general statement and probably won't hold up in a number of specific cases, such as the total legalisation of the drug trade. But i do believe that "people" (as in: the majority) draw that line in a culture specific way and it appears that the US leans more towards personal freedom than the rest of "the west".
However, this discussion was about laws in Australia. I think it's reasonable to assume that the laws reflect the majority opinion. Now i'm not discounting fringe opinions in general and i certainly don't think the majority is always right. But in this case it's relevant because it offers a much simpler explanation for why helmet laws exist: because people living in those jurisdictions overwhelmingly want them.
Let me turn the argument around to illustrate: Not wearing helmets increases head injuries, and the people in power know that. Having a pro-helmet-law stance, it would make sense to see a conspiracy between lawmakers and health care providers (more brain damaged people, more revenue!). It seems much more reasonable to assume that places without helmet laws don't have them because people living there draw the line between personal freedoms and collective interests differently.
> I haven't made such an assumption.
Well, you wrote "Imposing helmets by law is a way to reduce cycling" and i really can't parse it any other way than to mean that the sole (or at least main) motivation for helmet laws is to reduce cycling. I stand by my words.
That helps converting some car users to motorbikes or scooters instead, as driving to work is generally much faster than in a car (for Melbourne traffic anyway).