5 ms·

Melbourne has the world's largest tram network. It has a massive train 869km train network too, plus current construction of a new $10 billion tunnel in the cit

Melbourne has the world's largest tram network. It has a massive train 869km train network too, plus current construction of a new $10 billion tunnel in the city center. 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.

megablast 8y ago
> Cars are allowed in the city center, but they are mostly commercial vehicles 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.
keir-rex 8y ago
They also get dumped every where. The oBikes look awful too. Ofo bikes are of a reasonable quality but obikes on the other hand have never tempted me to use them.
jessaustin 8y ago
...bicycles require helmets by law. So much for taking livability seriously.
- guidedlight 8y ago
  Helmets are $5 in Melbourne, people still won’t wear them.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Cyclists won't wear helmets because cycling doesn't require helmets. Imposing helmets by law is a way to reduce cycling, and those who write those regulations know it.
    - ponyfleisch 8y ago
      Are you making the argument that bicycle helmets are ineffective or that people should be free to choose for themselves what risks they are willing to take? The former is a dubious claim and the latter is likely a fringe position. Given that, suggesting that helmet laws are a plot to reduce cycling puts you firmly in conspiracy theory territory in my book.
      - ghaff 8y ago
        I don’t think it’s at all a fringe position that adults should have considerable latitude about personal safety choices. That said not everyone agrees with that and that, rather than reducing cycling, is the impetus behind helmet laws.
        madeofpalk 8y ago
        There's also the part of the equation that while decided to wear a helmet is a personal choice, the negative impacts affect the taxpayer in Australia due to having a reasonably good public health system.
        ghaff 8y ago
        There are certainly externalities to individual health and safety decisions. I find prohibiting “dangerous” activities (how about rock climbing? Say) a pretty slippery slope.
        ponyfleisch 8y ago
        Wouldn't it follow then that all drugs, even the potent opiates, should be legal to produce, sell and consume? I know some people think that way, but it's a fringe position.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        In any particular collision, a helmeted brain is more protected than a non-helmeted brain, although because of factors like risk compensation and the effect of overall cycling frequency on road safety that is completely beside the point. 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.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    It's crazy, I saw a pedestrian walking down the street the other way, didn't have a helmet on. It's like she had a death wish.
- jazoom 8y ago
  As far as I know that's an Australia-wide thing. It's certainly the same in Queensland.
- stevesimmons 8y ago
  Helmets are for those who take 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.
  - CaptainZapp 8y ago
    I hated the concept of bike helmets, which are not mandated here. 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.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    I suspect this is one of those things people just won’t agree on. On the one hand there are those who argue it’s common sense safety and a proper matter for laws. On the other there are those arguing it’s wholly unnecessary (look at Amsterdam!) and requiring it will make fewer people cycle especially in the case of bike shares.
    - stevesimmons 8y ago
      Having lived in both Melbourne and Amsterdam, the two crucial differences are in the Netherlands: 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.
  - 8y ago

megablast 8y ago

> Cars are allowed in the city center, but they are mostly commercial vehicles 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.

keir-rex 8y ago

They also get dumped every where. The oBikes look awful too. Ofo bikes are of a reasonable quality but obikes on the other hand have never tempted me to use them.

jessaustin 8y ago

...bicycles require helmets by law. So much for taking livability seriously.

guidedlight 8y ago
Helmets are $5 in Melbourne, people still won’t wear them.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  Cyclists won't wear helmets because cycling doesn't require helmets. Imposing helmets by law is a way to reduce cycling, and those who write those regulations know it.
  - ponyfleisch 8y ago
    Are you making the argument that bicycle helmets are ineffective or that people should be free to choose for themselves what risks they are willing to take? The former is a dubious claim and the latter is likely a fringe position. Given that, suggesting that helmet laws are a plot to reduce cycling puts you firmly in conspiracy theory territory in my book.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      I don’t think it’s at all a fringe position that adults should have considerable latitude about personal safety choices. That said not everyone agrees with that and that, rather than reducing cycling, is the impetus behind helmet laws.
      - madeofpalk 8y ago
        There's also the part of the equation that while decided to wear a helmet is a personal choice, the negative impacts affect the taxpayer in Australia due to having a reasonably good public health system.
        ghaff 8y ago
        There are certainly externalities to individual health and safety decisions. I find prohibiting “dangerous” activities (how about rock climbing? Say) a pretty slippery slope.
        ponyfleisch 8y ago
        Wouldn't it follow then that all drugs, even the potent opiates, should be legal to produce, sell and consume? I know some people think that way, but it's a fringe position.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      In any particular collision, a helmeted brain is more protected than a non-helmeted brain, although because of factors like risk compensation and the effect of overall cycling frequency on road safety that is completely beside the point. 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.
- isostatic 8y ago
  It's crazy, I saw a pedestrian walking down the street the other way, didn't have a helmet on. It's like she had a death wish.
jazoom 8y ago
As far as I know that's an Australia-wide thing. It's certainly the same in Queensland.
stevesimmons 8y ago
Helmets are for those who take 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.
- CaptainZapp 8y ago
  I hated the concept of bike helmets, which are not mandated here. 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.
- ghaff 8y ago
  I suspect this is one of those things people just won’t agree on. On the one hand there are those who argue it’s common sense safety and a proper matter for laws. On the other there are those arguing it’s wholly unnecessary (look at Amsterdam!) and requiring it will make fewer people cycle especially in the case of bike shares.
  - stevesimmons 8y ago
    Having lived in both Melbourne and Amsterdam, the two crucial differences are in the Netherlands: 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.
- 8y ago