Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[uart]

Bicycle helmets are not designed to protect against motor-vehicle impacts
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonrei ... d952616f6e

And given that the vast majority of cyclist deaths and serious injuries do come from motor vehicle impacts, then perhaps there is a case for a class action law suite against the government (and perhaps corporate MHL supporters) for all of the injuries caused be the false sense of security.

Yeah I know, in my dreams.

[Comedian]

Bicycle helmets are not designed to protect against motor-vehicle impacts
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonrei ... d952616f6e

And given that the vast majority of cyclist deaths and serious injuries do come from motor vehicle impacts, then perhaps there is a case for a class action law suite against the government (and perhaps corporate MHL supporters) for all of the injuries caused be the false sense of security.

Yeah I know, in my dreams.

The people making the policy - the whole MHL thing is just not their problem.

That's why I can't see it changing. Virtually everyone who rides now doesn't care about MHL or is pro MHL or they wouldn't ride. For everyone else it's just easier to drive. No one thinks "If I could just ride a bike without a helmet I could sell my car and ride everywhere". That just doesn't happen. The whole helmet thing stopped utility cycling pretty much in it's entirety. It's been a couple of generations since and people don't even see bikes as transport anymore.

For policy makers - they all drive too. So having to wear a manky bike share helmet on a share bike, or don your helmet to ride to the shops or school.. it's just not something they would ever do. If you were a motorist - why wouldn't you want bike riders to wear helmets if you thought there was a chance of less consequences for you if you hit a cyclist? Oh well.

[outnabike]

You will never get a "no helmet" action going as long as full tilt.

Bicycle lobby groups only use helmets as an excuse to exist. It is a great way of showing alleged solidarity. But I reckon they ought to take the issue one bite at a time; like the smoking lobby do. The start off with a small win and over time escalate to the full blown capital punishment of smokers....Right....

First you pick a soft target and win that......Like let it be a helmet less ride in fifty kay zones. After all we can never get into an accident in 50 kay zones due to drivers going slow and being super careful can we? Win that before going open slather and all the while stressing that those that want to wear a helmet a free to do so.

Am I the only one sick to death of taking on the whole world? Or at least our bit of it due to disingenuous efforts that can not succeed?

I reckon you have to pick a fight you have a chance in and stop knocking you head on a wall cos it feels good when you stop.

Just my two bobs worth as hundreds of pages beating on a drum aren't helping a hell of a lot. Probably including my imperfect thoughts.

[Peter A]

From personal observation, (re people I know), prob. two would either not be alive, or would have suffered serious head injuries had they not been wearing helmets.
One of those two, in 2018, happened 5-10m in front of me on a R/H corner. Front wheel slid out on blue metal, his head hit the road from about 180cm high, did not have time to put his hand out.
Speed about 20kph.
Result - Unconscious, ambulance, helmet cracked on the R/H side that hit the deck. Head was pretty much OK, cracked sternum and ribs though ++ skin off, bruising etc.
Had the helmet not absorbed some of the impact ????
IME anyone riding a bicycle without a helmet is not thinking.

Nothing will change my opinion re this.

[P!N20]

Nothing will change my opinion re this.

I won’t try to then, but you should know that if a helmet cracks it didn’t do it’s job.

https://crag.asn.au/the-fallacy-of-the-cracked-helmet/

I always enjoy the ‘if they weren’t wearing a helmet they would have died’ statement, as if we can go and replicate the incident to see what the damage would have been without a helmet.

[Peter A]

Not a physicist, but it seems that if the helmet cracked then it took energy to crack it, better the impact energy was reduced doing that than cracking the skull.
In the other personal knowledge incident, about 26yrs ago, mate put front wheel between bridge decking, went straight over the handlebars and impacted head first. DOCTOR who was riding with him said he'd have been dead without the helmet.

Nothing will change my mind on this, no point in wasting yr time telling me to think otherwise - on this subject.

Sorry -

[DavidS]

Peter A: your anecdotes do not constitute data.

Why do you support a law which has demonstrably reduced cycling?

DS

[Thoglette]

Nothing will change my mind on this, no point in wasting yr time telling me to think otherwise - on this subject.

Sorry -

Welcome.

This is a classic example of the "OMG my mate's helmet saved his life " evangelism fallacy.

Something happened over a quarter of a century ago which hopefully is an example of helmets doing what they are supposed to do[2]. Where someone decided to ride with a helmet [1]. But, despite all the evidence to the contrary (again, read the #$%ING thread) this anecdote somehow overrides all the epidemiology over a similar time frame that mandatory helmet laws (not helmets) are counter productive at a population level.

Oh no, you know better.

What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.

Do read the thread.

[1] cyclists are pretty good at chosing helmets when they make a useful difference. Like in MTB. Which, by the way, is off road and outside the scope of MHL.
Post MHL, where helmets made no sense, many people just stopped riding[3]. Check the data (listed throughout the thread). Or if you're lazy, just compare photos of typical Australian transport scenes vs Holland. Or NYC or Tokyo or Milan or.....

[2] Doctors are extremely confident but are rarely actually material scientists. Very few of them are blunt trauma experts. They also suffer a lot of logical biases of which they are blissfully unaware. So when they say "the helmet saved his life" they are, on balance, likely to be wrong. Consider, for a moment, the counterpoint: how often have you heard a doctor on TV saying "No, the helmet didn't save his life"?

[3] Yes, Virginia, there were many other anti cyclist actions in the late 20th to be sure but let's not lose focus now.

[Peter A]

Gentlemen, you are entitled to yr opinion, as I am to mine.

Leaving the subject there.

[bychosis]

You picked the wrong thread then. This thread is hundreds of pages of opinions on both sides.

You are entitled to your opinion. I have my opinion too.

Yes, IF you fall off, your helmet will help, IF you hit your head. Yes, you still have the option to wear one if the law changes, and many in this thread will continue to ride with a helmet for most of their riding - including me.

THE biggest thing we can do for cycling safety, particularly among traffic is to get many more people doing it and unfortunately helmets stop some people from cycling.

[Thoglette]

Gentlemen, you are entitled to yr opinion, as I am to mine.

If only that were true.

You have an opinion which is both logically flawed (it confuses helmet use with helmet laws) and which flies in the face of more than a decade of research.

Unfortunately, untested and half-assed opinions are the reason we got MHL in the first place and a major reason we're still stuck with them.

I'd refer you to the transcript of the recent senate inquiry, the findings of the editors of the British Medical Journal and the original (from the '70s) papers proposing MHLs.

But you've formed "an opinion" and declared that your mind is closed.

[Comedian]

From personal observation, (re people I know), prob. two would either not be alive, or would have suffered serious head injuries had they not been wearing helmets.
One of those two, in 2018, happened 5-10m in front of me on a R/H corner. Front wheel slid out on blue metal, his head hit the road from about 180cm high, did not have time to put his hand out.
Speed about 20kph.
Result - Unconscious, ambulance, helmet cracked on the R/H side that hit the deck. Head was pretty much OK, cracked sternum and ribs though ++ skin off, bruising etc.
Had the helmet not absorbed some of the impact ????
IME anyone riding a bicycle without a helmet is not thinking.

Nothing will change my opinion re this.

You've also completely failed to understand that some bikes are not like that. Upright bikes have different weight distribution, and if the front of the bike locks up people fall differently. It's difficult or impossible to go OTB on one of these - particularly in low grip conditions.

So I think perhaps what you're saying is "anyone riding a road bike without a helmet just isn't thinking". To which I think you'd get far better agreement from the members of this thread than what you actually said. Personally I probably wouldn't ride a road bike without one - but I don't have the choice.

So when I read what you've said this is what I hear ... "My mate was racing his clubman and had a shunt at Sandown. His helmet was damaged and probably saved his life. Therefore you should all wear a helmet whenever you drive a car."

So, while we're on that unfortunate subject - if you're so worried about head injuries on a bike I hope you wear one in a car. I'd consider anyone who doesn't to be very silly. There is good research which suggests that car helmets save lives.

https://www.monash.edu/muarc/archive/ou ... ts/atsb160

[tpcycle]

I had a mate who reckoned a helmet saved his live. It was prior to MHL, helmet use wasn't common and it was one of the first times he had ridden wearing a helmet. He badgered me about how foolish I was not to wear one citing his experience. And here I was thinking "hasn't it even crossed your mind that wearing the helmet may well have contributed to your crash"? Anyway 40 years later I am fit, look young, still ride a bicycle for transport nearly every day and have ridden tens of thousands of kilometres sans helmet (in non MHL jurisdictions). Last time I saw him, he was fat, didn't ride a bicycle and was still a helmet zealot.

[Comedian]

I had a mate who reckoned a helmet saved his live. It was prior to MHL, helmet use wasn't common and it was one of the first times he had ridden wearing a helmet. He badgered me about how foolish I was not to wear one citing his experience. And here I was thinking "hasn't it even crossed your mind that wearing the helmet may well have contributed to your crash"? Anyway 40 years later I am fit, look young, still ride a bicycle for transport nearly every day and have ridden tens of thousands of kilometres sans helmet (in non MHL jurisdictions). Last time I saw him, he was fat, didn't ride a bicycle and was still a helmet zealot.

While I've got no stats to back this up.. anecdotally I've found that the strongest MHL advocates use cars as their main form of transport. Sometimes they ride lots for sport, but their transport needs are filled by their cars. The issues that come with MHL for utility cycling are just not their problem because these trips are done in cars. That's of course not to say that they don't pour scorn on people dealing and complaining about these issues but they usually assure us that if they did do utility cycling it wouldn't be a problem for them.

Of all the people I know who actually use bicycles as their primary transport mode, I've found that most if not all of them advocate for MHL repeal. That's not to say that they wouldn't wear helmets without MHL but they would definitely like the choice.

[Peter A]

Gentlemen, you are entitled to yr opinion, as I am to mine.

Leaving the subject there.

Please read this

[human909]

Not a physicist, but it seems that if the helmet cracked then it took energy to crack it, better the impact energy was reduced doing that than cracking the skull.

You are quite right a cracked helmet will reduce impact forces on the skull. But not necessarily the brain. Most brain minor to moderate brain injury is from the brain colliding with the skull rather that external impact on the brain.

It like being in a car without a seat belt or airbacks. Such you might have crumple zones and a robust frame but if your car stops suddenly then you will fly forward and hit the car interior at the same speed as the car before the impact. This is a secondary collision and it is what your brain is doing in the skull.

In the other personal knowledge incident, about 26yrs ago, mate put front wheel between bridge decking, went straight over the handlebars and impacted head first. DOCTOR who was riding with him said he'd have been dead without the helmet.

The doctor is in no position to know that. Even an expert in the field would need a significant amount of data to even guestimate the consequences. The DOCTER is speaking out of his ass.

(I'm not a doctor. Though I have read a fair bit on the topic. I'm also a physicist and an engineer. But none of that puts me in a position to answer the unanswerable. I fell 5m from a tennis court fence when I was young and stupid and landed on my head. )

[jasonc]

I'm in Europe at the moment. Utility cycling is king. I've been here 5 weeks. Apart from when riding mountains over here I would not need both hands to count how many helmets I've seen.

[Peter A]

Gentlemen, you are entitled to yr opinion, as I am to mine.

Leaving the subject there.

Please read this

[fat and old]

ANECDOTE ANECDOTE ANECDOTE ANECDOTE ATTICA ATTICA ATTICA

Oops.....got carried away, sorry

[bychosis]

Gentlemen, you are entitled to yr opinion, as I am to mine.

Leaving the subject there.

Please read this

I see you have failed to take your own advice. Still, hopefully you’ve had a read to consider the opposition argeuements. You don’t have to agree but you should try to understand them so you can inform your opinion rather than simply use two anecdotes.

You are unlikely to change the opinion of those in this thread with you anecdotal, not evidence based opinion. You are certainly not going to end this thread with your opinion.

[Comedian]

Gentlemen, you are entitled to yr opinion, as I am to mine.

Leaving the subject there.

Please read this

Yes... drivers hate it when you suggest that if they are worried about head injuries on a bike they should also wear one in a car. That would be a PITA

[Comedian]

I'm in Europe at the moment. Utility cycling is king. I've been here 5 weeks. Apart from when riding mountains over here I would not need both hands to count how many helmets I've seen.

And were there rivers of blood and the wail of sirens from Ambulences picking up another bicycle related head injury?

[MichaelB]

(I'm not a doctor. Though I have read a fair bit on the topic. I'm also a physicist and an engineer. But none of that puts me in a position to answer the unanswerable. I fell 5m from a tennis court fence when I was young and stupid and landed on my head. )

So you are saying, that a qualified medical person has no idea of what he is talking about, yet, you, also as a 'qualified person' DO KNOW that they don't know what they are talking about and can't answer the unanswerable.

Doesn't that go both ways ….. ?

If one qualified professional doesn't know, how in the hell would another ?

[Thoglette]

So you are saying, that a qualified medical person has no idea of what he is talking about, yet, you, also as a 'qualified person' DO KNOW that they don't know what they are talking about and can't answer the unanswerable.

Doesn't that go both ways ….. ?

Takes a deeeeep breath,

Doctors (and particularly emergency ward surgeons) are my favourite example of a group of people with enormous biases that they're blissfully, indeed vehemently, unaware of ( bias is something I deal with professionally and in my recent postgrad studies).

To keep it short:
- they got into medicine. They are in the top 0.1% academically just to get that far
- they are thirty somethings at the peak of their career
- they are taught to exhibit confidence and behave confidently
- they have to make decisions quickly, based on their deeply* held knowledge rather than analysis of data or review of other works
- they live, eat and breath medicine in a strongly hierarchical culture.
- most are working seriously stupid hours. They don't have time for a life.
- they tend to work and socialise with other people with the same world views.
- they see everything that goes wrong and how stupid people can be. Every single day.
- they do not see the other 99.999% of reality

Absolute experts in emergency medicine. But blind to the possibility that they (as a group) could be wrong; that their decision making process has limited applicability; and that their group-think is based on a deeply surreal experience of the world.

[uart]

From personal observation, (re people I know), prob. two would either not be alive, or would have suffered serious head injuries had they not been wearing helmets.

But did MHL make any difference to the situation? I take it that your friend would have been wearing his helmet regardless of whether or not it was mandatory. About 99% of current sportive riders would do so.

To me the issue is not about whether or not helmets are a useful safety measure in some situations. It's about the unintended social consequences of making it illegal to ride without one (like the reduction in utilitarian cycling and a huge increase in the degree of out-grouping that cyclists experience).

I'll keep it simple.
Helmets - good.
Mandatory - bad.