Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[human909]

I would generally only get to 40-45KMh on a good day commuting. The one issue I have with this is that bicycle helmets are really not rated for that sort of speed so I reckon it is more psychological than actually contributing much to safety.

Sorry in advance for picking your quote out of a thousand already like it. But this black and white viewpoint of helmets annoys the scientist in me.

The notion that bicycle helmets aren't rated or aren't useful about a speed of XXkph is almost completely balderdash. Design and testing of helmets are focused on HELMET impacts at a particular speed (energy) and angle and registering the reduction in peak forces during such impacts.

But the speed your bicycle is travelling is only a very vaguely correlated with the speed that your head will may impact a solid object. A cyclist can crash at 60kph++ and have minimal or no head injuries. I've crashed a few times over 35kph with no head impacts. Alternatively a 20kph crash head first into a hard object is dangerous hospital territory even with a good helmet.

Every incident has a outcome dependent on the skill of the person and the luck of the draw. If you start banging you head into objects you are into dangerous territory helmet or no helmet. A helmet will simply reduce a borderline serious hit into a mild hit. Or a potentially deadly hit into a serious hit.

I many ways you could say I'm a big helmet fan. I've lost count of the number of helmets I own but it is somewhere slightly under ten. So yeah, I think they can be damn useful. But that has nothing to MHLs which I've commented on extensively already.

[outnabike]

Yep, all things considered a helmet is a must for racing cyclists and you will not race without one on your head. They do well over any speed I would ride at.

My thoughts were along the lines that in traffic I would still wear a helmet by choice. 40 klm is still a sudden stop when a vehicle turns in front of you.
Folks romanticise about the mecca in Holland, and I was riding there for six weeks with out a helmet pretty safely. But I did come close to a nasty dooring even there. So much for the extra care they advocate with opening the door with the off side arm and looking out.

Much as I swear that if a fool opens the door on me I will aim into the car, I couldn't help but swerve away. If a car had of been behind me I may have been able to test the worth of a helmet and crutches. My thoughts are, better to go over a door on the vehicles side and not into the road centre. But hard to do instinctively.
I do believe that the thought of danger is more real than the actual reality though. I am sure most would have come off bikes many times over the years even as kids. I certainly did. I never ever even bumped my head. My head saved my helmet.....

[DavidS]

I would generally only get to 40-45KMh on a good day commuting. The one issue I have with this is that bicycle helmets are really not rated for that sort of speed so I reckon it is more psychological than actually contributing much to safety.

Sorry in advance for picking your quote out of a thousand already like it. But this black and white viewpoint of helmets annoys the scientist in me.

The notion that bicycle helmets aren't rated or aren't useful about a speed of XXkph is almost completely balderdash. Design and testing of helmets are focused on HELMET impacts at a particular speed (energy) and angle and registering the reduction in peak forces during such impacts.

But the speed your bicycle is travelling is only a very vaguely correlated with the speed that your head will may impact a solid object. A cyclist can crash at 60kph++ and have minimal or no head injuries. I've crashed a few times over 35kph with no head impacts. Alternatively a 20kph crash head first into a hard object is dangerous hospital territory even with a good helmet.

Every incident has a outcome dependent on the skill of the person and the luck of the draw. If you start banging you head into objects you are into dangerous territory helmet or no helmet. A helmet will simply reduce a borderline serious hit into a mild hit. Or a potentially deadly hit into a serious hit.

I many ways you could say I'm a big helmet fan. I've lost count of the number of helmets I own but it is somewhere slightly under ten. So yeah, I think they can be damn useful. But that has nothing to MHLs which I've commented on extensively already.

Human, I understand what you are saying but the very fact that we have mandated helmets which are not rated for common cycling speeds exposes the MHLs for what they really are: posturing. MHLs are not designed to protect cyclists (if they were, we would have to wear more effective helmets, but then they would be heavier and even less people would wear them).

Helmets are fine if you want to wear them, but I don't see MHLs as having much to do with cyclist safety at all.

DS

[tpcycle]

I reckon it is more psychological than actually contributing much to safety.

Which leads to the concept of risk compensation. If wearing a helmet makes you feel safer than the safety benefits it bestows, then it could lead to the unexpected outcome that you take more risks which ends up making you less safe.

I know that sometimes on dark rainy nights amongst traffic in foreign countries without MHLs I've thought geez it'd be nice to have a helmet then I've pulled myself up - if conditions are so bad that I'm scared then a bicycle helmet would likely be more of a safety blanket than confer any real safety benefits so I should just review my whole decision making process and act accordingly by removing myself from the unsafe situation rather than try and paper over it. Since I didn't have a helmet I have done just that - I wonder if I'd have done the same in Australia when wearing my helmet? I know that I am more cautious and more aware of consequences when I am bare headed. Whether or not the trade off results in a net safety gain or loss I do not know. At the end of the day I just prefer to ride without a helmet.

(Looks like Comedian and I played snap).

[Comedian]

Outnabike, I can see the point of choosing to wear a helmet if you go 60KMh, I would generally only get to 40-45KMh on a good day commuting. The one issue I have with this is that bicycle helmets are really not rated for that sort of speed so I reckon it is more psychological than actually contributing much to safety.

DS

And the best bit is.. because you are wearing one you undertake an activity which you might not have undertaken without the helmet. And we wonder why helmets haven't actually reduced the overall injury rates.

Risk compensation anyone?

[warthog1]

^^I don't support mandatory helmet laws.
I do struggle with that post however, or my interpretation that the suggestion is a helmet is not going to protect against traumatic injury.
It won't always but I believe it can.

If I am going to whack my head on the ground I do expect the resultant level of injury to be less severe wearing a helmet if the helmeted portion contacts the ground.

Tested that out on a bunch ride recently unfortunately.
Taken out on a bunch ride at ~45kmh 3 weeks ago.
Head strike and LOC.
Small ICH.
Helmet looks like it was hit with a large hammer quite hard.
9 # ribs
# clavicle, scapula and pelvis.
Stable # anterior portion of L1.
I am glad I had the helmet on.
I would wear it on that ride regardless of legal requirement.
I don't accept it is necessary for all types of bicycle riding though, or that it should be mandated.

[baabaa]

[/quote]
And we wonder why helmets haven't actually reduced the overall injury rates.
Risk compensation anyone?
[/quote]
Best be a bit careful here. If I recall, Paul M would often call this one (overall injury rates) out as his thoughts were more along the lines of the numbers show that anyone wearing a helmet vs. not would be less inclined to visit a doctor or hospital after any off.
You can fix up your own gravel rash, but if you see stars you do seek out help.

[Comedian]

^^I don't support mandatory helmet laws.
I do struggle with that post however, or my interpretation that the suggestion is a helmet is not going to protect against traumatic injury.
It won't always but I believe it can.

If I am going to whack my head on the ground I do expect the resultant level of injury to be less severe wearing a helmet if the helmeted portion contacts the ground.

Tested that out on a bunch ride recently unfortunately.
Taken out on a bunch ride at ~45kmh 3 weeks ago.
Head strike and LOC.
Small ICH.
Helmet looks like it was hit with a large hammer quite hard.
9 # ribs
# clavicle, scapula and pelvis.
Stable # anterior portion of L1.
I am glad I had the helmet on.
I would wear it on that ride regardless of legal requirement.
I don't accept it is necessary for all types of bicycle riding though, or that it should be mandated.

I understand the issue.. but I think you missed what I was saying.

Friend1 - "Hey want to come rock climbing with me?"
Friend2 - "No way - that sounds too dangerous"
Friend1 - "No it 's not, we wear special climbing helmets and shoes and guards and stuff"
Friend2 - "Ok sure I'll give it a go"

Friends go rock climbing. Unfortunately friend2 slips and falls several metres. He breaks his arm, a femur, both legs, three ribs, punctures a lung and gets a mild concussion. Perhaps he goes onto get pneumonia and die from the lung damage.. but hay let's not get too dark.

The moral is that the friend wouldn't have tried the activity without the reassurance of the protective equipment. Perhaps he sustained fewer injuries than he would have without the protective equipment. So the PPE manufacturers should be happy because of reduction in injury - but a holistic view might say that he sustained far greater other injuries, and that he might not have undertaken such a risky climb at all without the reassurance of the PPE.

That's risk compensation and we all do it. I could go to the trail head of virtually any local MTB park ask if anyone would ride helmetless and get no takers. They could go onto injure many other things.

My pro helmet choice medico friend said to me once... "If there is anything in life you won't do without PPE then you should stop and have a real think about whether the activity is too dangerous".

PS I'm not saying go and do a road ride without a helmet. I know I sure wouldn't. There you go.. that's me risk compensating!

[warthog1]

I understand the issue.. but I think you missed what I was saying.

Friend1 - "Hey want to come rock climbing with me?"
Friend2 - "No way - that sounds too dangerous"
Friend1 - "No it 's not, we wear special climbing helmets and shoes and guards and stuff"
Friend2 - "Ok sure I'll give it a go"

Friends go rock climbing. Unfortunately friend2 slips and falls several metres. He breaks his arm, a femur, both legs, three ribs, punctures a lung and gets a mild concussion. Perhaps he goes onto get pneumonia and die from the lung damage.. but hay let's not get too dark.

The moral is that the friend wouldn't have tried the activity without the reassurance of the protective equipment. Perhaps he sustained fewer injuries than he would have without the protective equipment. So the PPE manufacturers should be happy because of reduction in injury - but a holistic view might say that he sustained far greater other injuries, and that he might not have undertaken such a risky climb at all without the reassurance of the PPE.

That's risk compensation and we all do it. I could go to the trail head of virtually any local MTB park ask if anyone would ride helmetless and get no takers. They could go onto injure many other things.

My pro helmet choice medico friend said to me once... "If there is anything in life you won't do without PPE then you should stop and have a real think about whether the activity is too dangerous".

PS I'm not saying go and do a road ride without a helmet. I know I sure wouldn't. There you go.. that's me risk compensating!

I read this bit

And the best bit is.. because you are wearing one you undertake an activity which you might not have undertaken without the helmet.

I cannot currently undertake it without a helmet legally.

In the distant past I would have.

I am older and perhaps wiser, but more fragile now.

I probably won't undertake that ride at all in future.
There is a slightly slower but less popular option that will suffice.

[human909]

Helmets are fine if you want to wear them, but I don't see MHLs as having much to do with cyclist safety at all.

I pretty much agree.

Friend1 - "Hey want to come rock climbing with me?"
Friend2 - "No way - that sounds too dangerous"
Friend1 - "No it 's not, we wear special climbing helmets and shoes and guards and stuff"
Friend2 - "Ok sure I'll give it a go"

Friends go rock climbing. Unfortunately friend2 slips and falls several metres. He breaks his arm, a femur, both legs, three ribs, punctures a lung and gets a mild concussion. Perhaps he goes onto get pneumonia and die from the lung damage.. but hay let's not get too dark.

You got the latter part of all that wrong. I only broke my ankle.

(No really, I'm currently in rehab over the next few months.)

[bychosis]

Best be a bit careful here. If I recall, Paul M would often call this one (overall injury rates) out as his thoughts were more along the lines of the numbers show that anyone wearing a helmet vs. not would be less inclined to visit a doctor or hospital after any off.
You can fix up your own gravel rash, but if you see stars you do seek out help.

Injury rates rely on presenting to medical professionals. Wearing PPE reduces injuries and often turns a potential injury into a near miss or minor injury - which will go unreported. Helmets will do this. Crash, crack your helmet but otherwise have a few scratches needing a bandaid and some rest vs crash, crack your head and off to the ER.

Similar to drop something heavy on your foot. Steel caps - phew, that was close. Double pluggers - goodbye toes.

PPE changes the nature of injuries reported. Working in the WHS area and trying to get near misses reported was nigh on impossible.

[human909]

Maybe this was your point but this is entering a deep quagmire of statistics that is entirely murky.

Best be a bit careful here. If I recall, Paul M would often call this one (overall injury rates) out as his thoughts were more along the lines of the numbers show that anyone wearing a helmet vs. not would be less inclined to visit a doctor or hospital after any off.
You can fix up your own gravel rash, but if you see stars you do seek out help.

Injury rates rely on presenting to medical professionals. Wearing PPE reduces injuries and often turns a potential injury into a near miss or minor injury - which will go unreported. Helmets will do this. Crash, crack your helmet but otherwise have a few scratches needing a bandaid and some rest vs crash, crack your head and off to the ER.

Similar to drop something heavy on your foot. Steel caps - phew, that was close. Double pluggers - goodbye toes.

PPE changes the nature of injuries reported. Working in the WHS area and trying to get near misses reported was nigh on impossible.

Wearing of PPE also changes the risk taking choices of those wearing PPE. AKA it can often cause people to partake in more risky behaviour. Wearing of PPE is also generally an indication of a population at a higher risk of injury in the first place.

PPE for sports such as rock climbing or mountain biking has improved dramatically in the last 40 years. I'm highly doubt likelihood of injury has decreased. In fact I'd say it has probably INCREASED do to increased accessibility with better equipment.

But all this comes back full circle to why MHLs for cycling vs walking, running or driving. Everything has some risk, cycling not especially high on the charts.

[warthog1]

I guess with respect to head injury rates you could look at those of the UCI peloton pre and post helmet mandation.
Do we believe it has made them more engaged in risk-taking activity?
Has it made a difference to head injury rates?

In any case, I agree it has little relevance to the requirements of utility cyclists and the compulsion that they wear them.

Edit; I had a quick look. I don't find information they have made UCI racing safer.

[human909]

Interesting that you followed up on that research. And to be honest a surprising result. Though there is such a host of variables, the data can be quite questionable. Eg what a head injury is now vs what it was 30 years ago has changed in many sports.

But this approach and precisely highlights the problems of so much MHL 'research'. Not only are you only measuring one metric 'head injuries' but you are taking it out of a fixed and high risk category of cyclists. The relevance to MHLs for general cyclists is NIL.

Risk compensation is very real and proven in controlled tests, though in most cases you won't get MORE risk total from PPE. Just not nearly as much as you'd expect. That said, sometimes without PPE the activity wouldn't occur altogether with skews unfairly against PPE.

I'll continue to embrace helmets for my activities of elevated risk. I'll also continue be part of advocacy against MHLs.

[bychosis]

I'll continue to embrace helmets for my activities of elevated risk. I'll also continue be part of advocacy against MHLs.

I suspect many of us in the same situation.

When I ride commuting or ‘road’ biking or MTB riding I wear a helmet, gloves and cycle specific clothing and shoes. When I rode around a sleepy little seaside village, around the caravan park and along the beach last week on holidays it was T-shirt and boardies, thongs or barefoot and a sun hat. Different gear for different risks. Same when using tools at home, steel caps, earmuffs, glasses and gloves depending on the risks.

[Comedian]

Helmets are fine if you want to wear them, but I don't see MHLs as having much to do with cyclist safety at all.

I pretty much agree.

Friend1 - "Hey want to come rock climbing with me?"
Friend2 - "No way - that sounds too dangerous"
Friend1 - "No it 's not, we wear special climbing helmets and shoes and guards and stuff"
Friend2 - "Ok sure I'll give it a go"

Friends go rock climbing. Unfortunately friend2 slips and falls several metres. He breaks his arm, a femur, both legs, three ribs, punctures a lung and gets a mild concussion. Perhaps he goes onto get pneumonia and die from the lung damage.. but hay let's not get too dark.

You got the latter part of all that wrong. I only broke my ankle.

(No really, I'm currently in rehab over the next few months.)

Oh no. Sorry to hear.

We’re you wearing a helmet? Would you have gone climbing without it?

[uart]

I suspect many of us in the same situation.

When I ride commuting or ‘road’ biking or MTB riding I wear a helmet, gloves and cycle specific clothing and shoes. When I rode around a sleepy little seaside village, around the caravan park and along the beach last week on holidays it was T-shirt and boardies, thongs or barefoot and a sun hat. Different gear for different risks.

Yep, but unfortunately the same mandatory helmet law applies regardless.

[human909]

Oh no. Sorry to hear.

We’re you wearing a helmet? Would you have gone climbing without it?

I generally wouldn't go lead** climbing without a helmet. Though I don't consider the risks of a headstrike overly different from fast road cycling. That said I've taken falls while cycling and while climbing and never had a headstrike. Some people do climb without helmets, but honestly I have 8kg of equipment and rope hanging from my waist harness, why would a helmet put me off! (That said the helmet comes off quickly at the end of the activity.)

**Keeping it brief and simple, if the rope is hanging below you it is "lead climbing". Falls of 4-9m are not uncommon and can often occur repeatedly in the same occasion without injury. That is what the rope is for. But if you are moving at those speeds anything can happen and head protection makes sense. If the rope is above me then I have gone helmetless when myself or my partner has forgotten a helmet.

My broken ankle... That was a 1%er unlucky circumstance, no big screw up, systems worked as they should. But just a very awkward strike on just one part of my body. (Not a scratch elsewhere.)


EDIT:
And because this popped up on another forum I was browsing I thought I'd post this particularly spicy example.

(He actually kept going after that fall and got to the top.)

[warthog1]

I'll continue to embrace helmets for my activities of elevated risk. I'll also continue be part of advocacy against MHLs.

I suspect many of us in the same situation.

When I ride commuting or ‘road’ biking or MTB riding I wear a helmet, gloves and cycle specific clothing and shoes. When I rode around a sleepy little seaside village, around the caravan park and along the beach last week on holidays it was T-shirt and boardies, thongs or barefoot and a sun hat. Different gear for different risks. Same when using tools at home, steel caps, earmuffs, glasses and gloves depending on the risks.

Agreed.

[opik_bidin]

So the New york governor, Cuomo is considering MHL for drivers to decrese cars in New york, USA.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonrei ... ssion=true

Streetsblog NYC’s Gersh Kuntzman then asked Cuomo if he might consider helmet compulsion for car drivers, given that vast numbers of car drivers involved in fatal crashes die as a result of head trauma.

After a long pause, the governor said: “I’m thinking.”

He then followed up with: “I don’t know enough. I’d like to see the data.”

[uart]

So the New york governor, Cuomo is considering MHL for drivers to decrese cars in New york, USA.

Headline: New York State Governor Mulls Car Helmet Compulsion To Discourage Motoring.

At least they're being honest about it. The sad truth is that rabid support of MHL for cyclists here is probably motivated by much the same agenda, though no one will admit it.

[human909]

The sad truth is that rabid support for MHL for cyclists is probably motivated by much the same agenda, though no one will admit it.

While the cynic in me would agree, that would require too much thought. If the same people were capable of thought they'd realise that the true cause of their traffic woes is cars not cyclists.

The truther is more benign but sadder. Bicycles are considered toys and cars are considered life essential.

Consequently making sure people are safe while 'playing' with their toys is important. Meanwhile anything that is seen to hinder the all important life essential car is seen a problem.

[uart]

While the cynic in me would agree

Yeah, thb that was the cynic in me as well. I do however notice that the most rabid supporters of MHL tend to come from two opposite groups. The first group are the ultra keen sportive riders, and the second group are the *extreme* cyclist haters. (What an unlikely alliance.)

The truther is more benign but sadder. Bicycles are considered toys and cars are considered life essential.
Consequently making sure people are safe while 'playing' with their toys is important. Meanwhile anything that is seen to hinder the all important life essential car is seen a problem.

That is very true, and there is a perfect example of this mentality that has been happening near me over this summer. There is a local cycle path (partially through bushland) that authorities here have taken to closing down (completely blocking access) every time that the fire danger is at its most extreme level, even if there is no actual bushfire within 500 km!

The problem is that it forces commuting cyclists onto roads that are very unsuitable, some of the most cycling unfriendly roads in the area, but apparently no one in charge is even thinking about that. They see it purely in terms of closing down an unnecessary recreational area until conditions ease.

[fat and old]

The truther is more benign but sadder. Bicycles are considered toys and cars are considered life essential.

Consequently making sure people are safe while 'playing' with their toys is important. Meanwhile anything that is seen to hinder the all important life essential car is seen a problem.

Spot on, and something that many advocates don’t want to even consider.

I reckon mandatory helmets in cars would make exactly 0 difference to the users. 0. Sure , there’s be a huge outcry led by the likes of pedo Jones but nothing will stop car use bar the costs. Buy a helmet for 10 bucks, leave it in the car, chuck it on when driving and off agin when done. Big deal. Anyway, no such thing as safe helmets go babies so it won’t happen.

[AUbicycles]

On Saturday 14. march 2020, the Freestyle Cyclists group are conducting their annual Helmet Optional Ride in various cities in Australia.

The group reached out to BNA to publicise this event and I put together a few interview questions for Alan Todd which will be of interest for active participants of this thread. I even referenced this thread in the coverage. I realise that some of the responses provided may be disagreeable for some (so by all means, debate these politely or write a comment under the article).

Article:
Is Australia ready to remove the Mandatory Helmet Laws?
Interview with Alan Todd of the Freestyle Cyclists

--

For clarity and disclosure - formally an impartial view is taken on the MHL's in Australia specifically as the Australian Cycling Forum community hold different views on the topic so BNA does not seek to represent the community. However BNA still needs to encourage members and readers to follow the law and in this respect recommends wearing a helmet when it is legally required.


Cheers
Christopher