Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[NhiTrac]

We still debating this?

All I know is when I was a teen, I had a slow speed fall and hit my head on the road. No helmet. I was dazed and wobbled home with a throbbing bump on the side of the head.

Fast forward a year or two, I had another similar fall, but with a helmet. Hit my head on the road again however I got up and rode off all fine.

Sure I can't prove that the two falls were the same. Sure if I get collected by a car at 60km/hr it probably won't make much difference.

However if it adds even a small amount of protection or has a chance to reduce the severity of an injury, why the hell would you be so against wearing a helmet?

It doesn't make sense to me.

In my view, I think those against is because they simply don't like being told what to do. Much like those crazy Americans and their friggen right to bear arms argument. It's the whole it's my right thing.

I don't believe for one minute that their real concern and argument is about helmets not promoting cycling blah blah blah.

[BobtheBuilder]

* 14th March

[BobtheBuilder]

I don't believe for one minute that their real concern and argument is about helmets not promoting cycling blah blah blah.

You're entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own facts.

Amongst your many inaccurate comments you say

However if it adds even a small amount of protection or has a chance to reduce the severity of an injury, why the hell would you be so against wearing a helmet?

There is, however, some well-developed theory, with some evidence, that helmets can increase injury and that their design is based upon "a discredited theory of brain injury" (Curnow, 2003) ... though by the tone of your comment above, this is probably something else you'll choose not to believe. Other documented effects of helmet-wearing is increased risk-taking, which more than offsets the (contested) safety effect of helmets.

Some science below, if you're interested in facts rather than feelings.

Curnow, W.J. (2003). The efficacy of bicycle helmets against brain injury. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 287-292. doi: 10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00012-X

Gamble, T., & Walker, I. (2016). Wearing a bicycle helmet can increase risk taking and sensation seeking in adults. Psychological Science, 27, 289–294. doi:10.1177/0956797615620784

[AUbicycles]

Thanks for the typo in the date BobtheBuilder

We still debating this?

Absolutely and in advance will say that I am ok with 'helmet choice' but not passionate that I feel it is the most important cycling advocacy topic we need to act upon in Australia.

But it will remain a topic of debate for a while considering the rest of the world don't require helmet laws. With this alone in mind, Australians (and I assume New Zealanders) ask "Why is it different").

Then there is also the history of poor government support for safe cycling. With this in mind you can ask "Shouldn't the priority be about preventing the accidents rather than just having a backup solution because the infrastructure and road user education doesn't protect bike riders.

On the other side of the debate - helmets can reduce the risk of brain injury though it will differ in every single case because every scenario is different so added fuel to the debate is the rare scenario when a helmet can increase injury..

A very real disadvantage is that cycle-share adoption suffers as providing suitable fitting helmets on a share bike is a big problem. In Melbourne a solution was that 7/11 sold $5 helmets (cheap and nasty without proper fitting) that are then tossed in the rubbish bin (what a waste).

Again, I know the merits of wearing a helmet and mostly wear a helmet myself (but also ride in locations where a helmet is not legally required so sometimes decide not to). But these points are just a few that suggest that it is not 'obvious' and there are valid arguments for both side... which makes it such a challenging debate.

I don't believe for one minute that their real concern and argument is about helmets not promoting cycling blah blah blah.

The responses provided do suggest that there are no valid arguments for a law (which I disagree with) and I also see a strong motivation that some proponents are less concerned about cycling popularity which is a core argument and more about their own freedom of choice... That is fine but obvious comes across as selfish and hence the more selfless 'cycling promotion' is promoted.

[MichaelB]

Repeats loudly 10 times whilst clicking my heels ....

"I must not get involved"
"I must not get involved"
"I must not get involved"
"I must not get involved"
"I must not get involved"
"I must not get involved"
"I must not get involved"
"I must not get involved"
"I must not get involved"
"I must not get involved"

There, that's better

[Thoglette]

Repeats loudly 10 times whilst clicking my heels ..

I’m trying to just focus on the two weeks I just spent in the Netherlands.

[Comedian]

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

Good interview, and thanks for being open and objective about the matter.

[fat and old]

I don't believe for one minute that their real concern and argument is about helmets not promoting cycling blah blah blah.

You're entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own facts.

That's not "his own" fact. I personally have stated here time and again I am anti MHL for exactly the reason NhiTrac put forward....I don't want to be told what to do.

And for every claim

Amongst your many inaccurate comments you say

However if it adds even a small amount of protection or has a chance to reduce the severity of an injury, why the hell would you be so against wearing a helmet?
There is, however, some well-developed theory, with some evidence, that helmets can increase injury and that their design is based upon "a discredited theory of brain injury" (Curnow, 2003) ... though by the tone of your comment above, this is probably something else you'll choose not to believe.

There is a counter claim

Curnow (2003) suggested helmets exacerbate rotational injuries, the more serious being diffuse axonal injury (DAI). Although Curnow only hypothesised the DAI/helmet link, some have taken this as fact (BHRF, 2003; Bicycle Australia, 2010; Gillham, 2011; Stewart, 2012; Rissel, 2012; Bicycle NSW, 2013). There is, however, no existing evidence to support the DAI hypothesis. McIntosh, Lai and Schilter (2013) found, when testing oblique impacts on dummies to simulate head rotation, helmet wearing did not increase angular acceleration, a result unsupportive of Curnow’s hypothesis. Using trauma registry data from seven Sydney area hospitals over one calendar year, 110 cyclists were identified and none were diagnosed with DAI regardless of helmet wearing (Dinh, Curtis & Ivers, 2013). Walter et al. (2013), using linked police and hospitalisation data in NSW from 2001-2009, reported at most 12 possible DAI cases out of 6,745 cyclists in a motor vehicle collision. Seven of the twelve cyclists were unhelmeted. These results suggest the incidence of DAI among cyclists appears to be rare and unrelated to helmet wearing. Additionally, computer simulated studies of bicycle crashes found no evidence helmets increased the likelihood of neck injury among adults (McNally & Whitehead, 2013) nor was there evidence helmets increased the severity of brain or neck injury in children (McNally & Rosenberg, 2013).

https://acrs.org.au/files/papers/32%20Olivier_PR.pdf

Groundhog day!!!!!

My point? Being all huffy and puffy on ANY point (pro OR con) is sorta silly.

Just waiting for Thog or Human to grind Olivier and Grzebieta into dust

[BobtheBuilder]

I don't believe for one minute that their real concern and argument is about helmets not promoting cycling blah blah blah.

You're entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own facts.

That's not "his own" fact. I personally have stated here time and again I am anti MHL for exactly the reason NhiTrac put forward....I don't want to be told what to do.

You may be anti-MHL for that reason, but I'm not and I'm certain that most anti-MHL people are also not. To state clearly - I reject US-style pseudo-libertarianism and am pro-public health. For instance, I'm strongly in favour of anti-smoking measures and pro-seatbelt laws, the latter having a clear benefit in reducing catastrophic injuries. I'd even consider mandatory helmets in motor vehicles, where head injuries are more common and more severe than in cycling. I am anti-MHL because it's not only totally unnecessary, but it severely reduces levels of cycling.

[Peter A]

How the heck do you think MHL deters cycling, two days ago I saw a VICPOL traffic car meet and drive past a girl w/o a helmet in the main street of Sale, VIC.

They didn't give 2 hoots.

She had been wearing a helmet three days earlier on the East Goppsland Rail Trail approaching Nicholson, but for her own reasons didn't wear one in a busy commercial area.

MHL makes no difference to people riding bikes, utter hopping reptile excreta IMO.

(like a frog LOL)

[BobtheBuilder]

How the heck do you think MHL deters cycling, two days ago I saw a VICPOL traffic car meet and drive past a girl w/o a helmet in the main street of Sale, VIC.

Oh, really ... ?

Just look through past comments in this thread, I can't be bothered repeating the bleeding obvious all over again. This has been researched to death.

[DavidS]

I don't like being told what to do, that's part of my motivation it's true.

But mainly I don't understand why any cyclist would support a law which demonstrably discourages cycling, especially given that more cyclists on the roads is safer.

Cops do stop you for not wearing a helmet, and the fine in Victoria is $200. I've been stopped. Why is riding without a helmet legal in all but 3 countries on Earth?

DS

[Peter A]

Well it made no difference to the girl I saw, where's your argument compared to first hand
personal observation.

Get real, tell us about someone you have actually spoken to who won't ride because a helmet
will flatten their gel........typical suburbanite attitudes !

[BobtheBuilder]

How do you know it didn't make a difference to the woman you saw?

Maybe she'd forgotten her helmet that day and needed to get somewhere. Maybe she takes a calculated risk occasionally, but would ride more if there wasn't MHL. Maybe she is a conscientous objector and just pays the fine every now and then as a matter of principle. Your one observation, with no contextual information, is pretty worthless as evidence for anything except your own prejudices.

My example: I saw a street with no-one riding a bike, therefore that proves MHLs stop people from riding their bikes. Yes, a silly example, but demonstrates the "value" of anecdotal, single-instance "evidence".

[NhiTrac]

Just go along with me on this for a moment.

So let's just say the laws are relaxed and we're free to ride with no helmet. Fast forward a year or two and we have an increase of cyclists. Both recreation and commuting. Helmet free.

Let's assume that with more cyclists out and about, the possibility of accidents also increases, including those with cars and pedestrians.

I live in Sydney so I'll use Sydney as an example. Infrastructure. It's not made for cycling. I've commuted from western Sydney into the CBD as well as the eastern and northern suburbs for the last 10 years. I don't recommend it for everyone. I also don't personally see that there's much cycling-friendly infrastructure that'll support any large uptake of cyclists. Sure you have the M7, various parks around Homebush, Parra, Centennial etc but what about the average Joe who decides to ride 10km to work on the road in peak hour traffic?

So anyway, these cyclists, no helmet, on the roads gets into an accident, break a limb, die, whatever.

What do you think the general consensus is going to be? Cyclist may be alive if helmet was worn.

Well there goes that law. Back to mandatory helmet.

And I'd argue reverting back to mandatory helmet is easier than building proper infrastructure. And more importantly, getting the average moron motorists to accept cyclists on 'their' road.

[BobtheBuilder]

In, for instance, European countries where cycling is more common, average people just ride to the shops, friends, the pub, etc. - small distances for everyday tasks. Sure, in many cases the infrastructure is better, but the cycling came first, then the demand from infrastructure. In, for instance, Sydney, it's perfectly possible to avoid the busy roads by taking back roads and riding on footpaths. The problem is that "serious" riders assume everyone will want to ride far and fast and will be deterred by the appalling infrastructure and attitudes in places like Sydney.
If you look at the NT, where I live, and the fine is a nominal $20 and almost never enforced (I was fined once, made a complaint about this seeming change in policy, and the relevant senior officer all but apologised and said the fining officer was inexperienced and shouldn't have fined me!), cycling rates for normal cycling (that is utility cycling, not sport or performance cycling) are much higher, despite our much hotter weather, lack of infrastructure and very spread out urban centres. The one Australian jurisdiction with de facto no MHL and utility cycling rates are far higher. Not proof, but strong evidence. I certainly wouldn't pop down the shops or over to visit a mate on a bike as often if I had to put a helmet on every time I did so.

[AUbicycles]

How the heck do you think MHL deters cycling, two days ago I saw a VICPOL traffic car meet and drive past a girl w/o a helmet in the main street of Sale, VIC.

When the laws were introduced into Australia there was a statistical decline in cycling rates.

For people who would consider cycling, one of the documented reasons for not riding is the requirement to wear a helmet. Other factors (such as overall safety / poor infrastructure) are bigger deterrents though helmet requirements is a factor for some. You may not agree - and that is ok - but for some people the MHL is a real reason or excuse not to ride.

Very clearly, share-bikes popularity in Australia suffers because of the Mandatory Helmet Laws as a well-fitting helmet is something that the participant has to independently organise... and contrasts with the benefits of flexible / spontaneous share bike schemes.

The enforcement of the law needs to be considered separately, particularly for isolated or regionally specific cases. Police may turn a blind-eye but technically can fine. In Sydney, the Operation Pedro seeks to specifically fine bike riders for all non-compliance irrespective of the severity or level of risk they pose.


---

What the MHL debate proves is that there are different view and valid arguments on both sides. It is an interesting debate for the cycling community whereas other topics such as Safe Cycling Infrastructure or enforcement of Minimum Passing Distance (MPD) in contrast typically have majority support.

[NhiTrac]

I'm buggered so excuse the short response.

But footpaths, unless you're under 13 you must ride on the road. At least in NSW.

Far and fast. That's why I said 10ks. It's not that far and more likely for someone to commute that distance or less. But as above, all gotta be on the road.

Speaking of which, back roads. Unless you're in the suburbs, anything near any CBD is chockers and not cyclist friendly. Nor can it be converted to one as the roads are already that narrow.

I can't comment on NT as I've never been. But none of what you've suggested would work in Sydney. Even if it was just to the local shops. Unless it's literally a stone throw away.

[BobtheBuilder]

Ten kms IS far for many people. Most car journeys in urban areas are far less than that and could be easily replaced with cycling. In the NT the stupid law stopping people riding on footpaths was done away with ages ago and I think it has been in some other jurisdictions also.
Apart from the hassle factor, MHLs make cycling seem like a dangerous activity, which, apart from some sport / performance types, it is not; it's on a par with gardening and walking (and lower than jogging, from memory). There have been comprehensive studies comparing a wide range of activities that demonstrate normal cycling is extremely safe - telling people it requires a helmet sends a message that they will be engaging in a dangerous activity.
There are so many arguments against MHLs ...

[Thoglette]

I'm buggered so excuse the short response.

Welcome. In terms of MHLs, have a read of the links in my earlier post. A judicious use of the search engine (use the gearwheel to search on MHL and author Thoglette) will find a raft of posts referring to more than a decade of watching the research. If you've got specific questions, let me know.

But ...in NSW.
...
I can't comment on NT as I've never been. But none of what you've suggested would work in Sydney. Even if it was just to the local shops. Unless it's literally a stone throw away.

I've spent plenty of time in often-helmetless Darwin and just returned from a two week jaunt in the Netherlands, both places where the streets don't run red with the (cranial) blood of cyclists.

The issue in Sydney is solely one of political will.

Firstly, the inappropriate speed limits (per your comment above) and the utter lack of enforcement thereof. (see any study on the effect of vehicle speed vs ped/cyclist death rates). Never mind minimum passing distances - there's a whole thread on NSW 1 metre passing distance + increase cyclist fines. Then there's Operation Pedro, a multiyear, officially sanctioned enforcement campaign of anti-cyclist and anti-pedestrian regulations that most of Australia ignores, with mild embarrassment that they're still on the books.

Second, consider what the state govt. spending on roads in just one year could do for cycling infrastructure. (Compare it to how much is actually spent on cycling infrastructure). I've just come back from a city much more densely populated than most of Sydney and they manage to not only put in cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, but trams and heavy rail. Driving is optional but the drivers are much happier than those in Sydney. (that's a cite you'll have to find yourself but the Dutch are in the top handful)

Finally, what is considered possible, especially among the chattering classes and their demagogues.

It is essential to recall that the Dutch didn't always have there current situation: some cities were as "modern" as LA and country wide they were putting freeways in at the same rate we were in the '70s but eventually revolted at the kindermort (child murder) that was resulting. As a result they have done many of the things you (and your countrymen) consider "impossible", like removing or reducing vehicular access to the heart of many cities.

How to do it? Now there's a book on exactly this topic and the best place to start is No helmets, no problem: how the Dutch created a casual biking culture which is an interview with the authors.

[bychosis]

But footpaths, unless you're under 13 you must ride on the road. At least in NSW.

It’s 16 now, not 13. Other states have rolled back the rule completely - as it should be.

As for MHL: do you put a helmet on every time you ride a bike? WHen you have finished a service and roll out the driveway to test the shifters? When you finish a long ride, stop and chat with a mate for 10min with helmet off, then hop on your bike to get to the car 100m away? In a park to go to the loo when you grab you kids bike to cut the walk? Most people don’t because they realise the risk of not wearing a helmet and injuring their head is negligible in certain circumstances. Most of the world recognise this.

I suspect most anti MHL cyclists are of the opinion that short range, slow utility riding provides negligible risk and the benefit of cycling outweighs the negligible risk of not wearin a helmet but choose a helmet for fast, long or just ‘in traffic’ rides.

It isn’t a black and white argument - unfortunately.

[BobtheBuilder]

I suspect most anti MHL cyclists are of the opinion that short range, slow utility riding provides negligible risk and the benefit of cycling outweighs the negligible risk of not wearin a helmet but choose a helmet for fast, long or just ‘in traffic’ rides.

The argument is about mandatory helmet laws, not about whether helmets are worthwhile or not - though obviously that does play a part in some of the debate.

I would agree that most anti-MHL people would use helmets in certain circumstances, e.g. high-speed/-risk riding. But in other circumstances bicycle riding is less dangerous than jogging or vehicle driving, so wearing a helmet is stupid.

[bychosis]

The argument is about mandatory helmet laws, not about whether helmets are worthwhile or not - though obviously that does play a part in some of the debate.

I get that, but unfortunately many MHL supporters think that everyone should wear a helmet 100% of the time ‘even if it saves just one life’. (Not my view). I suspect the majority of those that support this view would probably not cycle regularly, and those that do cycle are riders that don’t just hop on a bike to go around the corner on the path but ‘kit up’ to go for long fast rides.

I support relaxing the MHL initially so that path riding, and residential street (less than 60km/h) riding is helmet optional for over 16s. It’s a rule of thumb if probably use for cycling. Once the world doesn’t end with this relaxation of the rule, then we can push to remove it completely.

My current situation means i helmet up most of the time, but not to ride 500m to he bus stop to pick up kids, not in the caravan park, and definitely not to test the gear shift or brakes around the culdesac.

[BobtheBuilder]

get that, but unfortunately many MHL supporters think that everyone should wear a helmet 100% of the time

I think one of the (well-documented) effects of MHLs is to discourage casual cycling, so the cyclist mix changes drastically and is skewed to sport/performance riding - the sort of people who, regardless of MHLs, would be wearing helmets (this is also documented internationally).
This skews the Australian cycling scene to competitive, risk-taking males who have certain assumptions about what "riding" is. For them, it is natural that you would always wear a helmet, because most of their riding is the type of activity that suggests wearing a helmet.
Living in the NT, where more normal riding is far more prevalent, and spending 5 months riding across Europe last year and living in Ireland since then, I've had the benefit of being among a more normal mix of riding types and not being conditioned to think a helmet is an essential.
Incidentally, occasionally people post that video from the Netherlands of multiple (helmetless) people coming off bikes on an icy corner and none of them hitting their head, let alone being injured; the same happened to me in Ireland just before Christmas! Riding my Brompton, towing my two year-old in a Croozer I hit some black ice on a freezing morning and went sliding and came off. Because I was riding at a "utility" speed on a fairly upright cycle, I just went sliding fairly slowly and hit the deck in a fairly gentle way and continued on none the worse straight away. "Proof", by the standards of the comment above, that I didn't need a helmet!

[fat and old]

Incidentally, occasionally people post that video from the Netherlands of multiple (helmetless) people coming off bikes on an icy corner and none of them hitting their head, let alone being injured; the same happened to me in Ireland just before Christmas! Riding my Brompton, towing my two year-old in a Croozer I hit some black ice on a freezing morning and went sliding and came off. Because I was riding at a "utility" speed on a fairly upright cycle, I just went sliding fairly slowly and hit the deck in a fairly gentle way and continued on none the worse straight away. "Proof", by the standards of the comment above, that I didn't need a helmet!

I freakin hate that video. It's "proof" of nothing.