Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[trailgumby]

In both of your replies you have not addressed the fact that a helmet is an easy thing to don, easy enough to live with (in spite of your claims) and has been drummed into our psyche for over 30 years as being "what you do". Nor have you addressed the basic selfishness of ALL humans, not just the educated ones like Trauma Surgeons.
...
So what's the plan to change those attitudes?

Easy for some. Current bike riders self-select for membership of that group.

Those for whom it is not easy, and I'm thinking those for whom hair (e.g. females, those of African, indigenous or pacific island descent) or headwear (e.g. sikhs, some muslims, some orthodox jews) are issues, are excluded, and we see low female participation rates and low minority participation rates as a partial reflection of this. Of course, other factors compound the effect of these exclusionary impacts, not least of which is the typically lower rate of risk tolerance among females compared to males.

The plan, at this stage, is to look for data which has a more wholistic view of the impact on community health. Gold standard would be being able to make a determination of early deaths prevented by mandatory helmet laws versus increases in early deaths from inactivity related lifestyle diseases attributable to suppression of incidental cycling by those same laws. Unfortunately, that particular analysis is very complex.

The newly enacted laws in Cyprus mandating helmets might be an opportunity to capture relevant data. I will be reaching out to cycling leaders in Cyprus with a fellow board member who is an Associate Professor of Community Health to start the conversation about data collection.

[fat and old]

In both of your replies you have not addressed the fact that a helmet is an easy thing to don, easy enough to live with (in spite of your claims) and has been drummed into our psyche for over 30 years as being "what you do". Nor have you addressed the basic selfishness of ALL humans, not just the educated ones like Trauma Surgeons.
...
So what's the plan to change those attitudes?

Easy for some. Current bike riders self-select for membership of that group.

Those for whom it is not easy, and I'm thinking those for whom hair (e.g. females, those of African, indigenous or pacific island descent) or headwear (e.g. sikhs, some muslims, some orthodox jews) are issues, are excluded..........

Easy for most, not some. With reference to the above:

I work/have worked alongside many African, Islander and Muslims, some Indigenous, quite a few women. Without exception they wear a hardhat when required. Sometimes 100% of the shift bar crib time, sometimes doing specific tasks. Quite often some will wear a chinstrap to stop the helmet just falling off as it is wont to do with some hairstyles/types.

No one complains (that I've seen. There probably has been complaints). They just get on with it. Why? I guess because if they want to work, they have to. And these are jobs with no overhead activity at all. None.

From the VicRoads site:

Religious exemptions

The road rules state that a person may also be exempted from wearing a bicycle helmet for religious reasons, if religious headdress makes wearing a helmet impractical. You don't need a certificate for a religious exemption.

This applies if you meet ALL of the following requirements:

you're a member of a religious group
you're wearing a headdress customarily worn by members of that group
the wearing of your headdress makes it impracticable to wear a bicycle helmet.

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/licence ... cle-helmet

From an SBS site:

Although wearing a helmet is compulsory, Sikhs are allowed to ride a cycle without a helmet in Queensland, SA, WA and Victoria.

https://www.sbs.com.au/language/punjabi ... /ybx9cwdib

I'm not going to bother looking up the various State rules, but do think that it's a fair assumption that given this, the same would apply as does in Victoria in Qld, SA and WA.

The newly enacted laws in Cyprus mandating helmets might be an opportunity to capture relevant data. I will be reaching out to cycling leaders in Cyprus with a fellow board member who is an Associate Professor of Community Health to start the conversation about data collection.

I'm really looking forward to that. I've had a bit of a look at Cyprus' cycling rates and they're like the 2nd lowest in Europe already. Still will be interesting.

[trailgumby]

I work/have worked alongside many African, Islander and Muslims, some Indigenous, quite a few women. Without exception they wear a hardhat when required. Sometimes 100% of the shift bar crib time, sometimes doing specific tasks. Quite often some will wear a chinstrap to stop the helmet just falling off as it is wont to do with some hairstyles/types.

No one complains (that I've seen. There probably has been complaints). They just get on with it. Why? I guess because if they want to work, they have to. And these are jobs with no overhead activity at all. None.

Again, some degree of self-selection bias is in play impacting the sample there. Earning an income is also a powerful motivator that skews the sample. It yields limited to no useful information if you only include those who have already elected to wear PPE. You somehow need to capture those for whom the requirement is a disincentive.

For bicycles, when it's merely a convenient form of transport and the exercise motivation is well down the list or absent, which is the case for many if not most of the currently absent rider cohort, if you put hurdles in peoples' way, no matter how trivial, and it's easier to get in a car to get to B instead, that is what they will do.

[bychosis]

No one complains (that I've seen. There probably has been complaints). They just get on with it. Why? I guess because if they want to work, they have to. And these are jobs with no overhead activity at all. None.

Mandatory in the workplace is a different thing. Wanna work- stick a lid on. Not to mention that many OHS managers seemingly jump straight to hard hats and vests before considering any other controls reversing the hierarchy. Makes wearing a hard hat a pointless accessory for a worker in many cases.

I’ve heard plenty of complaints re hard hat wearing. Worked with asphalt crews out on the open road. Several contractors required hard hats on their sites which said asphalt crews found ridiculous because there was only sunshine (or stars) above them. Negligible risk of an object hitting your scone and yet they had to wear them.

[fat and old]

I work/have worked alongside many African, Islander and Muslims, some Indigenous, quite a few women. Without exception they wear a hardhat when required. Sometimes 100% of the shift bar crib time, sometimes doing specific tasks. Quite often some will wear a chinstrap to stop the helmet just falling off as it is wont to do with some hairstyles/types.

No one complains (that I've seen. There probably has been complaints). They just get on with it. Why? I guess because if they want to work, they have to. And these are jobs with no overhead activity at all. None.

Again, some degree of self-selection bias is in play impacting the sample there. Earning an income is also a powerful motivator that skews the sample. It yields limited to no useful information if you only include those who have already elected to wear PPE. You somehow need to capture those for whom the requirement is a disincentive.

"Would you be more likely to undertake the 4 years of study to become a site based Civil Engineer if you were assured that you would not have to wear a hard hat ever?"

"Would you be more likely to train to be a Boilermaker if you didn't need to wear gloves at work?"

"Would you consider a career in Sewer works if you didn't need to wear safety glasses?"

"Would you like to work in landscaping but the need to wear Safety Boots is putting you off?"

I understand what you're saying but the above questions are relevant in gaining an accurate sampling. They're also ridiculous (unless you're sampling a disabled cohort) I find it hard to consider the attitudes of anyone who is facile enough to reject appropriate PPE in any situation, let alone at work. Both from an employer and an employees POV.

For bicycles, when it's merely a convenient form of transport and the exercise motivation is well down the list or absent, which is the case for many if not most of the currently absent rider cohort, if you put hurdles in peoples' way, no matter how trivial, and it's easier to get in a car to get to B instead, that is what they will do.

How do you quantify this Absent Cohort? That's a new term (for me) for an old assumption.....No MHL's, no decline in cycling. I don't believe that at all. Sure, some, probably many. But not 100%. I cannot think of a single instance of an increase in cycling numbers per capita in any country from 1990 onwards. Probably wrong, happy to be shown so.

[jasonc]

I’ve heard plenty of complaints re hard hat wearing. Worked with asphalt crews out on the open road. Several contractors required hard hats on their sites which said asphalt crews found ridiculous because there was only sunshine (or stars) above them. Negligible risk of an object hitting your scone and yet they had to wear them.

There were similar stories when I was working with road workers and the long pants mandate came in

[fat and old]

No one complains (that I've seen. There probably has been complaints). They just get on with it. Why? I guess because if they want to work, they have to. And these are jobs with no overhead activity at all. None.

Mandatory in the workplace is a different thing. Wanna work- stick a lid on.

It's not. Wanna ride...stick a lid on.

On the complaints....fair call. If it's out of the ordinary, there's always complaints. True. Once established, they melt away. These days in Melbourne it's just the way it is. Has been a long, long time now.

Just like MHL's, aye?

On Jasonc's long pants....that was painful. Wore shorts every day rain or shine, hot or cold until I was 40 or so. Then we had to change. Took a year to get used to. I can show you the scars on my shin where a shovel of hotmix landed one day pre longs.......

[piledhigher2]

No one complains (that I've seen. There probably has been complaints). They just get on with it. Why? I guess because if they want to work, they have to. And these are jobs with no overhead activity at all. None.

Mandatory in the workplace is a different thing. Wanna work- stick a lid on. Not to mention that many OHS managers seemingly jump straight to hard hats and vests before considering any other controls reversing the hierarchy. Makes wearing a hard hat a pointless accessory for a worker in many cases.

I’ve heard plenty of complaints re hard hat wearing. Worked with asphalt crews out on the open road. Several contractors required hard hats on their sites which said asphalt crews found ridiculous because there was only sunshine (or stars) above them. Negligible risk of an object hitting your scone and yet they had to wear them.

Was pleasantly surprised by the train building environment that uses bump caps rather than hard hats, more suited to the light knocks that you risk working under a train and much smaller and more comfortable to wear so you actually hit them less.

[antigee]

...... I cannot think of a single instance of an increase in cycling numbers per capita in any country from 1990 onwards. Probably wrong, happy to be shown so.

not a country but New York (and probably also Paris and Barcelona) has seen increased cyclist numbers in the last few years (pre covid):

Approximately eight hundred thousand (773,000) New Yorkers ride a bike regularly. It is estimated that over 530,000 cycling trips are made each day in New York City—more than triple the amount taken 15 years ago.

https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/bicy ... housand%20(773%2C000,protected%20bicycle%20lanes%20in%202020.

Believe this refers to NYC population just short of 9m rather than Metropolitan New York which I think is about 22m

For the record NY only has MHL for under 14 year olds and for those using a bicycle as part of their job..."no officer I'm not delivering this meal I just use the bag to pick up food for the family"

[DavidS]

So, large cars mean cyclists have to wear helmets now . . . yeah, p!ss off.

Not that the size of the car has anything to do with this, a little Daihatsu will destroy the sad excuse for head protection those things offer, let alone a Hilux.

The whole argument that we need helmets because cars are larger is complete crap. Apart from anything else, the larger the car, the more they have to change lanes when I claim the lane, you can't fit that big SUV past me without going in the next lane.

Helmet laws discourage cycling, we know this. We also know that more bicycles on the roads makes it safer for cyclists.

MHLs make cycling more dangerous and give drivers an excuse to be less respectful of cyclists on the road. Just a stupid law as reflected in the fact it is a rare law on, what, 3 countries on the planet.

DS

Good to see this discussion back on track with motherhood statements that it is only helmet laws that discourage cycling in Aust from being another Denmark or Netherlands.

Oh, and that graphic was from one of the countries that does not have helmet laws. We have have large vehicles and helmet laws - could be a complex issue?
Nah, we just need more motherhood statements and no answers around how to move or change the laws.

Whispers ... from what I can see not a single link of helmets to bigger vehicles was made. Japan has been highlighted as having small cars and is a fine place for biking.

Good to see people putting words in other peoples' mouths.

Where did I say we would have a cycling culture like Denmark or the Netherlands if we got rid of MHLs?

Nice to see my words being distorted, just shows the weakness of the pro-MHL argument.

Less bikes means the roads are more dangerous for cyclists, and we know mandating flimsy bits of foam on your head discourages cycling. Might be why just about every country on Earth doesn't have these silly laws. Best to make the roads safer not accept that the roads are so dangerous that we need protection.

Where is the evidence MHLs have made cycling any safer?

As many have pointed out, it isn't just having to put the sweaty PITA whenever you get on a bicycle, its carrying the damned thing around, what a pain.

DS

[Thoglette]

Disagree. Apart from the fact that you don't address the mechanics of the activity....putting on a helmet.....labeling someone as being "out of their mind" because they find an activity easy is offensive. You also make the common mistake of using your own personal situation to justify a viewpoint you claim is universal. Poor form there mate.

I 'm not suggesting you're out of your mind (sorry): "out of your mind" is the response you'd get from the vast majority of people who use bicycles for normal transport - it's only in the anglosphere that wearing a helmet is essential has been peddled.

I'm suggesting that you're taking the view point of a sporting rider, not a normal, short distance transport rider.

Yes, I agree, we don't have any of those here. Anymore.

As to my situation, the vast majority of my riding is fast commuting, in traffic, in lycra & silly shoes with a shower at the end - i.e. the sort of riding we all would chose to wear a helmet for.

As to the attitudes of teenagers, for which I did provide a personal anecdote, once again the literature is full of people trying to explain why our adult cycling rates have plummeted, with every survey that actually asks the question citing MHLs as #3 after lousy infrastructure and feral drivers. It's no news to note that teens care deeply about how "cool" they appear to their peers - and outside skate parks helmets are deeply uncool.

In both of your replies you have not addressed the fact that a helmet is an easy thing to don,

I'll assume you didn't see the picture I attached.

The simplest, Reductio ad absurdum that Helmets are not "an easy thing to don" is to insist that I wear one with my freshly set hair. It's impossible to do, without ruinous consequences.

One can go further and note that there's no need to refute the "fact": the line that "a helmet is an easy thing to don" is just an apology for a bad law.

E.g. The usual result of surveys into the matter (RAC 2015 or Rissel & Wen 2011) is that about 1/3 of non-riders & irregular riders say they'd ride more without MHLs, which, if true, would immediately double the number of bicyle trips taken each year.

Not "hell ride" trips, but gentle trips to the shops, parks, pubs and local train station.

[bychosis]

How do you quantify this Absent Cohort? That's a new term (for me) for an old assumption.....No MHL's, no decline in cycling. I don't believe that at all. Sure, some, probably many. But not 100%. I cannot think of a single instance of an increase in cycling numbers per capita in any country from 1990 onwards. Probably wrong, happy to be shown so.

Covid saw a big uptick in cycling, but it’s probably a blip rather than sustained.

I suspect that high fuel prices and availability of quality e-bikes will increase cycling rates, but it’s new so not so much data yet. Combine that with a (limited) increase in infrastructure for cyclists and a (slight) aim of reducing vehicle traffic should help as well.

Thing is, we need more people hopping on a bike for the 5min trip to pick up takeaway or visit mates. That’s the sort of stuff that increases cycling and the sort of riding that you don’t need or want to get kitted up for.

Bike share schemes are great, but if you aren’t keen to use the supplied helmet (ewww, head lice) it’s a problem to source a lid.

[trailgumby]

I cannot think of a single instance of an increase in cycling numbers per capita in any country from 1990 onwards. Probably wrong, happy to be shown so.

If we substitute jurisdiction for country (and I'm assuming that's what you actually mean), the Northern Territory is exactly that instance when they relaxed MHL laws to exclude off-road paths and cycleways.

[baabaa]

How do you quantify this Absent Cohort? That's a new term (for me) for an old assumption.....No MHL's, no decline in cycling. I don't believe that at all. Sure, some, probably many. But not 100%. I cannot think of a single instance of an increase in cycling numbers per capita in any country from 1990 onwards. Probably wrong, happy to be shown so.

Covid saw a big uptick in cycling, but it’s probably a blip rather than sustained.

I suspect that high fuel prices and availability of quality e-bikes will increase cycling rates, but it’s new so not so much data yet. Combine that with a (limited) increase in infrastructure for cyclists and a (slight) aim of reducing vehicle traffic should help as well.

Thing is, we need more people hopping on a bike for the 5min trip to pick up takeaway or visit mates. That’s the sort of stuff that increases cycling and the sort of riding that you don’t need or want to get kitted up for.

Bike share schemes are great, but if you aren’t keen to use the supplied helmet (ewww, head lice) it’s a problem to source a lid.

Agree with all this.
In fact quite enjoying how this topic seems to have moved on to a more positive discussion around the whole biking issue - time for a change of topic heading??

But also please consider each and everyone really doing something now ( am really so bloody sick and tired of the people who bang on with the endless motherhood statements and yet just do nothing!!) and start dialogue of any sort of topic you wish about bikes with your elected local council member, state and now federal members.
If you dont have a local independent, get in contact with the nearest one and highlight biking in your area.

For the first time in a long time I think pollies are starting to understand they need to gain votes and it Is a very good chance by next year we could have the same type of Govt in administration in all states other that Tassie.

In Manly we had a small window when the local members were Abbott as PM and Baird was NSW Premier - before they became leaders both did engage in what could be done about biking and even would discuss MHL and the possible way forward to changes - once they became leaders they just did not have the time to re-engage but they stil lhad the power to change things but had they also had the Nats hanging around.

So....could be wrong but think that window is just about ready to open and am quite surprised at how keen to the two councils I live in ( far sth coast and SW slopes and plains) are about thinking around local biking - they are actively seeking input in ways to change and see it as a win win for the community (and a chance to get relected). The local state and federal members also have at least one ear open as the cost of transport and fuels is not going to go down to what it was a few years ago - could be the threat of indis but they know what happened to the LNP.
The new teal type indis could be a huge win for reinventing biking in many ways!!

[uart]

They aren't going away, this thread has proposed no viable plan for their removal.
I hear of no viable strategy amywhere.
It aint happening.

I'm not sure why you keep quoting me this to make this point. My view is exactly the same, and I'm sure I've said so somewhere above. MHL is way too ingrained and the vast majority of motorist (who way outnumber cyclists) are adamant about it. Just look at some of the arguments for it in this thread, FatAndOld's angle (as far as I can tell) seems to be that MHL's are justified because of MHL's.

Being of the opinion that MHLs are unnecessary (at risk cyclists will wear them anyway) and, on balance are an anti cycling measure that has no overall health benefit (when all factors are included), is completely unrelated to any belief that MHLs will be repealed any time soon.

[uart]

Less bikes means the roads are more dangerous for cyclists

This is the key point for me. I see it all the time when cycling around. Cycle in suburbs where cycling is fairly normalised and people are using it for casual/utility purposes and you get a low level of driver aggro. Cycle in suburbs where cyclists are sparse and you're likely to get several aggro incidents just about every ride.

I know this is to some extent a chicken and egg situation, where suburbs that have roads/infrastructure conducive to safely sharing the road are the ones that have the higher cycling rates (so the lack of aggro can be attributed to the infrastructure rather than the numbers). But it's a two way proposition, and with increasing cycling numbers comes demand for better infrastructure. So it's self re-enforcing.

[BobtheBuilder]

the Northern Territory is exactly that instance when they relaxed MHL laws to exclude off-road paths and cycleways.

And don't enforce it anywhere else. (+ the fine is only $25)

[BobtheBuilder]

They aren't going away, this thread has proposed no viable plan for their removal.
I hear of no viable strategy amywhere.
It aint happening.

Maybe some of us members here who feel strongly about repealing MHLs can get together some factsheets?

These can these be used for increasing understanding of the issue, publicising, lobbying, etc.

Perhaps they already exist?

I agree that just talking here isn't the only thing - but I still think it's important. There seem to be a lot more people now who understand the various ways MHL is harmful and we just need to increase that level of education and understanding, to create a bigger pool of effective publicists and lobbyists.

[fat and old]

FatAndOld's angle (as far as I can tell) seems to be that MHL's are justified because of MHL's.

Fat and Old's angle is actually shut up and ride your bike Not you personally, but in general.

Don't wanna wear a helmet? Good. Don't. I don't when I couldn't be bothered, or when I forget, but that's rare. Personally I have my Mum's memories to contend with so helmet it is. But otherwise, go for it! It's of no consequence to me or anyone in my family, so I don't care. Just like wearing a mask. I don't need someone to tell me to do something, nor someone to tell me what not to do. I'm an adult, and I'll make my choices.

But......the amount of garbage, hysterics, whining and sooking I see here, from pro and anti MHL'ers is enough for me to get in and poke the dragon now and then. Gonna put forward an argument? Back it up with facts. I'll take personal anecdotes too....even tho that's the Devils work........Be accurate. Don't make claims that can be shot down in flames. Don't tell other people what the subject at hand is when you don't like what they're saying.

Fair dinkum, there's more to cycling than MHL's. But if you're gonna get into it, either educate yourself or be educated with a smile. I've learned a lot in this thread. A lot.

Oh, for the record, and for the 50th time in this thread, I'm anti MHL.

[fat and old]

I cannot think of a single instance of an increase in cycling numbers per capita in any country from 1990 onwards. Probably wrong, happy to be shown so.

If we substitute jurisdiction for country (and I'm assuming that's what you actually mean), the Northern Territory is exactly that instance when they relaxed MHL laws to exclude off-road paths and cycleways.

No. I meant country. I needed a statistic that suited my argument. But you may want to check the numbers on the NT experience again.

[fat and old]

Disagree. Apart from the fact that you don't address the mechanics of the activity....putting on a helmet.....labeling someone as being "out of their mind" because they find an activity easy is offensive. You also make the common mistake of using your own personal situation to justify a viewpoint you claim is universal. Poor form there mate.

I 'm not suggesting you're out of your mind (sorry): "out of your mind" is the response you'd get from the vast majority of people who use bicycles for normal transport - it's only in the anglosphere that wearing a helmet is essential has been peddled.

Yeah, I figured as much after a while. Didn't seem on par for a typical Thoglette reply, but hey, maybe you were having a bad day!

FWIW, my riding is a mix of fast/traffic commuting (40%), take it easy bike path commuting (40%), toodling around short trip stuff (5%) and just riding about on a weekend (15%).

As to the attitudes of teenagers, for which I did provide a personal anecdote, once again the literature is full of people trying to explain why our adult cycling rates have plummeted, with every survey that actually asks the question citing MHLs as #3 after lousy infrastructure and feral drivers. It's no news to note that teens care deeply about how "cool" they appear to their peers - and outside skate parks helmets are deeply uncool.

True, and I still find it hard to believe that most teens would find a bicycle cooler than a car. Having said that, my teenage recollections are 35 years out of date, and my experiences and memories of teen children are at least 10-15 years past. When I look at my two sons, one (at 29) is a suburban car driver, one (at 34) is an inner city scooter user. Both got into the drivers seat as soon as they could tho. All of my nieces and nephews (around 12 of age so far) have got a car as soon as was possible. Almost all are outer suburbs dwellers, bar one. He lives in the CBD, and is a scooter user, the car comes out only when necessary, much like my eldest.

I guess risk taking (speed) and laziness are the drivers of most of our behavior. Strange bedfellows.

[uart]

I agree that just talking here isn't the only thing - but I still think it's important. There seem to be a lot more people now who understand the various ways MHL is harmful and we just need to increase that level of education and understanding

Agreed. Spreading ideas is important. Not sure why so many people seem to come to this thread just to try to derail the discussion. If people want to come here and debate their pro MHL position then I'm fine with that, but a lot of people come here just to try and derail and deride, and I'm talking about posts along the lines of "you guys are all just talk and whinge".

[BobtheBuilder]

Fair dinkum, there's more to cycling than MHL's

Very perspicacious. But, have you seen the title of this thread?

[warthog1]

They aren't going away, this thread has proposed no viable plan for their removal.
I hear of no viable strategy amywhere.
It aint happening.

Maybe some of us members here who feel strongly about repealing MHLs can get together some factsheets?

These can these be used for increasing understanding of the issue, publicising, lobbying, etc.

Perhaps they already exist?

I agree that just talking here isn't the only thing - but I still think it's important. There seem to be a lot more people now who understand the various ways MHL is harmful and we just need to increase that level of education and understanding, to create a bigger pool of effective publicists and lobbyists.

This repetitive thread is read by by a handful of people.
I don't see any evidence or likelihood that it is in any way useful in bringing about a change in the law.
Perhaps it isnt pointless despite that.
A place for people to complain about a flawed law.

Your point about people who feel strongly enough creating fact sheets may be helpful.
Getting that message out widely enough and influentially enough to bring about a change is a huge, huge challenge.
All the best with it.

I would be happy if you were successful and rendered my thoughts on the subject completely wrong. I just don't believe it likely.

[BobtheBuilder]

I would be happy if you were successful and rendered my thoughts on the subject completely wrong. I just don't believe it likely.

Not sure why you keep commenting if your only contribution is to say nothing will change?

Maybe participate somewhere else where you actually have some interest?