Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[BobtheBuilder]

Does that mean that wearing a bicycle helmet induces people to indulge in riskier behaviour than if they were not wearing one? Thus making them less safe?

This is called risk compensation in the literature and there is a lot of evidence it's a thing - you feel safer, so you engage in riskier behaviour. The findings around bike helmets and risk compensation are a topic of controversy, but anecdotally, a lot of people, on reflection, do, like yourself, report that their risk appetite increases if they are wearing a helmet (and this risk is for the whole body, not just the cranium).

[BobtheBuilder]

The lack of unity in cycling community does us no favours.

While I agree, the largely rigid pro-MHL line from the establishment cycling organisations and their habit of dumping on people who are anti-MHL is pretty divisive. This might be related to the fact that they see cycling as a sport, not as transport and general utility - another perverse outcome of MHL, which tends to result in skewing the cycling population to sport/risk cycling (because MHL puts off lots of utility cyclists).

[MichaelB]

Your anecdotes do not constitute evidence.

DS

^^^ reads as a very disingenuous comment and borders on offensive. I trust it wasn't meant that way ...



I'm with warthog1, BUT, understand that thee are those that are passionate about it. Fine.


One thing that IO can't quite get my head around is the oft quoted 'fact' that "MHL actually stops people from riding" I understand there are legal exceptions for certain people (much like there are seatbelt exemptions for some), but aside from the other reasons of :
- I get hot,
- I don't like getting told what to do (its my choice),
- I don't think it's a risk (or I'm willing to suffer the consequences),
- I just think they are ugly,
- I'm riding on a bike path so not taking risks,
- they make injuries worse etc

Can someone answer me "What is it that STOPS people from wearing a helmet" - It isn't cost, fitment, availability, so what is it that makes MHL stop people from riding ?

[g-boaf]

The lack of unity in cycling community does us no favours.

While I agree, the largely rigid pro-MHL line from the establishment cycling organisations and their habit of dumping on people who are anti-MHL is pretty divisive. This might be related to the fact that they see cycling as a sport, not as transport and general utility - another perverse outcome of MHL, which tends to result in skewing the cycling population to sport/risk cycling (because MHL puts off lots of utility cyclists).

I can tell you that a helmet doesn't make me more inclined to do sport cycling or otherwise.

Back when I was at the office I can pretty much say I probably did more transport/utility cycling than the transport/utility cycling advocates. That was my way to get to work and back and not be sat in a traffic jam. I was also a very strong advocate for getting more people cycling in the local area by my consistent riding. Also made plenty of contacts in the local community to look out for our walking/cycling tracks and keeping them safe for everyone who uses them.

You have to admit also that some of the advocates for transport/utility cycling can be equally divisive and abrasive in the way they dump on other parts of the cycling community, never ever directly and always with weasel words so they can retreat with "I didn't say that, you misunderstood" and similar.

Whatever, I don't have patience for any of those groups or the stupid wars they carry on with.

More people will ride when they know that they won't get deliberately close passes, or if they do get menaced, they won't be hit with excuses like "oh, that's not a calibrated camera" or told they were somehow at fault. Reduced speed limits in our urban areas would also help a heck of a lot. Those things are very important, without those even getting rid of MHL won't get anymore people riding anywhere else except off-road paths.

[tpcycle]

Your anecdotes do not constitute evidence.

DS

^^^ reads as a very disingenuous comment and borders on offensive. I trust it wasn't meant that way ...



I'm with warthog1, BUT, understand that thee are those that are passionate about it. Fine.


One thing that IO can't quite get my head around is the oft quoted 'fact' that "MHL actually stops people from riding" I understand there are legal exceptions for certain people (much like there are seatbelt exemptions for some), but aside from the other reasons of :
- I get hot,
- I don't like getting told what to do (its my choice),
- I don't think it's a risk (or I'm willing to suffer the consequences),
- I just think they are ugly,
- I'm riding on a bike path so not taking risks,
- they make injuries worse etc

Can someone answer me "What is it that STOPS people from wearing a helmet" - It isn't cost, fitment, availability, so what is it that makes MHL stop people from riding ?

My wife rode a bicycle daily overseas. When we moved to Australia she would not ride a bicycle because she had to wear a helmet. If you have been habituated to wearing a helmet then it may seem odd - but to most of the world your position seems odd.

MHL definitely stops people from riding bicycles.

BTW anecdotes are not data - look at how many people fervently believe a helmet saved their lives, whereas whole population data seems to indicate that this must be a fanciful notion - maybe it indicates that bicycles helmets are fragile more than anything else.

[am50em]

My wife rode a bicycle daily overseas. When we moved to Australia she would not ride a bicycle because she had to wear a helmet. If you have been habituated to wearing a helmet then it may seem odd - but to most of the world your position seems odd.

MHL definitely stops people from riding bicycles.

Yet another anecdote used to support a position.
I thought anecdotes were banned.

[g-boaf]

My wife rode a bicycle daily overseas. When we moved to Australia she would not ride a bicycle because she had to wear a helmet. If you have been habituated to wearing a helmet then it may seem odd - but to most of the world your position seems odd.

MHL definitely stops people from riding bicycles.

Yet another anecdote used to support a position.
I thought anecdotes were banned.

Anecdotes are only banned when they don't support your argument. Otherwise it's all fine and good.

And if things get really out of hand, use the report post function to get things deleted or locked that you don't like (seen on other forums).

[baabaa]

Howdo team anti MHL!!
Been away from this discussion for a few months now so keen to know what you lot have done to help move things along a little.

Guessing many, many phone calls to the local politicians, lots of meetings with councils done and dusted and several hard hitting letter to the editor of newspapers published to really get things moving!
Sorry motherhood statements about how bad helmets make me feel or how wonderful the data on the decline of biking from the 1980s makes us all feel so snug and cozy that this very nasty law in this very discussion doesn’t count.

So, so... Anyone....What? Nothing?
Hmm so no change from you lot then.
As you were then.

Well ...Happy to report that of the two meetings I have been to about safer biking in this time, not one mention was made about HML- sorry nothing – lots of very, very engaged people who bike a lot and some just do a bit and no one cares about that. All about how good biking it is off the roads, cutting speed limits on roads from 50 to 30 KMPH to make for safer walking and biking, fixing the nasty on road shoulder pot holes, extending the local bike paths and how to include more biking into walking tracks without pushing into bushlands.

General feeling remains, MHL or not, we in Aust are the same boat as around the world, more people just don’t like riding on the same roads as cars so more biking will come when people biking don’t have to mix with cars.

All quite exciting stuff really if you just get off the keyboard and ...... do stuff!!
(And if you – and you know who you are - have done nothing over the past few months maybe question why are you continuing to bang on and on and on and keep posting this endless HML belly-aching)

Oh and FWIW back on the NSW far south coast and my rough local biking count and out the window of the bike path on the opposite side of the street ( and including the on road biking ) people and also kiddies on the way to the local primary school riding with helmets seems to be even lower during winter and spring than it was in summer and autumn – I make two in ever nine riders - seems odd however as from here, the notion is that helmets made people too hot to ride in summer, so they ride less, really should pull out my old bike network excel counting sheets and turn this into ...data that is not decades old!!

[bychosis]

Well ...Happy to report that of the two meetings I have been to about safer biking in this time, not one mention was made about HML- sorry nothing – lots of very, very engaged people who bike a lot and some just do a bit and no one cares about that. All about how good biking it is off the roads, cutting speed limits on roads from 50 to 30 KMPH to make for safer walking and biking, fixing the nasty on road shoulder pot holes, extending the local bike paths and how to include more biking into walking tracks without pushing into bushlands.

It’s a valid point that in the scheme of things MHL is not a game changer. It’s not as important as infrastructure but it does play to one of the many reasons why cycling is not as ubiquitous as it should be.

Removing MHL *might* get some more people back on bikes it would likely improve the utilisation of share bike schemes by enabling ‘just hop on and go’. Who wants to lug a helmet around just in case they want to borrow a bike for a one way trip? I know i don’t want to mix my head sweat with a strangers from the helmet with the share bike either. More convenience (don’t need to ‘get dressed’ to ride) means more riding. More riding means more riders means more infrastructure required which gets more people riding. More people riding means more safety because drivers will expect to see cycles.

It’s a complex equation, and the most palatable solution for ‘all’ groups at this point is to get more infrastructure which is why the divisive MHL repeal gets left behind.

[DavidS]

They are not anecdotes.
They were people.

In terms of rational, scientific argument that is anecdotal evidence. That does not diminish the personal loss and pain from these horrible events, but it also does not increase their evidential value.
I've ridden without a helmet for decades and never got hurt. That also doesn't prove that what I'm doing is safe.

This.

The point is that we all have stories and they mean a lot to us, but they are not data.Stories have emotional impact so we all use them, but they still do not constitute data.

DS

[warthog1]

They are not anecdotes.
They were people.

In terms of rational, scientific argument that is anecdotal evidence. That does not diminish the personal loss and pain from these horrible events, but it also does not increase their evidential value.
I've ridden without a helmet for decades and never got hurt. That also doesn't prove that what I'm doing is safe.

This.

The point is that we all have stories and they mean a lot to us, but they are not data.Stories have emotional impact so we all use them, but they still do not constitute data.

DS

The point I disagreed with was that cycling is safe.
The stories were not used for emotional impact.
They were people cycling on the road with traffic in the rural town I live in. They were hit by that traffic and killed.
I do not classify that as a safe activity if that is the result.

Here is my helmet worn whilst undertaking said "safe" activity.



If I am going to have my head slammed into the bitumen I'd prefer to have one on than not.

Small ICH, 9# ribs, clavicle, scapula and pubic rami.

Yes cycling can be safe. Pottering along not on the road, away from heavy, fast moving motor vehicles is probably one of those times. A blanket "cycling is safe" I strongly disagree with.

Yes I believe it should be a personal choice when and where to wear a helmet.
Sometimes it is wise, depending on the type of cycling, to put one on regardless of the law.

[BobtheBuilder]

Can someone answer me "What is it that STOPS people from wearing a helmet" - It isn't cost, fitment, availability, so what is it that makes MHL stop people from riding ?

Empirical evidence doesn't imply mechanisms of causation.

However, many of the mechanisms seem pretty clear, and no matter how much you stick your head in the sand and say YOU don't understand, that won't change.

Helmets put people off for a whole range of reasons and that's a demonstrable effect. Arguing about causation won't change that.

[warthog1]

Howdo team anti MHL!!
Been away from this discussion for a few months now so keen to know what you lot have done to help move things along a little.

Guessing many, many phone calls to the local politicians, lots of meetings with councils done and dusted and several hard hitting letter to the editor of newspapers published to really get things moving!
Sorry motherhood statements about how bad helmets make me feel or how wonderful the data on the decline of biking from the 1980s makes us all feel so snug and cozy that this very nasty law in this very discussion doesn’t count.

So, so... Anyone....What? Nothing?
Hmm so no change from you lot then.
As you were then.

Yes. Last time this thread sprung back to life, I questioned the strategy to remove the law. Anyone got one?
Point it out somewhere in the multiple pages?

Nothing.

[BobtheBuilder]

A blanket "cycling is safe" I strongly disagree with.

A blanket "gardening is safe" I strongly disagree with. Notwithstanding the fact that injury rates are higher from standard gardening activities, you can also have trees falling on you or get attacked by dogs. Nothing is "safe" if you look at the outlier risks.

I've cycled all my life and barely had an accident and never come anywhere near hitting my head. That includes working as a bike courier in Sydney, riding the east coast from Sydney to north Queensland and cycle commuting through a number of icy, snowy European and Canadian winters.

If you're having that many accidents, notwithstanding the appalling state of cycling infrastructure in Australia, maybe you need to do something about your technique and/or visibility.

[BobtheBuilder]

I can tell you that a helmet doesn't make me more inclined to do sport cycling or otherwise.

No. But it does make utility cyclists less inclined to cycle. So, what's left of the cycling population is dominated by the sport / high-risk group, which further skews the cycling fraternity to a minority view of cycling.

[warthog1]

Can someone answer me "What is it that STOPS people from wearing a helmet" - It isn't cost, fitment, availability, so what is it that makes MHL stop people from riding ?

The MHL doesn't come up at all with the non-cycling people I speak with. It is the (justified imo) fear of traffic passing close by and fast.
They see me as somewhat crazy in some respects.
There are a few cyclists where I work.
We deal with road trauma as part of the job.
I am the only one who rides on the road regularly. One other does occasionally.
The rest ride MTB. No distracted, arrogant, aggressive or incompetent motor vehicle drivers there.
We have all seen the results of their mistakes whilst driving.

More separated infrastructure would bring more cyclists in.

[warthog1]

A blanket "cycling is safe" I strongly disagree with.

A blanket "gardening is safe" I strongly disagree with. Notwithstanding the fact that injury rates are higher from standard gardening activities, you can also have trees falling on you or get attacked by dogs. Nothing is "safe" if you look at the outlier risks.

Do you think gardening would be safer in the bush or the left lane of a major highway?

I've cycled all my life and barely had an accident and never come anywhere near hitting my head. That includes working as a bike courier in Sydney, riding the east coast from Sydney to north Queensland and cycle commuting through a number of icy, snowy European and Canadian winters.

That crash was on a fast swap off at 40-45 kmh in a large bunch. A rider moved left and I moved onto the shoulder to avoid them. Lost the front coming back on the road.

If you're having that many accidents, notwithstanding the appalling state of cycling infrastructure in Australia, maybe you need to do something about your technique and/or visibility.

I have had multiple incidents with drivers in the north of 150k km I have ridden. Not accidents.
I have a garmin varia light/radar and do not wear dark colours.
If you chose to read other threads and post elsewhere in the forum, bar this one thread, you would note others who spend time on our roads on their bicycles have also experienced unsafe motorist behaviour.

[g-boaf]

Can someone answer me "What is it that STOPS people from wearing a helmet" - It isn't cost, fitment, availability, so what is it that makes MHL stop people from riding ?

Empirical evidence doesn't imply mechanisms of causation.

However, many of the mechanisms seem pretty clear, and no matter how much you stick your head in the sand and say YOU don't understand, that won't change.

Helmets put people off for a whole range of reasons and that's a demonstrable effect. Arguing about causation won't change that.

People are put off by 1600-2000kg vehicles deliberately passing them as closely as possible for fun. Even more so when it’s some jerk doing 140km/h+. Even some very experienced pro riders are put off by that.

Build better infrastructure and enforce legislation against dangerous driving behaviour against riders rigorously then you’ll see changes. Both of those are the most important things to start with. Helmet law changes can come later. But the first two are critical.

If a driver too closely passes a rider then he/she should be assumed as guilty right away. No excuses, none of this “in calibrated cameras, not valid” nonsense.

[tpcycle]

If you chose to read other threads and post elsewhere in the forum, bar this one thread, you would note others who spend time on our roads on their bicycles have also experienced unsafe motorist behaviour.

And per the video posted on the prior page this unsafe motorist behaviour is the justification for MHLs and in the land of MHLs they have helped this how?

[warthog1]

If you chose to read other threads and post elsewhere in the forum, bar this one thread, you would note others who spend time on our roads on their bicycles have also experienced unsafe motorist behaviour.

And per the video posted on the prior page this unsafe motorist behaviour is the justification for MHLs and in the land of MHLs they have helped this how?

Do you believe they were put in place to quell unsafe motorist behaviour?
I'd have said more likely they were an attempt to be seen to address or mitigate the risk posed by motorists.
Make the victims change rather than the perpetrators.
Far easier to do that than make any serious attempt to address the dangerous behaviour.

[MichaelB]

Can someone answer me "What is it that STOPS people from wearing a helmet" - It isn't cost, fitment, availability, so what is it that makes MHL stop people from riding ?

Empirical evidence doesn't imply mechanisms of causation.

However, many of the mechanisms seem pretty clear, and no matter how much you stick your head in the sand and say YOU don't understand, that won't change.

Helmets put people off for a whole range of reasons and that's a demonstrable effect. Arguing about causation won't change that.

So Bob, do you have an answer to the question ? I'm not arguing 'causation', I'm enquiring 'why'. As if you can understand why, then you may be able to address it.

So given your non-answer, does that mean you can't provide one, or sticking the non-helmeted head in the sand also ?

The above example from someone's wife (from tpcycle) who wasn't used to wearing one and refused to here, the reason as to not wearing one is what I'm interested in.

Meh, as mentioned by others, much ranting and arm waving, but no action.

SNAFU.

[bychosis]

The above example from someone's wife (from tpcycle) who wasn't used to wearing one and refused to here, the reason as to not wearing one is what I'm interested in.

You already listed a few. ‘I just don’t want to’ is the biggest one, then they add some excuses to justify their decision. Its not a simple question and largely relies on anecdotal experience.

I don’t wear a helmet on our regular summer holiday to a beachside caravan park. I’m not going to don a helmet to ride from the campsite to the amenities in said caravan park, not do I expect the kids to wear one for that. Riding my fat bike along the beach it’s really nice feeling the wind in my diminishing locks without a helmet. I don’t put a helmet on to test ride a bike around our culdesac after maintaining it. I don’t wear a helmet on my kid’s bike to meet the school bus, but the kid won’t ride back home if I forget the kids helmet.

I do wear a helmet for ‘safety’ to commute or on long/fast road rides. I wear a helmet for cycle path riding with the kids to avoid a fine and set an example for them. I wear a helmet for actual safety when I ride MTB.

To simplify it a bit, I risk assess the riding and determine the chance of crashing, being seen by someone who could give me a fine, or sometimes to set an example.

I reckon you’d be hard pressed to find a rider that puts a helmet on EVERY SINGLE TIME they throw a leg over a bike. Most will do it the majority of he time. Similar to seatbelts, most will wear every time they drive anywhere, but wouldn’t put one on to move the car out of the garage to wash the car in the driveway.

[brumby33]

I have no real issue with helmets apart from when it's Winter when I would like to wear a beanie instead and the inside helmet perimeter will not allow that, even with the dial set really loose. I remember one Morning I was running a bit late, had a bit of a slack attack as it were, raced my bike out of the Garage, shoved my gloves on, my lunch into the panniers and left my helmet resting on a box in the garage. By the time I realised that something was missing, I was already halfway there...but I did have my beanie on Then the guilt set in and every car that approached me looked like a Police car

But I think really, I don't think it's all about the helmet that deters people from Riding, I think it's the lack of safe infrastructure that makes cycling somewhat dangerous.
You might have some cycle paths to use on the way, but to get to them you have to run the gauntlet on busy roads. From where I live in the Beverly Hills area of Sydney to Kingsgrove which is basically the next suburb North, there are bike paths along the M5 Motorway, but to get to them, I need to cross 2 major super busy roads so instead I just choose to ride some not so busy backroads which at 5.30am isn't too bad but have been close passed by some mongrel tradies who try and put the wind up me but otherwise most motorists ere ok.

So anyone who wants or tries to use their bike more as a commuter or recreation has to deal with trying to get to or find appropriate and safe ways to get from A to B. It's not much chop having a bicycle path dump you right at a major busy thoroughfare and have no other path on the other side.

[g-boaf]

I need to cross 2 major super busy roads so instead I just choose to ride some not so busy backroads which at 5.30am isn't too bad but have been close passed by some mongrel tradies who try and put the wind up me but otherwise most motorists ere ok.

So anyone who wants or tries to use their bike more as a commuter or recreation has to deal with trying to get to or find appropriate and safe ways to get from A to B. It's not much chop having a bicycle path dump you right at a major busy thoroughfare and have no other path on the other side.

That's the major problem, and simply getting rid of MHL isn't going to fix it. I really hate how good bike paths are not linked. Often it's only a relatively short distance missing, but it's a major busy road between them. Fix that up and things will get a lot better.

[BobtheBuilder]

I'm not arguing 'causation', I'm enquiring 'why'.

Quote of the day!

You are arguing causation. Causation is 'why' something happens, what causes it. In scientific inquiry this is generally secondary - empiricism is about establishing what is happening. You can then hypothesise about why.

The introduction of mandatory helmet laws is associated with diminished rates of cycling. Countries, like Australia, that have had MHLs for a long time have far lower rates of cycling than comparable countries and very different cycling populations (skewed towards sport/risk cycling and against normal, everyday utility cycling).

There are some pretty obvious, well-documented suggested explanations of why that may be, but even if they're wrong, it's still a phenomenon.

And arguing that people "shouldn't" feel the way they do about helmets, or that you don't let it stop you (clearly, because you're a cyclist!), doesn't change what MHLs do.