Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[am50em]

"Lots" really is not a satisfying answer. What is the size of the effect in the big picture of low cycling rates.

Leisure cycling can and does have good public health benefits. Indoor cycling has health benefits. Since retiring I do no utility cycling (used to commute nearly every day for 10 years).I still cycle just as much and get the same fitness/health benefits. I walk to shops/train station. I would not want to leave any of my bikes unattended.
I would prefer to spend energy on getting "safer" cycling environments that people will use.
Just get people cycling and the demand from having more cyclists will push improvements and this will get even more people cycling. I don't think repealing MHL will make much difference and there little chance of it happening.
As a crude sum up (on MHL only)
You: repeal MHL -> more cyclists
Me: get more cyclists -> better chance to repeal MHL

[trailgumby]

...
We should instead be looking at what price we are paying to achieve those savings in early deaths and life-altering injuries.

A few years ago a Danish epidemiologist tweeted, quoting from government data, that in 2016 Denmark had 26 early deaths from cycling related crashes and 6,000 early deaths prevented by all that cycling. That's a TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY TO ONE ratio.

....

Agree wholeheartedly that more cycling/walking etc yields better health results.

But WHY is it so hard to wear a helmet, that can reduce injuries when you have an accident, regradless of the speed and nature of cycling ....

It's an extra impost and inconvenience. Remember that bikes are competing with cars. Whatever is most convenient for people who are just looking for transport is what they will use. This particularly impacts women and others who value high standards of grooming and don't want to be bothered with helmet hair. Remember, they are not enthusiasts like us. They just want to get from A to B with the least amount of hassle.

This is particularly obvious if you travel to places like Berlin, Munich and Florence.

NO ONE there wears lycra or a helmet. In more than 3 weeks the only person i saw using either was an elderly gent on a flatbar roadie who had just gone for a spin in the (very steep!) hills behind Florence early on a Sunday morning. Everyone else bar none was pootling along sedately on Dutch-style upright bikes in normal street clothes on either separated infrastructure or low-speed limit (30km/hr or less) streets.

The train and bus stations were surrounded by wall-to-wall bikes locked by the hundreds to anything that could not be picked up and moved. Motor traffic was very light because most used their bikes to get to their public transport stop. I laughed when the cab driver apologised for the "traffic". In Florence, you have to have an expensive permit to drive in the (quite large) town centre because of concerns about the effect of emissions on historical buildings.

Here, it's the polar opposite. Everyone rides fast, on sports bikes, with helmets and lycra.

So here is what hit me during my visits there in 2016: there's an entire cohort of non-enthusiast potential A-to-B riders that we have chased away, by criminalising helmet non-compliance.

That's also a cohort that is having to spend time away from family or other things to fit exercise into their day, if they decide to take the time to do it. For those that don't make that sacrifice, inactivity lifestyle diseases are inevitable.

[am50em]

Yes benefits from having healthy/fit population but still alot of room for improvement in actual riding! Were these mostly utility cyclists killed? Sports cyclists?

In 2021, 207 cyclists were killed in traffic in the Netherlands. This was a steep increase compared to 2008 and one of the highest number of cyclists killed in traffic accidents in 20 years. In total, there were roughly 600 road fatalities in 2021.
 
Most road fatalities in car accidents:

The bicycle was the most dangerous mode of transportation in 2021, with a total of 207 fatalities. The car came in second place, with 175 victims. By comparison, that year 43 pedestrians and 14 truck drivers were also killed in traffic accidents in the Netherlands.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/523 ... cContainer

Reading another site e-bikes contributed around 70 deaths in 2020.

[tpcycle]

Yes benefits from having healthy/fit population but still alot of room for improvement in actual riding! Were these mostly utility cyclists killed? Sports cyclists?

In 2021, 207 cyclists were killed in traffic in the Netherlands. This was a steep increase compared to 2008 and one of the highest number of cyclists killed in traffic accidents in 20 years. In total, there were roughly 600 road fatalities in 2021.
 
Most road fatalities in car accidents:

The bicycle was the most dangerous mode of transportation in 2021, with a total of 207 fatalities. The car came in second place, with 175 victims. By comparison, that year 43 pedestrians and 14 truck drivers were also killed in traffic accidents in the Netherlands.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/523 ... cContainer

Reading another site e-bikes contributed around 70 deaths in 2020.

Yep and introducing MHLs in the Netherlands will no doubt reduce the number of fatalities - both by preventing some head injuries from being fatal (vegetable anyone?) but moreso by reducing the number of cyclists. It's a win-win. The only thing I have never understood is why there are so many cyclists in Australia who think that MHLs are a good thing.

[am50em]

Really? My feeling is that most cyclist don't support MHLs, but are not strongly motivated to work for their removal.

[am50em]

No, not recommending MHLs for Netherlands.
Would really need to look at causes and what could be improved.
e-bikes fatality number appears to be a worry.
Just surprised at how high the number is, given better infrastructure, better driver behaviour and the (presumed) shorter utility riding.
Still way below Australias 1300 yearly number.

[fat and old]

My cousin died from an even lower speed crash in similar circumstances. Was waving to an acquaintance and hit a pine cone at walking pace a few hundred metres from home after returning from a training ride. For whatever reason, he didn't get his hand down in time. He was wearing a helmet.

My brother died from head injuries sustained via a light pole, walking pace. No helmet. That is why I will only go helmetless unless I'm on a cycling path, far from cars etc. At least until my Mum passes on. Would it (a helmet) have saved him? Who knows, it was 1963 and helmets didn't exist. And I'm not really interested in opinions on that.

It wasn't until I was in my 30's that I realised how hard it had been for Mum and Dad to buy my other brother and I bicycles after that.

[trailgumby]

My cousin died from an even lower speed crash in similar circumstances. Was waving to an acquaintance and hit a pine cone at walking pace a few hundred metres from home after returning from a training ride. For whatever reason, he didn't get his hand down in time. He was wearing a helmet.

My brother died from head injuries sustained via a light pole, walking pace. No helmet. That is why I will only go helmetless unless I'm on a cycling path, far from cars etc. At least until my Mum passes on. Would it (a helmet) have saved him? Who knows, it was 1963 and helmets didn't exist. And I'm not really interested in opinions on that.

It wasn't until I was in my 30's that I realised how hard it had been for Mum and Dad to buy my other brother and I bicycles after that.

Would you be surprised to learn that bicycle helmets are not designed to cope with the wearer being struck by a car?

You have put your finger on the key issue, though: prevention (avoiding the collision) is better than trying to use PPE to insulate from the consequences of failing at prevention.

Sometimes I think the resistance to admitting that helmet law compulsion has failed at population level is because authorities know the outcry that would follow in the shape of demand for safe cycling path facilities, and they don;t want to spend the money.

[fat and old]

My cousin died from an even lower speed crash in similar circumstances. Was waving to an acquaintance and hit a pine cone at walking pace a few hundred metres from home after returning from a training ride. For whatever reason, he didn't get his hand down in time. He was wearing a helmet.

My brother died from head injuries sustained via a light pole, walking pace. No helmet. That is why I will only go helmetless unless I'm on a cycling path, far from cars etc. At least until my Mum passes on. Would it (a helmet) have saved him? Who knows, it was 1963 and helmets didn't exist. And I'm not really interested in opinions on that.

It wasn't until I was in my 30's that I realised how hard it had been for Mum and Dad to buy my other brother and I bicycles after that.

Would you be surprised to learn that bicycle helmets are not designed to cope with the wearer being struck by a car?

You have put your finger on the key issue, though: prevention (avoiding the collision) is better than trying to use PPE to insulate from the consequences of failing at prevention.

Sometimes I think the resistance to admitting that helmet law compulsion has failed at population level is because authorities know the outcry that would follow in the shape of demand for safe cycling path facilities, and they don;t want to spend the money.

Would you be surprised to learn that a cyclist has absolutely no chance of predicting what a car will do at any given time? That's why I stay away from them. Who in their right mind would try to head butt a car into submission relying on the helmet to mitigate any injury?

As to your prevention statement, of course it is. Eliminate the risk. Separate cyclists and anything heavier/faster than them. If you're serious anyway. Of course, that's just not good enough for some. They want societal change where everyone respects everyone else to the point where we are all stagnating in our own little worlds, waiting for the opportunity to bust out and go nuts. See post lockdown Melbourne (anywhere really) for an example.

[BobtheBuilder]

But WHY is it so hard to wear a helmet, that can reduce injuries when you have an accident, regradless of the speed and nature of cycling ....

You wear one every time you walk, job and get in a vehicle and we can go from there ...

[DavidS]

Truly amazing isn't it.

All but, what, 3 countries on this planet get by without mandating helmets for cyclists, but not Australia. Oh no, we're real special, we have to either have helmets or completely separate infrastructure for cycling.

Give me a break, bicycles are road vehicles. I rode bikes on major roads for years before these silly laws came in, and most of the world are still allowed to ride their road vehicles on the road without helmets.

What is wrong with this country?

DS

[fat and old]

But WHY is it so hard to wear a helmet

It’s not. It’s very easy. And it has almost no effect on the person wearing it, in spite of the claims! You know them….it’s too hot, it’s sweaty, etc etc. They’re just more examples of Australian Exceptionalism at work. Yeah, that works both ways you know. If they were the absolute cockblocker people claim then no one overseas….no one at all would wear them. But they do! They choose to!!!! Normal,non lycra wearing commuters and utility cyclists. Every vid you see has more than a few. Apart from the one poor lady who appeared to spontaneously combust when she did the straps up they all seemed to have no issue.

People just don’t like being told what to do, so they talk up the down sides. I can relate, I hate MHLs for that very reason and that alone. I don’t like being told what to do.

[tpcycle]

But WHY is it so hard to wear a helmet

It’s not. It’s very easy. And it has almost no effect on the person wearing it, in spite of the claims! You know them….it’s too hot, it’s sweaty, etc etc. They’re just more examples of Australian Exceptionalism at work. Yeah, that works both ways you know. If they were the absolute cockblocker people claim then no one overseas….no one at all would wear them. But they do! They choose to!!!! Normal,non lycra wearing commuters and utility cyclists. Every vid you see has more than a few. Apart from the one poor lady who appeared to spontaneously combust when she did the straps up they all seemed to have no issue.

People just don’t like being told what to do, so they talk up the down sides. I can relate, I hate MHLs for that very reason and that alone. I don’t like being told what to do.

Are MHLs just another example of Australian Exceptionalism at work?

[BobtheBuilder]

Normal,non lycra wearing commuters and utility cyclists. Every vid you see has more than a few.

Rubbish. I've spent years in various parts of Europe and no-one has them on except sport cyclists, who are very much in the minority and not to be seen wandering around town.

People don't not wear them because they're whingers, they don't wear them for the same reasons they don't wear them in bed or walking or jogging. The only rational place to wear them is in motor vehicles, and that's pretty rare, except in ... high-risk, sport driving. Fancy that.

[Thoglette]

Are we proposing that cycling represents 20% of land transport time or distance,

Are you asserting that cycling is a single, homogenous activity ?
Are you asserting that cyclists are unable to ascertain the differing risk profiles of the various sports, recreations and transport journeys?
Are you asserting that all of those injuries are the result of people negligently choosing not to use a helmet, while otherwise riding safely on a “roadway” where MHLs apply? As opposed to downhill MTB or riding in a crit?
Are you asserting that other modes of transport (and their design and management) no role in the number of transport cyclist (or pedestrian) injuries?

[fat and old]

But WHY is it so hard to wear a helmet

It’s not. It’s very easy. And it has almost no effect on the person wearing it, in spite of the claims! You know them….it’s too hot, it’s sweaty, etc etc. They’re just more examples of Australian Exceptionalism at work. Yeah, that works both ways you know. If they were the absolute cockblocker people claim then no one overseas….no one at all would wear them. But they do! They choose to!!!! Normal,non lycra wearing commuters and utility cyclists. Every vid you see has more than a few. Apart from the one poor lady who appeared to spontaneously combust when she did the straps up they all seemed to have no issue.

People just don’t like being told what to do, so they talk up the down sides. I can relate, I hate MHLs for that very reason and that alone. I don’t like being told what to do.

Are MHLs just another example of Australian Exceptionalism at work?

I was referring to the oft stated line that the reasons given for MHLs, and indeed the state of cycling in Australia is due to Australian Exceptionalism (tm Thoglette). Given that there are over 50 countries with some form of MHLs I don't think the existence of MHL's is Australian Exceptionalism, but happy to concede if that helps.

[fat and old]

Normal,non lycra wearing commuters and utility cyclists. Every vid you see has more than a few.

Rubbish. I've spent years in various parts of Europe and no-one has them on except sport cyclists, who are very much in the minority and not to be seen wandering around town.

Come on Bob, don't make it easy. I don't think I've ever seen a video of Holland where they show hordes of cyclists (good thing!) where absolutely no one is wearing a helmet. I'd add in my own personal sightings, but they're anecdotal.......

And I'm not calling people whiny, even if they are. They have a position, so be it.

[am50em]

I did find some detail about road deaths in Netherlands
https://swov.nl/en/fact-sheet/road-deaths-netherlands
"Most road deaths occur among older road users: in 2021, 220 (38%) were aged 70 or over. By contrast, relatively few children (0-14 years) are killed in Dutch traffic; in 2021, - as in the year before - 17 (3%) were killed."
No breakdown of age AND mode of transport.

From https://www.iamexpat.nl/lifestyle/lifes ... ths-europe
"83 percent of cyclist fatalities occurred after a collision with someone driving a motor vehicle. Half of those who died while cycling were 65 years old or older. "

[warthog1]

Are we proposing that cycling represents 20% of land transport time or distance,

Are you asserting that cycling is a single, homogenous activity ?
Are you asserting that cyclists are unable to ascertain the differing risk profiles of the various sports, recreations and transport journeys?
Are you asserting that all of those injuries are the result of people negligently choosing not to use a helmet, while otherwise riding safely on a “roadway” where MHLs apply? As opposed to downhill MTB or riding in a crit?
Are you asserting that other modes of transport (and their design and management) no role in the number of transport cyclist (or pedestrian) injuries?

I am disagreeing that cycling is always a safe activity.
The hospital admission rates for injured cyclists confirm that.
It can be, but mix it with motor traffic and no it is not.

I made that quite clear in the post you removed that sentence from.
I suggest you also learn to read the post and don't attribute your own reasons.

I have also said I don't support MHLs multiple times.

What I do object to are anti-,helmet law participants sprouting baseless claims as arguments.
2 of them being cycling is always safe and helmets provide no protection.

[warthog1]

I did find some detail about road deaths in Netherlands
https://swov.nl/en/fact-sheet/road-deaths-netherlands
"Most road deaths occur among older road users: in 2021, 220 (38%) were aged 70 or over. By contrast, relatively few children (0-14 years) are killed in Dutch traffic; in 2021, - as in the year before - 17 (3%) were killed."
No breakdown of age AND mode of transport.

From https://www.iamexpat.nl/lifestyle/lifes ... ths-europe
"83 percent of cyclist fatalities occurred after a collision with someone driving a motor vehicle. Half of those who died while cycling were 65 years old or older. "

And lets see that one ignored also, as the one you posted providing statistical evidence that yes helmets do provide some protection.
If it doesn't suit the argument it is better to just disregard it appears.

This one;

A meta-analysis has been conducted of the effects of bicycle helmets on serious head injury and other injuries among crash involved cyclists. 179 effect estimates from 55 studies from 1989-2017 are included in the meta-analysis. The use of bicycle helmets was found to reduce head injury by 48%, serious head injury by 60%, traumatic brain injury by 53%, face injury by 23%, and the total number of killed or seriously injured cyclists by 34%. Bicycle helmets were not found to have any statistically significant effect on cervical spine injury.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29677686/
Not bad for a

meaningless talisman

[am50em]

Yes the spurious objections objection are annoying. People love to point to other countries as if they are utopian cycling paradises. Better than here, yes but there are still dangers.

[Cyclophiliac]

Yes the spurious objections objection are annoying. People love to point to other countries as if they are utopian cycling paradises. Better than here, yes but there are still dangers.

I'm not one of those people, however I have pointed out that cycling in many other countries is normalised, not marginalised like it is here, and I've never felt as threatened by motorists while cycling overseas the way I have here. I also never claimed that these countries are cycling paradises (whatever that means?). It's a pity the Australian government refuses to learn from other countries in this regard.

[fat and old]

[
I have also said I don't support MHLs multiple times.

What I do object to are anti-,helmet law participants sprouting baseless claims as arguments.
2 of them being cycling is always safe and helmets provide no protection.

Only reason I’m here. Add

MHLs are the reason we have low cycling rates NOW
Only 3 countries have MHLs
No one in Holland wears a helmet

Also add that many don’t like to see evidence that “diminishes” cycling as a “serious” activity and not just a plaything or toy. The study linked earlier on participation rates make it clear. I don’t have a problem with that, todays toy is tomorrows transport for some. But not the many

[warthog1]

[
I have also said I don't support MHLs multiple times.

What I do object to are anti-,helmet law participants sprouting baseless claims as arguments.
2 of them being cycling is always safe and helmets provide no protection.

Only reason I’m here. Add

MHLs are the reason we have low cycling rates NOW
Only 3 countries have MHLs
No one in Holland wears a helmet

Also add that many don’t like to see evidence that “diminishes” cycling as a “serious” activity and not just a plaything or toy. The study linked earlier on participation rates make it clear. I don’t have a problem with that, todays toy is tomorrows transport for some. But not the many

And no viable strategy to remove MHLs either.
All these pages...... nothing.

[fat and old]

I did find some detail about road deaths in Netherlands
https://swov.nl/en/fact-sheet/road-deaths-netherlands
"Most road deaths occur among older road users: in 2021, 220 (38%) were aged 70 or over. By contrast, relatively few children (0-14 years) are killed in Dutch traffic; in 2021, - as in the year before - 17 (3%) were killed."
No breakdown of age AND mode of transport.

From https://www.iamexpat.nl/lifestyle/lifes ... ths-europe
"83 percent of cyclist fatalities occurred after a collision with someone driving a motor vehicle. Half of those who died while cycling were 65 years old or older. "

I remember there was some concern with the increased uptake of ebikes by the elderly in Holland leading to a disproportionate increase in injuries.