Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[warthog1]

Absolute figures aren't very useful. That 50,000 is about 0.2% of all cyclists over there. As for the 1/3, we'd need to compare it to a similar statistic in Australia and other MHL countries.

50,000÷3 = 16,667
16,667 x 0.53 = 8,833
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%.


8,833 without a brain injury is pretty good.


However I suspect brain injuries would have been reduced even further as participation rates would have likely dropped.

[fat and old]

Neurologists, what would they know!

https://road.cc/content/news/dutch-neur ... ets-286871

It seems that they know enough to be calling for helmet advocacy (particularly for e-bike riders and children) rather than mandatory helmet laws for everyone in every situation. Something that many anti MHL posters here would agree with.

Very few anti MHL people are actually anti helmet.

That's interesting when you go through the link to the story used to quote the Dutch cycling union head Wim Bot. The quote had nothing to do with the Doctor story, it was about a report by a Government 'think tank'. It would apply nonetheless, but Wim didn't even know about the Doctors at that point. What ws that story?

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2020/06/g ... ike-users/

Gov’t think-tanks suggest cycle helmets for children and electric bike users

Making helmets compulsory for children and people using electric bikes would save dozens of lives a year, two government think-tanks say in a new report on strategies to solve traffic problems. The report, drawn up by the CPB and environmental assessment agency PBL, looks at measures which ministers can take in the run up to 2030 and is designed to stimulate debate ahead of the 2021 general election.

The main conclusion of the report is that investment to improve the cycling infrastructure in the bigger Dutch cities is of crucial importance because the bike is second only to the car in popularity as a mode of transport.

Helmets for children up to the age of 12 and for electric bike users would also help improve the safety of cyclists, the reports’ authors say. The cost of making helmets compulsory for some cyclists are ‘relatively limited’ when compared to the potential reduction in victims, the agencies say. In total, thousands of people would avoid serious injury and 45 deaths would be averted – around 7% of the number of traffic accident fatalities a year.

This is what bought about the quote from Wim. He was contacted for the Cyclists Union POV. Unsurprisingly

The Dutch cycling union Fietsersbond is a fervent opponent of compulsory helmets. ‘It is a bad idea,’ policy advisor Wim Bot told the AD. ‘Just promoting the idea that helmets should be worn strengthens the idea that cycling is not a safe activity in itself.’

Nothing new here, pretty much what you'd expect. He goes on

The impact of helmets on traffic deaths in other countries cannot be easily transferred to ‘cycling cities’ such as Amsterdam, Bot said.

Ahhhhhh....Dutch Exceptionalism! It doesn't matter what the stats from Australia or anywhere else are. Amsterdam is a 'cycling city' and therefore different! God help him if he ever posts here!!!!

In conclusion: It doesn't matter what side of the fence you are on, if you hold a position you are going to come up with anything to justify that position.

oops, almost forgot. Same article, The Dutch road safety research foundation SWOV was asked for input on this helmet bizzo

The Dutch road safety research foundation SWOV does not have an official standpoint on helmets either. ‘There is little support for helmets in general,’ the organisation told the AD.

‘The most important reason [not to make them compulsory] is that the popularity of cycling may decline. Some foreign studies have shown this to be the case, although most studies show no, or only a temporary, impact.’

Not sure what to make of that. Are the Dutch idiots? Are people in this thread wrong? What is it?

[fat and old]

Where is the data full stop?
Click or hover over the picture for the source.
cycle-helmets.com
Hardly an unbiased and balanced source.

This website is maintained by Chris Gillham, a print/radio journalist and web designer based in the West Australian capital of Perth.

The site has been on the internet since 2000 and the accuracy of its data has never been challenged by relevant authorities. All information on the site is sourced to academic and government reports.

Cycle-helmets.com. Oh yeah, trustworthy site. Home to the infamous 'my child was hanged and killed on his helmet strap' claim Dead set...

http://cycle-helmets.com/helmet_damage.html

Helmet straps have become entangled on play structures leading to children being hanged 6.

OK. Lets look at reference 6.

6) J Franklin, "The effectiveness of cycle helmets". CTC publication 1999. (PDF file 152k) Ah ha. Click on the link. Go on, dare ya! Not a single mention of this hanged bollocks.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/uktrends.pdf

Should have been easy. Even cyclehelmets.org can link to a few of these cases.

Like I said. Trustworthy.

[warthog1]

That did give me a laugh F&O

This thread is not a complete waste of time after all.

[DavidS]

The data I posted shows before and after the helmet laws, since the helmet laws haven't changed in decades how do you propose I show the impact? Are you claiming the data is incorrect?

I suppose I could have cited data from somewhere that has changed helmet laws more recently . . . oh, wait a minute, other countries saw the mess it created here and ran a mile.

As for the figures on serious head injuries in Netherlands, yep, absolute numbers with no context, typical of the pro-MHL arguments. Plus, find evidence that helmets are effective on brain injuries - hint: your brain rattles around just as much in your head even when you are wearing a helmet.

DS

[human909]

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%.

You do realise that that doesn't strongly support your case, don't you. PPE that is only ~50% effective isn't particularly compelling. If we provided that standard of effectiveness many other PPE or safety systems in our cars or our work places we would be laughed at if not sued.

"OK, Greg." Here is a working at height harness for you to to wear while you are working 20m off the ground. Don't worry if you fall it will catch you 50% of the time.


And a few responses for past comments:

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 ?

For pretty much everybody helmets are damn annoying. In other activities where people where helmets they quickly come off as soon as they can. Eg skiiers going in for a bight to eat, ditto for construction workers. They are annoying, maybe try going for a ride without one a feel that little bit more freedom for youself.

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.

MTBing, unless you are just trundling slowly around a few flat dirt tracks generally is higher risk. Though if you are choosing the latter and your road environment is hostile then I suppose that makes sense.

Where I live it is common to see all ages and abilities cycling on the road. A parent taking their kids to child care by bike is a common sight.

This is going around in circles.

Haven’t all these same arguments been presented before and for years and years?

Yep. And the arguments are just as valid now as they were before. Change doesn't come quickly, it can take decades.

[warthog1]

The data I posted shows before and after the helmet laws, since the helmet laws haven't changed in decades how do you propose I show the impact? Are you claiming the data is incorrect?

I suppose I could have cited data from somewhere that has changed helmet laws more recently . . . oh, wait a minute, other countries saw the mess it created here and ran a mile.

As for the figures on serious head injuries in Netherlands, yep, absolute numbers with no context, typical of the pro-MHL arguments. Plus, find evidence that helmets are effective on brain injuries - hint: your brain rattles around just as much in your head even when you are wearing a helmet.

DS

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10796827/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29677686/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24686160/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8971066/

There is plenty out there.
You appear to have no understanding of how a brain injury occurs.
Spread the load and provide cushioning to reduce the peak force as helmets do is effective at mitigating injury in the event of a head strike.
Wear one or not when you road cycle.

[warthog1]

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%.

You do realise that that doesn't strongly support your case, don't you. PPE that is only ~50% effective isn't particularly compelling. If we provided that standard of effectiveness many other PPE or safety systems in our cars or our work places we would be laughed at if not sued.

"OK, Greg." Here is a working at height harness for you to to wear while you are working 20m off the ground. Don't worry if you fall it will catch you 50% of the time.

No I don't accept it doesn't support my argument.
I am unsurprised you put a foolishly negative slant on it though.
Go back and read the last few pages.
The repeated suggestion is helmets provide no protection.
Halving the chance of suffering a brain injury in a bicycle collision and reducing the severity if one occurs is a shed load better than nothing at all.


As an engineer I wonder what your fellow engineers would consider of your proposal, were you to tell them, that helmets provide no protection at all.
All the neurologists and medical professionals advocating their use are mistaken.
The engineers involved in their design are fools and have created a product that has entirely failed its design purpose.
https://www.teachengineering.org/activi ... %20process.

[MichaelB]

…
Plus, find evidence that helmets are effective on brain injuries - hint: your brain rattles around just as much in your head even when you are wearing a helmet.

DS

Oh dear.

So are you implying that if you ;

Whack your head with a helmet using a solid object hard enough to break the foam lining.

Then do the same on your bare noggin and tell me the injury is exactly the same.

If you think that is true, then you, as Warty has shown, are soooo wrong.

[fat and old]

You do realise that that doesn't strongly support your case, don't you. PPE that is only ~50% effective isn't particularly compelling. If we provided that standard of effectiveness many other PPE or safety systems in our cars or our work places we would be laughed at if not sued.

"OK, Greg." Here is a working at height harness for you to to wear while you are working 20m off the ground. Don't worry if you fall it will catch you 50% of the time.

Was on site maybe 25, 27 years ago when a concrete boom gave way. Fell onto a blokes head. Helmet didn’t help. Nobody was laughing about the PPE that day.

Re harnesses and falls, I know you’ve heard of (and maybe seen) suspension trauma.

PPE is just one part of any safety regime. The easiest part as we all know. If someone is comfortable using it, who are you, who am I to be laughing at them? If they choose to do so through choice, and feel that others can make their own choice, who are you, who am I to be critical of that?

This isn’t a George W ‘if you’re not with us you are against us’ terrorism situation. Who is anyone to be alienating people because they want to wear a helmet?

[human909]

Was on site maybe 25, 27 years ago when a concrete boom gave way. Fell onto a blokes head. Helmet didn’t help. Nobody was laughing about the PPE that day.

I'm not sure your point here. Somebody dying or being seriously isn't a laughing matter so, no I'm not surprise nobody was laughing.

Re harnesses and falls, I know you’ve heard of (and maybe seen) suspension trauma.

Yes. I wondered if that would be brought up.

I've hear time and time and time again ignorance being spouted by people who don't know any better. Taught by people who in industrial fall arrest who ALSO don't know any better. If you have been mislead I suggest you do your research more broadly. The issue is extraordinarily unlikely and only occurs in specific and quite rare circumstances.

(I'm not saying that people shouldn't be informed of the risks so they know how to act if a colleague or themselves is in needs of a rescue. I'm just saying that overemphasising the risk to extreme extents isn't helpful.

Meanwhile the real professionals working at heights and the recreational participants are happy to hang in their harness for hours. I know I have.

PPE is just one part of any safety regime. The easiest part as we all know. If someone is comfortable using it, who are you, who am I to be laughing at them? If they choose to do so through choice, and feel that others can make their own choice, who are you, who am I to be critical of that?

This isn’t a George W ‘if you’re not with us you are against us’ terrorism situation. Who is anyone to be alienating people because they want to wear a helmet?

You have clearly put one and one together and gotten seventeen. There was never any suggestion of laughing at people choosing PPE. As you well know I choose to wear a helmet cycling and in a bunch of other sports. I'll happily take my 50% reduction in injury thanks if that is what it is. But lets not kid ourselves that is a fantastic figure.

[baabaa]

Change doesn't come quickly, it can take decades.

And even longer if no one does anything to bring about a change other than whinge and whinge and...

But real change can come about by the use of the best fit /correct message (own quick thought - gun laws after what happened to Port Arthur?) - if not why would any organisations engage the use of a lobbyist(s) to push a message that may consider could have been missed to the Politicians and legislators who can and do and will make changes.

Could be wrong but the use of helmet effectiveness (by some) as the message for change of MHL over the past few decades has not worked so why keep pushing that particular barrow?

[fat and old]

Edit....blah blah blah

To be honest, I don't like drawing workplace analogies with cycling. I'll let this one go now, it's just not helpful. Two very different activities for now and it should stay that way.

As you well know I choose to wear a helmet cycling and in a bunch of other sports. I'll happily take my 50% reduction in injury thanks if that is what it is. But lets not kid ourselves that is a fantastic figure.

I know you do. But that 50% figure is all that's needed for some (see Warty's helmet). For them, it is fantastic. Lets not kid ourselves that Wart's wife and family think it's not.

[human909]

Could be wrong but the use of helmet effectiveness (by some) as the message for change of MHL over the past few decades has not worked so why keep pushing that particular barrow?

That message for change and if that is how you see it I suggest you turn back to page 1.

Besides you have it the wrong way around. The effectiveness of helmets is inevitably brought up by proponents of MHLs. It is hard to have a conversation without it. The 'every life matters' and 'won't somebody think of the children' wowsers bring it front and centre to their arguments.

Afterall if helmets are incredibly effective and cycling is incredible dangerous without one then there would be strong arguments for MHLs.

To be honest, I don't like drawing workplace analogies with cycling. I'll let this one go now, it's just not helpful. Two very different activities for now and it should stay that way.

I agree. So why not let individual make their own choices in their own activities.

I know you do. But that 50% figure is all that's needed for some (see Warty's helmet). For them, it is fantastic. Lets not kid ourselves that Wart's wife and family think it's not.

There is a night and day difference between the type of cycling Warty does and the type of cycling everyday cycling that MHLs most restrict.

Dutch road cyclist almost universally wear helmets too on their high speed weekend rides. You argue my workplace anologies aren't helpful. Well comparison between high speed recreational cyclist and the rest of the cycling population is even less helpful and is down right disingenuous.

[am50em]

Not cycling specific but


I really like the solution(?????) around the 25 minute mark.

[human909]

Thanks for that post. That YouTube channel has many excellent videos.

[fat and old]

Change doesn't come quickly, it can take decades.

And even longer if no one does anything to bring about a change other than whinge and whinge and...

But real change can come about by the use of the best fit /correct message (own quick thought - gun laws after what happened to Port Arthur?) - if not why would any organisations engage the use of a lobbyist(s) to push a message that may consider could have been missed to the Politicians and legislators who can and do and will make changes.

Could be wrong but the use of helmet effectiveness (by some) as the message for change of MHL over the past few decades has not worked so why keep pushing that particular barrow?

Myopia? I think that the genuine lobbyists might be a bit more holistic in their arguments than us bunch of keyboard blowhards.

[fat and old]

To be honest, I don't like drawing workplace analogies with cycling. I'll let this one go now, it's just not helpful. Two very different activities for now and it should stay that way.

I agree.

If you agree then why do it at all? You seem to like the word disingenuous?

So why not let individual make their own choices in their own activities.

I have not in the last 100 pages seen anyone say any different. Not one single person has said that a blanket MHL covering everybody is good, not one person has said it should stay.

There is a night and day difference between the type of cycling Warty does and the type of cycling everyday cycling that MHLs most restrict.

Which he has repeatedly stated ad nauseum. Over and over again. Do people not see this? Has the art of comprehension taken a nose dive into the realm of impossible?

Dutch road cyclist almost universally wear helmets too on their high speed weekend rides. You argue my workplace anologies aren't helpful. Well comparison between high speed recreational cyclist and the rest of the cycling population is even less helpful and is down right disingenuous.

You seem to have put one and one together and come up with seventeen thousand. There was no suggestion of the sort

Don't tell me you're WFH? It's gonna be a looooong day........ Meh, invoice and reconciliation day, have a good discussion

[Mr Purple]

Regardless of MHL I like the bit where the guy argued that helmets don't reduce the severity of head injuries.

Reminded me of this article (yes, it's a joke from the BMJ Christmas edition).

https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094

Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention. However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice.

I'm not involving myself with the rest of the discussion, no-one's changing anyone's mind.

[human909]

To be honest, I don't like drawing workplace analogies with cycling. I'll let this one go now, it's just not helpful. Two very different activities for now and it should stay that way.

I agree.

If you agree then why do it at all? You seem to like the word disingenuous?

I agreed with your SECOND STATEMENT that they are two different activities. Which should have been clear by my following sentence yet. Oh and I like the word disingenuous because many of the frequent posters around here have read enough that I don't believe them to be ignorant.

So why not let individual make their own choices in their own activities.

I have not in the last 100 pages seen anyone say any different. Not one single person has said that a blanket MHL covering everybody is good, not one person has said it should stay.

I think I misunderstand you so please clarify. So are you suggesting that in the last 100 pages, everybody who has posted here agrees that the MHL shouldn't stay? Or simply that it hasn't been verbalised in the last 100 pages? That would be of great surprise to me.

Which he has repeatedly stated ad nauseum. Over and over again. Do people not see this? Has the art of comprehension taken a nose dive into the realm of impossible?

I have no seen this. Though that might be because I have not been thorough in reading. So remind me why he, yourself and others use such examples to argue against MHLs. If you want a MHL for fast road cycling then feel free to start that thread.

You seem to have put one and one together and come up with seventeen thousand. There was no suggestion of the sort

Then why is it brought up every dozen posts? It is pervasive.

Don't tell me you're WFH?

No I'm not WFH. Not that is at all relevant.

[baabaa]

Change doesn't come quickly, it can take decades.

And even longer if no one does anything to bring about a change other than whinge and whinge and...

But real change can come about by the use of the best fit /correct message (own quick thought - gun laws after what happened to Port Arthur?) - if not why would any organisations engage the use of a lobbyist(s) to push a message that may consider could have been missed to the Politicians and legislators who can and do and will make changes.

Could be wrong but the use of helmet effectiveness (by some) as the message for change of MHL over the past few decades has not worked so why keep pushing that particular barrow?

Myopia? I think that the genuine lobbyists might be a bit more holistic in their arguments than us bunch of keyboard blowhards.

Quite right - lots of very good things have been done in biking In Aust over the past few decades and I guess it is a "feels" good when you can put down some of that effort into positive outcomes. The fact remains more people do bike now and many do continue to enjoy it. It remains a fun thing to do in its various ilks - I even think things will continue to get better with E-biking leading the way - in fact even posting in this discussion raises the profile of MHL and this sort of chatter it is just not a big or even small issue for most people who bike.

[trailgumby]

And even longer if no one does anything to bring about a change other than whinge and whinge and...

But real change can come about by the use of the best fit /correct message (own quick thought - gun laws after what happened to Port Arthur?) - if not why would any organisations engage the use of a lobbyist(s) to push a message that may consider could have been missed to the Politicians and legislators who can and do and will make changes.

Could be wrong but the use of helmet effectiveness (by some) as the message for change of MHL over the past few decades has not worked so why keep pushing that particular barrow?

Myopia? I think that the genuine lobbyists might be a bit more holistic in their arguments than us bunch of keyboard blowhards.

Quite right - lots of very good things have been done in biking In Aust over the past few decades and I guess it is a "feels" good when you can put down some of that effort into positive outcomes. The fact remains more people do bike now and many do continue to enjoy it. It remains a fun thing to do in its various ilks - I even think things will continue to get better with E-biking leading the way - in fact even posting in this discussion raises the profile of MHL and this sort of chatter it is just not a big or even small issue for most people who bike.

Significant change to entrenched positions does not come about without a good crisis, especially in Australia. Port Arthur was one such crisis. Hence we tend to lurch from crisis to crisis, all of which are avoidable.

This is especially noticeable when it comes to installing pedestrian crossings. Nothing seems to happen until someone dies.

[MichaelB]

...

So why not let individual make their own choices in their own activities.

I have not in the last 100 pages seen anyone say any different. Not one single person has said that a blanket MHL covering everybody is good, not one person has said it should stay.

...

MHL laws make sense and they should remain.

There, fixed that for you.

Yes, I really do agree, and for those that are against it, the common reason(s) seem to revolve around superficial thinking such as too hard/messes my hair/heat/infringes my rights/don't understand risk & consequence/etc.

If you choose not to wear a helmet, then that is your prerogative, same as not wearing a seatbelt, obeying all of the other laws (some of which are asses) that people with common sense do.

[flame suit on]

[MichaelB]

Regardless of MHL I like the bit where the guy argued that helmets don't reduce the severity of head injuries.

Reminded me of this article (yes, it's a joke from the BMJ Christmas edition).

https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094

Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention. However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice.

I'm not involving myself with the rest of the discussion, no-one's changing anyone's mind.

I like this. Will bookmark and read later

[fat and old]

...

So why not let individual make their own choices in their own activities.

I have not in the last 100 pages seen anyone say any different. Not one single person has said that a blanket MHL covering everybody is good, not one person has said it should stay.

...

MHL laws make sense and they should remain.

There, fixed that for you.

I'm still right, you posted after me, not in the last 100 pages

That's what it's all about innit? Being right?