Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[Cyclophiliac]

Threads like this make me despair for the future of cycling in Australia. MHLs are absent from most other 1st world countries, and yet somehow Australia needs them? Yeah, right.

[human909]

Threads like this make me despair for the future of cycling in Australia. MHLs are absent from most other 1st world countries, and yet somehow Australia needs them? Yeah, right.

I agree. Which is part of the reason I am no longer a regular participant of this thread or this forum. To enthusiasts only see cycling through one lens and have little care or consideration of other types of cyclists or potential cyclists put off by hostile rules and culture.

Fortunately for me I just need to step outside my front door to see a more promising image of cycling. I live in the City of Yarra which arguably leads the City of Melbourne in being the most cycling friendly of Australian city councils.

Here the gender mix of cyclists is far more balance. Most people cycle in regular clothes in an upright or semi upright fashion. Ample bicycle parking is generally provided both by the council and businesses. People also walk or cycle as their main form of local transport.

It isn't perfect but it is getting better every year.

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.

Pretty much none of those are common reasons. So you really haven't been reading. In fact the first 3 are not arguments against MHLs they are arguments against helmets, BIG DIFFERENCE. I personally, like many people who are anti-MHLs, have no arguments against helmets. They are great, I own about a dozen.

The most common reason against MHLs is that it is a clear deterrent to cycling. Advocates of cycling myself who want to see more cycling naturally don't want additionally barriers put in the way of cycling, MHL are indisputably a barrier. They only debate is how much of a barrier it is.

[Peter A]

…
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.

I was wondering if he would volunteer for a light hammer blow to the head with or without a helmet - we rest our case
do we not! ( )

[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.

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.

I'd say that pretty much everyone......barring woody woodpecker up there ........ who has anything to say has pretty much canned blanket MHL's. I can't recall anyone speaking in favour of them. There's plenty of disagreement about efficacy of helmets, where and when they should be used, how much cycling declined post MHL, whether Rissel, Rivara, Olivier or Robinson should be trusted, evidence vs anecdote blah blah blah. And what happens is when somebody like myself, or Warty etc questions the arguments put forward, we are labelled Pro MHL. In spite of multiple statements to the contrary. As I said, the Myopia runs strong in this thread. On Warthog being anti MHL, you stated

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.

It maybe you're not paying attention, I dunno. As for arguing AGAINST MHL's...there is no need to argue against them other than to state clearly that you don't support them and believe helmet wearing should be optional. Which pretty much everyone has done. Do you want us to wear a badge? Maybe a yellow star? What exactly?

As for starting a new thread, it seems you need reminding. Page 1, first post sets out the rules

Welcome to the helmet thread. All discussion relating to the use (mandatory or otherwise) of helmets belongs here

I don't know what else to say

[baabaa]

Threads like this make me despair for the future of cycling in Australia. MHLs are absent from most other 1st world countries, and yet somehow Australia needs them? Yeah, right.

Good.
Next step is to start doing things - getting active in local Council Precinct meetings is a simple way to start making noise - posting here, not so much.

[warthog1]

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.

Just been on a 140k gravel bunchie.
Glad I went for a ride rather than waste my time on here.
Thanks for your post though.

The argument that helmets don't reduce the severity of head injuries is so plain stupid and unsupported I struggle to leave it be.
I could learn to take a leaf out of your book. Prob won't though

[am50em]

It is hard to resist

https://www.unsw.edu.au/science/our-res ... fatalities

Instead, both authors call for strategies to improve cycling safety, such as appropriately designed segregated bicycle infrastructure, something Professor Olivier says is sadly lacking in Australia when compared to European countries where there are often clearly designated spaces for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. He notes that “this senseless focus on helmet legislation detracts from the more important concerns about the construction of dedicated cycling infrastructure, education of all road users, and supportive legislation to protect cyclists, such as minimum passing distances”.
Professor Grzebieta agrees, saying, “it is well known the primary reasons for not cycling in urban Australia are the lack of infrastructure and safety concerns due to interactions with motorised vehicles”.

[trailgumby]

<quote="">The authors of the study address this by pointing to numerous international studies, including their own, that found no strong evidence for MHL leading to fewer people cycling. Emeritus Professor Raphael Grzebieta, also of TARS, didn’t mince words when discussing this “ill-informed, small but vocal group of anti-helmet advocates who claim that the MHL has been a disaster for cycling in Australia”.</quote>

How surprising. These two have been problematic for rational, evidence-based inquiry on this matter for some time. I know of a number of epidemiologists who argue the polar opposite position on this issue.

Both have massive egos. I recall one was removed from the peer review panel for one research paper I am aware of because they kept asking pointless irrelevant questions of the researchers on minor matters that had no pertinence to the paper, seemingly purely because they could.

There is already a case study in the rebound effect from helmet law removal, and furthermore, it's in Australia, being the Northern Territory.

[human909]

Yes. Raphael Grzebieta has displayed an impressive amount of bias and zealotry for a academic and professional in his field.

I remember when he was busying himself on twitter arguing that Australia is safer than the Netherlands for cycling!

EDIT - YEP he doesn't give up:
https://twitter.com/RaphRoadSafety/stat ... 4146468864

And his reasons for wearing a helmet: "Rubbish. A car could hit you at speed when crossing the road."

I guess that doesn't apply to the pedestrians in the picture...

[g-boaf]

It is hard to resist

https://www.unsw.edu.au/science/our-res ... fatalities

Instead, both authors call for strategies to improve cycling safety, such as appropriately designed segregated bicycle infrastructure, something Professor Olivier says is sadly lacking in Australia when compared to European countries where there are often clearly designated spaces for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. He notes that “this senseless focus on helmet legislation detracts from the more important concerns about the construction of dedicated cycling infrastructure, education of all road users, and supportive legislation to protect cyclists, such as minimum passing distances”.
Professor Grzebieta agrees, saying, “it is well known the primary reasons for not cycling in urban Australia are the lack of infrastructure and safety concerns due to interactions with motorised vehicles”.

Addressing that quote, where I ride in Europe separated facilities for people to ride on are far and few between. Riders often wear helmets too, yet somehow everyone manages to get along on the road together without a war happening.

But this country must insist on being so different.

And no, I'm not getting into a debate about that.

What drives me mad is these road-safety-experts who preach about safer cycling from this lofty position of authority, yet they look like they've probably never ridden a bike regularly on the road within ages (or ever). If they don't ride, they should go jump..

[am50em]

From what you have said in other threads, my impression is you are riding away from cities doing classic climbs. The quote is about utility cycling in cities so not really a direct comparison.
There is also more than infrastructure i.e. "education of all road users, and supportive legislation to protect cyclists". This is something we need more of in Australia. A culture of tolerance between all road users and it appears this is better in Europe.

[g-boaf]

From what you have said in other threads, my impression is you are riding away from cities doing classic climbs. The quote is about utility cycling in cities so not really a direct comparison.
There is also more than infrastructure i.e. "education of all road users, and supportive legislation to protect cyclists". This is something we need more of in Australia. A culture of tolerance between all road users and it appears this is better in Europe.

However, outside of the cities here you get hassled on even quiet roads. I don't get that over there.

However, even in cities overseas (even bigger ones) I can ride on the road without the bother and stress I get here. Nobody cares, it's just normal. Here it's some exceptional thing.

So no the UNSW still get bad marks from me.

[uart]

didn’t mince words when discussing this “ill-informed, small but vocal group of anti-helmet advocates

Even the language there is biased IMO, to refer to people who are anti MHL as being "anti helmet". It might just seem like being a bit loose with the language, but I see it as quite disingenuous, and deliberately meant to misrepresent those who they are arguing against.

[trailgumby]

didn’t mince words when discussing this “ill-informed, small but vocal group of anti-helmet advocates

Even the language there is biased IMO, to refer to people who are anti MHL as being "anti helmet". It might just seem like being a bit loose with the language, but I see it as quite disingenuous, and deliberately meant to misrepresent those who they are arguing against.

He has plenty of form for that. Makes it very hard to take anything else he says as free from bias.

[warthog1]

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.

Missed this.
The current kerfuffle was started by anti MHL proponents claiming that helmets do nothing.
Plainly that is false.

The statement was also made that cycling was safe. There was no specification what type of cycling. Whether sharing the road with texting aggressive riders or pedaling gently on a shared pathway it is a safe activity apparently.


No need for a protective device to be worn ever because it is always safe. On top of that no point wearing one because they do nothing.
Some of us rejected that as the BS it is.
We aren't advocating for a helmet to be worn at all times and supporting mandating their use.
Just rejecting outright shite.

This was in one of those links I put up earlier also;


Cycling is a popular form of recreation and method of commuting with clear health benefits. However, cycling is not without risk. In Canada, cycling injuries are more common than in any other summer sport; and according to the US National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, 52,000 cyclists were injured in the US in 2010. Head injuries account for approximately two-thirds of hospital admissions and three-quarters of fatal injuries among injured cyclists. In many jurisdictions and across all age levels, helmets have been adopted to mitigate risk of serious head injuries among cyclists and the majority of epidemiological literature suggests that helmets effectively reduce risk of injury. Critics have raised questions over the actual efficacy of helmets by pointing to weaknesses in existing helmet epidemiology including selection bias and lack of appropriate control for the type of impact sustained by the cyclist and the severity of the head impact. These criticisms demonstrate the difficulty in conducting epidemiology studies that will be regarded as definitive and the need for complementary biomechanical studies where confounding factors can be adequately controlled. In the bicycle helmet context, there is a paucity of biomechanical data comparing helmeted to unhelmeted head impacts and, to our knowledge, there is no data of this type available with contemporary helmets. In this research, our objective was to perform biomechanical testing of paired helmeted and unhelmeted head impacts using a validated anthropomorphic test headform and a range of drop heights between 0.5m and 3.0m, while measuring headform acceleration and Head Injury Criterion (HIC). In the 2m (6.3m/s) drops, the middle of our drop height range, the helmet reduced peak accelerations from 824g (unhelmeted) to 181g (helmeted) and HIC was reduced from 9667 (unhelmeted) to 1250 (helmeted). At realistic impact speeds of 5.4m/s (1.5m drop) and 6.3m/s (2.0m drop), bicycle helmets changed the probability of severe brain injury from extremely likely (99.9% risk at both 5.4 and 6.3m/s) to unlikely (9.3% and 30.6% risk at 1.5m and 2.0m drops respectively). These biomechanical results for acceleration and HIC, and the corresponding results for reduced risk of severe brain injury show that contemporary bicycle helmets are highly effective at reducing head injury metrics and the risk for severe brain injury in head impacts characteristic of bicycle crashes.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24686160/

Yeah I think I'll take that highly effective reduction for my cycling.

No nothing is perfect, but I think the engineers involved in producing bicycle helmets have done a pretty good job at designing a device that meets the design parameters.
Nothing is perfect and of course they don't eliminate all risk but they do significantly reduce the risk and severity of brain injury in a head strike from a bicycle fall.

[am50em]

"And his reasons for wearing a helmet: "Rubbish. A car could hit you at speed when crossing the road."

I guess that doesn't apply to the pedestrians in the picture... "

Yes they should be waving orange flags.

[DavidS]

Well, I never said helmets do nothing, I said they do very little in terms of concussion and a lot of the posts above just prove my point.

We've had the ridiculous analogy with getting hit by a hammer, I could offer to drop a 10Kg lump of concrete on your head while wearing a flimsy bit of foam on your head, but I don't make ridiculous analogies.

Then, we got the real prize. Someone above cited the case where the helmet broke and how would their head have fared? Well, pretty much the same in terms of concussion because when a helmet breaks, it has failed. The way a helmet is supposed to work is that the foam compresses and this cushions the blow, but when they break they don't cushion the blow, in other words, the helmet fails to protect the contents of your head. Partly because the flimsy helmets we are forced to wear are, well, flimsy lumps of foam. If you seriously believe that the roads are so dangerous that you need to wear a helmet, I do hope you are wearing something a lot more effective than a bicycle helmet.

But all the hypothesising and all the examples and the ridiculous analogies, well, they are deflecting from the point I made earlier. Why, when helmets only protect one part of the body and no other part, didn't head injuries as a proportion of total cyclist injuries not drop? If helmets are so effective then why can't we see the effect when lots more people start wearing helmets (on pain of a fine)?

DS

[human909]

Even the language there is biased IMO, to refer to people who are anti MHL as being "anti helmet".

Well it is an improvement on the "anti helmet crazies" that Raphael Grzebieta uses on his professional twitter account.

Yes they should be waving orange flags.

I watched that part of the video too!

Well, I never said helmets do nothing, I said they do very little in terms of concussion and a lot of the posts above just prove my point.

Well lets not let the truth get in the way of their sudden backtracking and reversal.

[warthog1]

And so it continues...

A helmet on the other hand is a meaningless talisman.

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.

Do these helmet things really offer any protection - your own argument is convincing me more and more that they are utterly useless.

Actually part of my argument, apart from the fact that riding my road vehicle on the road is not particularly dangerous, is that the helmets which are mandated are not particularly effective. Yes, they do prevent cuts, getting stitches and the like, but it is questionable as to whether they do anything to prevent concussion and brain injury.

In regards to protection. It's odd how easy it is to make sweeping statements which on first blush appear reasonable but on closer examination don't pass muster. Obviously the polystyrene containers that are used to cushion eggs work well and reduce the incidence of broken eggs - even blind Freddy can see this. So if we smash them with sledge hammers we'd expect the ones in polystyrene containers to suffer less damage - the cushioning effect of the polystyrene would help protect them - it's only logical.

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.

[warthog1]

Well, I never said helmets do nothing, I said they do very little in terms of concussion and a lot of the posts above just prove my point.

We've had the ridiculous analogy with getting hit by a hammer, I could offer to drop a 10Kg lump of concrete on your head while wearing a flimsy bit of foam on your head, but I don't make ridiculous analogies.

Then, we got the real prize. Someone above cited the case where the helmet broke and how would their head have fared? Well, pretty much the same in terms of concussion because when a helmet breaks, it has failed. The way a helmet is supposed to work is that the foam compresses and this cushions the blow, but when they break they don't cushion the blow, in other words, the helmet fails to protect the contents of your head. Partly because the flimsy helmets we are forced to wear are, well, flimsy lumps of foam. If you seriously believe that the roads are so dangerous that you need to wear a helmet, I do hope you are wearing something a lot more effective than a bicycle helmet.

But all the hypothesising and all the examples and the ridiculous analogies, well, they are deflecting from the point I made earlier. Why, when helmets only protect one part of the body and no other part, didn't head injuries as a proportion of total cyclist injuries not drop? If helmets are so effective then why can't we see the effect when lots more people start wearing helmets (on pain of a fine)?

DS

Any suggestion that a helmet provides any protection is rejected or ignored. It doesn't matter who did the study, how large the study, where or when the study took place, if it doesn't agree that helmets do nothing it is ignored.

For the umpteenth time I am not advocating mandating their use, just disagreeing that they provide no protection and that cycling is always safe.
It makes sense to wear them in a higher risk cycling activity imo, due to the risk mitigation for a brain injury they provide.
It doesn't mean they need to be worn every time you are on a bike.

[fat and old]

Well lets not let the truth get in the way of their sudden backtracking and reversal.

What backtracking and reversal? Who?

[warthog1]

Just a bit of info on Dorothy Robinson the statistician responsible for David's coloured graph.

Just ask Dr Dorothy Robinson. A 51-year old University of New England statistician, Robinson has been riding - mainly to and from university and work - for 34 years.
"I'm still the same weight I was in 1971," she says. "I can still wear the same clothes. And I don't have to worry about petrol prices the way a lot of people do these days."

Her concern, instead, is bicycle safety. She has just published a study in the Health Promotion Journal of Australia that is likely to send shock waves through Australian cycling communities with its claim that mandatory bicycle helmet laws increase rather than decrease the likelihood of injuries to cyclists.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/pedalli ... dl7s3.html

A researcher with CycleSafe, Dr Dorothy Robinson said: "My rights were less respected after helmet laws came in."

She said the benefits of riding without a helmet were up to 20 times greater than the risks. And helmets could increase the risk of brain injury, citing research using monkeys, which showed their heads rotated upon impact.

Dr Robinson said experiments showed cyclists rode faster and with took more risks with a helmet. She believes helmets create dangers due to the signals they create. "If you think you are protected, you take more risks." She likened this to motorists who had ABS brakes.

Vanity is another reason some people don't wear helmets due to the dreaded helmet hair. Dr Robinson told Fairfax Media that she wears helmets but finds them hot and uncomfortable.

"But wearing them is less hassle than being stopped by the police. I've been known to take them off when I'm on a quiet street."

https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... kzzqb.html


Hmm. An objective analysis of helmet use and efficacy in preventing injury, with no agenda or pre-conceived ideas to push?

A point made here by some who appear quite unpopular to a few.

Bicycle helmets are designed to mitigate head injury during a collision. In the early 1990's, Australia and New Zealand mandated helmet wearing for cyclists in an effort to increase helmet usage. Since that time, helmets and helmet laws have been portrayed as a failure in the peer-reviewed literature, by the media and various advocacy groups. Many of these criticisms claim helmets are ineffective, helmet laws deter cycling, helmet wearing increases the risk of an accident, no evidence helmet laws reduce head injuries at a population level, and helmet laws result in a net health reduction. This paper reviews the data and methods used to support these arguments and shows they are statistically flawed. When the majority of evidence against helmets or mandatory helmet legislation (MHL) is carefully scrutinised it appears overstated, misleading or invalid. Moreover, much of the statistical analysis has been conducted by people with known affiliations with anti-helmet or anti-MHL organisations.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... statistics

[baabaa]

Well lets not let the truth get in the way of their sudden backtracking and reversal.

What backtracking and reversal? Who?

Mate, you need the Duolingo MHL app to use steer in and around this discussion....
But yes, the language used in these pages is highly amusing - no one "speaks" like this on other discussions on this website so why do it here?

[brumby33]

I can't believe there's a 444 page discussion on having to wear an esky lid

[find_bruce]

I can't believe there's a 444 page discussion on having to wear an esky lid

Seems more like 1 page, repeated 444 times