Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[am50em]

Eskys don't keep things cold. And I have the stats to prove it!

[baabaa]

Eskys don't keep things cold. And I have the stats to prove it!

Humph!
Please put that data into R or RStudio and get back to us

[Cyclophiliac]

... and yet, somehow Western European countries manage perfectly well without MHLs, and as g-boaf said, cycling is a pleasure there. I can attest to that. I've cycled over there several times without feeling harassed. Some cyclists wear helmets, others don't, but it's no big deal either way.

e.g. several times I've been descending one of these glorious mountains in the Alps or Pyrenees, and motorists in front of me use their right-hand indicators to tell me they want me to pass them, because they know I'll get down the mountain faster than they. There's a snowball's chance in hell of that ever occurring here.

[brumby33]

Eskys don't keep things cold. And I have the stats to prove it!

well it does for what I need it for and it's survived lots of whacks against a brick wall, dragged over saltbush and countless other mishaps and it still looks cool

[DavidS]

The data says helmets, which only protect the head, did not reduce the proportion of cyclist injuries which are head injuries.

Is the data wrong?

Where is the benefit of these laws?

All I have observed since MHLs is a worsening attitude to cycling, a massive over-estimation of the danger of cycling, increased attention from police, reduction in using bikes for transport and for what? No reduction in the proportion of cyclist injuries which are head injuries.

Not looking real useful to me.

DS

[fat and old]

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

By 8 different people…

[baabaa]

Is the data wrong?
DS

No the data is not wrong

Data
La fréquentation des pistes cyclables parisiennes atteint de nouveaux records

https://www.liberation.fr/societe/la-fr ... XQYOOBMFE/

Pas de morts sur les pistes cyclables en 2022


Le mois de septembre est généralement un mois faste pour la pratique du vélo. L’année 2022 n’a pas fait exception, et la forte affluence sur les pistes cyclables s’est même prolongée lors des trois premières semaines d’octobre, selon les données des compteurs. Résultat, depuis le premier septembre, la fréquentation moyenne de la piste cyclable du boulevard de Sébastopol s’élève à environ 15 500 passages par jour en moyenne, soir une progression de 17 % depuis la même période de 2021 et un record à plus de 19 000 le 15 septembre. Les prédictions d’un Pascal Praud sur les plateaux de CNews lors de l’inauguration de cette piste – «On est content d’avoir des pistes cyclables sur lesquelles personne ne roulera» – ont été, comme d’habitude, largement démenties par les faits.


Cette augmentation du nombre de cyclistes sur les pistes cyclables et plus généralement dans les rues de Paris ne s’est pas traduite, contrairement aux craintes de certains, par une augmentation de la mortalité. Bien au contraire. Selon les dernières statistiques officielles, disponibles pour les neuf premiers mois de 2022, de janvier à septembre, il n’y a eu qu’un seul cycliste tué à Paris (avenue Parmentier, lieu sans aucun aménagement cyclable). C’est bien évidemment un mort de trop, mais ce record à la baisse n’était pas arrivé depuis 2017, avec un nombre de cyclistes parisiens qui était largement inférieur. Les cyclistes n’ont a priori pas constitué de danger particulier pour autrui en 2022 : il n’a pas été recensé cette année de piétons tués par un cycliste ou trottinettiste.

[warthog1]

The inference from the article I linked was that yes the data is "flawed";

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


I dont however have access to the data or the time to analyse it even if I did.. The author is an anti MHL advocate and it is inconsistent with the multiple studies that do demonstrate helmets mitigate head injury.
Given the authors of the above article state " overstated, misleading or invalid" I don't find a reason to disagree with their assessment given they have had time and ability to investigate it.

This article mentions 6 studies did demonstrate a reduction in head injury with helmet laws.

Reply to Robinson
Our study suggested that the enactment of bicycle helmet legislation is not necessarily followed by a reduction in bicycling.1 Robinson cites six observational studies from Australia published largely in reports that do not appear in the peer reviewed literature2–7 contesting our conclusion. Establishing the association between helmet laws and cycling is important, not only in relation to “the consequences of reduced cycling because of enforced helmet laws”, but also because of the possibly substantial effect of helmet laws (enforced and non-enforced) on helmet use rates and head injuries.

The evidence depicting an association between helmet laws and helmet use is strong. All 15 studies that examine this relationship report a positive association.8–23 One study, conducted in Ontario, suggests that the legislative effect on helmet use was greatest among children living in low income areas.8 Evidence related to the association between helmet laws and reductions in head injury rates is also consistent. All six studies that examine this relationship found a reduction in head injuries post-law.11,16,19,21–24

The results of our study on children’s exposure to cycling demonstrated that helmet legislation is not necessarily followed by a reduction in bicycling. Robinson suggests that all one can conclude from our six years of observations is that the “Ontario survey was relatively small, with substantial year-to-year variation, possibly related to year-to-year differences in sites, observation time or weather conditions, these differences swamping any effects of the non-enforced helmet law”. However, our observations were conducted at the same sites, at the same time of the year, and in similar weather conditions. Even if only data from the school observations are included (gathered at the same time of day and the same month each year), there was no reduction in the number of children bicycling to school post-legislation. Further, the helmet law was only “enforced” by the schools’ insistence on children wearing helmets to comply with the law.

The population based impact of helmet laws remains in need of further study. Although evidence for the benefits of legislation is impressive, we agree that it is important to further assess the influence on bicycling.



https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/4/380


Dorothy Robinson. Has put plenty of effort into the removal of MHLs.
That is fine and good luck with it. I wouldn't mind the law gone either even though it won't change my use.
I just disagree that claiming helmets are ineffective is a legitimate reason for removal of the law.
They clearly do provide protection against brain injury in a head strike.

[brumby33]

Problem here in Australia we have too much a Nanny state attitude in our politics, they tend to move in ways just to think they are protecting us and it's for our own good. They don't think that we can think for ourselves and rather than make better laws that actually protect us against bully boy motorists, they say well, we'll force them to wear helmets, fine them if they don't and all should be alright in our world, we'll have those cyclists right where we want them.

Cycle NSW, Victoria & Qld don't seem to have the interest to lobby our State Government about the Mandatory legislation on wearing bike helmets and the fines applied to these legislations. We have a Vic Election I think next Month and a NSW Election in March 2023, and there doesn't seem to be any noise about the Mandatory parts of bicyclists wearing helmets. Actually, I've heard very little at all on much cycle advocacy on anything much at all bicycles these coming elections. And whilst the Mandatory part of the legislation is state by state and have been adopted by every state and Territory, I don't think that it's a federal legislation, it's a state based so it has to be attacked at the state level and it's very quiet, so is it just in these forum groups like these that the topic is argued against.

Cheers

brumby33

[g-boaf]

Could be said that safe passing laws to protect us against bullying motorists and lobbying to get safer cycling conditions is also an example of "the nanny state" as well, depending on who you talk to.

I think the 'nanny state' term is thrown about too much these days, it's become used to describe anything we don't agree with, that's the nanny state. Or it's Commie-Socialist whatever.

[warthog1]

Safe passing laws have helped a bit here.
A minority of drivers still see us as "cockroaches" who shouldn't be on the road however. Some are just dumb and incompetent or distracted too.
I wave thanks to those who pass with clearance but have been known to lose my cool and indicate you are a co cksucker to those who pass dangerously close and fast.
That probably doesn't help it probably lets them know they have hit their mark.

I haven't cycled overseas. Have cycled with multiple people who have. We have a large cultural problem here with our road behaviour toward cyclists.
Sections of our media perpetuate and exacerbate it.
You can't be a racist, misogynist or homophobe publicly anymore.
You are still able to run down cyclists without fear or censure though. Some people it appears need to run down others to make themselves happy.

I don't see MHLs as helping correct that, we need more people on bikes to make it more acceptable and common.
If your mother, sister, wife, father, brother cycle you are far less likely to treat them with dangerous aggression.
Who knows, there may even be some acceptance, compassion and safe driving behaviour around cyclists.

[g-boaf]

The helmet laws won't change the motorist behaviour, the only way to fix that is some really tough laws that crack down on bad motorist behaviour and give Police no excuses to get out of enforcing the rules.

If you close pass a cyclist or hit one, you should be in a damn lot of trouble for it.

Softly softly approach isn't doing much to change motorist behaviour. They could also crack down on radio shock jocks and newspaper/tv people for their part in stirring up bad behaviour too. Also go after the heads of the media organisations.

Too much 'nanny state' behaviour pandering to these types.

[brumby33]

The helmet laws won't change the motorist behaviour, the only way to fix that is some really tough laws that crack down on bad motorist behaviour and give Police no excuses to get out of enforcing the rules.

If you close pass a cyclist or hit one, you should be in a damn lot of trouble for it.

Softly softly approach isn't doing much to change motorist behaviour. They could also crack down on radio shock jocks and newspaper/tv people for their part in stirring up bad behaviour too. Also go after the heads of the media organisations.

Too much 'nanny state' behaviour pandering to these types.

Yeah B-goaf, that's another thing, you can't incite Hate speech on religion, race and sexual preferences etc it's illegal and can be a Gaolable offence these days so why is it ok for knobs like Hinch, Fordham, Jones and Hadley and them all on talkback radio to incite hate speech against folks who have done something moral and legal for well over 100 years. It's public hate speech getting to those in the radio waves in their cars to stir them up.
I bet motorists wouldn't act like tools towards a Police Horse trying to make the horse buck and take fright, although those horses are very much trained against that but they are allowed to be there and so are bicycles, they've always been classified as transport by the law even though they arn't motorised, the law has not changed in that regard since cars were introduced.

[Arbuckle23]

So, am I a rebel as my Zwift avatar doesn't wear a helmet

[Cyclophiliac]

So, am I a rebel as my Zwift avatar doesn't wear a helmet

What!? That's virtually a crime!

[g-boaf]

So, am I a rebel as my Zwift avatar doesn't wear a helmet

As long as you've got the Pretzelfest hat. We'd better be careful - someone will get cranky at us for going away from the MHL back-and-forwards arguments.

The helmet laws won't change the motorist behaviour, the only way to fix that is some really tough laws that crack down on bad motorist behaviour and give Police no excuses to get out of enforcing the rules.

If you close pass a cyclist or hit one, you should be in a damn lot of trouble for it.

Softly softly approach isn't doing much to change motorist behaviour. They could also crack down on radio shock jocks and newspaper/tv people for their part in stirring up bad behaviour too. Also go after the heads of the media organisations.

Too much 'nanny state' behaviour pandering to these types.

Yeah B-goaf, that's another thing, you can't incite Hate speech on religion, race and sexual preferences etc it's illegal and can be a Gaolable offence these days so why is it ok for knobs like Hinch, Fordham, Jones and Hadley and them all on talkback radio to incite hate speech against folks who have done something moral and legal for well over 100 years. It's public hate speech getting to those in the radio waves in their cars to stir them up.
I bet motorists wouldn't act like tools towards a Police Horse trying to make the horse buck and take fright, although those horses are very much trained against that but they are allowed to be there and so are bicycles, they've always been classified as transport by the law even though they arn't motorised, the law has not changed in that regard since cars were introduced.

Those shock-jocks should always have the right to offend, and you have the right to not be offended by what they say.

However, if we exercise that same right to offend, those media-shock-jocks get all upset and offended, claiming their freedom of speech is being affected. Yeah about that...

[fat and old]

So, am I a rebel as my Zwift avatar doesn't wear a helmet

If you fall off, did you tear your dress? is your face in a mess?

[human909]

The helmet laws won't change the motorist behaviour,

Actually it does.

Not only has research shown that cars give more space to cyclists who aren't wearing helmets. Having more cyclists on our roads change motorist behaviour in a more positive manner.

It isn't the only factor, but it is part of the complex web. Claiming that MHLs don't change motorist behaviour is not substantiated.

[g-boaf]

The helmet laws won't change the motorist behaviour,

Actually it does.

Not only has research shown that cars give more space to cyclists who aren't wearing helmets. Having more cyclists on our roads change motorist behaviour in a more positive manner.

It isn't the only factor, but it is part of the complex web. Claiming that MHLs don't change motorist behaviour is not substantiated.

Getting rid of helmets won't change things fast enough for my liking - it's just one measure. The rest needs to be some hefty and tough laws to make drivers behave and to stop shock-jocks from stirring up bad behaviour.

And the laws need to be ENFORCED - law enforcement must be made to enforce them. None of these excuses around not enforcing the laws. You don't need a calibrated camera to be able to see that a pass is too close or dangerous. Or threatening behaviour. Threatening behaviour is obvious, so don't try to then turn around and blame the rider for it (shouldn't be riding on a busy road, etc).

I want mostly the same outcomes as you do, but I want things to happen much quicker and sooner. I don't think getting rid of the helmet requirements is going to result in swarms of riders on our roads in a few weeks time. That will take a long time. But couple this with regulation that makes motorists behave and you've got a chance and maybe things will start to change quickly.

[uart]

So, am I a rebel as my Zwift avatar doesn't wear a helmet

If you fall off, did you tear your dress? is your face in a mess?

Yes. You tear your dress, your face is a mess, you can't get enough, but enough ain't the test.

[baabaa]

Breaking news!!
“Research” says cyclists around the world trust the drivers behind them.
(FACT - They just do not up and until the point when they have been well and truly passed)

[uart]

Could be said that safe passing laws to protect us against bullying motorists and lobbying to get safer cycling conditions is also an example of "the nanny state" as well, depending on who you talk to.

Normally the term "nanny state" is used to described laws that (often overly) restrict what a person can do in relation to their own safety, and their safely alone. I've never heard the term "nanny state" applied to laws that prevent you from endangering others. So no, I wouldn't describe a safe pass distance law as a nanny state law.

[fat and old]

A minority of drivers still see us as "cockroaches" who shouldn't be on the road however. Some are just dumb and incompetent or distracted too.

A minority???? Is that based on anecdotes or statistics?

In my own experience I’d say a majority by far, although that does depend on the type of cyclist you are. Thanks to the work I do and the places I do it I get to speak to a very broad section of the community. Lots of ‘em too. The people who will initiate a conversation based on criticisms of cyclists or cycling facilities outnumber those who start a conversation that is complementary by 100 to 0. As in no one, not ever, does that. I’ve had meetings with councils on site building infrastructure for cyclists where the council engineers are whining about what is being done. I’ve attended one where the council engineer, designer and cycling rep (yeah!) have all been on site, all bleating about having to do things that meet the ‘standard’ for a safe surface.

When talking to Sammy Shopkeeper it’s worse, no matter where I am. CBD, inner, outer city, outer suburbs. None of them want cycling facilities….at least not near their shop.

Joe and Joanne Citizen are bad as well, cycling belongs on the cycle path, so long as they aren’t having a walk of course.

The number 1 hatred is sports cyclists and commuters. The kids and old folk getting about are looked on with something like pity, but at least are tolerable to a point….which ends if Joe gets stuck behind one.

We have a large cultural problem here with our road behaviour toward cyclists.
Sections of our media perpetuate and exacerbate it.
You can't be a racist, misogynist or homophobe publicly anymore.


More’s the pity

Seriously though, I don’t think the ‘media’ is that big of an issue these days. Sure, everything that is said here is true, but I just don’t see the old establishment media as leaders anymore. They’re followers. The leaders are social media now. The facebooks and tiktoks and instas and whatever else is out there. That’s where the real hate is, and that hate is spouted by all the people I described above. The establishment media these days just goes with what’s trending when it comes to social issues.

You could close Murdoch and take Hadley off air tomorrow and it wouldn’t make a difference. People have more ways to spread their poison than ever before.

[warthog1]

A minority of drivers still see us as "cockroaches" who shouldn't be on the road however. Some are just dumb and incompetent or distracted too.

A minority???? Is that based on anecdotes or statistics?

In my own experience I’d say a majority by far, although that does depend on the type of cyclist you are. Thanks to the work I do and the places I do it I get to speak to a very broad section of the community. Lots of ‘em too. The people who will initiate a conversation based on criticisms of cyclists or cycling facilities outnumber those who start a conversation that is complementary by 100 to 0. As in no one, not ever, does that. I’ve had meetings with councils on site building infrastructure for cyclists where the council engineers are whining about what is being done. I’ve attended one where the council engineer, designer and cycling rep (yeah!) have all been on site, all bleating about having to do things that meet the ‘standard’ for a safe surface.

When talking to Sammy Shopkeeper it’s worse, no matter where I am. CBD, inner, outer city, outer suburbs. None of them want cycling facilities….at least not near their shop.

Joe and Joanne Citizen are bad as well, cycling belongs on the cycle path, so long as they aren’t having a walk of course.

The number 1 hatred is sports cyclists and commuters. The kids and old folk getting about are looked on with something like pity, but at least are tolerable to a point….which ends if Joe gets stuck behind one.

We have a large cultural problem here with our road behaviour toward cyclists.
Sections of our media perpetuate and exacerbate it.
You can't be a racist, misogynist or homophobe publicly anymore.


More’s the pity

Seriously though, I don’t think the ‘media’ is that big of an issue these days. Sure, everything that is said here is true, but I just don’t see the old establishment media as leaders anymore. They’re followers. The leaders are social media now. The facebooks and tiktoks and instas and whatever else is out there. That’s where the real hate is, and that hate is spouted by all the people I described above. The establishment media these days just goes with what’s trending when it comes to social issues.

You could close Murdoch and take Hadley off air tomorrow and it wouldn’t make a difference. People have more ways to spread their poison than ever before.

Yeah fair enough. Anecdotes
Probably a fair number don't want us on the road.
Where I ride (rurally) it is a minority that allow that sentiment to cause them to pass dangerously close and at speed.
Most road rides it is only 1 or 2 which is a minority.
Gravel usually none. They slow down and give you room generally but there are far less encountered .

I wasn't aware how badly people behind infrastructure are anti-cyclist as you describe there.
That is an admission of stupidity that I wasn't aware, given how piss poor our cycling infrastructure is in this country.

This is the closest I get to social media.
Pretty early on I found it unappealing.
I am unaware of what happens on tiktok, Facebook, Twitter. I haven't bothered.
Effectively I am an out of touch old fart in many respects I guess.

[DavidS]

I do like the claim above about how MHLs don't necessarily lead to a reduction in cycling, yeah, but what little data we have says that, while it may not necessarily lead to lower cycling, in the real world that's just what happened.

Anyway, back to the issue: if helmets clearly provide protection against brain injury when there is a head strike, where is the real world evidence?

Not theoretical studies, real world data.

DS