Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[BobtheBuilder]

I'm sure there's a graph in there somewhere, I don't care enough to pay for it

Available here - https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/48/4/1197/5307412
(If not, I'm happy to send it to anyone interested - don't think we can attach pdfs to posts?)

[BobtheBuilder]

Happy to use yours, as you seem to have an issue with my position

Which stats were you using?

Fair enough, I'm not disputing that. Nor did I question it. I simply asked about the decline cycling rates in the NT. And as per usual, you gave me a "but it's better than other jurisdictions" line. So what? Are you going to engage constructively or just keep telling me how bad it is elsewhere?

I would have thought constructive engagement would be to explain why cycling rates are declining in spite of the lack of enforced MHL's? It's a fair question. Clearly having no MHL's as a barrier to cycling is not arresting the decline in numbers. Why is it an automatic assumption that cycling numbers will increase in other states if MHL's are relaxed? I note that you state that

I assumed you were making a sensible point that the NT's cycling rates are declining, meaning that MHLs aren't responsible for lower cycling rates elsewhere. But they're much higher cycling rates than nationally, and they're declining less quickly, which would seem to bolster the argument that MHL dampens cycling rates.
The fact that these are national declines (albeit at a lower level in the NT) that are occurring well after the introduction of MHL, would suggest there are factors across the board, independent of MHL, that are responsible for this decline.

But the 'ridden in the last week' rate is still way higher than other jurisdictions, except the ACT

No numbers supplied? I'll assume that they are greater than the NT. (found them. 22.2%.). How is that explained given that the ACT has MHL's and is pretty much the opposite to the NT in weather?

They're supplied in the linked reports. Unlike your numbers, which you haven't referenced anywhere.

I don't know how to explain Canberra's similarity to NT cycling rates. Perhaps better cycling infrastructure? I don't know, I've never lived there.

It's not a simple issue that can be dismissed with condescending statements such as

Let's see if you can figure it out

I didn't say that.

[fat and old]

Here you go

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

Evidence from the most rapidly pro-MHL group of people imaginable? Evidence that has been credibly disputed on this site many times, as you would know.

I know you enjoying derailing the conversation, so <sigh> ... actually, no, I'm not going to take the bait. Search back through the forum on why this is unreliable.

And it doesn't include a graph showing a drop in "head and brain injury rates", it shows a drop in bicycle fatalities / population and asserts that these are due to helmets.

But, sure, let's revive this silly discussion and then you can keep insisting you don't agree with MHLs.

You're right, that one was a set up. You blokes are always using your discredited, biased team of analysts, thought I'd chuck that one in. I do note that they have been

credibly disputed on this site many times, as you would know.

Have they been shown to be wrong, by their peers? You know, like Chris Rissel was? I honestly don't know. If they were, you'll hear no more from me on them and their studies.

[BobtheBuilder]

You're right, that one was a set up. You blokes are always using your discredited, biased team of analysts, thought I'd chuck that one in.

You were having trouble understanding what I meant by "constructive engagement" recently.

This is what it isn't.

[warthog1]

I have never said helmets provide no protection. What I have said is that such protection is quite limited, and the price we are paying for that limited protection is likely to be costing us more early deaths and life-altering outcomes than it is saving, through poorer community health from inactivity related lifestyle diseases.

We differ there. The evidence I have read and posted indicates a significant level of protection.
Such that were MHLs removed I would continue to wear a helmet for the type of cycling I do.
Utility cycling off roads is not something I do. I accept others do and likely more would without the law.

The evidence I have read on here that at a population level injury rates haven't much changed comes from a statistician who is associated with an anti MHL organisation.

The more relevant question is why is he associated with that anti-MHL organization? In the absence of evidence of actual conflict of interest I'd suggests it is likely to be a result of the strength of his conviction based on his analysis. It is, after all, in the current political climate around this issue a potentially career limiting move.

I posted some info on Dorothy Robinson a few pages back. Here is an excerpt;

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?

You've put your finger on the core issue without even realising it. Why are they colliding harder?

The evidence suggests a phenomenon called "risk compensation" is at play, where people using protective gear thinking they are at less risk of consequences take more risks and "go harder" until they are back at the same point with outcomes.

It's exactly like "induced demand", where people take up a good offered for free (in this case injury reduction rather than travel time savings) until the good is used up and the level of disbenefit (TBI and CTE rather than congestion) returns to prior levels.

People without helmets tend to be more conservative than those wearing them. Those wearing helmets take more risks because they feel safer. It is one of the reasons that PPE is regarded as least impactful in the hierarchy of controls.

Without realising it eh?
I also wrote this,

They were colliding anyway.
Most cyclists aim not to collide and fall off but I expect the argument will now be mandating helmet use has turned us all into risk takers.

I have not ridden the type of cycling I do without a helmet nor would I. I understand helmets provide protection. As a paramedic of 21 years I am aware of just how appaling many of our drivers are. I wear a helmet, I select route and time with care. I wear bright clothing and run a varia radar so I am aware of when the next potentially incompetent, inattentive, aggressive or impatient driver is going to over take me and I can take care of myself by road positioning appropriately.
On the bunch rides I take I can tell you that stupid, dangerous riding is not tolerated at all. I expect most bunches you go on are the same? I note you also run cameras. You are also no doubt aware of danger too.
Does wearing a helmet change the way you ride? It does not me. It just means I do ride, it doesn't make me ride with less care however. You could argue that the riding I do on the road makes me a risk taker but I take all the precautions I can to avoid a collision and an injury.
That is a much different to a person wearing a helmet in a game where collision is inevitable. They are colliding anyway but yes they will do so harder and with less care whilst wearing a helmet I expect.

[warthog1]

You're right, that one was a set up. You blokes are always using your discredited, biased team of analysts, thought I'd chuck that one in.

You were having trouble what I meant by "constructive engagement" recently.

This is what it isn't.

I wouldn't accuse you of constructive engagement either Bob.
Are any of us doing so?
BaaBaa probably comes closest he is involving himself in cycling advocacy it appears.
As he said, I expect that will be more likely to influence MHLs than us repetitively disagreeing over the same subjects on this thread.
For this thread to be constructive at all there would be some valid suggestions as to a strategy to remove the law.
I haven't got one, it appears nobody else does either.


Oh well, back to pointless back and forth arguing then.

[fat and old]

You're right, that one was a set up. You blokes are always using your discredited, biased team of analysts, thought I'd chuck that one in.

You were having trouble what I meant by "constructive engagement" recently.

This is what it isn't.

Yes it is. Address the rest of the post.

Have they been shown to be wrong, by their peers? You know, like Chris Rissel was? I honestly don't know. If they were, you'll hear no more from me on them and their studies.

Because if they haven't, it's just your expert vs mine (not that I want him to be honest. This is more an exercise in displaying the underlying bias of posters). Being rubbished by a bunch of keyboard experts isn't the same as being discredited by your peers.

Oh, and TG makes a good point above about researchers, bias and career.

[warthog1]

As described by one of our forum doctors, this thread is an exercise in futility.

Why don't you just leave it?

Your sole contribution seems to be disingenuously picking apart people's arguments instead of finding common ground, telling people they're wasting their time because they haven't got the solutions to changing MHL and telling people this whole thread is useless.

Take your own advice and leave those of us who want to discuss constructively to it.


If so much oxygen wasn't taken up with straw man arguments, we might actually be able to get around to discussing how to get the law changed.

Perhaps read your own disingenuous contribution and come back with your assessment.

Suggest you read my posts again.
I continually post supporting references for the point I am making that yes, helmets do provide protection in a head strike.

Were I and others not posting then it appears yourself and others would be providing the only "information" that others read.
I expect not many would accept it anyway but I choose to correct outright nonsense and will continue to do so.

[BobtheBuilder]

I continually post supporting references for the point I am making that yes, helmets do provide protection in a head strike.

I haven't said they don't provide protection in a head strike. How much is debatable, as is how much helmets contribute to risk compensation (an empirically established phenomenon that isn't usually perceived subjectively).

But the benefit of this protection for safe, sensible, risk-aware riders is tiny. Smaller than travelling by car or bus. And far smaller than the foregone population level benefits of widespread cycling.

I think that the mechanics and effectiveness of helmets is an interesting question, one that has good faith proponents on all sides, but it's not the central question in relation to mandatory helmet laws. MHLs produce small to negligible (depending on how you interpret the patchy data) declines in cycling injuries, far lower than the purported effectiveness of helmets would suggest. Even if the inflated claims for their protective value were accepted (and we ignored the lack of empirical data confirming this), the effect of MHL on cycling rates far outweighs their benefit at a population level.

Worldwide, people largely wear helmets voluntarily for a wide range of risky activities, including for high-risk cycling. MHLs don't make risky cyclists safer, they just discourage low-risk cyclists from cycling.

[fat and old]

You make some tenuous comparisons there. Nfl players are just colliding harder.

You've put your finger on the core issue without even realising it. Why are they colliding harder?

The evidence suggests a phenomenon called "risk compensation" is at play, where people using protective gear thinking they are at less risk of consequences take more risks and "go harder" until they are back at the same point with outcomes.

It's exactly like "induced demand", where people take up a good offered for free (in this case injury reduction rather than travel time savings) until the good is used up and the level of disbenefit (TBI and CTE rather than congestion) returns to prior levels.

People without helmets tend to be more conservative than those wearing them. Those wearing helmets take more risks because they feel safer. It is one of the reasons that PPE is regarded as least impactful in the hierarchy of controls.

You are overlooking the simple explanation. Sports today is a Big Dollar, Professional exercise compared to even 2004. Wearing a helmet is immaterial to this. Players are faster, bigger, taller. Increased force in collisions is a direct result of this. Here...

https://www.nrl.com/news/2019/03/11/sta ... and-props/

I was pretty sure of this, and the NRL backed it.

Back in the heady days of 2004, the average fullback weighed just 85kg and a lock tipped the scales at 97kg.

In the modern game a fullback on average is 91kg while a No.13 has bulked up to 104kg.

The average winger has grown six kilograms and three centimetres in those fourteen years

It goes on to explain the rest of the team make up, which honestly reads as gobooldydook too me as a Victorian .

[warthog1]

I continually post supporting references for the point I am making that yes, helmets do provide protection in a head strike.

I haven't said they don't provide protection in a head strike. How much is debatable, as is how much helmets contribute to risk compensation (an empirically established phenomenon that isn't usually perceived subjectively).

I generally haven't been replying to you however you have come up with some ridiculous analogies;

I don't garden with a helmet because there's no MHL for gardening.

Sorry to break it to you, but a helmet is very unlikely to help you in these circumstances.

Even the inflated claims of the helmet manufacturers don't claim they're designed for collisions with motor vehicles.

Continuing to expose yourself to high risk environments, because you have faith in a helmet to save you, is a great example of risk compensation. You take more risks because you think (erroneously in this case) that something will make you safer.

You incorrectly assume I wear it to save myself if I am run over. I wear it to mitigate injury in a head strike.
You incorrectly assign risk to my behaviour because it would appear you are not a cycling enthusiast and don't indulge in or enjoy sport cycling. You post only in this thread it appears for the most part.

If you choose to cycle in the most dangerous conditions, it will be less safe (but helmets won't help). The same is true of gardening or chess.

What is designed for those situations is a key across multiple panels or a side view mirror smashed in. That kind of education sticks with motorists long after they've put your life in danger.

A helmet on the other hand is a meaningless talisman.

I saw someone walking once and she tripped forwards straight onto her head. Ouch!

Since then I always wear a helmet when walking.

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

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.

Sure Bob, all "constructive engagement" with supporting references for your opinion.

But the benefit of this protection for safe, sensible, risk-aware riders is tiny. Smaller than travelling by car or bus. And far smaller than the foregone population level benefits of widespread cycling.

I think that the mechanics and effectiveness of helmets is an interesting question, one that has good faith proponents on all sides, but it's not the central question in relation to mandatory helmet laws. MHLs produce small to negligible (depending on how you interpret the patchy data) declines in cycling injuries, far lower than the purported effectiveness of helmets would suggest. Even if the inflated claims for their protective value were accepted (and we ignored the lack of empirical data confirming this), the effect of MHL on cycling rates far outweighs their benefit at a population level.

Worldwide, people largely wear helmets voluntarily for a wide range of risky activities, including for high-risk cycling. MHLs don't make risky cyclists safer, they just discourage low-risk cyclists from cycling.

And you continue on in this post claiming "small to negligible declines in cycling injuries" and "inflated claims for their protective value."


This has been posted multiple times but you continue to ignore it presumably because it doesn't align with your point of view.

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. There is no indication that the results from bicycle helmet studies are affected by a lack of control for confounding variables, time trend bias or publication bias. The results do not indicate that bicycle helmet effects are different between adult cyclists and children. Bicycle helmet effects may be somewhat larger when bicycle helmet wearing is mandatory than otherwise; however, helmet wearing rates were not found to be related to bicycle helmet effectiveness. It is also likely that bicycle helmets have larger effects among drunk cyclists than among sober cyclists, and larger effects in single bicycle crashes than in collisions with motor vehicles. In summary, the results suggest that wearing a helmet while cycling is highly recommendable, especially in situations with an increased risk of single bicycle crashes, such as on slippery or icy roads

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29677686/

There have been multiple other references posted indicating helmet brain injury prevention.
I consider that constructive engagement as it is addressing a gap in understanding that appears held by some frequent posters in this thread.

[fat and old]

Happy to use yours, as you seem to have an issue with my position

Which stats were you using?

Yours, as stated! From your link. https://www.cycle-helmets.com/ncp-2019.pdf It's an Austroads publication. It's only a limited survey, but it's bias free. That's ok isn't it? Using yours?

I assumed you were making a sensible point that the NT's cycling rates are declining, meaning that MHLs aren't responsible for lower cycling rates elsewhere. But they're much higher cycling rates than nationally, and they're declining less quickly, which would seem to bolster the argument that MHL dampens cycling rates.
The fact that these are national declines (albeit at a lower level in the NT) that are occurring well after the introduction of MHL, would suggest there are factors across the board, independent of MHL, that are responsible for this decline.

Thanks, I thought it was sensible, just not in the way you think perhaps. Yes, numbers are declining in the NT., no MHL's notwithstanding. Why is this occurring? There are no impediments to cycling helmet free in what must be Australia's most inhospitable climate when wearing one. What other factors are at play here? Isn't it possible, indeed likely, that those same factors are at play elsewhere. The lower rate of decline could be linked to not having MHL's. But there is nothing definitive to show that. Why do I question this? Why does it matter? It matters because the introduction of MHL's has been used as the catchall, one and only reason for cycling decline in Australia. Now I have no issue with attributing blame for the immediate change in numbers while recognising that there is no accurate, definitive measurement available to this day beyond anecdotal evidence. I do question how much difference there is today as a direct influence of the introduction of MHL's. Just as the NT can be used as a case study in the effects of repealing or loosening MHL's it can also be used as a case study in the reasons for a decline in cycling numbers without having MHL's s an influence in Australia. I would have thought advocates would be interested in that.

But the 'ridden in the last week' rate is still way higher than other jurisdictions, except the ACT
No numbers supplied? I'll assume that they are greater than the NT. (found them. 22.2%.). How is that explained given that the ACT has MHL's and is pretty much the opposite to the NT in weather?

They're supplied in the linked reports. Unlike your numbers, which you haven't referenced anywhere.

Again, I did. I clearly stated "your stats". Your link. A small, niggedly point perhaps, except it goes to attention and comprehension, If you don't understand what I'm getting at, no probs, just ask I often do. If you're not really paying attention, don't complain.

I don't know how to explain Canberra's similarity to NT cycling rates. Perhaps better cycling infrastructure? I don't know, I've never lived there.

Neither do I. But in the world of cycling advocacy, surely, it's important? Even with regards to MHL's, it has weight. Just how much blame can be laid at the feet of MHL's? An MHL jurisdiction that has increased rates of cyclist participation is an oddity, one worth investigating

It's not a simple issue that can be dismissed with condescending statements such as

Let's see if you can figure it out

I didn't say that.

And I didn't attribute it to you.

[BobtheBuilder]

You incorrectly assign risk to my behaviour because it would appear you are not a cycling enthusiast and don't indulge in or enjoy sport cycling. You post only in this thread it appears for the most part.

Incorrect on two points.

1) A number of nitpickers here have disputed the notion cycling is safe, then gone on to describe riding at speed in heavy traffic, something that is outside the norm for most cycling in most countries and an environment in which almost any activity is not safe.
Cycling is generally very safe. Undertaking cycling in risky conditions, even if mitigated, is not safe. The conditions you describe, even though sensibly mitigated, involve risk. That is risky behaviour.

2) I have worked as a bike courier in Sydney, commuted to work in the worst of inner-urban Sydney traffic two decades ago, prior to that rode (mostly on quiet streets, rail service roads and footpaths) to school, since then used a bicycle for most of my sub 5km travel (and other travel). I didn't get a driver's licence until my early 30s (a requirement for the remote NT work I was doing) and relied on bicycle, foot and public transport for my transport needs. I have done close to 10 000km of cycle touring, most recently from the Black Sea to the Atlantic with my partner and our then one year old.

I am a cycling enthusiast, but most of the threads on here cater only to a very narrow band of risky sport cycling that doesn't interest me personally. I have nothing against it, it's just not of interest to me.

I have participated on threads related to repair and resurrection, but as I don't have any expertise to offer, only as someone asking questions (and always getting very helpful, supportive answers). I haven't needed to do any repairs that I didn't know how to do for a good while, so I haven't asked questions on those threads.

I regularly participated in Critical Mass in the late 90s / early 2000s, including getting arrested a number of times, and was active in related environmental movements like Reclaim the Streets, where likewise I got arrested a number of times.
I have also been fined or warned by police for riding on footpaths and riding without a helmet.

I moved to the NT almost two decades ago and have greatly enjoyed riding helmet free since then and seeing the much greater usage of cycling to just 'get around'. I loathe going to south-eastern Australia and having to put on a lid just to trundle down to the shops or visit friends.

I don't do anything active about MHL in the NT, because the status quo is fine and actively campaigning to change the nominal law runs a strong risk of it being enforced.


I hope you are satisfied with my account of myself and that it meets your criteria for participation.


The only thing I ask of you is either to leave, if, as you say, this is a pointless forum, or contribute positively to discussing mandatory helmet laws, rather than continually nit-picking and diverting attention and energy away from discussing the broader issue and how to address it.

[BobtheBuilder]

Happy to use yours, as you seem to have an issue with my position

Which stats were you using?

Yours, as stated! From your link. https://www.cycle-helmets.com/ncp-2019.pdf It's an Austroads publication. It's only a limited survey, but it's bias free. That's ok isn't it? Using yours?

No, you started this ridiculous discussion about the decline in cycling in the NT (which is at a far lower rate than the decline nationally).

What did you base these stats on?

If I was to question the decline in cycling rates in the NT since 2011, what would constructive engagement look like?

[fat and old]

Which stats were you using?

Yours, as stated! From your link. https://www.cycle-helmets.com/ncp-2019.pdf It's an Austroads publication. It's only a limited survey, but it's bias free. That's ok isn't it? Using yours?

No, you started this ridiculous discussion about the decline in cycling in the NT (which is at a far lower rate than the decline nationally).

What did you base these stats on?

If I was to question the decline in cycling rates in the NT since 2011, what would constructive engagement look like?

I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding this. The survey you linked https://www.cycle-helmets.com/ncp-2019.pdf ......it's not ok to use it?

Edit: Just read the above post by you, and while yours or anyone's bona fides are none of my business, kudos to you. Having been in similar situations on the environmental front in the mid-late eighties I can respect that immensely.

[BobtheBuilder]

I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding this. The survey you linked https://www.cycle-helmets.com/ncp-2019.pdf ......it's not ok to use it?

I'm sorry this is so difficult. I'll re-state my question.

"What data were you using to base your question about declining cycling rates in the NT on?"
[reminder: the data source I supplied was provided after your question was posed]

I hope you are able to understand this better now.

[fat and old]

I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding this. The survey you linked https://www.cycle-helmets.com/ncp-2019.pdf ......it's not ok to use it?

I'm sorry this is so difficult. I'll re-state my question.

"What data were you using to base your question about declining cycling rates in the NT on?"
[reminder: the data source I supplied was provided after your question was posed]

I hope you are able to understand this better now.

Yep, thanks. I remembered reading it somewhere recently. Not sure where. I didn't give any data in the OP. I just made a statement.

If I was to question the decline in cycling rates in the NT since 2011, what would constructive engagement look like?

I just have a good memory.

Edit. If I was to be questioned on the actual data, I would have just looked up "Cycling participation rates in Australia 2011-22" or something like that. My Google-fu is gilly gilly.

[warthog1]

You incorrectly assign risk to my behaviour because it would appear you are not a cycling enthusiast and don't indulge in or enjoy sport cycling. You post only in this thread it appears for the most part.

Incorrect on two points.

1) A number of nitpickers here have disputed the notion cycling is safe, then gone on to describe riding at speed in heavy traffic, something that is outside the norm for most cycling in most countries and an environment in which almost any activity is not safe.
Cycling is generally very safe. Undertaking cycling in risky conditions, even if mitigated, is not safe. The conditions you describe, even though sensibly mitigated, involve risk. That is risky behaviour.

As I posted earlier, the stat's would disagree with your assertion;


In 2015–16, about 12,000 Australians were hospitalised for a pedal cycle-related injury representing 1 in 5 injury hospitalisations from land transport crashes. Between 1999–00 and 2015–16, 651 pedal cyclists died as the result of their injuries, an average of 38 deaths per year. The age profile of hospitalised cyclists changed over time. Rates for age groups under 25 fell by 0.6%–4.2% per year, while rates for those 25 and over rose by 5.4%–9.4%.
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/injury/ ... ns/summary
That is all sorts of cycling.
Cycling can be safe certainly and yes I agree, utility cycling on separated infrastructure away from traffic is safer. I see no reason to mandate helmet usage there. I don't support mandating it at all. The stat's indicate there is risk in many types and it makes sense to address that risk. I do that with route selection, ride time, varia radar/light, visible clothing and yes a helmet.
I certainly don't do it because it is risky, I do it for fitness enjoyment and largely mental health I believe. I've tried meditation/relaxation techniques. Nothing works like a long bike ride. It is my approximation of meditation.

2) I have worked as a bike courier in Sydney, commuted to work in the worst of inner-urban Sydney traffic two decades ago, prior to that rode (mostly on quiet streets, rail service roads and footpaths) to school, since then used a bicycle for most of my sub 5km travel (and other travel). I didn't get a driver's licence until my early 30s (a requirement for the remote NT work I was doing) and relied on bicycle, foot and public transport for my transport needs. I have done close to 10 000km of cycle touring, most recently from the Black Sea to the Atlantic with my partner and our then one year old.

That is certainly more extensive than I expected.

I am a cycling enthusiast, but most of the threads on here cater only to a very narrow band of risky sport cycling that doesn't interest me personally. I have nothing against it, it's just not of interest to me.

I have participated on threads related to repair and resurrection, but as I don't have any expertise to offer, only as someone asking questions (and always getting very helpful, supportive answers). I haven't needed to do any repairs that I didn't know how to do for a good while, so I haven't asked questions on those threads.

No there are multiple topics outside of sport/competition cycling. Many ages and backgrounds, locations of posters. Having spent much time on here I can tell you those sport cyclists take steps to minimise their risk. Nobody wants to get injured or killed and take steps to minimise the chance of that happening whilst enjoying their passion.

I regularly participated in Critical Mass in the late 90s / early 2000s, including getting arrested a number of times, and was active in related environmental movements like Reclaim the Streets, where likewise I got arrested a number of times.
I have also been fined or warned by police for riding on footpaths and riding without a helmet.

I moved to the NT almost two decades ago and have greatly enjoyed riding helmet free since then and seeing the much greater usage of cycling to just 'get around'. I loathe going to south-eastern Australia and having to put on a lid just to trundle down to the shops or visit friends.

I don't do anything active about MHL in the NT, because the status quo is fine and actively campaigning to change the nominal law runs a strong risk of it being enforced.


I hope you are satisfied with my account of myself and that it meets your criteria for participation.


The only thing I ask of you is either to leave, if, as you say, this is a pointless forum, or contribute positively to discussing mandatory helmet laws, rather than continually nit-picking and diverting attention and energy away from discussing the broader issue and how to address it.

If people stop posting unsupported fallacies about universal cycling safety and helmet ineffectiveness I will stop countering them.

With respect about how to address MHLs I am not reading anything of note tbh.
I would be happy if that was the the primary content of the thread.

[BobtheBuilder]

Having spent much time on here I can tell you those sport cyclists take steps to minimise their risk.

Of course they do, and rightly so. But what are they minimising? Risk. It's a risky type of cycling.

1) A number of nitpickers here have disputed the notion cycling is safe, then gone on to describe riding at speed in heavy traffic, something that is outside the norm for most cycling in most countries and an environment in which almost any activity is not safe.
Cycling is generally very safe. Undertaking cycling in risky conditions, even if mitigated, is not safe. The conditions you describe, even though sensibly mitigated, involve risk. That is risky behaviour.

As I posted earlier, the stat's would disagree with your assertion;

No, they don't. They might in Australia because MHLs artificially skew the cycling population to risk/sport cycling. Even here I doubt it.

There have been numerous studies looking at the risk profile of cycling and other activities - this article sums some of them up in an easy to read format - https://discerningcyclist.com/is-cyclin ... n-walking/

It asks - "Is Cycling More Dangerous than… Walking, Football, Tennis, Gardening!?"

The answer is [in Britain]:
Walking - no. Pedestrian accident rates are higher than cycling accident rates. [disclaimer: these are raw numbers, not per distance or time numbers]
Running - no. "cycling causes six injuries every 1,000 hours, compared to 11 running-related injuries during the same time frame"
Football [soccer] - "fatality rates per participant are 4.9 times greater in football than they are in cycling."
Horse-riding - no. (I wear a helmet horse-riding, though they are not mandated) - "horse riding fatality rates are 29 times bigger per participant than in cycling."
Tennis - no. "tennis fatality rates are four times larger per participant than in cycling"
Gardening - maybe not. Australian data - "of 1,337 surveyed, five per cent of gardeners had required medical attention due to injuries sustained, compared to just 3.9 per cent of cyclists."

At the risk of unleashing a torrent of nitpicking, regardless of the ins and outs of each stat, the general point is that, overall, cycling is a safe activity, if we include walking, running, tennis and jogging as safe activities. If we don't, then the only thing that's safe is sitting at home on the couch ... safely getting chronic diseases.

[am50em]

Sports injury hospitalisations in Australia, 2019–20

https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/injury/ ... -of-injury

Cycling has the highest number of hospitalisations

The sports with the most injury hospitalisations in 2019–20 were those that involved wheels, and various types of football. Cycling saw around 8,000 reported injury hospitalisations, followed by wheeled motorsports (3,700), roller sports (3,700) and soccer (3,300) (Figure 10).

Together, the 3 main specified types of football (Australian rules, rugby, and soccer) were attributed 8,700 hospitalisations. However, because generic terms are often used for any or all of the football codes, a relatively large number of injury hospitalisations are attributed to ‘other and unspecified football’ (2,100 cases in 2019–20).

There are some differences between males and females. For males, the number one cause of hospitalisation was cycling, whereas for females it was equestrian activities. You can display males and females separately in the following visualisation using the filter at the bottom right.

Figure 10: Sports injury hospitalisations by activity, by sex, 2019–20
Bar graph showing sports injury hospitalisations by sport and sex in 2019 20. The viewer can view both males and females together or select one at a time. Cycling had the highest number of hospitalisations overall, and for males. Equestrian activities had the highest number of hospitalisations for females.

But cycling injury rate per per number of participants is middle of of the pack because there are a large number of cyclists.

[warthog1]

Having spent much time on here I can tell you those sport cyclists take steps to minimise their risk.

Of course they do, and rightly so. But what are they minimising? Risk. It's a risky type of cycling.

1) A number of nitpickers here have disputed the notion cycling is safe, then gone on to describe riding at speed in heavy traffic, something that is outside the norm for most cycling in most countries and an environment in which almost any activity is not safe.
Cycling is generally very safe. Undertaking cycling in risky conditions, even if mitigated, is not safe. The conditions you describe, even though sensibly mitigated, involve risk. That is risky behaviour.

As I posted earlier, the stat's would disagree with your assertion;

No, they don't. They might in Australia because MHLs artificially skew the cycling population to risk/sport cycling. Even here I doubt it.

Again the assertion was made that cycling was safe. It can be but it is not universally so.
Yes MHLs likely skew the results away from utilitarian cycling I agree with that.
However 20% of hospital admissions for land transport crashes that year were for cycling.
There is no way cycling represents 20% of land transport activity.
As I also posted earlier;
Horrifyingly, while cars continued their dominance, riding a bike to work also declined to 1.1 per cent of all transport to work, down from 1.2 per cent in 2011
https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsr ... way-to-go/
We are in Australia, they are the figures for cycling in Australia.

There have been numerous studies looking at the risk profile of cycling and other activities - this article sums some of them up in an easy to read format - https://discerningcyclist.com/is-cyclin ... n-walking/

It asks - "Is Cycling More Dangerous than… Walking, Football, Tennis, Gardening!?"

The answer is [in Britain]:
Walking - no. Pedestrian accident rates are higher than cycling accident rates. [disclaimer: these are raw numbers, not per distance or time numbers]
Running - no. "cycling causes six injuries every 1,000 hours, compared to 11 running-related injuries during the same time frame"
Football [soccer] - "fatality rates per participant are 4.9 times greater in football than they are in cycling."
Horse-riding - no. (I wear a helmet horse-riding, though they are not mandated) - "horse riding fatality rates are 29 times bigger per participant than in cycling."
Tennis - no. "tennis fatality rates are four times larger per participant than in cycling"
Gardening - maybe not. Australian data - "of 1,337 surveyed, five per cent of gardeners had required medical attention due to injuries sustained, compared to just 3.9 per cent of cyclists."

At the risk of unleashing a torrent of nitpicking, regardless of the ins and outs of each stat, the general point is that, overall, cycling is a safe activity, if we include walking, running, tennis and jogging as safe activities. If we don't, then the only thing that's safe is sitting at home on the couch ... safely getting chronic diseases.

It is from a cycling publication, so is it neutral and objective? He is advocating cycling though.

Easy to read is one way to put it. Inaccurate is another.
To use just the walking component, no allowance is made for the number of people walking.

Is Cycling More Dangerous Than… Walking?
Funnily enough, no it isn’t.

Government statistics have shown that, for every year from 2010 to 2019 in Britain, there have been more pedestrians reported killed or seriously injured in road accidents than pedal cyclists (e.g. 2019: 3,653 pedestrians, 3,089 cyclists).

The numbers are fairly close I suggest the number of participants in each activity is a mile apart.
A hell of a lot more pedestrians than cyclists. The risk of injury per individual will be much higher for cycling as a result.

Here is an analysis of cycle commuting in the UK. Should be a safe activity but without separated infrastructure it is not.
https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m336

Widespread health advice from bodies such as the World Health Organization, NHS, and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence advocate increased physical activity in the general population to improve health,825 and active commuting has been suggested as one possible solution. The present data suggest that the higher risk of injury associated with cycle commuting is real, but seems to be outweighed by the health benefits. We show that commuting by bicycle in the UK is associated with a 45% higher risk of hospital admission for a first injury, independent of confounders including physical activity levels. This equates to 26 additional first injuries for 1000 people changing modes of commuting to include cycling in their commute for 10 years. Of these additional injuries, three would require hospital stays of a week or longer. This higher risk of injury is offset by the expected benefit of 15 fewer first cancers, four fewer cardiovascular disease events, and three fewer deaths. In line with this, one previous study has suggested a benefit:risk ratio of 77:1.26 Secondly, we also report that cycling longer distances was associated with a higher risk of injury. Thirdly, to consider injuries when the mode of commute was more likely attributable as the external cause of injury, we specifically investigated hospital admissions for injuries when the external cause was listed as a transport incident. We estimated that people who exclusively cycled to work were at 3.4-fold higher risk of injury due to a transport incident, compared with non-active commuters

If you choose to read more, people view cycling on the road as too dangerous and the authors advocate more separated infrastructure.

Despite the apparent benefits of cycling, the number of people commuting by bicycle in the UK and many other countries is low.16 The British Social Attitudes survey of adults (≥18 years) suggests that only 4% of people cycle to work once a week despite 39% owning a bicycle, and 64% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that cycling on roads is too dangerous.

[BobtheBuilder]

To use just the walking component, no allowance is made for the number of people walking.

Yes, that is why I put this disclaimer -

Walking - no. Pedestrian accident rates are higher than cycling accident rates. [disclaimer: these are raw numbers, not per distance or time numbers]

You've nitpicked the one comparison which isn't a clear like for like, and only that one.
And avoided the central point that, although in some circumstances, just like most other activities cycling is not safe, as a general rule it is very safe. As a whole it is comparably safe, or safer, than a lot of other common activities.
It is safer than sitting at home, padded in cotton wool, where you are pretty dead certain to get a range of chronic diseases.

If you choose to read more, people view cycling on the road as too dangerous and the authors advocate more separated infrastructure.

I also advocate separated infrastructure - so?


Just because people have a perception about something, isn't evidence per se that it's true.

Yes, people do view cycling on the road as too dangerous - because we're constantly told how dangerous it is, despite the fact that for the most part it isn't. You seem hung up on viewing cycling as dangerous, even though you've been given endless evidence that it isn't particularly more dangerous than other common activities.

EDIT: If you want to read some of the original research that I suspect the article was based on, this is one useful source:

Powell, K. E., Heath, G. W., Kresnow, M. J., Sacks, J. J., & Branche, C. M. (1998). Injury rates from walking, gardening, weightlifting, outdoor bicycling, and aerobics. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 30(8), 1246–1249. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-199808000-00010
Available here: - https://paulogentil.com/pdf/Injury%20ra ... robics.pdf

[warthog1]

To use just the walking component, no allowance is made for the number of people walking.

Yes, that is why I put this disclaimer -

Walking - no. Pedestrian accident rates are higher than cycling accident rates. [disclaimer: these are raw numbers, not per distance or time numbers]

You've nitpicked the one comparison which isn't a clear like for like, and only that one.
And avoided the central point that, although in some circumstances, just like most other activities cycling is not safe, as a general rule it is very safe. As a whole it is comparably safe, or safer, than a lot of other common activities.
It is safer than sitting at home, padded in cotton wool, where you are pretty dead certain to get a range of chronic diseases.

If you choose to read more, people view cycling on the road as too dangerous and the authors advocate more separated infrastructure.

I also advocate separated infrastructure - so?


Just because people have a perception about something, isn't evidence per se that it's true.

Yes, people do view cycling on the road as too dangerous - because we're constantly told how dangerous it is, despite the fact that for the most part it isn't. You seem hung up on viewing cycling as dangerous, even though you've been given endless evidence that it isn't particularly more dangerous than other common activities.

EDIT: If you want to read some of the original research that I suspect the article was based on, this is one useful source:

Powell, K. E., Heath, G. W., Kresnow, M. J., Sacks, J. J., & Branche, C. M. (1998). Injury rates from walking, gardening, weightlifting, outdoor bicycling, and aerobics. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 30(8), 1246–1249. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-199808000-00010
Available here: - https://paulogentil.com/pdf/Injury%20ra ... robics.pdf

The articles I've posted indicate that indeed road cycling is dangerous.
The deaths of people my family and I know who were killed by motorists at fault would indicate it is so.
The references I have provided for Australian cycling hospital admission rates indicate cycling is not safe.
The link I just posted indicated UK road cycling is not safe.

I attend road collisions as part of my work. I am more aware as a result than most on here as to how bad some of our drivers are, I see the results.
If you read other threads on the forum you will read of dangerous incidents many have experienced.
Yes cycling can be safe. Sharing roads with our drivers is not and the evidence supports that.

Why is it you also advocate separated infrastructure?
Could it be that because if is a safety improvement also.
Getting away from large heavy, fast moving vehicles is a safety improvement.
It doesn't take any references to understand that.

Edit;
Yeah had a quick look at that reference document.
Self reported injury that limits an activity.
Younger people do weightlifting cycling aerobics.
Older people walk, gardening and yard work.

Seriously, that supercedes hospital admission rates as an indication of the safety of an activity?

[BobtheBuilder]

These papers attempt to disentangle the complexities of comparing cyclist and pedestrian death rates.

Mindell, J., Martin, A., Lloyd, M., & Sargent, G. (2018). 2414—Head Injuries As a Cause of Road Travel Death in Cyclists, Pedestrians and Drivers. Journal of Transport & Health, 9, S29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2018.05.088

"Conclusions
"Head injuries in cyclists are often considered to be an important cause of road travel death, but this depends on the metric used for assessing importance. Pedestrians and drivers account for five and four times the number of fatal head injuries as cyclists. No-one is calling for pedestrians to wear helmets although the fatal head injury rates are similar for cyclists and pedestrians. The rate is higher for cyclists than pedestrians by time travelled and is higher for pedestrians than cyclists using distance travelled."

A similar paper, with overlapping authors and data - https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1 ... cepted.pdf

Rates of fatal head injury per bnkm (billion km travelled) in males aged 17+ for
cycling - 11.2
walking - 23.4
driving - 0.7
Female fatality rates
cycling - 8.8
walking - 9.6
driving - 0.4

Using time as the denominator (rate per million hours travelled) for males:
cycling - 0.16
walking - 0.10
driving - 0.03

For females:
cycling - 0.10
walking - 0.04
driving - 0.01

Whatever the exact truth of this analysis, it's clear that cycling and walking are both comparable activities in terms of risk of death and are extremely low risk activities. The riskiest thing is being male!

[baabaa]

Ok UK perception not Aust perception

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001dj03

Road Rage: Cars v Bikes Panorama

There are more cyclists on our roads than at any time in the last 50 years, and the government is spending billions trying to encourage even more people to get on their bikes. So why are there so many incidents of road rage and injury? Research suggests most people think the UK’s roads are too dangerous to cycle on. Filmed confrontations with motorists are now commonplace. Reporter Richard Bilton hits the road to investigate what’s going on between drivers and cyclists.