Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[g-boaf]

Yet MHL’s are some aberration that came from nowhere and single handed convinced everyone that riding a bicycle on a road alongside cars, buses and trucks was dangerous. That this would not have been the case without MHL’s.

If sharing the roads is so safe, why do the Dutch seperate cyclists and motor vehicles to an extent that makes them the envy of the world?

Read what you've just written again:

You've identified a hazard, caused by poor planning; poor road design, poor regulation design and poor driver behaviour.

Now, somehow MANDATORY helmet use is going to fix this? On each and every road?

Ask an average Australian (particularly one who doesn't ride) and they'll tell you that cycling is dangerous and, if you must ride, you must wear a helmet. This is not the view a Dutchman would have.

Are you asserting that this is an accident?

The whole principle of mandatory helmet laws is that using a bicycle is inherently dangerous. Not merely on busy highways but on every road (even quiet back streets) and, in fact, even OFF the road, within the road reserve (NT being the one exception).

And that a foam hat will protect you.

We've had thirty years of a) telling the public that cycling without a helmet is dangerous and b) blaming the cyclist if they're injured by a car while not wearing a helmet. (Even Mr Plod believes car drivers are responsible for 3/4 of car-bike accidents)

Almost every incident has been reported as follows: "Today, a cyclist collided with a vehicle at XXX. The cyclist had serious injuries/was killed. He was/was not wearing a helmet at the time. The vehicle's driver was uninjured" There's variations on the theme but the story's the same.

Now, helmets are quite useful if you ride in a way that might result in you falling off regularly (e.g. most forms of sports cycling). The thirty year old Big Lie is that helmet LAWs will protect you from motor vehicles.

Once again, repeat after me:
a) Some types of cycling are dangerous. Others are less dangerous than taking a bath.
b) A helmet may help if you fall off and hit your head. Particularly if you're in the drops at 45kph (ask me how I know)
c) If you get hit by an MV doing 60kph or more, or knocked over & crushed, you are not likely to survive regardless of what's on your head
d) cyclists are pretty darn good at working out whether a helmet might help or not

So, to your statement again.

Yet MHL’s are some aberration that came from nowhere and single handed convinced everyone that riding a bicycle on a road alongside cars, buses and trucks was dangerous. That this would not have been the case without MHL’s.

Yes, MHLs are an aberration. And yes, without MHLs we would not be convinced that riding a bicycle on a road (any road) was dangerous.

You've correctly identified the actual hazard and one of the mitigations, which are (per the standard hierarchy)
a) Remove the hazard (reduce the speeds and remove the most dangerous vehicles )
b) Substitute the hazard (get transport onto rail or bike)
c) Engineer a solution (provide separated infrastructure for fast/major roads)
d) Apply administrative controls (enforce speed limits, have lights on bicycles )
and
e) PPE. Helmets, mandatory or not, would go here. Right at the bottom of the list.

You equate helmets with “going down regularly” but sometimes it is just bad luck caused by dangerous slippery conditions catching people out who are being careful. An experienced rider I know went down twice at low speed in a few weeks, both times caused by slippery conditions, the second time was caused by algae growing on a shaded, damp corner.

Many more crashed in that same place - some seriously hurt. Nothing to do with inappropriate riding or helmet wearing.

Just because someone wears a helmet doesn’t automatically mean they are going to ride quickly.

[Mr Purple]

As above I've gone down twice at about 10-15km/hr on exactly the same corner in the last 40,000km or so. Just slightly slippery, slightly greasy and slightly off camber. You can't plan for that. No helmet strike either time, but that may just be luck.

I actually agree with a few of the anti-MHL types on here. I was a kid in the 90's when they introduced the law, and it was definitely overkill and jumping the gun at the time. Particularly because just about the only helmet we were all able to buy and wear were Stackhats, based on ice hockey helmets. I agree they work as a disincentive to casual cycling which probably kills more people than it saves.

However you have to look at society as a whole and just how risk averse it's getting. Cars are getting far more closed in and far more dangerous to everyone outside the car because of the small window openings and large pillars needed for rollover protection laws. As I've complained on here before worksites will literally make thousands of cyclists joust with the traffic by closing the bike lane so three workmen can wander around with the required ten metres of clearance for 'workplace safety'. These 'f-you I've got mine' safety requirements makes everyone else's life far more dangerous but they don't care because they're protecting themselves.

Honestly in this 'make the world risk free' environment I'm sort of surprised we're still allowed to ride our bikes at all. I can't see anyone ever making a logical decision and getting ride of MHL laws, because they simply don't repeal anything they perceive to make anyone safer. It's a bizarre situation though, I agree.

Having said all that I religiously wear a helmet everywhere not because of MHL laws but because I know how easy it is to die from even a low speed impact to exactly the wrong spot on your temple. There's a very thin area of bone there with an artery directly below it. Helmet for me thanks.

[fat and old]

The almost complete removal of casual transport cycling (below 5km), which is the primary use of bicycles when conditions are favourable,

According to who?

Um, the whole world, outside of 2GB land.

We're below 2% of travel being done by bicycle. At the other extreme the Netherlands are about 1/3rd of all trips are by bicycle.

Does the 2% apply to 2GB land (I don't get it in Victoria, so I assume you mean NSW?) or Australia? I assume Australia.

Australia is what I'm referring to. You know, where most of us live? Where the forum is positioned? Where the MHL's are? Keep comparing O/S facts with Australian conditions, see how far that gets you. I prefer to deal with my own issues, in my own backyard. Bur we'll get back to The Dutch

Read what you've just written again:

You've identified a hazard, caused by poor planning; poor road design, poor regulation design and poor driver behaviour.

Now, somehow MANDATORY helmet use is going to fix this? On each and every road?

You do realise that I'm not claiming this, don't you? I'm sure you do, and you know where I'm going. Mr Purple (for example) seems to think along the same lines.

Honestly in this 'make the world risk free' environment I'm sort of surprised we're still allowed to ride our bikes at all

Now, somehow MANDATORY helmet use is going to fix this? On each and every road?

Ask an average Australian (particularly one who doesn't ride) and they'll tell you that cycling is dangerous and, if you must ride, you must wear a helmet. This is not the view a Dutchman would have.

Are you asserting that this is an accident?

My assertion is that while MHL's had an immediate effect on cycling numbers, the downturn in cycling was already well underway. Further, the continuation of MHL's does not have any great bearing on the uptake of cycling today due to society's perpetual move to a safer, risk free existence which not only continued but accelerated post Vietnam War. This acceleration has gone harder again since 1991. Davids's attempt to minimalise the tentacles of Safety notwithstanding.

The whole principle of mandatory helmet laws is that using a bicycle is inherently dangerous. Not merely on busy highways but on every road (even quiet back streets) and, in fact, even OFF the road, within the road reserve (NT being the one exception).

Are you asserting that without MHL's, nobody would think cycling is/can be dangerous? Again I ask the question

If sharing the roads is so safe, why do the Dutch seperate cyclists and motor vehicles to an extent that makes them the envy of the world? (You answered it in your post)

a) Remove the hazard (reduce the speeds and remove the most dangerous vehicles )
b) Substitute the hazard (get transport onto rail or bike)
c) Engineer a solution (provide separated infrastructure for fast/major roads)
d) Apply administrative controls (enforce speed limits, have lights on bicycles )
and
e) PPE. Helmets, mandatory or not, would go here. Right at the bottom of the list.

From the Cambridge Dictionary:

Hazard: something that is dangerous and likely to cause damage

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... ish/hazard

Earlier you acknowledged

Road and regulation design (and administration) is super important to riding rates, along with perceptions of safety.

You and others continually dance around the edges of the safety issue, trying to minimise or expunge it from the possible causes or issues in having more people adopt cycling as transport yet continue to talk up best practice examples which are based solely on the safety of the cyclist. All in order to prioritise MHL's as the single greatest issue facing cycling in Australia.

Arguing that MHL's are unnecessary as there is no risk when cycling is counterproductive. Best practice solutions to increasing cycling's modal share simply don't agree.

And follow it up with another question

If MHL's caused the death of the original bike share schemes, why have they not done so to the scooter share scheme?

Arguing that MHL's continue to limit the uptake of cycling are limited if not negated by the shared scooter experience.

My preference. MHL's are unnecessary as I'm capable of assessing and mitigating the risk involved when cycling. Sometimes I'll wear a helmet, sometimes not. They are NOT a suitable solution in the vast majority of cycling incidents that result in injuries.

[warthog1]

Just made a long post suggesting Thoglette read your post again, even though he said he did, but this time objectively.
Deleted it when posting as it showed me your post F&O.
Yep you were not making the points he proceeded to "address".

[fat and old]

Strangely, we didn't take this approach with skin cancer.

Out of interest, do you know what lead the push to long sleeves at work to prevent skin cancer?

[find_bruce]

Law still being vigorously enforced in Sydney-just saw a delivery rider pulled over by a motorcycle cop $435 will be a big chunk of his meagre earnings

[uart]

Out of interest, do you know what lead the push to long sleeves at work to prevent skin cancer?

But that's clearly different to how MHLs apply isn't it. To be equivalent to MHL's we'd have to enforce mandatory long sleeves not jut at work, but in all public outdoor spaces. Walking 50m from you car to the shops in a T-shirt - bam - that's a $400 fine you crazy reckless sleeveless fool. I seriously can't see this gaining public acceptance like MHL has..

[fat and old]

Out of interest, do you know what lead the push to long sleeves at work to prevent skin cancer?

But that's clearly different to how MHLs apply isn't it. To be equivalent to MHL's we'd have to enforce mandatory long sleeves not jut at work, but in all public outdoor spaces. Walking 50m from you car to the shops in a T-shirt - bam - that's a $400 fine you crazy reckless sleeveless fool. I seriously can't see this gaining public acceptance like MHL has..

I wasn't trying to draw an equivalency between MHL's and LS at work, not even questioning the federal response to skin cancer in general. Just wondering if anybody had heard the story before. My understanding (at least in construction) is that it started with a Boral Truck driver suing Boral around 2003 for not informing it's employees of the risk of skin cancer. That was in spite of the fact that the Nationwide Slip Slop Slap campaign having been in place from the early 80's. So what do the bigger companies do? Eliminate the risk by having us all wear long sleeves and trousers. I can remember the sudden appearance of the Sunsmart crews with their magic box to show the sun damage on our skin. Nothing to do with our safety. All about the bottom line. One of the few very glaring can't get out of it examples out there that I know of.

On the concept of public acceptance of MHL's, I think first there was public compliance with MHL's. And as it was a fait accompli, affected a minority of the population and was seen to be a common sense safety initiative by most run of the mill sentient humans compliance evolved into acceptance quite easily.

[baabaa]

Just made a long post suggesting Thoglette read your post again, even though he said he did, but this time objectively.
Deleted it when posting as it showed me your post F&O.
Yep you were not making the points he proceeded to "address".

I also think this was missing in the "address"

viewtopic.php?f=53&t=106029&start=75

it sits in the same Cycling Safety and Advocacy section but anyway seems some of us are just wrong in thinking that being on a bike on the road, any road is becoming more and dangerous

[BobtheBuilder]

There's nothing wrong with self-reported data, but it's not a complete explanation of behaviour.

Actually, there is.

Not always. If you want data on if people don't like rainy weather and your sampling is good, you will get an accurate picture of the proportions of people who think they don't like rainy weather. But it may - or may not - be a good predictor of their actual behaviour. Or the effect of rainy weather on anything else.

It's a worthwhile method, but it has its limits.

Using this sort of data to judge the actual population level effects of MHLs is one example of totally inappropriate application of this method.

[BobtheBuilder]

Law still being vigorously enforced in Sydney-just saw a delivery rider pulled over by a motorcycle cop $435 will be a big chunk of his meagre earnings

Interesting. I was just in central Sydney for the first significant riding in two decades. Apart from huge improvements in infrastructure and driver attitudes, I rode with a mate who didn't wear a helmet for the three days we were hooning around between beaches, pubs and clubs and he didn't get pinged. I was quite surprised. I wore my almost new / 20 year old helmet (not needed in the NT) as a very effective fine prevention device, but perhaps I didn't need to. Might have saved me from sunburn if I hadn't!

[Cyclophiliac]

Out of interest, do you know what lead the push to long sleeves at work to prevent skin cancer?

But that's clearly different to how MHLs apply isn't it. To be equivalent to MHL's we'd have to enforce mandatory long sleeves not jut at work, but in all public outdoor spaces. Walking 50m from you car to the shops in a T-shirt - bam - that's a $400 fine you crazy reckless sleeveless fool. I seriously can't see this gaining public acceptance like MHL has..

Neither will mandating helmets in motor vehicles, but it's also clearly necessary.

[find_bruce]

Interesting. I was just in central Sydney for the first significant riding in two decades. Apart from huge improvements in infrastructure and driver attitudes, I rode with a mate who didn't wear a helmet for the three days we were hooning around between beaches, pubs and clubs and he didn't get pinged. I was quite surprised. I wore my almost new / 20 year old helmet (not needed in the NT) as a very effective fine prevention device, but perhaps I didn't need to. Might have saved me from sunburn if I hadn't!

It's been a fair while since I looked at the stats, but IIRC outside of the CBD and Nth Sydney it was only occasionally enforced

[fat and old]

Out of interest, do you know what lead the push to long sleeves at work to prevent skin cancer?

But that's clearly different to how MHLs apply isn't it. To be equivalent to MHL's we'd have to enforce mandatory long sleeves not jut at work, but in all public outdoor spaces. Walking 50m from you car to the shops in a T-shirt - bam - that's a $400 fine you crazy reckless sleeveless fool. I seriously can't see this gaining public acceptance like MHL has..

Neither will mandating helmets in motor vehicles, but it's also clearly necessary.

I often see this claim, but never the data behind it.

Please provide the rate of head injuries per 1,000,000 km's driven. And for complete disclosure, the rate of head injuries incurred by cyclists per 1,000,000 km's ridden. Average it out over a 30 year period, that's about how long MHL's have been around. You can chuck in pedestrian figures too if you want, per 1,000,000 km's walked. And how about ladders, that's a popular one. head injuries incurred per 1,000,000 rungs climbed oughta do it.

[BobtheBuilder]

It's been a fair while since I looked at the stats, but IIRC outside of the CBD and Nth Sydney it was only occasionally enforced

We were - day and night - in the CBD and in the area bounded by Bondi, Marrickville and Darling Harbour. I was surprised he wasn't pinged.

[BobtheBuilder]

Neither will mandating helmets in motor vehicles, but it's also clearly necessary.

I often see this claim, but never the data behind it.

I've joked that if we were serious about helmets, then they should be mandated for vehicles. To my surprise it's actually been studied!

McLean, A.J., et al. (1997) Prevention of head injuries to car occupants : an investigation of interior padding options. Federal Office of Road Safety.

Wearing helmets for car occupants estimated to save half a billion dollars annually (in 1997 dollars!) and be more effective than padding the entire upper interior of the vehicle in terms of serious and fatal brain injury!

"The use of protective headwear by car occupants in Australia could potentially reduce the number of fatalities and cases of brain damage to at least the same etent as the use of helmets by pedal cyclists and motorcyclists. This is partly due to the higher level of exposure among vehicle occupants." (p.65)

As far as brain injury incidence rates, there is some data and hopefully this study will provide more - https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2022/217 ... ed-methods

Hospitalisation injury rates (not head injury per se) per 100 000 people (crude population) is on this page - https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/injury/ ... t-injuries

Car occupants - 83
Bicyclists - 64

Likewise injury death rates per 100 000 are:

Car occupants - 2.7
Bicyclists - 0.2

[warthog1]

Sure but head strike has been addressed by the use of airbags.
They moderate forces and impact for large parts of the body including the head.
They most definitely are life saving.
I have seen the protection they provide first hand multiple times.
Would not let my kids own a car without side airbag protection.
There are also braking and crash avoidance systems on some newer automobiles.
Seat belt tensioners.
It has moved significantly from 1997.

[BobtheBuilder]

Sure but head strike has been addressed by the use of airbags.
They moderate forces and impact for large parts of the body including the head.
They most definitely are life saving.
I have seen the protection they provide first hand multiple times.
Would not let my kids own a car without side airbag protection.
There are also braking and crash avoidance systems on some newer automobiles.
Seat belt tensioners.
It has moved significantly from 1997.

You obviously haven't read the paper. They account for airbags. Safety benefit of helmet-wearing in cars significantly outweighs that of airbags.
Can you please start getting angry about people not wearing helmets in cars?

EDIT: realised I omitted to include the link to the paper in my comment above - https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pd ... tsb160.pdf

[BobtheBuilder]

And a paper looking at comparative rates of head injuries for cyclists:

Martin, Amy & Lloyd, Miranda & Sargent, Gabriela & Feleke, Robel & Mindell, Jennifer. (2018). Are head injuries to cyclists an important cause of death in road travel fatalities?. Journal of Transport & Health. 10. 10.1016/j.jth.2018.06.002.

From the abstract:
"Conclusion: Answering the question ‘How important are head injuries in cyclists as a cause of road travel death?’ 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. The fatal head injury rate is highest for cyclists by time travelled and for pedestrians using distance travelled."

I guess we also should start getting really angry about walkers who don't wear helmets?

[warthog1]

Sure but head strike has been addressed by the use of airbags.
They moderate forces and impact for large parts of the body including the head.
They most definitely are life saving.
I have seen the protection they provide first hand multiple times.
Would not let my kids own a car without side airbag protection.
There are also braking and crash avoidance systems on some newer automobiles.
Seat belt tensioners.
It has moved significantly from 1997.

You obviously haven't read the paper. They account for airbags. Safety benefit of helmet-wearing in cars significantly outweighs that of airbags.
Can you please start getting angry about people not wearing helmets in cars?

EDIT: realised I omitted to include the link to the paper in my comment above - https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pd ... tsb160.pdf

No you didn't link it, but I am aware it will be chosen to support your argument.
Here is another one; https://www.iihs.org/topics/airbags bicycle aibags
I am not convinced it is a study measuring the protective effects of modern airbag systems in terms of protection from brain injury.
My point is that it is from 1997.
Airbags were few in number back then. Airbag location and research into their deployment will have moved on significantly in the 26 years since then. Certainly the prevalence in cars on the road has increased massively.
I have attended numerous collisions where I am convinced the airbags have resulted in life saving results.

I did read the abstract from that article however. They certainly advocate the effectiveness of a "soft shell bicycle helmet" in terms of brain injury prevention. Unlike some of the posters on here

In any case there are protective measures within motor vehicles and in terms of their design to protect occupants from injury.

Not sure what the argument is? Does the lack of requirement to wear them in a motor vehicle render the requirement to wear them by bicyclists more unjustified? As said there are other protective measures in cars but not for cyclists.
I am not supporting the mandating of them for cyclists, but like the authors of that article, I do recognise their protection against headinjury in head strike. For most of the cycling I do I'd continue to wear one.
If you would like to start a campaign advocating MHLs for motorvehicle occupants I wish you luck but CBFed taking part.

[warthog1]

And a paper looking at comparative rates of head injuries for cyclists:

Martin, Amy & Lloyd, Miranda & Sargent, Gabriela & Feleke, Robel & Mindell, Jennifer. (2018). Are head injuries to cyclists an important cause of death in road travel fatalities?. Journal of Transport & Health. 10. 10.1016/j.jth.2018.06.002.

From the abstract:
"Conclusion: Answering the question ‘How important are head injuries in cyclists as a cause of road travel death?’ 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. The fatal head injury rate is highest for cyclists by time travelled and for pedestrians using distance travelled."

I guess we also should start getting really angry about walkers who don't wear helmets?

We have been through the injury rates for cyclist and walkers several pages back.
Put walkers in amongst cars and they will be even worse. That is likely why the fatal head injury rates for cyclists is so high vs time travelled.

With respect to injury rates overall, cyclists are not a very large proportion of road users. However remove the cars and injury rates for cyclists and pedestrians will plummet I expect.

[uart]

I guess we also should start getting really angry about walkers who don't wear helmets?

I'm sure that pedestrian would be super unimpressed if cyclists start pushing for that.

I'm sure that they'd be even more unimpressed if the stated reasons were:
"I want to ride my bike fast on shared paths and pedestrians are often in my way. I want to be able to zoom past them at close distance and feel less concerned that I might injure them. I don't want to slow down for them or pass them safely. So that's why you stupid peds need to wear your bloody helmets. I mean how hard is it. Are you afraid it might mess up your hair. Bloody morons!"

Yet, we know where that attitude comes from don't we.

[baabaa]

So my guess is that people posting here against MHLs and then doing nothing more about it and the introduction of car helmets is about the same - going absolutely nowhere.

How about looking at relevant data and info on biking such as this this.

City counts reveal data behind Portland’s precipitous drop in cycling
(March 15, 2023)

https://bikeportland.org/2023/03/15/cit ... ing-371407

Opinion: My thoughts on the cycling decline and a list of theories to explain it
(April 5, 2023)

https://bikeportland.org/2023/04/05/opi ... -it-372259

Just like the recent Monash study it goes hard against all that POV guff that keeps getting pulled out about MHLs over and over again.

[WyvernRH]

Sure but head strike has been addressed by the use of airbags.
They moderate forces and impact for large parts of the body including the head.
They most definitely are life saving.
I have seen the protection they provide first hand multiple times.
Would not let my kids own a car without side airbag protection.
There are also braking and crash avoidance systems on some newer automobiles.
Seat belt tensioners.
It has moved significantly from 1997.

You obviously haven't read the paper. They account for airbags. Safety benefit of helmet-wearing in cars significantly outweighs that of airbags.
Can you please start getting angry about people not wearing helmets in cars?
EDIT: realised I omitted to include the link to the paper in my comment above - https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pd ... tsb160.pdf

I have read the paper, several times over the (many) years since publication. We (the cyclist's we) are going to have to stop using this report to beat people about the head (no pun intended) about MHL for bicycles vs cars. It is VERY old - mid 1990's - and the car sample used dated from 1966 to 1996. Most of those wouldn't have had simple airbags let alone side and/or head bags - probably no crumple zones or other safety features. They do NOT account for auxiliary airbags as these did not exist back then (maybe in Volvos...) As mentioned above, car safety design has gone ahead a lot since then (maybe partly because of this report?) and these report findings are no longer really relevant in this area, and we make ourselves look bad by still using what is basically superseded research data.

Re bicycle MHL, I don't think the basic fact that hitting your head on a kerb wearing a MIPS enabled helmet is going give you a better health result as opposed to smacking your unadorned head against aforesaid kerb is contested. You are always going to be better off from a head blow when wearing a helmet. Not going to help any other sort of trauma but that's not what they are designed for.

The social factors like discouragement of cycling, free choice etc, etc are another matter entirely.

Richard

[g-boaf]

Sure but head strike has been addressed by the use of airbags.
They moderate forces and impact for large parts of the body including the head.
They most definitely are life saving.
I have seen the protection they provide first hand multiple times.
Would not let my kids own a car without side airbag protection.
There are also braking and crash avoidance systems on some newer automobiles.
Seat belt tensioners.
It has moved significantly from 1997.

You obviously haven't read the paper. They account for airbags. Safety benefit of helmet-wearing in cars significantly outweighs that of airbags.
Can you please start getting angry about people not wearing helmets in cars?

EDIT: realised I omitted to include the link to the paper in my comment above - https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pd ... tsb160.pdf

August 1997?

Some cars didn't have airbags as standard at the time, nor other modern safety measures. No curtain airbags, no seat mounted airbags, no rear passenger airbags, probably no stability control systems and maybe not anti-lock brakes or traction control on some cars.

Very likely the safest car in the world at the time was Gordon Murray's McLaren F1 which had a very safe carbon fibre structure and four point seat belts. The BMW boss at the time survived a 300km/h accident in the F1. No helmets or airbags, but extremely safe structure, central driving position and effective seat belts:



That was about the most advanced car in the world in terms of technology at the time. Regular stuff in comparison that a lot of people might be driving would be a death trap in comparison. The passenger compartments probably crumpled up, elements affecting the passenger space (pinned occupants, etc).

Time for a revised paper that takes into account modern safety systems and technology.