Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[DavidS]

Still waiting for evidence helmets are effective in preventing concussion.

I mean, no gridiron players get concussion . . . do they?

DS

[fat and old]

If you think walking gardening, weightlifting, outdoor bicycling and aerobics have radically changed their risk profile in the last 25 years, go and find your own more recent study.

You know what? I reckon they have definitely changed. Maybe not radically in all cases but yes, changed.

Outdoor Cycling and walking: The increase in motor vehicles (roads), Pedestrians (shared paths) and animals (Pets, shared paths. Think those long retractable leashes). This has led to an increase in risk for all users. Cyclists do not exist in a bubble, independent of their environment.

Weightlifting and aerobics: Crossfit and other types of HIT were not anywhere near as prevalent (Crossfit didn't exist) as they are now. Further, high impact sports such as Aus rules, League etc now have Female leagues and competitions which have led to injuries that appear to be more common among Females than Men.

Nothing stays the same, change is constant.

[BobtheBuilder]

In the 5 Months since I moved down to Albury, I've been watching the types of Cyclists we have here, unfortunately not much participating due to the intense heat 2 or 3 Months ago and my work.

I've noticed that the amount of adults and teens that wear helmets are at a guess 40%, most people here don't bother, the cops don't appear to be too worried, the roads here are wide and the speed limit around 40kph in town but around 60kph in the main thoroughfares. Most people here tend to wear baseball caps when they are riding and many don't even bother with those. The Cops are also very few and far between but don't seemed to be bothered with it.

The Older people (Seniors) tend to wear them, tourist mostly do but some not or just have them dangling from the bike.

Albury is quite an easy town to cycle around, it's very flat and the roads have bike lanes but are not always coloured green. There are some good bikepaths that follow the creeks around town.
Probably the biggest danger i see is the way they park here, it's angled street parking with nose in towards the kerb as the angle is such that when you reverse from your parking spot, you're (as a car driver) reversing in towards traffic that is mostly only doing 20-30kph and occasionally 40kph so if a car is backing out, cars are supposed to let you out...yeah right!! so, as a bicycle rider, you've just got to be cautious for reversing cars. The Main street, Dean Street is only single lanes with lots of pedestrian crossings so it's really safe from speeding traffic.

But nobody seems scared of the police as they ride around town helmetless.....I bet you if I tried it, I'd be the unlucky bugger that gets nabbed. It's pretty laid back here, I'm really enjoying the vibe and these Autumn days are stunning.

And I'd bet on the injury and fatality rates being no worse than where MHLs are more rigidly enforced. And on cycling rates being higher, especially in the utility category.

[BobtheBuilder]

More recent (2021) death odds profiles (sadly doesn't include risk of death by flowerpot) for the Failed States of America
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injurie ... -of-dying/

Odds of dying for:

Heart disease 1 in 6
COVID-19 1 in 10
Guns (all intents) 1 in 89
Suicide 1 in 91
Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 93
Fall 1 in 98
Pedestrian incident 1 in 485
Motorcyclist 1 in 747
Drowning 1 in 1,006
Choking on food 1 in 2,659
Bicyclist 1 in 3,546
Sunstroke 1 in 4,655

The evidence is surely in. With death by falling 35 times more likely than by cycling, surely helmets should be required whenever anyone is at risk of falling, for instance any time when walking, lying in an elevated position (for instance, bed) or sitting in a chair.

[warthog1]

The ability to interpret evidence clearly isn't in.

[MichaelB]

Dear Mr BtB,

From what I have seen, there seems to be an overwhelming recurrence of trying to link various other lifer tasks involving humans and their death rate where there is no mandatory requirement for any such safety devices (such as helmets, gloves, training etc) and comparing that to cycling rules in Australia.

I, and many others get it. It’s done, dusted and proven beyond a doubt on this forum, if not everywhere else the injustice (even though in the area you reside in has lax enforcement coupled with low monetary imposition) that Aussie MHL’s encroach on many people’s liberties and decision making capability to choose their own fate.

Got it.

We also all agree that helmets for bicycles are not designed to reduce the impact of being run over by a car, projected into solid barriers at excessive speed or protect those that ride ‘furiously and dangerously’ just because they are wearing a helmet.

They DO protect the head somewhat/lots (take you preferred wording pending your own understanding of consequence and likelihood) from making a potentially fatal/serious head strike on the ground, in the rare event of a fall, a lesser injury.

The fact that the legislation is still in place means that whomever has tried to convince any of the Australian authorities in charge and capable of making a change has not been successful.

So that really means those that are against MHL need to do something different if they REALLY want change. I’m not one of those (if that wasn’t already understood).

Q.E.D.

[BobtheBuilder]

Dear Mr BtB,

From what I have seen, there seems to be an overwhelming recurrence of trying to link various other lifer tasks involving humans and their death rate where there is no mandatory requirement for any such safety devices (such as helmets, gloves, training etc) and comparing that to cycling rules in Australia.

I, and many others get it. It’s done, dusted and proven beyond a doubt on this forum, if not everywhere else the injustice (even though in the area you reside in has lax enforcement coupled with low monetary imposition) that Aussie MHL’s encroach on many people’s liberties and decision making capability to choose their own fate.

Got it.

We also all agree that helmets for bicycles are not designed to reduce the impact of being run over by a car, projected into solid barriers at excessive speed or protect those that ride ‘furiously and dangerously’ just because they are wearing a helmet.

They DO protect the head somewhat/lots (take you preferred wording pending your own understanding of consequence and likelihood) from making a potentially fatal/serious head strike on the ground, in the rare event of a fall, a lesser injury.

The fact that the legislation is still in place means that whomever has tried to convince any of the Australian authorities in charge and capable of making a change has not been successful.

So that really means those that are against MHL need to do something different if they REALLY want change. I’m not one of those (if that wasn’t already understood).

Q.E.D.

Great. Glad to hear it. I was still under the impression that many people on this forum thought that cycling was a uniquely risky activity for which helmets were to be recommended (if not mandated).
I have no issue with my liberty being curtailed, if it makes sense (car seat belts, laws against murder, mandated building codes and so on). The primary issues are with the stupidity of mandating helmets and the public health effects of this.

But, as spokesperson for the naysayers, I expect you to correct anyone who wants to jump up and down and insist how risky cycling is. I still believe there are a few of those here.

But, at a minimum, I'm glad we can all agree that mandatory helmet laws are stupid.

I understand that many don't feel at all strongly about this or may feel that they can't be changed or that they don't want to do anything practical about it.

That's fine. Maybe this isn't the place for you.

If we could move on from arguing about risk and compulsion and get on with proposing ways forward to change the law, that would be most welcome.

Again, if this doesn't interest you, maybe just participate in forums that do. And let those of us who are passionate about this have some space to move productively forward.

[fat and old]

Great. Glad to hear it. I was still under the impression that many people on this forum thought that cycling was a uniquely risky activity for which helmets were to be recommended (if not mandated).


But, as spokesperson for the naysayers, I expect you to correct anyone who wants to jump up and down and insist how risky cycling is. I still believe there are a few of those here.

And there is the problem. At no point has MichaelB addressed the "risk" in cycling. Not once. Yet you co-opt his post in order to reaffirm your personal beliefs and assertions.

I'm not gonna bother arguing the risk factor. Every government at every level in every developed country in the world, along with every Cycling Lobby group recognises there are risks in Cycling.

Why have the Dutch seperated Cyclists and Motor Vehicles again?

[BobtheBuilder]

Great. Glad to hear it. I was still under the impression that many people on this forum thought that cycling was a uniquely risky activity for which helmets were to be recommended (if not mandated).


But, as spokesperson for the naysayers, I expect you to correct anyone who wants to jump up and down and insist how risky cycling is. I still believe there are a few of those here.

And there is the problem. At no point has MichaelB addressed the "risk" in cycling. Not once. Yet you co-opt his post in order to reaffirm your personal beliefs and assertions.

I'm not gonna bother arguing the risk factor. Every government at every level in every developed country in the world, along with every Cycling Lobby group recognises there are risks in Cycling.

Why have the Dutch seperated Cyclists and Motor Vehicles again?

And this is why we can't move on to actually discussing strategies to do something about MHLs ...

[baabaa]

If we could move on from arguing about risk and compulsion and get on with proposing ways forward to change the law, that would be most welcome.

And this is why we can't move on to actually discussing strategies to do something about MHLs ...

My daughter is what could be called a utility biker. She was knocked off her bike after leaving her local swimming pool a month back. (Which is so, so close to that big place in Canberra that they have been known do some sorts of national legislation stuff that you can even see the big flag waving in the breeze from this spot)

Her back wheel was clipped while poking along crossing a zebra crossing by a mid 40s well spoken person driving a nice flash car. This driver stopped just long enough to shout out the wounded passenger side window "Are you okay?" She was so shocked by this question that she said “Yes” even while her bike was clearly flung off the road and she was left spread out after hitting the gutter hard enough to give her back very bad bruising.

The driver then just drove off without a word like sorry or even getting out of the car to check on her. BUT the person behind this driver did get out of her car and to help her back on her feet and asked three times if she was okay and then did she need help getting home (which is just a few blocks away).

The point of this is that she has finished studying law as a second degree, so I guess she is not a fool and at that time was just taking a break from doing her “Practical Legal Training” study so went by bike for a swim but even she said.... “Yes” and not..... “No I bloody well am not okay!!” While she is now back on the bike, she was so embarrassed about not making a fuss at the time and even worse by saying "Yes" that even as someone who knows a bit about the current laws she could not tell me this for weeks after.
The last point is she hit her head hardish and no change in the law can help prevent that. She was not using a helmet then and has not done so for several years now but has now started to use one for each and every ride.

So the short story is, you do seem out of touch Bob with what is really happening.
Sure talk around car helmets if you wish but the recent (note - VERY RECENT) Monash and Portland reports on the % of biking use with helmets in Portland and possible (very low) negative helmet influence have on bike use in Aust does confirm this. Look at Japan and why they have introduced loose laws while they start to ramp up better bike infra.

Re biking data in Albury – like others who have had biking incidents with or without a vehicle, unless you go to the hospital, my daughter did not report this incident, so where would your anti MHL spin data be on this?
Build that and like several places in NSW alone the need and or want to police laws then changes – it has been happening for a while now and have seen it first hand in Manly. Albury/ Wodonga has a shortish history of building bike infra and a community has grown from this. No laws needed to be addressed as the bike infra has and is changing the function of policing the laws.

If indeed you do care, come down and really see for yourself how better biking starts from the communities and not via laws. Again read the Monash report and maybe talk to them about the next stages. Sure see how bike infra in NSW, the ACT and Vic has helped build a safer biking community and then even ask around about MHL, but in my circles they are rarely, if indeed ever discussed. People do wish to see some laws around biking change and these are more about liability, but that can be helped with more empathy than simple legislation.

While the discussion could be done in good faith and even with some levers of fun, it is now just twaddle and obsolete. Quite frankly team anti MHL here is so much like dealing with the anti vax crowd with endless blustering about how MHL did this or no MHL may have done that blether.

I have seen biking improve from building a community but asking people to now engage here needs both sides to do so which I cant see happening. Just like my words here, another waste of time and find myself why I even bothered.

[BobtheBuilder]

[...]
While the discussion could be done in good faith and even with some levers of fun, it is now just twaddle and obsolete. Quite frankly team anti MHL here is so much like dealing with the anti vax crowd with endless blustering about how MHL did this or no MHL may have done that blether.

I have seen biking improve from building a community but asking people to now engage here needs both sides to do so which I cant see happening. Just like my words here, another waste of time and find myself why I even bothered.

And this is why we can't move on to actually discussing strategies to do something about MHLs ...

[fat and old]

And this is why we can't move on to actually discussing strategies to do something about MHLs ...

Then do something about it Bob. At least stay on topic. Helmets for bicycles. Look back at the stops and starts in this thread.

25 April after 18 day break

Another article on the case for car helmets.

Just a heads-up - the case for car helmets is usually a tongue-in-cheek appeal for rationality and consistency ... not an actual appeal for car helmets to be made mandatory. Rather to illustrate how irrational mandatory bike helmet laws are.

Cars?

March 13, after a 40 day break

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/cyc ... 5co8i.html

Just wondering if this reflects people's experience.

I haven't regularly cycled in south-eastern Australia for 20 years, when my bike was my primary means of transport in inner Sydney (and for a brief period was a CBD bike courier).

I now live in regional NT where we probably have the most considerate drivers in Australia. A close pass here is a car width and that is almost invariably interstate drivers. Usually people will almost or fully cross into the oncoming lane, waiting patiently if there is an approaching car which would prevent that.

If it really is this bad, it's a pity the authorities aren't tackling this sort of risk rather than aggressively pursuing the chimera of helmet safety.

Road Safety

FEB 1 after a 6 day break

Only anecdotal...but I saw a great example of cycling taking the place of car trips due to no helmet laws today. Working up in industrial Craigieburn, I noticed an absolute motza of Sikhs riding to and fro from what I assume must be a temple or community centre. Not 5, or 10, or 20. well over 40, and that was what I noticed when facing the footpath while working. Mostly blokes, but a fair few women as well (all the women I saw had helmets on and were accompanying men). Given the location, I'd lay odds that every one of those riders replaced a car trip.

Bicycle Helmets

Jan 21 after a 24 day break

Seattle Times (Feb. 17, 2022 ) reported
King County repeals mandatory bicycle helmet law
“Helmets save lives, full stop. But the disproportional enforcement of the requirement gives us concern” about how it affects people who are homeless and communities of color, McDermott said before the vote.
Slate has a recent article on the topic with a US perspective The Cult of Bike Helmets

Bicycle Helmets

Dec 22 after a 30 day break

Well it isn't just Australia that it'll be Mandatory to wear Helmets, it looks as though in April 2023, it will be Mandatory to wear Helmets in Japan, not just certain prefectures but all of Japan.
They've recorded a quite high bicycle accident rates during the past 4 years from 2017 to 2021, 2,145 cyclists were killed with around 60% from fatal head injuries.

Bicycle Helmets

I ain't going back any further, the pattern is established.

Edit. I did

I did as I remembered there was a long break at one stage, like 18 months or so. I wondered who resurrected this and why?

Aug. 12, 2022 after almost 21 months.

This thread has been inactive recently, but thought I'd share this thing from Dorothy Robinson which neatly sums up the arguments against MHL.

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2034.pdf

Maybe a bit misguided using a non peer reviewed paper when you seem to be all about the peers, but hey. On topic. And derailed pretty quick due to the use of the non peer reviewed paper until the adults came along. Which lasted a few pages then went downhill again. Which I contributed to.

I won't contribute in a negative way anymore Bob. You can have the helmet thread to spread any information any way you see fit. Just do me the courtesy of remembering what I've been saying since 2014 or so.

I am anti MHL.

[MichaelB]

….

But, at a minimum, I'm glad we can all agree that mandatory helmet laws are stupid.

Ummm, no. I NEVER said that.

And I also don’t agree that MHL is the only thing that stops people from riding bicycles.

And if this forum isn’t for you because some people disagree with your view, then maybe this isn’t the forum for you ?

[MichaelB]

Great. Glad to hear it. I was still under the impression that many people on this forum thought that cycling was a uniquely risky activity for which helmets were to be recommended (if not mandated).


But, as spokesperson for the naysayers, I expect you to correct anyone who wants to jump up and down and insist how risky cycling is. I still believe there are a few of those here.

And there is the problem. At no point has MichaelB addressed the "risk" in cycling. Not once. Yet you co-opt his post in order to reaffirm your personal beliefs and assertions.

I'm not gonna bother arguing the risk factor. Every government at every level in every developed country in the world, along with every Cycling Lobby group recognises there are risks in Cycling.

Why have the Dutch seperated Cyclists and Motor Vehicles again?

And this is why we can't move on to actually discussing strategies to do something about MHLs ...

So what is YOUR strategy for doing something ?

[BobtheBuilder]

….

But, at a minimum, I'm glad we can all agree that mandatory helmet laws are stupid.

Ummm, no. I NEVER said that.

And I also don’t agree that MHL is the only thing that stops people from riding bicycles.

And if this forum isn’t for you because some people disagree with your view, then maybe this isn’t the forum for you ?

I, and many others get it. It’s done, dusted and proven beyond a doubt on this forum, if not everywhere else the injustice (even though in the area you reside in has lax enforcement coupled with low monetary imposition) that Aussie MHL’s encroach on many people’s liberties and decision making capability to choose their own fate.

Got it.

[BobtheBuilder]

And there is the problem. At no point has MichaelB addressed the "risk" in cycling. Not once. Yet you co-opt his post in order to reaffirm your personal beliefs and assertions.

I'm not gonna bother arguing the risk factor. Every government at every level in every developed country in the world, along with every Cycling Lobby group recognises there are risks in Cycling.

Why have the Dutch seperated Cyclists and Motor Vehicles again?

And this is why we can't move on to actually discussing strategies to do something about MHLs ...

So what is YOUR strategy for doing something ?

I would follow the Dutch example and organise mass civil disobedience. Which I have participated in, up to the point of being arrested many times.

Unfortunately, we are at a phase in Australian political history where we have an almost uniquely de-politicised society, so the idea of political action is seen by many as anathema.

And, because most people in Australia still drink the MHL Kool-aid, discussion and changing minds is important.

Step 1 - education
Step 2 - politicisation
Step 3 - action

What's your strategy?

Or are you just here to say it's all too hard?

[MichaelB]

….

But, at a minimum, I'm glad we can all agree that mandatory helmet laws are stupid.

Ummm, no. I NEVER said that.

And I also don’t agree that MHL is the only thing that stops people from riding bicycles.

And if this forum isn’t for you because some people disagree with your view, then maybe this isn’t the forum for you ?

I, and many others get it. It’s done, dusted and proven beyond a doubt on this forum, if not everywhere else the injustice (even though in the area you reside in has lax enforcement coupled with low monetary imposition) that Aussie MHL’s encroach on many people’s liberties and decision making capability to choose their own fate.

Got it.

[MichaelB]

And this is why we can't move on to actually discussing strategies to do something about MHLs ...

So what is YOUR strategy for doing something ?

I would follow the Dutch example and organise mass civil disobedience. Which I have participated in, up to the point of being arrested many times.

Unfortunately, we are at a phase in Australian political history where we have an almost uniquely de-politicised society, so the idea of political action is seen by many as anathema.

And, because most people in Australia still drink the MHL Kool-aid, discussion and changing minds is important.

Step 1 - education
Step 2 - politicisation
Step 3 - action

What's your strategy?

Or are you just here to say it's all too hard?

Nope. I’m gonna keep wearing a helmet as I believe it’s an important safety device for me and my family.

I’m not the one up in arms about it.

[Thoglette]

No breakdown of mechanism given. But only cancer is firearm-free.

NEJM says the CDC data for 2020 shows firearms overtaking motor vehicles as the leading cause of death for children and adolescents (1 to 19) in the USA

Noting that this was a COVID year this may not be permanent

[fat and old]

No breakdown of mechanism given. But only cancer is firearm-free.

NEJM says the CDC data for 2020 shows firearms overtaking motor vehicles as the leading cause of death for children and adolescents (1 to 19) in the USA

Noting that this was a COVID year this may not be permanent

Firearms and ODs following the same trajectory

[Thoglette]

And I also don’t agree that MHL is the only thing that stops people from riding bicycles.

Nobody is claiming that it’s the ONLY THING.

However the available data (e.g. RAC 2015) all says it is a top three item, particularly amongst casual transport riders.

[Thoglette]

Firearms and ODs following the same trajectory

There’s some commentary on suicide and homocide rates in the article

[BobtheBuilder]

Nope. I’m gonna keep wearing a helmet as I believe it’s an important safety device for me and my family.

Great. You have your beliefs and I'll have my evidence.

Remind me why you're here again?

[BobtheBuilder]

Ummm, no. I NEVER said that.

I, and many others get it. It’s done, dusted and proven beyond a doubt on this forum,

[warthog1]

Nope. I’m gonna keep wearing a helmet as I believe it’s an important safety device for me and my family.

Great. You have your beliefs and I'll have my evidence.

Remind me why you're here again?

His belief is informed and supported by evidence.
In the event of a head strike the likelihood and severity of a brain injury is significantly reduced in the event of a head strike by wearing a helmet.