Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[am50em]

Cycling is part of the country’s cultural identity and 28% of journeys are made by bike. Child learners often wear helmets but adults tend to be highly resistant.

In an attempt to change this mentality, the Dutch transport ministry plans to publish guidelines next month on voluntary helmet use. Provinces such as Gelderland and Utrecht are already doing their bit, running successful discount promotions, while takeaway companies such as Just Eat now made helmets mandatory for delivery cyclists. A recent editorial in the medical journal Medisch Contact had a simple headline: “Looks good on you, that skull fracture.”

Even the Fietsersbond cyclist association is changing its tone, while stressing that there is no excuse for reckless drivers or poor infrastructure. “We have the position that helmets don’t prevent accidents but it can be a wise decision to wear one on a voluntary basis,” said its director, Esther van Garderen. “Emphasising too much that you should wear a helmet would discourage people from cycling sometimes, though, and has the air of victim-blaming. I think it’s coming slowly, although there’s no such thing as a society with zero danger and we value our culture where you can cycle safe and free.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/artic ... eaths-rise

[BobtheBuilder]

Cycling is part of the country’s cultural identity and 28% of journeys are made by bike. Child learners often wear helmets but adults tend to be highly resistant.

In an attempt to change this mentality, the Dutch transport ministry plans to publish guidelines next month on voluntary helmet use. Provinces such as Gelderland and Utrecht are already doing their bit, running successful discount promotions, while takeaway companies such as Just Eat now made helmets mandatory for delivery cyclists. A recent editorial in the medical journal Medisch Contact had a simple headline: “Looks good on you, that skull fracture.”

Even the Fietsersbond cyclist association is changing its tone, while stressing that there is no excuse for reckless drivers or poor infrastructure. “We have the position that helmets don’t prevent accidents but it can be a wise decision to wear one on a voluntary basis,” said its director, Esther van Garderen. “Emphasising too much that you should wear a helmet would discourage people from cycling sometimes, though, and has the air of victim-blaming. I think it’s coming slowly, although there’s no such thing as a society with zero danger and we value our culture where you can cycle safe and free.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/artic ... eaths-rise

"faced with rising number of traffic deaths linked in particular to older riders and e-bikes"

Elderly people who would previously ridden slowly or not at all, are now riding fast on motorised (two-wheeled) vehicles and they're having accidents. I support compulsory helmets for motorcyclists (which is what ebikes are) because, like seat belts and drink driving laws, they have a significant positive public health impact. Injury rates for the general cycling population are not changing.

Normal utility (or everyday) cycling is still pretty safe - roughly as safe as jogging and gardening and slightly less safe than sleeping in a bed (please review previous posts rather than contesting this - all this has been discussed repeatedly in the past).

[brumby33]

Here in Australia where it has been Mandatory over 20 years now with very stiff fines equalling infringements given to motorists so the Authorities can keep the Motorist lobbies on side......When Duncan Gay was the Transport Minister in NSW he pretty much tripled the fines overnight and he also ripped up a multi million dollar bicycle lane in College street Sydney as he was so anti-Cycle....not the type of bloke you want to be in a high ranking portfolio. I can't answer about other States but i understand they have similar high fines for no helmet use.

It was supposed to be although i'm still not sold on the driver behind it all whether it was the Medical Profession calling for the wearing of helmets to be Mandatory or some Pollies had shares in Helmet Companies (my initial thoughts) or what but I'm sure the Authorities basically said "well if they save one cracked skull or life in such a such time, then it's worth it"

I truly think at this stage, it'll take a miracle to get the rules and fines relaxed anytime that i have left on this Earth.
I think if you want to ride Helmet free, move or go to a regional town where the cops don't usually care or too busy to worry if you've got a helmet or not, I see many around Albury ride without Helmets without the cops hassling them, many who the cops know and probably think there's no point pulling him over and writing the fine as he'll get off it anyway...it's like so many ride on the footpath....no-one seems to give a toss!!

And that's how it should be.....most times I would elect to wear one if riding on the road but in Winter, if I should want to wear a beanie to keep my head warm, I should be able to do it without fear as it's difficult and uncomfortable to wear a helmet over a thick beanie. Many in Europe and the Cold areas in the Northern Hemisphere would never be able to wear helmets during Winter with some of the head gear they have on.

Cheers

brumby33

[BobtheBuilder]

Here in Australia where it has been Mandatory over 20 years now with very stiff fines equalling infringements given to motorists so the Authorities can keep the Motorist lobbies on side......When Duncan Gay was the Transport Minister in NSW he pretty much tripled the fines overnight and he also ripped up a multi million dollar bicycle lane in College street Sydney as he was so anti-Cycle....not the type of bloke you want to be in a high ranking portfolio. I can't answer about other States but i understand they have similar high fines for no helmet use.

It was supposed to be although i'm still not sold on the driver behind it all whether it was the Medical Profession calling for the wearing of helmets to be Mandatory or some Pollies had shares in Helmet Companies (my initial thoughts) or what but I'm sure the Authorities basically said "well if they save one cracked skull or life in such a such time, then it's worth it"

I truly think at this stage, it'll take a miracle to get the rules and fines relaxed anytime that i have left on this Earth.
I think if you want to ride Helmet free, move or go to a regional town where the cops don't usually care or too busy to worry if you've got a helmet or not, I see many around Albury ride without Helmets without the cops hassling them, many who the cops know and probably think there's no point pulling him over and writing the fine as he'll get off it anyway...it's like so many ride on the footpath....no-one seems to give a toss!!

And that's how it should be.....most times I would elect to wear one if riding on the road but in Winter, if I should want to wear a beanie to keep my head warm, I should be able to do it without fear as it's difficult and uncomfortable to wear a helmet over a thick beanie. Many in Europe and the Cold areas in the Northern Hemisphere would never be able to wear helmets during Winter with some of the head gear they have on.

Cheers

brumby33

Here in the NT it's virtually unpoliced AND adults can ride without a helmet on footpaths. In my small heavily policed remote town, almost everyone except high-risk sports cyclists ride around with a hat, not a helmet and the police don't bother enforcing the very small ($25) fine. Subjectively, I see a far greater proportion of cyclists in general, and utility cyclists as a share of the population.
And we have the highest cycling rates in the country, despite the heat and the relatively low density of housing (i.e. it's spread out) and no difference in injury rates. And this despite the motor vehicle and pedestrian road injury and death rates on the roads being much higher than nationally.

[warthog1]

Cycling is part of the country’s cultural identity and 28% of journeys are made by bike. Child learners often wear helmets but adults tend to be highly resistant.

In an attempt to change this mentality, the Dutch transport ministry plans to publish guidelines next month on voluntary helmet use. Provinces such as Gelderland and Utrecht are already doing their bit, running successful discount promotions, while takeaway companies such as Just Eat now made helmets mandatory for delivery cyclists. A recent editorial in the medical journal Medisch Contact had a simple headline: “Looks good on you, that skull fracture.”

Even the Fietsersbond cyclist association is changing its tone, while stressing that there is no excuse for reckless drivers or poor infrastructure. “We have the position that helmets don’t prevent accidents but it can be a wise decision to wear one on a voluntary basis,” said its director, Esther van Garderen. “Emphasising too much that you should wear a helmet would discourage people from cycling sometimes, though, and has the air of victim-blaming. I think it’s coming slowly, although there’s no such thing as a society with zero danger and we value our culture where you can cycle safe and free.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/artic ... eaths-rise

"faced with rising number of traffic deaths linked in particular to older riders and e-bikes"

Elderly people who would previously ridden slowly or not at all, are now riding fast on motorised (two-wheeled) vehicles and they're having accidents. I support compulsory helmets for motorcyclists (which is what ebikes are) because, like seat belts and drink driving laws, they have a significant positive public health impact. Injury rates for the general cycling population are not changing.

Normal utility (or everyday) cycling is still pretty safe - roughly as safe as jogging and gardening and slightly less safe than sleeping in a bed (please review previous posts rather than contesting this - all this has been discussed repeatedly in the past).

Round and round we go. There have been lots of studies on injury rates during common activities, like walking, gardening, cycling and so on.

Powell, K. E., Heath, G. W., Kresnow, M., Sacks, J. J., & Branche, C. M. (1998). Injury rates from walking, gardening, weightlifting, outdoor bicycling, and aerobics. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-199808000-00010

Full article available here: https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Full ... g,.10.aspx

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.

Indeed. you keep bringing up injury rates without including participation rates and age demographics.
Home gardens continue to be a key part of Australian culture, not just in growing plants in soil, but in artistic endeavours and societal ideas, customs and behaviour. Today, nearly 90% of Australians have a private domestic garden, and for many, particularly those over 50 years of age, gardening is their main form of exercise.
https://www.theconnective.co/2021/02/17 ... 20exercise.

In any case here is your response from Nov2 when you last brought it up.

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.

[BobtheBuilder]

... seriously ... ?

[warthog1]

... seriously ... ?

Absolutely

.

Normal utility (or everyday) cycling is still pretty safe - roughly as safe as jogging and gardening and slightly less safe than sleeping in a bed (please review previous posts rather than contesting this - all this has been discussed repeatedly in the past).

[BobtheBuilder]

... seriously ... ?

Absolutely

.

Normal utility (or everyday) cycling is still pretty safe - roughly as safe as jogging and gardening and slightly less safe than sleeping in a bed (please review previous posts rather than contesting this - all this has been discussed repeatedly in the past).

If there's a point, please make it.

In terms of the evidence in the helmet debate, there are two broad groups. Some pro-MHLers have changed their position after discussion here, most haven't. I haven't seen any anti-MHLers be convinced in the other direction.

The best thing - at least for those of us who'd like to progress the MHL discussion further - would be to have a new thread for people who accept the evidence against MHL (acknowledging that it's contested and others assess the evidence differently). For people who want to continue the debate on the evidence, let the same arguments go round in circles here (or, if someone has the energy, sum up both sides of the debate in a wiki to be pinned to the top of this thread or somewhere else appropriate).

[warthog1]

... seriously ... ?

Absolutely

.

Normal utility (or everyday) cycling is still pretty safe - roughly as safe as jogging and gardening and slightly less safe than sleeping in a bed (please review previous posts rather than contesting this - all this has been discussed repeatedly in the past).

If there's a point, please make it.

In terms of the evidence in the helmet debate, there are two broad groups. Some pro-MHLers have changed their position after discussion here, most haven't. I haven't seen any anti-MHLers be convinced in the other direction.

The best thing - at least for those of us who'd like to progress the MHL discussion further - would be to have a new thread for people who accept the evidence against MHL (acknowledging that it's contested and others assess the evidence differently). For people who want to continue the debate on the evidence, let the same arguments go round in circles here (or, if someone has the energy, sum up both sides of the debate in a wiki to be pinned to the top of this thread or somewhere else appropriate).

The point was made ages ago and you keep misrepresenting it. Gardening is not more dangerous than cycling if you take into account the numbers and age demographics.
The argument that cycling is completely without risk and the other argument that bicycle helmets provide no protection in the event of a headstrike has been repetitively proven to be false.
Yes it should be a choice to wear a helmet and utility cycling away from cars carries less risk. Adding falsehoods does not equal a better argument.

With respect to another thread and removing MHLs, having you misrepresent data and facts, on another thread would be a net negative to the forum. You are only active on one. Reading nonsense on another would not be a positive.
If you think discussing helmet laws on a cycling forum and doing so in such a dishonest way is a viable approach to removal of said laws we disagree there too.

[MichaelB]

...
The point was made ages ago and you keep misrepresenting it. Gardening is not more dangerous than cycling if you take into account the numbers and age demographics.
The argument that cycling is completely without risk and the other argument that bicycle helmets provide no protection in the event of a headstrike has been repetitively proven to be false.
Yes it should be a choice to wear a helmet and utility cycling away from cars carries less risk. Adding falsehoods does not equal a better argument.
...

+100

I have no issues with those that want to repeal the law or argue against it, but misreporting and misrepresenting data to suit your view is just not acceptable.

[BobtheBuilder]

Absolutely

If there's a point, please make it.

In terms of the evidence in the helmet debate, there are two broad groups. Some pro-MHLers have changed their position after discussion here, most haven't. I haven't seen any anti-MHLers be convinced in the other direction.

The best thing - at least for those of us who'd like to progress the MHL discussion further - would be to have a new thread for people who accept the evidence against MHL (acknowledging that it's contested and others assess the evidence differently). For people who want to continue the debate on the evidence, let the same arguments go round in circles here (or, if someone has the energy, sum up both sides of the debate in a wiki to be pinned to the top of this thread or somewhere else appropriate).

The point was made ages ago and you keep misrepresenting it. Gardening is not more dangerous than cycling if you take into account the numbers and age demographics.
The argument that cycling is completely without risk and the other argument that bicycle helmets provide no protection in the event of a headstrike has been repetitively proven to be false.
Yes it should be a choice to wear a helmet and utility cycling away from cars carries less risk. Adding falsehoods does not equal a better argument.

With respect to another thread and removing MHLs, having you misrepresent data and facts, on another thread would be a net negative to the forum. You are only active on one. Reading nonsense on another would not be a positive.
If you think discussing helmet laws on a cycling forum and doing so in such a dishonest way is a viable approach to removal of said laws we disagree there too.

You are unable to represent my views accurately:

* I have not said gardening is more dangerous than cycling
* I have never said cycling is completely without risk
* I have never said helmets provide no protection

This is why discussions on this topic can be so difficult, because some people try and win them by misrepresenting others. It's called a straw man argument.

Given you think it should be a choice to wear a helmet, you must agree that MHLs are no good.

Why don't you put your efforts into discussing how to repeal them, rather than nitpicking the exact reasons that they're no good?

This is another example of why this forum is so difficult to get any sensible discussion happening.

[BobtheBuilder]

+100

I have no issues with those that want to repeal the law or argue against it, but misreporting and misrepresenting data to suit your view is just not acceptable.

I assume you're basing your attack on my views based on the misrepresented views being attributed to me?

Maybe we could move past the personal attacks and, for those that actually care about repealing MHLs, doing something about them.

If you don't care much either way - why don't you go somewhere else?

[warthog1]

You are unable to represent my views accurately:

* I have not said gardening is more dangerous than cycling
* I have never said cycling is completely without risk
* I have never said helmets provide no protection

This is why discussions on this topic can be so difficult, because some people try and win them by misrepresenting others. It's called a straw man argument.

Given you think it should be a choice to wear a helmet, you must agree that MHLs are no good.

Why don't you put your efforts into discussing how to repeal them, rather than nitpicking the exact reasons that they're no good?

This is another example of why this forum is so difficult to get any sensible discussion happening.

Stop deliberately minimising the efficacy of helmets and making ridiculous comparisons of the relative risks of cycling I will stop posting corrections.

I don't support mandating helmets however I find discussion of cycling far more interesting than fixating on one issue like yourself with respect to your forum contribution.

Maybe get on social media and spread the positives of cycling and the benefits of physical activity with this form of transport vs travel by car. More people cycling is a good thing I agree.

[warthog1]

+100

I have no issues with those that want to repeal the law or argue against it, but misreporting and misrepresenting data to suit your view is just not acceptable.

I assume you're basing your attack on my views based on the misrepresented views being attributed to me?

Maybe we could move past the personal attacks and, for those that actually care about repealing MHLs, doing something about them.

If you don't care much either way - why don't you go somewhere else?

He is somewhere else on this forum, multiple places in fact, and is a valued contributor to the many aspects of cycling on the forum. If you ventured outside of this thread from time to time that would immediately be evident.

[BobtheBuilder]

+100

I have no issues with those that want to repeal the law or argue against it, but misreporting and misrepresenting data to suit your view is just not acceptable.

I assume you're basing your attack on my views based on the misrepresented views being attributed to me?

Maybe we could move past the personal attacks and, for those that actually care about repealing MHLs, doing something about them.

If you don't care much either way - why don't you go somewhere else?

He is somewhere else on this forum, multiple places in fact, and is a valued contributor to the many aspects of cycling on the forum. If you ventured outside of this thread from time to time that would immediately be evident.

Then why come here just to nitpick? I do go to other forums, but this site - like Australian cycling scene - is very MAMIL-dominated. Posts about kids cycling, tour cycling, utility cycling, etc. get very little engagement.
I'm interested in the public health aspect of cycling and hoping (despite experience) to engage with like-minded people to move the conversation forward. Engaging in nitpicking or personal vendettas because you don't agree with someone doesn't help that.

I don't agree with your views about the safety of cycling and am happy to acknowledge there are different interpretations of the evidence - but I don't make start a campaign of personal attacks or accuse you of dishonesty. And I don't accuse you of saying or believing things you don't/haven't. So, how about some respect? I'm all for vigorous debate and argy-bargy (and admit to going too far at times), but your obsession with me, and personal attacks, are going a bit far.

To be clear: I'm still somewhat sceptical about the value of helmets (I'm not sceptical about the value of motorcycle helmets) and have said why countless times, as have other people. You can choose to discount that or disagree, but it doesn't mean our point of view is valueless or 'misinformation'.
Cyclists in all jurisdictions worldwide tend to helmets when they're involved in risky cycling (mountain biking, high speed (over 25km/h) cycling, especially on busy roads), but for the rest of us who trundle around every day on our bikes as a primary form of local transport (and for the occasional multi-1000km long trip), they aren't a lot of use - or at least little more use then they would be jogging or engaging in activities with a similar risk profile in that context.
In the rare times I get my fat ar*e jogging I also don't wear a helmet, though I've tripped and fallen many more times walking and running than I have riding.

[warthog1]

I assume you're basing your attack on my views based on the misrepresented views being attributed to me?

Maybe we could move past the personal attacks and, for those that actually care about repealing MHLs, doing something about them.

If you don't care much either way - why don't you go somewhere else?

He is somewhere else on this forum, multiple places in fact, and is a valued contributor to the many aspects of cycling on the forum. If you ventured outside of this thread from time to time that would immediately be evident.

Then why come here just to nitpick? I do go to other forums, but this site - like Australian cycling scene - is very MAMIL-dominated. Posts about kids cycling, tour cycling, utility cycling, etc. get very little engagement.
I'm interested in the public health aspect of cycling and hoping (despite experience) to engage with like-minded people to move the conversation forward. Engaging in nitpicking or personal vendettas because you don't agree with someone doesn't help that.

I don't agree with your views about the safety of cycling and am happy to acknowledge there are different interpretations of the evidence - but I don't make start a campaign of personal attacks or accuse you of dishonesty. And I don't accuse you of saying or believing things you don't/haven't. So, how about some respect? I'm all for vigorous debate and argy-bargy (and admit to going too far at times), but your obsession with me, and personal attacks, are going a bit far.

To be clear: I'm still somewhat sceptical about the value of helmets (I'm not sceptical about the value of motorcycle helmets) and have said why countless times, as have other people. You can choose to discount that or disagree, but it doesn't mean our point of view is valueless or 'misinformation'.
Cyclists in all jurisdictions worldwide tend to helmets when they're involved in risky cycling (mountain biking, high speed (over 25km/h) cycling, especially on busy roads), but for the rest of us who trundle around every day on our bikes as a primary form of local transport (and for the occasional multi-1000km long trip), they aren't a lot of use - or at least little more use then they would be jogging or engaging in activities with a similar risk profile in that context.
In the rare times I get my fat ar*e jogging I also don't wear a helmet, though I've tripped and fallen many more times walking and running than I have riding.

I have no obsession with you, I just disagree with the falsehoods you post that are contrary to evidence.
Helmets definitely do work and there is risk of headstrike with cycling. Yes it is a more prevalent risk with some forms of cycling vs others.

The forum is not completely "Mamil" dominated. Several posting on this very thread do not fit that insulting characterisation and possibly find it offensive. I probably do "fit" given I am 55 and ride reasonable distances. I am used to it from popular Australian media and just characterise those who use it as not really well informed about cycling and biased against it.

[BobtheBuilder]

He is somewhere else on this forum, multiple places in fact, and is a valued contributor to the many aspects of cycling on the forum. If you ventured outside of this thread from time to time that would immediately be evident.

Then why come here just to nitpick? I do go to other forums, but this site - like Australian cycling scene - is very MAMIL-dominated. Posts about kids cycling, tour cycling, utility cycling, etc. get very little engagement.
I'm interested in the public health aspect of cycling and hoping (despite experience) to engage with like-minded people to move the conversation forward. Engaging in nitpicking or personal vendettas because you don't agree with someone doesn't help that.

I don't agree with your views about the safety of cycling and am happy to acknowledge there are different interpretations of the evidence - but I don't make start a campaign of personal attacks or accuse you of dishonesty. And I don't accuse you of saying or believing things you don't/haven't. So, how about some respect? I'm all for vigorous debate and argy-bargy (and admit to going too far at times), but your obsession with me, and personal attacks, are going a bit far.

To be clear: I'm still somewhat sceptical about the value of helmets (I'm not sceptical about the value of motorcycle helmets) and have said why countless times, as have other people. You can choose to discount that or disagree, but it doesn't mean our point of view is valueless or 'misinformation'.
Cyclists in all jurisdictions worldwide tend to helmets when they're involved in risky cycling (mountain biking, high speed (over 25km/h) cycling, especially on busy roads), but for the rest of us who trundle around every day on our bikes as a primary form of local transport (and for the occasional multi-1000km long trip), they aren't a lot of use - or at least little more use then they would be jogging or engaging in activities with a similar risk profile in that context.
In the rare times I get my fat ar*e jogging I also don't wear a helmet, though I've tripped and fallen many more times walking and running than I have riding.

I have no obsession with you, I just disagree with the falsehoods you post that are contrary to evidence.
Helmets definitely do work and there is risk of headstrike with cycling. Yes it is a more prevalent risk with some forms of cycling vs others.

The forum is not completely "Mamil" dominated. Several posting on this very thread do not fit that insulting characterisation and possibly find it offensive. I probably do "fit" given I am 55 and ride reasonable distances. I am used to it from popular Australian media and just characterise those who use it as not really well informed about cycling and biased against it.

I'm going to leave it here. You continue to mischaracterise what I say while obsessively accusing me of misinformation, posting falsehoods, etc.

Time for a Bex and a nice lie down?

[fat and old]

Have to admit, I'm with Warty and MichaelB on this in that there has been a lot of dodgy statements and whatnot posted up by the Vocal anti MHL crowd in my experience, and I find it quite difficult to stay shturm and let it slide. I think (wt? Know!) that this for some reason equates to being pro-MHL as far as the vocal antis are concerned. There seems to be an inability to separate criticism of a particular statement from a pre-conceived mind set. Either way, I reckon have at it. Leave the thread to the vocal, activist anti-MHL'ers (as opposed to the "your choice" libertarians like me). I'm genuinely interested to see what it will achieve.

Right on. People Power

[warthog1]

I'm going to leave it here. You continue to mischaracterise what I say while obsessively accusing me of misinformation, posting falsehoods, etc.

Time for a Bex and a nice lie down?

I would say ditto, no obsession, just correction. I do post elsewhere.
I'll steer clear of Bex though. Had a patient this week on renal dialysis largely attributed to his use of Bex
Mum used to say "A cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down" though.
https://www.australianpharmacist.com.au ... -lie-down/

[MichaelB]

+100

I have no issues with those that want to repeal the law or argue against it, but misreporting and misrepresenting data to suit your view is just not acceptable.

I assume you're basing your attack on my views based on the misrepresented views being attributed to me?

Maybe we could move past the personal attacks and, for those that actually care about repealing MHLs, doing something about them.

If you don't care much either way - why don't you go somewhere else?

I'm not attacking "you", more questioning the wording of your facts and interpretations.

In an earlier post, 20th June Bob, you stated

To be clear: I'm still somewhat sceptical about the value of helmets (I'm not sceptical about the value of motorcycle helmets) and have said why countless times, as have other people. You can choose to discount that or disagree, but it doesn't mean our point of view is valueless or 'misinformation'

So if your view/opinion cannot be deemed valueless or misinformation, then neither can my view/opinion also be deemed valueless or misinformation.

Have you had an accident on a bike, riding however, and had a head strike without a helmet ?

I didn't think so.

Your scepticism is an opinion, which you can hold, but is not based on fact. I have twice had an accident where the helmet was damaged, but my head was not. Nothing to do with the type of cycling I was doing or the speed. Without the helmet, there WOULD have been an injury. FACT. How much it can save a life (or not) is something that is very difficult to prove/disprove.

The thing that is often missed by the anti MHL (again, no problems with your opinion), is that an accident, when utility cycling which would incorporate a head strike, rare or not, can be debilitating, cause permanent injury or death.

As said above, a helmet may or may not prove effective. I believe that it is difficulty to prove one way or another.

[BobtheBuilder]

As said above, a helmet may or may not prove effective. I believe that it is difficulty to prove one way or another.

Science.

[DavidS]

The point was made ages ago and you keep misrepresenting it. Gardening is not more dangerous than cycling if you take into account the numbers and age demographics.
The argument that cycling is completely without risk and the other argument that bicycle helmets provide no protection in the event of a headstrike has been repetitively proven to be false.

I'm sorry but when you make statements like the above, as Bobthebuilder has pointed out, you are simply throwing up a pile of straw men. If you are surprised by the response, you shouldn't be.

Yes it should be a choice to wear a helmet and utility cycling away from cars carries less risk. Adding falsehoods does not equal a better argument.

At least you agree that helmets should be a choice.

With respect to another thread and removing MHLs, having you misrepresent data and facts, on another thread would be a net negative to the forum. You are only active on one. Reading nonsense on another would not be a positive.
If you think discussing helmet laws on a cycling forum and doing so in such a dishonest way is a viable approach to removal of said laws we disagree there too.

Pot, kettle, black?

Don't talk about misrepresenting and then misrepresent what someone else says.

MichaelB, yes, I have hit my head without a helmet on. That's life, it is not risk free. I've hit my head in other situations too, without having helmets mandated. This argument can be made for mandatory helmet laws for just about any activity where you could hit your head, or maybe we should have mandatory lifejackets within 100 metres of a body of water. There comes a time when mandated protection is too cumbersome and a step too far. In any case, prevention is far preferable and MHLs have become an excuse not to bother pursuing prevention and gives the impression cycling is way more dangerous than it really is (I have had this argument with various people in real life).

DS

[MichaelB]

Oh dear. Time to bail out again. Otherwise …

[DavidS]

Oh dear. Time to bail out again. Otherwise …

Shut the door on the way out.

DS

[warthog1]

The point was made ages ago and you keep misrepresenting it. Gardening is not more dangerous than cycling if you take into account the numbers and age demographics.
The argument that cycling is completely without risk and the other argument that bicycle helmets provide no protection in the event of a headstrike has been repetitively proven to be false.

I'm sorry but when you make statements like the above, as Bobthebuilder has pointed out, you are simply throwing up a pile of straw men. If you are surprised by the response, you shouldn't be.

Yes it should be a choice to wear a helmet and utility cycling away from cars carries less risk. Adding falsehoods does not equal a better argument.

At least you agree that helmets should be a choice.

With respect to another thread and removing MHLs, having you misrepresent data and facts, on another thread would be a net negative to the forum. You are only active on one. Reading nonsense on another would not be a positive.
If you think discussing helmet laws on a cycling forum and doing so in such a dishonest way is a viable approach to removal of said laws we disagree there too.

Pot, kettle, black?

Don't talk about misrepresenting and then misrepresent what someone else says.

MichaelB, yes, I have hit my head without a helmet on. That's life, it is not risk free. I've hit my head in other situations too, without having helmets mandated. This argument can be made for mandatory helmet laws for just about any activity where you could hit your head, or maybe we should have mandatory lifejackets within 100 metres of a body of water. There comes a time when mandated protection is too cumbersome and a step too far. In any case, prevention is far preferable and MHLs have become an excuse not to bother pursuing prevention and gives the impression cycling is way more dangerous than it really is (I have had this argument with various people in real life).

DS

Crap I am misrepresenting what Bob said. Again he made the comparison about the safety of gardening and cycling. Presumably to illustrate how safe it is. Again the statistic of how many are injured means little without including how many undertake the activity and the demographic of their age and propensity for injury or lack thereof. He then goes on to suggest not contesting it as it has been discussed already.

Not to mention the garbage about the lack of efficacy in injury prevention of bicycle helmets with respect to head strike you have both posted. Sure it may not be evident in that post but there is a significant history of it.