Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[BobtheBuilder]

Yep, I consider it a fine prevention device, it is all any of my helmets have been useful for.

I think that's how many think about them. Interestingly, on another thread here, I asked a few years ago what personal safety strategies people think are most effective and in 50 posts no-one mentioned helmets.

I think people have got the relentless messaging about how vital helmets are - and, if asked directly, will say, sometimes with great vehemence, that helmets are essential safety equipment.

But if you ask neutrally about what safety equipment is most important, helmets don't come into it. (Personally, I think rear mirrors are by far the most important safety feature for on-road riding - I would never have a bike without one)

This, to me, underscores the importance of challenging the dominant public understanding in Australia about helmets being absolutely for all types of bicycling. Without that, I can't see a pathway to legislative change to MHLs.

[uart]

Yep, I consider it a fine prevention device, it is all any of my helmets have been useful for.

I'm permanently on blood thinners for a heart condition, which greatly increases the chance of a bleed on the brain in the event of a head injury, so these day my helmet is much more than a FPD for me. Having said that, though I'd mostly wear it anyway, I'm still strongly pro choice. In general I think that most people are better at making sensible choices about their own personal level of risk than many of the pro MHL crowd give them credit for.

I don't want to be forced to wear hi vis either, but I reckon lights are better anyway.

No please not mandatory. I often wear hi-viz and it does make me feel a bit safer, but I do have mixed feeling about wearing it sometimes. I'm sure that it helps protect against being taken out by someone who straight out doesn't see you, but weirdly it almost seems to make deliberate close passes (and other forms of aggression from motorists) more prevalent.

[fat and old]

This, to me, underscores the importance of challenging the dominant public understanding in Australia about helmets being absolutely for all types of bicycling. Without that, I can't see a pathway to legislative change to MHLs.

You’ve scored a perfect right there. It’s irrelevant what 10 or 20 cyclists think of MHL’s. It’s what the public at large sees and believes. They’re the votes that count. And the public at large believes that not wearing a helmet is stupid, dangerous or just illegal depending on how cyclists affect their lives.

[fat and old]

https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianNost ... QaQv3YZmEi

[brumby33]

https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianNost ... QaQv3YZmEi

There was a sentence in that lot F&O that I do agree with when one person (i won't repeat his username lol ) simply said " I don't think the law needs to change, people's attitudes do" !! I agree with that and really those who don't ride because they have to wear a Helmet, are missing out IMHO.
A lot of older folks are buying E-Bikes to get some exercise and for some social outings, they embrace the helmets because not only it may protect them during a fall but it's socially fitting in with everyone else.

If you go on an organised ride these days with a Bicycle User Group (BUG) and the like, one of the mandatory requirements if you wish to join that ride is you must have a Helmet. I see many around here who don't wear them but my way of thinking is if you ain't got a brain, you don't need a helmet.

Like everyone at first I was against them, and they looked like a weird esky lid but after many years of wearing one and having an embarrassing stack in the streets of Sydney a few years back, I did hit my head in the gutter and I then realised that I'm glad I had it on. It only really takes one whack on the head and it could be bad.
Concussion is also a bad thing that can go against you in later life.

So yeah....I still don't think it should be mandatory but people attitudes must change in regards to safety, not much good later wishing you had one on. I would wear one even if they relaxed the law.

cheers

brumby33

[Thoglette]

I see many around here who don't wear them but my way of thinking is if you ain't got a brain, you don't need a helmet.

Yet, strangely, the streets of Holland are not awash with blood, nor are the medical systems clogged with brain injuries. Despite a third of all transport being on bicycle, with not a helmet in sight.

Now, if you're going racing, training or mountain biking, or long distance touring, helmets are an "off course" addition. Because the risks are much higher.

The idea that simple cycling is so dangerous that helmets are essential for day-to-day cycling is, frankly, a fallacy that arose out of certain surgeons noting that bicycles had the same number of wheels as motorcycles, and that mandatory helmet laws for motorcycle riding significantly reduced head injuries in motorcycle accidents.

[am50em]

For the fourth year in a row, more cyclists (270; 39%) than car occupants (194; 28%) were killed in traffic. Most road deaths occur among older road users: in 2023, 375 (55%) road deaths were aged 60 or over. By contrast, children (aged 0-14) are killed in traffic relatively infrequently; 20 (3%) children were killed in 2023.

Fatality risk, the number of road deaths per kilometre travelled, is highest for powered two-wheelers. The risk for (light) moped riders and motorcyclists is about thirty times higher than the risk for car occupants. For cyclists and pedestrians, fatality risk between 2012 and 2021 was eight and six times higher, respectively, than for car occupants.

https://swov.nl/en/fact-sheet/road-deaths-netherlands

[BobtheBuilder]

I see many around here who don't wear them but my way of thinking is if you ain't got a brain, you don't need a helmet.

Yet, strangely, the streets of Holland are not awash with blood, nor are the medical systems clogged with brain injuries. Despite a third of all transport being on bicycle, with not a helmet in sight.

Now, if you're going racing, training or mountain biking, or long distance touring, helmets are an "off course" addition. Because the risks are much higher.

The idea that simple cycling is so dangerous that helmets are essential for day-to-day cycling is, frankly, a fallacy that arose out of certain surgeons noting that bicycles had the same number of wheels as motorcycles, and that mandatory helmet laws for motorcycle riding significantly reduced head injuries in motorcycle accidents.

Indeed. The outsized risk assessment that has been associated with cycling in the Australian public's mind is pretty deeply entrenched. There's always that one story ... But it's never the one about the guy who fell out of bed, banged his head and died.

I believe countering the narrative about how risky cycling is, is a key first step in getting MHLs repealed.

[brumby33]

I see many around here who don't wear them but my way of thinking is if you ain't got a brain, you don't need a helmet.

Yet, strangely, the streets of Holland are not awash with blood, nor are the medical systems clogged with brain injuries. Despite a third of all transport being on bicycle, with not a helmet in sight.

Now, if you're going racing, training or mountain biking, or long distance touring, helmets are an "off course" addition. Because the risks are much higher.

The idea that simple cycling is so dangerous that helmets are essential for day-to-day cycling is, frankly, a fallacy that arose out of certain surgeons noting that bicycles had the same number of wheels as motorcycles, and that mandatory helmet laws for motorcycle riding significantly reduced head injuries in motorcycle accidents.

Indeed. The outsized risk assessment that has been associated with cycling in the Australian public's mind is pretty deeply entrenched. There's always that one story ... But it's never the one about the guy who fell out of bed, banged his head and died.

Maybe he should've taken the V pill...stop him from rolling out of bed

But really...a person has more chance of slipping in the shower and cracking his head on the tiled floor....you can't cover every risk in life.

Things have changed a lot since the 70's, the population had exploded, a lot more motor vehicles to contend with, a lot more anger and rage on the road with media stirring people up in general, I think anything that will help to protect you in any fall on a moving vehicle like a bike, the risk of collision is a lot higher. May not be as relevant up in the NT but the population in the bigger Cities on the Eastside is tenfold.

I grew up in an area called Kotara in the City of Newcastle, I often used to ride my bike to school, to the Garden City (Westfield before it became that) where I worked back in 1976 and helmets were rarely known about, no problems, I was in my early teens so any stack i had, I was pretty much strong and agile enough to avoid hitting my head, however, 6 years ago when living in the same area as I grew up, the amount of traffic was horrific and the risk of getting hit has a lot greater so no, i would not attempt it without some head protection. It's a much different world from which we grew up in and if it means taking precautions without giving up cycling whatsoever, then it's worth it. Whether or not the law gets rescinded, I'd still choose to wear a stack hat.
What about the M7 motorway bikepath, the chances of getting caught and fined are slim but the chances of having a crash, especially with a lot of fast racing cyclists on the path around bends are realistic. 2 heads or more clashing would not be pretty.

brumby33

[Thoglette]

…so no, i would not attempt it without some head protection. It's a much different world from which we grew up in and if it means taking precautions without giving up cycling whatsoever, then it's worth it. Whether or not the law gets rescinded, I'd still choose to wear a stack hat.

That’s the point*: on the whole, people riding bicycles tend to be rather good at deciding whether/when to use a helmet. It won’t surprise you tobest that places with car-focused infrastructure and road road rules have much higher levels of (voluntary) helmet use amongst utility cyclists.

*ok, one of several points that explain the worse-than-useless outcomes from MHLs

[MichaelB]

....

Like everyone at first I was against them, and they looked like a weird esky lid but after many years of wearing one and having an embarrassing stack in the streets of Sydney a few years back, I did hit my head in the gutter and I then realised that I'm glad I had it on. It only really takes one whack on the head and it could be bad.
Concussion is also a bad thing that can go against you in later life.
....
brumby33

Cheers Brumby33 - the above is a classic example of "it rarely happens, but WHEN/IF it does, you and your family will understand the true meaning of risk.

And as BtB will argue ill the cows come home, it is rare.

ABSOLUTELY NO argument from me that it is rare, BUT, on those few occasions that an injury does result, it can be life altering, for you and your family.

It's a balance between how much you value your family vs your 'right to choose'.

[DavidS]

The irony of a larger population and more cars on the road is that the traffic moves a lot slower. Yes, there is risk, but there is risk as the occupant of a car and they don't have to wear helmets despite the fact the car occupants do, occasionally, get head injuries.

DS

[warthog1]

Airbags and a crumple zone with a large metal and plastic skin largely performs the task a helmet does.
Particularly airbags. My kids were not getting a car without side airbags.
Attended multiple collisions where airbags have been very protective.

[brumby33]

The irony of a larger population and more cars on the road is that the traffic moves a lot slower. Yes, there is risk, but there is risk as the occupant of a car and they don't have to wear helmets despite the fact the car occupants do, occasionally, get head injuries.

DS

Yeah traffic does move slower when congested but then it leads drivers in certain circumstances to do stupid things like flicking their car without warning into another lane just so they can move 1 stop further in front of the car they were behind or like what happened to me recently, riding as usual on the left side of the lane and next minute this dude in a ute hooked it left in front of me, into a servo just to cut the corner and drove out the other end of the servo because he couldn't wait an extra 15 seconds.....if car drivers can see even one car spot advantage, they're up it like a rat up a drainpipe.

[BobtheBuilder]

The irony of a larger population and more cars on the road is that the traffic moves a lot slower. Yes, there is risk, but there is risk as the occupant of a car and they don't have to wear helmets despite the fact the car occupants do, occasionally, get head injuries.

DS

I think it's also of note that pushbike helmets are actually not designed for vehicle collisions. Whatever utility they have (and people here have a wide range of opinions, from totally necessary in every situation to almost completely useless as a safety device), the manufacturers themselves don't claim they are designed to protect against car crashes. From memory, their design parameter is for falling off a bike at slower than 20 km/h (it's possible my memory is faulty). If you do want to properly protect your head you should be wearing a motorcycle helmet or similar that meets the safety standards you're after.

And as others have noted, cyclists do tend to increase their use of safety responses (including helmets) in response to risk - without it being mandated. By the same token, cyclists who are doing very low risk cycling, tend to stop that type of cycling if helmets are mandated. This is epidemiologically demonstrable. The Australian population as a whole has demonstrated, during Covid, an ability to understand epidemiological processes and comply with harsh measures when required, so I don't think we need assume people won't understand how mandatory helmet laws dampen cycling rates, and how this has a net negative public health effect.

[fat and old]

That’s the point*: on the whole, people riding bicycles tend to be rather good at deciding whether/when to use a helmet.

Agree. That is an example of accepting the risk, no?

And the oft repeated argument about helmets in cars, that's an irrelevant conclusion?

[warthog1]

Yet again one of the main protagonists seeks to downplay or reduce the efficacy of helmets on injury prevention the event of a headstrike.
Smack your head into a hard object and the evidence is well supported that the load spreading and cushioning provided is effective in injury reduction.

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

A meta-analysis has been conducted of the effects of bicycle helmets on serious head injury and other injuries among crash involved cyclists. 179 effect estimates from 55 studies from 1989-2017 are included in the meta-analysis. The use of bicycle helmets was found to reduce head injury by 48%, serious head injury by 60%, traumatic brain injury by 53%, face injury by 23%, and the total number of killed or seriously injured cyclists by 34%. Bicycle helmets were not found to have any statistically significant effect on cervical spine injury. There is no indication that the results from bicycle helmet studies are affected by a lack of control for confounding variables, time trend bias or publication bias. The results do not indicate that bicycle helmet effects are different between adult cyclists and children.

Most do understand that it is preferable to wear one in the event of a headstrike.
The argument should be about choice, not efficacy.
Deliberately under reporting efficacy seeks to make the wearing of one seem unnecessary in all circumstances and therefore the mandatory nature of the law more ridiculous than it is.

[Thoglette]

...
Most do understand that it is preferable to wear one in the event of a headstrike.
The argument should be about choice, not efficacy.
Deliberately under reporting efficacy seeks to make the wearing of one seem unnecessary in all circumstances and therefore the mandatory nature of the law more ridiculous than it is.

Warty, I'm missing something here: the first two sentences make sense, where does the "under reporting efficacy" come in?

[warthog1]

...
Most do understand that it is preferable to wear one in the event of a headstrike.
The argument should be about choice, not efficacy.
Deliberately under reporting efficacy seeks to make the wearing of one seem unnecessary in all circumstances and therefore the mandatory nature of the law more ridiculous than it is.

Warty, I'm missing something here: the first two sentences make sense, where does the "under reporting efficacy" come in?

20kmh
Not designed for collisions with cars.

They are designed to protect against head strike which can occur from many causes.
Indeed I have crashed and had head strike at over 40kmh.
Bloody glad I had one on.

[BobtheBuilder]

...
Most do understand that it is preferable to wear one in the event of a headstrike.
The argument should be about choice, not efficacy.
Deliberately under reporting efficacy seeks to make the wearing of one seem unnecessary in all circumstances and therefore the mandatory nature of the law more ridiculous than it is.

Warty, I'm missing something here: the first two sentences make sense, where does the "under reporting efficacy" come in?

Thoglette, if we accept that people have a range of opinions on the efficacy of helmets for individual protection, then to the degree they accept this, we must accept helmets have a similar protective value for activities with a similar risk profile for head injury. The evidence is that, at a population level increased helmet wearing has resulted in little to no decrease in percentage head injury (depending on your interpretation of the evidence). This is in start contrast to public health measures like mandatory seat belts or motorcycle helmets, with which MHL is often compared.

As the Australian public demonstrated during Covid, most of us have a decent understanding of epidemiology and concepts of collective action. If it was clearly explained that MHLs have had minimal to no impact on head injury rates, but a large dampening effect on cycling rates, I believe many people would revisit their assumptions about the value of MHLs. This would be particularly so if the public health impact of these lowered rates was explained and how this impact is greater than the impact of increased helmet wearing, even with the most generous assumptions - in other words, MHLs are a net public health disbenefit.

Given the bias in the Australian polity to collective action, and against individual liberties that impinge on the collective good (a contrast between Cooker-infested USA and Australia during Covid is illustrative of this), I would caution against using the individual choice argument to argue against MHLs, at least as a primary argument. I would strongly oppose personal choice in motor vehicle seat belts, as would most Australians, I suspect - the issue at the moment is that many people put MHLs and mandatory seat belts in the same category.

[warthog1]

Regardless of the law, in the event of head strike with a hard object, the evidence is incontrovertible that helmets do protect against injury.

The likelihood of head strike is far different for different forms of cycling.

That is the issue.
Not the protective efficacy of bicycle helmets.

Some people need to learn to stop conflating the two separate issues.

[CmdrBiggles]

Regardless of the law, in the event of head strike with a hard object, the evidence is incontrovertible that helmets do protect against injury.

Only if the helmet is correctly fitted, and there we have a problem!

And it is splitting hairs that a helmet will protect against any and all impacts. The reason is plain.

If the helmet is lose or rolling around the head like a proverbial puddin' bowl, its protection qualities are essentially compromised and it may well fail to do what it was intended to. Rosebank proved this when they were designing their Stackhat, such that once fitted properly, it could not be tilted either down nor back (similar to today's POC helmets). Compare that to the equally ancient (by today's standards!) Guardian helmets: if not fitted tightly, they would easily tilt forward, back or to the side (same with Bell helmets).

Unfortunately, the vast majority of recreational cyclists have not taken the time to fit a helmet correctly — to themselves, their children...even those in baby carriers on the back of bikes.

[zebee]

If the helmet is mandatory then it's a required nuisance not an important bit of gear. If the helmet is chosen then more care will be taken.

Motorcycle helmet fitting is easier given the shape. Those who go for the minimalist skullcap lids often seem to have them loose as well but that might be that they are hard to make stable.

[warthog1]

Regardless of the law, in the event of head strike with a hard object, the evidence is incontrovertible that helmets do protect against injury.

Only if the helmet is correctly fitted, and there we have a problem!

And it is splitting hairs that a helmet will protect against any and all impacts. The reason is plain.

If the helmet is lose or rolling around the head like a proverbial puddin' bowl, its protection qualities are essentially compromised and it may well fail to do what it was intended to. Rosebank proved this when they were designing their Stackhat, such that once fitted properly, it could not be tilted either down nor back (similar to today's POC helmets). Compare that to the equally ancient (by today's standards!) Guardian helmets: if not fitted tightly, they would easily tilt forward, back or to the side (same with Bell helmets).

Unfortunately, the vast majority of recreational cyclists have not taken the time to fit a helmet correctly — to themselves, their children...even those in baby carriers on the back of bikes.

There is no cure for stupidity and it will never be eliminated entirely.

[Mr Purple]

Good article from a medic and friend of mine, now working in general practice.