Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[Thoglette]

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

Where’s the population level statistics? Oh, right.

Sorry for the cycnicism but it’s well meaning medicos that got us into this mess in the first place.

[BobtheBuilder]

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

Where’s the population level statistics? Oh, right.

Sorry for the cycnicism but it’s well meaning medicos that got us into this mess in the first place.

Regardless of whether the article is "correct" or not, it is certainly a good example of the received wisdom that is so firmly entrenched in Australian public debate.
You are completely correct in pointing out a lack of any epidemiological evidence. But there's also a lack of concern for head protection for the many activities with a similar risk profile. Where is the impassioned plea for helmet wearing when jogging? When sleeping in a loft bed? When sailing!?! (I've been hit in the head many more times by a boom than when cycling (zero), despite having cycled many thousands more hours than sailing)

Helmet wearing when cycling is equated in the Australian public's mind with seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, despite the fact that there is clear, unequivocal evidence for the public health benefits of the latter two and minimal to nil for the first.

Covid demonstrated that the Australian public is well able to understand epidemiological concepts, so we have to find ways to discuss bike helmets rationally and clearly in the public sphere.

[Mr Purple]

I think some of you guys need to understand the difference between advocating MHLs, and suggesting it may be a sensible move to wear a helmet.

Probably my fault for posting it in this thread but the article I posted has two references to MHLs (just that they exist, not advocating nor criticising them), one reference to autonomy and many references to just why a helmet may well save your life.

From what I've seen the target group in that article of teenagers on e-scooters and e-bikes are exactly the sort of people that need to be wearing helmets. They're by and large inexperienced riders on high powered and rapid devices with inadequate experience and very poor decision making processes, with immature brains that may suffer the most from any potential injury.

I actually understand your arguments against MHLs and support some of them. In that I do believe there are situations where a helmet may not actually be mandatory - situations in low speed and off-road situations. But please stop this 'stay in your lane' rubbish directed at people who think helmets are actually useful and reduce your risk of injury. Because at an individual level, for a high risk level of cycling, they clearly do. If people who deal with head injuries and the lifelong consequences of head injuries say they'd prefer you do something to avoid sustaining a head injury you should probably have a good long, hard think about the reasoning and experience behind that.

There's a huge difference between someone saying the support MHLs, and someone saying they support the use of helmets. I support the use of helmets, and will continue to argue for their use, and will wear a helmet in every ride I consider necessary. Yeah, it's a little annoying the laws make me wear one when I ride my bike around the block to make sure I've installed that chain/tyre/cassette right, but I still do because that happens to be what the law says and I'd rather spend $191 on cool stuff than a fine. That doesn't mean I support MHLs for every situation.

[uart]

But there's also a lack of concern for head protection for the many activities with a similar risk profile.

It's funny you say that, as I noticed a cracking example of that quite recently. ABC (or maybe it was SBS) was running a "feel good" story about a 14 y.o. Aussie girl who was a champion skateboarder preparing for the 2024 Olympics. They were interviewing her parents as she zipped around her local skate park pulling tricks like jumps and rail grind/slides over all the obstacles.

The funny part was, they were talking to her parents about the relatively high injury risks of her chosen sport, while all the while she was skating around the park (pulling those tricks) without a helmet. (She did have elbow and knee pads btw).

What really struck me was that it was all very much a feel good story, so not the slightest complaint or concern about the lack of helmet. (As that would spoil the "you go girl!" feel good vibe of the story right.)

But can you imagine them even attempting to run a similar "feel good" story about a (hypothetically) woman who was able to ditch her car and ride to work because of the implementation of good safe paths and cycling infrastructure, and show her riding without a helmet. It would literally be impossible without an enormous amount of criticism and finger pointing, so the reality is that it couldn't happen. Yet if you look at the risk ratio of falls for those two things, it's like 100 to 1 in favour of the commuting cyclist. This story really highlighted a lot of the hypocrisy surround MHL to me.

[BobtheBuilder]

But there's also a lack of concern for head protection for the many activities with a similar risk profile.

....

But can you imagine them even attempting to run a similar "feel good" story about a (hypothetically) woman who was able to ditch her car and ride to work because of the implementation of good safe paths and cycling infrastructure, and show her riding without a helmet. It would literally be impossible without an enormous amount of criticism and finger pointing, so the reality is that it couldn't happen. Yet if you look at the risk ratio of falls for those two things, it's like 100 to 1 in favour of the commuting cyclist. This story really highlighted a lot of the hypocrisy surround MHL to me.

Yeah, totally. It's not even if you think helmets are necessary, or to what extent you think they are effective - everyone sits somewhere on a gradient on both those issues. But, wherever you sit on that gradient, it should apply to other activities with a similar risk profile.

I've ridden a bike all my life and never come anywhere near hitting my head, but I've hit my head, sometimes pretty hard, plenty of times doing other activities.

But, regardless of my, or others', anecdotal evidence (including that of medical professionals), the epidemiological evidence is clear that mandatory seat belt laws work to drastically reduce injury and that mandatory bicycle helmet laws have little to zero effect (but a big negative effect on cycling rates and broader positive public health outcomes). Yet they are conceptualised in the mind of the Australian public as being of the same order.

We know most Australians understand epidemiological concepts, so it's a matter of somehow putting the arguments out there.

[warthog1]

I think some of you guys need to understand the difference between advocating MHLs, and suggesting it may be a sensible move to wear a helmet.

A few seem intent on minimising the likelihood of a headstrike whilst riding a bicycle and concurrently minimising the extent of injury protection a helmet provides. The purpose is to make wearing a helmet whilst cycling appear pointless at all times in order to remove any rationale for mandating their use.

It would be better to point out the different usage scenarios where a head strike is far less likely and concentrate on pointing out the rationale of MHLs is unsupported for these usage scenarios.
Appears unlikely however.

The article you posted clearly pointed out the protective mechanisms and effects of helmet use in the event of a headstrike. That simply cannot be acknowledged let alone supported by some on here.
Helmets serve no purpose, therefore mandating their use is stupid, is the simpler argument it seems.

[uart]

I think some of you guys need to understand the difference between advocating MHLs, and suggesting it may be a sensible move to wear a helmet.

I think the problem is more related to the fact that many here cannot understand the negative impact of the mandatory part as compared to simple helmet advocacy. (The latter which I actually agree with.)

[warthog1]

I think some of you guys need to understand the difference between advocating MHLs, and suggesting it may be a sensible move to wear a helmet.

I think the problem is more related to the fact that many here cannot understand the negative impact of the mandatory part as compared to simple helmet advocacy. (The latter which I actually agree with.)

I think most can identify that MHLs are associated with lower cycling rates.
It is a logic fail to falsely report a lack protective efficacy in the event of a head strike as some sort of reason to protest their use however.
Yes people should be able to choose whether to use them or not, it does not follow that they serve no purpose however as is indicated by some.
Repeatedly by one who only posts in this thread.

[uart]

For me the thing that I don't like about MHL is not so much that it can decrease participation, that can recover over time, but more that it alters the cycling demographic, and I think that effect can be more long term. Generally MHL makes cycling more favourable to faster and more sportive riders (because they're all going to want to wear a helmet anyway), and a somewhat less favourable to people who might want to cycle for more everyday type of reasons, like to the shops, or to the beach, or to mates place etc. And I think that this can have an impact on how cycling friendly or unfriendly our streets become.

Yes I know it's a bit of a “chicken and egg” type situation, like the more everyday people that cycle then the more incentive for councils to improve their cycling infrastructure, and the more the infrastructure is improved then the more everyday people are likely to cycle for transport or recreation.

I notice it a lot in the more cycling friendly suburbs here in Newcastle. Little to no enforcement of MHL (though 95% still wear them), and a very diverse range of people who cycle there. Yes the occasional sportive group out for a training ride, but also a lot of people just out cruising around for whatever purpose. People riding to work, kids riding to school, that guy riding an old steely home from the beach in just his boardies, the guy on an old 26” BSO with the rear wheel so buckled that it's rubbing on both sides of the chainstays. But I'm happy to see them all, no matter what they're riding, because I know that this diverse participation is an important part of why this suburb is so cycling friendly, and why the local council there gives a toss and works hard to keep the local streets cycling friendly.

[warthog1]

Good point, yes.
I see electric assisted bicycles overcoming it to an extent, at least around here where it is hilly.
Much better if you didn't have to bung one on for every utilitarian time you just want convenient transport. It is just an added barrier that puts people off, as you say.
Yes most sports cyclists are going to wear one anyway, as would I, so that cohort is not affected as much and ends up being the most common.

[BobtheBuilder]

For me the thing that I don't like about MHL is not so much that it can decrease participation, that can recover over time, but more that it alters the cycling demographic, and I think that effect can be more long term.

.....

I notice it a lot in the more cycling friendly suburbs here in Newcastle.

Here in the NT, where MHLs are pretty much never enforced, and adults only have to wear helmets on the road (we are allowed to ride on footpaths), helmet use is minimal in utility cycling - and we have a spread of cyclists much more representative of the normal population than in most of the rest of Australia where cycling is heavily skewed to high-risk cycling.
Our overall cycling rates are far above the average. Our head injury rates are not significantly different to the rest of the country. In this context it should also be mentioned that our road trauma rates in general are far, far higher than the national average.
A good example of how a lack of (functional) MHLs lead to higher rates of cycling, particularly utility cycling, without any discernible epidemiological effects on head injury rates.

[zebee]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-02/ ... /104135502

Why some people hate cyclists

It isn't just a distaste for lycra. Some studies suggest the appearance of cyclists contributes to dehumanisation.

Urban planner and researcher at the Queensland University of Technology Mark Limb conducted a study that found 30 per cent of people considered cyclists less than fully human.

Mark Limb says images of lycra-wearing cyclists were considered among the "least human" by study participants.

The study was broken down by riders' attire, and found people wearing helmets were perceived as less human than those without, and cyclists with safety vests and no helmet were perceived as the least human.

I want to read that paper and find out the questions. I mean did they ask them if they were human? And what percentage was the helmet dislike? How well would those numbers scale and what would that mean for MHL and increasing the number of cyclists? Maybe that's what stopped people riding, some of the potential riders were in the 30%!

[Mr Purple]

I've got a better idea. How about we get the name of those 30% of people who consider cyclists less than fully human and take their driver's licences away from them?

Crazy stuff really.

[BobtheBuilder]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-02/ ... /104135502

Why some people hate cyclists

It isn't just a distaste for lycra. Some studies suggest the appearance of cyclists contributes to dehumanisation.

Urban planner and researcher at the Queensland University of Technology Mark Limb conducted a study that found 30 per cent of people considered cyclists less than fully human.

Mark Limb says images of lycra-wearing cyclists were considered among the "least human" by study participants.

The study was broken down by riders' attire, and found people wearing helmets were perceived as less human than those without, and cyclists with safety vests and no helmet were perceived as the least human.

I want to read that paper and find out the questions. I mean did they ask them if they were human? And what percentage was the helmet dislike? How well would those numbers scale and what would that mean for MHL and increasing the number of cyclists? Maybe that's what stopped people riding, some of the potential riders were in the 30%!

This is the study - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... ihub#f0010

Hadn't heard about this, but there was similar comprehensive research done in the UK a while back.

There was extensive discussion earlier in this thread about how these "externalities" - whether we accept them or not - provide further counter-evidence for the safety of helmets. If wearing one means a significant proportion of motor vehicle operators views you as less human, that is going to have very significant safety implications.

[warthog1]

Yep let's blame that all on helmets despite this;
and cyclists with safety vests and no helmet were perceived as the least human.
Be buggered if I am riding my bicycle around our driving public, a proportion of which are R soles, without a helmet on.
Away from traffic I'd be far more inclined to.

[BobtheBuilder]

Yep let's blame that all on helmets despite this;
and cyclists with safety vests and no helmet were perceived as the least human.
Be buggered if I am riding my bicycle around our driving public, a proportion of which are R soles, without a helmet on.
Away from traffic I'd be far more inclined to.

Fair point. It's a strange contrast to this statement - "Cyclists with helmets were perceived as less human compared to those without"

An interesting aspect of the study is that "72 % of our respondents riding at least weekly compared to only 12 % of the Australian population" - in other words the large majority of people with these attitudes cycle at least weekly.

If this study means anything, it would be, when around traffic, don't wear a safety vest (and if you do, wear a helmet), but most importantly, don't wear a helmet.

[warthog1]

Yep let's blame that all on helmets despite this;
and cyclists with safety vests and no helmet were perceived as the least human.
Be buggered if I am riding my bicycle around our driving public, a proportion of which are R soles, without a helmet on.
Away from traffic I'd be far more inclined to.

Fair point. It's a strange contrast to this statement - "Cyclists with helmets were perceived as less human compared to those without"

An interesting aspect of the study is that "72 % of our respondents riding at least weekly compared to only 12 % of the Australian population" - in other words the large majority of people with these attitudes cycle at least weekly.

If this study means anything, it would be, when around traffic, don't wear a safety vest (and if you do, wear a helmet), but most importantly, don't wear a helmet.

You could make a reasonable interpretation that result was a reason behind the study, amongst others, one being better cycling infrastructure.
https://road.cc/content/feature/cyclist ... vis-302071
There are a multitude of reasons our driving population may collide with a cyclist. Aggression is but one. Distraction and incompetence are 2 others. Given my experience at work dealing with road trauma those latter 2 definitely aren't on the decline.
Radar, lights and helmet will continue to be used by me as will careful route choice and timing of my rides.

[Mr Purple]

I actually reckon if you were riding without a helmet in Australia you'd get far more aggression from motorists, including more deliberate narrow passes.

This would actually be a consequence of the MHLs though. Many motorists will see you as doing something illegal so feel the need to punish you. Just like if you ran a stop sign or red light in front of them, a certain proportion of motorists feel assault or murder is an appropriate punishment; and that they're fully qualified to administer it. Judge Dredd 'I am the law' style.

Probably a decent argument against MHLs, to be honest.

[warthog1]

Probably correct amongst some motorists Mr P.
They are a small proportion around here and generally male, but yes they are there.
I am more worried about distracted drivers tbh. That is what killed Jason Lowndes here. Still more likely to kill you by accident than deliberately imo.
I am using the varia radar every ride. If there is a car approaching from behind at the same time as one from in front on the two way roads I ride, I time an incompetent weave to discourage being squeezed. It almost always works and I give a wave of thanks when they pass. (I give a wave of thanks whenever I am passed with space, which is quite often)
Much lower traffic volume here though so probably not applicable to the same extent where you are.

[bychosis]

I actually reckon if you were riding without a helmet in Australia you'd get far more aggression from motorists, including more deliberate narrow passes.

This would actually be a consequence of the MHLs though. Many motorists will see you as doing something illegal so feel the need to punish you. Just like if you ran a stop sign or red light in front of them, a certain proportion of motorists feel assault or murder is an appropriate punishment; and that they're fully qualified to administer it. Judge Dredd 'I am the law' style.

Probably a decent argument against MHLs, to be honest.

I tend to agree with that. My gut feeling is that by riding without a helmet you are equated to a criminal and potentially subject to vigilante justice.

Having said that, I don't ride a drop bar or wear skin-tight Lycra covered with 'sponsors'. I'm probably more aligned with regular Joe having a flat bar or MTB, clothes that flap in the breeze and a backpack when commuting.

[jasonc]

I actually reckon if you were riding without a helmet in Australia you'd get far more aggression from motorists, including more deliberate narrow passes.

But every beach side town and city is covered with unhelmeted cyclists. The drivers around there don't seem to be targeting them

[find_bruce]

But every beach side town and city is covered with unhelmeted cyclists. The drivers around there don't seem to be targeting them

We've always had double standards when it comes to beaches. Topless on Bondi Beach = no problem, topless in Bondi Junction = no way. Try wearing nothing but budgie smugglers down the Queen St mall & let us know how you go

[zebee]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-02/ ... /104135502



The study was broken down by riders' attire, and found people wearing helmets were perceived as less human than those without, and cyclists with safety vests and no helmet were perceived as the least human.

I want to read that paper and find out the questions. I mean did they ask them if they were human? And what percentage was the helmet dislike? How well would those numbers scale and what would that mean for MHL and increasing the number of cyclists? Maybe that's what stopped people riding, some of the potential riders were in the 30%!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... ihub#f0010 (as per BobtheBuilder

hmm...
The survey was designed to determine if types of cycling attire, specifically safety helmets that obscure the face and hair, are perceived as less human than non-cycling specific attire.

Respondents were presented with a series of randomly ordered paired photographs of cyclists wearing different attire and asked to select which photograph they felt appeared less human than the other.

Given that most issues with drivers tend to be passing so won't see eyes anyway, this seems a bit of a stretch to me.

They do note that the paired photo thing can't tell the strength of belief so that participants may really have wanted a "none of the above" but didn't have one, and no way to know if they did want it.

The numbers tend to skew "male less human"... and "people dressed in non-cycling" as more human. And no one is human in a red vest!

These results suggest the respondents’ preference was less related to obstruction of the head and hair by headwear, and more related to the presence of overt safety equipment.

They noted men were more likely to select the vest wearer as less human.

One possible explanation for this may relate to the differing levels of risk aversion commonly observed between men and women (Eckel & Grossman, 2008), whereby men’s high risk tolerance may result in them perceiving those taking more “extreme” safety mitigations, to be less human than those who do not.

Another test was
"Some people believe that people can vary in how human-like they seem. According to this view, some people seem highly evolved whereas others seem no different than lower animals. Using the image below as a guide, [enter a value for] how evolved you consider the average cyclist to be".

I have no idea how I'd answer that if the subject was say "twincab oversized ute driver" rather than cyclists. BE sorta tempting to mark them as less than human I guess, would depend a lot on the surrounding verbiage of the survey, in other words how primed I was to do anything but "all human just badly behaved ones"

This is where the "30% say less than human" comes from. They note that their scores and relationship to dehumanising actions (eg shouting at cyclists) was not replicating previous research, they got lower dehumanising numbers and no correlation to reported actions.

All I can say to all this is "more research needed"

Zebee

[warthog1]

But every beach side town and city is covered with unhelmeted cyclists. The drivers around there don't seem to be targeting them

We've always had double standards when it comes to beaches. Topless on Bondi Beach = no problem, topless in Bondi Junction = no way. Try wearing nothing but budgie smugglers down the Queen St mall & let us know how you go

[bychosis]

But every beach side town and city is covered with unhelmeted cyclists. The drivers around there don't seem to be targeting them

We've always had double standards when it comes to beaches. Topless on Bondi Beach = no problem, topless in Bondi Junction = no way. Try wearing nothing but budgie smugglers down the Queen St mall & let us know how you go

Beach side towns are a different world. Much more relaxed. Many more people around walking and cycling and not in a rush. Far less commuter/business traffic - and that's the traffic that gives the most aggro IMO.