Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[Mr Purple]

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

The unhelmeted ones are normally kids/beachy types using their bikes/e-bikes as actual transport. I'd imagine the standard motorist would see that and understand it.

They see us in our lycra and carbon fibre bikes riding up hills for fun and simply can't comprehend that. I think that's part of the reason they see us as 'less than human'. Try doing that without a helmet and I think some would mark you as a target.

Makes no sense at all until you consider how much exercise most people do on a regular basis. 'Close to zero' is uncomfortably true.

[fat and old]

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

The unhelmeted ones are normally kids/beachy types using their bikes/e-bikes as actual transport. I'd imagine the standard motorist would see that and understand it.

They see us in our lycra and carbon fibre bikes riding up hills for fun and simply can't comprehend that. I think that's part of the reason they see us as 'less than human'. Try doing that without a helmet and I think some would mark you as a target.

Makes no sense at all until you consider how much exercise most people do on a regular basis. 'Close to zero' is uncomfortably true.

I've long believed that this sort of answer goes almost all the way, then fails dismally. And this is not in any way directed at you Mr P. Have seen variations of this for many many years, on many forms of social and "serious" media.

The first part.....

kids/beachy types using their bikes/e-bikes as actual transport. I'd imagine the standard motorist would see that and understand it.

I believe is spot on.

The second part...

They see us in our lycra and carbon fibre bikes riding up hills for fun and simply can't comprehend that.

Is where I think it fails. I believe that they can comprehend that and are pizzed off by it because roads are for getting places, not playing on your bike. I honestly believe based on years of discussions with relatives, friends, workplace acquaintances and employees that the bulk of drivers see us as a nuisance that doesn't belong on roads because we are playing on them. Want to get exercise? Go to a gym. On a bike? Use the bike path. No bike path near your front door? Drive there and take your bike out and ride. Ever notice you get less aggravation or issues on local roads, neighborhood areas? To most people bicycles are toys, not serious forms of transport except for the strange few.

This is where Bob and Thoglette win the helmet debate.

[Mr Purple]

Yeah, fair call. I'm not 100% sure of the psychology behind it, but I do know some drivers just don't understand us. And the more lycra, the more helmet you're wearing the less likely they are to give quarter.

There's probably a mix, to be honest. I quite regularly have drivers come up behind me when I'm waiting at an uphill traffic light despite there being a whole empty lane next to me. Who then get upset when I don't accelerate uphill as fast as a car. I'm pretty sure those drivers haven't ridden a bicycle for a very long time...

Mind you from what I've seen on the BVRT facebook group there's also a certain percentage of pedestrians who get upset at 'lycra clad speed demons' on their wide, largely empty, off road trail. So it may not be a road only thing. As one reply I saw recently went 'if we're not allowed to ride quickly on a dirt road in the middle of nowhere, where are we?'

[g-boaf]

I believe that they can comprehend that and are pizzed off by it because roads are for getting places, not playing on your bike.

Yet we have to suffer those folks "playing" with their cars on the roads going back and forwards late at night not doing anything particularly useful.

The argument against bicycles can be flipped around as well.

[fat and old]

I believe that they can comprehend that and are pizzed off by it because roads are for getting places, not playing on your bike.

Yet we have to suffer those folks "playing" with their cars on the roads going back and forwards late at night not doing anything particularly useful.

The argument against bicycles can be flipped around as well.

Absolutely. Most people will agree with you too. I do. And you can break that down further by looking at the various types of road use. Look at the popular car run groups that will meet a place like a large servo carpark or the local maccas carpark before a cruise....two popular venues from what I've seen.

Old blokes with '40, '50 and '60's cruisers and rods. Almost universally accepted and cars admired

Younger blokes with later model muscle cars, predominately Fords and Holdens. Accepted by their peers, older revheads. Disdained by all others but with some wishful car envy. Seen as a menace on the roads

Younger Asians with their hotted up Drifters, Mercs and Beemers. Disdained by almost everyone else....but cars envied by their peers. Seen as a curiosity on the roads

4wd groups. Curiosity. Equal disdain and admiration. Extreme offroaders menace on the roads.

The big difference between them and bicycles? They can keep up, and it's not as easy to squash them. Never discount fear of consequences when it comes to politeness on the road. Ever seen a large group of patched club members bullied for taking up an entire lane?

[fat and old]

Mind you from what I've seen on the BVRT facebook group there's also a certain percentage of pedestrians who get upset at 'lycra clad speed demons' on their wide, largely empty, off road trail. So it may not be a road only thing. As one reply I saw recently went 'if we're not allowed to ride quickly on a dirt road in the middle of nowhere, where are we?'

Yeah, that's just basic selfishness coated with a veneer of "safety". Get cyclists and horsie riders on the same path, watch the fireworks.

Or cyclists and PMD users.

Or cars and cyclists.

Or Doctors and smokers

[Mr Purple]

Yeah, that's just basic selfishness coated with a veneer of "safety". Get cyclists and horsie riders on the same path, watch the fireworks.

Or cyclists and PMD users.

Or cars and cyclists.

Or Doctors and smokers

I suspected as such. When asked to provide an example of when a 'lycra clad hooligan' actually endangered them there is the sound of crickets. Because us lycra clad riders know to give pedestrians and everyone else a very wide berth, and we know how much crashing hurts.

Smoking though, that kills people!

[g-boaf]

Yeah, that's just basic selfishness coated with a veneer of "safety". Get cyclists and horsie riders on the same path, watch the fireworks.

Or cyclists and PMD users.

Or cars and cyclists.

Or Doctors and smokers

I suspected as such. When asked to provide an example of when a 'lycra clad hooligan' actually endangered them there is the sound of crickets. Because us lycra clad riders know to give pedestrians and everyone else a very wide berth, and we know how much crashing hurts.

Smoking though, that kills people!

But the moment you say that, a whole crowd of flacks comes along whining about "leftie commie socialist thought control Police taking away our freedoms, the country is getting worse than North Korea, etc"

Yeah, like stopping people from doing something that is going to kill them is some horrific bad thing. Oh yeah, if they think it's so bad, let them live in North Korea.

[zebee]

The big difference between them and bicycles? They can keep up, and it's not as easy to squash them. Never discount fear of consequences when it comes to politeness on the road. Ever seen a large group of patched club members bullied for taking up an entire lane?

Doesn't have to be a large group. Many years ago I owned a full on Honda chopper: 6" over forks, coffin tank, 19" narrow front wheel, 16" wide rear, apehangers, sissybar, the lot.

That thing got heaps of respect on the road. No one would tailgate it, and any passing was done well over to the other side of the road. Wouldn't even come up to the next lane at the lights but hang back!

OK, I did have a shorty matt black helmet and a denim vest with a winged design because of course I did! But even so, short female me got all that respect because of that bike.

[jasonc]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-22/ ... /104416454

Do helmets prevent concussions?

The short answer, according to brain injury specialists, is no.

This is because helmets don't lessen the energy transferred to the brain. Instead, they help prevent "cauliflower ears" and superficial lacerations.

[BobtheBuilder]

Do helmets prevent concussions?

The short answer, according to brain injury specialists, is no.

Oh no, not this again ... !

Don't you know I once met a doctor who said helmets save lives and I should be ashamed of myself for not wearing one?

And also all the people who completely deny risk compensation (feeling more protected, so behaving more riskily - or "Dr Cohen agrees and notes that hard helmets and soft headgear can also change playing behaviour.") is a thing. Just deny it.

[jasonc]

Do helmets prevent concussions?

The short answer, according to brain injury specialists, is no.

Oh no, not this again ... !

yeah. i didn't want to post it, but it's relevant

[P!N20]

but it's relevant

Is it? The article seems to be focused on young people in team sports.

[warthog1]

but it's relevant

Is it? The article seems to be focused on young people in team sports.

Bingo.

[MichaelB]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-22/ ... /104416454

Do helmets prevent concussions?

The short answer, according to brain injury specialists, is no.

This is because helmets don't lessen the energy transferred to the brain. Instead, they help prevent "cauliflower ears" and superficial lacerations.

It may not lessen it, but it certainly is FAR better than nothing.

SOME absorption by the helmet and linings is better than nothing.

[sigh] We've been around this loop many times ....

[warthog1]

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%.

Yes a never ending feedback loop.

[Thoglette]

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%.

Yes a never ending feedback loop.

Thanks for posting. I’m expecting more of the same but will have a look.

Still not to expecting to find any link between MHLs and health outcomes in it.

Despite a quarter of a century, plenty of funding and some pretty keen (in both senses of the word) minds working on it.

[warthog1]

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%.

Yes a never ending feedback loop.

Thanks for posting. I’m expecting more of the same but will have a look.

Still not to expecting to find any link between MHLs and health outcomes in it.

Despite a quarter of a century, plenty of funding and some pretty keen (in both senses of the word) minds working on it.

I have posted it multiple times.
I don't agree with MHLs either. Also said that multiple times.
The concept that covering your head with an object that speads the load and provides some cushioning will not provide any protection from injury is counter intuitive and unsupported by evidence. Yet it keeps repeating on here.

[brumby33]

A bike helmet is only an aid that will reduce a whack on the head be it with the ground, a car bonnet or even another head in a head-on, it may not stop concussion but it will mostly probably prevent the severity of a hit.
Your head is such an important part of your body, if it gets severely damaged, you could be as good as a vegetable.

Nobody wants to be over regulated and Australia is seen as very much a Nanny State/Country whatever......sometimes that could be a good thing and it's not un-noticed internationally.

I would rather wear a helmet than to risk a severe whack to the noggin and suffer some degree of brain damage. Don't forget your brain is rattling around loose up there, being bounced from side to side inside your skull....you certainly don't want to disconnect that Computer mass up there.....

In 2024, there's umpteen times more chances to come to grief on a bicycle then it was in the mid 70's, people in cars didn't have as many distractions and were actually much better drivers and cars slower off the mark, there were no mobile phones and stuff back then, probably only am radio. There's also more cyclists around, more people walking dogs around everything today in it's multiples.....more chances of being in a bad accident....so yeah.....manadatory or not, I'll wear the skid lid!!

[BobtheBuilder]

but it's relevant

Is it? The article seems to be focused on young people in team sports.

Yeah, there is a world of difference between the protective effect of a helmet on a young person playing team sports versus the protective effect on an adult riding a bicycle.

[BobtheBuilder]

Do helmets prevent concussions?

The short answer, according to brain injury specialists, is no.

Oh no, not this again ... !

yeah. i didn't want to post it, but it's relevant

Ha ha, nah, you're good.

The vigorous denials that this is relevant were expected and they've come.

I find this issue interesting because regardless of the actual individual protective effect of the helmet, there are so many other public health reasons to vigorously oppose mandatory helmet laws. And anyone who's questioned the actual individual protective effect of helmets has been howled down mercilessly, to the point that I stopped discussing that particular point (which is also irrelevant to the population-level argument).

But to have medical professionals actually question the efficacy of helmets, that will be WAY too much for some ...

[warthog1]

There are multiple medical professionals who advocate helmet use when riding a bicycle due to the evidence of its protection from head and brain injury both in severity and number. They are far more prevalent than those who don't as the evidence supports the injury reduction.
There are some on here who have repeated that advocacy.

[Thoglette]

I find this issue interesting because regardless of the actual individual protective effect of the helmet, there are so many other public health reasons to vigorously oppose mandatory health laws.

Do you wear a helmet in the bath or when using a ladder?
Do you wear hi-viz and a hat to walk from your car in the shopping centre car park to the shops themselves?
Do you wear fireproof clothes, a helmet and a HANS device every time you drive or ride in a car?
Do you slip-slop-slap every time you walk outside the house? Including into your back yard?

If not, why not?
As these have actual individual protection, why are not supported by mandatory health laws?

[BobtheBuilder]

I find this issue interesting because regardless of the actual individual protective effect of the helmet, there are so many other public health reasons to vigorously oppose mandatory health laws.

Do you wear a helmet in the bath or when using a ladder?
Do you wear hi-viz and a hat to walk from your car in the shopping centre car park to the shops themselves?
Do you wear fireproof clothes, a helmet and a HANS device every time you drive or ride in a car?
Do you slip-slop-slap every time you walk outside the house? Including into your back yard?

If not, why not?
As these have actual individual protection, why are not supported by mandatory health laws?

I don't know about reckless anarchists like you, but I'm off to bed and definitely wearing my helmet and kneepads because there are actually quite high mortality and morbidity rates from falling out of bed.

You may laugh your reckless laugh, people may stop sleeping in beds, but I will survive to have the last laugh!!!!

[brumby33]

I find this issue interesting because regardless of the actual individual protective effect of the helmet, there are so many other public health reasons to vigorously oppose mandatory health laws.

Do you wear a helmet in the bath or when using a ladder?
Do you wear hi-viz and a hat to walk from your car in the shopping centre car park to the shops themselves?
Do you wear fireproof clothes, a helmet and a HANS device every time you drive or ride in a car?
Do you slip-slop-slap every time you walk outside the house? Including into your back yard?

If not, why not?
As these have actual individual protection, why are not supported by mandatory health laws?

I don't know about reckless anarchists like you, but I'm off to bed and definitely wearing my helmet and kneepads because there are actually quite high mortality and morbidity rates from falling out of bed.

You may laugh your reckless laugh, people may stop sleeping in beds, but I will survive to have the last laugh!!!!

Beware of bed bugs...they wear suits of armour and are lethal to the unprotected skin