Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[fat and old]

Do you slip-slop-slap every time you walk outside the house? Including into your back yard?

Yep! All year round. And hat on. Getting a growth cut outta you kinda sharpens the focus!

[MichaelB]

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?

Ever heard of "reasonably practicable"

Along with warty, not arguing against the health benefits of getting more people riding.

Oh dear got myself sucked in again ....

[WyvernRH]

Joking apart, helmets and PPE are designed for the environment of use. Sports field head gear bears no resemblance to the things I wore jumping out of helicopters 40 years ago or something you would wear riding a bike today. So really that article on teenagers in teen sports is not really relevant to the bike world, interesting as it is.

I'm against MHLs on principle but ambivalent as to their necessity. Having lived through the mandatory seat belt and mandatory motorcycle helmet laws (wars?) I find people are very resistant to something that 'might' save them grief that they see as an inconvenience and only personal experience will convince them of possible necessity. Thus compulsion thru MHL and the like.

Having seen the effect of a kerbstone on an unprotected cyclist's head (way before MHL or even helmets, and back in the UK) and having survived a very similar accident here in Oz while wearing a helmet with a slight headache I'm for wearing a helmet, especially the high tech stuff available today. In the interests of honesty, I have to say that having lived to the age of 30-odd without wearing a helmet cycling in various countries I probably would not have been wearing one at the time of that accident if MHLs didn't exist and I had the utility proved to me.

PITA as they are when you just want to nip down the shops, they may be helpful. Even in our sleepy country town I've picked up a couple of kids from the side of the road over the years who have had solo accidents that left them with 'minor abrasions' <sic> to their head/face that will be with them for life which would have been minimized or prevented by a helmet (cos most kids don't wear helmets around here).

They aren't perfect, they won't save you from everything, but by golly they are better than nothing - just ask my mate who hit the kerb - Oh wait, you can't cos he isn't with us anymore...

Richard

[brumby33]

Joking apart, helmets and PPE are designed for the environment of use. Sports field head gear bears no resemblance to the things I wore jumping out of helicopters 40 years ago or something you would wear riding a bike today. So really that article on teenagers in teen sports is not really relevant to the bike world, interesting as it is.

I'm against MHLs on principle but ambivalent as to their necessity. Having lived through the mandatory seat belt and mandatory motorcycle helmet laws (wars?) I find people are very resistant to something that 'might' save them grief that they see as an inconvenience and only personal experience will convince them of possible necessity. Thus compulsion thru MHL and the like.

Having seen the effect of a kerbstone on an unprotected cyclist's head (way before MHL or even helmets, and back in the UK) and having survived a very similar accident here in Oz while wearing a helmet with a slight headache I'm for wearing a helmet, especially the high tech stuff available today. In the interests of honesty, I have to say that having lived to the age of 30-odd without wearing a helmet cycling in various countries I probably would not have been wearing one at the time of that accident if MHLs didn't exist and I had the utility proved to me.

PITA as they are when you just want to nip down the shops, they may be helpful. Even in our sleepy country town I've picked up a couple of kids from the side of the road over the years who have had solo accidents that left them with 'minor abrasions' <sic> to their head/face that will be with them for life which would have been minimized or prevented by a helmet (cos most kids don't wear helmets around here).

They aren't perfect, they won't save you from everything, but by golly they are better than nothing - just ask my mate who hit the kerb - Oh wait, you can't cos he isn't with us anymore...

Richard

Exactly Richard and it's a different world than it was 40 plus years ago, more traffic, more bikes, more people walking animals and more things that can go wrong. I've had my fair share of accidents as a child from Scooters and bikes and luckily I haven't hit my head because maybe I had the strength to keep my head up at the time but now, I would not be so strong at almost 65 and I don't want to become a vegetable. Even if the laws were repealed today, I'd still wear one.
Even Youtube videos of American bicycle tourers often wear Helmets as for the distance they are travelling, there's a fair chance they are at greater risk, especially with a much heavier bicycle....but helmet laws in the USA do not exist so there must be something in this helmet thing. They really don't weigh anything, maybe make you sweat a bit more but you can always stop and take it off for a bit.

cheers

brumby33

Dave.

[zebee]

One thing that ride share bikes show: helmets are something you have to have with you. Seatbelts are attached to the car.

Motorcycles need a licence and people aren't renting them for a quick jaunt so having a helmet is reasonable. If you have a licence you have a lid, and the bike you are on is yours or one you are riding a lot (eg Uber Eat scooters)

But a bicycle helmet is a thing you have to carry just in case.

[bychosis]

Agree with that. When I'm "going for a ride" I get kitted up. Grabbing a helmet is part of that.

I wanna be able to throw a leg over the nearest bike and roll down to the shops in my shirt and thongs without having to 'get ready' - and I do this on occasionwhen i think there is negligible risk of a $400 fine. Ill roll around a caravan park without a lid because its easier and quicker to move around and there's no traffic to worry about.

[am50em]

[g-boaf]

Age restricted video! tsk tsk....

[am50em]

Not sure why?

[g-boaf]

Sometimes youtube is strange, someone probably flagged it. So anyone not logged in gets that. I don't have an account and don't bother.

Heck, even some harmless episodes of Derrick or Der Kommissar also get that.

[DavidS]

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!!

I'm sorry but I can't let this pass.

In the mid 70s the road toll, with a far lower population, was many multiples of what it is now. The cars didn't handle as well and their brakes were nowhere near as good. Plus, there were less cars on the roads, which meant they actually moved faster - hence the far higher road toll. I remember the campaigns, like the one in the late 70s to try and reduce Victoria's road toll below 900 per year. What is it now, maybe 300?

So, no, the roads are demonstrably safer now.

Maybe it's time for this video again:



DS

[warthog1]

I don't disagree with that ad. People should be able to choose when to wear a helmet.

I disagree that roads are safer for cyclists though.

https://bicyclenetwork.com.au/our-advoc ... ach%20year.

https://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safety/ ... statistics

Cycling fatalities are not in decline, but I would be surprised if cyclist numbers aren't, and yes MHLs are a reason for that.
I am very selective where and when I ride on the road and if I am to ride at peak periods it is low trafficked areas or gravel. Device distraction is endemic amongst our driving population now. I want a shoulder and I want visbility so more chance of being seen when they look up from their phone. I want to know they are coming too. Varia radar on every ride.


This is from elsewhere by a cycling journalist. I sympathise strongly with it here though;

Thanks! I need to think about how I cover road bikes and gear. The sad fact of the matter is that while I stil enjoy riding on the road, I do it far, far less than I used to – mostly because I don't exactly love the idea of not knowing for certain if I'm actually going to make it back home in one piece when I roll out of the garage. It's a huge reason – maybe the biggest reason – why gravel riding has grown so popular in the US, and one that's hard to argue with.

I know multiple people who have been hit and a couple who have died as a result. I have had numerous close calls.

I am not doing it far less but I have become very selective of route and timing. I am lucky as a shift worker and where I live I can ride quiet roads in the middle of the day during the week.

[Thoglette]

Agree with that. When I'm "going for a ride" I get kitted up. Grabbing a helmet is part of that.

Which is why the roadies and MTB/skatepark crowd are unable to see the key problem with MHLs as they always get “kitted up”.

If we must (for purely political reasons as they don’t work as claimed) have MHLs then let’s tie their mandate to the use of “shoes with foot retention” or something similar so that it only applies to those who’ll be “kitted up” anyway.

[BobtheBuilder]

Agree with that. When I'm "going for a ride" I get kitted up. Grabbing a helmet is part of that.

Which is why the roadies and MTB/skatepark crowd are unable to see the key problem with MHLs as they always get “kitted up”.

If we must (for purely political reasons as they don’t work as claimed) have MHLs then let’s tie their mandate to the use of “shoes with foot retention” or something similar so that it only applies to those who’ll be “kitted up” anyway.

And why performance cyclists (vs utility cyclists) are such a disproportionate percentage of cyclists in Australia.

Going back to the water safety ad, most people boating offshore would wear a life jacket, mandated or not, but few (despite our level of death by drowning) wear them when having a beer by the pool or a quick dip in the ocean. Aaaand, there's good public policy reasons to mandate them offshore because they clearly, demonstrably, repeatedly, unequivocably save lives, in the same way car seatbelts and motorcycle helmets do.

[warthog1]

Some states have made it mandatory to wear life jackets offshore.
https://www.boataccessoriesaustralia.co ... B%20jacket.


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%.


Yep a protective comparison is a poor argument for removal of MHLs with respect bicycles, as bicycle helmets clearly, demonstrably, repeatedly, unequivocably save lives, in the same way car seatbelts and motorcycle helmets do.

Freedom of choice and different uses and types of cycling with lower speed and risk of crash and head strike is a far better argument for the removal of the laws.

[BobtheBuilder]

Yep a protective comparison is a poor argument for removal of MHLs with respect bicycles, as bicycle helmets clearly, demonstrably, repeatedly, unequivocably save lives, in the same way car seatbelts and motorcycle helmets do.

Incorrect. Bicycle helmets save lives the way life jackets worn near any body of water save them. Or helmets worn to bed (people do die of head injuries from falling out of bed from time to time).

Bicycle helmets may prevent a very small amount of death, but at what larger cost? At what larger, population-level rate? Do mandatory helmet laws cause more death than they prevent? It's very likely they do. Either way, the gains are incremental, unlike seatbelts and motorbike helmets.

[warthog1]

Yep a protective comparison is a poor argument for removal of MHLs with respect bicycles, as bicycle helmets clearly, demonstrably, repeatedly, unequivocably save lives, in the same way car seatbelts and motorcycle helmets do.

Incorrect. Bicycle helmets save lives the way life jackets worn near any body of water save them. Or helmets worn to bed (people do die of head injuries from falling out of bed from time to time).

Bicycle helmets may prevent a very small amount of death, but at what larger cost? At what larger, population-level rate? Do mandatory helmet laws cause more death than they prevent? It's very likely they do. Either way, the gains are incremental, unlike seatbelts and motorbike helmets.

What part of bicycle helmets reduce the total number of killed or seriously injured cyclists by 34% did you fail to understand?
It was a large study and compilation of results. A significant amount of evidence is the basis of the result.

I don't argue that cyclist numbers haven't been reduced and yes there is a public health consequence as a result.

Just that they do protect from injury and death. Claiming they don't is a poor, unsupported argument for the removal of the MHL.

[BobtheBuilder]

What part of bicycle helmets reduce the total number of killed or seriously injured cyclists by 34% did you fail to understand?
It was a large study and compilation of results. A significant amount of evidence is the basis of the result.

Debate over those studies and their shortcomings have been done to death on this thread.

[warthog1]

What part of bicycle helmets reduce the total number of killed or seriously injured cyclists by 34% did you fail to understand?
It was a large study and compilation of results. A significant amount of evidence is the basis of the result.

Debate over those studies and their shortcomings have been done to death on this thread.

In your eyes perhaps as you appear set on your argument that the engineers behind the design of bicycle helmets and the medical staff who advocate their use along with the statistics that verify their efficacy are wrong or false.
Further I do not recall any substantive evidence of their falsehood. Some anti helmet activists have come up with some unsupported statements about the lack of helmet efficacy but that was pretty quickly revealed as the nonsense it was.
Perhaps provide it once more and we can have the discussion again.

[CmdrBiggles]

It's quite odd — bordering on bizarre, a 14-year old thread with hashed and rehashed debate, has taken on a Frankenstein-like life of its own — yet again!

Just stick to the known, research facts, wear a bloody helmet when cycling, and end the debate.

[BobtheBuilder]

What part of bicycle helmets reduce the total number of killed or seriously injured cyclists by 34% did you fail to understand?
It was a large study and compilation of results. A significant amount of evidence is the basis of the result.

Debate over those studies and their shortcomings have been done to death on this thread.

In your eyes perhaps as you appear set on your argument that the engineers behind the design of bicycle helmets and the medical staff who advocate their use along with the statistics that verify their efficacy are wrong or false.
Further I do not recall any substantive evidence of their falsehood. Some anti helmet activists have come up with some unsupported statements about the lack of helmet efficacy but that was pretty quickly revealed as the nonsense it was.
Perhaps provide it once more and we can have the discussion again.

No thanks.

This falls under the "agree to disagree" principle. Let's acknowledge that and move on.

[brumby33]

It's quite odd — bordering on bizarre, a 14-year old thread with hashed and rehashed debate, has taken on a Frankenstein-like life of its own — yet again!

Just stick to the known, research facts, wear a bloody helmet when cycling, and end the debate.

But it does have a full time resident it seems

[warthog1]

Debate over those studies and their shortcomings have been done to death on this thread.

In your eyes perhaps as you appear set on your argument that the engineers behind the design of bicycle helmets and the medical staff who advocate their use along with the statistics that verify their efficacy are wrong or false.
Further I do not recall any substantive evidence of their falsehood. Some anti helmet activists have come up with some unsupported statements about the lack of helmet efficacy but that was pretty quickly revealed as the nonsense it was.
Perhaps provide it once more and we can have the discussion again.

No thanks.

This falls under the "agree to disagree" principle. Let's acknowledge that and move on.

That is the only reason I am here tbh. Correcting outright nonsense that helmets provide no, or minimal, protection in the event of headstrike.
Keep stating they are ineffective and I will keep correcting it. I don't agree to disagree as the evidence supports the fact they do provide protection from injury and death.

I however don't agree that a helmet must be worn everytime a person gets on a bike regardless of the type of cycling taking place. I do agree it is an obstacle to the greater uptake of cycling and that more cyclists is good for us all.

[BobtheBuilder]

In your eyes perhaps as you appear set on your argument that the engineers behind the design of bicycle helmets and the medical staff who advocate their use along with the statistics that verify their efficacy are wrong or false.
Further I do not recall any substantive evidence of their falsehood. Some anti helmet activists have come up with some unsupported statements about the lack of helmet efficacy but that was pretty quickly revealed as the nonsense it was.
Perhaps provide it once more and we can have the discussion again.

No thanks.

This falls under the "agree to disagree" principle. Let's acknowledge that and move on.

That is the only reason I am here tbh. Correcting outright nonsense that helmets provide no, or minimal, protection in the event of headstrike.
Keep stating they are ineffective and I will keep correcting it. I don't agree to disagree as the evidence supports the fact they do provide protection from injury and death.

I however don't agree that a helmet must be worn everytime a person gets on a bike regardless of the type of cycling taking place. I do agree it is an obstacle to the greater uptake of cycling and that more cyclists is good for us all.

So why don't you concentrate on the more productive and positive contribution you could make - working out pathways to getting rid of MHLs?

[warthog1]

No thanks.

This falls under the "agree to disagree" principle. Let's acknowledge that and move on.

That is the only reason I am here tbh. Correcting outright nonsense that helmets provide no, or minimal, protection in the event of headstrike.
Keep stating they are ineffective and I will keep correcting it. I don't agree to disagree as the evidence supports the fact they do provide protection from injury and death.

I however don't agree that a helmet must be worn everytime a person gets on a bike regardless of the type of cycling taking place. I do agree it is an obstacle to the greater uptake of cycling and that more cyclists is good for us all.

So why don't you concentrate on the more productive and positive contribution you could make - working out pathways to getting rid of MHLs?

I would wear one for the type of cycling I do regardless but I do not see any effective pathway.
The same goes for you. You seem more invested in their removal and I don't recall any from you.