Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

human909 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 01, 2020 2:58 pm

More rubbish from the usual characters.

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article-pd ... dyz003.pdf

Again, deliberately poor science. The decline of cycling caused by MHL is ignored.

Jake Olivier, Sofiane Boufous, Raphael Grzebieta
The impact of bicycle helmet legislation on cycling fatalities in Australia
International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 48, Issue 4, August 2019, Pages 1197–1203,

the usual characters wrote:Conclusions

In the absence of robust evidence showing a decline in cycling exposure following helmet legislation or other confounding factors, the reduction in Australian bicycle-related fatality appears to be primarily due to increased helmet use and not other factors.

How it got past the peer review I don't know. I think I'll submit my paper explaining how umbrella use causes car accidents.

The decline of cycling caused by MHL is ignored.

Is this still the case that after 30 or so years people do not wish to cycle because they have to wear a helmet?

Mike

Mike Ayling wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2020 8:28 am

The decline of cycling caused by MHL is ignored.
Is this still the case that after 30 or so years people do not wish to cycle because they have to wear a helmet?
Mike

Yes. It is a fact that a helmet is a barrier to cycling. Surveys have showed us this regularly, thought the self reported effect of MHL has declined.

It is a fact that many people stopped cycling after the introduction of helmets. It is simple logic that putting up a barrier to an activity like MHLs then you would expect some drop of that activity participation. I don't see why you would think time would make a difference. If anything time makes it WORSE because of the knock on effect.

Quantifying the exact numbers or rate is an impossible task but similar trend analysis (which has its issues) do show a 30-40% decline in the rate of cycling which roughly matches they drop in fatalities.

Likewise quantifying the effects of MHLs on fatality rates per population and per cyclists is similarly difficult but that doesn't stop funded academics with an agenda from publishing papers.

Mike Ayling wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2020 8:28 am

The decline of cycling caused by MHL is ignored.

Is this still the case that after 30 or so years people do not wish to cycle because they have to wear a helmet?

Mike

Yes it is still the case that after 30 or so years people do not wish to cycle because they face a >$300 fine if they don't wear a helmet.

the usual characters wrote:Conclusions

In the absence of robust evidence showing a decline in cycling exposure following helmet legislation or other confounding factors, the reduction in Australian bicycle-related fatality appears to be primarily due to increased helmet use and not other factors.

Is that why they went after Dorothy Robinson with such vitriol? She didn't support one of the "pillars" underlying their conclusions, which is that MHLs did not have an impact upon the number of cyclists. Scientific method - the ability to rewrite history to suit your personal agenda.

The real test of the effectiveness of MHLs is whether head injuries dropped as a proportion of total injuries suffered by cyclists. This is a true test as helmets protect the head and nothing else. The only time I've ever seen stats on this head injuries were the same proportion of total cyclist injuries before and after MHLs.

Fail.

DS

DavidS wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2020 3:28 pm

The real test of the effectiveness of MHLs is whether head injuries dropped as a proportion of total injuries suffered by cyclists. This is a true test as helmets protect the head and nothing else. The only time I've ever seen stats on this head injuries were the same proportion of total cyclist injuries before and after MHLs.

Even that's an inadequate measure as it presumes all cyclists are equal.

What MHLs have done is (effectively) remove that cohort who can't or won't wear a helmet. Or didn't bring theirs with them. At times, this includes me: the first part of my body to get sweaty is my helmeted head. So that rules out riding to certain client meetings at certain times of the year, even though I'll end up hotter walking.

Those who were going to wear a helmet anyway remain (i.e. those in cycle specific clothing; foot retention devices or body armour).

These groups (and their subgroups) have completely different risk profiles.

It’s funny....while reading the last few posts with an eye to pick holes in them my wife was saying something about the current bushfires. Apparently our PM had been suggesting that the feds would be looking at where people live and how “safe” it is. The inference was that the gov may have to restrict where we can live based on bushfires and the practicality of property protection and rescue etc (I have no idea if this is true, it was her understanding and as we know misinformation is rife atm). My reaction was to rubbish the idea, who the hell is going to be told where to live based on the feds idea of safety.

Then I realised what I was reading

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2020 3:04 pm

[

Is that why they went after Dorothy Robinson with such vitriol?

“They” went after her because she provoked “them”. It was entirely her choice. Good on her.

fat and old wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2020 4:38 pm

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2020 3:04 pm

[

Is that why they went after Dorothy Robinson with such vitriol?

“They” went after her because she provoked “them”. It was entirely her choice. Good on her.

My recollection of the deleted comments from "The Conversation" was that it was purely due to her calling out their premise that there was no reduction in cycling rates and hence exposure after MHLs were introduced. If you accept that MHLs had no impact on cycling rates then the numbers suggest helmets are a panacea for cycling safety if you don't then the numbers suggest that helmets are not only not a panacea for cycling safety but that MHLs have a very negative impact on cycling rates. I thought that's what rubbed them up the wrong way as accepting that MHLs produced no decrease in exposure is what they've based their careers on.

Maybe a helmet is usefull after all.
https://www.police.vic.gov.au/it-pays-w ... cle-helmet
It pays to wear a bicycle helmet
Thursday, 2 January 2020 17:55
Following road laws and wearing a helmet could have saved a Braybrook man a great deal of grief.
Williamstown police observed a man riding a bicycle without a helmet in Altona North this morning.
He was allegedly found to be in possession of heroin, methylamphetamine and almost $200 in coins.
It’s alleged he was responsible for a series of thefts from motor vehicles in Altona, Newport, South Kingsville, Spotswood, Braybrook and Yarraville
The 46-year-old had allegedly been riding his bike at night and using a rock to smash windows of vehicles parked on the street.
He has been charged with 42 offences including theft from a motor vehicle, possession of drugs and committing offences while on bail.
He is due to appear in court at a later date.
Glenn Manison
Senior Media Advisor
85576

outnabike wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2020 11:02 pm

Maybe a helmet is usefull after all.
https://www.police.vic.gov.au/it-pays-w ... cle-helmet
It pays to wear a bicycle helmet
Thursday, 2 January 2020 17:55
Following road laws and wearing a helmet could have saved a Braybrook man a great deal of grief.
Williamstown police observed a man riding a bicycle without a helmet in Altona North this morning.
He was allegedly found to be in possession of heroin, methylamphetamine and almost $200 in coins.
It’s alleged he was responsible for a series of thefts from motor vehicles in Altona, Newport, South Kingsville, Spotswood, Braybrook and Yarraville
The 46-year-old had allegedly been riding his bike at night and using a rock to smash windows of vehicles parked on the street.
He has been charged with 42 offences including theft from a motor vehicle, possession of drugs and committing offences while on bail.
He is due to appear in court at a later date.
Glenn Manison
Senior Media Advisor
85576

No, I reckon it would be more useful not to break into cars and carry your drugs around on your person.

DS

DS

looking forward to a whole host of Vic Police media reports utilising different road rules and how breaking them will lead to your life of crime being exposed...maybe a monthly "best of"?

When I've been stopped driving my car I've never been asked if I had a criminal record. When I was stopped for riding my bicycle without a helmet it was the first thing I was asked (and it all went downhill from there).

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:19 pm

When I've been stopped driving my car I've never been asked if I had a criminal record. When I was stopped for riding my bicycle without a helmet it was the first thing I was asked (and it all went downhill from there).

Where you breaking the law when stopped in the car?

fat and old wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:21 pm

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:19 pm

When I've been stopped driving my car I've never been asked if I had a criminal record. When I was stopped for riding my bicycle without a helmet it was the first thing I was asked (and it all went downhill from there).

Where you breaking the law when stopped in the car?

Depends. When stopped for speeding - yes. When stopped for RBTs - no. When stopped for who knows what - no. None of these events prompted the police to ask about whether I had a criminal record.

My experience. The one incident while cycling. The police just got on with issuing the fine as dictated by law. I can't remember too much questioning. Though is had two incidents of police asking me why I'm not wearing a helmet when I've been walking my bicycle.

I've had several incidents where I have been pulled over without reason while driving. Half have been cordial, I understood why they though my actions were 'suspicious'. The other half have been confrontational questioning me about irrelevant stuff, warning me when I hadn't broken laws and when I questioned why they had pulled me over they fudged answer.

I used to drive an old Volvo. It went from boring family car to suspiciously old.

I don't mind being pulled over. I do mind being bull$hitted and treated with suspicion and disrespect.

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2020 2:59 pm

Mike Ayling wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2020 8:28 am

The decline of cycling caused by MHL is ignored.

Is this still the case that after 30 or so years people do not wish to cycle because they have to wear a helmet?

Mike

Yes it is still the case that after 30 or so years people do not wish to cycle because they face a >$300 fine if they don't wear a helmet.

We should conduct an experiment and introduce a mandatory helmet law for all occupants of motor vehicles. Do a 2 year trial, make the fine for non-compliance the same as for cyclists. Let’s see if it has any impact on the number of people using motor vehicles.

Car use is baked hard into individuals mindsets, our society and our physical infrastructure.

For many people it has fewer comparable substitutes and so barriers to use like MHL would have far less effect.

In contrast when MHLs were introduced for bicycles they were already at decade lows for adult transportation. It was one more barrier to adult cycling recreation and juvenile transport cycling.

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2020 2:59 pm

Mike Ayling wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2020 8:28 am

The decline of cycling caused by MHL is ignored.

Is this still the case that after 30 or so years people do not wish to cycle because they have to wear a helmet?

Mike

Yes it is still the case that after 30 or so years people do not wish to cycle because they face a >$300 fine if they don't wear a helmet.

Could you please give me a link to the latest survey supporting this conclusion.

Thanks

Mike

Mike Ayling wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:46 am

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2020 2:59 pm

Yes it is still the case that after 30 or so years people do not wish to cycle because they face a >$300 fine if they don't wear a helmet.

Could you please give me a link to the latest survey supporting this conclusion.
Thanks
Mike

Why would you think that time has made people suddenly enjoy wearing big foam hats on their heads and that it isn't a barrier?

Here is one survey, and these sort of surveys are not the best at teasing out the depth of 30 years of MHL but it still answers your question. Not that exactly the latest but there you go.
https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/imag ... nsport.pdf

The reality is that people don't like helmets. Have a look almost any activity where helmets are worn during the activity and notice how readily people remove them once that activity is over.

Cycling is no different. The question isn't do people find helmets annoying. The question is whether this annoyance is enough to discourage people from participating in the activity. For some people it does, for others it doesn't. Time and time again it has been shown that MHLs do reduce cycling participation.

human909 wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 9:26 am

Here is one survey, and these sort of surveys are not the best at teasing out the depth of 30 years of MHL but it still answers your question. Not that exactly the latest but there you go.
https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/imag ... nsport.pdf

Hey human, I think you linked the wrong survey, there’s no mention nor reference to helmets in that one.

Table 5.

human909 wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 10:54 am

Table 5.

Ahhh missed it, I was reading the notes.

2.4% of respondents nominated helmets as a barrier.

A 30% reduction in (adult) cyclist numbers immediately post MHL introduction is a ballpark figure given by the Victorian and NSW surveys conducted pre and post MHL.

30% cared then

2.4% care now

What was the age grouping of the “helmets are a barrier” respondents? Are they similar to those who attend Freestyle type rides? Is the objection to MHL’s by the community lessening? Is it perhaps a minor issue in the overall scheme of things? Are the overall low numbers of people who actually care the reason why most advocacy groups see MHL arguments as a distraction?

Mike Ayling wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:46 am

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2020 2:59 pm

Mike Ayling wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2020 8:28 am

The decline of cycling caused by MHL is ignored.

Is this still the case that after 30 or so years people do not wish to cycle because they have to wear a helmet?

Mike

Yes it is still the case that after 30 or so years people do not wish to cycle because they face a >$300 fine if they don't wear a helmet.

Could you please give me a link to the latest survey supporting this conclusion.

Thanks

Mike

I would suggest that the last few years of the freestyle rides would be the most recent and best/ relevant survey.
They are quite heavily promoted/ advertised in social media and lightly in the press, so people who do or should care are aware. In Melbourne attracts what maybe a couple of dozen?, Sydney, maybe 10 or 15 turn up.
For me with population growth in Oz the numbers I have seen on the road pre and now 30 years on the "number" remain much the same. In NSW and the ACT people who ride less than 3 ks a day may have gone down and anyone who rides above this would be much the same with a tend towards increase during good biking weather days .
The key is the number of girls and women who ride. Pre MHL and in simple terms of commuters, not so many about , then it jumped in the 90s but now they have returned to more calming activities such as walking, running and the gym and they are just not about. Just like the increase in people wanting to ride gravel roads which dont have you tossed in with heavy traffic. More the state of the Aust roads than helmets really and Ebikes and cargo bikes have grown in places like Manly for shopping as the parking is now so bad locals tend to walk to the shops. I always enjoy seeing the dutch, french and germany cyclist touring in other countries across Asia, South America and here when asked about why they wear a helmet they look at you as if you have two heads. Is bloody hard for them to go from a safe on road environment into a bitter one.