Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

On the local bikeways lots of COVID riders enjoying a bit of helmet freedom. Fortunately - people and the police seem to have more important things to deal with.

Thoglette wrote: ↑

Mon May 11, 2020 2:03 pm

fat and old wrote: ↑

Mon May 11, 2020 1:17 pm

I don’t get no Covid time. None at all

Same here: it's been a strange, strange time.

I logged into the job keeper bizzo to play it safe, but the last quarter was up 30%, not down. Go figure. Combination of LGA’s (esp. COM) realising now is the time to smash out the work and morons chucking all sorts of stuff into the sewers causing blockages and associated issues and damage.

Back to the topic at hand, my position is that my anecdotal obs, and Comedian’s as well, point to perceived (thanks Bob) safety as more of a drag on cycling uptake that MHL’s to a much greater degree that the vocal advocates either realise or admit. That “safety” would extend to social distancing these days as well....something I think (non scientifically of course) is at the front of many PT user’s thoughts. I don’t think that wearing a helmet bothers people more than being a sardine in a tram these days

While I do concur that with less traffic there is less danger, I do wonder if the uptake in cycling is more closely related to extra time available and little in the way of options. No organised sport, no gyms, no restaurants etc. Active types are searching for alternative exercise which is pretty much running or cycling. Less active types are using cycling as an excuse to get out of the house. I know my kids have been riding and running a lot more because they don’t have midweek training and weekend games to burn off some energy - even if it is me dragging them out of the house so they don’t climb the walls.

I do hope it carries on, but with other activities coming back online, leading into colder weather I suspect the boom will fade away fairly quickly.

bychosis wrote: ↑

Mon May 11, 2020 3:53 pm

While I do concur that with less traffic there is less danger, I do wonder if the uptake in cycling is more closely related to extra time available and little in the way of options. No organised sport, no gyms, no restaurants etc. Active types are searching for alternative exercise which is pretty much running or cycling. Less active types are using cycling as an excuse to get out of the house.

Yes, this times 100 bychosis.

Just look at the evidence. On road cycling has only had a fairly moderate increase. On shared paths however, cycling and particularly WALKING have increased massively. Actually, the increase in walkers and joggers is by far the most obvious thing we are seeing on shared paths.

So by F&O's theory, the doubling or tripling of walkers and joggers on shared paths would also be due to there being less traffic on the road. Unlikely in the extreme.

uart wrote: ↑

Mon May 11, 2020 8:48 pm

bychosis wrote: ↑

Mon May 11, 2020 3:53 pm

While I do concur that with less traffic there is less danger, I do wonder if the uptake in cycling is more closely related to extra time available and little in the way of options. No organised sport, no gyms, no restaurants etc. Active types are searching for alternative exercise which is pretty much running or cycling. Less active types are using cycling as an excuse to get out of the house.

Yes, this times 100 bychosis.

Just look at the evidence. On road cycling has only had a fairly moderate increase. On shared paths however, cycling and particularly WALKING have increased massively. Actually, the increase in walkers and joggers is by far the most obvious thing we are seeing on shared paths.

So by F&O's theory, the doubling or tripling of walkers and joggers on shared paths would also be due to there being less traffic on the road. Unlikely in the extreme.

Yes and yes. Here in Ireland (much stricter measures) it's obvious by physique and technique that people are out walking, jogging and cycling (also by the sight of very well preserved nice bikes that are a decade or three old, i.e. have barely been used since bought!) for the first time in a while - of course, the sporty types are also out, but it's the increase in non-fit people that is most obvious. There have also been a few jokes about dogs hiding in cupboards 'cause they don't have the energy for any more walks!

uart wrote: ↑

Mon May 11, 2020 8:48 pm

Yes, this times 100 bychosis.

Just look at the evidence. On road cycling has only had a fairly moderate increase.

Incorrect. My observations have been a significant increase, and I’m referring to adults, not family groups. Where did I limit my comments to shared paths?

Let me be clear. I have observed a significant increase in cyclists both on and off road. I have observed a small increase in commuting cyclists, in site of the reduction in employment and education. The proportion of helmetless riders seems to be the same pre-covid.

So by F&O's theory, the doubling or tripling of walkers and joggers on shared paths would also be due to there being less traffic on the road.

F&O has never seen walkers and joggers on the road, except when said road is closed for an event or they are crossing it. That comment is a little silly. If you’re gonna shitcan something then be a little realistic at least

If people want to get a glimpse of the pandemonium on our paths... IMHO i've seen it busier but that was when I had the nerd bird out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HkKEKLC44k

Comedian wrote: ↑

Tue May 12, 2020 9:30 am

If people want to get a glimpse of the pandemonium on our paths... IMHO i've seen it busier but that was when I had the nerd bird out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HkKEKLC44k

Good video. That's what we saw during the lockdown here too Comedian. Smallish increase in on road cycling, reasonable increase in on path cycling, and a *massive* increase in on path walking and jogging. From what I've heard from friends relatives in other cities it's much the same story everywhere.

BTW. At 3:25 in that video, guy in dark clothing overtaking a bunch of riders, I'll bet there was some swearing there from the oncoming riders.

The "Committee on Personal Choice and Community Safety" of Legislative Council of WA has issued its
final report

It's worth a quick read: all the usual suspects are in attendance and the report is an easy read.

2.77 The Committee is of the view that MHL is a complex and multi-faceted issue.
2.78 Stakeholders and community opinion is divided, raising arguments that both support helmet use as a means to prevent injury but also opposing helmets as a barrier to cycling participation. The Committee has heard evidence from submitters that many people are put off cycling because of the requirement to wear a bicycle helmet. Other submissions, however, have raised the point that helmet use is so widespread that it has become normalised in the community.
2.79 In any event, the Committee notes that a clear objective is necessary before setting a policy agenda on MHL: if a government puts greater priority on increasing cycling participation (and, by extension, more people on the streets and more participation in exercise) then MHL are not an effective way to achieve this objective. However, if the goal is to protect vulnerable road users such as children who cycle, then MHL can be an effective tool.
2.80 The Committee is of the view that the Government should be very clear about its intention in mandating helmet use in Western Australia and this should be communicated to the community in certain terms.

FINDING 1 Mandatory bicycle helmet laws may deter some people from cycling but they are not the main reason why people choose not to ride a bicycle.
FINDING 2 Measures such as improved road infrastructure, lower speed limits and greater driver awareness and education are effective tools to increase cycling participation in Western Australia.
FINDING 3 Head and neck injuries accounted for 25.9per cent of the cycling injuries between 1999-00 and 2015-16 (and 48 per cent between 2013-14 and 2015-16). Bicycle helmets are an effective safety measure to decrease the risk of such injuries when cycling.
FINDING 4 While bicycle helmets are effective for reducing the risk of serious or fatal head injuries, they cannot be relied upon as the only method of protecting cyclists. Governments must also ensure that effective bicycle infrastructure, such as separate shared paths or dedicated bicycle lanes, are part of any cycling policy.
FINDING 5 While the current legislative regime,that mandates the wearing of bicycle helmets while cycling,restricts personal choice for individuals, this regime is clearly an effective safety measure for the prevention of head and brain injuries.
FINDING 6 The public health benefits of increased cardiovascular activity and physical movement associated with an increase in cycling participation is a worthwhile objective. The Government should consider analysing and continuing to monitor the costs and benefits of mandatory bicycle helmet laws.
RECOMMENDATION 1 The Government investigate the potential for a trial exemption from mandatory bicycle helmet laws in low risk, segregated areas, for example, Rottnest Island.
RECOMMENDATION 2 The Government investigate undertaking a cost-benefit analysis on the effectiveness of mandatory bicycle helmet laws in Western Australi

Comedian wrote: ↑

Tue May 12, 2020 9:30 am

If people want to get a glimpse of the pandemonium on our paths... IMHO i've seen it busier but that was when I had the nerd bird out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HkKEKLC44k

The danger of looking but not seeing...….I thought yeah, that's pretty constant, but too bad. Then I saw the other side, where there no paths Pretty much the same here, until the cold blew in. Now the off road numbers are dropping a bit, but the on road numbers are stable. Still way more than pre-covid.

School's back in by June 6 I think (Vic). Queens Birthday will be the next survey point I guess.

FINDING 3 Head and neck injuries accounted for 25.9per cent of the cycling injuries between 1999-00 and 2015-16 (and 48 per cent between 2013-14 and 2015-16). Bicycle helmets are an effective safety measure to decrease the risk of such injuries when cycling.

I know this is a comparison between a shorter and a longer period of time, and both periods of time are subject to MHLs.

But, looks like head and neck injuries are increasing as a proportion of total injuries when helmets only protect the head.

How do you then conclude that they are an effective safety measure?

Makes no sense.

DS

What it probably says is that the share of risk-taking cyclists as total of all cyclists has gone up - the very group that worldwide data shows overwhelmingly wear helmets anyway (they're the ones riding very fast on the road, or doing risky mountain-biking, etc.). In most countries this is a small share of the cycling population - under MHL they are a large, and probably increasing, as a proportion, share of the cycling population.
But, whatever it says, it's not a reason to say helmets are a good safety device for most cyclists - and they certainly wouldn't provide much protection for neck injuries!

fat and old wrote: ↑

Tue May 12, 2020 5:47 pm

Comedian wrote: ↑

Tue May 12, 2020 9:30 am

If people want to get a glimpse of the pandemonium on our paths... IMHO i've seen it busier but that was when I had the nerd bird out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HkKEKLC44k

The danger of looking but not seeing...….I thought yeah, that's pretty constant, but too bad. Then I saw the other side, where there no paths Pretty much the same here, until the cold blew in. Now the off road numbers are dropping a bit, but the on road numbers are stable. Still way more than pre-covid.

School's back in by June 6 I think (Vic). Queens Birthday will be the next survey point I guess.

The question is - if we had no MHL how many of the people on the walking side of the path would be on the riding side of the path?

It's simply impossible to know other than by repealing MHL - but I'd be guessing a measurable portion would happily swap to two wheels. Thing is it's all about the messaging. A MHL repeal and promoting cycling as a safe form of exercise might help counteract years of government messaging that cycling is dangerous and that a helmet might save your life. That kind of stuff is really damaging.

Helmets make cycling less pleasant than it would otherwise be. Messaging that cycling is dangerous make it less appealing. So people just don't do it. Gah...

Comedian wrote: ↑

Wed May 13, 2020 8:35 am

fat and old wrote: ↑

Tue May 12, 2020 5:47 pm

Comedian wrote: ↑

Tue May 12, 2020 9:30 am

If people want to get a glimpse of the pandemonium on our paths... IMHO i've seen it busier but that was when I had the nerd bird out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HkKEKLC44k

The danger of looking but not seeing...….I thought yeah, that's pretty constant, but too bad. Then I saw the other side, where there no paths Pretty much the same here, until the cold blew in. Now the off road numbers are dropping a bit, but the on road numbers are stable. Still way more than pre-covid.

School's back in by June 6 I think (Vic). Queens Birthday will be the next survey point I guess.

The question is - if we had no MHL how many of the people on the walking side of the path would be on the riding side of the path?

It's simply impossible to know other than by repealing MHL - but I'd be guessing a measurable portion would happily swap to two wheels.

Quite likely. I don't think it would be a great amount....certainly not the figures that are suggested in surveys....but it would increase.

Thoglette wrote: ↑

Tue May 12, 2020 5:16 pm

The "Committee on Personal Choice and Community Safety" of Legislative Council of WA has issued its
final report

It's worth a quick read: all the usual suspects are in attendance and the report is an easy read.

One of the common threads in these reports along with the assorted writings and submissions is this (an example from the report linked)

2.6 The 1994 select committee report suggested that: [The] … reasons why the greatest proportion of road safety submissions relate to helmet wearing and that most oppose the requirement are surmised to be: that it is a relatively new initiative and therefore topical; that many people see it as a genuine reduction of ‘individual rights’; that personal and community fitness/health is diminished because fewer people now cycle and have returned to polluting motorised transport … It may also be that those who are satisfied with the status quo are less likely to make a submission than those who are opposed.

It is almost mandatory to assume that the totality of the reduction in cycling numbers post MHL is due exclusively to MHL's. This cannot possibly be verified, so why does it happen?

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Wed May 13, 2020 3:14 am

What it probably says is that the share of risk-taking cyclists as total of all cyclists has gone up - the very group that worldwide data shows overwhelmingly wear helmets anyway (they're the ones riding very fast on the road, or doing risky mountain-biking, etc.).

Exactly. And that's without even taking into account that MHL very much normalizes and encourage those more risky forms of cycling in the first place! But they never seem to even consider this.

Also, while they agonize over maybe lifting the restriction in some low risk groups and some very low risk locations, they seem completely oblivious to the fact that pre MHL (and currently in other countries without MHL) that people did/do exactly this anyway, all by themselves. Someone linked a video of street camera capturing everyday cycling in the Netherlands a while back (for unrelated reasons) and the thing that totally struck me was that, while only a few of the commuter cyclists on their upright town bikes were wearing helmets, *all* of the guys who looked to be out training on racing bikes had helmets on. And to think that they figured this out all by themselves, without any draconian legislation - amazing!

It is almost mandatory to assume that the totality of the reduction in cycling numbers post MHL is due exclusively to MHL's. This cannot possibly be verified, so why does it happen?

Oh, seeing this is on WA and I was in and out of WA quite a bit for a few years at that time, happy to have a go...
So the bike tallies were based on counting bike riders on one footpath, on a bridge, over the river, which connects the northern suburbs to the southern and the Perth city CBD.

A few quick thoughts on the why factors,
1 Cars became quite cheap and all in a sudden wave. Interest rates started to fall from the highs of a mortgage rate of about 17% pa and people started to have a few more $$ to throw around. A very basis euro car that was about $40,000 new became $30,000 but Korean cars started to come into the market at around the low 20,000s.People started to buy new second family cars. More people from the north drove to work and the city on weekends
2 Perth was at the start of a office building boom. New office space was opening up on the north of the river and with so much space on offer in old offices you could lease office space very cheap and parking spaces ( many) was often thrown into to the leases for free. More people drove to work.People from the north who once biked across the bridge to work and home no longer did so but the people who lived in and rode from the south would have increased.
3 Fremantle became a cheap rent and very nice place to work option to the city and people who rode bikes from the south could do so without going over the bridge and those from the northern 'burbs would take to coastal bike path and....(could do so without going over the bridge)
4 People who biked started to get bike racks on cars and would drive to ride to safer spots such as the coastal bike paths and parks. Off road biking became a thing.
5 Maybe just me but you never really saw that many people commuting on bikes before or after the laws came in. I think the commuter numbers remained more or less flat. People with kiddies or younger kids riding alone would just go to parks and ride locally so the bridge bike counting tally stuff was not ever logged.

Do I believe the Perth data based on the counting of one spot on a bridge over a river pre and post MHL?
Nope.
People just changed routes and habits because of other factors.Yes MHL may have stopped a few riders but at that point the people who did ride enjoyed it so much that it would take a heap more than the law to stop them riding 100% of the time.
I guess I could come up with more perth focused factors but have given up as I tend to agree it is a pointless line in the sand as the data freaks just use the stats to throw up numbers to try and back a POV.

baabaa wrote:

It is almost mandatory to assume that the totality of the reduction in cycling numbers post MHL is due exclusively to MHL's. This cannot possibly be verified, so why does it happen?

Yes MHL may have stopped a few riders but at that point the people who did ride enjoyed it so much that it would take a heap more than the law to stop them riding 100% of the time.

I saw F&Os attempt and I was going to reply that it is a well known fact that the decline in cycling rates post MHL can wholly be attributed to changes in the weather.

But no, it seems all Australian cyclists were so committed that no stinking helmet law was going to put them off.

But of course it's all heresy. THERE WAS NO DECLINE IN CYCLING RATES POST MHLs. The whole premise is absurd. Our good mates at UNSW have debunked that furphy. And as some Canadian researchers have shown, MHLs actually encourage cycling.

It is almost mandatory to assume that the totality of the reduction in cycling numbers post MHL is due exclusively to MHL's. This cannot possibly be verified, so why does it happen?

As usual that's a false negative assertion. Like claiming that those supporting a rail line between A and B believe that the lack of a rail line is the only reason people drive from A to B. It's the sort of crap argument one expects from a Fox late night presenter.

baabaa wrote: ↑

Wed May 13, 2020 4:24 pm

Do I believe the Perth data based on the counting of one spot on a bridge over a river pre and post MHL?
Nope.

Don't disagree. The paucity of decent data pre- and post- MHLs is a key problem in any commentary on cycling in Australia. And reading the pre-MHL proposal papers are an exercise in making-s**t-up.

baabaa wrote: ↑

Wed May 13, 2020 4:24 pm

I guess I could come up with more perth focused factors but have given up as I tend to agree it is a pointless line in the sand as the data freaks just use the stats to throw up numbers to try and back a POV.

So just asserting stuff (like El Cheeto Grande or QAnon) is a better basis for making decisions? I don't think so.

I do agree a number of the observations you make (and they have statistical backing) and in general they were driven by planning decisions (and non-decisions). I'm old enough to have seen the transition from less-than-one-cars-per-household to one-car-per-adult+spares. I remember moving from a suburb which had public transport to a brand new "modern" one that basically didn't (and had no footpaths on major roads) at one point. And have had to set up a bus service for a workplace in an industrial estate that still has no public transport before 8:30 (prestart is at 7:30am)

Again, MHLs are only one in a series of policy errors that Australia continues to make in respect to transport (economically, healthwise and in terms of "liveability")

But back to the crux of the matter...

baabaa wrote: ↑

Wed May 13, 2020 4:24 pm

People just changed routes and habits because of other factors.Yes MHL may have stopped a few riders but at that point the people who did ride enjoyed it so much that it would take a heap more than the law to stop them riding 100% of the time.

Thanks for making the key point: the cycling-as-recreation riders (MTB*, roadies**, BMX, tourers) who were mostly already wearing helmets continued. But those who stopped (almost by definition short trip utility riders), heck, they don't count. They're not committed enough. etc etc etc.

To return to your opening quote, the point is that MHLs effectively curtail the adoption of cycling for ad-hoc short distance transport. That is, getting from A to B. Without activity-specific clothes. Without a shower at the end.

For those who do want to refer to some data nothing shows this more clearly than the fate of MHL bike hire schemes,which specifically target the casual, short distance rider.

Thsi typical Dutch scene is inconceivable in the context of MHLs.

No-MHLs are a long way from being the only policy initiative that the Netherlands has introduced since the "Kindermort" (child murder) protests of the '70s but proposing MHLs would have them choking on their herring in shock at the idea of someone suggesting something so bloody stupid.

Let me be clear: I'm not bagging helmets. They do what they do and any time I'm wearing clipless shoes or padded shorts I'm wearing a helmet. Which is every day on my commute. But it's important to understand that they are a nett negative for short distance utility cycling. (Which, we need to remember, is a gateway to "serious" riding. Also known in the West as "the rottnest effect")

*You can always rely on the MTB fraternity to turn up at any MHL hearing and earnestly express their support for MHLs (which, by definition, don't apply to their chosen form of bike use). Not surprisingly, people doing downhill MTB choose to wear PPE. (Strange as it may seem, cyclists tend to pick the appropriate PPE even in the absence of MHLs)
**yeah, the roadies only adopted helmets when the TdF peleton adopted them. But what else did you expect?

Thoglette wrote: ↑

Fri May 15, 2020 10:56 pm

*You can always rely on the MTB fraternity to turn up at any MHL hearing and earnestly express their support for MHLs (which, by definition, don't apply to their chosen form of bike use). Not surprisingly, people doing downhill MTB choose to wear PPE. (Strange as it may seem, cyclists tend to pick the appropriate PPE even in the absence of MHLs)
**yeah, the roadies only adopted helmets when the TdF peleton adopted them. But what else did you expect?

It amuses me that the most vocal MHL supporters often come from two distinct camps. One being the "serious cyclists" and the other being the most rabid anti-cyclist / cyclist-haters. It always seems like such a strange alliance.

uart wrote: ↑

Sat May 16, 2020 11:10 am

It amuses me that the most vocal MHL supporters often come from two distinct camps. One being the "serious cyclists" and the other being the most rabid anti-cyclist / cyclist-haters. It always seems like such a strange alliance.

Can you back that assertion? I guess it revolves around the word "vocal", and "where, and in what context" those people are being "vocal". I'm preeety sure you're right when it comes to submissions to the various inquiries and the like....but I'm not sure that it's correct in a general population sort of sense. eg....if you were to survey Joe and Joanne citizen, I'd feel that the most "vocal" in the sense of votes for or nay would be parents of sub teen children. Given that in all the surveys I've seen regarding cycling uptake MHL's never account for more than 16% of respondents, and usually a lot less I'm pretty sure there's more than "serious cyclists" and "rabid anti cyclists" in that remaining 84%.

I always thought the most "vocal" in terms of print and other media were the medico types, simply because they have the media's ear.

Thoglette wrote:Don't disagree. The paucity of decent data pre- and post- MHLs is a key problem in any commentary on cycling in Australia. And reading the pre-MHL proposal papers are an exercise in making-s**t-up.

Yet the anti-MHL'ers go ballistic whenever anything that hasn't had a gold plated peer review and statistical confirmation is brought up! God help you if you dare say a helmet saved my life! What would you know, peon? There's famous academics, like Professor Chris Rissel out there, sweating over studies and data that show just how stupid you are! Ohhhh, I forgot...…..

Yeah, but the reality is that cyclist-haters, roadies who wear helmets anyway and doctors who drive to work are the ones who support this silly law.

We all know this.

That photo of the Netherlands just would not happen here because we all see that the proportion of utility cyclists in Australia is so much lower.

DS

[quote][i]Thanks for making the key point: the cycling-as-recreation riders (MTB*, roadies**, BMX, tourers) who were mostly already wearing helmets continued. But those who stopped (almost by definition short trip utility riders), heck, they don't count. They're not committed enough. etc etc etc.

To return to your opening quote, the point is that MHLs effectively curtail the adoption of cycling for ad-hoc short distance transport. That is, getting from A to B. Without activity-specific clothes. Without a shower at the end.

For those who do want to refer to some data nothing shows this more clearly than the fate of MHL bike hire schemes,which specifically target the casual, short distance rider.[/i][/quote]

See, now you are just making stuff up.
Pre MHL not many people rode bikes at all. Cycling of all types was in major decline because just being on the road was hell. You would only see a handful of riders from both the seat of a bike, bus or when in a car......Specifically target the casual, short distance rider...Nope very rare.

It is also worth repeating, that the biggest anti MHL group who went hard into the Govt and put in endless hours in meetings were the people who just rode bikes, most of them wore helmets when they rode point to point for commuting and to link in with public transport railway stations or ferries. Was very odd to turn up to meetings and see these people go in so hard against what they more or less had chained up to the bike outside. It was never about the item just the level of need to introduce the law.

Also, if a decline in bike rider numbers occurred it also include people who used helmets before the laws came in, so the numbers in stats are false.

FWIW on my 32 k each way commute I would rarely have a post ride shower at work unless it was heavy rain.
I would shower when I got home so really after 64ks. It is how you ride not the type or distance.

Also worth noting that in Manly before the heavy fines came in, the core group who wore helmets were the riders who hired bikes. Would have been insurance but still. It did not stop them. AND go to Chile with bike hire in the big cites, they make you use a helmet. Australia really is not as special as people make out.

Again people need to stop highlighting guff and get back to telling and writing to local councils, state gov and your local fed member what the basis of it just being a plain and simple bad law.

baabaa wrote: ↑

Sun May 17, 2020 12:11 am

See, now you are just making stuff up.

exactly which stuff?

DavidS wrote: ↑

Sat May 16, 2020 8:38 pm

Yeah, but the reality is that cyclist-haters, roadies who wear helmets anyway and doctors who drive to work are the ones who support this silly law.

We all know this.

That photo of the Netherlands just would not happen here because we all see that the proportion of utility cyclists in Australia is so much lower.

DS

What? Because I wear a helmet and ride a road bike I support the helmet laws? Good grief...

I might ride a road bike, but the majority of riding done on it is for transport or utilitarian purposes. I’m out there riding every day. In hot temperatures, in the cold, and in the pouring rain.

If you want more people riding, you have to ride a lot more yourself and encourage others quietly to do so, helping them along the way. That’s how you get more people to ride. It’s no use pointing fingers at others in forum posts.