Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 3:40 pm

Note that the paper is not peer reviewed and majority of data is well over 20 years old .....

"neatly sums up the arguments against MHL"

There are plenty of complex, peer-reviewed papers that back up these arguments which you can find easily enough in this thread.

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 3:44 pm

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 3:40 pm

Note that the paper is not peer reviewed and majority of data is well over 20 years old .....

"neatly sums up the arguments against MHL"

There are plenty of complex, peer-reviewed papers that back up these arguments which you can find easily enough in this thread.

No thanks.

I’m a pro helmet person

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 3:40 pm

Note that the paper is not peer reviewed and majority of data is well over 20 years old .....

And the linked site

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/

Has been archived since 2020, with not much happening post 2016

Since 2020-08-29 this website is an archive, to preserve links. Not much has been added since about 2016

But that's cool. I didn't really expect any ground breaking news on the MHL front.

Edit....I love this thread

fat and old wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:11 pm

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 3:40 pm

Note that the paper is not peer reviewed and majority of data is well over 20 years old .....

And the linked site

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/

Has been archived since 2020, with not much happening post 2016

Since 2020-08-29 this website is an archive, to preserve links. Not much has been added since about 2016

But that's cool. I didn't really expect any ground breaking news on the MHL front.

Edit....I love this thread

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 3:40 pm

Note that the paper is not peer reviewed and majority of data is well over 20 years old .....

It actually bounced into my thoughts recently. I could see a lot of parallels with the covid mask thing. Governments around Australia declared that they strongly encouraged but were unwilling to mandate the wearing of masks, and preferred they be left up to adults "personal responsibility". They were also unwilling to mandate standards for them (n95, P2). I believe the science is pretty clear too that mask wearing is effictive for the user and has a role in protecting others - unlike bicycle helmets. Plus - clearly given our death, disability, and disruption of society and the health system it's a far far bigger problem for society.

Yet, personal responsibility in regards to helmet wearing is not OK. And if it doesn't have the Australian standards sticker you're considered to be not wearing one at all by law.

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:50 pm

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 3:44 pm

There are plenty of complex, peer-reviewed papers that back up these arguments which you can find easily enough in this thread.

No thanks.

I’m a pro helmet person

And that neatly sums up the arguments for MHL.

From the very beginning.

And yes, I’ve tried to read everything I can find on the topic, including the original rationale & strategies to inflict MHL on us. It’s all referenced in the thread.
Ps I’m not picking on Michael here, he’s just summed up the whole issue up much better than anyone else.

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:50 pm

No thanks.

I’m a pro helmet person

I'm sure this has been said before somewhere in the previous 458 pages. There is a distinction between helmets and helmet laws.

I'm encouraging of wearing helmets where the riding is a risk activity. I'm against the disproportionate impact on the vulnerable and marginalised that the seemingly inevitable over-policing that follows mandatory helmet laws has. It behaves like a pesticide on cycling.

trailgumby wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:03 pm

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:50 pm

No thanks.

I’m a pro helmet person

I'm sure this has been said before somewhere in the previous 458 pages. There is a distinction between helmets and helmet laws.

I'm encouraging of wearing helmets where the riding is a risk activity. I'm against the disproportionate impact on the vulnerable and marginalised that the seemingly inevitable over-policing that follows mandatory helmet laws has. It behaves like a pesticide on cycling.

Pretty much for me that sums it up too. One post out of 458 pages.

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:50 pm

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 3:44 pm

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 12, 2022 3:40 pm

Note that the paper is not peer reviewed and majority of data is well over 20 years old .....

"neatly sums up the arguments against MHL"

There are plenty of complex, peer-reviewed papers that back up these arguments which you can find easily enough in this thread.

No thanks.

I’m a pro helmet person

I take it you wear one when travelling in a motor vehicle?

@MichaelB,
I thought you were brave posting that.
I lean toward helmet use given my type of riding, but can see mandatiing it for all activities is potentially limiting toward uptake.
All complicated by the number of people who would make silly decisions not to wear it in riskier cycling activities.

Anyway carry on all.

I don't see it changing and frankly do not have the interest or energy to pursue a change.

I'm encouraging of wearing masks where the movement of people is a risky activity. I'm against the disproportionate impact on the vulnerable and marginalised that the seemingly inevitable non-policing that follows recommended mask wearing. It behaves like a pesticide on the vulnerable.

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:36 pm

I take it you wear one when travelling in a motor vehicle?

Nope, but that’s because I have 6 airbags, a seatbelt, and surrounded by a structure designed to absorb impact.

Something that where you ride a bike and may make contact with the ground when you fall off doesn’t have.

It only takes 5 min with a family where a member has suffered an ABI to see what the impact of that significant consequence, and yes, rare occurrence can cause.

If you want to take that risk, fine.

I’m not one of those that think wearing a helmet is an issue.

And yes, there are papers that gather some statistics and moosh them to show that helmets are worse. Bollocks, from an engineering perspective, especially when that data is out of date.

Fine if you think being forced to wear a helmet infringes your rights and sensibilities. That’s your prerogative. I just disagree.

And using the argument like ‘do you wear one in a car’ is nothing the same, because there are engineering mitigations to reduce the risk to a much lower level, but yes, still there.

Anyway, bowing out of this thread necro revival

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:35 pm

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:36 pm

I take it you wear one when travelling in a motor vehicle?

Nope, but ...

And you're not driving at Bathurst or Le Mans.

Nor a golf buggy at the local links.

Different circumstances (hazards and risks) call for different approaches.

(By the way, the MHL laws were meant to include general car driving. Somehow that got dropped)

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:35 pm

And yes, there are papers that gather some statistics and moosh them to show that helmets are worse.

If that's what you're taking away from the discussion then you're definitely missing the point.

MHL is preaching to the converted. Those who would benefit most from wearing a helmet would wear one anyway. Those who would benefit little may be discouraged from making some trips by bike, which is not good for cycling.

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 13, 2022 2:35 pm

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:36 pm

I take it you wear one when travelling in a motor vehicle?

Nope, but that’s because I have 6 airbags, a seatbelt, and surrounded by a structure designed to absorb impact.

Something that where you ride a bike and may make contact with the ground when you fall off doesn’t have.

It only takes 5 min with a family where a member has suffered an ABI to see what the impact of that significant consequence, and yes, rare occurrence can cause.

If you want to take that risk, fine.

I’m not one of those that think wearing a helmet is an issue.

And yes, there are papers that gather some statistics and moosh them to show that helmets are worse. Bollocks, from an engineering perspective, especially when that data is out of date.

Fine if you think being forced to wear a helmet infringes your rights and sensibilities. That’s your prerogative. I just disagree.

And using the argument like ‘do you wear one in a car’ is nothing the same, because there are engineering mitigations to reduce the risk to a much lower level, but yes, still there.

Anyway, bowing out of this thread necro revival

It seems you have not realised that your line of argument above supports the partial relaxation of mandatory helmet laws for bike riders. You rightly distinguish between risk activities with the wearing of helmets not being necessary in motor vehicles.

Yet, when using a motor vehicle does become a risk activity - such as racing, time trialling, rallying, etc the wearing of helmets is in fact mandatory.

Similarly, as you argue for motor vehicles, when cycling is not a risk activity - wheeled pedestrian riding in off-road cycleways, footpath riding in the states and age groups where it is permitted - helmets should not be mandatory.

This experiment has already been done in Australia and the results are in. When mandatory helmet laws in the Northern Territory were relaxed in line with the above non-risk scenarios, due to the disproportionate impact the laws were having on indigenous youth incarceration rates, cycling participation rates bounced back and persistently remain the highest in the country.

There is also scope to argue based on data out of Denmark that every early death prevented by cycling helmet laws comes at the cost of more than 20 early deaths from inactivity-related lifestyle diseases caused by the suppressive impact of those laws on cycling participation.

The price of unintended consequences means that mandatory helmet laws for all-scenario cycling are a net loss for community health.

Helmet laws should only be mandatory where riding is a risk activity, in line with the Northern Territory model.

uart wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 13, 2022 4:50 pm

which is not good for cycling.

And much worse for public health, the whole point of MHL.

trailgumby wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 13, 2022 6:35 pm

When mandatory helmet laws in the Northern Territory were relaxed in line with the above non-risk scenarios, due to the disproportionate impact the laws were having on indigenous youth incarceration rates, cycling participation rates bounced back and persistently remain the highest in the country.

[...]

Helmet laws should only be mandatory where riding is a risk activity, in line with the Northern Territory model.

I am lucky enough to have lived in the NT for the past two decades, so MHL effectively doesn't apply to me and yes - despite the often searing heat - utility cycling rates are far higher here and almost no-one wears a helmet. We more sensibly wear hats!
And yet, as in every other overseas jurisdiction with non-MHL, mountain bikers and high-speed road racers do all wear helmets, voluntarily.

How is it proposed to change the law in other states?

In all these pages and years of railing against it, where is the path that has a valid chance of implementation and success described?

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 13, 2022 9:14 pm

In all these pages and years of railing against it, where is the path that has a valid chance of implementation and success described?

That’s a very, very good question.

It deserves a serious response, which I can’t start to collate now (got bags to pack and a plane to catch) but I’ll start getting my notes together

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 13, 2022 9:14 pm

In all these pages and years of railing against it, where is the path that has a valid chance of implementation and success described?

For now, there is none. Despite all the data, all the overseas experience, the local experience in the NT, no-one is prepared to even attempt a limited trial replicating the NT experience to try and capture a more current data picture. It's become a visceral emotional response and a rusted-on case of Australian exceptionalism.

The politicians are all terrified of the optics when the first person crashes and suffers a brain injury, regardless of all the "early deaths prevented by all that cycling" (to quote the Danish government tweet on the 26 early deaths vs 6,000 early deaths prevented).

I'm not sure what it will take to change the status quo.

I note that in Manly, helmet compliance is the exception rather than the rule. That could perhaps be leveraged for some kind of study.

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 13, 2022 9:14 pm

How is it proposed to change the law in other states?

In all these pages and years of railing against it, where is the path that has a valid chance of implementation and success described?

I've been involved a bit in advocacy up here. I've met lots of people involved. For the most part they are either drivers who quite like MHL, or sports cyclists who don't see an issue. The current transport minister is a sports cyclist. He had been asked and flatly declined removal of MHL. He believes he's saving us from ourselves.

I'm not aware of any jurisdiction actively working on changing this. It will take a head of Transport in one of the states (not NT - they are different) who gets it. All we've had so far is a few local mayors who want it changed, but they don't get a say.

I do not see a valid path and have not read one on here.
It is depressing but it is what it is.

I note that in Manly, helmet compliance is the exception rather than the rule. That could perhaps be leveraged for some kind of study.

My youngest daughter is down from the house in Manly Council to Eurobodalla council for a short break from all things uni and said yesterday she cannot believe just how many people of such a wide range of ages from school kiddies to the very old ride bikes on streets, paths, proper shared paths and on the wrong side of the road doing long wheelies..... AND of that whole group how few people ride to school, the shops or the beach without a lid.
The roadies still ride on the highway.

The drivers here are very bike aware as it could be the next door neighbors grandmother or in the drivers kiddy soccer team. Manly had bike lanes but needed to cut the speed limits to make it safe/ safer.
It is not so much the law but how it is policed - same as Manly for the past 40 years, the local police see a community that rides bikes and it is safety in numbers.
Get people on bikes by better infra and then...

Manly is a very narrow group that do ride as it is bloody hilly off the Manly flats so would prefer a more balanced loco say a rural town and to be honest more representative town to be studied that cannot be pull apart as not being....a good representative.

In NSW maybe rob stokes after being shouted at for so long to do something has finally got it so start doing studies on what is now pre and post infra

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 14, 2022 7:47 am

I do not see a valid path and have not read one on here.
It is depressing but it is what it is.

I agree with that Warty. Most drivers are dead set against any relaxation of helmet laws, and we know they're a majority. They generally just see it as more potential liability on them if they hit a cyclist. Added to that most cycling bodies are also in the pro helmet camp. So it seems pretty unlikely that anything will change here.

As Baabaa says, local police in some areas have taken it upon themselves to decide as to when and where to enforce it, but that's not really a good solution.

Up here in Newcastle I took a detour down our CBD mall on recent sunny day, and I was amazed at how many female riders (slow bikes with baskets on the front) were cruising around there lidless. Give their numbers I'd have to assume that they are immune from the local police. Not everyone has that immunity though, and there really is no way of knowing if and when it will be enforced.

The mark of a true helmet law zealot is one who thinks that implementing MHLs in places like Amsterdam is a Good Thing.