Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

am50em wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 18, 2022 7:11 pm

Still reading report from https://www.cwanz.com.au/national-walki ... rvey-2021/.
In reasons for not riding a bicycle, MHL did not show up. It was not an explicit option in question (but there was Other option). Surprisingly, for me, was that the Danger option was a low response.
Cycling participation was up arresting the downward trend, most likely due to Covid.
ACT participation was similar level to NT (and WA) presumably mainly due to the better cycling infrastructure (and population demographics?)

That was interesting if only because I received a good dose of confirmation bias going

Figure 3.3 for Victoria: cycling participation by age. Highest group is 10-17yo (kids playing). Then it drops through the floor for 18-29 yo (when coincidentally most people get a license), goes up a bit for the 30-49 yo group (time to get fit again now) and then falls off again.

Of course it may be that at 18 most get suddenly embarrassed by wearing a helmet and give the bike away?

The point is that cycling is nowhere near as dangerous as people perceive it to be (the video which re-started this discussion mentioned the numbers), and a fair bit of that perception comes from having to wear protective equipment whenever you cycle or face a large fine. I've had this argument with people, they say cycling is dangerous otherwise why would helmets be mandated?

Cycling is safe and has positive health benefits. Bloody good way to get around too.

And, before someone starts, yes, I ride on roads, and, no, I would not wear a helmet if it wasn't for the fines. I don't like having to wear a helmet, I don't like having to always have a helmet on my bike and I don't see why I should have to.

There have been examples given of people who have lost their lives while cycling, well, far more people drown each year in Australia than die on bicycles, but we don't mandate life jackets whenever people go near the water. Plus, how many people drown wearing a life jacket? I reckon very very few. But most of those who die as a result of a bicycle accident are wearing helmets, so you have to question their efficacy.

MHLs have always been about shifting the responsibility for safe cycling on to cyclists and giving the government a way to take no responsibility for cyclist safety or claim they have acted.

Bicycles are road vehicles, we shouldn't need separate roads, we should be, and largely are, safe on the roads.

Unfortunately cycling is a marginal form of transport and it is damned near impossible to convince the powers that be to repeal these silly laws. If I knew a way to influence governments on this issue I would do it, but I can't see a way. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't lobby.

DS

How many people enter the water as opposed to cycle.
How many infants cycle, how many aged and infirm cycle.
Vast differences between the percentage of people who cycle vs those who swim and bathe. Everybody needs to wash themselves. A vanishingly small percentage regularly cycle in comparison.
Get out on some busy higher speed roads in Melb and tell us how safe it is.
Trucks, buses, texting, arrogant, impatient drivers passing close and at speed.
I pick my routes with care up here. Choose the wrong one at the wrong time and it is very unsafe.

Remove the traffic? Sure it is relatively safe most of the time.

And yes nobody in this thread, that I have read, has proposed a viable strategy to change or remove the law.

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:27 pm

Get out on some busy higher speed roads in Melb and tell us how safe it is.
Trucks, buses, texting, arrogant, impatient drivers passing close and at speed.

Sorry to break it to you, but a helmet is very unlikely to help you in these circumstances.

Even the inflated claims of the helmet manufacturers don't claim they're designed for collisions with motor vehicles.

Continuing to expose yourself to high risk environments, because you have faith in a helmet to save you, is a great example of risk compensation. You take more risks because you think (erroneously in this case) that something will make you safer.

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:50 pm

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:27 pm

Get out on some busy higher speed roads in Melb and tell us how safe it is.
Trucks, buses, texting, arrogant, impatient drivers passing close and at speed.

Sorry to break it to you, but a helmet is very unlikely to help you in these circumstances.

Even the inflated claims of the helmet manufacturers don't claim they're designed for collisions with motor vehicles.

Continuing to expose yourself to high risk environments, because you have faith in a helmet to save you, is a great example of risk compensation. You take more risks because you think (erroneously in this case) that something will make you safer.

I ride where I do because I enjoy it.
Learn to read and understand what is written rather than attribute your own reasons.
I am aware a helmet does not render me safe. I take various other precautions also including route timing and choice. I have already written this however.
The assertion continues to be made that cycling is safe. It depends on where and when it is undertaken for this to be so.

Should my head make contact with a hard object at speed I would prefer a helmet to none though.

And Bob you spend a lot of your time posting in this thread it appears.
You seem quite invested in removing the MHL.
I see some negatives also.
Do you have a proposal as to how it will be done?

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:58 pm

The assertion continues to be made that cycling is safe. It depends on where and when it is undertaken for this to be so.

The assertion is made because all the empirical evidence demonstrates it.

If you choose to cycle in the most dangerous conditions, it will be less safe (but helmets won't help). The same is true of gardening or chess.

But most of us choose to cycle defensively, at moderate speed and generally avoiding undue risk. In other words, safely.

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 18, 2022 11:12 pm

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:58 pm

The assertion continues to be made that cycling is safe. It depends on where and when it is undertaken for this to be so.

The assertion is made because all the empirical evidence demonstrates it.

If you choose to cycle in the most dangerous conditions, it will be less safe (but helmets won't help). The same is true of gardening or chess.

But most of us choose to cycle defensively, at moderate speed and generally avoiding undue risk. In other words, safely.

https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/injury/ ... ns/summary


In 2015–16, about 12,000 Australians were hospitalised for a pedal cycle-related injury representing 1 in 5 injury hospitalisations from land transport crashes.


Are we proposing that cycling represents 20% of land transport time or distance, like it does the hospital rates for land transport crashes?

Getting to work would be a pretty large component of land transport. Most of us have to do it.

https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsr ... way-to-go/

Released on Monday, the data on commuting habits showed that more than two thirds of people (69 per cent or 6.5 million people) drive to work.
Horrifyingly, while cars continued their dominance, riding a bike to work also declined to 1.1 per cent of all transport to work, down from 1.2 per cent in 2011.


Sure, seems pretty safe.

With respect to "helmets won't help", if I am going to have my head slammed onto the bitumen, I will choose to wear a helmet.
Fast bunch cycling or riding on rural roads with Australian drivers there is the chance that may happen even if remote. Drivers and bunches increase it though. I will wear a helmet regardless of the law,as would many experienced cyclists on this forum, as you would understand if you ventured outside this thread on occasion.
Here is a thread that may enlighten you.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=58039

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 18, 2022 7:37 pm

My experience is that the police are chomping at the bit to hand out helmet fines - I've had one perform a crazy traffic stunt in busy traffic with lights and siren blaring to pull me over.

Sorry to hear that - after decades of riding in and across Sydney I "now*" stick to back roads and for my own sanity avoid anything major roadish like the Military, Victoria Roads /Pacific Highway and that experience sounds like the Highway Patrol who lurk on these major roads and yes can be real monsters.
* I did the tree and sea change out of Sydney a few years back after coming back to Aust after working o/s- partly because of the riding in and around Sydney was becoming so bad I wanted to stop riding - I also did stop doing my 66 k a day commutes then worked out working from home and remote just "worked" for me so why stay in Sydney - eldest daughter lives in Canberra so that is a great place to ride and youngest daughter still in Manly but visits the South Coast more than I visit Manly so I guess I do rely on her biking experience /info for the past year/ eighteen months.

Quick stab of crystal balling - think NSW will have a change of Govt and cant see the new lot pushing heavy handed bike law reinforcement so once again if people start doing stuff and talking to anyone in local or state govts, could have a chance to change all things biking for the better - do it now!!

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 18, 2022 11:24 pm

Here is a thread that may enlighten you.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=58039

And? A helmet is not designed for those situations.

What is designed for those situations is a key across multiple panels or a side view mirror smashed in. That kind of education sticks with motorists long after they've put your life in danger.

A helmet on the other hand is a meaningless talisman.

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 19, 2022 8:06 am

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 18, 2022 11:24 pm

Here is a thread that may enlighten you.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=58039

And? A helmet is not designed for those situations.

What is designed for those situations is a key across multiple panels or a side view mirror smashed in. That kind of education sticks with motorists long after they've put your life in danger.

A helmet on the other hand is a meaningless talisman.

Quoted for reference later so it cannot be said “I never said that”.

Advocating smashing mirrors or keying doors is bad advice, no matter what. It doesn’t help the cause.

Compare and contrast.

g-boaf wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 11:29 am

The lack of unity in cycling community does us no favours.

g-boaf wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 19, 2022 8:11 am

Quoted for reference later so it cannot be said “I never said that”.

Reference for what?

Telling people you're keeping tabs on them for holding differing views isn't going to do much for unity, is it?

You can't go scratching up other peoples cars or smashing mirrors!

It really doesn't help create a better environment for people riding on the road.

Sorry if I hold a different view on that (lack of unity be damned), I just don't think it's right to go scratching keys along other people's cars or smashing their mirrors. I don't think too many others would think it's justified either.

DavidS wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:54 pm

.....
Cycling is generally (except for the idiots) safe and has positive health benefits. Bloody good way to get around too.

....

Bicycles are road vehicles, we shouldn't need separate roads, we should be, and largely are, safe on the roads.

....

DS

With my additions/highlights, I agree with you 100%.

Sadly, many people in cars do not share the same sentiment, sadly.

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:58 pm

I ride where I do because I enjoy it.
Learn to read and understand what is written rather than attribute your own reasons.
I am aware a helmet does not render me safe. I take various other precautions also including route timing and choice. I have already written this however.
The assertion continues to be made that cycling is safe. It depends on where and when it is undertaken for this to be so.

Should my head make contact with a hard object at speed I would prefer a helmet to none though.

^^^ This - 100%

Especially the last point - if it even helps slightly, then it's done it's job.

As I have written many times over, unless you have direct experience of someone who has suffered an acquired brain injury, you cannot understand the impact of when an injury happens, albeit rare.

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 19, 2022 9:09 am

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:58 pm

I ride where I do because I enjoy it.
Learn to read and understand what is written rather than attribute your own reasons.
I am aware a helmet does not render me safe. I take various other precautions also including route timing and choice. I have already written this however.
The assertion continues to be made that cycling is safe. It depends on where and when it is undertaken for this to be so.

Should my head make contact with a hard object at speed I would prefer a helmet to none though.

^^^ This - 100%

Especially the last point - if it even helps slightly, then it's done it's job.

As I have written many times over, unless you have direct experience of someone who has suffered an acquired brain injury, you cannot understand the impact of when an injury happens, albeit rare.

Cycling is safe, but no matter all the precautions anyone takes, people can even have bad injuries from the silliest and slowest low speed accidents. You can't predict it. I've seen a helmet cracked apart from a 10km/h low speed crash on a slippery surface. The rider was deliberately going slow because of the conditions and that still happened. Poor guy was rattled because he was taking every precaution because of the conditions and still went down.

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%. Bicycle helmets were not found to have any statistically significant effect on cervical spine injury.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29677686/
Not bad for a

meaningless talisman

g-boaf wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 19, 2022 9:29 am

Cycling is safe, but no matter all the precautions anyone takes, people can even have bad injuries from the silliest and slowest low speed accidents. You can't predict it. I've seen a helmet cracked apart from a 10km/h low speed crash on a slippery surface. The rider was deliberately going slow because of the conditions and that still happened. Poor guy was rattled because he was taking every precaution because of the conditions and still went down.

I saw someone walking once and she tripped forwards straight onto her head. Ouch!

Since then I always wear a helmet when walking.

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 19, 2022 10:56 am

g-boaf wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 19, 2022 9:29 am

Cycling is safe, but no matter all the precautions anyone takes, people can even have bad injuries from the silliest and slowest low speed accidents. You can't predict it. I've seen a helmet cracked apart from a 10km/h low speed crash on a slippery surface. The rider was deliberately going slow because of the conditions and that still happened. Poor guy was rattled because he was taking every precaution because of the conditions and still went down.

I saw someone walking once and she tripped forwards straight onto her head. Ouch!

Since then I always wear a helmet when walking.

I know of someone that also tripped when walking. She ended up paralysed and permanently in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. It was a paver that was loose. She was in the "rehab" facility. It's a sobering place.

I reckon she'd find your story interesting.

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 19, 2022 10:56 am

g-boaf wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 19, 2022 9:29 am

Cycling is safe, but no matter all the precautions anyone takes, people can even have bad injuries from the silliest and slowest low speed accidents. You can't predict it. I've seen a helmet cracked apart from a 10km/h low speed crash on a slippery surface. The rider was deliberately going slow because of the conditions and that still happened. Poor guy was rattled because he was taking every precaution because of the conditions and still went down.

I saw someone walking once and she tripped forwards straight onto her head. Ouch!

Since then I always wear a helmet when walking.

My cousin died from an even lower speed crash in similar circumstances. Was waving to an acquaintance and hit a pine cone at walking pace a few hundred metres from home after returning from a training ride. For whatever reason, he didn't get his hand down in time. He was wearing a helmet.

This sniping is just going around in circles. There is no argument - it is well proven that bike helmets do offer some measure of protection, albeit quite limited. No-one with any credibility can argue otherwise - the evidence is in.

My issue is this is entirely the wrong argument to be having.

We should instead be looking at what price we are paying to achieve those savings in early deaths and life-altering injuries.

A few years ago a Danish epidemiologist tweeted, quoting from government data, that in 2016 Denmark had 26 early deaths from cycling related crashes and 6,000 early deaths prevented by all that cycling. That's a TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY TO ONE ratio.

Given what we know about the suppressive effects of enforcement campaigns like Operation Pedro on participation rates in Western Sydney, how many people is this policy position killing through unintended consequences from inactivity-related lifestyle diseases?

trailgumby wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 19, 2022 11:32 am

This sniping is just going around in circles. There is no argument - it is well proven that bike helmets do offer some measure of protection, albeit quite limited. No-one with any credibility can argue otherwise - the evidence is in.

My issue is this is entirely the wrong argument to be having.

We should instead be looking at what price we are paying to achieve those savings in early deaths and life-altering injuries.

Agreed. Helmets will prevent some injury (in whatever circumstance, including walking and falling out of bed), but they are not a panacea and enforcing them has huge public health effects. Compulsory seatbelts in cars and masks in pandemics have huge, clear, unambiguous public health benefits (and I strongly support both) - compulsory helmets have negligible individual benefits and huge public disbenefits.

Given what we know about the suppressive effects of enforcement campaigns like Operation Pedro on participation rates in Western Sydney, how many people is this policy position killing through unintended consequences from inactivity-related lifestyle diseases?

What do we know about the suppressive effects???

I think any changes in inactivity related lifestyle diseases from repealing MHLs will be negligible. See the report I linked to earlier about why people do not ride.
Improvements to cycling infrastructure, including things like MTB parks and trails will do more. There is alot of interest in local Hornsby area for this. e.g. Old Mans Valley, H2O and connecting trail. A lot of people (especially with children) will ride off road or cycle trails but wont go on road.

am50em wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 19, 2022 12:20 pm

What do we know about the suppressive effects???

Lots. It's been documented on this thread multiple times as well as elsewhere.

am50em wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 19, 2022 12:20 pm

like MTB parks and trails will do more

We need to get cycling into everyday life, i.e. utility cycling. Leisure cycling is great, but it will never have the public health (and environmental) effect that integrating cycling into everyday lives will.

trailgumby wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 19, 2022 11:32 am

...
We should instead be looking at what price we are paying to achieve those savings in early deaths and life-altering injuries.

A few years ago a Danish epidemiologist tweeted, quoting from government data, that in 2016 Denmark had 26 early deaths from cycling related crashes and 6,000 early deaths prevented by all that cycling. That's a TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY TO ONE ratio.

....

Agree wholeheartedly that more cycling/walking etc yields better health results.

But WHY is it so hard to wear a helmet, that can reduce injuries when you have an accident, regradless of the speed and nature of cycling ....

I used to do my bit by doing lots of utility cycling. You get riding into normal life by getting out and riding every day, or at least as much as is practical. For me, that was riding to work and back, sometimes occasionally grabbing things I needed on the way home. More people doing that in the local area means more people riding, then others notice and they start. I could definitely see that in my area.

I don't really get bothered if someone else isn't wearing a helmet. I do, but if someone else doesn't it's not my concern.

My concern is making the road environment safer for riders and to reflect what I'm used to overseas with lower speed limits and better driver behaviour. Just because they see a rider with a helmet on riding a road-bike they don't suddenly go all aggressive. No matter who is riding, they just pass safely and carefully and they are on their way. It's nothing special there. Mostly there are not specific off-road places to ride and it's not necessary because on road is no problem.