Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

DavidS wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 12:23 am

I said safe, not stunningly safe, but go ahead and put words in my mouth, desperation is the usual tactic of those who either support MHLs or claim they don't while attempting to refute all the arguments against these silly laws.

Guilty. I used an adjective that wasn't needed.
You appear offended by that.
This is your response when I posted of people known by myself and family killed whilst cycling;

DavidS wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 16, 2022 9:12 pm

Your anecdotes do not constitute evidence.

- calling the stories of the people we know personally and grieve "anecdotes" is demeaning and insensitve. I hope you didn't mean that.

reads as a very disingenuous comment and borders on offensive. I trust it wasn't meant that way ...

Addressing;

DavidS wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 12:23 am

6,960 hospitalisations is too many but that's from a hell of a lot of bicycles on the road every day. The probability remains very low that you will be hospitalised when riding on road.

There are a hell of a lot more other vehicles on the road.

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 18, 2022 11:24 pm

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.

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.

Addressing;

DavidS wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 12:23 am

Not to mention the bleedingly obvious - all these hospitalisations, when everyone has to wear a helmet. Citing injury numbers and claiming that riding on roads is unsafe unless you are wearing a helmet, when just about everyone riding on the roads is already wearing a helmet, just makes no sense. Do these helmet things really offer any protection - your own argument is convincing me more and more that they are utterly useless.

What was that about putting words in peoples' mouths? Who is claiming wearing a helmet removes all risk?

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 9:57 pm

Yes cycling can be safe. Pottering along not on the road, away from heavy, fast moving motor vehicles is probably one of those times. A blanket "cycling is safe" I strongly disagree with.

Yes I believe it should be a personal choice when and where to wear a helmet.
Sometimes it is wise, depending on the type of cycling, to put one on regardless of the law.

Nobody is claiming wearing a helmet suddenly makes riding on the roads safe. They are simply a form of risk mitigation in the case of a head strike. To reduce the chance and severity of brain injury in the case of head trauma as has been posted;

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

There are other precautions many take to avoid being hit in the first place. Lights, visible clothing, radars, route choice, ride time of day.

DavidS wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 12:23 am

any case, if riding a road vehicle on the road is so unsafe, why is the supposed solution to require safety equipment rather than requiring that the roads are safe for road vehicles?

DS

I do not disagree with that at all.
Mandating helmet use places the burden of taking action to address safety onto those being hit. As posted;

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:49 pm

Do you believe they were put in place to quell unsafe motorist behaviour?
I'd have said more likely they were an attempt to be seen to address or mitigate the risk posed by motorists.
Make the victims change rather than the perpetrators.
Far easier to do that than make any serious attempt to address the dangerous behaviour.

There are enough reasons to address helmet laws without making unsupported claims.

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 20, 2022 7:52 am

I have also said I don't support MHLs multiple times.

What I do object to are anti-helmet law participants sprouting baseless claims as arguments.
2 of them being cycling is always safe and helmets provide no protection.

Only reason I’m here.

DavidS wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 12:23 am

In any case, if riding a road vehicle on the road is so unsafe, why is the supposed solution to require safety equipment rather than requiring that the roads are safe for road vehicles?

DS

What is the alternative? Segregation of road vehicles into classes that minimise the risks? The Netherlands has done that. Given that The Netherlands is usually held up as the Gold Standard of cycling I guess that would be the first step? No more mixing of cyclists and motor vehicles? Surely they’d have more knowledge on this then the average Australian? What else? Maybe that system of insurance that states the heavier vehicles are liable by default? Presumed Liability iirc?

Both of those systems are based on the idea that motor vehicles and cyclists intermixing on the road is not good. Segregation and punitive measures.

fat and old wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 10:25 am

DavidS wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 12:23 am

In any case, if riding a road vehicle on the road is so unsafe, why is the supposed solution to require safety equipment rather than requiring that the roads are safe for road vehicles?

DS

What is the alternative? Segregation of road vehicles into classes that minimise the risks? The Netherlands has done that. Given that The Netherlands is usually held up as the Gold Standard of cycling I guess that would be the first step? No more mixing of cyclists and motor vehicles? Surely they’d have more knowledge on this then the average Australian? What else? Maybe that system of insurance that states the heavier vehicles are liable by default? Presumed Liability iirc?

Both of those systems are based on the idea that motor vehicles and cyclists intermixing on the road is not good. Segregation and punitive measures.

But isn't it a bit more than that? I think the road and transport Authorities have placed the onus on the motorists to ensure they don't collide with Cyclists and pedestrians and that as a motorist, if you're in the wrong in an accident, the penalties are pretty high. I think perhaps that should be done here but I don't think i'll live long enough to see that.

brumby33 wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 10:30 am

fat and old wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 10:25 am

DavidS wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 12:23 am

In any case, if riding a road vehicle on the road is so unsafe, why is the supposed solution to require safety equipment rather than requiring that the roads are safe for road vehicles?

DS

What is the alternative? Segregation of road vehicles into classes that minimise the risks? The Netherlands has done that. Given that The Netherlands is usually held up as the Gold Standard of cycling I guess that would be the first step? No more mixing of cyclists and motor vehicles? Surely they’d have more knowledge on this then the average Australian? What else? Maybe that system of insurance that states the heavier vehicles are liable by default? Presumed Liability iirc?

Both of those systems are based on the idea that motor vehicles and cyclists intermixing on the road is not good. Segregation and punitive measures.

But isn't it a bit more than that? I think the road and transport Authorities have placed the onus on the motorists to ensure they don't collide with Cyclists and pedestrians and that as a motorist, if you're in the wrong in an accident, the penalties are pretty high. I think perhaps that should be done here but I don't think i'll live long enough to see that.

Correct you are, that is the Presumed Liability I referenced. Maybe it’s criminal too? Dunno.

What I’m getting at is that the Dutch have recognised the dangers inherent in cycling when mixing with motor vehicles and have taken steps to reduce or eliminate them. To argue that there are no dangers when cycling is just more Australian Exceptionalism at work

fat and old wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 10:25 am

Both of those systems are based on the idea that motor vehicles and cyclists intermixing on the road is not good. Segregation and punitive measures.

Given how cars have become more and more chunky to keep drivers and passengers safe from that other driver of a chunky car it is pretty clear drivers don't trust other drivers so why should someone who bikes trust the unknown capabilities of any driver.

Also quite surprising it seems that drivers do break the rules on well know routes which people are known to bike on....

London council is first in the UK to have power to issue 20mph speed fines - The trial scheme is to be launched by Wandsworth next week

Priory Lane is heavily used by cyclists riding between Putney, Roehampton and Richmond Park. Wimbledon Park Road is a busy street that includes Southfields Tube station and leads to the Wimbledon tennis grounds.

Recent traffic studies found that one in four vehicles broke the speed limit in Priory Lane and one in five in Wimbledon Park Road.

Wandsworth’s Labour leader Simon Hogg said: “Speeding traffic is one of the biggest sources of complaints we receive. Ensuring drivers stick to the 20mph limit not only improves pedestrian safety levels and encourages more people to walk or cycle, it helps reduce harmful emissions too. ,

“If judged a success, we will look to make it permanent and carry out enforcement in other parts of the borough where we know vehicle speeds are excessive.”

https://www-standard-co-uk.cdn.ampproje ... 0.html?amp

Also, segregation (and this vid must have been highlighted here before), and good well planned infra is not just for bikes but the overall community.

Who else benefits from the Dutch cycling infrastructure


The I've got big balls talk along the lines of "I ride on the roads and it is good enough for me " stuff will always be a big winner in trying to get more kiddies and any women to ride bikes.

fat and old wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 10:25 am

What is the alternative?

First, stop pretending that normal transport cycling, in and of itself, is somehow dangerous.
Second, stop pretending that helmets, in and of themselves, will mitigate the dangers.

(This is the MHL thread, after all, and these are the two key myths that started the whole bloody mess. And continues to do so today)

Onto practical matters: There's a web of inter-related issues (and I recommend "Building the Cycling City: The Dutch Blueprint for Urban Vitality" Bruntlett & Bruntlett, 2018 Island Press as a useful introduction. See short summary here)

a) City and road design: see all the following. Transport safety starts here.

b) System design. The single biggest thing that can be done to minimise the road toll is get people out of their cars. Oh, you need alternatives

c) Budget : stop spending money on new & upgraded roads. Spend it on pedestrian, rail and cycle/e-thing travel options.

d) Admin: selection of road speeds based on area activities and safety outcomes rather than "engineered for" speeds; actual enforcement of speed limits & poor driver behaviour; removal of anti-pedestrian and anti-cycling rules in the Traffic regulations. Ditto for council regulations. Remove or restrict inappropriate vehicles from
Actually design and

e) then there's 2GB, the Murdoch empire & "cockroaches on wheels". The whole "Cars first" culture in public discourse needs to be dismantled.

Look, that's just a taste. This is not a new nor unsolvable problem. Between Rotterdam (a post WWII Modern city now repaired) and Rottnest (a place now without private cars) there are recent, anglophone examples such as Nottingham to show "the way back". Even Paris is getting in on the act, which in the '90s was as car dominated as anywhere else.

Warthog, anecdotes, or single examples, are not data, that is established. You choose to use anecdotes you are open to challenge. I could just as easily say that between myself and my brother we would have more than 350,000KMs on the roads and neither of us has been hit by a car, this, again, would not constitute data and that is why I would not use this as an argument.

I have never claimed anyone was saying that helmets remove all risk. Actually part of my argument, apart from the fact that riding my road vehicle on the road is not particularly dangerous, is that the helmets which are mandated are not particularly effective. Yes, they do prevent cuts, getting stitches and the like, but it is questionable as to whether they do anything to prevent concussion and brain injury. Plus, you keep saying how dangerous it is on the roads, apparently, and the figures you cite are from a place and time where helmets are compulsory - clearly making helmets compulsory, or even having everyone wear helmets, has demonstrably failed as a solution to the dangerous roads problem you claim. Helmets are a failure as a solution to the problem you see (we will have to agree to disagree on whether riding a particular type of road vehicle (bicycle) on the road is particularly dangerous).

On the infrastructure, there is a huge issue here. Separating bicycles from cars is all very well in theory but the way it is often done in Australia is terrible. Those separated bicycle lanes with cars parked to the cyclists' right are shocking. I have ridden in Amsterdam and they work ok there, but they have a lot less driveways and cars look for bicycles at intersections. Here you are limited to lower speeds because you know that drivers turning across the bike lanes will not look and even if they look are unlikely to give way. That infrastructure simply does not work on so many of our roads. I ride East along Park St in South Melbourne on the way to work and they just put one of these separate bike lanes heading towards the intersection with Kings Way - I tried it and almost got left hooked 3 times in about a fortnight, I now choose to ride in the general road vehicle lane to the right of the parked cars. Those separated bicycle lanes do not work here, partly because so few drivers are also cyclists they just never look to see if there is a bicycle in the bike lane, plus too many driveways.

If we continue to separate bicycles then we build the perception that bicycles should not be on the roads. Bicycles are road vehicles, we have the same rights and responsibilities on the roads as any other road vehicle, and we should never ever concede ground on this.

Helmets as a solution to cyclist safety issues are a failure. Which would explain why the rest of the world has not taken up these stupid laws.

DS

This is going around in circles.

Haven’t all these same arguments been presented before and for years and years?

g-boaf wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 6:37 pm

This is going around in circles.

Haven’t all these same arguments been presented before and for years and years?

They have, but some of the forum members (or guest readers) haven't been exposed to them. A summary of all the pro/anti MLH arguments somewhere on this forum would be nice, but someone has to find the time to create it, it's not a small job.

DavidS wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 6:25 pm

Warthog, anecdotes, or single examples, are not data, that is established. You choose to use anecdotes you are open to challenge. I could just as easily say that between myself and my brother we would have more than 350,000KMs on the roads and neither of us has been hit by a car, this, again, would not constitute data and that is why I would not use this as an argument.

You complain that the use of an adjective was "putting words in your mouth"

Yet you come out with a dismissive statement that deaths I posted are anecdotes. It was mentioned by others that it was dismissive and insensitive. I did find it offensive given I knew one of them.

However, I provided data clearly showing cycling is not safe. Not "anecdotes" and this is dismissed with no data provided by you showing otherwise.

DavidS wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 6:25 pm

I have never claimed anyone was saying that helmets remove all risk. Actually part of my argument, apart from the fact that riding my road vehicle on the road is not particularly dangerous, is that the helmets which are mandated are not particularly effective. Yes, they do prevent cuts, getting stitches and the like, but it is questionable as to whether they do anything to prevent concussion and brain injury.

No it wasn't you saying helmets are a "meaningless talisman".
You appear to be questioning their effectiveness now. Data has been linked showing they do provide protection. Here it is yet again. I think the fourth time it has been posted.

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/

DavidS wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 6:25 pm

Plus, you keep saying how dangerous it is on the roads, apparently, and the figures you cite are from a place and time where helmets are compulsory - clearly making helmets compulsory, or even having everyone wear helmets, has demonstrably failed as a solution to the dangerous roads problem you claim. Helmets are a failure as a solution to the problem you see (we will have to agree to disagree on whether riding a particular type of road vehicle (bicycle) on the road is particularly dangerous).

Clearly you fail to comprehend I am not claiming helmets remove all risk. They mitigate the risk of a brain injury as the above statistics reveal. They protect one, albeit important, part of the anatomy.
It is not just me saying roads are unsafe. It is multiple people in this thread and in multiple other places throughout the forum.
Here is one I liked.

What I’m getting at is that the Dutch have recognised the dangers inherent in cycling when mixing with motor vehicles and have taken steps to reduce or eliminate them. To argue that there are no dangers when cycling is just more Australian Exceptionalism at work

DavidS wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 6:25 pm

On the infrastructure, there is a huge issue here. Separating bicycles from cars is all very well in theory but the way it is often done in Australia is terrible. Those separated bicycle lanes with cars parked to the cyclists' right are shocking. I have ridden in Amsterdam and they work ok there, but they have a lot less driveways and cars look for bicycles at intersections. Here you are limited to lower speeds because you know that drivers turning across the bike lanes will not look and even if they look are unlikely to give way. That infrastructure simply does not work on so many of our roads. I ride East along Park St in South Melbourne on the way to work and they just put one of these separate bike lanes heading towards the intersection with Kings Way - I tried it and almost got left hooked 3 times in about a fortnight, I now choose to ride in the general road vehicle lane to the right of the parked cars. Those separated bicycle lanes do not work here, partly because so few drivers are also cyclists they just never look to see if there is a bicycle in the bike lane, plus too many driveways.

If we continue to separate bicycles then we build the perception that bicycles should not be on the roads. Bicycles are road vehicles, we have the same rights and responsibilities on the roads as any other road vehicle, and we should never ever concede ground on this.

Separated infrastructure is but one part of the equation. There are others arguing for it.
Addressing driver behaviour as others have also said is an important part of addressing safety.
Police passing laws. Police mobile phone use.
Others have argued presumed liability. I am not well versed on that.
Culturally we have huge problems too. It appears OK for section of the media to target cyclists and there is plenty of negative sentiment toward us in the community.
I will keep riding on the roads but I will keep choosing my routes with care and avoid dangerous places and times.

DavidS wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 6:25 pm

Helmets as a solution to cyclist safety issues are a failure. Which would explain why the rest of the world has not taken up these stupid laws.

DS

MHLs are about making the victims of unsafe behaviour, rather than the perpetrators (drivers), take steps to address the results of it.

g-boaf wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 6:37 pm

This is going around in circles.

Haven’t all these same arguments been presented before and for years and years?

Yep.

Remember the bike hire schemes….the original ones? Melbourne was run by the RACV. Remember how MHLs were responsible for the failure of those? You just need to look back at the first 5 pages of this thread to see that. How come the escoot schemes haven’t faced the same dilemma? Maybe MHLs aren’t the big turn off people assume?

DavidS wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 6:25 pm

On the infrastructure, there is a huge issue here. Separating bicycles from cars is all very well in theory but the way it is often done in Australia is terrible. Those separated bicycle lanes with cars parked to the cyclists' right are shocking. I have ridden in Amsterdam and they work ok there, but they have a lot less driveways and cars look for bicycles at intersections. Here you are limited to lower speeds because you know that drivers turning across the bike lanes will not look and even if they look are unlikely to give way. That infrastructure simply does not work on so many of our roads. I ride East along Park St in South Melbourne on the way to work and they just put one of these separate bike lanes heading towards the intersection with Kings Way - I tried it and almost got left hooked 3 times in about a fortnight, I now choose to ride in the general road vehicle lane to the right of the parked cars. Those separated bicycle lanes do not work here, partly because so few drivers are also cyclists they just never look to see if there is a bicycle in the bike lane, plus too many driveways.

If we continue to separate bicycles then we build the perception that bicycles should not be on the roads. Bicycles are road vehicles, we have the same rights and responsibilities on the roads as any other road vehicle, and we should never ever concede ground on this.

Helmets as a solution to cyclist safety issues are a failure. Which would explain why the rest of the world has not taken up these stupid laws.

DS

And to press the big button and send this bit of fiction on its happy way down the S bend, just because bicycle infrastructure is present in a city, suburb, town, road or anywhere it is very rare that you are obliged to use it.
If you like to ride on the roads, off you go, keep doing it but don’t deny it from the what seems to be the ever increasing number of people* who just don’t and the reason why many nations continue to build more bicycle infrastructure.
(* based on the international growth of gravel bikes - sick of the cars so find roads which have fewer/without cars)

g-boaf wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 6:37 pm

This is going around in circles.

Haven’t all these same arguments been presented before and for years and years?

baabaa wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 24, 2022 7:37 am

DavidS wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 23, 2022 6:25 pm

On the infrastructure, there is a huge issue here. Separating bicycles from cars is all very well in theory but the way it is often done in Australia is terrible. Those separated bicycle lanes with cars parked to the cyclists' right are shocking. I have ridden in Amsterdam and they work ok there, but they have a lot less driveways and cars look for bicycles at intersections. Here you are limited to lower speeds because you know that drivers turning across the bike lanes will not look and even if they look are unlikely to give way. That infrastructure simply does not work on so many of our roads. I ride East along Park St in South Melbourne on the way to work and they just put one of these separate bike lanes heading towards the intersection with Kings Way - I tried it and almost got left hooked 3 times in about a fortnight, I now choose to ride in the general road vehicle lane to the right of the parked cars. Those separated bicycle lanes do not work here, partly because so few drivers are also cyclists they just never look to see if there is a bicycle in the bike lane, plus too many driveways.

If we continue to separate bicycles then we build the perception that bicycles should not be on the roads. Bicycles are road vehicles, we have the same rights and responsibilities on the roads as any other road vehicle, and we should never ever concede ground on this.

Helmets as a solution to cyclist safety issues are a failure. Which would explain why the rest of the world has not taken up these stupid laws.

DS

And to press the big button and send this bit of fiction on its happy way down the S bend, just because bicycle infrastructure is present in a city, suburb, town, road or anywhere it is very rare that you are obliged to use it.
If you like to ride on the roads, off you go, keep doing it but don’t deny it from the what seems to be the ever increasing number of people* who just don’t and the reason why many nations continue to build more bicycle infrastructure.
(* based on the international growth of gravel bikes - sick of the cars so find roads which have fewer/without cars)

I agree that we don't have to use bike lanes, but most people don't seem to understand that. My biggest issue with the bike lanes many councils in Melbourne seem to think are a good idea is that they copy some of what they do in countries like the Netherlands but don't do a lot of what they do in those countries and completely fail to take into account the differences. A good example is the StKilda Rd cycle lanes they are now putting in, I don't ride along StKilda Rd any more but they are putting in a separate bike lane, hiding the bicycles behind parked cars, and we'll see the mess that causes at intersections. Ironically the stretch between Princes Bridge and Southbank Bvde going South is great, because you have a long section with no intersections and no driveways, it works. What they need to do is to sort out a better way to deal with intersections. Either that or leave them as is, and allow bicycles to claim the lane.

MichaelB, yes, here we go again.

I'll leave this with one more thing.

Helmets protect one part of the body, but not the rest of the body.

Pretty simple really, helmets protect the head and the head alone.

So, given this, what should we expect from making helmets mandatory?

Pretty simple really, we should expect that head injuries, as a proportion of cyclist injuries, would fall. Seem reasonable? Makes sense and really, given we know that cycling numbers dropped after the laws were introduced (but we don't have accurate figures) and other safety measures were also happening at the same time, it is very difficult to isolate the impact of helmet laws. Unless, that is, we can look at the numbers of head injuries and non-head injuries before and after the laws were introduced.

Oh, looky here, we can do this:



The blue line is head injuries and the red line is non-head injuries, the data is for Victoria.

The proportion of injuries which are head injuries does not fall, total fail.

DS

Neurologists, what would they know!

https://road.cc/content/news/dutch-neur ... ets-286871

DavidS wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 24, 2022 11:41 pm

...
Oh, looky here, we can do this:



The blue line is head injuries and the red line is non-head injuries, the data is for Victoria.

The proportion of injuries which are head injuries does not fall, total fail.

DS

So where is modern data ?

That data is greater than 26 - 35 years old. Nothing recent .....

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 9:39 am

DavidS wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 24, 2022 11:41 pm

...
Oh, looky here, we can do this:



The blue line is head injuries and the red line is non-head injuries, the data is for Victoria.

The proportion of injuries which are head injuries does not fall, total fail.

DS

So where is modern data ?

That data is greater than 26 - 35 years old. Nothing recent .....

Where is the data full stop?
Click or hover over the picture for the source.
cycle-helmets.com
Hardly an unbiased and balanced source.

This website is maintained by Chris Gillham, a print/radio journalist and web designer based in the West Australian capital of Perth.

The site has been on the internet since 2000 and the accuracy of its data has never been challenged by relevant authorities. All information on the site is sourced to academic and government reports.

Sourced from or sourced to?
It appears the accuracy hasn't been challenged as the site itself has been ignored.

Given the biased slant of the site, as a souce of information that bears relevence, it has been a good decision to disregard.


The proposal, that a head covering that spreads the load at the point of impact and provides cushioning, provides no protection, does not bear examination or logical thought.

Compared the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and their study of statistics.

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

I know what appears a more rational and reasoned analysis to me.

Peter A wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 9:06 am

Neurologists, what would they know!

https://road.cc/content/news/dutch-neur ... ets-286871

It seems that they know enough to be calling for helmet advocacy (particularly for e-bike riders and children) rather than mandatory helmet laws for everyone in every situation. Something that many anti MHL posters here would agree with.

Very few anti MHL people are actually anti helmet.

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 10:03 am

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 9:39 am

DavidS wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 24, 2022 11:41 pm

...
Oh, looky here, we can do this:



The blue line is head injuries and the red line is non-head injuries, the data is for Victoria.

The proportion of injuries which are head injuries does not fall, total fail.

DS

So where is modern data ?

That data is greater than 26 - 35 years old. Nothing recent .....

Where is the data full stop?
Click or hover over the picture for the source.
cycle-helmets.com
Hardly an unbiased and balanced source.

This website is maintained by Chris Gillham, a print/radio journalist and web designer based in the West Australian capital of Perth.

The site has been on the internet since 2000 and the accuracy of its data has never been challenged by relevant authorities. All information on the site is sourced to academic and government reports.

Sourced from or sourced to?
It appears the accuracy hasn't been challenged as the site itself has been ignored.

Given the biased slant of the site, as a souce of information that bears relevence, it has been a good decision to disregard.


The proposal, that a head covering that spreads the load at the point of impact and provides cushioning, provides no protection, does not bear examination or logical thought.

Compared the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and their study of statistics.

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

I know what appears a more rational and reasoned analysis to me.

The only problem is: that article does not contain the word "helmet".

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 10:03 am

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 9:39 am

DavidS wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 24, 2022 11:41 pm

...
Oh, looky here, we can do this:



The blue line is head injuries and the red line is non-head injuries, the data is for Victoria.

The proportion of injuries which are head injuries does not fall, total fail.

DS

So where is modern data ?

That data is greater than 26 - 35 years old. Nothing recent .....

Where is the data full stop?
Click or hover over the picture for the source.
cycle-helmets.com
Hardly an unbiased and balanced source.

This website is maintained by Chris Gillham, a print/radio journalist and web designer based in the West Australian capital of Perth.

The site has been on the internet since 2000 and the accuracy of its data has never been challenged by relevant authorities. All information on the site is sourced to academic and government reports.

Sourced from or sourced to?
It appears the accuracy hasn't been challenged as the site itself has been ignored.

Given the biased slant of the site, as a souce of information that bears relevence, it has been a good decision to disregard.


The proposal, that a head covering that spreads the load at the point of impact and provides cushioning, provides no protection, does not bear examination or logical thought.

Compared the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and their study of statistics.

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

I know what appears a more rational and reasoned analysis to me.

How does your link show that helmets and MHLs work? It doesn't even make any comparison between pre and post MHL injuries.

It is more damning evidence that riding a bicycle is way too unsafe even when wearing a helmet.

In regards to protection. It's odd how easy it is to make sweeping statements which on first blush appear reasonable but on closer examination don't pass muster. Obviously the polystyrene containers that are used to cushion eggs work well and reduce the incidence of broken eggs - even blind Freddy can see this. So if we smash them with sledge hammers we'd expect the ones in polystyrene containers to suffer less damage - the cushioning effect of the polystyrene would help protect them - it's only logical.

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 9:39 am

So where is modern data ?

That data is greater than 26 - 35 years old. Nothing recent .....

Plenty of stuff, go to google scholar, type "bicycle helmet", then click on since 2018 - and you get "about 11,300 results" and then try since 2022 and you get "about 1,710 results" - so....have fun!
(Oh and this discussion is not about the use of good data, it is about questioning the never ending use of dodgy data that only supports ones POV and in turn how that does more harm than good in trying to get at least some traction to try and move the laws.)

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 11:13 am

How does your link show that helmets and MHLs work? It doesn't even make any comparison between pre and post MHL injuries.

It is more damning evidence that riding a bicycle is way too unsafe even when wearing a helmet.

In regards to protection. It's odd how easy it is to make sweeping statements which on first blush appear reasonable but on closer examination don't pass muster. Obviously the polystyrene containers that are used to cushion eggs work well and reduce the incidence of broken eggs - even blind Freddy can see this. So if we smash them with sledge hammers we'd expect the ones in polystyrene containers to suffer less damage - the cushioning effect of the polystyrene would help protect them - it's only logical.

Again, I am not arguing that MHLs by themselves make cycling safe.
I just disagree that cycling is always safe and that helmets provide no protection.
Data has been provided that shows otherwise.
Here is another of my anecdotes again.



Fall onto the bitumen at ~ 40kmh.
Fractured R clavicle in 3 places.
# R scapula.
9 # ribs.
Chipped vertebra.
# public rami.
Small intra-cranial haemorrhage.
No skull fracture.
I was 51 at the time. Got my bone density checked afterwards. Osteopenia. Low bone density.

The proposal from some here seems to be that helmets provide no protection. Would you suggest I would have fared better without the helmet?
Again if I am going to have my head smashed into a hard surface I would much rather have a helmet on that spreads the impact load and provides some cushioning than not. Our skull and the cerebrospinal fluid our brains are bathed in does just that. I prefer to wear something that furthers that protection. Yes it could be a better helmet. It could be a motorcycle helmet. Is the proposal that they also offer no protection too?
I have to pedal my bike however. I don't see a motorcycle helmet being practical to wear whilst cycling.

Non-anecdotal data;

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/

Nobody is saying helmets remove all risk. They mitigate it is all.
Neither are we arguing cycling is so unsafe it can't be undertaken. We all still cycle. We just take precautions as to when, where and how we do it.
If people stopped using silly statements as reasons to change helmet laws we wouldn't be having counter arguments.
Perhaps argue they have reduced participation rates and affected our traffic congestion and collective health as a result of reduced participation.
Stop saying cycling is always safe and that helmets provide no protection. Neither are true.

uart wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 11:03 am

Peter A wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 9:06 am

Neurologists, what would they know!

https://road.cc/content/news/dutch-neur ... ets-286871

It seems that they know enough to be calling for helmet advocacy (particularly for e-bike riders and children) rather than mandatory helmet laws for everyone in every situation. Something that many anti MHL posters here would agree with.

Very few anti MHL people are actually anti helmet.

Not surprising when they say the following - "United under the banner Arsten voor Veilig Fietsen(link is external) (Doctors for Safe Cycling), the medics claim that of the approximately 50,000 cyclists who sustain serious injuries each year in the Netherlands, around one in three suffer a brain injury."

This is a significant number of brain injuries from cycling in the Netherlands EVERY YEAR !

Peter A wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:57 pm

uart wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 11:03 am

Peter A wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 9:06 am

Neurologists, what would they know!

https://road.cc/content/news/dutch-neur ... ets-286871

It seems that they know enough to be calling for helmet advocacy (particularly for e-bike riders and children) rather than mandatory helmet laws for everyone in every situation. Something that many anti MHL posters here would agree with.

Very few anti MHL people are actually anti helmet.

Not surprising when they say the following - "United under the banner Arsten voor Veilig Fietsen(link is external) (Doctors for Safe Cycling), the medics claim that of the approximately 50,000 cyclists who sustain serious injuries each year in the Netherlands, around one in three suffer a brain injury."

This is a significant number of brain injuries from cycling in the Netherlands EVERY YEAR !

Absolute figures aren't very useful. That 50,000 is about 0.2% of all cyclists over there. As for the 1/3, we'd need to compare it to a similar statistic in Australia and other MHL countries.

baabaa wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 3:44 pm

MichaelB wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 25, 2022 9:39 am

So where is modern data ?

That data is greater than 26 - 35 years old. Nothing recent .....

Plenty of stuff, go to google scholar, type "bicycle helmet", then click on since 2018 - and you get "about 11,300 results" and then try since 2022 and you get "about 1,710 results" - so....have fun!
(Oh and this discussion is not about the use of good data, it is about questioning the never ending use of dodgy data that only supports ones POV and in turn how that does more harm than good in trying to get at least some traction to try and move the laws.)

So why don't the people that keep trying to prove that MHL's are bad for cycling ALWAYS share the old and vastly out of date data ?

Meh, more anecdotes ...