Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

I do like the claim above about how MHLs don't necessarily lead to a reduction in cycling, yeah, but what little data we have says that, while it may not necessarily lead to lower cycling, in the real world that's just what happened.

Anyway, back to the issue: if helmets clearly provide protection against brain injury when there is a head strike, where is the real world evidence?

Not theoretical studies, real world data.

How do you propose they do not?

Is there anybody likely to volunteer for a brain injury test?

This has already been posted. Perhaps read it.


Cycling is a popular form of recreation and method of commuting with clear health benefits. However, cycling is not without risk. In Canada, cycling injuries are more common than in any other summer sport; and according to the US National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, 52,000 cyclists were injured in the US in 2010. Head injuries account for approximately two-thirds of hospital admissions and three-quarters of fatal injuries among injured cyclists. In many jurisdictions and across all age levels, helmets have been adopted to mitigate risk of serious head injuries among cyclists and the majority of epidemiological literature suggests that helmets effectively reduce risk of injury. Critics have raised questions over the actual efficacy of helmets by pointing to weaknesses in existing helmet epidemiology including selection bias and lack of appropriate control for the type of impact sustained by the cyclist and the severity of the head impact. These criticisms demonstrate the difficulty in conducting epidemiology studies that will be regarded as definitive and the need for complementary biomechanical studies where confounding factors can be adequately controlled. In the bicycle helmet context, there is a paucity of biomechanical data comparing helmeted to unhelmeted head impacts and, to our knowledge, there is no data of this type available with contemporary helmets. In this research, our objective was to perform biomechanical testing of paired helmeted and unhelmeted head impacts using a validated anthropomorphic test headform and a range of drop heights between 0.5m and 3.0m, while measuring headform acceleration and Head Injury Criterion (HIC). In the 2m (6.3m/s) drops, the middle of our drop height range, the helmet reduced peak accelerations from 824g (unhelmeted) to 181g (helmeted) and HIC was reduced from 9667 (unhelmeted) to 1250 (helmeted). At realistic impact speeds of 5.4m/s (1.5m drop) and 6.3m/s (2.0m drop), bicycle helmets changed the probability of severe brain injury from extremely likely (99.9% risk at both 5.4 and 6.3m/s) to unlikely (9.3% and 30.6% risk at 1.5m and 2.0m drops respectively). These biomechanical results for acceleration and HIC, and the corresponding results for reduced risk of severe brain injury show that contemporary bicycle helmets are highly effective at reducing head injury metrics and the risk for severe brain injury in head impacts characteristic of bicycle crashes.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24686160/

On top of that are you proposing that all of the engineering and science involved in the design and production of bicycle helmets is a complete failure. All of those engineers involved in their design have no clue and the nuerologists advocating their use have no clue.

Hey Warty....remind me. When you smashed that TT helmet up, what injuries did you sustain to your head?

DavidS wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:32 pm

I do like the claim above about how MHLs don't necessarily lead to a reduction in cycling, yeah, but what little data we have says that, while it may not necessarily lead to lower cycling, in the real world that's just what happened.

Anyway, back to the issue: if helmets clearly provide protection against brain injury when there is a head strike, where is the real world evidence?

Not theoretical studies, real world data.

DS

So yes indeed back to your issue


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To Whom It May Concern,

My name is DavidS and I am anti Mandatory helmet laws.

I believe that a helmet offers no protection against brain injury when there is a head strike.

Bests,
DS
------------------------------------------------------------------

See, that was not so hard after all!

DavidS wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:32 pm

I do like the claim above about how MHLs don't necessarily lead to a reduction in cycling, yeah, but what little data we have says that, while it may not necessarily lead to lower cycling, in the real world that's just what happened.

The implementation of mandatory helmets was a knee-jerk reaction that was seen as "obvious" so there was no thought to capture and measure unintended outcomes. So that plays into the hands of helmet propagandists like Olivier and Grzbieta.

The same thing is going on right now in Gibraltar Cyprus, where the right-wingers have succeeded in pushing MHLs through. The confounding factor for collecting data is that they will be contaminated by a road culture there is possibly even more toxic toward people who ride bikes than it is in Sydney - no surprise, given the way justifications for introducing the measure were couched in political terms.

Every time we have an Operation Pedro enforcement campaign take place in Western Sydney, participation rates drop, especially in disadvantaged communities and low socio-economic areas with high proportions of indigenous. Again, this is by anecdotal observation from BNSW members. There is no thought to collect actual data.

Look, don't want to wear a helmet, then don't. I cannot see why people don't just rort the system like these blokes/ladies

https://www.freestylecyclists.org/

They'll steer you in the right direction to get an exemption

How to rort a medical exemption

https://www.freestylecyclists.org/victo ... egulation/

How to rort one based on religious beliefs

https://www.freestylecyclists.org/new-religion-rotavia/

I challenge all Victorians who feel strongly enough to post here to get on board one or both of these options, and ride free once again. Big respect if you do so.

trailgumby wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 29, 2022 11:38 am

The same thing is going on right now in Gibraltar, where the right-wingers have succeeded in pushing MHLs through. The confounding factor for collecting data is that they will be contaminated by a road culture there is possibly even more toxic toward people who ride bikes than it is in Sydney - no surprise, given the way justifications for introducing the measure were couched in political terms.

Got a link to this Gibraltar situation? I cannot find anything?

fat and old wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 29, 2022 12:57 pm

trailgumby wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 29, 2022 11:38 am

The same thing is going on right now in Gibraltar, where the right-wingers have succeeded in pushing MHLs through. The confounding factor for collecting data is that they will be contaminated by a road culture there is possibly even more toxic toward people who ride bikes than it is in Sydney - no surprise, given the way justifications for introducing the measure were couched in political terms.

Got a link to this Gibraltar situation? I cannot find anything?

Apologies, Cyprus.

https://cyprus-mail.com/2022/08/17/mand ... ing-safer/

And in direct contradiction to Raph Grzbieta and Jake Olivier,

Anastasia Korae wrote:Moreover, in many countries, an unintended consequence of the mandatory helmet law was a decline in cycling numbers. This was observed in Australia which introduced the law in 1991. The legislation increased helmet use – from about 30 to 80 per cent – but was coupled with a 30 to 40 per cent decline in the number of people cycling; this has never recovered.

A household survey conducted for the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP) Limassol in 2018 revealed a share of just 0.4 per cent of trips by bicycle. Can we really afford to make that tiny share even tinier? Is this in line with the 17 measures to promote cycling announced last year by the transport minister?
...
"Anastasia Korae is the president of Friends of the Earth Cyprus and a UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale) Level 1 Coach"

Thought you may have been mixed up, no problem

FWIW, Cyprus has a coalition Government with the majority being the Democratic Party (centrist) and the Communists (left wing). The MP who put forward the MHL law is Chrysis Pantelides, a Sociologist member of the leftist faction of the Democratic Party. At least as far as I can glean.

trailgumby wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:10 pm

There is already a case study in the rebound effect from helmet law removal, and furthermore, it's in Australia, being the Northern Territory.

A small point. We still have MHL here in the NT, but only on roads (we're allowed to ride on footpaths) and a) the fine is tiny and b) it is almost never enforced.

Outside of sport cycling, almost no-one wears a helmet, on the road or off.

Cyclophiliac wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:32 pm

... and yet, somehow Western European countries manage perfectly well without MHLs, and as g-boaf said, cycling is a pleasure there. I can attest to that. I've cycled over there several times without feeling harassed. Some cyclists wear helmets, others don't, but it's no big deal either way.

e.g. several times I've been descending one of these glorious mountains in the Alps or Pyrenees, and motorists in front of me use their right-hand indicators to tell me they want me to pass them, because they know I'll get down the mountain faster than they. There's a snowball's chance in hell of that ever occurring here.

Exactly right.

In the moron motorists topic we have solid evidence that police action against bad motorist behaviour has remarkable effect on changing the behaviour of the motorist in question.

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 30, 2022 11:42 pm

trailgumby wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:10 pm

There is already a case study in the rebound effect from helmet law removal, and furthermore, it's in Australia, being the Northern Territory.

A small point. We still have MHL here in the NT, but only on roads (we're allowed to ride on footpaths) and a) the fine is tiny and b) it is almost never enforced.

Outside of sport cycling, almost no-one wears a helmet, on the road or off.

Exactly the partial relaxation I'd like to see trialled here in NSW, teamed with all-age footpath cycling.

trailgumby wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 31, 2022 12:18 pm

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 30, 2022 11:42 pm

trailgumby wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:10 pm

There is already a case study in the rebound effect from helmet law removal, and furthermore, it's in Australia, being the Northern Territory.

A small point. We still have MHL here in the NT, but only on roads (we're allowed to ride on footpaths) and a) the fine is tiny and b) it is almost never enforced.

Outside of sport cycling, almost no-one wears a helmet, on the road or off.

Exactly the partial relaxation I'd like to see trialled here in NSW, teamed with all-age footpath cycling.

Same here. Let’s not enforce helmets on paths, or in residential streets under 60km/h. No need to hangs there law, just keep the enforcement to what is perceived as high risk cycling.

On another note our work carpark has been closed for building works. I told a few coworkers I’m going to cycle to work so I don’t need to worry about parking. They’ve all looked at me as if I’m completely bonkers. “It’s so dangerous”. “It’s too hard” mostly without having any idea of where I’m coming from or the potential route. The knee jerk reaction of discussing with non riders is always ‘danger danger!’

Most don’t even consider that you can actually avoid narrow, busy roads. FWIW it is hard work up the hill, but it’s essentially safe as I can avoid busy stretches of road by using wide shoulders, cycle paths and (illegally) footpaths.

It’s no wonder there aren’t many dedicated cyclists and helmet laws are not at all on the radar for the majority.

Surely someone can post a simple graph showing that when MHLs have been introduced anywhere in the world there is a huge decrease in brain injuries which far outweighs any drop in ridership.

Surely if they prevent 88% of brain injuries - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7025438/ - this is a no brainer.

Anyone?

Why all the mental gymnastics? If they are so effective it should be cut and dried with clear irrefutable evidence shown at a population level - there'd be no confounders.

trailgumby wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 31, 2022 12:18 pm

Exactly the partial relaxation I'd like to see trialled here in NSW, teamed with all-age footpath cycling.

Is it really still illegal for adults to ride on footpaths in the southern states?

Re: "partial relaxation" - full MHLs were dispensed with almost as soon as brought in, in the mid-1990s, but the on-road MHLs are almost never enforced

(I'm a rare exception, getting fined about 15 years ago - I lodged a complaint (on the grounds that if police were going to change their enforcement approach they should tell people first + the officers were rude) with the police and the senior officer handling the complaint basically apologised and said they were young, inexperienced officers and it shouldn't have happened!)

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 31, 2022 3:47 pm

Surely someone can post a simple graph showing that when MHLs have been introduced anywhere in the world there is a huge decrease in brain injuries which far outweighs any drop in ridership.

Surely if they prevent 88% of brain injuries - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7025438/ - this is a no brainer.

Anyone?

Why all the mental gymnastics? If they are so effective it should be cut and dried with clear irrefutable evidence shown at a population level - there'd be no confounders.

An easy comparison is the NT which effectively has no MHL. The last time I looked our cycling head injury rates were no different, possibly even lower - which, given the higher proportion of utility cycling (because of no effective MHL), probably makes sense as the proportion of risk cycling is much lower than the rest of the country.

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 31, 2022 3:47 pm

Surely someone can post a simple graph showing that when MHLs have been introduced anywhere in the world there is a huge decrease in brain injuries which far outweighs any drop in ridership.

Surely if they prevent 88% of brain injuries - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7025438/ - this is a no brainer.

Anyone?

Why all the mental gymnastics? If they are so effective it should be cut and dried with clear irrefutable evidence shown at a population level - there'd be no confounders.

Any *complete* study would also mention all the negative effects of MHLs, caused by fewer cyclists and more motorists:
- increased obesity (and cost on the health system)
- increased pollution (and more cost on the health system, not to mention the ruinous climate effect)
- increased wear and tear on roads (and cost of repairs)
- increased stress (because cycling in general is less stressful than driving)

When you consider all these factors (and I'm sure I've missed some), preventing/repealing MHLs is, as you say, a no-brainer.

In other words: it's nowhere *near* as simple as "MHLs reduce brain injuries".

Cyclophiliac wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 31, 2022 4:05 pm

When you consider all these factors (and I'm sure I've missed some), preventing/repealing MHLs is, as you say, a no-brainer.

In other words: it's nowhere *near* as simple as "MHLs reduce brain injuries".

Yes.

Even though the protective health effects are very likely wildly overstated, getting caught up in the mechanics of helmet protection means we lose sight of the horrifying health, environmental and amenity effects of our incredibly low cycling rates (in particular very skewed low utility cycling rates) which are strongly correlated to mandatory helmet laws.

Even if the mad claims of protection were correct, this would in no way compensate for the population health (and other) effects of lower cycling rates.

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 31, 2022 3:55 pm

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 31, 2022 3:47 pm

Surely someone can post a simple graph showing that when MHLs have been introduced anywhere in the world there is a huge decrease in brain injuries which far outweighs any drop in ridership.

Surely if they prevent 88% of brain injuries - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7025438/ - this is a no brainer.

Anyone?

Why all the mental gymnastics? If they are so effective it should be cut and dried with clear irrefutable evidence shown at a population level - there'd be no confounders.

An easy comparison is the NT which effectively has no MHL. The last time I looked our cycling head injury rates were no different, possibly even lower - which, given the higher proportion of utility cycling (because of no effective MHL), probably makes sense as the proportion of risk cycling is much lower than the rest of the country.

Careful, you're being logical, rational and evidence-led. That won't end well

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 31, 2022 3:47 pm

Surely someone can post a simple graph showing that when MHLs have been introduced anywhere in the world there is a huge decrease in brain injuries which far outweighs any drop in ridership.

Surely if they prevent 88% of brain injuries - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7025438/ - this is a no brainer.

Anyone?

Why all the mental gymnastics? If they are so effective it should be cut and dried with clear irrefutable evidence shown at a population level - there'd be no confounders.

This.

DS

What I find interesting is that the absence of such a graph means to those arguing for removal of helmet laws.
It is seen as definitive evidence that helmets are ineffective in a head strike.
The argument is made by the same people that the MHL results in a hugely reduced portion of utility cyclists.
The extension is then made that look head injuries aren't reducing here as a proportion of injuries therefore helmets are ineffective.

Any information that does demonstrate the efficacy of helmets in terms of statistical reduction of head injuries in helmeted v unhelmeted individuals or measurement of the reduction in peak force applied to the helmeted head are disregarded.

I struggle to see that any information demonstrating helmet efficacy at a population level would stop the claims that helmets do nothing.
There has been a fair bit of information posted so far but it has come to nought with respect to the opinions of some.

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 01, 2022 8:59 am

It is seen as definitive evidence that helmets are ineffective in a head strike.

I can't speak for others, but I don't see it as "definitive evidence that helmets are ineffective in a head strike", but there isn't a great deal of evidence, at a population level that helmets significantly reduce injury rates and there is lots of evidence that at a population level MHLs have a huge negative health impact.

It’s unfortunate there is no simple ‘graph’ for head injury rates before and after helmets To be honest with any such graph youd need to correct for cycling rates, cycling usage, injury rates, non injury rates and more. Any simplified graph is likely to be developed to support a particular argument, rather than be an unbiased result.

is it even possible to get numbers of ‘my helmet saved me’ incidents? How do you show the helmet prevented an injury? How do you account for those that crashed, hit their head but did not present to emergency because their helmet worked vs crashed but didn’t hit their head with a helmet on? How do you account for injury rates in sporting cyclists (road, mountain, bmx, dirt jump etc) vs utility cyclists?

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 01, 2022 9:58 am

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 01, 2022 8:59 am

It is seen as definitive evidence that helmets are ineffective in a head strike.

I can't speak for others, but I don't see it as "definitive evidence that helmets are ineffective in a head strike", but there isn't a great deal of evidence, at a population level that helmets significantly reduce injury rates and there is lots of evidence that at a population level MHLs have a huge negative health impact.

There are multiple large studies linking helmeted vs unhelmeted injury rates for cyclists linked in this thread.
They indicate large reductions in head injury rates for helmeted cyclists vs unhelmeted.

It is those against mandatory helmet laws seeking to discard the evidence of helmet effectiveness.

Perhaps some are arguing mandating helmet use has not affected cycling participation rates and the resultant lack of exercise in a sedentary population.
I am not.

There are multiple reasons to argue against mandating helmet use.
That helmets are ineffective at preventing head/brain injury or that cycling is always safe are not two of them.

bychosis wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:11 am

It’s unfortunate there is no simple ‘graph’ for head injury rates before and after helmets To be honest with any such graph youd need to correct for cycling rates, cycling usage, injury rates, non injury rates and more. Any simplified graph is likely to be developed to support a particular argument, rather than be an unbiased result.

is it even possible to get numbers of ‘my helmet saved me’ incidents? How do you show the helmet prevented an injury? How do you account for those that crashed, hit their head but did not present to emergency because their helmet worked vs crashed but didn’t hit their head with a helmet on? How do you account for injury rates in sporting cyclists (road, mountain, bmx, dirt jump etc) vs utility cyclists?

Yes agreed.
How do you jump to the conclusion that the absence of that "graph" indicates helmets fail at head/brain injury protection?

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:19 am

There are multiple reasons to argue against mandating helmet use.
That helmets are ineffective at preventing head/brain injury or that cycling is always safe are not two of them.

So, you actually disagree with MHLs.

Maybe some more constructive engagement would be good, rather than tying up everyone's time on minor differences.