Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 26, 2023 4:05 pm

Not sure how I can make it clearer. I don't think gardening is dangerous.

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:48 pm

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 26, 2023 4:05 pm

Not sure how I can make it clearer. I don't think gardening is dangerous.

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 25, 2023 8:12 am

Gardening is more dangerous than cycling.

I disagree.
You need to take account of the participation rates, duration and age demographic of each activity.
Certainly I don't rate gardening as anywhere near as dangerous as road cycling around traffic when those factors are taken into consideration.
The assertion is wrong.

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 26, 2023 8:16 pm

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:48 pm

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 26, 2023 4:05 pm

Not sure how I can make it clearer. I don't think gardening is dangerous.

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 25, 2023 8:12 am

Gardening is more dangerous than cycling.

I disagree.
You need to take account of the participation rates, duration and age demographic of each activity.
Certainly I don't rate gardening as anywhere near as dangerous as road cycling around traffic when those factors are taken into consideration.
The assertion is wrong.

The evidence suggests gardening is more dangerous than cycling ... though depends on definitions of dangerous. But neither are really that dangerous.

If you do insert yourself into traffic, put your head down and your bum up and thunder off into the distance, you are probably going to expose yourself to significantly more danger than if you trundle along on a fairly upright bike, with a mirror, and ride on the footpath when you need to. I know it's not right, and I know better infrastructure would improve things radically, but that's the way things are now.

Regardless of all that, a helmet that's not claimed, even by the manufacturers, to help in the event of a collision with a motor vehicle, will not help much .... in the event of a collision:

“We do not design helmets specifically to reduce chances or severity of injury when impacts involve a car,” said Richter.

(https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonrei ... 751f0cbd45)

But, we all know that.

So it's a mystery when people who disregard the evidence wish to spend so much time on mandatory helmet laws discussion boards derailing productive discussions. If we didn't have to keep arguing the same bleeding obvious thing, we might have the space to actually discuss how we can get our laws changed in line with most of the rest of the world.

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 26, 2023 8:48 pm

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 26, 2023 8:16 pm

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 26, 2023 7:48 pm

Not sure how I can make it clearer. I don't think gardening is dangerous.

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 25, 2023 8:12 am

Gardening is more dangerous than cycling.

I disagree.
You need to take account of the participation rates, duration and age demographic of each activity.
Certainly I don't rate gardening as anywhere near as dangerous as road cycling around traffic when those factors are taken into consideration.
The assertion is wrong.

The evidence suggests gardening is more dangerous than cycling ... though depends on definitions of dangerous. But neither are really that dangerous.

If you do insert yourself into traffic, put your head down and your bum up and thunder off into the distance, you are probably going to expose yourself to significantly more danger than if you trundle along on a fairly upright bike, with a mirror, and ride on the footpath when you need to. I know it's not right, and I know better infrastructure would improve things radically, but that's the way things are now.

Regardless of all that, a helmet that's not claimed, even by the manufacturers, to help in the event of a collision with a motor vehicle, will not help much .... in the event of a collision:

“We do not design helmets specifically to reduce chances or severity of injury when impacts involve a car,” said Richter.

(https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonrei ... 751f0cbd45)

But, we all know that.

Gardening has far higher participation rates by an older demographic.
So no it is not more dangerous.

For the umpteenth time a helmet is not designed to protect you from being run over by a car.
It is designed to reduce the rate and severity of injury in the event of a head strike.
The likelihood of a collision and head strike with the ground or a hard object is increased when you cycle around traffic.

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. There is no indication that the results from bicycle helmet studies are affected by a lack of control for confounding variables, time trend bias or publication bias. The results do not indicate that bicycle helmet effects are different between adult cyclists and children. Bicycle helmet effects may be somewhat larger when bicycle helmet wearing is mandatory than otherwise; however, helmet wearing rates were not found to be related to bicycle helmet effectiveness. It is also likely that bicycle helmets have larger effects among drunk cyclists than among sober cyclists, and larger effects in single bicycle crashes than in collisions with motor vehicles. In summary, the results suggest that wearing a helmet while cycling is highly recommendable, especially in situations with an increased risk of single bicycle crashes, such as on slippery or icy roads

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29677686/

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 26, 2023 8:48 pm

So it's a mystery when people who disregard the evidence wish to spend so much time on mandatory helmet laws discussion boards derailing productive discussions. If we didn't have to keep arguing the same bleeding obvious thing, we might have the space to actually discuss how we can get our laws changed in line with most of the rest of the world.

If you stop misinterpreting and misrepresenting evidence and repetiively doing so, the discussion has some chance of becoming productive.
I have read no viable strategy or proposal from you, with respect to a strategy for removal of the laws.
Plenty of attempts to misrepresent evidence to play down the protective effects of helmets and the dangers involved with cycling.
Yes road cycling is still cycling. Yes cycling away from traffic is safer and there is less reason to wear a helmet regardless of legal compulsion.

So, I can only assume Warthog has been a long term activist and was prominent in getting the MHLs up all those years ago (you never know, maybe he worked for Bell Helmets).

Yes, I do oppose these stupid laws and, yes, I have been on those helmet optional rides. But to be honest I have more urgent matters, would be nice to get rid of exploitative capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy, authoritarianism . . . way more things to spend time on.

Warthog, before you ask what those of us who oppose the anti-cycling MHLs have done, please tell us of your exploits campaigning for various causes.

By the way, looks like it is time for this again:



Still wondering why cyclists in Australia are considered so incompetent we have to wear head protection, along with 2 other countries. Everyone else gets a choice, are we just the worst cyclists in the world, that's the perception I get from the fact we need protection when very few others do.

DS

DavidS wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 26, 2023 9:24 pm

So, I can only assume Warthog has been a long term activist and was prominent in getting the MHLs up all those years ago (you never know, maybe he worked for Bell Helmets).

Yes, I do oppose these stupid laws and, yes, I have been on those helmet optional rides. But to be honest I have more urgent matters, would be nice to get rid of exploitative capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy, authoritarianism . . . way more things to spend time on.

Warthog, before you ask what those of us who oppose the anti-cycling MHLs have done, please tell us of your exploits campaigning for various causes.

By the way, looks like it is time for this again:



Still wondering why cyclists in Australia are considered so incompetent we have to wear head protection, along with 2 other countries. Everyone else gets a choice, are we just the worst cyclists in the world, that's the perception I get from the fact we need protection when very few others do.

DS

I am not banging on about the injustice of a law, misrepresenting facts and repetitively doing so without taking any action about reversing them.
Sorry don't have a history about fighting too many causes apart from work related stuff. Just taken direct action rather than whinging about it on a forum.

So, Warthog, why do you hold us to a standard you are clearly unwilling to hold yourself to?

The line you run about "what are you doing about it?" which I answered and have done so a number of times is a very weak argument, even weaker now we know you fight for nothing which does not affect you directly.

Actually, a further question, why do you support imposing this stupid law on the rest of us?

Oh, forgot, doesn't affect you directly.

Most of us don't do anything about this law because we know that governments are not about to repeal the laws.

This is a pity as a more anti-cycling law would be hard to conceive unless you just want to ban cycling. I'd feel safer on the roads if there were more cyclists.

DS

PS: MichaelB, getting silly? Actually it is MHLs which are silly, so why not a silly thread on it.

DavidS wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 26, 2023 9:53 pm

So, Warthog, why do you hold us to a standard you are clearly unwilling to hold yourself to?

The line you run about "what are you doing about it?" which I answered and have done so a number of times is a very weak argument, even weaker now we know you fight for nothing which does not affect you directly.

Actually, a further question, why do you support imposing this stupid law on the rest of us?

Oh, forgot, doesn't affect you directly.

Most of us don't do anything about this law because we know that governments are not about to repeal the laws.

This is a pity as a more anti-cycling law would be hard to conceive unless you just want to ban cycling. I'd feel safer on the roads if there were more cyclists.

DS

PS: MichaelB, getting silly? Actually it is MHLs which are silly, so why not a silly thread on it.

You are jumping to conclusions about my thoughts or actions that are untrue.
I don't support MHLs.
I have said so repetitively.
I also don't support the misrepresentation of facts or plainly false assertions which continue to be made on here.
The relative risk of various activities and the lack of protection a helmet provides are a couple of them.
Argue the injustice of the law if you like, but don't tell me cycling around traffic is without risk, or that a helmet provides no protection in the event of a head strike. Plainly false and annoying to read time and again.

You work at Melb uni David. Run this little pearl of wisdom past the medical, and engineering depts. Tell us how you get on.

DavidS wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 01, 2022 10:07 pm

The evidence that helmets prevent things like concussion is not robust because 1 thing helmets do not do is stop your brain from rattling around your head if your head gets hit. Sure, wearing a helmet can protect you from getting stitches from a nasty gash, but preventing brain injury is a whole different matter.

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:05 pm

I don't support MHLs.
I have said so repetitively.
I also don't support the misrepresentation of facts or plainly false assertions which continue to be made on here.

So, your whole monumental effort on here is a noble fight for truth?

You said you don't fight for anything except stuff that affects you at work.

Yet you find it so important to spend lots of time on an obscure thread holding up more productive conversations by nit-picking and/or telling people they shouldn't be discussing this issue because they haven't formulated a solution to changing a law.

If you're so motivated to spend time fighting for your truth, there are far better ways to spend your energy than on here. I, for one, would love to get on to discussing MHLs and what to do about them, rather than endlessly bike­shedding.

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 27, 2023 9:32 am

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:05 pm

I don't support MHLs.
I have said so repetitively.
I also don't support the misrepresentation of facts or plainly false assertions which continue to be made on here.

So, your whole monumental effort on here is a noble fight for truth?

You said you don't fight for anything except stuff that affects you at work.

Yet you find it so important to spend lots of time on an obscure thread holding up more productive conversations by nit-picking and/or telling people they shouldn't be discussing this issue because they haven't formulated a solution to changing a law.

If you're so motivated to spend time fighting for your truth, there are far better ways to spend your energy than on here. I, for one, would love to get on to discussing MHLs and what to do about them, rather than endlessly bike­shedding.

What have I said about what I do and don't fight for?
If you want to be successful with your holy and selfless crusade to free the public from these oppressive laws you might want to get your facts straight and come up with a plan that has some chance of success.

Come up with a plan. I am not arguing that. Just correcting the outright sh ite.

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 27, 2023 9:36 am

What have I said about what I do and don't fight for?

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 26, 2023 9:36 pm

Sorry don't have a history about fighting too many causes apart from work related stuff. Just taken direct action rather than whinging about it on a forum.

Yep. I pick my causes if I am going to overtly take action.
There needs to be a viable path with a chance of influence.
Misrepresentation of information on a cycling forum has not been one of those paths.

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 27, 2023 11:18 am

Yep. I pick my causes if I am going to overtly take action.
There needs to be a viable path with a chance of influence.
Misrepresentation of information on a cycling forum has not been one of those paths.

If you think the only valid reason for discussion is if you have a viable chance to create change ... why are you spending so much time engaging in this discussion?

Cyclophiliac wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 26, 2023 12:28 pm

baabaa wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:54 am

This may help
https://www.verifythis.com/

https://www.verifythis.com/article/news ... e3e47aa639

Yes,that's useful, but I think people are missing the point of my reply to f&o. I was asking *him* to provide a source for *his* assertion.

Oh, look. The MHL thread has risen again. Sorry mate, missed this.

I pulled that assertion outta me date. Just like most everything else has been in this thread. Just keeping it real baby

Folks, maybe it's time to put down the keyboard and ride your bicycle for an hour or so?

It's getting a bit heated.

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 26, 2023 1:26 pm

"In 2007, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) reported that, in 2006, 87,000 gardeners required treatment in hospital for injuries caused by:

"lawn mowers (6,500)

flower pots (5,300)

secateurs and pruners (4,400)

spades (3,600)

electric hedge trimmers (3,100)

plant tubs and troughs (2,800)

shears (2,100)

garden forks (2,000)

hoses and sprinklers (1,900)

garden canes and sticks (1,800)

I've got to know, in the case of flowerpots. Did the little bastards jump the gardeners when they weren't looking, or did they form some unholy alliance with the garden forks?

fat and old wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 27, 2023 1:56 pm

BobtheBuilder wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 26, 2023 1:26 pm

"In 2007, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) reported that, in 2006, 87,000 gardeners required treatment in hospital for injuries caused by:

"lawn mowers (6,500)

flower pots (5,300)

secateurs and pruners (4,400)

spades (3,600)

electric hedge trimmers (3,100)

plant tubs and troughs (2,800)

shears (2,100)

garden forks (2,000)

hoses and sprinklers (1,900)

garden canes and sticks (1,800)

I've got to know, in the case of flowerpots. Did the little bastards jump the gardeners when they weren't looking, or did they form some unholy alliance with the garden forks?

How does one injure themselves with their garden hose/sprinkler ?

Probably slips, trips, falls. Pots would be falling objects onto limbs, garden fork poor spatial awareness (as in Ah Stuck it in Muh foot duh) and so on.

The real issue is the Murdoch like reporting of these incidents, where the poor garden implements are held up as being somehow dangerous felons, just lying in wait to cause injury and death at every opportunity onto an unsuspecting citizen. The reality is some moron ran over his own foot with a lawnmower

See? We cyclists are no different to a garden pot. Like Bob the builder oops....Bill and Ben

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 26, 2023 4:05 pm

whilst we are repeating, here is another one.

.Bicycle helmet effects may be somewhat larger when bicycle helmet wearing is mandatory than otherwise; however, helmet wearing rates were not found to be related to bicycle helmet effectiveness. It is also likely that bicycle helmets have larger effects among drunk cyclists than among sober cyclists, and larger effects in single bicycle crashes (rather) than in collisions with motor vehicles.

That seems like a much stronger argument for helmet advocacy rather than mandatory helmet laws in my opinion.

uart wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 27, 2023 3:09 pm

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 26, 2023 4:05 pm

whilst we are repeating, here is another one.

.Bicycle helmet effects may be somewhat larger when bicycle helmet wearing is mandatory than otherwise; however, helmet wearing rates were not found to be related to bicycle helmet effectiveness. It is also likely that bicycle helmets have larger effects among drunk cyclists than among sober cyclists, and larger effects in single bicycle crashes (rather) than in collisions with motor vehicles.

That seems like a much stronger argument for helmet advocacy rather than mandatory helmet laws in my opinion.

The bit you left out of that quote was the part I considered more pertinent and the reason I posted it.

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%

No don't mandate them. However don't claim they provide no protection in the event of a headstrike and I will not post information correcting it.

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 27, 2023 3:26 pm

uart wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 27, 2023 3:09 pm

warthog1 wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 26, 2023 4:05 pm

whilst we are repeating, here is another one.

That seems like a much stronger argument for helmet advocacy rather than mandatory helmet laws in my opinion.

The bit you left out of that quote was the part I considered more pertinent and the reason I posted it.

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%

No don't mandate them. However don't claim they provide no protection in the event of a headstrike and I will not post information correcting it.

Yeah but ……

Garden hoses are dangerous ….

Still wondering why cyclists in Australia are considered so incompetent we have to wear head protection, along with 2 other countries. Everyone else gets a choice, are we just the worst cyclists in the world, that's the perception I get from the fact we need protection when very few others do.

So where does this "along with 2 other countries" factoid come from?

Thought it has been more than 25 countries that have at least some sort of MHL when I last checked back in 2020, but guessing I must be wrong -
Bicycle helmets
SWOV Fact sheet, June 2019
Point 3
In which countries is bicycle helmet use mandatory?
Globally, there are 28 countries where helmet use is mandatory. In some countries (or in certain states/regions of that country) it is mandatory for all cyclists, in others only for children/youngsters. Not all countries impose fines when helmets are not used. The table below provides an overview of countries where helmets have been mandatory since what effective date; if this only applies to children this is indicated by ‘age limit’

So if we start counting and my Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion) maths is right, then....
Australia, plus Argentina, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Israel, Japan, Namibia, New Zealand, South Africa, Singapore.

(And then for below a certain age group) Austria, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, France, Jersey, Latvia, Korea, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Arab Emirates (and some states across the U.S. but not included in the tally)

= 3, yes 3 countries!!

From Page 4 of https://swov.nl/sites/default/files/bes ... elmets.pdf

That forum member has a habit of making that mistake over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. He’s also very big on facts. Like someone said, around and around and around and around again.

In the 5 Months since I moved down to Albury, I've been watching the types of Cyclists we have here, unfortunately not much participating due to the intense heat 2 or 3 Months ago and my work.

I've noticed that the amount of adults and teens that wear helmets are at a guess 40%, most people here don't bother, the cops don't appear to be too worried, the roads here are wide and the speed limit around 40kph in town but around 60kph in the main thoroughfares. Most people here tend to wear baseball caps when they are riding and many don't even bother with those. The Cops are also very few and far between but don't seemed to be bothered with it.

The Older people (Seniors) tend to wear them, tourist mostly do but some not or just have them dangling from the bike.

Albury is quite an easy town to cycle around, it's very flat and the roads have bike lanes but are not always coloured green. There are some good bikepaths that follow the creeks around town.
Probably the biggest danger i see is the way they park here, it's angled street parking with nose in towards the kerb as the angle is such that when you reverse from your parking spot, you're (as a car driver) reversing in towards traffic that is mostly only doing 20-30kph and occasionally 40kph so if a car is backing out, cars are supposed to let you out...yeah right!! so, as a bicycle rider, you've just got to be cautious for reversing cars. The Main street, Dean Street is only single lanes with lots of pedestrian crossings so it's really safe from speeding traffic.

But nobody seems scared of the police as they ride around town helmetless.....I bet you if I tried it, I'd be the unlucky bugger that gets nabbed. It's pretty laid back here, I'm really enjoying the vibe and these Autumn days are stunning.