Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[human909]

Comparing competition cyclists and road cyclists to the average commuter and recreational cyclists is akin to comparing F1 racers to daily commuters.

It really isn't relevant.

[fat and old]

Well, he's not really. more addressing YugYug's assertion re competitive cycling and the incidence of head injuries pre and post MHU. As for efficacy of helmets, I can think of few scenarios better than competitive cycling to test this. Further, helmet purchase among a large group of cyclists is influenced by what is seen in "pro" ranks. This is not limited to "roadies", as most cycling media, LBS's etc address the commuters in their reviews and sales pitches. I see most commuters using reasonably exy helmets (more than a MCC 7-11 or nutcase for instance. Most "serious" cyclists attach a fair worth to the safety of their head; whether it suits anyone's agenda or not; and this is reflected in the choice of helmet).

It would be interesting to know how much overall spend as a percentage "road/enthusiast/enthusiast MTB'er" cyclists account for in Australia.

[Thoglette]

I see your point about commuters. I haven't cycled with commuters so don't know about that crowd.

And here's the rub.

Short distance commuters and utility cyclists make up about 90% of cyclists in the real world.

Here in MHL land they had just about disappeared leaving only those cyclists who were wearing helmets anyway (i.e. those who would shower after riding).

That disappearance is strongly correlated to the introduction of MHLs. (Causation has not been shown in the literature but at the very least MHLs are a signifier of approved attitudes)

There has been a recent revival in "sensible cycling" for which we have to thank the hipster & fashionistas for that. But even a casual observer will have noted the high number of MHL scofflaws in that cohort.

I've posted all the published references for all of this umpteen times and don't have time to do that again this morning. The key takeaways are twofold: 1. "cycling" is hetrogenous. and 2. The mix of cycling activities in Australia over MHL period should not be considered "normal" - even in an Australian context

[baabaa]

DaveQB, Thog is spot-on here.
A mate was a past president of BNSW. During his time in the chair, he fought long and hard with and without the board support to try and bring change to the NSW legislation. His focus was first and foremost safety on the road for anyone that bikes and the more people who do ride, just makes it safer for all. In the end it wore him down and just gave up because he could not present the facts to the relative ministers without the fringe based noise of helmet company’s conspiracy theories to just sell more helmets and the BS science from both sides about effectiveness. He IS an established scientist.
Plenty of holes are in “the science” that gets bandied about as fact but the science has not helped either side to bring any change. Best just ignore the people online who bellyache and give reference to "facts".
MHL is a dumb law. That is all that is needed to be said.

[human909]

The mix of cycling activities in Australia over MHL period should not be considered "normal" - even in an Australian context

I can't emphasise this enough.

Even I would admit that MHL isn't the be and end all of this result but it certainly was a big trigger of the decline and a continuing hinderance to the uptake of cycling by the average joe(and jane!).

I am fortunate to have the opportunity to live in an area of Australia where cycling has made significant inroads amongst the average joe/jane. Helmets yes because it is law, but certainly not the sort road cyclists where. Gloves no way. Cycling shoes? Why!? Some people have presented such pocket as proof the MHLs aren't a barrier to cycling. But that either disingenuous or just ignorant. People's choices are based on a range of incentives and disincentives. It just so happens that the incentives in Melbourne's inner north have overcome the many disincentives.

Meanwhile in the majority of Australia the disincentives are dominant and MHLs add to that pile in a statistically significant way. But it would also be disingenuous of me to argue that MHLs are the only disincentive.

[DavidS]

Well, he's not really. more addressing YugYug's assertion re competitive cycling and the incidence of head injuries pre and post MHU. As for efficacy of helmets, I can think of few scenarios better than competitive cycling to test this. Further, helmet purchase among a large group of cyclists is influenced by what is seen in "pro" ranks. This is not limited to "roadies", as most cycling media, LBS's etc address the commuters in their reviews and sales pitches. I see most commuters using reasonably exy helmets (more than a MCC 7-11 or nutcase for instance. Most "serious" cyclists attach a fair worth to the safety of their head; whether it suits anyone's agenda or not; and this is reflected in the choice of helmet).

It would be interesting to know how much overall spend as a percentage "road/enthusiast/enthusiast MTB'er" cyclists account for in Australia.

Well clearly there is no need for a law to mandate the wearing of helmets since everyone is so enthusiastic about wearing a helmet. Might as well repeal the law now, it seems to serve no purpose.

Of course, those who are involved in cycling activities which have a higher risk cannot really be compared to those who are just cycling for transport such as commuters and those just going for a spin or a bit of shopping. Just maybe those who are doing less risky cycling don't necessarily want to wear a helmet, and there's even a possibility this may be a barrier to cycling and they no longer cycle or cycle a lot less. You never know, maybe people can even judge the risk for themselves and wear helmets when they judge it is necessary.

The effect of the law is, as we have seen, a reduction in cycling. I am always surprised when cyclists support a law which demonstrably discourages cycling. Especially when there is a link between more cyclists and the roads being safer for cyclists.

DS

[fat and old]

Well clearly there is no need for a law to mandate the wearing of helmets since everyone is so enthusiastic about wearing a helmet. Might as well repeal the law now, it seems to serve no purpose.

That's a bit sarcy, but I agree. Always have.

Of course, those who are involved in cycling activities which have a higher risk cannot really be compared to those who are just cycling for transport such as commuters and those just going for a spin or a bit of shopping. Just maybe those who are doing less risky cycling don't necessarily want to wear a helmet, and there's even a possibility this may be a barrier to cycling and they no longer cycle or cycle a lot less.

Yet to have seen anyone in this thread disagree with the fundamentals of your statement.

I am fortunate to have the opportunity to live in an area of Australia where cycling has made significant inroads amongst the average joe/jane. Helmets yes because it is law, but certainly not the sort road cyclists where

Overall, you're sorta right. However, the trickle down effect can be seen in the majority of those helmets. I stand my previous statement re pro peleton/club racing influences

Meanwhile in the majority of Australia the disincentives are dominant and MHLs add to that pile in a statistically significant way. But it would also be disingenuous of me to argue that MHLs are the only disincentive.

Again, I haven't really seen major opposition to that assertion. Especially when the reasonable last sentence is attached.

FWIW....another study I came across, shows a reduction in active transport among school children between 1997 and 2007. Not long after our MHL's were introduced so relevant as far as I can see?

This paper describes the changes in how children and adolescents travel to school in the São Paulo Metropolitan Area (SPMA), Brazil. Data were from children (6–11 year) and adolescents (12–17 year) who reported at least one trip to school at the SPMA Household Travel Survey for the years 1997 (15,491 people; 31,909 trips) and 2007 (11,992 people; 24,428 trips). We estimated: the proportion and respective 95% confidence interval, median interquartile range, and total trip time in each mode of travel (active, private, public transport) according to sex and quintiles of family income. The analysis was stratified by age group and weighted to make the sample representative of the studied population. Results suggest that the use of public transport and active transport in school travel decreased between 1997 and 2007, whereas the use of private transport increased, especially among children. An inverse relationship between median time in private transport and income was also observed for both children and adolescents. Median time of transport to school remained stable in the study period.

Changes in travel to school patterns among children and adolescents in the São Paulo Metropolitan Area, Brazil, 1997–2007 (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _1997-2007 [accessed Jun 26, 2017].

No helmet laws there, are there?

[human909]

FWIW....another study I came across, shows a reduction in active transport among school children between 1997 and 2007. Not long after our MHL's were introduced so relevant as far as I can see?

No helmet laws there, are there?

Nothing new there. There are a whole bunch of factors that have lead to a reduction in cycling. But MHLs is a significant and unnecessary one that has no proven health benefits.

Over the last ~80 years our roads and cities have been taken over by motor vehicles. Much of it is by government priorities. Other aspects is simply might is right and lack of rules protecting the more vulnerable. Either way the results our big cities are suffering badly, so is people's health.

[Arbuckle23]

The Maven's Vlog today has a great point about MHL

[fat and old]

FWIW....another study I came across, shows a reduction in active transport among school children between 1997 and 2007. Not long after our MHL's were introduced so relevant as far as I can see?

No helmet laws there, are there?

Nothing new there. There are a whole bunch of factors that have lead to a reduction in cycling. But MHLs is a significant and unnecessary one that has no proven health benefits.

Over the last ~80 years our roads and cities have been taken over by motor vehicles. Much of it is by government priorities. Other aspects is simply might is right and lack of rules protecting the more vulnerable. Either way the results our big cities are suffering badly, so is people's health.

I think the point of difference that I have with the above is in blaming "government" priorities.

I've long held that "people" moved to motor cars with an increase in affluence among other things. The government merely reacted to this. 2 cars (his and hers usually) per household is an aspiration, here and abroad. Governments like to be seen as facilitating aspiration. When they can do it in the name of "protecting the economy", all the better.

And go back 100 pages and you'll find that MHL's were blamed as the major reason for the downturn in active transport.

The subject of health and big city living is something else. The idea that we should be living in a higher density for our own good does not translate to Australia nearly as well as in areas such as old Europe which grew up as high density. MHL's cannot make any real difference there, IME.

[uart]

The Maven's Vlog today has a great point about MHL

And to avoid too many TLDW replies, starts at 4:10.

Re the lack of helmet wearing in Dublin, perhaps that is what happened to the guy at 3:30 with his head covered in blood! (just joking ).

[human909]

I think the point of difference that I have with the above is in blaming "government" priorities.

I've long held that "people" moved to motor cars with an increase in affluence among other things. The government merely reacted to this.

Either way it is government priorities. And all the more for the government to correctly govern the commons or we end up with the tragedy of the commons that results.

Yep, in many ways the free market choice of transport does gravitate towards private vehicles. Larger and faster ones if there roads are suitable. But this results in classic market inefficiencies of the overuse of the commons.

2 cars (his and hers usually) per household is an aspiration, here and abroad. Governments like to be seen as facilitating aspiration. When they can do it in the name of "protecting the economy", all the better.

Except it isn't "protecting the economy" good governance would protect the commons. This isn't exactly novel economics here.

Go back and look at the ACTIVE changes the government made to prioritise motor vehicles. The Netherlands was doing the same thing until a loud minority changed the governments mind.

And go back 100 pages and you'll find that MHL's were blamed as the major reason for the downturn in active transport.

Ha! You have to be kidding. Sure at the cusp of the changes it was the major reason for a spiked decline. But there are multiple reasons I doubt anybody has suggested otherwise. My personal stance is it is one of many barriers and a damn easy one to remove.

The idea that we should be living in a higher density for our own good does not translate to Australia nearly as well as in areas such as old Europe which grew up as high density. MHL's cannot make any real difference there, IME.

But continuing urban sprawl has hosts of economic problems. You know that thing called urban planning? Yeah most Australian cities barely have that in recent times. One could readily argue Melbourne's planning was better 100 years ago or maybe even 170 years ago....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoddle_Grid

[fat and old]

I think the point of difference that I have with the above is in blaming "government" priorities.

I've long held that "people" moved to motor cars with an increase in affluence among other things. The government merely reacted to this.

Either way it is government priorities. And all the more for the government to correctly govern the commons or we end up with the tragedy of the commons that results.

Yep, in many ways the free market choice of transport does gravitate towards private vehicles. Larger and faster ones if there roads are suitable. But this results in classic market inefficiencies of the overuse of the commons.

2 cars (his and hers usually) per household is an aspiration, here and abroad. Governments like to be seen as facilitating aspiration. When they can do it in the name of "protecting the economy", all the better.

Except it isn't "protecting the economy" good governance would protect the commons. This isn't exactly novel economics here.

Tragedy of the commons? We're talking about roads here. I think that's a little hysterical....but fair enough if that's what you want to equate it too. I am interested though....apart from the road network, what other resource is being subjected to this tragedy? Fossil fuels? Clean air? The environment? Are you actually invoking the Climate Change argument here?

As for "protecting the economy", I was referring to the efforts of the Brazilian Gov noted in that report, as well as similar efforts by our own and other governments during the GFC period. "Cash for Clunkers", write offs etc for small business and the like.

TBH, Im not getting into an argument over Economics; I know my limitations here and will defer to anyone who has a formal education on the matter, in keeping with Thoglette's cartoon.

[human909]

Tragedy of the commons? We're talking about roads here. I think that's a little hysterical....but fair enough if that's what you want to equate it too.

Hysterical? The public road network is perfectly analogous to the "commons".
http://www.afr.com/opinion/columnists/a ... 529-ghc8jx

I am interested though....apart from the road network, what other resource is being subjected to this tragedy? Fossil fuels? Clean air? The environment? Are you actually invoking the Climate Change argument here?

Yes clean air is part of the "commons".

As for "protecting the economy", I was referring to the efforts of the Brazilian Gov noted in that report, as well as similar efforts by our own and other governments during the GFC period. "Cash for Clunkers", write offs etc for small business and the like.

TBH, Im not getting into an argument over Economics; I know my limitations here and will defer to anyone who has a formal education on the matter, in keeping with Thoglette's cartoon.

Really? I wouldn't expect that. But incidentally I have a degree in Economics.

[fat and old]

The older you get, the more you understand ol' Harry

[yugyug]

So it was an opinion backed from someone else’s opinion that you agree with and now someone else will take it as actuality.
And instance or instances? Hey it was your word reduced so just present the facts and the numbers will be clear. Most people can sniff BS a mile away so please don’t state something and then back off in a round the way manner by saying, well, the gauge of that work pre and post introduction had just not been done.
Maybe news, but companies that sell stuff tobacco, rock fishing cleats, toothbrushes, whatever, do so when they have demand for a product. People around the world want to use helmets, so the companies put $$ into make the best they can. Do you think they even think that the Aust and NZ is a volume market,really it would be a pest to them MHL or not.
The UCI introduced helmets after a few racers died during events and the riders and team administrators supported that rule. How many pros do you know or are aware of that now train during the off season without helmets? So, efficacy, well it comes down to your opinion vs. the UCI or the helmet companies, few of the bike riding public care so they do the risk management and this opinion leads to a new sale or not.

Baabaa, thats just a big paragraph of nonsense.

The number of deaths pre and post helmets for professional cyclists is easy to find:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... of_cycling

Take out the non-racing related deaths and see they haven't reduced. Commentary is here:
http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/bl ... lmets.html

Your other comment "MHL is a dumb law. That is all that is needed to be said" reflects such a lazy attitude. No way in hell will any law be repealed with that lack of engagement.

Sorry for the late reply.

[baabaa]

Hang on, your words on Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:45 pm

For the record, I think helmets look really really stupid. They haven't even reduced head injuries in UCI sanctioned races so it hard to say they even look cool on pro racers.

Did you mention deaths then? So have they or have they not even reduced head injuries in UCI sanctioned races.
Oh and EDIT, the law has even less chance of changing if people keep just making stuff up.

[BJL]

Hang on, your words on Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:45 pm

For the record, I think helmets look really really stupid. They haven't even reduced head injuries in UCI sanctioned races so it hard to say they even look cool on pro racers.

Did you mention deaths then? So have they or have they not even reduced head injuries in UCI sanctioned races.
Oh and EDIT, the law has even less chance of changing if people keep just making stuff up.

Using UCI races as an example as to why MHL's should or shouldn't exist for the rest of us is barking up the wrong tree. V8 supercar drivers have the benefit of flame proof suits, four point harnesses (yes, standard seat belts can cause life threatening injuries but usually it's the lesser of two evils), roll cages and yes, helmets. Do we mandate all these things for all motorists?

Deaths at pro level cycling? Caused by head injuries suffered during a crash or massive heart attacks and dropping dead on the spot? Have MHL's in pro cycling ever caused a pro to retire or stop riding?

But on your last point, would you say that mandatory helmet laws were introduced in the first place because of people 'just' making stuff up?

[trailgumby]

But on your last point, would you say that mandatory helmet laws were introduced in the first place because of people 'just' making stuff up?

No,it was the normal thing where humans have trouble calculating probabilities. We had the trauma surgeons like Charlie Teo and others throwing their hands in the air saying how bad it was and that cyclists must be helmeted while failing to see the numbers coming from other causalities.

And nobody stopped to think of the unintended consequences on public health. Morbid obesity, cardiac ill-health, diabetes and a myriad of other inactivity related diseases that affect not just thousands but millions of Australians with shortened lives and poor health before they die, requiring spendy medical interventions to keep them going in their (premature) last years.

And on top of that we have abandoned the bicycle (pretty much) for short trips, preferring the motor car because it's "safer" - leading to worsening congestion, particulates emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, pollution, again worsening public health. Spin the merry-go-round a little faster.

All to save maybe a couple of hundred head injuries per annum. Worth it? I think not.

[Comedian]

(Pretty much everybody agrees that if you are involved incident that has a head impact then a helmet will mostly likely give you better outcomes than no helmet. However the health impacts of discouraging cycling are significant and helmet laws and even helmet promotion has been shown to significantly discourage cycling.)

This is the topic that brought me into this thread. There are a surprising number of people that are saying science says a helmet doesn't help at all and can even cause more damage.

You might not be aware that children have been strangled by their helmet straps, but there is no proven case of a helmet saving a life, so on the basis of the known facts, wearing a helmet is more dangerous than not wearing one.

- Reader "burttthebike" http://www.cyclingweekly.com/group-test ... ide-146500

Personally I think helmets are the type of safety device that sometimes they help you, sometimes they make things worse. I think that certainly they reduce scalp lacerations (which are not pleasant but also not serious), but they also make your head a larger target which means you are more likely to get neck or strap injuries.

If I had the choice I'd probably choose to wear one but I don't. On a forum of cycling enthusiasts they offer no disincentive, but in a recent trip to the NT where there are people riding everywhere legally helmet free, it's clear that if regular people are forced to wear one - they just don't ride.

The thing that astonishes me - is that some people here are so darn passionate about helmets when riding a bike. Yet, they don't seem at all worried about them when doing anything else in life (like driving, climbing ladders etc etc) which proves that rightly or wrongly cycling has been unjustly linked with head injuries by MHL.

[human909]

The thing that astonishes me - is that some people here are so darn passionate about helmets when riding a bike. Yet, they don't seem at all worried about them when doing anything else in life (like driving, climbing ladders etc etc) which proves that rightly or wrongly cycling has been unjustly linked with head injuries by MHL.

So much this!

[fat and old]

Oh, that's just too good.

[DavidS]

Colin, in another thread, posted a site rebutting cycling fallacies, one in particular is relevant here: http://cyclingfallacies.com/en/29/peopl ... en-cycling

I particularly like this part:

the Netherlands – which is the safest country in the world for cycling, with the widest demographic of people who cycle – also has the lowest rate of helmet use.

That's right folks, lots of cyclists and very low helmet use is safer than the mandating of helmets. MHLs just don't add up.

DS

[human909]

Colin, in another thread, posted a site rebutting cycling fallacies, one in particular is relevant here: http://cyclingfallacies.com/en/29/peopl ... en-cycling

I particularly like this part:

the Netherlands – which is the safest country in the world for cycling, with the widest demographic of people who cycle – also has the lowest rate of helmet use.

That's right folks, lots of cyclists and very low helmet use is safer than the mandating of helmets. MHLs just don't add up.

DS

But, but Australia is different...

Yep. We have a narrow demographic cycling, which further skews statistics regarding accident rates etc. How did this narrow cycling demographic come about? We went about discouraging the majority from cycling.

The same also has happened to motorcycling. Again it is something we scaremonger and discourage. Thus we end up with a population of risk takers which further skews the statistics. Meanwhile there are less on the roads which makes it all the more dangerous.


Interestingly in both cycling and motorcycling there is a large cohort who don't want to see a wider demographic on their cycles. Afterall wearing normal clothes while cycling is unrealistic in Australia because Australia is different...

[bychosis]

Afterall wearing normal clothes while cycling is unrealistic in Australia because Australia is different...

And when you hear a news story where riders have gathered and "donned the Lycra" for a charity event it should be surprising that they are actually talking about an endurance spin cycle event. At least I didn't see any helmets being worn in the footage.