Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[il padrone]

[il padrone]

[il padrone]

A viewpoint on the persecution of ordinary cyclists.

But I digress … let’s check out emergency departments (EDs) in Sydney hospitals, where some eager-beaver doctors have widened the definition of brain injury to encompass unreported brain injuries … yes I am ‘fair dinkum’ … we now have this ‘silent majority’ noted in ED data and used to support mandatory helmet laws, one so silent as to be undetected by actual statistics or evidence!.....

......Bullying prevails and kills off dissent in a most anti-intellectual manner. You only have to look back a couple of years when the eminent British neurosurgeon, Dr Henry Marsh, gave his expert opinion at the Hay Literary Festival that bicycle helmets were a waste of time. Holy moley, Australia fainted, and our media went into a frenzied melt-down, permitting evangelical-helmet opinions from non-expert bicycle bureaucrats to trump Dr Marsh’s expert one every time.

[il padrone]

The Senate 'nanny-state' inquiry fails at the first jump.

From FB:

I have been told that the committee report originally had recommendations to relax helmet laws, but that the Labour senators would not agree to that as it went against their State party policies. So you end up with the laughable position that recommendations are not based on the enquiry findings, but on pre-existing party policy based on no substantial evidence. The fact that the committee finally wanted better data sets before making any recommendations actually gives the lie to the whole notion that helmet laws are evidence based. Of course the Senate was happy to fall back on the Australian default position of continuing to ban helmetless riding, and punish dissenters, pending the finding of these mythical data sets. One also wonders how they are going to compare helmetless vs MHL casualty data without a control group. Overall, a very shallow and disappointing result.

[Thoglette]

The Senate 'nanny-state' inquiry fails at the first jump.

From FB:

I have been told that the committee report originally had recommendations to relax helmet laws, but that the Labour senators would not agree to that as it went against their State party policies.

This is a rather important outcome - personally I was not aware that such state policies exisited.

We thus need to work any labor party contacts to start a change of policy ("did you know your state policy is to discourage cycling?'")

Likewise LNP contacts can likewise be reminded that "personal freedoms were again squashed by anti-cycling labor senators" (oh, along with bike sales by the mulitnationals who pay their campagain bills ).

Don't forget that this is as much a health (cost) issue as a transport issue.

[bychosis]

Apparently it is now possible to get out of a fine for not wearing a helmet.

But there may be other costs

[Thoglette]

Apparently it is now possible to get out of a fine for not wearing a helmet.

I doubt it.

He was taken to Waratah police station and charged with assault occasioning grievous bodily harm, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, common assault, resist arrest and traffic offences.

[bychosis]

Apparently it is now possible to get out of a fine for not wearing a helmet.

I doubt it.

He was taken to Waratah police station and charged with assault occasioning grievous bodily harm, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, common assault, resist arrest and traffic offences.

oops. Didn't read until the end properly. Seems the person involved may have some other issues.

Still, it's a mixed up world where you can end up with some serious charges from being questioned about a plastic bucket on your head.

[MichaelB]

Well, I came off recently and the helmet did a damn fine job at pretecting my noggin. I'd hate to see what the end result would have been if I wasn't wearing one.

Only 'injury' was a minor artery aneurysm (sp?).

Whilst I think that the post from IlPadrone comparing broccoli and helmets also avoids the facts that there are no studies that PROVE absolute helmets cause injury, (as you can't replicate real world events with & without a helmet to prove this), the arguments listed to me (IMHO) utter trash.

MHL liker

[jasonc]

MHL liker

Michael - even if helmets weren't compulsory you could still wear one. I'm for the removal of the law. 2 things will happen:
1. idiots will be idiots and Darwin will take care of them.
2. people who want to stroll down to the shops can stroll down to the shops, sans helmet.
Like you, for the riding I do, I'd still wear a helmet. But would you still wear a helmet if it wasn't compulsory?

That's how it's been presented to me and changed my view of the law

[MichaelB]

.... But would you still wear a helmet if it wasn't compulsory?

Based on my knowledge - 1st & 2nd hand, Bloody oath.


If I had the ability to influence the law, if you choose not to wear a hlemet (whether you think the law is correct or not is beside the point), then I would make you pay for full medical costs related to the injury of not wearing a helmet.

If wearing a helmet which for 99% of instances makes a difference (where a head strikes the ground) and it makes you not ride a bike, that's your problem.

[il padrone]

.... But would you still wear a helmet if it wasn't compulsory?

Based on my knowledge - 1st & 2nd hand, Bloody oath.


If I had the ability to influence the law, if you choose not to wear a hlemet (whether you think the law is correct or not is beside the point), then I would make you pay for full medical costs related to the injury of not wearing a helmet.

If wearing a helmet which for 99% of instances makes a difference (where a head strikes the ground) and it makes you not ride a bike, that's your problem.

I certainly hope you intend to apply the same principles of logic to your medical treatment policies for:
- drug-takers who get drug-induced illnesses and overdoses
- drivers who get injured in any collision caused by their failure to follow road rules
- people who have obesity problems and have not followed a strict diet
- smokers who continue to smoke and contract lung cancer (or any of the multitude of other illnesses caused by smoking)
- heavy drinkers who suffer heart attacks and alcohol-caused illnesses.

Do you see the flaw in your principled stance ???

[MichaelB]

Il'Padrone, If I could, I would. But I can't. Never said anything about the logic being flawed, sensible or good. To me, it ain't much different for the anti MHL.

Meh, I think it is sensible to wear a helmet, those who don't can suffer the consequences (either injury, fines or perceived free choice not to).

Just hope you are lucky and never have to either suffer an acquired brain injury or deal with a family member who does.

Seen it 1st hand, and for the sake of wearing a helmet to provide added safety (I agree it is not the only measure and nor does it work 100% of the time) I honestly don't understand some peoples stance.

Your life though.

[Thoglette]

If I had the ability to influence the law, if you choose not to wear a hlemet (whether you think the law is correct or not is beside the point), then I would make you pay for full medical costs related to the injury of not wearing a helmet.

....such a law would amount to an MHL by stealth

Lets go around the buoys once more:

That naive position ignores
a/ that nett medical costs are higher under MHLs due people not riding
b/ that people most likely to benefit from helmets tend to use them anyway

These two points are now well established in the literature, with the only deniers being crackpots from certain colleges of surgeons and their welded-on colleagues in certain "safety" circles of the public service.

What is not yet established academically but appears to be likely is that MHLs both re-enforce the perception that "cycling is dangerous " and further alienate the remaining cyclists from the general population allowing memes like "cockroaches on wheels" to be established & maintained.

[MichaelB]

....
What is not yet established academically but appears to be likely is that MHLs both re-enforce the perception that "cycling is dangerous " and further alienate the remaining cyclists from the general population allowing memes like "cockroaches on wheels" to be established & maintained.

Lst bite.

The above to me is like the 'academics' saying that Thomas the Tank reinforces the gender stereotypes that women are subservient to men. Words like "Long" & "Bow" come to mind.

As stated before, your life, but be prepared to deal with the potential consequences.

[bychosis]

Just hope you are lucky and never have to either suffer an acquired brain injury or deal with a family member who does.

Seen it 1st hand, and for the sake of wearing a helmet to provide added safety (I agree it is not the only measure and nor does it work 100% of the time) I honestly don't understand some peoples stance.

The Netherlands with their very high rates of cycling haven't mandated helmet usage, but there are plenty of riders who choose to wear helmets.

My personal opinion is that I shouldn't be forced to wear a helmet for sedate riding, I've never fallen of a bike riding sedately away from traffic. I think we are well enough developed as a society to be able to choose when to wear one. Surfers, skiiers, rock climbers and many others choose to wear headgear for safety during more risky activities, cyclists would likely choose wisely to wear helemts in most situations.

As a step down from MHLs we should be looking at relaxing the rules for adults riding on sharepaths, footpaths and residential streets (less than 60km/h). See how this goes injury/statistics wise. We'll find the benefits of getting more people on bikes outweighs the low risk of very few injuries - just like pretty much every other nation on earth.

[il padrone]

....
What is not yet established academically but appears to be likely is that MHLs both re-enforce the perception that "cycling is dangerous " and further alienate the remaining cyclists from the general population allowing memes like "cockroaches on wheels" to be established & maintained.

Lst bite.

The above to me is like the 'academics' saying that Thomas the Tank reinforces the gender stereotypes that women are subservient to men. Words like "Long" & "Bow" come to mind.

I have had that very statement that you so readily dismiss ("The roads are not safe", "You are so brave! I could never do that"), spoken to me by colleagues at work..... who travel in their cages FAR lesser distances than I am prepared to ride. Mostly from women. Many of them carrying a few too many extra kilos.

I very rarely had this sort of comment thrown at me back in the 70s and 80s. Back then it was "cycling is too hard" or "cycling is for the poor".

The stereotypes are no "long bow". The fact is that people will just find excuses for driving the car...... until it becomes very clear that riding a bike is a very easy and safe thing to do. Helmets don't make the cycling safer - only stricter road rule enforcement (and separated facilities where the traffic speeds or levels are too high to minimise conflicts) will achieve greater safety.

[human909]

The Netherlands with their very high rates of cycling haven't mandated helmet usage, but there are plenty of riders who choose to wear helmets.

If you call around 1% plenty then you would be correct. But otherwise your claim is pretty damn false. In fact in Holland you are far more likely to end injured while cycling with a helmet than without. Of course that is because pretty much the only cyclists wearing helmets are the road cyclists and the mountain bikers. AKA the more risky pursuits were a helmet is more advisable.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html

Helmet wearing is more common in other European countries such as Germany and Denmark.... But it still isn't the norm.

What is not yet established academically but appears to be likely is that MHLs both re-enforce the perception that "cycling is dangerous " and further alienate the remaining cyclists from the general population allowing memes like "cockroaches on wheels" to be established & maintained.

I'm not sure whether there was an academic study done. But pretty good evidence of this was reported from Copenhagen. There strong was a campaign encouraging cyclists (maybe children) to wear helmets. Following this there was a noticeable drop in children cycling as well as a measured increase in parents perception of the risk of cycling.
Here is a decent read:
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/09/fe ... parts.html

[bychosis]

The Netherlands with their very high rates of cycling haven't mandated helmet usage, but there are plenty of riders who choose to wear helmets.

If you call around 1% plenty then you would be correct. But otherwise your claim is pretty damn false. In fact in Holland you are far more likely to end injured while cycling with a helmet than without. Of course that is because pretty much the only cyclists wearing helmets are the road cyclists and the mountain bikers. AKA the more risky pursuits were a helmet is more advisable.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html

Helmet wearing is more common in other European countries such as Germany and Denmark.... But it still isn't the norm.

I guess that is the point I was trying to make, but not knowing the stats. Riskier styles of riding call for helmets, by education. Utility cycling should not have mandated helmet use.

[human909]

I guess that is the point I was trying to make, but not knowing the stats. Riskier styles of riding call for helmets, by education. Utility cycling should not have mandated helmet use.

Sorry I could have worded my correction in a more tactful way. But yeah you point is quite correct. Emphasised by the fact that helmeted cyclists are more likely to be injured in Holland. (I spent several years as a child in Amsterdam so cycling there is close to my heart.)

Incidentally I own 7 helmets! 4 cycling helmets, 2 rock climbing helmets and a skiing helmet. Rock climbing and skiing are more dangerous than cycling but no MHLs.

[human909]

In other news Cricket Australia is recommending MHLs following the inquiry in Phillip Hughes. That said, given the low statistical risk of injury one would wonder whether it is an overreaction.

Personally, I stopped playing cricket during my late school years because of my fear of fast bowlers. I felt unsafe and I suppose I wasn't a good enough batsman to deal with it. If I played cricket now with a hard cricket ball I absolutely would choose to wear a helmet.

[Thoglette]

Words like "Long" & "Bow" come to mind.

Yet you're willing to demand MHLs based on your (untested) single-point event.

But you are strangely silent on MHLs for other road users. And those taking a bath or shower. What about those who are simply over 75 years old (which the CDC in the US consider an "at risk" group for head injuries).

[il padrone]

Had not even realised that the Finns had a MHL...... but as it is not enforced it is all a tad irrelevant.

But now they are looking at repealing the law anyway

According to figures provided by the council, in 1990 just four percent of cyclists used a helmet while riding. In 2015, on average nearly half of bikers – some 43 percent used protective headgear

[softy]

I'm sure MichealB is just trolling.

The rest of the world thinks MHL is silly, oh but us ozzies are right!

[MichaelB]

I'm sure MichealB is just trolling.

.......

Nope, my opinion and experience is just different to yours.

And to Thoglette re my 'untested single point event' - without a helmet, the result would have been far worse.