Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

User avatar
DavidS
Posts: 3632
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby DavidS » Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

mikesbytes wrote:Almost rode without a helmet this morning. It was pooring and I had to ride, so I put a heavy raincoat on with the hood and walked my bike to the front of the house and then realised. Because I had a heavy hood on my head, it felt like there was something there, despite the lack of straps.

What if the local police had run out of drug dealers to arrest?
Run out?

If they saw you without a helmet and a drug deal going on simultaneously, you would now have a fine and the dealers would have had their usual profitable day.

DS
Allegro T1, Auren Swift :)

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby il padrone » Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:56 pm

Mulger bill wrote:That's the point I'm making Pete, get a bewigged dingleberry with an attitude problem on the bench and 146(d) could be used as an ugly precedent towards having bikes become declared obstructions. Druncan would love that
Precedent applies to common law interpretations (made by judges and justices too, not magistrates).

The road rules are made under the provisions of legislation - the Road Safety Act 1986 - and are quite clearly stated. Precedent does not apply. They spell out that a vehicle travelling more slowly in traffic does not constitute an obstruction. Variations to this would need to be made by Vicroads and the Roads Minister, and would be subject to review by Parliament.

So your fears are a little misplaced.
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
yugyug
Posts: 1826
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:27 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby yugyug » Fri Sep 09, 2016 5:20 am

Found this amusing on twitter recently.

Craig Richards, CEO of Bicycle Network took a trip to Darwin and started tweeting mysterious photos of bike riders missing heads:

Image
Image
That last one provocatively captioned "When in Darwin..."

Here's the response:
Image

Not to mention, Richards has been tweeting some other stuff....

https://twitter.com/richobicycle/status ... 2249575425

Love the first comment.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 6605
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Zeegers comes home

Postby Thoglette » Sun Sep 11, 2016 2:24 pm

I was looking for reference to Zeegers 2015 and realised it's not here. So I'm doin' a cut & paste from elsewhere so I can find it
thoglette wrote:.... the 2011 Heart Foundation study conclusively showed that MHLs are a major barrier to utility/commuter cycling. And last year Zeegers put the last nails in the statistical coffin.

In a nutshell, those who'd benefit from helmets mostly wore them anyway; those who didn't mostly stopped riding. Or their parents stopped them (per an later Heart foundation survey on kids riding to school)
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby human909 » Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:16 am

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/bike-helmet-r ... rg5mo.html

Good old Australian researchers are at it again... Australia is right, everyone else is wrong. :roll: :roll:
Tampere, Finland: The largest review yet of bike helmet use by 64,000 injured cyclists worldwide has found helmets reduce the chances of a serious head injury by nearly 70 per cent.

Claims that bike helmets damaged the neck and caused serious brain injury (diffuse axonal injury) were also found to be wrong in the study by University of NSW statistician Dr Jake Olivier who presented on Tuesday to the international injury prevention conference Safety 2016 in Finland.

The largest review yet of bike helmet use found that helmets significantly reduce the chances of a serious head injury.
Advocates of mandatory helmet laws – which only exist in a small number of jurisdictions including Australia and New Zealand – hope the Australian research will debunk "junk science" often cited by helmet opponents in the ongoing and heated debate.

Even at Safety2016, the leading injury prevention conference worldwide, a Helsinki emergency room doctor raised some questions about the efficacy of helmets, saying it was "not so easy to show". Another local expert disagreed: of Finland's 29 cycling fatalities in 2014, about eight people would have been saved if they'd worn a helmet.

The conference heard that in Austria the introduction of mandatory helmet law for children under 12 had significantly reduced head injuries, but were still opposed by parents. A Norwegian expert told the conference he had tracked 2184 patients who were treated at Oslo's major hospital. He found 60 per cent of those who were injured had worn a helmet, but those who wore helmets had fewer head injuries. Patients without helmets had more head injuries than patients with helmets, he said adding it made a compelling case for the compulsory helmet use.

The Australian research by Dr Olivier, found helmets cut the chances of a head injury by 50 per cent, a serious head injury by 69 per cent and a fatal head injury by 65 per cent. They also reduced the odds of injuries to the face by 33 per cent.

Injuries to the neck were rare, yet wearing a helmet did not cause injuries to the neck, despite claims made in previous studies.

The study was a meta-analysis of 40 studies worldwide, covering 64,000 injured cyclists.

"This study emphatically proves that bicycle helmets are efficacious in reducing brain trauma in either single-vehicle falls or impact with other vehicles," said Australia's Raphael Grzebieta, the professor of Road Safety at the University of NSW's Transport and Road Safety (TARS) Research unit.pr

Bike helmet laws, combined with bike lanes and other safety measures to separate cyclists from traffic, had prevented about 900 serious injuries and deaths combined every year, said Professor Grzebieta, a former president of the Australasian College of Road Safety.

While the silent majority wanted bike helmet laws, a small and vocal minority group, which often opposed helmets as an infringement of their rights, had used "crazy science" to lobby against them, he said.
Poor research cited by these groups had cost lives, and Professor Grzebieta was lobbying to have these publications retracted.

A highly controversial paper by Norwegian transport economist Rune Elvik – often cited by opponents as evidence that bike helmets exacerbate neck injuries and caused brain damage – had done a lot of damage, Professor Grzebieta said.

Dr Olivier said his review found "pretty solid evidence that bike helmet use in a crash or fall significantly reduces injuries to head and serious head, and facial injuries". He also found no evidence that they caused neck injuries when he reviewed 12 studies. "Neck injuries were particularly low rate .. and of very low severity," he said.

Dr Olivier stressed helmets were designed to only protect the head.

"The bicycle helmet is not a panacea for cycling safety," he said.

The best strategy was to avoid injury or fatality was crash avoidance, including bike lanes that separate cyclists from vehicles.

Yet a steady increase in single-vehicle fatalities by cyclists who crashed in Australia and The Netherlands – with similar trends around the world experts said at the conference – also illustrated the need for helmets.

"In those instances, the bicycle helmet may be the only option for protection," said Dr Olivier.

Australia and New Zealand are two of a handful of jurisdictions across the world to make it compulsory to wear a helmet, and apply tough fines on those who don't. In March this year, the fine for not wearing a bike helmet rose from $71 to $319.

Dr Olivier moved to Australia from the US in 2008.

"I bought a bike to commute to UNSW. I was told I had to wear a helmet by law, so I picked one out and wore it as I cycled home. It never crossed my mind bicycle helmets could be controversial. "

Julie Power attended Safety 2016 with support from the ICFJ-WHO Safety 2016 Reporting Fellowship Program and Bloomberg Philanthropies.
It is quite hilarious to hear complaints about bad science from somebody who in the same breath makes deliberately misleading statements.

If one took his statement at face value we would could easily have 900+ extra cyclist dying on our road each year without MHLs. :roll:

I still find it stunning that such road safety experts can be in anyway proud of the safety situation of Australian cyclists. They seem blind to the realities of how dangerous Australian roads are for cyclist compared to other most other developed countries.

User avatar
g-boaf
Posts: 21318
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:11 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby g-boaf » Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:00 am

So, this doctor seems to think as long as we have our helmet and don't ride on the roads, we will be safe...

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/bike-helmet-r ... rg5mo.html

He can pay for all the missing cycle ways then. :roll: Because I sure as hell cannot find separated cycleways to get me all the way to work.

fat and old
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby fat and old » Thu Sep 22, 2016 7:25 am

human909 wrote:http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/bike-helmet-r ... rg5mo.html

Good old Australian researchers are at it again... Australia is right, everyone else is wrong. :roll: :roll:
Tampere, Finland: The largest review yet of bike helmet use by 64,000 injured cyclists worldwide has found helmets reduce the chances of a serious head injury by nearly 70 per cent.

Claims that bike helmets damaged the neck and caused serious brain injury (diffuse axonal injury) were also found to be wrong in the study by University of NSW statistician Dr Jake Olivier who presented on Tuesday to the international injury prevention conference Safety 2016 in Finland.

The largest review yet of bike helmet use found that helmets significantly reduce the chances of a serious head injury.
Advocates of mandatory helmet laws – which only exist in a small number of jurisdictions including Australia and New Zealand – hope the Australian research will debunk "junk science" often cited by helmet opponents in the ongoing and heated debate.

Even at Safety2016, the leading injury prevention conference worldwide, a Helsinki emergency room doctor raised some questions about the efficacy of helmets, saying it was "not so easy to show". Another local expert disagreed: of Finland's 29 cycling fatalities in 2014, about eight people would have been saved if they'd worn a helmet.

The conference heard that in Austria the introduction of mandatory helmet law for children under 12 had significantly reduced head injuries, but were still opposed by parents. A Norwegian expert told the conference he had tracked 2184 patients who were treated at Oslo's major hospital. He found 60 per cent of those who were injured had worn a helmet, but those who wore helmets had fewer head injuries. Patients without helmets had more head injuries than patients with helmets, he said adding it made a compelling case for the compulsory helmet use.

The Australian research by Dr Olivier, found helmets cut the chances of a head injury by 50 per cent, a serious head injury by 69 per cent and a fatal head injury by 65 per cent. They also reduced the odds of injuries to the face by 33 per cent.

Injuries to the neck were rare, yet wearing a helmet did not cause injuries to the neck, despite claims made in previous studies.

The study was a meta-analysis of 40 studies worldwide, covering 64,000 injured cyclists.

"This study emphatically proves that bicycle helmets are efficacious in reducing brain trauma in either single-vehicle falls or impact with other vehicles," said Australia's Raphael Grzebieta, the professor of Road Safety at the University of NSW's Transport and Road Safety (TARS) Research unit.pr

Bike helmet laws, combined with bike lanes and other safety measures to separate cyclists from traffic, had prevented about 900 serious injuries and deaths combined every year, said Professor Grzebieta, a former president of the Australasian College of Road Safety.

While the silent majority wanted bike helmet laws, a small and vocal minority group, which often opposed helmets as an infringement of their rights, had used "crazy science" to lobby against them, he said.
Poor research cited by these groups had cost lives, and Professor Grzebieta was lobbying to have these publications retracted.

A highly controversial paper by Norwegian transport economist Rune Elvik – often cited by opponents as evidence that bike helmets exacerbate neck injuries and caused brain damage – had done a lot of damage, Professor Grzebieta said.

Dr Olivier said his review found "pretty solid evidence that bike helmet use in a crash or fall significantly reduces injuries to head and serious head, and facial injuries". He also found no evidence that they caused neck injuries when he reviewed 12 studies. "Neck injuries were particularly low rate .. and of very low severity," he said.

Dr Olivier stressed helmets were designed to only protect the head.

"The bicycle helmet is not a panacea for cycling safety," he said.

The best strategy was to avoid injury or fatality was crash avoidance, including bike lanes that separate cyclists from vehicles.

Yet a steady increase in single-vehicle fatalities by cyclists who crashed in Australia and The Netherlands – with similar trends around the world experts said at the conference – also illustrated the need for helmets.

"In those instances, the bicycle helmet may be the only option for protection," said Dr Olivier.

Australia and New Zealand are two of a handful of jurisdictions across the world to make it compulsory to wear a helmet, and apply tough fines on those who don't. In March this year, the fine for not wearing a bike helmet rose from $71 to $319.

Dr Olivier moved to Australia from the US in 2008.

"I bought a bike to commute to UNSW. I was told I had to wear a helmet by law, so I picked one out and wore it as I cycled home. It never crossed my mind bicycle helmets could be controversial. "

Julie Power attended Safety 2016 with support from the ICFJ-WHO Safety 2016 Reporting Fellowship Program and Bloomberg Philanthropies.
It is quite hilarious to hear complaints about bad science from somebody who in the same breath makes deliberately misleading statements.

If one took his statement at face value we would could easily have 900+ extra cyclist dying on our road each year without MHLs.
:roll:

I still find it stunning that such road safety experts can be in anyway proud of the safety situation of Australian cyclists. They seem blind to the realities of how dangerous Australian roads are for cyclist compared to other most other developed countries.
Actually, the fella said
900 serious injuries and deaths combined every year,
not
900+ extra cyclist dying
don't get sucked in and lower yourself to his level mate :)

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby human909 » Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:18 am

fat and old wrote:don't get sucked in and lower yourself to his level mate :)
That was sorta my point. :wink: Dubious statistics, mashed together into more dubious statements.....
Last edited by human909 on Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

BJL
Posts: 644
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby BJL » Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:37 am

Considering that around 80% of collisions between motor vehicles and cyclists are caused by the motorist, how many deaths and injuries suffered by cyclists could be saved by improving driver education and getting the arrogant bogan ones off the roads entirely?

But, let's just ignore the elephant in the room why don't we.

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby human909 » Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:45 am

BJL wrote:Considering that around 80% of collisions between motor vehicles and cyclists are caused by the motorist, how many deaths and injuries suffered by cyclists could be saved by improving driver education and getting the arrogant bogan ones off the roads entirely?
You know... Like The Netherlands has done...

But instead lets continue to accept cars smashing into cyclists and on the occasions where a helmet does work lets jump roll that into our statistics to prove how effective helmets are.
Image

User avatar
scotto
Posts: 2380
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:38 am
Location: Baulkham Hills
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby scotto » Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:54 am

WHO supported global review of 64000 incidents proves helmets work and do not cause injuries. this thread should be closed.

User avatar
bychosis
Posts: 7250
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby bychosis » Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:58 am

Sure, bike helmets help reduce head injuries IF you fall off. How about some stats about how many kms are ridden vs head injuries and other injuries. By that take everyone should always wear a helmet, driving, walking, taking a shower 'because it reduces the severity of head impact'
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby human909 » Thu Sep 22, 2016 10:04 am

Oh an just as an FYI here is the summary of Jake Olivier's result:
For cyclists involved in a crash or fall, helmet use was associated with odds reductions for head [OR = 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.42–0.57), serious head (OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.25–0.37), face (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.56–0.81) and fatal head injury (OR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.14–0.88). No clear evidence of an association between helmet use and neck injury was found (OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.74–1.25). There was no evidence of time trends or publication bias.
For serious head injuries during an accident a helmet will reduce their likelihood by 69%... So if there is a 1% chance of a serious head injury then you now have a 0.31% chance. For fatal injuries the results are similar but the confidence interval makes the result quite unreliable.

Either way I'd much prefer to make our roads safer and reduce my chance of being injured at all. A helmet, as we have always known, is a last resort. It is not the solution for motor vehicles colliding with cyclists.
scotto wrote:WHO supported global review of 64000 incidents proves helmets work and do not cause injuries. this thread should be closed.
Most people have not doubted that helmets can reduce head injuries. (Also the study did not prove helmets do not cause injuries.)


Places like The Netherlands adopted a novel solution. How about we drastically reduce the number of 'incidents'. Rather than slightly reducing the damage of such incidents. :idea:

User avatar
bychosis
Posts: 7250
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby bychosis » Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:34 am

human909 wrote:Places like The Netherlands adopted a novel solution. How about we drastically reduce the number of 'incidents'. Rather than slightly reducing the damage of such incidents. :idea:
bah, that can't work!!
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 29060
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby Mulger bill » Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:16 pm

Bloke does nothing but read existing literature and creates his own correlations, does no new research and suggests opposing opinions rise from dodgy science, riiiiiiiiight

Questions for him.
1 Who suggested he do this?
2 Who paid him to do this?
3 Why are they interested?
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby human909 » Thu Sep 22, 2016 10:07 pm

The both those blokes were also authors of the paper:
"No strong evidence bicycle helmet legislation deters cycling"

I'm really curious on how they bent statistics to show that!


Since they seem so keen on statistical research on MHLs. How about they do an analysis of cyclists in OECD nations with national MHLs and those without MHLs. Lets look a the injury/death rate per million kilometer travelled...... :mrgreen:

User avatar
bychosis
Posts: 7250
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby bychosis » Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:26 pm

human909 wrote:Since they seem so keen on statistical research on MHLs. How about they do an analysis of cyclists in OECD nations with national MHLs and those without MHLs. Lets look a the injury/death rate per million kilometer travelled...... :mrgreen:
Plus a million (km :P )
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 22159
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby mikesbytes » Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:29 pm

If you really want to save lives then get them to switch their commute from driving to cycling. Might put a few heart surgeons out of work...
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
il padrone
Posts: 22931
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby il padrone » Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:56 pm

The fear-mongers with a loose-end today in Gloucester. "Let's hammer the kiddies"

http://www.gloucesteradvocate.com.au/st ... -cyclists/
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

human909
Posts: 9810
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby human909 » Mon Sep 26, 2016 7:19 pm

il padrone wrote:The fear-mongers with a loose-end today in Gloucester. "Let's hammer the kiddies"

http://www.gloucesteradvocate.com.au/st ... -cyclists/
According to the police fines and helmets are the solutions for cars running into children. So much so that police are encouraging the public to report kids not wearing helmets.

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 29060
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby Mulger bill » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:02 pm

Ah, but maybe the helmetless kids are actually deliberately and maliciously riding full sideways drift directly into the front of the smokeboxes in an attempt to demonise the poor motorists...
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

fat and old
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby fat and old » Tue Sep 27, 2016 9:32 am

human909 wrote:
il padrone wrote:The fear-mongers with a loose-end today in Gloucester. "Let's hammer the kiddies"

http://www.gloucesteradvocate.com.au/st ... -cyclists/
According to the police fines and helmets are the solutions for cars running into children. So much so that police are encouraging the public to report kids not wearing helmets.
Yeah, well look at the location. No surprise there.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 6605
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Zeegers comes home

Postby Thoglette » Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:19 pm

Thoglette wrote:Or their parents stopped them (per an later Heart foundation survey on kids riding to school)
Found the link to the original report here It's well hidden.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 22159
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby mikesbytes » Tue Nov 01, 2016 3:30 pm

FindBruce has stated, as part of another conversation that a unicycle is not a bicycle, its a wheeled recreational vehicle. I think that means that Helmets are not mandatory for unicycle riding
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 9166
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Postby Comedian » Tue Nov 01, 2016 3:37 pm

mikesbytes wrote:FindBruce has stated, as part of another conversation that a unicycle is not a bicycle, its a wheeled recreational vehicle. I think that means that Helmets are not mandatory for unicycle riding
That's the case in QLD.

That's why many women I know prefer to ride a scooter for short trips as it gets around the helmet thing which is a no go for them.

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety ... index.html

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users