Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[Mulger bill]

Did I really just see the old "Removal of MHLs means a ban on helmets" load of old cobblers trotted out or am I Brians mum?

[yugyug]

The discussion about wearing helmets reminds me of the US movie Fixation, something like 3 years old. Its a good movie, look it up if you haven't seen it.

Most of the fixie riders in the movie were riding brakeless and all but one wore a helmet. It kinda sent a message that they considered a helmet more important than brakes. The movie also talked about a organised social ride and showed a reasonable size group of riders on all sorts of bikes, about half wore helmets. There was no discussion about helmets and no one seemed to care if their friend had a helmet on or not.

Recently I've been reading the first blog posts of Bike Snob New York from 2007 and the posts and comments there also indicate that brakeless but helmeted fixie riding was a "thing" back then. One commenter said it was about being in control of risk - one can choose to ride with brakes and ride to that condition, being able to lock up the rear wheel and skid stop etc, but in the event of an accident you can't control, say resulting from a driver's mistake, then you might as well be wearing a helmet.

But I don't credit that explanation much, it's not that rational and I think it's more to do with fashion. The kind of helmets we are talking about here are often skate styles, plastered with stickers. While functional, still no less a trend than top tube protectors or stickering your fixie. Because there is no MHL in New York, a good percentage of casual cyclists don't wear helmets and wearing helmets is another way to distinguish oneself as a "real" cyclist, just as it is with the roadies and their vented aero helmets, even for notorious risk takers like fixie messengers or wannabes- though that they are risk takers probably explains why less of them wear helmets than roadies. For young men in particular, there is also the choice of wearing a helmet as a sexual signifier for risk taking. This is also a fashion issue and I can see it being rationalised either ways depending on personality type.

This issue of bike fashion is however a serious problem because in Australia the MHL limits the expression of cyclists to wear or, in the case of casual cyclists who don't want to look like enthusiasts, not wear helmets. Understand fashion here in it's broad sense as concerned with image and social function - for example, just carrying a helmet into the workplace may be an issue for some, maybe even more so than wearing one on a bike. (This is a different but not entirely separate issue from the problem that helmet laws produce the perception that cycling is dangerous). It's very easy to rhetorically discredit this problem of fashion and MHL - asserting its significance leads to accusations of superficiality or pretentiousness, (I run the risk of being accused of that here) - but my professional and academic practice has lead me believe that its a real and critical problem with MHLs that negatively effects cycling uptake.

How much, I'm not sure - hard thing to study, though there are some surveys that hint at the problem, but people don't necessarily give the 'right' answer to survey questions because fashion sense is partly non-conscious and the rational brain makes up it's own stories - just as with the fixie rider commentator I mentioned above.

[high_tea]

Sure I agree - my goal is always to keep black rubber on road and to touch nothing else. The issue for me is when is the next time I will fail with this.

A good goal. One in which those helmetless folks in the Netherlands largely do well and when they do fail the consequences are almost always negligible.

The risk of head injuries in moderate speed cycling is very low. If you put yourself in higher risk categories by riding faster and in more risky circumstances a helmet is much more advisable.

The style of bike plays a rather large part in the risk as well. Relatively more difficult to go OTB when riding a heavier, upright roadster-style step-through bike, especially when loaded with items on the rear rack. Ridng at speed on a drop bar road bike, with gear carried in a backpack, makes for a higher risk.

Good video demonstration of Dutch cyclists crashing - with few/no head contacts; no real injuries

Cmon, no kind of bike would had an OTB in that situation. And, pardon my saying so, but that video shows some notso-hotso ways to fall off a bike - I saw several people not even try to protect their head, which always makes me cringe.

[Mulger bill]

I saw lots of arms going down to protect the head by preventing impact. The one that had me cringing was ~35s where the young lady concerned went over backwards with the weakest part of the skull leading.
Strangely enough, no head contact, could it be that millenia of evolution has engineered the neck to do a pretty good job of controlling the head through most human paced incidents? Unless saddled with extra weight...

[human909]

Cmon, no kind of bike would had an OTB in that situation.

I do agree. However having your weight forward on a road bike does put you at a disadvantage. But so does the handle bars on those "Oma Fiets", quite simply you cannot appropriately brace yourself in situations of heavy braking. That said when you are trundling along at 15kph you hardly need heavy braking.

And, pardon my saying so, but that video shows some notso-hotso ways to fall off a bike - I saw several people not even try to protect their head, which always makes me cringe.

Yep different people have different skills in dealing with falls. On the whole though I would expect that the average dutch cyclist has more experience than your typical Australian cyclists. Years cycling as a child teaches you that. I think most cyclists in that video handled it exceptionally well. Even my mother (also a grandmother) can safely and controllably fall off a bike. (ill-maintained brakes on a very steep hill)

Strangely enough, no head contact, could it be that millenia of evolution has engineered the neck to do a pretty good job of controlling the head through most human paced incidents?

Yep. Neck tension is most definitely an evolved measure of protection. Though we can still ask why do Australia cyclists apparently break so many helmets? I put it down to both speed and many people's lack of experience in falling. (clips don't help much either)

[il padrone]

Last night was a memorable night. We were invited to a bicycle summit at Parliament House in Canberra and were asked to deliver a Gazelle electric bike as part of the official dinner. There were around 20 MPs at the dinner plus a whole host of other Parliament officials. After they had consumed a few wines I thought it was time to suggest they ride the bike through the building. To my surprise one of the ministers hops on the bike and starts riding it around sending the photographers in a frenzy. He was loving it so much that he started raving about it with everyone else. Others tried the bike and a group photo with all the parliamentarians and the Gazelle happened. I'm pretty confident this was the first time an ebike was ridden inside Parliament House. While they were all admiring the bike, AJ & I were hassling the MPs to ditch the helmet law and to my surprise a few of them agreed the law was counter productive! So all in all it was a successful night for cycling in Australia!

https://www.facebook.com/#!/paul.vanbellen?pnref=story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[fat and old]

Now that is a question (despite the lack of appropriate punctuation).

A little bit O/T, so sorry about that, but I'm wondering what you were hoping to achieve in taking a personally based cheap shot at someone? I didn't see any angst on his part? Or do you need to assert your dominance at all costs in "your" thread?

Genuinely interested here

[human909]

A little bit O/T, so sorry about that, but I'm wondering what you were hoping to achieve in taking a personally based cheap shot at someone? I didn't see any angst on his part?

Cheap shot: No it wasn't. View it in context.
Personally based: No it wasn't. My response was completely directed to what was written.

Or do you need to assert your dominance at all costs in "your" thread?

Thanks for an excellent counter example of a post directed at a person rather than a what was written.

[Dragster1]

A little bit O/T, so sorry about that, but I'm wondering what you were hoping to achieve in taking a personally based cheap shot at someone? I didn't see any angst on his part?

Cheap shot: No it wasn't. View it in context.
Personally based: No it wasn't. My response was completely directed to what was written.

Or do you need to assert your dominance at all costs in "your" thread?

Thanks for an excellent counter example of a post directed at a person rather than a what was written.

Human, you just like baiting people with BS so that you can argue with them and beat your chest. " View it in context", that's because you decide to take everything offensively.

[human909]

I'm not taking anything offensively. I am not at all offended. But it seems some people here are itching for a fight.

Incidentally I've had a very pleasant week of friendly discussions with strangers about cycling and making cycling safer in the local community. Plenty of friendly debate, sometimes disagreement but plenty of good natured people. Why should I bother engaging with people intent of fighting? So I'm going to leave the room because I have no interest in this.

(Though if people get back on-topic then I am happy to engage in debate even enthusiastic debate. But none of this BS.)

[am50em]

https://app.strava.com/activities/264207015

[warthog1]

https://app.strava.com/activities/264207015

Personally I would wear a helmet anyway, but I don't like being told to.
I did like this comment though. The image it created made me laugh

Andrew C.
Who gives a flying f*%k about spurious data about this and that. If you crash, which option gives you the best option of surviving ? Helmet or not ? I'll give you a clue... try bashing your head on the ground without a helmet and see if it hurts more than having a helmet. There's your choice. Let us all know how the tests go.

[human909]

Just to be all topsy-turvey about things, I was busy yesterday tell people to put a helmet on!

[yugyug]

https://app.strava.com/activities/264207015

The thing I like about is that the debate is on strava, where the typically pro-helmet competitive roadies hang out. Such riders lose the least from MHLs - they wear helmets a lot anyway, have to wear them in competition and are not a lot concerned about the practical or perception problems they create. Good on them for having the debate.

[Mulger bill]

Andrew C.
Who gives a flying f*%k about spurious data about this and that. If you crash, which option gives you the best option of surviving ? Helmet or not ? I'll give you a clue... try bashing your head on the ground without a helmet and see if it hurts more than having a helmet. There's your choice. Let us all know how the tests go.

Somebody shoulda posted this in reply...

[diggler]

Apparently you can be exempted from wearing a helmet based on medical condition or physical condition. Surely it can't be that hard for you anti helmet people to get a sympathetic doctor to write you an exemption.

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/licence ... cle-helmet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[il padrone]

That is simply not the point !!

[Xplora]

https://app.strava.com/activities/264207015

Personally I would wear a helmet anyway, but I don't like being told to.
I did like this comment though. The image it created made me laugh

Andrew C.
Who gives a flying f*%k about spurious data about this and that. If you crash, which option gives you the best option of surviving ? Helmet or not ? I'll give you a clue... try bashing your head on the ground without a helmet and see if it hurts more than having a helmet. There's your choice. Let us all know how the tests go.

Have to chuckle - this logic should stop you from doing anything dangerous. Helmets are about reducing the consequences of failure. As Jerry Seinfeld said, in helmeted skydiving, if that parachute doesn't open, the helmet is now wearing you for protection. The neverending quest for safety slows everyon down to walking pace and completely ignores the reality that you must trade risk for enjoyment/efficiency/convenience. The MHL is a beacon for everything that is wrong about OHS. It sits at the bottom of the risk management hierarchy and creates a false perception that the rider somehow bears the responsibility for their injuries despite being no safer than a pedestrian around a car, and no one would believe that a pedestrian is the primary cause of injuries when hit by a car.

[Xplora]

I wonder if now is a good time to get the local politicians in NSW on boad with a MHL repeal? Get them to commit in writing to a change.

[queequeg]

I wonder if now is a good time to get the local politicians in NSW on boad with a MHL repeal? Get them to commit in writing to a change.

Or if they won't do that, to introduce an MHL for motorists and pedestrians, citing the same flimsy arguments used to get MHL introduced for cyclists. Then, repealing MHL might seem a more palatable option

[warthog1]

https://app.strava.com/activities/264207015

Personally I would wear a helmet anyway, but I don't like being told to.
I did like this comment though. The image it created made me laugh

Andrew C.
Who gives a flying f*%k about spurious data about this and that. If you crash, which option gives you the best option of surviving ? Helmet or not ? I'll give you a clue... try bashing your head on the ground without a helmet and see if it hurts more than having a helmet. There's your choice. Let us all know how the tests go.

Have to chuckle - this logic should stop you from doing anything dangerous. Helmets are about reducing the consequences of failure. As Jerry Seinfeld said, in helmeted skydiving, if that parachute doesn't open, the helmet is now wearing you for protection. The neverending quest for safety slows everyon down to walking pace and completely ignores the reality that you must trade risk for enjoyment/efficiency/convenience. The MHL is a beacon for everything that is wrong about OHS. It sits at the bottom of the risk management hierarchy and creates a false perception that the rider somehow bears the responsibility for their injuries despite being no safer than a pedestrian around a car, and no one would believe that a pedestrian is the primary cause of injuries when hit by a car.

I think he was talking about people arguing whether it was better to wear a helmet or not when your head strikes a hard object. I took that as commenting about spurious test results not about mandatory laws. To me it is patently obvious that it is better to have some protection on the head than none when smacking your head into the ground. "try bashing your head on the ground and see if it hurts more than having a helmet" perfect test there
Forcing people to wear one when they are just tootling down to the shops is ridiculous though, as below a certain level of force, people are pretty good at stopping their heads from striking the ground- as that icy video of walking pace crashes shows. Bring the speed up and that becomes harder. Probably a good argument for mandatory helmet use in cars

[SheikYerbouti]

Without reading 300 pages to see if it's been posted before:

http://acrs.org.au/wp-content/uploads/A ... 4WEB-1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anti-helmet arguments: lies, damned lies and flawed
statistics:

"When the majority of evidence against helmets or
mandatory helmet legislation (MHL) is carefully scrutinised
it appears overstated, misleading or invalid. Moreover,
much of the statistical analysis has been conducted by
people with known affiliations with anti-helmet or antiMHL
organisations."

[warthog1]

Without reading 300 pages to see if it's been posted before:

http://acrs.org.au/wp-content/uploads/A ... 4WEB-1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Anti-helmet arguments: lies, damned lies and flawed
statistics:

"When the majority of evidence against helmets or
mandatory helmet legislation (MHL) is carefully scrutinised
it appears overstated, misleading or invalid. Moreover,
much of the statistical analysis has been conducted by
people with known affiliations with anti-helmet or antiMHL
organisations."

From p42
The perception that riding a bicycle is dangerous slows
growth in cycling participation. Failing to reduce the
barriers to cycling participation will further consign
Australia to low population activity levels which contribute
to Australia’s expanding waistlines and increased health
care costs. It is therefore critical that interventions to
improve the objective safety of cycling in Australia are
carefully designed to also improve the subjective safety and
reverse the perception that cycling is dangerous.

[human909]

Anti-helmet arguments: lies, damned lies and flawed
statistics:

The hypocrisy of the title alone is breath taking. The misrepresentation of the issue in the title alone doesn't bode well for reasoned, sensible and unbiased research contained in the body of the text.

"When the majority of evidence against helmets or
mandatory helmet legislation (MHL) is carefully scrutinised
it appears overstated, misleading or invalid. Moreover,
much of the statistical analysis has been conducted by
people with known affiliations with anti-helmet or antiMHL
organisations."

It seems that the authors continue their hypocrisy they began in the title.

It doesn't matter how much research is done and how many times it is shown that helmets can protect the head from injury it doesn't make arguments for MHL any stronger.

[Top_Bhoy]

https://app.strava.com/activities/264207015

Personally I would wear a helmet anyway, but I don't like being told to.
I did like this comment though. The image it created made me laugh

Andrew C.
Who gives a flying f*%k about spurious data about this and that. If you crash, which option gives you the best option of surviving ? Helmet or not ? I'll give you a clue... try bashing your head on the ground without a helmet and see if it hurts more than having a helmet. There's your choice. Let us all know how the tests go.

Have to chuckle - this logic should stop you from doing anything dangerous. Helmets are about reducing the consequences of failure. As Jerry Seinfeld said, in helmeted skydiving, if that parachute doesn't open, the helmet is now wearing you for protection. The neverending quest for safety slows everyon down to walking pace and completely ignores the reality that you must trade risk for enjoyment/efficiency/convenience. The MHL is a beacon for everything that is wrong about OHS. It sits at the bottom of the risk management hierarchy and creates a false perception that the rider somehow bears the responsibility for their injuries despite being no safer than a pedestrian around a car, and no one would believe that a pedestrian is the primary cause of injuries when hit by a car.

As you state, Personal Protection Equipment is the last thing to consider when all other possibilities have been explored. For those who aren't aware, WHS relies on the Hierarchy of hazard control to minimize or eliminate exposure to hazards. Starting with 'Elimination of the Hazard' and moving down, these are:

1. Elimination
2. Substitution;
3. Engineering Controls;
4. Administrative Controls; and
5. Personal Protection Equipment.

I don't think it can be argued that there isn't a lot more Councils and Govts can do to reduce the hazard of cycling before reaching the last stage. Therefore, I'd argue that they are in breech of the 2011 WHS laws but I don't think it'd get much traction.

Helmet wearing should be a personal choice - wearing a helmet won't necessarily save you. However, I wear a helmet because right or wrong, it gives me a perception of protection. What annoys me with the MHL isn't so much that a law exists but that the helmet has to be to Aus Standards which hasn't been proven to be any better than the other International standards. This costs helmet manufacturers additional costs to test and for Aus consumers (aka you and I) to pay a premium for no demonstrable benefits. What makes Aus heads a special case that the current standards used in UK, USA, France and other parts of Europe and the world are considered inadequate? It annoy me.