Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[Mr Purple]

I'm not sure I'd feel safer in South East Asia given the huge fatality rates, but I've never ridden there so can't comment personally!

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source ... bb131e30_2

I honestly think Australian motorists are too far gone to salvage. The only things that will make cyclists safer at this point are separated cycling paths and self driving vehicles (and they're a long way off).

As others have said if front and rear cycling cameras become more ubiquitous and police start taking submitted footage seriously we might be in with a chance. As it is there's too many motorists who just don't give a damn. The number of times a queue of cars has passed me on a wide road where I'm riding as fair left as feasible and one has decided to randomly just miss me by 10cm or so is crazy. There's no reason for that except for sheer arrogance or laziness.

I'll happily ride a long way around for a bikeway. If there was an East-West bikeway in Brisbane (I live in Coorparoo and work in Cleveland) I'd probably ride to work a lot more often. As it is, it's just not safe enough to do so despite 2m+ wide shoulders very clearly marked as bike lanes. There needs to be a physical barrier, because probably 1% of drivers can't be trusted to have any consideration for any other human beings whatsoever.

[baabaa]

I'm not sure I'd feel safer in South East Asia given the huge fatality rates, but I've never ridden there so can't comment personally!

https://www.who.int/docs/default-source ... bb131e30_2

I honestly think Australian motorists are too far gone to salvage. The only things that will make cyclists safer at this point are separated cycling paths and self driving vehicles (and they're a long way off).

Yup agree with all that - some of the bigger cities of Indonesia are not much fun but Korea, Japan, Viet Nam, Taiwan should be on your to do list - guess I know the flow of India and Pakistan well enough to feel safe.
I did the move from the city (Sydney) to a tree and sea change and found that just being away from fools that biking became fun again, and if it is not fun why would anyone really bother biking. Example - just back from a ride with the dog before it got dark and while I miss the sights I would have seen crossing the Sydney Harbour Bridge at the same time, this type of riding for me.

[jasonc]

Example - just back from a ride with the dog before it got dark and while I miss the sights I would have seen crossing the Sydney Harbour Bridge at the same time, this type of riding for me.

rule 301 (page 265) a bicycle rider must not lead an animal on a leash, including by tethering, while the bicycle is moving. Animals should be seated or housed in appropriate areas.

https://pcc.gov.au/uniform/Australian-R ... er2021.pdf

[baabaa]

Whoops (the tethering used to trot beside the bike is in the top tube bag which, from henceforth be known as as the tethering bag)

[jasonc]

Whoops (the tethering used to trot beside the bike is in the top tube bag which, from henceforth be known as as the tethering bag)

What council in Oz allowed you to have dogs unrestrained on paths?

[warthog1]

He is not in the city or likely to adversely affect anybody else by the look of that.
I bet woofer had a good time

[jasonc]

He is not in the city or likely to adversely affect anybody else by the look of that.
I bet woofer had a good time

There's plenty of laws I don't like. However society only works if we all obey them, not choose the ones we wish to obey. I don't agree with mhl, but I would choose to wear a helmet as I don't putter along

[warthog1]

He is not in the city or likely to adversely affect anybody else by the look of that.
I bet woofer had a good time

There's plenty of laws I don't like. However society only works if we all obey them, not choose the ones we wish to obey. I don't agree with mhl, but I would choose to wear a helmet as I don't putter along

I think we can safely say, despite the vast array of laws we have, society has a number of flaws.
I don't expect somebody walking his dog without a lead on a deserted dirt track is going to have any great affect on how society works or doesn't. Equally if he chose to do so without his helmet on I don't see any great harm either.
There is a fair chance the emotional well being of both will have improved by having the walk however.

[Thoglette]

However society only works if we all obey them, not choose the ones we wish to obey.

So you've never "Jay walked" ??? Or (in most states) had a "cold one" outside your home or a licensed area???

Do I need to go on? Or describe some of the recent laws enacted (legally) in Putin's world?

[jasonc]

However society only works if we all obey them, not choose the ones we wish to obey.

So you've never "Jay walked" ??? Or (in most states) had a "cold one" outside your home or a licensed area???

Do I need to go on? Or describe some of the recent laws enacted (legally) in Putin's world?

If close I have j-walked. The issue is that it's an animal. You may know how they will respond 99 times out of 100. But I don't want to be there or be impacted by the one time in 100 that they respond differently

[baabaa]

Whoops (the tethering used to trot beside the bike is in the top tube bag which, from henceforth be known as as the tethering bag)

What council in Oz allowed you to have dogs unrestrained on paths?

This is what this MHL discussion is be about...same as MHL how many people are really being stopped by the police or council and then fines for having a dog run beside a bicycle?

In Aust we have plenty of laws but if they are largely unpoliced are they really laws?

You have to be deaden to think that any modern bicycle helmet is going to cause more harm to the rider than good, but sometime commonsense and a desire for a strong community is more important than just the simple do this or do that laws.

I get dogs can be a real pest but “most” dogs can be trained to not be a hazard to people on paths. I dont ride a bike with any dog on a path - if we must ride thru the streets we just use the nature strip.
This bloke has trotted beside me in off leash dog parks, on travelling stock reserves roads, fire trials, on the beach, on old unused railway line service roads, deep into state forest on logging roads and hundreds of km on secondary dirt roads. I grew up with working sheep dogs so all dogs are coached to not engage with people when on or off a lead, to not chase livestock, birds, wildlife, other dogs but to stop when they see or smell reptiles. They are encouraged to chase foxes and cats so I can report back this spot to the LLS so they can trap or dispatch them.

But Warty is right, this sort of riding as it is very good for the soul to be out in the “bush” and find this sort of exercise suits me more than the need to ride fast. Any dog is also easier to live with when they have mental and physical stimulation. I tend to not use a helmet when doing these rides as we do just poke along and will often stop and look or take photos of birds or wildlife. If we see cars on these routes they do slow down as they are mostly have to drive slowly anyway so the risk of a fall is all mine.

Here is the local council link to dog parks – the area is very dog friendly and yes I do see people who ride bikes with dogs even on paths but I don’t see any police stopping and handing out fines. Not sure if residents have any issues as the dogs I have seen seem well controlled
https://www.esc.nsw.gov.au/residents/pe ... -and-areas

My other council has endless place to bike with a dog and council and the police only care about dogs attacking livestock, strays and barking.
https://www.hilltops.nsw.gov.au/services/pets-guide/

[am50em]

The Netherlands—once the gold standard for bike safety—is rethinking its long-standing opposition to bike helmets.

While the nation’s streets have never been more bike-friendly, with all the safety features you would want in your neighbourhood, bike rider crash trauma has become a major concern.

Although helmets are worn by sports and touring cyclists, they are not generally used by commuters or riders on local trips. Only about 3.5% of riders use them.

And while the crash rate for bike riders can be low in the Netherlands, the injury rate can be high because riders have little protection against traumatic brain injury (TBI) when they do crash.

And crash they do. As in Australia the Netherlands is experiencing fewer bike crashes involving cars, but more that involve other bikes, or just solo riders coming to grief.

And while such incidents are less likely to involve serious injury, for those not wearing a helmet the odds of brain injury are significantly higher.

In 2022 a total of 88,000 riders ended up in a hospital emergency department, 66% of all road crash victims.

About 25% of riders admitted to ED had a brain injury.

More than half of the collisions did not involve a motor vehicle and more than two thirds were over 70 years of age.

https://bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsroom/ ... ead%20more

[BobtheBuilder]

Oh, gawd, are we really going to have to wade through all the reasons why this is rubbish ...

[DavidS]

Oh, gawd, are we really going to have to wade through all the reasons why this is rubbish ...

Agree, I have no idea how a helmet, which does nothing to stop your brain rattling around your skull in an accident, can help with brain injury. The research I have seen says that it doesn't help and if someone has a link to research which shows, not just claims, that helmets do somehow protect what is going on inside your skull, then I'd like to see it.

DS

[foo on patrol]

Oh, gawd, are we really going to have to wade through all the reasons why this is rubbish ...

Agree, I have no idea how a helmet, which does nothing to stop your brain rattling around your skull in an accident, can help with brain injury. The research I have seen says that it doesn't help and if someone has a link to research which shows, not just claims, that helmets do somehow protect what is going on inside your skull, then I'd like to see it.

DS

So stopping your skull from being split open like split pea is not a reasonable thing to take into consideration as well from the impact on it and you "don't" need too be travelling at speed for that too happen at any point because a slow speed fall can have just as big of an impact to the head due to being like a dead weight.

I've never subscribed to the "brain" injury side of things but I sure as hell don't need my skin around my skull being carved open along with the bone part being cracked or caved in.

Foo

[BobtheBuilder]

Oh, gawd, are we really going to have to wade through all the reasons why this is rubbish ...

Agree, I have no idea how a helmet, which does nothing to stop your brain rattling around your skull in an accident, can help with brain injury. The research I have seen says that it doesn't help and if someone has a link to research which shows, not just claims, that helmets do somehow protect what is going on inside your skull, then I'd like to see it.

DS

This thread has become an object lesson in the continuing inability to integrate evidence and reasoning and progress a discussion.

The answer to my "oh gawd" question is quite obviously "YES". Reasoned discussion about MHLs must not be allowed to flourish.

[MichaelB]

[warthog1]

Oh, gawd, are we really going to have to wade through all the reasons why this is rubbish ...

Agree, I have no idea how a helmet, which does nothing to stop your brain rattling around your skull in an accident, can help with brain injury. The research I have seen says that it doesn't help and if someone has a link to research which shows, not just claims, that helmets do somehow protect what is going on inside your skull, then I'd like to see it.

DS

I cbfed going through it again, a quick google will show multiple results.
Here is just one posted earier in this thread

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/

What research do you propose be undertaken?
People smack their heads into hard objects wearing a helmet and then repeat not wearing a helmet? Then perform medical imaging to compare the extent of bleeding? Cognitive tests to record the reduction in cognitive ability? Those injured in these tests can carry on with their lives after the tests are carried out?
Sorry, I don't see that ever being done.
There has however been analysis comparing the results of those who have crashed both wearing and not wearing helmets. The results have been compiled and they overwhelmingly show a reduction in head and brain injury. Refusing to accept that does not constitute an argument that helmets fail to provide injury protection.

[Mr Purple]

Two examples of evidence spring to mind.

The first is the BMJ Parachute article - they do a christmas article every year and this was a particularly good one.

https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094

Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention. However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps. When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice.

In summary there's no evidence that parachutes reduce death or injury because the appropriate randomised control trial hasn't been performed.

Also the infamous 'survival bias' demonstrated on WW2 aircraft. With this diagram showing the bullet holes in planes that had returned home.



If you didn't think that through you'd armour those areas. But because the planes that were hit in those areas made it back, and the ones that were hit in the other areas didn't, you'd be doing the wrong thing.

Logically helmets may actually increase the risk of head injury in cyclists. Because the ones without helmets were dead.

[Andy01]

Oh, gawd, are we really going to have to wade through all the reasons why this is rubbish ...

Agree, I have no idea how a helmet, which does nothing to stop your brain rattling around your skull in an accident, can help with brain injury. The research I have seen says that it doesn't help and if someone has a link to research which shows, not just claims, that helmets do somehow protect what is going on inside your skull, then I'd like to see it.

DS

This thread has become an object lesson in the continuing inability to integrate evidence and reasoning and progress a discussion.

The answer to my "oh gawd" question is quite obviously "YES". Reasoned discussion about MHLs must not be allowed to flourish.

I assume that you are aware that there is varying degrees of head injuries ?

While a helmet may not stop the brain form beating itself to death on the inside of the skull if the impact is hard enough, the helmet is likely to absorb some of the impact as well as reducing the likelihood of external surface abrasions, cuts and scrapes - all of which can be quite unpleasant for humans (to lose skin and scalp).

I don't think anyone has suggested that a helmet will magically make all head or brain injuries go away completely, but IMO they can reduce the severity of injuries, and make more minor bumps, scrapes and cuts go away completely (and thus avoid trips to emergency for stitches etc).

Can I assume that you also advocate that motorcyclists shouldn't wear helmets either, and car occupants shouldn't wear seatbelts - because those devices don't completely remove the chances of death or injury either ?

As someone who went head first into an SUV's driver's side windscreen pillar & windscreen at about 30km/h (3 years ago) and has a 15cm plastic surgery scar and significant nerve damage as a souvenir, I can say from first hand experience that I suffered no brain trauma, and the (not insignificant - 15cm long by 3cm wide laceration) superficial damage was due to my (bicycle) helmet moving back over my head a little exposing my forehead - probably because the strap was a bit loose.

I lost count of the number of medical professionals who commented that it probably would have been a lot worse (possible death) if I hadn't been wearing a helmet, and some suggested that if I had been wearing a helmet with a tighter strap or a full face type helmet I probably would have had only minor injuries to my head (I had other injuries as well).

So personally I will continue to wear my helmet whether it is legislated or not - as uncomfortable and uncool as it may be. At the very least it may prevent some skin or blood loss in the event of a minor fall, which is a good thing for me - at 60yo I don't heal as quickly as I used to.

So yes, I would go on record as saying that anyone who declares bicycle helmets are useless is probably as short-sighted as someone who declares vehicle seatbelts are useless.

As for whether they should be compulsory by law, that is not for me to decide, and I will stay out of that argument because it appears to be akin to arguing about religion or politics.

[P!N20]

Who else is happy the MHL thread has been revived?

[am50em]

For those interested in more details I think the following is the paper that the article was based on.
https://research.tudelft.nl/en/publicat ... wards-zero
There is PDF link on right to the full paper.

Final paragraphs are:

It is recommended to focus on further completing a safe infrastructure
with an emphasis on safe cycling infrastructure, on safe vehicles –
both motorized vehicles and bicycles –, on a sharper emphasis on safe
speeds and using ITS/ADAS applications. Because there is still much
uncertainty about automation (what, when and how), it is recommended
to keep working on a safe infrastructure, while waiting to see to
what degree ITS/ADAS will contribute to solve the safety problems of
cyclists. If ITS/ADAS helps at all, it will be for bicycle-motor vehicle
crashes, but most probably not for single-bicycle crashes and crashes
with other vulnerable road users. It is also recommended to address
several risk-increasing factors.
With these new emphases, special attention is needed for the older
cyclist. This is based on the prevailing view to allow older people to be
socially active for as long as possible, and part of this is their mobility
and use of the bicycle. But the crash/injury risk of the elderly is relatively
high, and that can be reduced by applying the Safe System
approach. An important component is developing a safe bicycle especially
for the elderly, but also promote use of bicycle helmets and
implement speed management, fitting in the Safe System approach.
Based on the knowledge about measures to reduce crash and injury
risks and based on the idea that limiting bicycle mobility is not
considered as an acceptable option to increase cycling safety, it is not
possible to estimate whether ZERO bicycle casualties is a realistic possibility
or will always remain a utopia. In other words: with today’s
knowledge it is not really possible to respond to RQ 3. With today’s
knowledge, it is implausible that ZERO is feasible or even to virtually
ZERO. But the Safe System approach certainly offers starting points to
substantially reduce risks of cyclists. Policies to achieve this reduction
can be based on the Safe System approach, but will need to be somewhat
different from those in recent decades. We recommend to develop
several scenarios on how to improve cycling safety. Scenarios should
cover all three crash types (crashes with motor vehicles, single-bicycle
crashes and crashes with other vulnerable road users) and are only
meaningful when they use good quality road safety data and reliable exante
evaluation results.

[BobtheBuilder]

Seatbelts and motorbike helmets work - there is ample and unambiguous evidence.

If we wish to mandate the relatively ineffective pushbike helmets for the very small chance of head injury in normal cycling, we should mandate them for travel in motor vehicles, jogging, walking at heights and other similarly "risky" activities.

Risky cyclists (sport and high-speed) already choose to wear helmets the world over.

The rise in deaths in the Netherlands is due to elderly people riding e-bikes. E-bikes should be treated administratively as motor bikes (with similar PPE requirements) not pushbikes.

[jasonc]

The rise in deaths in the Netherlands is due to elderly people riding e-bikes. E-bikes should be treated administratively as motor bikes (with similar PPE requirements) not pushbikes.

YES. THIS

[am50em]

According to the paper they did introduce helmets for mopeds and saw a reduction in their uptake.