Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

User avatar
London Boy
Posts: 818
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:43 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby London Boy » Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:23 pm

mick243 wrote:Cost of mandating helmets.... Hmm basic compliant helmet about ten bucks? How much did your bike cost, and what % of ownership cost does that add?
A bit of a naive and simplistic view of cost, though I suspect you're playing around a bit here.

The cost is the social cost that arises out of mandating a piece of safety equipment that is actually of minor utility. A helmet reduces certain types of injury that occur in certain types of incident. But at the same time, mandatory helmet laws demonstrably reduce participation, and there are good grounds to believe that they increase the likelihood of accidents (risk acceptance), and overall increase the number of injuries including serious injuries. And in reducing participation rates, mandatory helmet laws also lead - demonstrably, again - to reduced levels of fitness which then leads to all sorts of healthcare costs.
mick243 wrote:MHL greater good would be the lessened likelihood of traumatic head injuries. Just like mandatory seatbelt laws lessen the likelihood of traumatic injuries in car crashes.
Except seat belts have few or none of the disadvantages and costs of mandatory helmets.

As a European I can say one thing. Australia is a proper nanny state. It treats its citizens as if they were slightly retarded kids who can't be trusted out. :?

It's just as well the weather is good. That is some compensation. :D

ball bearing
Posts: 951
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:43 pm
Location: Watching the ships on the Southern Ocean

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby ball bearing » Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:31 pm

Mulger bill wrote:AU is one of the fattest nations in the world, from what I've read most likely due to the curtailment of incidental exercise.
Wonder how much that has cost the health budget over the years?
Well, according to the Australian Paradox theory we are the only country in the world that has decreased our per-capita consumption of sugar and we have become more obese at the same time. Therefore, in order to solve the obesity problem we need to increase our sugar consumption - right?

Cause and direct effect are often-times not easy things to discover.

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 7001
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby biker jk » Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:38 pm

ball bearing wrote:
Mulger bill wrote:AU is one of the fattest nations in the world, from what I've read most likely due to the curtailment of incidental exercise.
Wonder how much that has cost the health budget over the years?
Well, according to the Australian Paradox theory we are the only country in the world that has decreased our per-capita consumption of sugar and we have become more obese at the same time. Therefore, in order to solve the obesity problem we need to increase our sugar consumption - right?

Cause and direct effect are often-times not easy things to discover.
That study on decreased sugar consumption is rubbish. Go and read the numerous critiques. Guess to who the authors are consulting?

ball bearing
Posts: 951
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:43 pm
Location: Watching the ships on the Southern Ocean

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby ball bearing » Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:42 pm

biker jk wrote:
ball bearing wrote:
Mulger bill wrote:AU is one of the fattest nations in the world, from what I've read most likely due to the curtailment of incidental exercise.
Wonder how much that has cost the health budget over the years?
Well, according to the Australian Paradox theory we are the only country in the world that has decreased our per-capita consumption of sugar and we have become more obese at the same time. Therefore, in order to solve the obesity problem we need to increase our sugar consumption - right?

Cause and direct effect are often-times not easy things to discover.
That study on decreased sugar consumption is rubbish. Go and read the numerous critiques. Guess to who the authors are consulting?
Yes, I know. Vested interests fudging the research - again!

I have no problem wearing my helmet for all my bike riding. Some people will make any excuse not to ride - a helmet law is as good as the next reason.

User avatar
biker jk
Posts: 7001
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby biker jk » Fri Apr 11, 2014 8:43 pm

Mulger bill wrote:AU is one of the fattest nations in the world, from what I've read most likely due to the curtailment of incidental exercise.
Wonder how much that has cost the health budget over the years?
The surveys conducted on why people don't cycle show that MHLs are way, way, down the list of factors. I'm not going to post the links again. I wish people would stop repeating the false claims that MHLs have a significant negative impact on cycling participation.

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 Thr

Postby il padrone » Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:41 pm

Oh, yes. Traffic, danger of riding on the roads, that sort of thing is the major detterent.



The need to wear a helmet is code to people that the activity is "too dangerous". In Copenhagen in recent years there has been a campaign to promote greater use of helmets. As a result of that cycling rates have actually declined.

http://www.thebikeinmylife.com/copenhag ... conundrum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The wearing of helmets completely changes the dynamics between bicycle and car commuters, causing both groups to manage their vehicles with less care and tolerance, and increases car vs. bicycle conflicts.

Car drivers no longer view bicycle riders as vulnerable road users like they do pedestrians, but rather as armed competitors for road space.

Bicycle commuters also take on a bullet-proof mentality and ride with less care around their fellow bicycle riders and perform risky manoeuvres in traffic.
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 Thr

Postby human909 » Fri Apr 11, 2014 11:33 pm

biker jk wrote:The surveys conducted on why people don't cycle show that MHLs are way, way, down the list of factors. I'm not going to post the links again. I wish people would stop repeating the false claims that MHLs have a significant negative impact on cycling participation.
False claims? There are half a dozen studies showing a significant drop (~30%) in cycling participation immediately follow the introduction of MHLs. The damage is done. Surveys done now, 20 years later after a significant change in culture are not going to capture that effect.


Its funny that in the last few dozen posts, none of the proponents of MHLs have addressed or even recognised the fact that pretty much no other country has felt the need to introduce MHLs. They prefer to cocoon themselves in their microcosm of beliefs that Australia is right and the rest of the world is wrong. :roll:

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

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby DavidS » Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:16 am

mick243 wrote:MHL greater good would be the lessened likelihood of traumatic head injuries. Just like mandatory seatbelt laws lessen the likelihood of traumatic injuries in car crashes. We all pay for a public health system, anything we can do to lessen the load on it by reducing the need for it in the first place can only be a good thing.
What crap. If the MHL law for cyclists had anything to do with saving health dollars they would have introduced MHLs for occupants of motor vehicles as that costs the health system a lot more, despite seat belts, the fact they are sitting in a steel box, air bags etc. Remember, occupants of motor vehicles suffer more than half of all head injuries suffered on the roads. This is a spurious argument and just shows you are clutching at straws. The cost to our health system of cycling accidents is vanishingly small compared to a lot of other costs, not least the cost of a lack of exercise.
mick243 wrote:Or, convert to Seik, apparently they are exempt from MHL......
That would be Sikh, you would convert to Sikhism. At least get your facts right.
mick243 wrote:I'm not trying to curtail your cycling freedom at all,
Yes you are, you are telling me I must plonk a lump of foam on my head if I want to ride a bike.

Of course you could argue that MHLs improve safety, but you would actually have to provide some evidence, much easier to make unsubstantiated assertions isn't it?

So let's consider the MHLs for a moment. What would we expect to see if MHLs really do make it safer for cyclists?

I would expect to see a couple of things:
firstly I would expect that a country with MHLs would have a lower injury rate than a country without MHLs. Is this the case? Actually no, Australia's injury rate for kilometres cycled is one of the worst in the world. It is not safer to ride a bike in Australia despite (because of?) MHLs.
secondly, MHLs protect one part of the body, the head. So, it would be reasonable to expect that if MHLs were effective then we would see a drop in cyclist head injuries as compared to cyclist injuries to other parts of their body. Do we see this? No, the proportion of head injuries to injuries to other parts of the body has been stable before and after MHLs.
mick243 wrote:As for MHL reducing cycling numbers, the people who "refuse to ride because of MHL" are the ones looking for an excuse not to... Probably about as any who refuse to drive because of mandatory seatbelt laws.
The comparison to seat belt laws is tired and discredited. There is little comparison between a bike and a car which has a tonne or more of momentum and can travel much faster. Seat belt laws had a demonstrable impact on the road toll. MHLs have had no impact on cyclist safety and may have made it worse - there is evidence that drivers take less care around cyclists wearing helmets. There is a lot of evidence that MHLs reduced the number of bikes on the road and also a lot of evidence that the best safety measure for cyclists is to have more cyclists on the road.

The question is where do we draw the line between freedom and regulation? Despite the fact that many more people drown than die as a result of cycling accidents, we don't mandate life jackets be worn near any body of water. We don't do this because it would be silly. We don't mandate helmets for occupants of motor vehicles despite the fact that there are many more head injuries suffered by occupants of motor vehicles than there are by cyclists. We don't do this because it would be silly. Yet we do mandate helmets for cyclists despite the fact that it is silly. It is silly because it demonstrably reduced the number of cyclists on the roads, which makes it more dangerous for cyclists on the roads. It's silly because cycling is a safe activity and certainly not dangerous enough to justify laws compelling the wearing of safety equipment.
il padrone wrote:The need to wear a helmet is code to people that the activity is "too dangerous". In Copenhagen in recent years there has been a campaign to promote greater use of helmets. As a result of that cycling rates have actually declined.
This.

This is possibly the most pernicious effect (cost?) of MHLs. They shout to the world that cycling is a very dangerous activity. It's so damned dangerous our law makers have to force people to wear safety equipment. This is a major contributor to why hardly any kids ride to school these days. Heaps rode when I was a kid, back when over 1,000 people died on the roads each year and the roads really were more dangerous. I have had arguments with people about this, they consider cycling a dangerous activity. Cycling used to be considered a desirable and healthy activity you would encourage your kids to partake in. Now, kids are discouraged from cycling because it is seen as dangerous. MHLs have been a major contributor to changing the perception of cycling.

Lastly, I just cannot understand how any cyclist can support a law which so demonstrably discourages cycling. I prefer to encourage cycling myself.

DS
Allegro T1, Auren Swift :)

citywomble
Posts: 450
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby citywomble » Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:50 am

Il Padrone said:
This keeps getting trotted out as a reason not to worry about the impacts of the MHL on cycling uptake. I very much doubt the accuracy of this statement. Currently cycling for commuting is still sitting at ~2% of journeys in Melbourne, less in other state capitals.
I fully endorse virtually every word IP says on this matter and would like to add my own:

First 2% in Melbourne and less in other state capitals - really?

We already have a glimpse of what removing or relaxing MHLs would be likely to do.
In Darwin, you are not required to wear a helmet while riding on the path network. Is it coincidence that this is the only Australian capital that has more than 6% of journeys by bicycle? - Eat your heart out Bicycle Victoria.
So, is there really no evidence?

Second, from my own personal perspective.

I arrived from the UK in 2006. For years I hopped onto my old clanker bike every time I wanted to go somewhere faster than I could walk. It just sat inside the garage waiting and I just hopped on and rode.

Then I got to Australia, got a new BSO and mandatory helmet. I must be honest, the bother of finding my (censored) helmet has taken all that spur of the moment riding away. Yes I do ride, and only with a helmet -but ONLY when I plan it (and that can be far enough apart the tyres go flat).

Do I hop on to go to the shops or friends? No.
Am I stupid? No - wait, maybe I am.
Do I use the car instead? Yes.
Am I getting less fit? Yes.

So yes, the recent introduction of MHL has had a catastrophic effect on my casual use of a bicycle and I am not alone.

Finally, in WA, the local police (with the occasional exception of Freo) blissfully ignore cyclists without a helmet. Consequently, with the exception of the Lycra uniformists, more than 50% of the 'new' cyclists on BSOs and cruisers, don't wear a helmet. So all the increase has come from relaxed policing on helmets.

If a law is not enforced, and tacit approval is given to it being ignored then that speaks volumes that it is a bad law.

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 Thr

Postby il padrone » Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:57 am

citywomble wrote:Finally, in WA, the local police (with the occasional exception of Freo) blissfully ignore cyclists without a helmet. Consequently, with the exception of the Lycra uniformists, more than 50% of the 'new' cyclists on BSOs and cruisers, don't wear a helmet. So all the increase has come from relaxed policing on helmets.

If a law is not enforced, and tacit approval is given to it being ignored then that speaks volumes that it is a bad law.
This is actually what eventuated in NT. When police were enforcing the helmet rule a very large proportion of those ticketted were aborginal kids on bikes. Kids who could not pay a $100+ fine; whose parents were not able to pay fines. So teenage kids were being sent to prison.... for non-payment of fines..... for not wearing a helmet.

Soon enough police were reluctant to enforce the rule. The rule got changed by the Government to "only helmets on roads", and now I am led to beieve that even on the roads the police mainly do not enforce any MHL.
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

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

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby DavidS » Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:04 am

Wish they would stop enforcing it in Melbourne.

DS
Allegro T1, Auren Swift :)

citywomble
Posts: 450
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby citywomble » Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:33 am

Wish they would stop enforcing it in Melbourne.
And that, dear friends, is the essence of this thread.

mick243
Posts: 396
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:44 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby mick243 » Sat Apr 12, 2014 4:18 pm

DavidS wrote:
So let's consider the MHLs for a moment. What would we expect to see if MHLs really do make it safer for cyclists?

I would expect to see a couple of things:
firstly I would expect that a country with MHLs would have a lower injury rate than a country without MHLs. Is this the case? Actually no, Australia's injury rate for kilometres cycled is one of the worst in the world. It is not safer to ride a bike in Australia despite (because of?) MHLs.
secondly, MHLs protect one part of the body, the head. So, it would be reasonable to expect that if MHLs were effective then we would see a drop in cyclist head injuries as compared to cyclist injuries to other parts of their body. Do we see this? No, the proportion of head injuries to injuries to other parts of the body has been stable before and after MHLs.


The question is where do we draw the line between freedom and regulation? Despite the fact that many more people drown than die as a result of cycling accidents, we don't mandate life jackets be worn near any body of water. We don't do this because it would be silly.
Instead of injury rate, which can be effected by many outside influences, how about comparing specific injuries, eg, if your head hits the ground at 20kph, is it better with or without a helmet? (I'd be fairly confident that it's going to get injured at or above that speed either way, but with the helmet soaks up some of the energy, making the injury less, because your head soaks up less energy)


As for life jackets and drowning, there's plenty of places they are mandated.as are access restrictions to pools.


All of the arguments against MHL could be used as arguments against bikes in general.


Personally, I don't care if there is an MHL or not, I'll wear one anyway, just as I wear a life jacket when boating, and safety boots + earmuffs whilst mowing the lawn. Is a light "foam hat" that much of an imposition that you'd rather whinge on an Internet forum rather than get out and ride?


Another thing I recently noticed - some of the loudest anti MHL names about here often pop up defending red light running...

User avatar
Xplora
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:35 pm

Mick, the reason for that (the link between red light running and antiMHL views) is because common sense wasn't made redundant by the development of the traffic laws. :idea:

Great posts above. Summarises the state of play in the debate well.
Last edited by Xplora on Sat Apr 12, 2014 11:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
London Boy
Posts: 818
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:43 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby London Boy » Sat Apr 12, 2014 7:47 pm

mick243 wrote:Instead of injury rate, which can be effected by many outside influences, how about comparing specific injuries, eg, if your head hits the ground at 20kph, is it better with or without a helmet?
Um, you could do that, but you'd then not be addressing the actual issue which is whether, on balance, MHL's increase or reduce health and well-being (and consequential costs) within the community.

Ask any question and you would probably first come up with the answer that is obvious and simple. And wrong.

Which is what happened with the MHL's. Notwithstanding the conspiracy theory about motor industry involvement.

User avatar
simonn
Posts: 3763
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby simonn » Sat Apr 12, 2014 8:05 pm

human909 wrote: There is no evidence that discouraging cycling and mandating helmets results in better health outcomes. In fact most of the evidence is the opposite. If helmets lead to greater good for cyclist The Netherlands must be a horrible place for cyclists with <1% of cyclists wearing helmets. :roll:
The Netherlands doesn't do well compared with Australia with regards to life expectancy (the ultimate indicator of health).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... expectancy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They also spend more on health care:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So there is not a lot of evidence that cycling has much impact on public health.

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 Thr

Postby il padrone » Sat Apr 12, 2014 8:10 pm

simonn wrote:The Netherlands doesn't do well compared with Australia with regards to life expectancy (the ultimate indicator of health).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... expectancy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They also spend more on health care:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So there is not a lot of evidence that cycling has much impact on public health.
So are you suggesting the Netherlands should reduce their cycling participation to increase their health outcomes ?? :? :roll:




There are so many variables in that little can of worms that citing it as evidence of the impacts of helmet/non-helmet use is a waste of breath.
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 Thr

Postby human909 » Sat Apr 12, 2014 8:22 pm

I'm sure there are alot of things Australia performs better than The Netherlands. But we are talking about cycling and I think most of us can recognise that increased cycling can improve health outcomes.

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 Thr

Postby il padrone » Sat Apr 12, 2014 8:34 pm

simonn wrote:So there is not a lot of evidence that cycling has much impact on public health.
Well you could just go and have a read of the British Medical Journal.
As a result of physical activity, 12.46 deaths were avoided (benefit:risk ratio 77). The annual number of deaths avoided was 12.28. As a result of journeys by Bicing, annual carbon dioxide emissions were reduced by an estimated 9 062 344 kg.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1207.html?NKey=65" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Speaking on BBC Radio, Professor Nieuwenhuijsen explained that the research found cycling to be very low risk, even after negative factors such as pollution and crashes were taken into account. What's more, the professor noted, "no one in Barcelona wears helmets".
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
simonn
Posts: 3763
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby simonn » Mon Apr 14, 2014 9:27 am

il padrone wrote:
simonn wrote:The Netherlands doesn't do well compared with Australia with regards to life expectancy (the ultimate indicator of health).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... expectancy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They also spend more on health care:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So there is not a lot of evidence that cycling has much impact on public health.
So are you suggesting the Netherlands should reduce their cycling participation to increase their health outcomes ?? :? :roll:


There are so many variables in that little can of worms that citing it as evidence of the impacts of helmet/non-helmet use is a waste of breath.
Science fail. It is not up to anyone to disprove the notion that a higher level of cycling results in better public health outcomes. It is up to the those making the claim to prove it. I've show some evidence that despite us fat Aussies having a bigger bellies, higher car usage and lower bicycle usage than the Dutch we still live longer - which is a good, if not the ultimate, measure of health.
il padrone wrote:Well you could just go and have a read of the British Medical Journal.
As a result of physical activity, 12.46 deaths were avoided (benefit:risk ratio 77). The annual number of deaths avoided was 12.28. As a result of journeys by Bicing, annual carbon dioxide emissions were reduced by an estimated 9 062 344 kg.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1207.html?NKey=65" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Speaking on BBC Radio, Professor Nieuwenhuijsen explained that the research found cycling to be very low risk, even after negative factors such as pollution and crashes were taken into account. What's more, the professor noted, "no one in Barcelona wears helmets".
human909 wrote:I'm sure there are alot of things Australia performs better than The Netherlands. But we are talking about cycling and I think most of us can recognise that increased cycling can improve health outcomes.
On an individual level, certainly. However, I doubt that those who would take advantage of easier access to cycling would necessarily be the same as those in most need of a better approach to their health. Or, in simple term, the vast majority of those whose current hobby involves couches and screens probably are not going to start riding bicycles. It is more likely to be those who are already active in one way or another that start cycling.
Not all assumptions and data inputs, however, could be tested in the sensitivity analysis, as some remain difficult to quantify owing to lack of knowledge in the research area or the added complexity for modelling, going beyond the scope of this first pass assessment. For example, the benefits of physical activity may be a function of baseline levels of physical activity and health status, although the shape of dose-response functions for changes in physical activity at different baseline levels is not well established, especially for active travel.21 It is possible that people who had more sedentary lifestyles could have benefited more from the shift to cycling than those who already participate in sports and exercise activities,29 but we did not have this information.

If shifts in mode of travel were generated predominately from walking and public transit, the savings in carbon dioxide emissions would also be lower than our estimations. Hence we could potentially be over-estimating benefits of the Bicing initiative on carbon dioxide emissions in our central calculations of value.

...

Based on the small 4% reduction in car journeys in Barcelona according to our calculations on shift in travel mode, it is unlikely that savings on emissions would be sufficient to have a meaningful effect on population exposures and their health implications,

...

etc etc

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 Thr

Postby il padrone » Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:04 am

simonn wrote:Science fail. It is not up to anyone to disprove the notion that a higher level of cycling results in better public health outcomes. It is up to the those making the claim to prove it
This is very good to see, and also so very ironic. It is not up to anyone to prove that people are able to safely go riding a bike without a helmet. All that people are saying on here is that the case should have been clearly proven 24 years ago that there was clear evidence for the need for MHLs. It was not, never has been, and over time the case continues to be disproven.

It is beyond time to dismiss this arbitrary and unscientific law.

simonn wrote:On an individual level, certainly. However, I doubt that those who would take advantage of easier access to cycling would necessarily be the same as those in most need of a better approach to their health. Or, in simple term, the vast majority of those whose current hobby involves couches and screens probably are not going to start riding bicycles. It is more likely to be those who are already active in one way or another that start cycling.
Not all assumptions and data inputs, however, could be tested in the sensitivity analysis, as some remain difficult to quantify owing to lack of knowledge in the research area or the added complexity for modelling, going beyond the scope of this first pass assessment.......
Nothing too surprising there. A standard statement used in research papers to point out strengths and limitations of the study. It certainly has not been suggested by the authors that this means their basic findings are erroneous, just that there are areas for further study. If you believe their findings are false or misguided, go right ahead and carry out a study to disprove them
Mandatory helmet law?
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."

User avatar
London Boy
Posts: 818
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:43 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby London Boy » Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:30 am

simonn wrote:
human909 wrote: There is no evidence that discouraging cycling and mandating helmets results in better health outcomes. In fact most of the evidence is the opposite. If helmets lead to greater good for cyclist The Netherlands must be a horrible place for cyclists with <1% of cyclists wearing helmets. :roll:
The Netherlands doesn't do well compared with Australia with regards to life expectancy (the ultimate indicator of health).
Actually, life expectancy is only one indicator of health since health is only one of the factors driving life expectancy. An otherwise healthy person could catch and die of disease, or could die in an accident. Both affect life expectancy.

What would be more interesting would be to see figures on heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers, and so on. Those would be better indicators of health. As would healthcare costs for non-elective treatments.

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

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Mon Apr 14, 2014 11:49 am

simonn wrote:Science fail. It is not up to anyone to disprove the notion that a higher level of cycling results in better public health outcomes. It is up to the those making the claim to prove it
That is not how science works. But if you are now debating if cycling brings health benefits then you really are getting desperate. :lol:

But even a cursory glance and The Netherlands and their road statistics compared to Australia will lead to some quite evident conclusions.

The Netherlands overwhelmingly proves that cyclist can be very safe without helmets and without MHLS.

Australia overwhelmingly proves that MHLs and helmets do not themselves lead to a safe cycling environment.

User avatar
Xplora
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 am
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:28 pm

simon, the scientific method is entirely based upon the premise of disproving incorrect theories. It cannot prove ANYTHING in the positive. We just get ever more accurate and acceptable untruths... the presence of the Netherlands experience DOES disprove the MHL as safer. You are now required to explain why this isn't appropriate... i'll make it easier for us, they have different infrastructure and culture... I'll respond back, that they aren't so different that the Netherlands experience doesn't apply - they made an active decision to change from the trajectory that we now see ourselves in. The increase in cycling shows that we need to do the same.

User avatar
simonn
Posts: 3763
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby simonn » Mon Apr 14, 2014 1:48 pm

London Boy wrote:
simonn wrote:
human909 wrote: There is no evidence that discouraging cycling and mandating helmets results in better health outcomes. In fact most of the evidence is the opposite. If helmets lead to greater good for cyclist The Netherlands must be a horrible place for cyclists with <1% of cyclists wearing helmets. :roll:
The Netherlands doesn't do well compared with Australia with regards to life expectancy (the ultimate indicator of health).
Actually, life expectancy is only one indicator of health since health is only one of the factors driving life expectancy. An otherwise healthy person could catch and die of disease, or could die in an accident. Both affect life expectancy.

What would be more interesting would be to see figures on heart disease, diabetes, certain cancers, and so on. Those would be better indicators of health. As would healthcare costs for non-elective treatments.
They do spend more on healthcare in the Netherlands - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - so is it likely that Australians are spending more on non-elective treatments?

In any case, I would suspect that the difference is down to smoking - they are virtual chimneys in The Netherlands. However,smoking and obesity have a negative correlation.
human909 wrote:
simonn wrote:Science fail. It is not up to anyone to disprove the notion that a higher level of cycling results in better public health outcomes. It is up to the those making the claim to prove it
That is not how science works. But if you are now debating if cycling brings health benefits then you really are getting desperate. :lol:
There is not a lot of evidence to support this - despite how obvious it would seem.
human909 wrote: But even a cursory glance and The Netherlands and their road statistics compared to Australia will lead to some quite evident conclusions.
Not a great deal of difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... death_rate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
human909 wrote: The Netherlands overwhelmingly proves that cyclist can be very safe without helmets and without MHLS.

Australia overwhelmingly proves that MHLs and helmets do not themselves lead to a safe cycling environment.
My argument was not against the above - you just bought them in as a strawman, intentional or otherwise. It was against the below:
human909 wrote: I'm sure there are alot of things Australia performs better than The Netherlands. But we are talking about cycling and I think most of us can recognise that increased cycling can improve health outcomes.
Xplora wrote:simon, the scientific method is entirely based upon the premise of disproving incorrect theories. It cannot prove ANYTHING in the positive.
Correct. "It is obvious that increased cycling results in better health outcomes" offers no real way of attempting falsification. It is not even a hypothesis. The claim has to have some evidence for that.
Xplora wrote:the presence of the Netherlands experience DOES disprove the MHL as safer.
Safer than what?

The Netherlands experience proves that building decent cycling infrastructure increases the number of cyclists.

It does not prove anything with regards to MHLs. There is no country with decent cycle infrastructure and MHLs.

My argument in this case was never about MHLs per se, simply that there is not a lot of evidence that increased cycling results in better public health outcomes (let alone that MHLs are a significant enough of a barrier to make that much of a difference. I certainly do not believe for one moment that there is an army couch potatoes waiting to pounce on bicycles as soon as the MHLs are dropped - I would hazard a guess that MHLs might simply stop some fit/healthy people from cycling, but that infrastructure is far more of a barrier).

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users