Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[fat and old]

Teschke K, Koehoorn M, Shen H, et al. "Bicycling injury hospitalisation rates in Canadian jurisdictions: analyses examining associations with helmet legislation and mode share" BMJ Open 2015;5:e008052. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008052

The purpose of this study was to calculate exposure-based bicycling hospitalisation rates in Canadian jurisdictions with different helmet legislation and bicycling mode shares, and to examine whether the rates were related to these differences.
...
only two characteristics explained this variability. For all injury causes, sex was associated with hospitalisation rates; females had rates consistently lower than males. For traffic-related injury causes, higher cycling mode share was consistently associated with lower hospitalisation rates. Helmet legislation was not associated with hospitalisation rates for brain, head, scalp, skull, face or neck injuries.

I had a quick look. My take is that the sooner we follow Tasmania's lead and remove any mention of sex from the birth certificate and coagulate into a seething mass of neutered individuals the better.

Conclusions These results suggest that transportation and health policymakers who aim to reduce bicycling injury rates in the population should focus on factors related to increased cycling mode share and female cycling choices.

We found that females had lower bicycling hospitalisation rates than males in analyses of all injury causes, consistent with results found elsewhere and for other travel modes, an effect often attributed to conservative risk choices.

Hospitalisation rates per 100 million trips varied substantially across the jurisdiction, age and sex strata examined, but only two characteristics explained any of this variability.

For all injury causes, sex was the only significant explanatory variable. Females had lower hospitalisation rates than males. Lower bicycling injury and fatality rates for females has been shown elsewhere,34 ,36–38 though not always.33 ,38 A pattern of lower injury and fatality rates for females has been observed in other transport modes including driving34 ,36 and walking33 ,34 ,36 and is often attributed to a lower propensity for risk-taking. For example, research shows that women are less likely than men to ride on major city streets or rural roads without bike facilities, infrastructure that has been shown to have higher injury risk.16 ,39–41 Other lower risk behaviours of females include slower riding,16 ,39 ,40 and less participation in sport cycling (eg, mountain biking)

How is it possible to "focus on factors related to increased cycling mode share and female cycling choices" when it's apparent that the female "choices" are not (necessarily) transferable to men? Jeepers, even Herbet's Dune couldn't solve this and had females take ascendancy.

[trailgumby]

How is it possible to "focus on factors related to increased cycling mode share and female cycling choices" when it's apparent that the female "choices" are not (necessarily) transferable to men? Jeepers, even Herbet's Dune couldn't solve this and had females take ascendancy.

Low female participation rates are the canary in the coalmine regarding road and driving culture.

[Thoglette]

How is it possible to "focus on factors related to increased cycling mode share and female cycling choices" when it's apparent that the female "choices" are not (necessarily) transferable to men?

Their point is that we need to work out what these choices are and whether your assertion (highlighted) holds water.

Consider the statement: "male cyclists are injured more often than female cyclists despite: riding the same way; on the same roads; at the same time; with similar equipment; and on the same routes". The only "logical" conclusions (if the statement is true) are that motorists can determine the sex of a cyclist and alter their behaviour accordingly.

The researchers appear to have taken the view that the statement above (and its unavoidable conclusion) is probably false. And want to find out why.

At least that's how I read it.

[Daus]

It would be interesting so see some age related statistics. Young males early to late teens would likely contribute.

[human909]

It would be interesting so see some age related statistics. Young males early to late teens would likely contribute.

The statistics are out there. The biggest factor being roadies and older ones at that. AKA MAMILS. (and a few FAMILS)
https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2015/ ... 071_fp.pdf

Table 5: Hospitalisations: cyclists hospitalised in traffic crashes by age group 2012
Age group: 0-9 10-16 17-25 26-39 40-59 60-69 ≥ 70
Male 239 567 603 1,025 1,488 360 158
Female 120 104 128 292 393 107 39
Ratio M/F 2.0 5.5 4.7 3.5 3.8 3.4 4.1

Though your implicit point about risk taking of males in their teens is evident in the male/female ratios peaks.

But overall the higher male representation in injuries is more influenced by participation and robustness than by actual riskiness. As was pointed out:

Low female participation rates are the canary in the coalmine regarding road and driving culture.

Around Melbourne's inner north we have high number of female cyclist. Age demographic is skewed toward 10-40. Dominant species being the everyday cyclists in regular clothes. None of this is coincidence.

[Daus]

Th age stats make it much clearer interesting numbers thanks for that.

[human909]

Th age stats make it much clearer interesting numbers thanks for that.

No problems.

One thing to note is these are traffic accidents. So the risk taking of young males on mountain bikes. trial bike or other more adrenaline orientate activities are likely not included.

[tubby74]

https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsr ... lmet-laws/

Bicycle Network’s recommendations for Australia’s mandatory helmet laws
1.Australia’s mandatory helmet laws should be relaxed with a five-year trial permitting people older than 17 to decide whether they wear a helmet when riding on footpaths and cycle paths.
2.Riding a bicycle on the footpath should be made legal for all people in Victoria and New South Wales so that the five-year trial can be successful. This would bring Victoria and New South Wales in line with all other states and territories.
3.More must be done to protect people who ride a bike on the road by reducing and eliminating a key hazard: motor vehicles.

[Cyclophiliac]

https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsr ... lmet-laws/

What's the bloody point of making helmets optional on paths, when in almost all cases, we can't cycle from A to B without needing to ride on some roads? Why can't this messed-up country just follow other countries' lead, and make helmets optional everywhere? I wish I could afford to move to France permanently, instead of just visiting it occasionally.

[tubby74]

they also suggest NSW and Vic catch up to the rest of aus and allow footpath riding. Not ideal but it's a policy that may gain traction. The obvious step of doing what works better everywhere else in the world is too much to hope for

[Thoglette]

The obvious step of doing what works better everywhere else in the world is too much to hope for

Unfortunately so, as it appears certain bureaucrats, surgeons and researchers have built their careers on pushing MHLs.

Update: I've now read the BN policy paper and Appendices. A bit disappointing if that's 14 months of work. And a poster child for the limits of getting a machine to do your homework - in this case the (rapid) review of the literature. I'm sure it was done pro-bono but it failed to pick up key articles

Appendix 2 also supports my assertion above: the support for MHLs came from a) victorian trauma surgeons b) Olivier c) the AGF and westcycle (who trot out their usual statements), plus, interestingly, a few mountain bikers.

[Comedian]

https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsr ... lmet-laws/

What's the bloody point of making helmets optional on paths, when in almost all cases, we can't cycle from A to B without needing to ride on some roads? Why can't this messed-up country just follow other countries' lead, and make helmets optional everywhere? I wish I could afford to move to France permanently, instead of just visiting it occasionally.

I really liked the QLD recommendation. The 60k road or less meant most places in the suburbs would be exempt.

exempts cyclists aged 16 years and over from the mandatory helmet road rule when riding in parks, on footpaths and shared/cycle paths and on roads with a speed limit of 60 km/hr or less

Of course - this wasn't adopted.

[madmacca]

It would be interesting so see some age related statistics. Young males early to late teens would likely contribute.

The statistics are out there. The biggest factor being roadies and older ones at that. AKA MAMILS. (and a few FAMILS)
https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2015/ ... 071_fp.pdf

Table 5: Hospitalisations: cyclists hospitalised in traffic crashes by age group 2012
Age group: 0-9 10-16 17-25 26-39 40-59 60-69 ≥ 70
Male 239 567 603 1,025 1,488 360 158
Female 120 104 128 292 393 107 39
Ratio M/F 2.0 5.5 4.7 3.5 3.8 3.4 4.1

Though your implicit point about risk taking of males in their teens is evident in the male/female ratios peaks.

But overall the higher male representation in injuries is more influenced by participation and robustness than by actual riskiness. As was pointed out:

Low female participation rates are the canary in the coalmine regarding road and driving culture.

Around Melbourne's inner north we have high number of female cyclist. Age demographic is skewed toward 10-40. Dominant species being the everyday cyclists in regular clothes. None of this is coincidence.

Before taking those numbers at surface value, it is worth looking at the width of each age range. 9 years, 6 years, 8 years, 13 years, 19 years, 9 years. Of course the biggest number of hospitalisations occurs in the widest age bracket.

[Philistine]

Disraeli famously remarked "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics". As a former statistician I would prefer to see Disraeli's comment rephrased as "there are liars, damned liars, and people who abuse the statistical process to try to make a point".

Table five of the report examines two variables - cyclist age versus cyclist hospital admission numbers - and used a technique known as "grouping" to examine the data. For this to have any value, the various groups have to be the same size e.g. 0 -9, 10 - 19, 20 - 29, etc. At first glance, there appears to be a spike in the 40 - 59 group (which I suspect is what you are supposed to infer), but 40 - 59 is 50% wider than the next widest group, and twice as wide as some of the smaller groups. What kind of statistician turned out this tosh?

Edit. Sorry Madmacca. We had the same thought but you were quicker on the draw than I was.

[DavidS]

https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsr ... lmet-laws/

What's the bloody point of making helmets optional on paths, when in almost all cases, we can't cycle from A to B without needing to ride on some roads? Why can't this messed-up country just follow other countries' lead, and make helmets optional everywhere? I wish I could afford to move to France permanently, instead of just visiting it occasionally.

Yep, totally.

Also, if you want the laws relaxed, ask for them to be abolished. It's called an ambit claim and also about making your real agenda look moderate in comparison. Before someone jumps in: moderation gets you nowhere, just ask the IPA, pushing a radical agenda for decades shifts the agenda.

But they should abolish these silly laws and I am disappointed that BNA aren't advocating the abolition of what is clearly an anti-cycling law.

DS

[antigee]

Probably a few steps too far in the car dominated streets is to allow helmetless riding on footpaths when the speed limit is above 40km/hr and on roads when the speed limit is 40km/hr and lower with no cyclists on the footpath in 40km/hr zones?

Gives some cyclists what they want - being able to use the footpath on more dangerous/higher speed roads - gives some peds what they want no adult cyclists on paths in shopping/office/hospital/school areas - encourages utility cycling using offroad paths/parks to access shopping/other zones that should have 40km/hr (or lower) limits - if need to extend 40km/hr zones and/or reduce to 30km/hr fine - 60km/hr in busy areas shouldn't be happening anyway and a lot of urban areas in cities in other countries have 30km/hr speed limits

[Cyclophiliac]

Probably a few steps too far in the car dominated streets is to allow helmetless riding on footpaths when the speed limit is above 40km/hr and on roads when the speed limit is 40km/hr and lower with no cyclists on the footpath in 40km/hr zones?

Gives some cyclists what they want - being able to use the footpath on more dangerous/higher speed roads - gives some peds what they want no adult cyclists on paths in shopping/office/hospital/school areas - encourages utility cycling using offroad paths/parks to access shopping/other zones that should have 40km/hr (or lower) limits - if need to extend 40km/hr zones and/or reduce to 30km/hr fine - 60km/hr in busy areas shouldn't be happening anyway and a lot of urban areas in cities in other countries have 30km/hr speed limits

That post contained WAY too much logic and common sense!
It would probably never occur in this country.

[human909]

Probably a few steps too far in the car dominated streets is to allow helmetless riding on footpaths when the speed limit is above 40km/hr and on roads when the speed limit is 40km/hr and lower with no cyclists on the footpath in 40km/hr zones?

Makes alot of sense. But all a bit too complicated which changing speed limits etc...

KISS principle:
-Ideally: end MHLs
-Unideal: remove MHLs for footpaths and paths (the only benefit I see from this is the NT example where it has effectively halted MHLs for roads)
-Allow riding on footpaths. (Footpath riding is unideal for all involved. But it is generally self regulating. Since it is unideal for cyclist the solution to reduce it is to make the roads and bike lanes/paths safer for cyclists.)

[human909]

http://www.amygillett.org.au/mandatory- ... wBN-ijQous

DEBATING MANDATORY HELMET LAWS – THE UNNECESSARY DISTRACTION IN THE PURSUIT OF SAFE CYCLING
BY MEDIA & COMMUNICATIONS TEAM / THURSDAY, 01 NOVEMBER 2018 /

The Amy Gillett Foundation’s sole focus is on actions and policy that help to achieve a safe cycling environment in Australia.
As we have repeatedly stated, while helmets do not make you safer, you are better off when wearing one in the event of a crash.
The current discussion about helmet laws is a distraction from the pursuit of important cyclist safety laws, policy and infrastructure designed to protect cyclists, such as a metre matters laws.
Our primary focus for Victoria remains on securing a metre matter laws,which 9 out of 10 Victorians support.
Victoria remains the only state in Australia yet to commit to minimum passing distance legislation.
For the rest of Australia, the Amy Gillett Foundation, together with Cycling Australia has these five (5) priorities for safe cycling:
-increased education and enforcement of a metre matters laws
-minimum ‘cyclist aware’ content in driver licensing training and testing
-safer cycling infrastructure
-safer speeds
-cycling safety education.

Seriously AGF why do you feel the need to counter this stance and describe it as an unnecessary distraction? Why pick a fight when you don't need to?

Your 5 priorities might be different from mine. If they happen to be different but still aligned towards the same goal why create the fight?

[fat and old]

Reckon you're being a little unfair there..to get to that page you have to go to their home page

http://www.amygillett.org.au/

I like the Vic Election priorities.

Edit...the actual reason I came here....there was a talkback segment this morning on radio about the helmetless proposal. Dunno what station. The vast majority of people who claimed to be cyclists were against the idea.

[tubby74]

Seriously AGF why do you feel the need to counter this stance and describe it as an unnecessary distraction? Why pick a fight when you don't need to?

the sole purpose of the amy gillet foundation is to promote the amy gillet foundation. who cares if they legitimise attacks on cyclists in NSW, they get their name on government papers. If they were truly a cycling safety group they would get behind this so we could get in line with the rest of the world and put the helmet debate truly behind us. They are an absolute disgrace of a group

[fat and old]

How is it possible to "focus on factors related to increased cycling mode share and female cycling choices" when it's apparent that the female "choices" are not (necessarily) transferable to men?

Their point is that we need to work out what these choices are and whether your assertion (highlighted) holds water.

Consider the statement: "male cyclists are injured more often than female cyclists despite: riding the same way; on the same roads; at the same time; with similar equipment; and on the same routes". The only "logical" conclusions (if the statement is true) are that motorists can determine the sex of a cyclist and alter their behaviour accordingly.

The researchers appear to have taken the view that the statement above (and its unavoidable conclusion) is probably false. And want to find out why.

At least that's how I read it.

I would agree that the statement is false. And I'd assert that it's bloody obvious why When I referred to female "choices" I wasn't only thinking of cycling; I was considering how females "behave" in all walks of life.


Basically (and probably wrongly, inappropriately and old white man arrogantly) I think that females tend towards a nurturing type of behaviour. Biologically and environmentally. Thus....generally.... they are risk adverse compared to males. They value life more than males. They are more compassionate than males. These values cannot be "transferred" to males. They can be taught to a point, but there are aspects of female life that cannot be experienced by males. I don't need a researcher to explain to me that I will not bear children

[Thoglette]

BN reported in the ABC

Good couple of column inches, spoilt only by the self-aggrandisement from the Australian College of Surgeons.

[Thoglette]

Australian cycling group back-pedals to oppose mandatory helmets
Bicycle Network says on ‘low-risk’ paths adults should decide if they wear helmets

The lobby group argued helmet laws should not be used as “an excuse for not providing protected places to ride”.

Its report said it did not support abandoning mandatory helmet laws on the road “because of interactions with vehicles”.

“However, in low-risk environments where there are no cars, such as on paths and trails, we believe adults should be trusted to decide whether they wear a helmet or not.”

[AUbicycles]

Bicycle Network says on ‘low-risk’ paths adults should decide if they wear helmets

And now let's define 'Low Risk'...

The Amy Gillet statement is spot on for their goals. The Mandatory Helmet Laws are a genuine distraction. This doesn't mean it is not a fair or valid issue, but it can limit progress on other issues.

For this reason advocacy groups in recent years have acknowledged the debate but have chosen not to prioritise it:
- Their members have contrasting views and it can cause a backlash
- Extremely difficult to challenge despite the merits of arguments against the laws
- Limited chance of success.

Why has Bicycle Network Victoria now made a call on MHL?:
- Attention - remaining vocal in the media
- Ownership - Following the interest and popularity generated by other groups
- Management Decision - deemed a positive step for the organisation


The two key problems (in my view are) are:

1. Victoria still has no Minimum Passing Distance law. This is not specifically a failure of Bicycle Network as they have advocated this and I am sure have been politically active (along with other groups) in Victoria. But the law still hasn't been updated so the chance of having the MHL laws removed would be even harder.

2. Definitions and limitation. If this law is only for 'low risk' paths and cycling... this opens up immense grey areas. Silly ones like a rider who cycles 10km low risk, but has to pass a single intersection which is not low risk. Do they 'risk it' or will it be a comical situation where the rider puts on a helmet for 40 metres and then removes it.


However

If you don't buy a lotto ticket you have zero chances. With the general public distaste for cyclists I don't see much of a chance but this could be about the long game and planning for cycling in 15 years when politics evolves, car congestion worsens and cycle transport becomes an escape plan for politicians.