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

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

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

Postby simonn » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:04 am

Xplora wrote:
human909 wrote:THIS IS ABSURD.

This is definitely a KEY aspect to the Anti MHL position. It is simply ridiculous to adopt a position that 95% of the planet disagrees with, and assume it is the higher ground.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3749
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

by BNA » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:12 am

BNA
 

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

Postby wilddemon » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:12 am

human909 wrote:
wilddemon wrote:
Xplora wrote:This is definitely a KEY aspect to the Anti MHL position. It is simply ridiculous to adopt a position that 95% of the planet disagrees with, and assume it is the higher ground.


+1

Errrrr.... you do realise that you gave a "+1' to an position that was AGAINST MHL!? :lol:


This is exactly what irks me. I know what your position is, you have clearly illustrated it. But where is the intelligent debate? Making assumptions about what is right and wrong, turning facts this way and that to suit oneself, really, what is the point? I agree: It is simply ridiculous to adopt a position that 95% of the planet disagrees with, and assume it is the higher ground. Why not base the debate on something more meaningful? You may think you are fighting the battle of wits but to me it comes across more as battle of the f-wits. I'm perfectly willing to be swayed by someone's excellent argument to repeal MHL and I would be right on board with the anti MHL. Isn't this the point? I'm not going to mindlessly go round in circles maintaining that I am right and if you disagree with me you are wrong. I can argue on the side of the road with some cyclist hater and get the same empty satisfaction.

Apologies to those members who have brought up some excellent points and offered meaningful debate, I'm not referring to you.
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

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

Postby Xplora » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:15 am

^^^
Yes, this is the pattern. It is fair and reasonable to evaluate a proposition by taking it to the natural conclusion. In this case, the rationale behind the helmet can be extended to other body parts, other activities, and other parts of the world. Hitting your head isn't the only way to destroy your life on a bike. A thorough testing of the philosophy around the helmet, and the helmet law, is the only legal and calm way to remove it in the initial stages.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7369
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby sogood » Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:59 am

Off TEDx.

Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple :)
RK wrote:And that is Wikipedia - I can write my own definition.
User avatar
sogood
 
Posts: 17093
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

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

Postby diggler » Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:24 am

http://www.smh.com.au/national/cyclists ... 2duga.html

Cyclists without helmets 'likely to be risk takers'


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/cyclists ... z2Jwbrf8qi

CYCLISTS who do not wear helmets are more likely to ride in ways that put them at risk, according to a study of more than 6700 bike riders who collided with motor vehicles.
The authors of the study say the evidence demonstrates the value of compulsory helmet laws, which some cyclists and researchers want repealed to try and increase the popularity of cycling.
The evidence says helmets work: they minimise the risk of injury.

Academics at the University of NSW's Transport and Road Safety Research Group and its School of Mathematics and Statistics looked at the relationship between the severity of cycling injuries on NSW roads and whether the bike rider was wearing a helmet.
The results, published on Monday in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention, show that cyclists not wearing a helmet were almost four times as likely to sustain a head injury compared to those with head protection.
Advertisement
In part, this was because cyclists who were not wearing a helmet were more likely to engage in other behaviour that led to accidents: they were more likely to disobey traffic rules and more likely to be riding while drunk.
''Having an opinion is one thing, but if you are going to make policies, such as repealing mandatory helmet laws, you have to look at evidence,'' said a co-author of the study, Jake Olivier.
''The evidence says helmets work: they minimise the risk of injury,'' Dr Olivier said.
The study looked at 6745 cyclists involved in collisions with motor vehicles between 2001 and 2009. It linked information from hospital admissions to police reports on the incidents.
''As the severity of the injury increased the benefit of wearing a helmet increased, which is very hard to ignore I think,'' Dr Olivier said.
Results showed that cyclists without helmets were more than 3.9 times as likely to sustain a head injury to those with helmets. Helmets reduced the risk of moderate head injury by 49 per cent, of serious head injury by 62 per cent, and of severe head injury by 74 per cent.
The usefulness of compulsory helmet laws is a controversial issue among cyclists, and has become a topic of academic debate, with two camps broadly represented by researchers at UNSW and Sydney University.
Chris Rissel, from Sydney University's school of public health, has argued compulsory helmet laws discourage cycling, denying the public the health benefit from a more active lifestyle.
Dr Olivier's co-author, Raphael Grzebieta, said the suggestion there was a benefit in repealing mandatory helmet laws was absurd.
Asked why cyclists without helmets appeared to take other risks, Dr Olivier said that while his study did not address this question, the answer might be: ''Someone who is willing to disobey the law by not wearing a helmet might be more willing to disobey other laws.''


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/cyclists ... z2JwbnFcLh
Motorists hate cyclists and cyclists hate the motorists and the pedestrians hate the bikers and everybody hates the trucks.
diggler
 
Posts: 580
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:23 pm

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

Postby diggler » Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:27 am

I have to admit to being a complete hypocrite. I always wear a helmet when cycling, but can't stand wearing one when I am playing cricket. I empathise with all the anti helmet people on this one. A cricket helmet is heavy and uncomfortable, and restricts vision. I would be p'd off if helmets were compulsory in cricket.
Motorists hate cyclists and cyclists hate the motorists and the pedestrians hate the bikers and everybody hates the trucks.
diggler
 
Posts: 580
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:23 pm

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

Postby human909 » Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:16 am

diggler wrote:Cyclists without helmets 'likely to be risk takers'


The biggest risk of not wearing a helmet is getting a fine from the police! :roll: In a country where NOT wearing a helmet is illegal one would expect this to be the case. Even ignoring injuries, those not wearing helmets is taking a risk of a fine. This is another example of POOR 'RESEARCH' coming to conclusions that the authors and authorities want it to. Their conclusion that this finding supports MHL is simply false logic

My observations. I'm currently skiing in a place where the majority wear helmets. If anything those who wear helmets are more likely to take risks. In rock climbing I've observed few correlations. In The Netherlands, cyclists who where helmets are much bigger risk takers.
human909
 
Posts: 5985
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby twizzle » Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:18 am

human909 wrote:
diggler wrote:Cyclists without helmets 'likely to be risk takers'

The biggest risk of not wearing a helmet is getting a fine from the police!


I looked, but I couldn't find that in the study.

"Belief based" vs "Evidence based" mean anything to you?
I ride, therefore I am.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...
User avatar
twizzle
 
Posts: 6384
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Taking a break.

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

Postby human909 » Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:22 am

twizzle wrote:I looked, but I couldn't find that in the study.

"Belief based" vs "Evidence based" mean anything to you?

I wouldn't be turning to that study for many conclusions that are evidence based twizzle. Surely if you were being honest to yourself you would recognise the flawed conclusions?

But no, you seem intent on point scoring pettiness rather than addressing the issue. :roll:
human909
 
Posts: 5985
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby find_bruce » Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:03 am

diggler wrote:http://www.smh.com.au/national/cyclists-without-helmets-likely-to-be-risk-takers-20130204-2duga.html

Cyclists without helmets 'likely to be risk takers'

It seems the confusion of correlation and causation is alive and well.

Just to pick the cycling whilst drunk line - it has been a couple of years since I had to look at the research, but as best I can recall there is plenty of evidence that being drunk is a major cause of risk taking behaviour, whether on a bicycle or otherwise - impaired judgement being one of the effects of alcohol consumption. I am struggling to see how not wearing a helmet causes you to be drunk.

I am all in favour of evidence based decision making, but I don't see how the reported aspects of this study can contribute.
Image . . . . . . . Image
User avatar
find_bruce
 
Posts: 4622
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

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

Postby il padrone » Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:12 am

SMH wrote:Dr Olivier's co-author, Raphael Grzebieta, said the suggestion there was a benefit in repealing mandatory helmet laws was absurd.
Asked why cyclists without helmets appeared to take other risks, Dr Olivier said that while his study did not address this question, the answer might be: ''Someone who is willing to disobey the law by not wearing a helmet might be more willing to disobey other laws.''

A basic flaw in logic there. Remove the MHL and the non-helmet-wearers will not be risk-takers, just ordinary folks. Seeing as the "risk takers" are not wearing helmets now with the MHL, and may break other road rules, the abolition of the MHL would make little difference to their risk of injury.

I took a fall on the weekend. Hit my head. Was unconscious for 1-2 minutes. The brand new helmet is busted :(

Yes it saved me from possibly more severe injuries. I have a broken collar-bone and possible cracked ribs. Still do not support MHL. I choose to wear a helmet. I am a high mileage rider (10-12k per year) and the fall happened while descending a gravel road out of the bush into Apollo Bay - not your garden variety 'ride to the shops'. I guess it can be seen as greater risk-taking, descending a gravel road at 30kmh. I accept that risk and deal with it. Abolishing the MHL will not change that.
Last edited by il padrone on Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20223
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby jcjordan » Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:12 am

The most interesting thing about this argument has been the correlation with the gun debating the US in terms of it's style and methodology.
James
Veni, Vidi, Vespa -- I Came, I Saw, I Rode Home
jcjordan
 
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 pm

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

Postby il padrone » Tue Feb 05, 2013 7:18 am

sogood wrote:Off TEDx.



Oh the irony :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hysterical if it weren't so sad.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20223
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby AndyTheMan » Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:00 am

Not that we need anything to stir debate on the Mandatory Helmet Law.....

But many may have seen this article in todays newspapers;

http://www.smh.com.au/national/cyclists-without-helmets-likely-to-be-risk-takers-20130204-2duga.html

The author of the research paper appears to be a long time supporter of MHL, he is essentially a statistician and researcher (not sure if he is also a cyclist).

Other articles by the same author:

http://theconversation.edu.au/dont-blame-mandatory-helmets-for-cyclist-deaths-in-new-zealand-5379

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/bike-helmet-critics-not-using-their-heads-20121003-26yvc.html

From my point of view, if you aren't a regular cyclist (and depending on what type of cyclist you are) then I think the MHL is stupid.

I mainly ride a road bike, and I would always wear my noggin-protector on my current bike as I spend most time on the road mixiung it with idiots in cars.

However, on a recent trip to melbourne I used the melbourne bike share, and found it rediculous that I would be expected to wear a helmet to go 2km on a cycle path, with no cars, at probably 10km/h....

The problem with MHL is that it assumes all cycle trips are the same, when they aren't.

It would be like having mandatory enclosed leather workboot legislation - thats all fine and dandy if you are on a building site, or working outdoors, or even bushwalking. but wouldn't it become a silly law if you are just wandering across the road to the beach, or even taking the bins out.....
AndyTheMan
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:52 am

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

Postby Ross » Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:11 am

il padrone wrote:I took a fall on the weekend. Hit my head. Was unconscious for 1-2 minutes. The brand new helmet is busted :(

Yes it saved me from possibly more severe injuries. I have a broken collar-bone and possible cracked ribs. Still do not support MHL. I choose to wear a helmet. I am a high mileage rider (10-12k per year) and the fall happened while descending a gravel road out of the bush into Apollo Bay - not your garden variety 'ride to the shops'. I guess it can be seen as greater risk-taking, descending a gravel road at 30kmh. I accept that risk and deal with it. Abolishing the MHL will not change that.


Bad luck on your crash, good to hear you live to ride another day.

I still don't understand why you seem to think MHL are so bad when you admit that you regualrly wear a helmet and the helmet possibly saved you from more serious injuries when you crashed. OK, you were descending a gravel road at 30kmh, but not all crashes happen at highish speeds on gravel roads. You can just as easily have a bad crash at walking pace on a smooth sealed surface (like I have had) .
Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 4161
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

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

Postby il padrone » Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:18 am

AndyTheMan wrote:It would be like having mandatory enclosed leather workboot legislation - thats all fine and dandy if you are on a building site, or working outdoors, or even bushwalking. but wouldn't it become a silly law if you are just wandering across the road to the beach, or even taking the bins out.....


You went near the WATER !!! :shock:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20223
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby outnabike » Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:20 am

From that report

Asked why cyclists without helmets appeared to take other risks, Dr Olivier said that while his study did not address this question, the answer might be: ''Someone who is willing to disobey the law by not wearing a helmet might be more willing to disobey other laws.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/cyclists ... z2JyFJB5g3

There could be some truth in this.
I notice most burglars involved in ram raids, don't wear helmets. Folks walking blindly along, walking into walls whilst on a phone aren't wearing appropriate safety gear.
They then get on the bike and flout the law.
If it is a fact that more head injuries are caused in cars we should make the MHL applicable to motorists as well. They aren't putting in air bags at a cost of thousands for nothing after all.

And what of the studies that were supposed to show that helmet wearers were the risk takers thinking they were invincible.
For me it's all pretty hard to keep up with.
User avatar
outnabike
 
Posts: 1272
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:53 pm
Location: Melbourne Vic

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

Postby il padrone » Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:20 am

Ross wrote:I still don't understand why you seem to think MHL are so bad when you admit that you regualrly wear a helmet and the helmet possibly saved you from more serious injuries when you crashed.

You really misunderstand the concept of choice that much ??

Ross wrote:You can just as easily have a bad crash at walking pace on a smooth sealed surface

You can just as easily have a bad fall (with head injuries) walking along a path, as many people do. Thus why don't you support MHL for all peds??
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20223
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby human909 » Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:27 am

It really is a little scary. I especially find humorous how he speaks about bike share in terms of it being a problem. :shock: :lol: Further so he speaks of a person with shattered bones and a shattered helmet in but no brain injury as somehow supporting of his case. Of course lets not consider how it came to be that a car hit the cyclist. :roll: Surely he should flick back a few slides and considered the circumstance in which he dismissed he European experience!

Like il padrone I often happily choose to wear helmets. I do so in skiing, rock climbing and kayaking. I do so in mountain biking. I had a small tumble the other week mountain biking, kinda rare for me. I tucked my head and rolled. Without a helmet I would have been fine, with a helmet I was still fine. But certainly my helmeted head did contact the ground.

But these are all higher risk sports, lots of people are happy with helmets for such activities. When it comes to commuting most people don't want to face higher risks and they don't want to wear helmets.

Ross wrote:I still don't understand why you seem to think MHL are so bad when you admit that you regualrly wear a helmet and the helmet possibly saved you from more serious injuries when you crashed.

It really does seem like you have little concept of allowing and accepting other peoples' choices. Why should we deny people such a basic choice? My personal choices should have little bearing on whether or not i agree with the basic freedom of choice. I have no desire to 'sleep' with another man but I certainly don't think that it is just to deny other men the freedom to do so. :|
human909
 
Posts: 5985
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby Percrime » Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:47 am

il padrone wrote:I took a fall on the weekend. Hit my head. Was unconscious for 1-2 minutes. The brand new helmet is busted :(

Yes it saved me from possibly more severe injuries. I have a broken collar-bone and possible cracked ribs. Still do not support MHL. I choose to wear a helmet. I am a high mileage rider (10-12k per year) and the fall happened while descending a gravel road out of the bush into Apollo Bay - not your garden variety 'ride to the shops'. I guess it can be seen as greater risk-taking, descending a gravel road at 30kmh. I accept that risk and deal with it. Abolishing the MHL will not change that.


Yike. And in the last month thats the 5th. (yes 5th) broken collar bone I know off, And I have been present at 3 of em.
Percrime
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

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

Postby il padrone » Tue Feb 05, 2013 8:57 am

Percrime wrote:Yike. And in the last month thats the 5th. (yes 5th) broken collar bone I know off, And I have been present at 3 of em.

Mandatory shoulder pads for all :o That'll fix it.

Image
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20223
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby twizzle » Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:50 am

human909 wrote:
twizzle wrote:I looked, but I couldn't find that in the study.

"Belief based" vs "Evidence based" mean anything to you?

I wouldn't be turning to that study for many conclusions that are evidence based twizzle. Surely if you were being honest to yourself you would recognise the flawed conclusions?

But no, you seem intent on point scoring pettiness rather than addressing the issue. :roll:


I'll leave it up to academia to pull the study apart. And not point scoring, just pointing out that pulling "evidence" out of thin air isn't helping the discussion... and never has.
I ride, therefore I am.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...
User avatar
twizzle
 
Posts: 6384
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Taking a break.

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

Postby Xplora » Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:44 am

Ross, you really must READ the responses. If you cannot understand why someone would make a choice different to you, "I" cannot understand how someone with a reasonable grasp of English like yourself can fail to process a simple explanation that has been reiterated DOZENS OF TIMES. This has been specifically directed at you as well. If you are a sook, and refuse to ride without a helmet, "that is your choice". I think it is a daft choice. But you are entitled to make it, and it doesn't impact on me. The reverse also applies.

If you want to be obtuse and talk about impacts on social costs from my lack of helmet, I will throw that back at you - your obsession with helmeted riding is actually hurting cyclists as car drivers falsely believe that the act of riding a bike causes brain trauma, rather than the act of being hit by a car and forced off the bike by 2 tonnes of alloy. The social impact of crappy drivers is FAR FAR FAR higher than the social impact of nude nuts. :idea:

So let's avoid being obtuse, because there are two sides to every argument, and we need to accept the research at hand. More riders equals safer roads. Helmets improve individual consequences, but influence people to simply not ride, creating a net loss for the remaining cycling population.

I fail to see the value in research like the SMH article reports, when there is no attempt to address the more controversial research such as "more riders equals more safety for cyclists". Research is most valuable in the counterintuitive results, not the confirmation of common sense.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7369
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby twizzle » Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:08 am

Xplora wrote:your obsession with helmeted riding is actually hurting cyclists as car drivers falsely believe that the act of riding a bike causes brain trauma, rather than the act of being hit by a car and forced off the bike by 2 tonnes of alloy.


Statement based on some research or personal opinion? Adding "IMO" or "IMHO" would help distinguish when you are making stuff up.
I ride, therefore I am.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...
User avatar
twizzle
 
Posts: 6384
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Taking a break.

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

Postby il padrone » Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:12 am

Xplora wrote:because there are two sides to every argument, and we need to accept the research at hand.

Correction to that. We need to question and critique any research conclusions to establish their validity.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20223
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Torpedo 7 Cycling Express
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Ebay Ebay AU
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter
“Bicycles BNA on Strava

> FREE BNA Stickers