Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

Or he's going bald!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... VVlA6v4N8g" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Courtesy of bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com, a must read for any cyclist with a sense of humour!)

Found this as part of WA regs referring to wearing of helmets.
Seems the Sikh gent would be OK in WA.
Wonder what other states make allowance?

John

Subregulation (2) does not apply to a person who —
(a) is a member of a religious or cultural group and who is
wearing a headdress customarily worn by members of
that group, if the wearing of that headdress makes it
impractical for a person to wear a protective helmet

I always though that was part of the Vic law too.

Mulger bill wrote:I always though that was part of the Vic law too.

No, it is only if you get a certificate of exemption (could be for various reasons)

Rule 256.....
....(4) The Corporation may issue a certificate stating that it would be impractical, undesirable or inexpedient that the person named in the certificate wear a bicycle helmet while riding on, or being taken as a passenger on, a bicycle.
(5) A certificate issued under subrule (4) must be—
(a) carried by the person to whom it applies while the person is riding on, or being taken as passenger on, a bicycle; and
(b) produced by the person to a police officer or authorised person when requested to do so.

John Lewis wrote:Subregulation (2) does not apply to a person who —
(a) is a member of a religious or cultural group and who is
wearing a headdress customarily worn by members of
that group, if the wearing of that headdress makes it
impractical for a person to wear a protective helmet

Yeah I'm a member of the anti MHL cultural group. This is bloody ridiculous - it's an impracticable foam hat for EVERYONE.

Xplora wrote:

John Lewis wrote:Subregulation (2) does not apply to a person who —
(a) is a member of a religious or cultural group and who is
wearing a headdress customarily worn by members of
that group, if the wearing of that headdress makes it
impractical for a person to wear a protective helmet

Yeah I'm a member of the anti MHL cultural group. This is bloody ridiculous - it's an impracticable foam hat for EVERYONE.

Official headdress being, I dunno, a beer drinking cap? An 80s hairdo? Or perhaps this?

wizdofaus wrote:Official headdress being, I dunno, a beer drinking cap? An 80s hairdo? Or perhaps this?

Mmm... I want that unicorn headdress.

wizdofaus wrote:Official headdress being, I dunno, a beer drinking cap? An 80s hairdo? Or perhaps this?

Anything you like really, but a nice cap is good

Seriously, does it need discussion?

http://app.strava.com/items/1047306413

KOM STYLIN'

Xplora wrote:Seriously, does it need discussion?

http://app.strava.com/items/1047306413

KOM STYLIN'

Except that picture quite clearly demonstrates that it's perfectly practical to wear a helmet along with it, so I suspect you wouldn't get far with the police officer. But I wonder how many cops would mess with a cyclist wearing a unicorn horn...

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/ ... your-head/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Misguided basic concept and somewhat inconclusive research paper by my reading (but I'm no expert)

The key thing that is no surprise is that risk-takers (especially teenagers) are more likely to ride without a helmet. In Australia's society, riding helmetless is regarded as a great risk (not in Europe ). Of course the helmetless will be risk-takers, they have to be to dare to do it..... and as a result more likely to be involved in injury collisions and falls - no surprises there.

If everyone had a choice about wearing a helmet, far more risk-averse people (and teens) would ride without. One would expect the proportion to be somewhat different. Riding without a helmet does not make you a risk-taker, however this seems to be the spin taken with this article.

^^^ Did you read the same article that I did? The article that I read said that two identities, The Conversation and Sydney Morning Herald represented the paper with "Crash data shows cyclists with no helmets more likely to ride drunk" and "Cyclists without helmets ‘likely to be risk-takers'" respectively. The four UNSW researchers reported results based on statistical research and concluded that helmet use decreased the chance of head injury. They also made conclusions regarding risk: "where non-helmeted cyclists were more likely to display risky riding behaviour, while less likely to cycle in risky areas. While the net result was that they were more likely to be involved in more severe crashes, this difference was small."

So four experts in their field write a paper, and you're no expert, but you are going to write off the paper as "somewhat inconclusive", yet your post seems to suggest that either you did not read the article, or you did not adequately comprehend the article. That comes across to me as "somewhat arrogant". I'm not sure if this post of yours is a misrepresentation of you, but you seem to have jumped on board the same train as The Conversation and SMH, pulling from the article what you saw fit, and ignoring the rest. Hopefully you see the oncoming car better than you see the plain faced facts.

To be honest, I had only heard word of the SMH and The Conversation interpretation of the paper. Good to see that someone has published a more thorough article regarding the paper.

wilddemon wrote:^^^ Did you read the same article that I did? The article that I read said that two identities, The Conversation and Sydney Morning Herald represented the paper with "Crash data shows cyclists with no helmets more likely to ride drunk" and "Cyclists without helmets ‘likely to be risk-takers'" respectively.

Yes, nothing surprising about that. To ride without a helmet in Australia you would be a risk-taker by definition. You need to be prepared to stand out and go against not only the law, but also strongly accepted societal opinion.

wilddemon wrote:The four UNSW researchers reported results based on statistical research and concluded that helmet use decreased the chance of head injury.

And again, no rocket science in that. I've been aware of this ever since I bought the old MSR hard-shell, put it on and deliberately crashed my head hard on the door-jam, to the shrieks of my mother and sister.

wilddemon wrote:They also made conclusions regarding risk: "where non-helmeted cyclists were more likely to display risky riding behaviour, while less likely to cycle in risky areas. While the net result was that they were more likely to be involved in more severe crashes, this difference was small."

So four experts in their field write a paper, and you're no expert, but you are going to write off the paper as "somewhat inconclusive"

I think sometimes we can get terribly bedazzled by the words of "experts" and "research", and miss the nose in front of our face. I did think that one of the last statements made in the Crikey blog by Alan Davies was relevant and quite accurate in my view:

Alan Davies wrote:I interpret the findings as reinforcing the good sense of wearing a helmet when cycling, especially on roads.

I would of course be free to make that choice even if the helmet law were repealed. The question of whether or not helmets should continue to be mandatory must be considered in the context of other arguments, especially the claim that the law deters cycling.

Dismiss my own comments however you like but nothing I read in that article had me suddenly taking a new outlook on helmets. I use one, because I ride a lot. I still don't see the need for any MHL for every citizen. So you think different..... OK . No call for the slanging and aspersions.

I think the crucial difference is perception. In all but 2 countries in the world riding a bicycle without a helmet is seen as normal. Here, because the helmet laws have promoted the ridiculous notion that cycling is particularly dangerous, so dangerous we must be mandated by law to wear a protective helmet whenever we get on a bike, it is seen as risky behaviour.

What needs to change is this notion that somehow riding a bicycle without a helmet (as happens in over 170 countries in the world) is evidence of being a risk taker.

In fact, what this sort of article shows is just how effective MHLs have been in ingraining notions of extreme risk associated with cycling. I had a recent argument with someone where they talked about it being way too dangerous to let her kids ride without a helmet. Back when she was a kid it would have just been normal for kids to ride on the roads without helmets.

The perception of danger fostered by MHLs leads to the inference that cycling without a helmet is associated with risk takers. If we didn't have MHLs no-one would have even considered looking at whether non helmet wearing cyclists take more risks.

DS

DavidS wrote:I think the crucial difference is perception. In all but 2 countries in the world riding a bicycle without a helmet is seen as normal. Here, because the helmet laws have promoted the ridiculous notion that cycling is particularly dangerous, so dangerous we must be mandated by law to wear a protective helmet whenever we get on a bike, it is seen as risky behaviour.

You are quite correct here.

But equally, in Australia the people who ride without a helmet will be those who are, for whatever reason, more likely to take risks - to ride a BMX bike over home-made ramps and walls, to ride the footpaths, to ignore the red lights at intersections or pedestrian crossings, to dart the wrong way along back streets or to suddenly cross from footpath across the "quiet" street. They actually are risk-takers and often do come unstuck.

But they are not wearing helmets. Has the MHL been effective with them then? Would it not be better to focus on education of cycling skills, the law and correct practices, of why this does matter? Also to educate drivers much more about the need to watch out for cyclists, the requirement to give all the same safe treatment on the roads. These are what has made the difference in the great European cycling countries, along with much work on infrastructure and law enforcement. But this all lands in our 'too hard' basket.

I am reminded of the key recommendations of the 1977 Geelong Bikeplan - the four 'E's - Education, Enforcement, Encouragement, and Engineering. Whatever has happened to them now ??

Personally, methinks it's prolly reversed: Risk taking bike riders are less likely to wear hemlets.
Ahh statistics, the art of making numbers dance.

Haven't checked but are there any other countries that have this stupid MHL or have it but don't enforce it ?

Still my problem with it is choice.
Remove too much choices and people become inept at making decisions.

Ban smoking, far more people die from it and its a huge financial drain on the economy but hey, the govt tax it to the hilt and make glorious amounts of money from it so I guess it's ok ?

Yes, that's basically what I'm saying MB.

DavidS wrote:I think the crucial difference is perception. In all but 2 countries in the world riding a bicycle without a helmet is seen as normal. Here, because the helmet laws have promoted the ridiculous notion that cycling is particularly dangerous, so dangerous we must be mandated by law to wear a protective helmet whenever we get on a bike, it is seen as risky behaviour.

My impression is that it was t'other way 'round. I got many a lecture on the dangerousness of cycling pre-MHL. I think perceived riskiness promoted MHLs rather than vice versa.

What needs to change is this notion that somehow riding a bicycle without a helmet (as happens in over 170 countries in the world) is evidence of being a risk taker.

In fact, what this sort of article shows is just how effective MHLs have been in ingraining notions of extreme risk associated with cycling. I had a recent argument with someone where they talked about it being way too dangerous to let her kids ride without a helmet. Back when she was a kid it would have just been normal for kids to ride on the roads without helmets.

The fact that It Was So In The Good Ole Days is a lousy criterion. Drink driving would likewise have been considered acceptable not so long ago.

The perception of danger fostered by MHLs leads to the inference that cycling without a helmet is associated with risk takers. If we didn't have MHLs no-one would have even considered looking at whether non helmet wearing cyclists take more risks.

DS

Disagree. Helmet efficacy - including considerations like risk compensation - is studied in non-MHL jurisdictions. QED.

high_tea wrote:Disagree. Helmet efficacy - including considerations like risk compensation - is studied in non-MHL jurisdictions. QED.

And yet they still haven't followed the (self appointed) world leaders in cycling safety after how many years? Now why do you think that might be? Maybe it's because they WANT all cyclists to be killed off ASAP, thereby making the world a much better place. [/tic]

Running a statistical analysis to prove the obvious is not what I term ground breaking research. Nothing that they "found" is new. I'll highlight their conclusions:

**helmet use is sig-nificantly associated with reduced risk of head injury by up to 74%
**Helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists were statistically sig-nificantly different with regards to cycling behaviour, where non-helmeted cyclists were more likely to display risky riding behaviour, while less likely to cycle in risky areas.
**Most notably, limitation relating to confounding by unknown variables have been addressed with the use of police-reported crash data.

None of this is especially novel. I question their last statement, police reported crash data is by no means comprehensive. In fact it is likely that the reporting rates between non-helmet wearers and helmet is significant! But lets not let that get in the way of a ''good' study.

wilddemon wrote:To be honest, I had only heard word of the SMH and The Conversation interpretation of the paper. Good to see that someone has published a more thorough article regarding the paper.

How about we just go to the actual paper then....

The full conclusion:
5. Conclusions

This case–control study of 6745 cyclist casualties resulting from collisions with motor vehicles has indicated that helmet use is significantly associated with reduced risk of head injury by up to 74%. This includes reductions in risk of up to 78% for skull fracture, 72% for intracranial injury, 74% for concussive injury and 80% for open head wounds. The magnitude of the reduction in risk increased when increased severity of injury was considered. DAI constituted a very minor proportion of brain injury. The study confirms the results of many previous case–control studies, while addressing many of the limitations of such studies. Most notably, limitations relating to confounding by unknown variables have been addressed with the use of police-reported crash data.

Helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists were statistically significantly different with regards to cycling behaviour, where
non-helmeted cyclists were more likely to display risky riding behaviour, while less likely to cycle in risky areas. While the net
result was that they were more likely to be involved in more severe crashes, this difference was small. The overall helmet wearing rate
was 75.4%, while only about half of children and adolescents less than 19 years were wearing a helmet. Given the large protective
effect of helmets demonstrated in the present study, this issue should be addressed with preventative action.

Honestly MHL are a joke. They are an abuse of our freedom forced upon cyclists by the government, encouraged by motoring organisations. The elephant in the room that does not seem to get addressed is that it is CARS killing cyclists. With proper education and enforcement we can be like most European cities where cyclists are significantly safer. With proper infrastructure we can be like the Netherlands and Copenhagen where cyclists are protected by good infrastructure. Instead we seem intent on insisting that foam helmets are the solution. A device that mitigates head injuries somewhat but still don't change the fact that you've now been hit by a 1.5tonne piece of metal that will do plenty of damage to you in other ways.

I think all these "researchers" should be sent on a boat to Amsterdam and given a bicycle as transport for a year. THAT sort of research would be far more production. Just look at what Darwin managed.

It is interesting to take note of this rebuttal article:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 7511003228" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The impact of compulsory cycle helmet legislation on cyclist head injuries in New South Wales, Australia: A rejoinder

Abstract
This paper challenges the conclusion of a recent paper by Walter et al. (Accident Analysis and Prevention 2011, doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.05.029) reporting that despite numerous data limitations repealing the helmet legislation in Australia could not be justified. This conclusion is not warranted because of the limited time period used in their analysis and the lack of data beyond a few years before the introduction of legislation, the failure to adequately account for the effect of the phasing in of the legislation, the effect of the marked reduction in child cyclists, and the non-comparability of the pedestrian and cycling injuries and related lack of consideration of the severity of head injuries. The extent to which helmet legislation deters people from cycling is discussed.

Highlights
► This paper challenges the conclusion of a recent paper by Walter et al. (AAP 2011). ► There are significant problems with the assessment of the data by Walter et al. ► Retaining bicycle helmet legislation in Australia is not warranted.