Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

User avatar
Ross
Posts: 5373
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Ross » Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:10 am

Fake Bike Helmets: Cheap But Dangerous
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/16/64737721 ... -dangerous

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7960
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby find_bruce » Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:40 am

I find it interesting that few seem to appreciate the role manufacturers played - in introducing the special Australian standard as a non-tariff protection from competition & making that standard mandatory to increase helmet sales.

There is, AFAIK, no Australian manufacture, but the legacy lives on

BobtheBuilder
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:33 am
Location: Remote NT

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby BobtheBuilder » Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:00 am

fat and old wrote:Welcome to the helmet thread. All discussion relating to the use (mandatory or otherwise) of helmets belongs here.


Point taken. Discussion unrelated to mandatory or laws is allowed here.

Maybe we need a new thread called Mandatory helmet laws so can discuss Mandatory helmet laws without being sidetracked by I like helmets. Or another one - Possible uses of helmets. I'd say showering is a big area of possible helmet expansion, there are quite a lot of serious fall injuries in bathrooms.

fat and old wrote:Having a sook or claiming annoyance because you don’t like it is worthy of a 2 year old.


Seriously? This is productive debate? If you're going to be snarky, at least make stupid jokes, don't stoop to ad hominem

This might be of interest -
Disagreements are allowed, though without personal attacks and flaming. Argue the idea not the person.
from the Forum guidelines - http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewt ... =6&t=18364

Philistine
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Philistine » Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:26 am

BobtheBuilder wrote:
Disagreements are allowed, though without personal attacks and flaming. Argue the idea not the person.

It is a custom more honor’d in the breach than the observance.

I wish I could claim this quotation as my own but, sadly, I can't (no - it wasn't the Velominati!).

fat and old
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:39 am

Fair point on the ad hominem, but tell me how you refute the argument that it’s incorrect to have people post relevant thoughts? I tried to do that. Others subsequently wrote that it was not relevant, that it was annoying, that it was a deliberate provocation (which it was :lol: although entirely relevant). The thread was claimed as “their own”, and no ideas or posts other than those acceptable were to be tolerated. With notable exceptions of course. There’s fault enough to go around.

On the question of helmet efficacy in spite of reasonable answers given by H909 and Thoglette I’m still not comfortable with the idea of it being irrelevant to MHL’s. I understand what they’re saying and agree with most of it but cannot see how the basic original idea of MHL’s can be ignored? The “founding fathers” perceived an issue with cyclist deaths. Helmets were decided on to be the front line of defence (that sentence right there sums up the absurdity of MHL’s). Post introduction research showed a reduction in head injuries. Helmets are good. Surely whether or not a helmet is effective at preventing head injuries is relevant to both sides of the argument? If so, pro-MHL’ers “did the right thing” in their eyes? If not, anti MHL’ers can illustrate the fallacy of MHL’s? Simple.

fat and old
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:43 am

find_bruce wrote:I find it interesting that few seem to appreciate the role manufacturers played - in introducing the special Australian standard as a non-tariff protection from competition & making that standard mandatory to increase helmet sales.

There is, AFAIK, no Australian manufacture, but the legacy lives on


I’ve often seen Rosebank described as a player here, but have never seen the evidence. I assume it’s around the interweb somewhere?

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7960
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby find_bruce » Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:29 am

Lobbyists try hard not to leave footprints

The telltale is if you go back to the original standard & look at who was on the committee & look at their interests - as I remember Rosebank was there via the Australian Chamber of Manufacturers & the AWU - once manufacturing ceased in Australia, the AWU dropped off the committee.

Rosebank had their technical consultant & a number of other employees give evidence to the House of Reps standing committee report on Motorcycle and Bicycle Helmet Safety Inquiry in 1985

fat and old
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:07 am

Thanks FindBruce. 22 pages in and I’m figuring that advocacy groups must despise the Geelong Bikeplan Study in 1977 :lol:

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4299
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Thoglette » Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:23 pm

fat and old wrote:Post introduction research showed a reduction in head injuries.

Ah, no.

That's where this line of argument dashes itself against the rocks of reality.

Despite their best efforts, Olivier et al. and their analogs overseas have been unable to show any thing like a reliable correlation (let alone causation) between MHLs and head injuries. Or more specifically, head injury rates compared to other injury rates and independent of journey type. There's a lot of work going on now trying to find out why this is so. And yes, I've read every single bloody word written on the subject I've been able to find.

What has been reliably shown is the correlation between MHLs and reduced participation rates. There's also now reasonable evidence of causation, even in the presence of the strong confounding factors of road design and driver behaviour.

What has been reliably shown is causation between low levels of active transport and high obesity rates.

What emerges is a clear picture that MHLs have a nett negative impact on overall population health.

Again, this isn't me making this stuff up. This is the considered opinion of public health epidemiologists based on twenty something years of research. If you read only one thing, read the last paragraph in the editorial in the British Medical Journal by Goldacre, B; and Spiegelhalter, D. (BMJ 2013;346:f3817)

The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct benefits—which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies—but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk


Remember, MHLs were not introduced on the basis of evidence but rather on the basis of faith.

fat and old wrote:Helmets are good.

Agreed.

And MHLs are bad.

I realise that fitting both of these ideas intp one's head at the same time requires a certain level of mental clarity which is beyond the average shockjock. But it can be done.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

fat and old
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:12 pm

Ad hominem Ad hominem!!! :lol:

Those were not my assertions (nor do I use them in support of MHL’s) Thoglette, they were what the various state governments put out in various reports and justifications. I’m repeating them is all in an effort to describe why I’m looking at the efficacy argument. I can supply various references if you want but I’m sure you’re aware of more than me.

BobtheBuilder
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:33 am
Location: Remote NT

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby BobtheBuilder » Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:01 pm

fat and old wrote:Ad hominem Ad hominem!!! :lol:


Ad hominem is an attack on the personal attributes of an interlocutor. It is not an engagement with the arguments of an interlocutor, which is what you seem to be calling ad hominem.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4299
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Thoglette » Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:38 pm

fat and old wrote:Thoglette, they were what the various state governments put out in various reports and justifications. I’m repeating them is all in an effort to describe why I’m looking at the efficacy argument.


Happy with all that but I'm not seeing anything from anyone on efficacy which makes it an argument for MHLs, (if you can follow that slightly convoluted sentence).

The whole problem with an argument for MHLs based on efficacy is that it's solving a problem which is minor and, where a reasonable risk exists, almost completely mitigated by existing voluntary use of helmets.

To put it another way: if the efficacy argument (indeed any argument for MHLs) carried weight, Holland and Tokyo (for starters) would be awash with bicycling related head-injuries.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

fat and old
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:50 pm

BobtheBuilder wrote:
fat and old wrote:Ad hominem Ad hominem!!! :lol:


Ad hominem is an attack on the personal attributes of an interlocutor. It is not an engagement with the arguments of an interlocutor, which is what you seem to be calling ad hominem.


That post was the third time that Thoglette has referred to shock jocks in addressing me or my posts. It may be a coincidence. Or maybe he’s using me as a metaphor. I’m addressing that possibility. I don’t however take it to heart or take offence either way, hence the laughter. If I’m wrong good. If I’m right good. Either way, have a laugh, it’s good for you :D

There’s enough ad hominem, tu quoque, tone arguments, logical fallacies, informal fallacies, genetic fallacies, confirmation bias and especially whataboutism’s for everyone to get a slice.

fat and old
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:02 pm

Thoglette wrote:
fat and old wrote:Thoglette, they were what the various state governments put out in various reports and justifications. I’m repeating them is all in an effort to describe why I’m looking at the efficacy argument.


Happy with all that but I'm not seeing anything from anyone on efficacy which makes it an argument for MHLs, (if you can follow that slightly convoluted sentence).

The whole problem with an argument for MHLs based on efficacy is that it's solving a problem which is minor and, where a reasonable risk exists, almost completely mitigated by existing voluntary use of helmets.

To put it another way: if the efficacy argument (indeed any argument for MHLs) carried weight, Holland and Tokyo (for starters) would be awash with bicycling related head-injuries.


I see that. Our legislators apparently did/do not. Particularly when instigating this law. You’re aware of that, and the research and stats trotted out to support the laws. Or am I wrong? Was efficacy of helmets not considered at all during the introduction period before and review period shortly after the introduction of MHL’s by the powers that introduced them? Have I misinterpreted the various reports etc that I’ve read? The parliamentary committee report find Bruce linked

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bu ... _pp360.pdf

Doesn’t this look at that?

If it helps at all I agree that the efficacy of helmets is a non starter in MHL support in light of the evidence you and others present.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4299
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Thoglette » Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:45 pm

fat and old wrote:That post was the third time that Thoglette has referred to shock jocks in addressing me or my posts. It may be a coincidence.

Fair observation, but not aimed at you.

It is aimed at a common malaise: the constant repetition of debunked materials by certain parts of the media. Shock jocks are the easy target (as are polititions) but you also get it from certain "public health experts" (see the transcripts from Leyonhjelm's 2015 senate enquiry). The ABC is guilty of it as well, always having an "OMG my helmet saved my life" sidebar in any discussion on MHLs.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4299
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Thoglette » Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:23 pm

fat and old wrote:Have I misinterpreted the various reports etc that I’ve read? The parliamentary committee report find Bruce linked

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bu ... _pp360.pdf

Doesn’t this look at that?

Indeed, it spends most of its time telling us just how wonderful helmets are.

It is a classic example of MHL wishful thinking and victim blaming. Even the terms of reference talk not of "cyclist safety" but of "bicycle helmet safety".

It spends lots of time justifying MHLs without actually addressing the things it identifies as problems (driver behaviour 13, 73, 77, 79 118; that children are the main victims 19, that road design is poor 73) but always manages to blame the cyclists (Recommendations 4 and 8, paragraphs 80,81,82,83,84,85,120,121,163,164,165,166,167 etc - do I really need to go on ?).

It recognises that the data is, well, crap (141, and recommendation 9) but still they push for MHLs (basically 146 onwards and recommendations 2 and 12(d))

It makes or repeats plenty of unsupported claims (24,35,139) based on just two studies of skewed data sets (24,36). There's no consideration of whole of population impacts beyond cost of the helmet (137, 167) and where to store it (170).

My favourite quote is this:
People should be encouraged to see helmet use not as an infringement of their freedom but as an opportunity to increase the pleasure of their cycling by dramatically raising its safety.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

human909
Posts: 9056
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Mon Oct 01, 2018 8:39 pm

Thoglette wrote:
People should be encouraged to see helmet use not as an infringement of their freedom but as an opportunity to increase the pleasure of their cycling by dramatically raising its safety.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That is a fantasy land comment.

Just like so many reports, investigations and inquiries it starts with a premise and seeks to prove that premise while ignoring any inconvenient reality. (No different to many police investigations into cyclist deaths really.)

I choose to wear a helmet for my more risky activities. I've never seen it as an opportunity to increase the pleasure of their cycling by dramatically raising its safety. It fact in pretty much all the activities it is a damn annoyance. (Ski helmets in -20C temperatures have some pretty good comfort benefits from warmth!)

fat and old
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:20 pm

The further I dig, the more I get the impression that Gov (both State and Fed) approached this from a dealing with children perspective. There’s much evidence to support that view. Certainly by 1980 the Victorian government had come to the conclusion that whilst transport cycling was rising ( bicycle sales up by 600% between 1966 and 1976) it was primarily teenage and younger children.

1.2 Data on bicycle usage is limited. However, surveys in the Geelong area indicate that 77 percent of bike owners and 90 percent of regular bicycle users are students. figures for Melbourne and other urban areas in the State could be expected to be of a similar order. The current trend is for an increasing number of adults to own and ride bicycles .

1.3 This trend can be expected to continue in the foreseeable future, although the number of bicycle trips per day by adults is always likely to remain a very small percentage of the total daily trips by adults using all forms of transport.


2.6 The contribution by the Country Roads Board
a section on bicycles. It says that b cycles are part of the transport system, and that provision should be made for
them. It indicates that the majority of bicycle owners and riders are students, and that while the contribution of bicycles to urban commuter travel is increasing, it is still small and likely to always remain so. The Board's submission concludes that the bicycle serves a useful role in providing individual services to that section of th community with relatively
few other transport options.


By 1985 the inquiry into helmets was aimed squarely at schoolchildren with assorted projects to subsidise helmets through schools; even the use of Molly to promote them (who can forget the average Countdown audience :lol: ).

I wonder if things would have been different if Gov. thought it was dealing with adults?

Note that I’m neither supporting or disputing the data on which Gov. made any decisions or recommendations. Just presenting what it professed to believe at that time.
Last edited by fat and old on Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DavidS
Posts: 2489
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby DavidS » Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:26 pm

Ross wrote:Fake Bike Helmets: Cheap But Dangerous
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/16/64737721 ... -dangerous


Yeah, but do they prevent fines?

DS
Image

Cannondale Quick Speed 2, Allegro T1

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4299
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Thoglette » Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:55 am

fat and old wrote:The further I dig, the more I get the impression that Gov (both State and Fed) approached this from a dealing with children perspective.


I consider to be a smoke screen (see "Won't someone think of the children") as it is completely at odds with the bulk of the recommendations arising.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7960
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby find_bruce » Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:34 am

Thoglette wrote:
fat and old wrote:Have I misinterpreted the various reports etc that I’ve read? The parliamentary committee report find Bruce linked

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bu ... _pp360.pdf

Doesn’t this look at that?

Indeed, it spends most of its time telling us just how wonderful helmets are.

It is a classic example of MHL wishful thinking and victim blaming. Even the terms of reference talk not of "cyclist safety" but of "bicycle helmet safety".
...
My favourite quote is this:
People should be encouraged to see helmet use not as an infringement of their freedom but as an opportunity to increase the pleasure of their cycling by dramatically raising its safety.

You seem surprised - did you look at who was giving evidence. Who did you think would give evidence that compulsory helmets were a bad idea - Rosebank ?

ironhanglider
Posts: 2373
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:44 pm
Location: Middle East, Melbourne

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby ironhanglider » Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:10 pm

DavidS wrote:
Ross wrote:Fake Bike Helmets: Cheap But Dangerous
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/16/64737721 ... -dangerous


Yeah, but do they prevent fines?

DS


Probably... In that an average police officer would see a person riding a bike wearing a helmet and wouldn't waste their time pulling them over to ensure that it was an approved helmet. I bought a helmet when I was living overseas and continued to wear it in Australia when I returned, despite the lack of a sticker. I did get an approved helmet for racing in though.

However I do see a scenario of where a person is seriously injured through someone else's actions, and a the lack of an approved helmet is used as a reason to reduce the compensation payable, even if the injury bears no relation to the wearing of the helmet.

Cheers,

Cameron
Image

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 5522
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Comedian » Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:22 pm

human909 wrote:
Thoglette wrote:
People should be encouraged to see helmet use not as an infringement of their freedom but as an opportunity to increase the pleasure of their cycling by dramatically raising its safety.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That is a fantasy land comment.

Just like so many reports, investigations and inquiries it starts with a premise and seeks to prove that premise while ignoring any inconvenient reality. (No different to many police investigations into cyclist deaths really.)

I choose to wear a helmet for my more risky activities. I've never seen it as an opportunity to increase the pleasure of their cycling by dramatically raising its safety. It fact in pretty much all the activities it is a damn annoyance. (Ski helmets in -20C temperatures have some pretty good comfort benefits from warmth!)


I would choose to wear a helmet for my more risky cycling activities too - yet I'm not allowed to. Riding to school, the shops.. all the little local trips I'd love to not have to wear one but alas. I guess I should just drive instead.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4299
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

From the "now there's a surprise, NOT" files....

Postby Thoglette » Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:59 am

"An analysis by the Toole Group charted helmet use against fatality rates across eight countries. Riders in the U.S. had the highest rates of helmet use among the countries included. But American cyclists also had the highest fatality rate per distance traveled. "

Seth Haberman Tweet

Yes, I'm looking for the source document.

Getting closer 2016 post here original chart here

Countries: US, Finland, Germany, France, Sweden, UK, Denmark, Netherlands

Original data or study still a little harder to find.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 4299
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Teschke, Koehoorn and Shen, 2015 BMJ Open

Postby Thoglette » Thu Oct 25, 2018 12:21 pm

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.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brumby33, CycloVelo, Philistine