Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[AUbicycles]

Thanks for going off-topic because the topic before was seriously lagging in quality.

Very borderline so please take more time to consider what you are writing so that it is appropriate to this family audience forum.

[human909]

I'm left quite confused by the above comment, I'm not sure what it is really referring to. Is it about discussions about sex in the context of workers compensation? Surely not!? Or are we now becoming like the US where fighting and violences and abuse is acceptable but wardrobe malfunction results in class actions and national inquiries.

[high_tea]

I'm left quite confused by the above comment, I'm not sure what it is really referring to. Is it about discussions about sex in the context of workers compensation? Surely not!? Or are we now becoming like the US where fighting and violences and abuse is acceptable but wardrobe malfunction results in class actions and national inquiries.

I thought it was the toilet comment. I promise I won't do it again!

[London Boy]

From an article in the British Medical Journal:

The authors examined data concerning all 66,000 cycling-related injuries in Canada between 1994 and 2008 – 30% of which were head injuries.

"When baseline trends in cycling-related injury rates were considered, the overall rates of head injuries were not appreciably altered by helmet legislation," they said.

They concluded: "While helmets reduce the risk of head injuries and we encourage their use, in the Canadian context of existing safety campaigns, improvements to the cycling infrastructure, and the passive uptake of helmets, the incremental contribution of provincial helmet legislation to reduce hospital admissions for head injuries seems to have been minimal."

The [British] road safety minister, Stephen Hammond, said: "We encourage cyclists – especially children – to wear helmets to protect them if they have a crash. However, we believe this should remain a matter of individual choice rather than imposing additional regulations which would be difficult to enforce.

[The zob]

Hey....you left a bit out!!

Results: Between 1994 and 2008, 66 716 hospital admissions were for cycling related injuries in Canada. Between 1994 and 2003, the rate of head injuries among young people decreased by 54.0% (95% confidence interval 48.2% to 59.8%) in provinces with helmet legislation compared with 33.1% (23.3% to 42.9%) in provinces and territories without legislation. Among adults, the rate of head injuries decreased by 26.0% (16.0% to 36.3%) in provinces with legislation but remained constant in provinces and territories without legislation.

..........................................................

Strengths and limitations of this study
The National Trauma Registry Minimum Data Set captures information on all hospital admissions for cycling related injuries in Canada. Cyclists who die from their injuries before reaching a hospital are not included. Additional data on emergency room visits would have been beneficial, both to make inferences on the association between helmet legislation and milder head injuries and to refine counts of head injuries in small provinces and in the territories. None the less, before 2002 no province or territory systematically reported data on visits to emergency rooms to a national database. The National Trauma Registry Minimum Data Set also makes no distinction between cyclists injured on-road and off-road (for example, while jumping on BMX bikes or mountain biking), yet provincial helmet laws apply only to on-road cyclists. Helmets are standard in off-road cycling, with usage more than 80% in the 1990s and nearly 100% in recent studies.48 49 50 This increase, coupled with improvements to helmet design, may have contributed to a reduction in bicycle related head injuries in provinces where off-road cycling is common (British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec).

Also from the British Medical Journel (with references )

Effectiveness of bicycle helmets in preventing head injury in children: case-control study
BMJ 1994; 308 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.308.6922.173" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Published 15 January 1994)
Cite this as: BMJ 1994;308:173

S Thomas, C Acton, J Nixon, D Battistutta, W R Pitt, R Clark
Author Affiliations

Correspondence to Dr. Acton
Accepted 28 September 1993

Abstract
Objective : To examine the risk of injury to the head and the effect of wearing helmets in bicycle accidents among children.

Design : Case-control study by questionnaire completed by the children and their carers.

Setting : Two large children's hospitals in Brisbane, Australia.

Subjects : 445 children presenting with bicycle related injuries during 15 April 1991 to 30 June 1992. The cases comprised 102 children who had sustained injury to the upper head including the skull, forehead and scalp or loss of consciousness. The controls were 278 cyclists presenting with injuries other than to the head or face. A further 65 children with injuries to the face were considered as an extra comparison group.

Main outcome measures : Cause and type of injury, wearing of helmet.

Results : Most children (230) were injured after losing control and falling from their bicycle. Only 31 had contact with another moving vehicle. Children with head injury were significantly more likely to have made contact with a moving vehicle than control children (19 (19%) v 12 (4%), P<0.001). Head injuries were more likely to occur on paved surfaces than on grass, gravel, or dirt. Wearing a helmet reduced the risk of head injury by 63% (95% confidence interval 34% to 80%) and of loss of consciousness by 86% (62% to 95%).

This is too easy Cherry picking paragraphs Really....come on man

[human909]

How many times does it need to be said? Nobody here is arguing against the protective benefits of a helmet. You could make the same case for wearing helmets while driving.

But none of that makes a case for making helmets compulsory.

[wilddemon]

How many times does it need to be said? Nobody here is arguing against the protective benefits of a helmet. You could make the same case for wearing helmets while driving.

That's true. But this is the MHL for bicycles thread, not MHL for cars thread.

But none of that makes a case for making helmets compulsory.

You've just argued that you could make the same case for wearing helmets whilst driving. Why can't you use this as an argument for helmets whilst cycling? You are contradicting yourself.

[London Boy]

Hey....you left a bit out!!

This is too easy Cherry picking paragraphs Really....come on man

I kind of assumed that, since the BMJ is a reputable peer-reviewed journal, I could quote the conclusions drawn by the researchers rather than second-guess their analysis.

The problem with quoting the raw accident and injury statistics is that they are incomplete in and of themselves. What seems unarguable is that, with one notable exception, the safest countries (I should say jurisdictions) in which to ride a bicycle are those with the greatest proportion of cyclists in their general populations. That kind of indicates that the best way to make riders safe is to persuade lots of people to ride, not to put barriers in their way.

What those numbers don't show is the relationship between accidents / injuries and miles traveled / journeys taken. They don't show the relationship between injury rates and participation rates, so for all we know the injury rates fell in those provinces with helmet laws because the numbers of riders fell. In fact it tells us very little of value.

So I kind of go back to the researchers' conclusions. Helmet laws make minimal difference to injury rates.

But they do reduce utility cycling (hence the miserable uptake of e.g. Brisbane's CityCycle, compared with similar initiatives in European cities) and they act as a barrier to participation generally. Which means, paradoxically, that the helmet laws actually increase the likelihood of injury. They probably also contribute to the increasing rates of heart disease, diabetes and so on that arise because people take too little exercise.

Etc, kind of thing. It's all been done to death here. It's just that, let's face it, Australia is a nanny state. Australians are not fit to make their own decisions or look after their own interests. Weird, that, but it's just the way it is.

[The zob]

How many times does it need to be said? Nobody here is arguing against the protective benefits of a helmet.

Aye? Almost 12 months ago you wrore this:

Mandatory helmets do not have a health and safety benefit

Is "Health and safety" different to "Protective benefits"?

Anyhoo...back to the cherry picked quote that isn't a quote ......IF the point of that post wasn't to demonstrate that helmets DO NOT increase a cyclist's likelihood to sustain a head injury (Which falls under the heading "Protective benefits" ), then please explain exactly what it was supposed to achieve?

[human909]

Is "Health and safety" different to "Protective benefits"?

Anyhoo...back to the cherry picked quote that isn't a quote ......IF the point of that post wasn't to demonstrate that helmets DO NOT increase a cyclist's likelihood to sustain a head injury (Which falls under the heading "Protective benefits" ), then please explain exactly what it was supposed to achieve?

Sigh. After all this discussion you still are missing the whole point of discussion!

The discussion is over MANDATORY helmet laws!

Mandating helmet laws have resulted in reduced cycling rates and thus reduced safety. Furthermore the negatives health impacts of reduced cycling outweigh any tiny increase in injuries. Finally everybody is still free to wear helmets to protect themselves and they'd be safer than with MHLs!

In fact I encourage helmet wearing if you are partaking in risky forms of cycling.

[DavidS]

How many times does it need to be said? Nobody here is arguing against the protective benefits of a helmet. You could make the same case for wearing helmets while driving.

That's true. But this is the MHL for bicycles thread, not MHL for cars thread.

But none of that makes a case for making helmets compulsory.

You've just argued that you could make the same case for wearing helmets whilst driving. Why can't you use this as an argument for helmets whilst cycling? You are contradicting yourself.

Wow, what a weak argument.

Human909 argued that you could make the same case for mandatory helmets for driving. But the fact is we don't, and the question obviously arises as to why some do mount an argument for mandatory helmet use for cyclists. It is a great way to get the pesky cyclists off the roads though, certainly discourages everyone except those committed to cycling from using their bikes.

DS

[wilddemon]

Wow, what a weak argument.

Human909 argued that you could make the same case for mandatory helmets for driving. But the fact is we don't, and the question obviously arises as to why some do mount an argument for mandatory helmet use for cyclists. It is a great way to get the pesky cyclists off the roads though, certainly discourages everyone except those committed to cycling from using their bikes.

DS

Sorry I don't follow your logic.
OK, make a case for mandatory helmets for driving if you want. But I don't understand what place that has here.

[high_tea]

As I understand it, it's an argument that transport policy is hopelessly motorist-centric; that MHLs for motorists don't exist because they would inconvenience motorists(cf MHLs for cyclists) and that were the policy to change so that the different groups were treated equally we would have MHLs for both or not at all. I buy this argument (although my money's on MHLs for both). As I've said before, were such a change to occur, MHLs wouldn't be the most interesting or important consequence, not by a long chalk.

EDIT: clarification

[human909]

Sorry I don't follow your logic.
OK, make a case for mandatory helmets for driving if you want. But I don't understand what place that has here.

The same case already exists for MHLs for car drivers! So if there is a case for MHL for cyclists then why not for motorists? The inconsistent reasoning is simply stunning.

Possibly because it is inconvenient and voters wouldn't tolerate it? In truth no real case has been made for MHLs for cyclists. All the research doesn't even look at likelihood, only consequence.

[simonn]

All the research doesn't even look at likelihood, only consequence.

Maybe that is because bicycle helmets exist to try and mitigate consequence and on an individual level have absolutely no effect on likelihood.

[The zob]

This is a grouse thread. I've been on countless forums (ALL of them minority forums, just like this one), and have seen (and participated) in many, many myopic, single issue threads arguing over our percieved rights (or lack thereof) as are relevant to our minority pursuits.....and this one takes the all time prize for the use of intelligentsia discussion to obscure a basic cry of "I don't want to".

Can somebody help me out here? I see the issue in a certain way, and wonder if I'm not seeing it correctly.

1. MHL's were introduced to improve the safety of Cyclists.

2. The opponents claim that in general there is no appreciable benefit in wearing a helmet (I am discounting "high risk" cycling" here....although what THAT constitutes is a whole other issue )

3. The opponents claim that MHL's have led to a downturn in cycling.

4. The downturn in cycling has the effect of reducing cyclist's safety through lessor numbers on the roads, which in turn leads to a reduced motorist awareness of cyclists.

Please....can anybody tell me if the above is correct? Without studies and statistics to back up your pro/anti opinion? I'm not looking for validation of the POV, just wondering if I've got it right?

[KenGS]

Please....can anybody tell me if the above is correct? Without studies and statistics to back up your pro/anti opinion? I'm not looking for validation of the POV, just wondering if I've got it right?

No, You've not got it right.
The argument is that nobody can come up with a reason why banning bareheaded cycling has a nett benefit to society.

[The zob]

Thanks Ken

Please....can anybody tell me if the above is correct? Without studies and statistics to back up your pro/anti opinion? I'm not looking for validation of the POV, just wondering if I've got it right?

No, You've not got it right.
The argument is that nobody can come up with a reason why banning bareheaded cycling has a nett benefit to society.

I would have thought that part is easy

Wether or not cyclists can look beyond their part of the world and see that is another matter

[human909]

This is a grouse thread. I've been on countless forums (ALL of them minority forums, just like this one), and have seen (and participated) in many, many myopic, single issue threads arguing over our percieved rights (or lack thereof) as are relevant to our minority pursuits.....and this one takes the all time prize for the use of intelligentsia discussion to obscure a basic cry of "I don't want to".

How many times does it need to be said! Many proponents of removing MHL, including myself, are happy wearing helmets!!!

But that isn't to diminish the basic desire for freedom. You describe it as "I don't want to" I describe it as a freedom most of the world has. Do you have objections to a desire for freedom of choice? I personally find it sad Zob that you mock people who desire freedom. It is a sad indictment on Australia and yourself. The rest of the world is laughing at our MHLs.

4. The downturn in cycling has the effect of reducing cyclist's safety through lessor numbers on the roads, which in turn leads to a reduced motorist awareness of cyclists.

Exactly.

Cycling in Austalia has been devastated by MHLs.







Of course who cares what is occuring in the rest of the world. Australia has the right to make their own mistakes.

I would have thought that part is easy

Wether or not cyclists can look beyond their part of the world and see that is another matter

You seem to be the one here incapable or unwilling to do this.

The rest of the world lives just fine without MHLs and is generally much safer for cyclists in comparable modern countries without helmet laws.

[Howzat]

1. MHL's were introduced to improve the safety of Cyclists.

2. The opponents claim that in general there is no appreciable benefit in wearing a helmet (I am discounting "high risk" cycling" here....although what THAT constitutes is a whole other issue )

3. The opponents claim that MHL's have led to a downturn in cycling.

4. The downturn in cycling has the effect of reducing cyclist's safety through lessor numbers on the roads, which in turn leads to a reduced motorist awareness of cyclists.

The problem is that the benefits and costs are hard to establish definitively because the data are incomplete, inconclusive, and are not independent of other factors. So what happens in grouse threads like this is people can cherry-pick their stats to suit their helmet preference.

Arguments quickly become fact-free assertion-fests. There is some evidence for #3, especially at the time of helmet law introduction, although cycling is now undergoing a resurgence even though helmet laws haven't been repealed. There is little solid evidence for #2 and #4.

Even the evidence for reduction in cycling numbers isn't independent of other effects. For example, kids ride less to school these days. They also walk less and take the bus less. They're playing video games in the back of Mummy's luxury 4WD more. That's a reduction in cycling, but has nothing to do with helmet laws.

Occasionally some sunlight shines in. Dedicated anti-helmet academic Chris Rissel from UNSW - who turns out to be a primary source for #3 down the years - had a scientific published paper formally withdrawn a couple of years ago, after getting caught fudging the numbers to support his position.

I ended up on the pro-helmet side by a meta-analysis from incidents like that. Some anti-helmet arguments are good points. But they are accompanied by so many unpersuasive ones that, taken as a whole and averaged, anti-helmet arguments are unpersuasive.

[The zob]

This is a grouse thread. I've been on countless forums (ALL of them minority forums, just like this one), and have seen (and participated) in many, many myopic, single issue threads arguing over our percieved rights (or lack thereof) as are relevant to our minority pursuits.....and this one takes the all time prize for the use of intelligentsia discussion to obscure a basic cry of "I don't want to".

How many times does it need to be said! Many proponents of removing MHL, including myself, are happy wearing helmets!!!

But that isn't to diminish the basic desire for freedom. You describe it as "I don't want to" I describe it as a freedom most of the world has. Do you have objections to a desire for freedom of choice? I personally find it sad Zob that you mock people who desire freedom. It is a sad indictment on Australia and yourself. The rest of the world is laughing at our MHLs.

4. The downturn in cycling has the effect of reducing cyclist's safety through lessor numbers on the roads, which in turn leads to a reduced motorist awareness of cyclists.

Exactly.

Cycling in Austalia has been devastated by MHLs.

First off....I owe you an apology. I do come across as mocking, and that's neither fair nor intentional.

Aye...you know what? I was watching that video while I was writing this, and I just saw the question "Why don't you wear a helmet?". And I'm beyond offended by it. That bloke who said "because it's gay".....that's the poster boy for not wearing helmets? That's a reasonable, mature response? To vilify another minority group? You have gotta be kidding me!!! AFAIC, that one statement has negated that entire video, and anybody who puts that up is perpetuating the bigotry and hatred that is aimed at the Gay community.

So, in light of that, mocking a person who uses that video to support his/her POV is acceptable.

[The zob]

Oh.....you've taken it off. Nice to see you accept that you made a mistake in using a hate based video to support your position.

Apology is back on

[KenGS]

Thanks Ken

Please....can anybody tell me if the above is correct? Without studies and statistics to back up your pro/anti opinion? I'm not looking for validation of the POV, just wondering if I've got it right?

No, You've not got it right.
The argument is that nobody can come up with a reason why banning bareheaded cycling has a nett benefit to society.

I would have thought that part is easy

Wether or not cyclists can look beyond their part of the world and see that is another matter

Apparently it isn't easy. I've not found anything of the sort, have you?
I truly do not understand the point behind your final sentence

[human909]

Aye...you know what? I was watching that video while I was writing this, and I just saw the question "Why don't you wear a helmet?". And I'm beyond offended by it. That bloke who said "because it's gay".....that's the poster boy for not wearing helmets? That's a reasonable, mature response? To vilify another minority group? You have gotta be kidding me!!! AFAIC, that one statement has negated that entire video, and anybody who puts that up is perpetuating the bigotry and hatred that is aimed at the Gay community.

So, in light of that, mocking a person who uses that video to support his/her POV is acceptable.

Enjoy your tantrum dude. I took it down because I knew you would run around like a headless chook. The video isn't about hatred or biggotry. Its about regular people cycling and their opinions of helmets. The

Oh.....you've taken it off. Nice to see you accept that you made a mistake in using a hate based video to support your position.

Don't be a lunatic. It isn't a hate based video. It is a video that has one guy making an immature use of a word that leads it open to tantrum throwing as demonstrated well by yourself.

I ended up on the pro-helmet side by a meta-analysis from incidents like that. Some anti-helmet arguments are good points. But they are accompanied by so many unpersuasive ones that, taken as a whole and averaged, anti-helmet arguments are unpersuasive.

Get it right dude. The topic is about MANDATORY helmets.

If the arguments are so unpersuasive how come so few countries have followed Australia's enlightened lead on cycling safety?

[Ken Ho]

This is a grouse thread. I've been on countless forums (ALL of them minority forums, just like this one), and have seen (and participated) in many, many myopic, single issue threads arguing over our percieved rights (or lack thereof) as are relevant to our minority pursuits.....and this one takes the all time prize for the use of intelligentsia discussion to obscure a basic cry of "I don't want to".

Can somebody help me out here? I see the issue in a certain way, and wonder if I'm not seeing it correctly.

1. MHL's were introduced to improve the safety of Cyclists.

2. The opponents claim that in general there is no appreciable benefit in wearing a helmet (I am discounting "high risk" cycling" here....although what THAT constitutes is a whole other issue )

3. The opponents claim that MHL's have led to a downturn in cycling.

4. The downturn in cycling has the effect of reducing cyclist's safety through lessor numbers on the roads, which in turn leads to a reduced motorist awareness of cyclists.

Please....can anybody tell me if the above is correct? Without studies and statistics to back up your pro/anti opinion? I'm not looking for validation of the POV, just wondering if I've got it right?

I'm pretty sure I said "I don't want to". I don't mind admitting that. Trouble is, it's not just me. It's many people, and thats why cycling participation was decimated byv tqhe intro of MHL. And it's participation that determines "safety"
There is no doubt that. Ycling is an intrinsically safe activity. There is also no doubt that the danger that helmets purport to protect us from, is directly related to extrinsic factors such as mmmmmmmmm, traffic.
It s all been said, and it's all obvious.
Me, I hate the dunce cap, make no secret of it. I would wear a helmet only in the most hazardous riding environments, and then accept that it would offer basic barrier protection at best, and most likely disintegrate on impact as soon as my speed appreciably exceeded the pitiful 20 kph that the AS tests to. It would not keep me alive if I were hit by a ute or fell under the wheels of a concrete truck.
There is a ton of data to support the decimation of utility cycling by MHL, but it happened a while ago now, and I don't know how to access it. It exists as sales figures, not as "studies".