Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

fat and old
Posts: 2561
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Fri May 19, 2017 11:02 am

Thoglette wrote:
fat and old wrote:The anti-mhl'er is more than happy to resort to personal experience to support their POV, yet howls it down when used by a pro helmet wearer (and I use that expression explicitly.


I'm going to stick to the logical problem with this statement. Which takes me back to my very first comment on this matter, which I will repeat using your terminology. That being: I am both anti MHL and pro helmet. This is a logically consistent position.

Your statement confuses these two related but separate concepts. As a result you're not going to get a satisfactory outcome from a discussion based on such a statement .


Fair enough. My statement confuses the two concepts. I don't see why that inhibits the ability of those who use IP's experience (I'm using that as it's well documented and well quoted by many here. It's recent and makes selection of an example easy.) from explaining why they continue to use it. In spite of it being non-factual etc etc.

What I'm seeing here is "do what I say, not what I do". Unless it's expected of others to point this out?

It's a very simple question really.

Mububban
Posts: 796
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:19 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Mububban » Fri May 19, 2017 12:32 pm

Thoglette wrote:...I am both anti MHL and pro helmet.....


I'd put myself into this category. I've just come back from Japan and seeing so many commuting cyclists, none with helmets, highlighted the negative impact that MHLs have on casual cyclist participation.

The only people I saw wearing helmets were 6 roadies in lycra, and kids on their own bikes under the age of roughly 12. Kids in bike seats on their parents bikes wore no helmets.
Everyone else tootled along slow and steady, weaving through pedestrian traffic and on and off the roads and footpaths as required, with no helmet.
When you are driving your car, you are not stuck IN traffic - you ARE the traffic!!!

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 7949
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby MichaelB » Fri May 19, 2017 1:04 pm

Mububban wrote:
Thoglette wrote:...I am both anti MHL and pro helmet.....


I'd put myself into this category. I've just come back from Japan and seeing so many commuting cyclists, none with helmets, highlighted the negative impact that MHLs have on casual cyclist participation.

The only people I saw wearing helmets were 6 roadies in lycra, and kids on their own bikes under the age of roughly 12. Kids in bike seats on their parents bikes wore no helmets.
Everyone else tootled along slow and steady, weaving through pedestrian traffic and on and off the roads and footpaths as required, with no helmet.


Whilst that sounds grand when things go well, go visit a rehab centre for people with acquired brain injury or speak to families impacted by such an event and you'll realise that just because most of the time it's all good, when things go wrong, it is life altering. Not only for the person directly involved, but all those other family members as well.

human909
Posts: 7995
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Fri May 19, 2017 1:43 pm

MichaelB wrote:Whilst that sounds grand when things go well, go visit a rehab centre for people with acquired brain injury or speak to families impacted by such an event and you'll realise that just because most of the time it's all good, when things go wrong, it is life altering. Not only for the person directly involved, but all those other family members as well.


And yet most of those people aren't cyclists. They are motorists, drinkers, surfers, home handymen or participants in countless other activities including people slipping in the shower. Should helmets be mandatory for these activities? Nobody is disputing that brain injuries are bad. So why do we keep going back to this.

What is in clear dispute is the health benefits of MHLs. And most of the evidence points to negative health impacts of MHLs. Inactivity remains the bigger health concern by a massive margin this cannot be ignored when talking about health impacts of MHLs.

fat and old wrote:I don't see why that inhibits the ability of those who use IP's experience (I'm using that as it's well documented and well quoted by many here. It's recent and makes selection of an example easy.) from explaining why they continue to use it. In spite of it being non-factual etc etc.

Il Padrone's experience isn't 'non-factual'. (Unless you think he is lying or misrecollecting). Sure it is a small and local sample size with non exact statistical count but hey, it still has a larger data set that that used by the recently quoted "research".

Like I keep saying personal experiences aren't being "howled down". Counter-factual claims with little to no evidence along with emotively selective claims like above are treated with the discredit they deserve.

HINT: You don't assess the risk of something by simply walking into a place where those who were unlucky enough to be injured congregate.

fat and old
Posts: 2561
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Fri May 19, 2017 2:50 pm

human909 wrote:Il Padrone's experience isn't 'non-factual'. (Unless you think he is lying or misrecollecting).


Of course I don't think he was lying. I don't know if he was "misrecollecting"...I wasn't there. How can you assure me that they are indeed factual?

Like I keep saying personal experiences aren't being "howled down". Counter-factual claims with little to no evidence along with emotively selective claims like above are treated with the discredit they deserve.


So MB's doctor is to be held in lower esteem/your choice of word/ than IP? There was no chance that IP had an emotionally selective claim going on here?

I'm still seeing two standards. We'll have to agree to disagree. :)

human909
Posts: 7995
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Fri May 19, 2017 3:07 pm

fat and old wrote:Of course I don't think he was lying. I don't know if he was "misrecollecting"...I wasn't there. How can you assure me that they are indeed factual?

:?: Without getting too philosophical how do we know anything is a fact? I have no reason to doubt the facts as presented by Il Padrone. Feel free to debate the conclusion or call into question his credibility but that is for you do. Why do I have to "assure (you) that they are indeed factual"?

fat and old wrote:So MB's doctor is to be held in lower esteem/your choice of word/ than IP? There was no chance that IP had an emotionally selective claim going on here?

MB's doctor wasn't presenting facts.

Apples and oranges here.

fat and old
Posts: 2561
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Fri May 19, 2017 3:26 pm

human909 wrote: Feel free to debate the conclusion or call into question his credibility but that is for you do. Why do I have to "assure (you) that they are indeed factual"?


I'm not questioning IP's credibility here. I'm questioning the credibility of those who use his (or indeed any....remember, I only used this as it was a simple, relevant example. If I can be bothered I'll trawl the 300 odd pages to find another if it means I won't be accused of character assassination) anecdote whilst claiming that the pro-helmet collective cannot use their own (anecdotes).

As for why? You're presenting his anecdote (in this instance) as evidence that MHL's are bad. I thought rational discussion meant we had to use incontrovertible facts?

human909
Posts: 7995
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Fri May 19, 2017 4:12 pm

fat and old wrote:I thought rational discussion meant we had to use incontrovertible facts?

No. You are confusing facts with rationality. They are VASTLY different things. In fact you can have create logical and rational arguments which are based entirely on false data.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=rati ... e&ie=UTF-8

For example the research paper link here earlier. I have no reason to dispute the facts they they presented. However to treat their conclusions as anything meaningful is extremely generous.

This paper analyzes changes in the frequency of cycling to school and helmet wearing after the introduction of a mandatory helmet law, and attempts to identify factors associated with the acceptance of helmet use.
....
The implementation of the helmet-use law did not have a negative impact on the frequency of cycling to school.

Ummm.... Right. So you survey 16 child cyclists. Which barely increased their helmet usage during the period of MHL introduction and you somehow make a conclusion like that.... Talk about misleading research! (Again. No facts are in dispute. Just the validity of their conclusions to apply to any population beyond the population being surveyed.)

fat and old wrote:As for why? You're presenting his anecdote (in this instance) as evidence that MHL's are bad.

His anecdote provided reasonable evidence on the behaviour of the school children in his school at the time of the MHL introduction. No more, no less.... But from my understanding it involved a far higher sample size that the previous research paper, it involved Australian MHL enforcement and its local effects.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18082
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby mikesbytes » Fri May 19, 2017 7:03 pm

So nobody here has the qualifications or experience to tell me that I should disregard what the doctors in the hospital has told me
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 28870
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Mulger bill » Fri May 19, 2017 8:49 pm

Sixteen...

A research paper with a sample size of 16...

Why didn't they just start a facebook poll? :roll:
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18082
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby mikesbytes » Fri May 19, 2017 9:23 pm

Mulger bill wrote:Sixteen...

A research paper with a sample size of 16...

Why didn't they just start a facebook poll? :roll:
Yes, I've been advised that you need a sample size of 50 to make any sort of analysis. In most cases you probably need a lot more than than that again..
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

ball bearing
Posts: 885
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:43 pm
Location: Watching the ships on the Southern Ocean

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby ball bearing » Fri May 19, 2017 9:28 pm

mikesbytes wrote:
Mulger bill wrote:Sixteen...

A research paper with a sample size of 16...

Why didn't they just start a facebook poll? :roll:
Yes, I've been advised that you need a sample size of 50 to make any sort of analysis. In most cases you probably need a lot more than than that again..

I couldn't give a stuff about statistics. I have been in two accidents where I am certain that my helmet has protected me from a severe head trauma. I know several other cyclists who have experienced the same. That's enough to convince me.

As for the decline in the numbers of people on bikes - this is occurring worldwide, even in places with no MHL.

I will now exit this toxic thread.

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18082
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby mikesbytes » Fri May 19, 2017 9:39 pm

ball bearing wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:
Mulger bill wrote:Sixteen...

A research paper with a sample size of 16...

Why didn't they just start a facebook poll? :roll:
Yes, I've been advised that you need a sample size of 50 to make any sort of analysis. In most cases you probably need a lot more than than that again..

I couldn't give a stuff about statistics. I have been in two accidents where I am certain that my helmet has protected me from a severe head trauma. I know several other cyclists who have experienced the same. That's enough to convince me.

As for the decline in the numbers of people on bikes - this is occurring worldwide, even in places with no MHL.

I will now exit this toxic thread.
I'm with you there, if you were there then, while you are not an expert, you have a better insight into what happened than the other non experts who are going off what you wrote. There's smart ways to repeal the H law and putting yourself as a head trama expert isn't one for the people here
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

uart
Posts: 731
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby uart » Sat May 20, 2017 1:50 am

ball bearing wrote:I couldn't give a stuff about statistics. I have been in two accidents where I am certain that my helmet has protected me from a severe head trauma.
Which is exactly why we don't need MHL. I've been cycling since well before MHL, and almost all roadies and sport related cyclists voluntarily took up helmets even before MHL was introduced. If MHL was repealed tomorrow, then the vast majority of this category of cyclists (most at risk from high speed falls) would continue to wear them. Other non sports cyclist who want to trundle along at slow speeds on a bike path would make their own choices.

User avatar
baabaa
Posts: 628
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:47 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby baabaa » Sat May 20, 2017 9:25 am

Ummm, Mike and ball bearing* do you have any thoughts on the don’t mention un-talkable?
It is common knowledge that at pre legislation the people who fought hardest against the law could be called pretty keen bikers who used a helmet for most rides.
If you recall at the time the majority of general bike commuters (or for this question are the real ute bike riders as being the most visual on the roads, but who would also do the shopping and use the bike for daytime meetings and general multi use stuff on the way home) also used helmets pre and post MHL. So, if the number of people biking went down, why did the number of riders who used helmets also go down? A tiny % would have been those bound by that ethos to stop riding, but really most just continue to do as I do and just pick the rides with and without. (My bias is that I live in Manly NSW and while have been stopped three time have never had a fine or personally have any mates who ride just like I do that have been fined. I would say I ride more without that with and bike about 15 - 20 hours per week).

To me this group (the pre law riders with), seem to stopped for several reasons, the main one being inappropriate urban speed limits, then the general increase in the volumes of cars that came onto the road as the cost of a new car came down and the interest rates came off real highs. The finer points again are that the cost of parking is very low. These are just shrug should comments but what makes them angry is number of new cars on the road were fast-off-the-mark boy racer types with automatic transmission and thus the overall driving skills around bike riders went south.
Your thought? With my peers it was never about the helmet just the change of interests and stuff like lack of time (family sort of things), they now ride for fitness and this has even drifted from being on ride biking to off tar stuff or real three nighter stay in shabby pubs town to town rides. The then sporty riders just seem to stop and start riding on a whim depending on what they need to stop themselves feeling old, so I don't think they are worth being included.
* hate to try and lure you back bb, as this will probably be my last stab at this thread as well...

fat and old
Posts: 2561
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Sat May 20, 2017 1:09 pm

Mulger bill wrote:Sixteen...

A research paper with a sample size of 16...

Why didn't they just start a facebook poll? :roll:


How do we know the sample size was 16?

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 28870
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Mulger bill » Sat May 20, 2017 8:55 pm

fat and old wrote:
Mulger bill wrote:Sixteen...

A research paper with a sample size of 16...

Why didn't they just start a facebook poll? :roll:


How do we know the sample size was 16?


Page one, "Methods" after 260 odd replied to a questionnaire, two groups of eight were selected for further work.
Much potential there for things to be missed
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

human909
Posts: 7995
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Sat May 20, 2017 11:27 pm

Page 3 gives you a break down of it all. It says n=16. 13boys, 3 girls.

fat and old wrote:How do we know the sample size was 16?

I did post about this on the previous page. But it seems that my comment about il Padrone's observations were too distracting. Now do you understand why I rated il Padrones observations greater than research with a sample size of 16?

mikesbytes wrote:So nobody here has the qualifications or experience to tell me that I should disregard what the doctors in the hospital has told me

I would begin by questioning what sort of relevant qualifications and experience your doctor has that he can say with great confidence what would have occured had you not been wearing a helmet.
(As it happened I have a whole bunch of qualifications, but I don't accept arguments based on appeals to authority so I'd prefer to stick to logical discussion.)

fat and old
Posts: 2561
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Sun May 21, 2017 8:23 am

human909 wrote:Page 3 gives you a break down of it all. It says n=16. 13boys, 3 girls.

fat and old wrote:How do we know the sample size was 16?

I did post about this on the previous page. But it seems that my comment about il Padrone's observations were too distracting. Now do you understand why I rated il Padrones observations greater than research with a sample size of 16?



Oh, I was aware that you had mentioned that. I simply wanted to engage someone else. It gets boring after a while with just two protagonists.

Your comments re IP's obs and indeed the use of this study (by many...relatively speaking) are quite insightful as to the lengths that the enthusiastic Anti-MHL'ers will go to when trying to have a rational, logical discussion.

fat and old
Posts: 2561
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Sun May 21, 2017 8:29 am

human909 wrote:
mikesbytes wrote:So nobody here has the qualifications or experience to tell me that I should disregard what the doctors in the hospital has told me

I would begin by questioning what sort of relevant qualifications and experience your doctor has that he can say with great confidence what would have occured had you not been wearing a helmet.
(As it happened I have a whole bunch of qualifications, but I don't accept arguments based on appeals to authority so I'd prefer to stick to logical discussion.)


TBH, I would lean towards a medico rather than a Mech Engineer when it comes to this subject. Horses for courses. MB has a valid point as far as questioning the "qualifications" of those in this discussion to make a qualified statement on the likelihood of injury. He is not referring to "your" experts. He is referring to the posters.

Obfuscation is the bedfellow of the anti-MHL'er here; in many cases.

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 5203
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Comedian » Sun May 21, 2017 8:43 am

mikesbytes wrote:So nobody here has the qualifications or experience to tell me that I should disregard what the doctors in the hospital has told me

If there was anyone qualified to say whether you should disregard it... then they certainly wouldn't say so. First reason is they have nowhere near enough information about the whole thing, and secondly - going against your medical colleagues in any context is considered very bad form unless you have a **really** good reason to do so. :shock:

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18082
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby mikesbytes » Sun May 21, 2017 8:50 am

human909 wrote:Page 3 gives you a break down of it all. It says n=16. 13boys, 3 girls.

fat and old wrote:How do we know the sample size was 16?

I did post about this on the previous page. But it seems that my comment about il Padrone's observations were too distracting. Now do you understand why I rated il Padrones observations greater than research with a sample size of 16?

mikesbytes wrote:So nobody here has the qualifications or experience to tell me that I should disregard what the doctors in the hospital has told me

I would begin by questioning what sort of relevant qualifications and experience your doctor has that he can say with great confidence what would have occured had you not been wearing a helmet.
(As it happened I have a whole bunch of qualifications, but I don't accept arguments based on appeals to authority so I'd prefer to stick to logical discussion.)


Then state your qualifications
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

human909
Posts: 7995
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Sun May 21, 2017 8:51 am

fat and old wrote:TBH, I would lean towards a medico rather than a Mech Engineer when it comes to this subject. Horses for courses. MB has a valid point as far as questioning the "qualifications" of those in this discussion to make a qualified statement on the likelihood of injury. He is not referring to "your" experts. He is referring to the posters.

Obfuscation is the bedfellow of the anti-MHL'er here; in many cases.


Sigh... I am not for a second saying trust me over your doctor for a medical determination. In fact I'm not casting a judgement, I'm being agnostic. But I am putting forward reasons why a definitive judgement is impossible to make.

I am saying that when an "authority" of any qualification makes a definitive assessment about a counterfactual situation one should always treat it with a high degree of scepticism. Furthermore, for reasons outlined previously I don't thing a medical professional does not make give you much of a background in impact mechanics.

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 5203
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby Comedian » Sun May 21, 2017 8:54 am

fat and old wrote:
human909 wrote:Il Padrone's experience isn't 'non-factual'. (Unless you think he is lying or misrecollecting).


Of course I don't think he was lying. I don't know if he was "misrecollecting"...I wasn't there. How can you assure me that they are indeed factual?

Like I keep saying personal experiences aren't being "howled down". Counter-factual claims with little to no evidence along with emotively selective claims like above are treated with the discredit they deserve.


So MB's doctor is to be held in lower esteem/your choice of word/ than IP? There was no chance that IP had an emotionally selective claim going on here?

I'm still seeing two standards. We'll have to agree to disagree. :)


I'm pretty sure what we're saying is that all emergency doctors see all day long is people who have had tragic circumstances befall them and are hurt. It doesn't surprise me that they think cycling is dangerous. Just the other day <anecdote> at a bug meeting a lady said "my husband is an ambulance officer and he hates me riding because he thinks it's too dangerous </anecdote> and this is what H909 is referring too.

I personally know of a number of very senior doctors who don't agree. They see the overall health benefits of cycling as being far more important to society than the risks. Some specifically address the helmet thing. There was one prominent skin cancer researcher who stated that riding with helmet instead of a hat during the day is far more dangerous because skin cancer. Unfortunately I can't find it now though.

In the meantime perhaps watch this and consider it in context of how important exercise is in reducing their effects.

https://vimeo.com/7744602

human909
Posts: 7995
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Sun May 21, 2017 9:06 am

mikesbytes wrote:Then state your qualifications

No.

(Though some have certainly been stated on these forums if you want to search.) Why is this relevent in any reasonable discussion? Like I keep saying an appeal to authority is a poor form of argument.

I know enough physic and medical knowledge to have a 'basic' understanding of the mechanisms involved in head trauma. Lets start with a few of the basics feel free to disagree:
-secondary impacts of the brain inside the skull is one of if not the most important factors in blunt impacts to the head
-secondary impacts are normally reduced to a degree by helmets, but determining is a highly inexact science without knowing the exact velocity, impact, stiffness of impact material, angle of impact etc...
-I do not have the required information to determine the result of head impact X, but there is nothing that leads me to believe the medical professional has either

For these reasons I am casting doubt on his assessment.

Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users