Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

warthog1
Posts: 14387
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby warthog1 » Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:37 pm

BobtheBuilder wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 2:25 pm
MichaelB wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 2:21 pm
BobtheBuilder wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:19 am
….

But, at a minimum, I'm glad we can all agree that mandatory helmet laws are stupid.
Ummm, no. I NEVER said that.

And I also don’t agree that MHL is the only thing that stops people from riding bicycles.

And if this forum isn’t for you because some people disagree with your view, then maybe this isn’t the forum for you ?
MichaelB wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:04 am


I, and many others get it. It’s done, dusted and proven beyond a doubt on this forum, if not everywhere else the injustice (even though in the area you reside in has lax enforcement coupled with low monetary imposition) that Aussie MHL’s encroach on many people’s liberties and decision making capability to choose their own fate.

Got it.

Here is the complete post you selectively edited out of the 2nd quote to make it misleading :roll:
MichaelB wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 11:04 am
Dear Mr BtB,

From what I have seen, there seems to be an overwhelming recurrence of trying to link various other lifer tasks involving humans and their death rate where there is no mandatory requirement for any such safety devices (such as helmets, gloves, training etc) and comparing that to cycling rules in Australia.

I, and many others get it. It’s done, dusted and proven beyond a doubt on this forum, if not everywhere else the injustice (even though in the area you reside in has lax enforcement coupled with low monetary imposition) that Aussie MHL’s encroach on many people’s liberties and decision making capability to choose their own fate.

Got it.


We also all agree that helmets for bicycles are not designed to reduce the impact of being run over by a car, projected into solid barriers at excessive speed or protect those that ride ‘furiously and dangerously’ just because they are wearing a helmet.

They DO protect the head somewhat/lots (take you preferred wording pending your own understanding of consequence and likelihood) from making a potentially fatal/serious head strike on the ground, in the rare event of a fall, a lesser injury.

The fact that the legislation is still in place means that whomever has tried to convince any of the Australian authorities in charge and capable of making a change has not been successful.

So that really means those that are against MHL need to do something different if they REALLY want change. I’m not one of those (if that wasn’t already understood).

Q.E.D.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

BobtheBuilder
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:33 am
Location: Remote NT

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby BobtheBuilder » Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:41 pm

warthog1 wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:31 pm
BobtheBuilder wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:09 pm
MichaelB wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 2:49 pm


Nope. I’m gonna keep wearing a helmet as I believe it’s an important safety device for me and my family.
Great. You have your beliefs and I'll have my evidence.

Remind me why you're here again?
His belief is informed and supported by evidence.
In the event of a head strike the likelihood and severity of a brain injury is significantly reduced in the event of a head strike by wearing a helmet.
True. And a head strike during cycling is extremely unlikely. As extremely unlikely as while walking, even more extremely unlikely as during running. The debate is wild here about how extremely unlikely a head strike is while in a motor vehicle, but it's of a similar extremely unlikely magnitude. Yes, a helmet, in some cases, will provide extra protection from extremely unlikely events.

If he wants to wear a helmet to protect against events of a similar extreme unlikeliness, such as walking, cycling, driving, running and gardening, good luck to him. If he wishes to believe that cycling is so uniquely unlike other common forms of activity involving extremely unlikely head strikes, good for him. But that's belief, not evidence.

BobtheBuilder
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:33 am
Location: Remote NT

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby BobtheBuilder » Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:43 pm

warthog1 wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:37 pm

Here is the complete post you selectively edited out of the 2nd quote to make it misleading :roll:
I selectively edited it for brevity. The whole post was just above for anyone to read. My understanding of the post was you agree MHLs were unjustified.

I apologise.

So, back to the beginning.

You think they're justified.

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 14839
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby MichaelB » Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:49 pm

BobtheBuilder wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:10 pm
MichaelB wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 2:48 pm
BobtheBuilder wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 2:25 pm


:?:
That YOU are anti MHL, not me.

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 14839
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby MichaelB » Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:52 pm

BobtheBuilder wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:41 pm

If he wants to wear a helmet to protect against events of a similar extreme unlikeliness, such as walking, cycling, driving, running and gardening, good luck to him. If he wishes to believe that cycling is so uniquely unlike other common forms of activity involving extremely unlikely head strikes, good for him. But that's belief, not evidence.
Yes I do. Yes it. Is unlikely, but NOT never.

The thing is , WHEN it does happen, the consequences can be very severe.

Just talk to any family member where one of them has suffered an ABI.

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 14839
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby MichaelB » Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:55 pm

Thoglette wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 3:49 pm
MichaelB wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 2:21 pm
And I also don’t agree that MHL is the only thing that stops people from riding bicycles.
Nobody is claiming that it’s the ONLY THING.

However the available data (e.g. RAC 2015) all says it is a top three item, particularly amongst casual transport riders.
Do t disagree that it is an item/reason. There are some that keep on the fact they it is the ONLY reason.

Wasn’t there a study (the Portland one ??) where it was either 7th or not in top 10.

User avatar
WyvernRH
Posts: 3184
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: Newcastle NSW

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby WyvernRH » Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:55 pm

BobtheBuilder wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:09 pm
MichaelB wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 2:49 pm


Nope. I’m gonna keep wearing a helmet as I believe it’s an important safety device for me and my family.
Great. You have your beliefs and I'll have my evidence.

Remind me why you're here again?
No, sorry - but that's just rude - play the ball not the man. You are wandering off into reality twisting using phraseology again. Stop using absolute terminology to describe scalar, comparative or downright debatable data. The readers here are not Daily Mail readers...

Re MichaelB's comment. I have personal experience that wearing a helmet prevented severe abrasion injuries to my head in one high speed tandem stack - you should have seen my shoulder and hip after skidding along the road at 40kph. The helmet was also badly abraded, but my head wasn't. Again (given the size of the dent in the helmet) a helmet lessened concussion and prevented head trauma in a solo dog-on-bike stack involving my head and a large tree root.

So like MichaelB, I will continue wearing a helmet knowing it is offering substantial protection against head damage (as mentioned by Warthog). So, while I am ambivalent about MHL on the freedoms front I consider modern helmet effectiveness to be a proven fact from my own experiences.

I'm old enough to remember when you could ride a motorbike with no helmet and all the fuss that went down when motorcycle helmet wearing became compulsory. Don't think anyone is going to say wearing a motorcycle helmet is bad for you etc etc and motorbikes are everywhere these days - very popular with guys and gals. However, I can tell you now that I know several people who wouldn't wear a helmet down the pub unless they were mandatory. What about mandatory seatbelts? A bad thing? Again, living in a country town I reckon a lot of folk would regularly 'forget' to put them on if they were not mandatory. I suppose what I'm trying to say here that people need leading by the hand to do themselves good sometimes...

So, suggestion to Mods that we split the thread:
1) MHLs - Good/Bad, social effects etc
2) Modern Bicycle Helmets - Are they effective at preventing head trauma?

I suspect the second thread would die very quickly under the weight of evidence proving their effectiveness.

Richard

warthog1
Posts: 14387
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby warthog1 » Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:58 pm

BobtheBuilder wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:41 pm
warthog1 wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:31 pm
BobtheBuilder wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:09 pm


Great. You have your beliefs and I'll have my evidence.

Remind me why you're here again?
His belief is informed and supported by evidence.
In the event of a head strike the likelihood and severity of a brain injury is significantly reduced in the event of a head strike by wearing a helmet.
True. And a head strike during cycling is extremely unlikely. As extremely unlikely as while walking, even more extremely unlikely as during running. The debate is wild here about how extremely unlikely a head strike is while in a motor vehicle, but it's of a similar extremely unlikely magnitude. Yes, a helmet, in some cases, will provide extra protection from extremely unlikely events.

If he wants to wear a helmet to protect against events of a similar extreme unlikeliness, such as walking, cycling, driving, running and gardening, good luck to him. If he wishes to believe that cycling is so uniquely unlike other common forms of activity involving extremely unlikely head strikes, good for him. But that's belief, not evidence.
He cycles on road, amongst traffic. Again you seek to minimise the risk and chances of a collision and add activities with far lower risk to further mislead.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

BobtheBuilder
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:33 am
Location: Remote NT

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby BobtheBuilder » Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:37 pm

WyvernRH wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:55 pm
BobtheBuilder wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:09 pm
MichaelB wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 2:49 pm


Nope. I’m gonna keep wearing a helmet as I believe it’s an important safety device for me and my family.
Great. You have your beliefs and I'll have my evidence.

Remind me why you're here again?
No, sorry - but that's just rude - play the ball not the man. You are wandering off into reality twisting using phraseology again. Stop using absolute terminology to describe scalar, comparative or downright debatable data. The readers here are not Daily Mail readers...

Re MichaelB's comment. I have personal experience that wearing a helmet prevented severe abrasion injuries to my head in one high speed tandem stack - you should have seen my shoulder and hip after skidding along the road at 40kph. The helmet was also badly abraded, but my head wasn't. Again (given the size of the dent in the helmet) a helmet lessened concussion and prevented head trauma in a solo dog-on-bike stack involving my head and a large tree root.

So like MichaelB, I will continue wearing a helmet knowing it is offering substantial protection against head damage (as mentioned by Warthog). So, while I am ambivalent about MHL on the freedoms front I consider modern helmet effectiveness to be a proven fact from my own experiences.

I'm old enough to remember when you could ride a motorbike with no helmet and all the fuss that went down when motorcycle helmet wearing became compulsory. Don't think anyone is going to say wearing a motorcycle helmet is bad for you etc etc and motorbikes are everywhere these days - very popular with guys and gals. However, I can tell you now that I know several people who wouldn't wear a helmet down the pub unless they were mandatory. What about mandatory seatbelts? A bad thing? Again, living in a country town I reckon a lot of folk would regularly 'forget' to put them on if they were not mandatory. I suppose what I'm trying to say here that people need leading by the hand to do themselves good sometimes...

So, suggestion to Mods that we split the thread:
1) MHLs - Good/Bad, social effects etc
2) Modern Bicycle Helmets - Are they effective at preventing head trauma?

I suspect the second thread would die very quickly under the weight of evidence proving their effectiveness.

Richard
I totally agree with motorcycle helmet and motor vehicle seatbelt laws. And drink driving laws. Their introduction resulted in drastic public health benefit. Pushbike helmet laws didn't. There's good evidence that they had a net negative public health effect and weak evidence for a meaningful effect of severe injury rates.

This has been discussed in detail in the many previous pages.

As far as bike helmets - they don't prevent head trauma, they reduce it. As they would if you were walking, jogging, gardening, painting the house, travelling in a motor vehicle. They may reduce the damage from a very unlikely event (from memory, by about half).

User avatar
baabaa
Posts: 1575
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:47 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby baabaa » Fri Apr 28, 2023 6:02 pm

MichaelB wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:55 pm
Thoglette wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 3:49 pm
MichaelB wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 2:21 pm
And I also don’t agree that MHL is the only thing that stops people from riding bicycles.
Nobody is claiming that it’s the ONLY THING.

However the available data (e.g. RAC 2015) all says it is a top three item, particularly amongst casual transport riders.
Do t disagree that it is an item/reason. There are some that keep on the fact they it is the ONLY reason.

Wasn’t there a study (the Portland one ??) where it was either 7th or not in top 10.
Um it was the Monash report and not at number 7 of "Barriers to riding to ride a bike for transport" and Having to wear a helmet but was at 7% and the14th (of 19 reason) see page 6 of summary- the whole report is worth a look
viewtopic.php?f=53&t=31309&start=11350

and the summary
https://www.icsc2022.com/wp-content/upl ... SCPRes.pdf

or to keep it simple.....
Table 4
Proportion of women and men who reported barriers to riding a bike for transport.
Barrier Women N ¼ 385 Men N ¼ 302 p-value*
I do not want to ride on the road with motor vehicle traffic 61.1% 44.7% <0.001
I am concerned I will be injured through a collision with a motor vehicle 58.9% 43.0% <0.001
I am concerned about aggressive behaviour from motor vehicle drivers 55.0% 44.7% <0.001
Bad weather 53.4% 52.7% 0.82
Distance and time to destination is too great 34.9% 29.5% 0.33
I am concerned I will be injured from falling off the bike 34.4% 15.2% <0.001
Bike paths or lanes do not go to my destination 33.1% 34.6% 0.69
Having to change clothes or shower at my destination 31.1% 29.5% 0.63
Not enough storage on a bike 28.0% 19.8% 0.01
Exposure to motor vehicle-related pollution 24.1% 24.5% 0.91
Do not feel physically fit enough 23.6% 11.8% <0.001
I am not close to a bike path or bike lane 18.8% 17.3% 0.62
Need to transport other people or children 18.8% 14.8% 0.19
Having to wear a helmet 7.7% 6.8% 0.68
No interest in riding a bike 6.8% 4.6% 0.24
I need a motor vehicle for my occupation (e.g. tradesperson) 4.0% 6.3% 0.15
Unable to ride a bike (due to injury or medical condition) 3.8% 3.4% 0.68
I do not know how to get to my destination by bike 3.3% 3.4% 0.59
Do not know how to ride a bike 3.3% 1.7% 0.16
No access to a bike 2.0% 2.1% 0.99


Table 5
Proportion of women and men who reported enablers of riding a bike for transport.
Enablers Women N ¼ 385 Men N ¼ 302 p-value
Having a bike-lane physically separated from motor vehicle traffic or an off-road bike path 68.4% 59.1% 0.01
To improve my physical health 64.2% 64.6% 0.95
To reduce my environmental impact 58.1% 54.9% 0.39
If I could easily get to a bike lane or path 48.8% 48.9% 0.96
Well-lit roads/paths 47.5% 43.5% 0.22
To improve my mental health 44.2% 49.4% 0.17
Secure bike storage 43.3% 41.8% 0.66
Being able to take a bike on public transport 35.5% 32.9% 0.44
To save money 35.3% 39.7% 0.24
Signage to show bike route 32.5% 33.8% 0.35
Lower motor vehicle speeds 28.0% 33.8% 0.11
Seeing people like me riding bikes 25.6% 25.3% 0.87
To get to a destination faster 24.7% 32.1% 0.03
Change facilities and showers at destination 24.3% 30.8% 0.06
Having access to an e-bike 15.7% 19.4% 0.17
There are no factors listed that would encourage me 7.3% 7.6% 0.86

User avatar
WyvernRH
Posts: 3184
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: Newcastle NSW

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby WyvernRH » Fri Apr 28, 2023 6:20 pm

BobtheBuilder wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:37 pm
I totally agree with motorcycle helmet and motor vehicle seatbelt laws. And drink driving laws. Their introduction resulted in drastic public health benefit. Pushbike helmet laws didn't. There's good evidence that they had a net negative public health effect and weak evidence for a meaningful effect of severe injury rates.

This has been discussed in detail in the many previous pages.

As far as bike helmets - they don't prevent head trauma, they reduce it. As they would if you were walking, jogging, gardening, painting the house, travelling in a motor vehicle. They may reduce the damage from a very unlikely event (from memory, by about half).
Sigh, absolute phraseology again.. should be - bicycle helmets CAN prevent head trauma (see first example in my post) and most assuredly they will reduce it in any accident until their design capacity is exceeded. So, there is no safety negative to actually wearing one these days. Being put off riding cos you have to wear one is another thing and you are continually mixing the concepts.

Admittedly I've been cycling (daily commuting in major cities (Europe and here), touring, racing, Rough Stuff (now gravel-grinding), MTB etc) for the best part of 50 years now and I've needed a helmet only twice in that time. Both times the helmet saved me a trip in an ambulance. But in approximately the same time period, I've never had to use my seatbelt in anger in a road vehicle or hit my head seriously when a pedestrian/gardening/skiing etc - go figure.

As an aside, I will admit to bashing my head on the interior of a tracked APC once when we hit an unexpected 'bump' which resulted in me 'seeing stars' for a minute or so but my issue helmet prevented any major injury :P Probably not relevant to Sydney traffic one hopes :D

Richard

BobtheBuilder
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:33 am
Location: Remote NT

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby BobtheBuilder » Fri Apr 28, 2023 6:30 pm

WyvernRH wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 6:20 pm
Sigh, absolute phraseology again.. should be - bicycle helmets CAN prevent head trauma (see first example in my post) and most assuredly they will reduce it in any accident until their design capacity is exceeded. So, there is no safety negative to actually wearing one these days.
They will only (possibly) reduce the likelihood or the degree of damage to the head in any accident. They offer no protection against any other type of injury. And even the manufacturers don't pretend they're designed for collisions with motor vehicles. But yes, they will reduce, to some degree, head injury for a range of common activities, including walking, gardening, painting, driving or gardening. I've had a few minor head knocks in my life - none of them from cycling (and I've had a few stacks). That doesn't make my anecdotal evidence any better than your anecdotal evidence. Or vice versa.

There is evidence for risk compensation effects in relation to helmets - both for cyclists and for drivers interacting with cyclists.

But beyond the individual effects (of increased protection against a very small risk), the negative population health effects of mandatory helmet laws are well evidenced.

This has all been discussed, from all viewpoints, in great detail, in the preceding pages.

warthog1
Posts: 14387
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby warthog1 » Fri Apr 28, 2023 6:33 pm

BobtheBuilder wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:37 pm


As far as bike helmets - they don't prevent head trauma, they reduce it. As they would if you were walking, jogging, gardening, painting the house, travelling in a motor vehicle. They may reduce the damage from a very unlikely event (from memory, by about half).
They reduce both the incidence and severity of it. This has been posted multiple times. It doesn't fit your skewed narrative so it is disregarded. No a helmet won't prevent all head injuries but it will prevent many. It will also reduce the severity of those injuries.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

warthog1
Posts: 14387
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby warthog1 » Fri Apr 28, 2023 6:37 pm

Yet again :roll:
Is it double figures yet?

A meta-analysis has been conducted of the effects of bicycle helmets on serious head injury and other injuries among crash involved cyclists. 179 effect estimates from 55 studies from 1989-2017 are included in the meta-analysis. The use of bicycle helmets was found to reduce head injury by 48%, serious head injury by 60%, traumatic brain injury by 53%, face injury by 23%, and the total number of killed or seriously injured cyclists by 34%. Bicycle helmets were not found to have any statistically significant effect on cervical spine injury. There is no indication that the results from bicycle helmet studies are affected by a lack of control for confounding variables, time trend bias or publication bias. The results do not indicate that bicycle helmet effects are different between adult cyclists and children. Bicycle helmet effects may be somewhat larger when bicycle helmet wearing is mandatory than otherwise; however, helmet wearing rates were not found to be related to bicycle helmet effectiveness. It is also likely that bicycle helmets have larger effects among drunk cyclists than among sober cyclists, and larger effects in single bicycle crashes than in collisions with motor vehicles. In summary, the results suggest that wearing a helmet while cycling is highly recommendable, especially in situations with an increased risk of single bicycle crashes, such as on slippery or icy roads

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29677686/
Dogs are the best people :wink:

BobtheBuilder
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:33 am
Location: Remote NT

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby BobtheBuilder » Fri Apr 28, 2023 6:46 pm

warthog1 wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 6:33 pm
BobtheBuilder wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:37 pm


As far as bike helmets - they don't prevent head trauma, they reduce it.
They reduce both the incidence and severity of it.
Yes. I agree. There's no contradiction between our statements.
They reduce head trauma injuries caused by walking, sleeping in bed, running, travelling in a motor vehicle, painting a house, gardening and cycling.

warthog1
Posts: 14387
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby warthog1 » Fri Apr 28, 2023 6:57 pm

BobtheBuilder wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 6:46 pm
warthog1 wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 6:33 pm
BobtheBuilder wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:37 pm


As far as bike helmets - they don't prevent head trauma, they reduce it.
They reduce both the incidence and severity of it. This has been posted multiple times. It doesn't fit your skewed narrative so it is disregarded. No a helmet won't prevent all head injuries but it will prevent many. It will also reduce the severity of those injuries.

Yes. I agree. There's no contradiction between our statements.
They reduce head trauma injuries caused by walking, sleeping in bed, running, travelling in a motor vehicle, painting a house, gardening and cycling.
If you edit the quote to suit your narrative perhaps it can be made to appear there isn't.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

User avatar
MichaelB
Posts: 14839
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby MichaelB » Fri Apr 28, 2023 7:03 pm

baabaa wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 6:02 pm
Cheers. That’s the one 8)

brumby33
Posts: 1945
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 10:52 pm
Location: Albury NSW on the mighty Murray River

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby brumby33 » Fri Apr 28, 2023 7:06 pm

BobtheBuilder wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:37 pm
WyvernRH wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:55 pm
BobtheBuilder wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:09 pm


Great. You have your beliefs and I'll have my evidence.

Remind me why you're here again?
No, sorry - but that's just rude - play the ball not the man. You are wandering off into reality twisting using phraseology again. Stop using absolute terminology to describe scalar, comparative or downright debatable data. The readers here are not Daily Mail readers...

Re MichaelB's comment. I have personal experience that wearing a helmet prevented severe abrasion injuries to my head in one high speed tandem stack - you should have seen my shoulder and hip after skidding along the road at 40kph. The helmet was also badly abraded, but my head wasn't. Again (given the size of the dent in the helmet) a helmet lessened concussion and prevented head trauma in a solo dog-on-bike stack involving my head and a large tree root.

So like MichaelB, I will continue wearing a helmet knowing it is offering substantial protection against head damage (as mentioned by Warthog). So, while I am ambivalent about MHL on the freedoms front I consider modern helmet effectiveness to be a proven fact from my own experiences.

I'm old enough to remember when you could ride a motorbike with no helmet and all the fuss that went down when motorcycle helmet wearing became compulsory. Don't think anyone is going to say wearing a motorcycle helmet is bad for you etc etc and motorbikes are everywhere these days - very popular with guys and gals. However, I can tell you now that I know several people who wouldn't wear a helmet down the pub unless they were mandatory. What about mandatory seatbelts? A bad thing? Again, living in a country town I reckon a lot of folk would regularly 'forget' to put them on if they were not mandatory. I suppose what I'm trying to say here that people need leading by the hand to do themselves good sometimes...

So, suggestion to Mods that we split the thread:
1) MHLs - Good/Bad, social effects etc
2) Modern Bicycle Helmets - Are they effective at preventing head trauma?

I suspect the second thread would die very quickly under the weight of evidence proving their effectiveness.

Richard
I totally agree with motorcycle helmet and motor vehicle seatbelt laws. And drink driving laws. Their introduction resulted in drastic public health benefit. Pushbike helmet laws didn't. There's good evidence that they had a net negative public health effect and weak evidence for a meaningful effect of severe injury rates.

This has been discussed in detail in the many previous pages.

As far as bike helmets - they don't prevent head trauma, they reduce it. As they would if you were walking, jogging, gardening, painting the house, travelling in a motor vehicle. They may reduce the damage from a very unlikely event (from memory, by about half).
Are you sure about that claim Bobthebuilder? Do you have actual proof on that claim that they don't prevent head trauma and they only reduce it?
So what's the percentage of the reduction? You've only got to hit your head hard once with the risk that your brain has been thrown hard inside your skull and you've suffered internal bleeding as a cause from head strike. Noone says it may happen everytime you fall off, it's only got tto happen once in a big fall or a collision with something, not necessarily a motor vehicle, could be a pole, could be another cyclist, a clashing of heads from 2 cyclists coming round a blind bend going say around 25kph each is a 50kph smack with someone else's skull. Helmets have a chance of saving or reducing that impact yes and could save someone's life abilities irrespective of who's fault it is.

You insure your house, Car and contents every year in case of something happening to them, it won't stop house or car and contents from a fire but you insure them due to a risk management factor incase something happens, it's the same with bicycle helmets, it's more a risk management factor the same as wearing protective gear at some worksites, it's a bloody nuisance to wear but it could save your skin or you head if something fell on it.....i see no difference.

I understand the argument for the Compulsory part of debate and I agree that it should be up to us as individuals, there shouldn't be such high penalties connected to bicycle helmets, it's just a cash cow for the Government.

I see bicycle helmets as just that bit of insurance that if something ever happened whether i fell off the bike or got hit, I'd at least to have some chance of saving the grey matter.....no guarantees in life but one can take precautions. It's like why do riders at a Pony club wear helmets? It's incase they fall off mostly but because pony clubs generally do equine working on jumps and obstacles, they arn't neccesarily going fast.

i'm actually considering on buying one of those bike helmets to can go over the ears during Magpie season :lol: :lol:
"ya gotta hold ya mouth right"

VWR Patagonia 2017
2003 Diamondback Sorrento Sport MTB

BobtheBuilder
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:33 am
Location: Remote NT

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby BobtheBuilder » Fri Apr 28, 2023 7:09 pm

warthog1 wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 6:57 pm
BobtheBuilder wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 6:46 pm
warthog1 wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 6:33 pm


They reduce both the incidence and severity of it. This has been posted multiple times. It doesn't fit your skewed narrative so it is disregarded. No a helmet won't prevent all head injuries but it will prevent many. It will also reduce the severity of those injuries.

Yes. I agree. There's no contradiction between our statements.
They reduce head trauma injuries caused by walking, sleeping in bed, running, travelling in a motor vehicle, painting a house, gardening and cycling.
If you edit the quote to suit your narrative perhaps it can be made to appear there isn't.
I'm not editing the substance of the quotes, I'm cutting out the irrelevant stuff. The full quote is just above.

I don't see why you think we disagree on head trauma. We both agree helmets can reduce head trauma. There's enough we don't agree on not to make something out of nothing.

BobtheBuilder
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:33 am
Location: Remote NT

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby BobtheBuilder » Fri Apr 28, 2023 7:13 pm

brumby33 wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 7:06 pm
BobtheBuilder wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:37 pm
WyvernRH wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 4:55 pm


No, sorry - but that's just rude - play the ball not the man. You are wandering off into reality twisting using phraseology again. Stop using absolute terminology to describe scalar, comparative or downright debatable data. The readers here are not Daily Mail readers...

Re MichaelB's comment. I have personal experience that wearing a helmet prevented severe abrasion injuries to my head in one high speed tandem stack - you should have seen my shoulder and hip after skidding along the road at 40kph. The helmet was also badly abraded, but my head wasn't. Again (given the size of the dent in the helmet) a helmet lessened concussion and prevented head trauma in a solo dog-on-bike stack involving my head and a large tree root.

So like MichaelB, I will continue wearing a helmet knowing it is offering substantial protection against head damage (as mentioned by Warthog). So, while I am ambivalent about MHL on the freedoms front I consider modern helmet effectiveness to be a proven fact from my own experiences.

I'm old enough to remember when you could ride a motorbike with no helmet and all the fuss that went down when motorcycle helmet wearing became compulsory. Don't think anyone is going to say wearing a motorcycle helmet is bad for you etc etc and motorbikes are everywhere these days - very popular with guys and gals. However, I can tell you now that I know several people who wouldn't wear a helmet down the pub unless they were mandatory. What about mandatory seatbelts? A bad thing? Again, living in a country town I reckon a lot of folk would regularly 'forget' to put them on if they were not mandatory. I suppose what I'm trying to say here that people need leading by the hand to do themselves good sometimes...

So, suggestion to Mods that we split the thread:
1) MHLs - Good/Bad, social effects etc
2) Modern Bicycle Helmets - Are they effective at preventing head trauma?

I suspect the second thread would die very quickly under the weight of evidence proving their effectiveness.

Richard
I totally agree with motorcycle helmet and motor vehicle seatbelt laws. And drink driving laws. Their introduction resulted in drastic public health benefit. Pushbike helmet laws didn't. There's good evidence that they had a net negative public health effect and weak evidence for a meaningful effect of severe injury rates.

This has been discussed in detail in the many previous pages.

As far as bike helmets - they don't prevent head trauma, they reduce it. As they would if you were walking, jogging, gardening, painting the house, travelling in a motor vehicle. They may reduce the damage from a very unlikely event (from memory, by about half).
Are you sure about that claim Bobthebuilder? Do you have actual proof on that claim that they don't prevent head trauma and they only reduce it?
So what's the percentage of the reduction? You've only got to hit your head hard once with the risk that your brain has been thrown hard inside your skull and you've suffered internal bleeding as a cause from head strike. Noone says it may happen everytime you fall off, it's only got tto happen once in a big fall or a collision with something, not necessarily a motor vehicle, could be a pole, could be another cyclist, a clashing of heads from 2 cyclists coming round a blind bend going say around 25kph each is a 50kph smack with someone else's skull. Helmets have a chance of saving or reducing that impact yes and could save someone's life abilities irrespective of who's fault it is.

You insure your house, Car and contents every year in case of something happening to them, it won't stop house or car and contents from a fire but you insure them due to a risk management factor incase something happens, it's the same with bicycle helmets, it's more a risk management factor the same as wearing protective gear at some worksites, it's a bloody nuisance to wear but it could save your skin or you head if something fell on it.....i see no difference.

I understand the argument for the Compulsory part of debate and I agree that it should be up to us as individuals, there shouldn't be such high penalties connected to bicycle helmets, it's just a cash cow for the Government.

I see bicycle helmets as just that bit of insurance that if something ever happened whether i fell off the bike or got hit, I'd at least to have some chance of saving the grey matter.....no guarantees in life but one can take precautions. It's like why do riders at a Pony club wear helmets? It's incase they fall off mostly but because pony clubs generally do equine working on jumps and obstacles, they arn't neccesarily going fast.

i'm actually considering on buying one of those bike helmets to can go over the ears during Magpie season :lol: :lol:
If they prevented head trauma, there would be no head trauma from anyone wearing a helmet. All the studies, including all the ones funded by pro-helmet groups, claim figures of around 50% +/-20% (the details can be checked) protective factor from helmets. That's not preventing, that's reducing.

Great that you consider the helmet as insurance. I assume you'll be wearing one while driving, jogging and walking? You never know!

warthog1
Posts: 14387
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
Location: Bendigo

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby warthog1 » Fri Apr 28, 2023 7:18 pm

Perhaps look up the medical definition of trauma.

https://www.healthywa.wa.gov.au/Articles/S_T/Trauma

They absolutely can and do prevent injury to the head. They also reduce the severity of it.
Dogs are the best people :wink:

BobtheBuilder
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:33 am
Location: Remote NT

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby BobtheBuilder » Fri Apr 28, 2023 7:29 pm

warthog1 wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 7:18 pm
Perhaps look up the medical definition of trauma.

https://www.healthywa.wa.gov.au/Articles/S_T/Trauma

They absolutely can and do prevent injury to the head. They also reduce the severity of it.
Since when have we been talking about trauma? I know what trauma means. How does this add to the conversation?

Definition of prevent: to stop something from happening
(https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries. ... sh/prevent)

They don't prevent injury. They reduce the likelihood and/or severity of injury. For walking, running, gardening, painting, sleeping in bed, driving in a car, cycling and other common activities.

User avatar
WyvernRH
Posts: 3184
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:41 pm
Location: Newcastle NSW

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby WyvernRH » Fri Apr 28, 2023 9:25 pm

BobtheBuilder wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 7:29 pm
warthog1 wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 7:18 pm
Perhaps look up the medical definition of trauma.

https://www.healthywa.wa.gov.au/Articles/S_T/Trauma

They absolutely can and do prevent injury to the head. They also reduce the severity of it.
Since when have we been talking about trauma? I know what trauma means. How does this add to the conversation?

Definition of prevent: to stop something from happening
(https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries. ... sh/prevent)

They don't prevent injury. They reduce the likelihood and/or severity of injury. For walking, running, gardening, painting, sleeping in bed, driving in a car, cycling and other common activities.
Sorry, you are sounding increasingly desperate here. You should duck out of the conversation while you still have some credit. Me personally I'm outta here until some sort of sensible, informed, critical conversation recurs. This is starting to smell like a trolling expedition for your entertainment.

fat and old
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Sat Apr 29, 2023 10:30 am

On the topic of MHL's being responsible for the demise of the various Cycle share schemes here in Victoria. It has been claimed and some evidence put forward (in the form of international comparisons generally) that the initial RACV scheme in particular failed due to the MHL.

I've asked before, and hope for a rational discussion. Why has it not affected the scoot schemes? They are going forward in leaps and bounds. I've seen everything from bogans to delivery riders to suits and skirts on them. Wearing a helmet (or not, as the case may be) isn't stopping them.

What can the pro-helmetless cohort learn here?

BobtheBuilder
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 12:33 am
Location: Remote NT

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby BobtheBuilder » Sat Apr 29, 2023 1:34 pm

fat and old wrote:
Sat Apr 29, 2023 10:30 am
On the topic of MHL's being responsible for the demise of the various Cycle share schemes here in Victoria. It has been claimed and some evidence put forward (in the form of international comparisons generally) that the initial RACV scheme in particular failed due to the MHL.

I've asked before, and hope for a rational discussion. Why has it not affected the scoot schemes? They are going forward in leaps and bounds. I've seen everything from bogans to delivery riders to suits and skirts on them. Wearing a helmet (or not, as the case may be) isn't stopping them.

What can the pro-helmetless cohort learn here?
Fat and old, this is the kind of endless nitpicking that stops us talking about a way forward.

It beggars belief, given you have stated, for years, you are anti-MHL, that you keep creating these arguments about side issues rather than adding something positive to the debate.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users