Australian Senate Inquiry into bicycle helmet law

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
Steady rider
Posts: 2189
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Australian Senate Inquiry into bicycle helmet law

Postby Steady rider » 29 Dec 2015, 9:20am

Links to Aussie Senate inquiry

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... _Reference

d) bicycle helmet laws, including any impact on the health, enjoyment and finances of cyclists and non-cyclists;

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... ubmissions
441 submissions in total with approximately 300 on helmets

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... c_Hearings
Hearing in East Melbourne was on helmets.

http://crag.asn.au/helmet-fanatics-misl ... e-inquiry/
details - helmet fanatics misleading tricks exposed at senate inquiry

User avatar
DaveP
Posts: 3227
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 4:20pm
Location: W Mids

Re: Australian Senate Inquiry into bicycle helmet law

Postby DaveP » 2 Jan 2016, 4:55pm

Steady rider wrote:http://crag.asn.au/helmet-fanatics-misleading-tricks-exposed-at-senate-inquiry/
details - helmet fanatics misleading tricks exposed at senate inquiry

The others seemed a bit dry, but this one takes speciousness to a new level :shock: :D
Trying to retain enough fitness to grow old disgracefully...

Steady rider
Posts: 2189
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Australian Senate Inquiry into bicycle helmet law

Postby Steady rider » 3 Jan 2016, 10:15am

Some main points;
In their opening statements, helmet fanatics claim to be experts on bicycle safety. However they were unable to answer this question:
“CHAIR: Does Australia have a significantly lower rate of serious head injuries and deaths amongst cyclists than other countries in the OECD?
Mr Healy : We would have to take that question on notice.”
The self-appointed “experts” are fierce defenders of the helmet law. Yet they are not aware of its track record compared to other countries.


This seems to be correct.

“CHAIR: We do have some evidence. We have evidence relating to participation in cycling. We have evidence in relation to cycling accidents. One of you—I cannot recall which—said that cycling participation has not declined following introduction of mandatory helmet laws, and yet even here in Victoria 679 fewer teenage cyclists were counted in identical pre- and post-law surveys, but the number of teenage cyclists wearing helmets increased by only 30. Doesn’t this suggest that the main effect of the law was to discourage cycling rather than encourage helmet wearing?
Prof. Olivier : No.
CHAIR: Fewer cyclists, only 30 more helmets over pre and post? What does that suggest to you?
Prof. Olivier : If you are trying to estimate the prevalence of people cycling, you do not do it by standing on the street corner and counting. That is not a proper statistical method for estimating prevalence. We would not do that with infectious diseases. We would not do it with other diseases or any other health related thing. We would not just stand on a street corner and ask people: ‘Do you have HIV? Yes or no?’ and then do that over several years and count the number of times someone says yes. That is not how it is done. It is very weak data and, from other stuff that we have done and I have done with colleagues here, we know that, as the data has got stronger—there is not any ideal data around the time of the helmet legislations across the Australian states—and better in terms of quality, we do not find big drops in cycling. We do not find any significant changes in cycling.
CHAIR: But others do, so I am struggling to understand how you can be so positive.
Prof. Olivier : Because, as the data is better—
CHAIR: What data? Which data set are you relying on?
Prof. Olivier : The census data of hospitalisations in New South Wales.”


The NSW surveys were based on more than 100 survey sites and more than 10,000 cyclists were counted. The surveys were designed to estimate changes in the proportional cycling levels and used the same sites from one year to the next, with some variations and in weather conditions that were noted in the reports. There were approximately 15 fewer teenagers counted for each extra one wearing a helmet and it certainly does suggest that the main effect was to discourage cycling rather than encourage helmet wearing. The answer given by ‘Prof. Olivier : No’ was very misleading and false and incorrect.

Inflection diseases need to be tested for or examined for but the numbers cycling can be counted on the streets, bicycle paths, going to school etc, they are not the same. Prof. Olivier clearly misleads the Senate with his replies.

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: Australian Senate Inquiry into bicycle helmet law

Postby Tonyf33 » 4 Jan 2016, 3:40pm

Well done on the absolutely stupendous work, particularly all the effort to counter the later submissions by the 'pro' helmet lot.
As you might not be aware the headgear wearing in boxing (as you alluded to in your submission) was changed recently as they found it made for greater concussion rates and increased risk taking.
http://www.abae.co.uk/aba/index.cfm/new ... or-boxers/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boxin ... N620141112
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... uries.html

drossall
Posts: 4700
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Australian Senate Inquiry into bicycle helmet law

Postby drossall » 4 Jan 2016, 7:43pm

The different angles in those reports are interesting. Reuters says that it's based primarily on statistics, and reports the explanation that the padding can increase jarring, without directly explaining why. The Mail gives prominence to the idea that opponents don't hit so hard if the head is unprotected, and mentions statistics more in passing. Reuters don't mention the opponent as a factor, and the Mail doesn't mention the effect of padding on jarring.

I have no knowledge of boxing at all, but I'm not convinced that the news outlets are presenting the evidence well. I don't feel informed by them.

Steady rider
Posts: 2189
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Australian Senate Inquiry into bicycle helmet law

Postby Steady rider » 4 Jan 2016, 8:30pm

Boxing info

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concussion


In rotational movement, the head turns around its center of gravity, and in angular movement it turns on an axis not through its center of gravity

Rotational force is key in concussion


http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuai ... helmet.pdf

Diagram A and the comparison of forces to the head/helmet for helmeted
and non-helmeted in the X and Y directions, based on
a simple frontal approach motion of possible impacts.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=boxin ... PIj9yCM%3A

Both the gloves and helmets provide padding and will affect acceleration levels and duration of accelerations. It may be that the extra number of impacts by wearing helmets, due to size and probably the boxer's behaviour by wearing a helmet, may add up to more concussions.

sjs
Posts: 778
Joined: 24 Jan 2010, 10:08pm
Location: Hitchin

Re: Australian Senate Inquiry into bicycle helmet law

Postby sjs » 4 Jan 2016, 11:19pm

drossall wrote:
I have no knowledge of boxing at all, but I'm not convinced that the news outlets are presenting the evidence well. I don't feel informed by them.


I (in common with many others I'm sure) have never read in a newspaper or heard reported on radio or TV anything of which I had some level of background knowledge and which I felt represented a reasonable summary of the truth.

Steady rider
Posts: 2189
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Australian Senate Inquiry into bicycle helmet law

Postby Steady rider » 20 Mar 2016, 5:59pm

http://road.cc/content/news/183185-gove ... helmet-law

Government surveys show Victoria cycling participation down since helmet law - See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/183185-gove ... oCxjv.dpuf

Mandatory cycle helmet law was introduced in 1990. Based on figures from government surveys, the number of bicycle trips per day in the Australian state of Victoria fell by 44.7 per cent from 1985/86 to 2012/13 – the two dates being before and after mandatory cycle helmet laws were introduced in July 1990. The fall came despite the overall population having risen by 39 per cent in the same period.
- See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/183185-gove ... oCxjv.dpuf

Stevek76
Posts: 510
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Australian Senate Inquiry into bicycle helmet law

Postby Stevek76 » 21 Mar 2016, 2:27pm

CHAIR: What data? Which data set are you relying on?

Prof. Olivier : The census data of hospitalisations in New South Wales.


Haha, I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.


Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: Australian Senate Inquiry into bicycle helmet law

Postby Tonyf33 » 21 May 2016, 9:05pm

Steady rider wrote:http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Personal_choice/Interim_Report_d

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/leyonhjelm-helmets.html

Disgusting that a country that purports itself to have laws based on Magna Carta cannot even accept factual supporting evidence against this unconstitutional law.
http://www.magnacarta.org.au/legacy-of- ... australia/
Some readers may think that the specifics in the Magna Carta make it irrelevant today; for example, “All fish weirs on the Thames and Medway and throughout England are to be entirely dismantled, save the sea coast” (clause 23). But what the Charter expresses is an infringement of a person’s “liberties”, the freedom to do something in peace with one’s own without interference by the monarch or other people in authority. While the particular wrong may no longer exist a new wrong which interferes with our liberties is to be likewise prohibited.
“To all free men of our kingdom we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:”
except if you are a cyclist :twisted:

Steady rider
Posts: 2189
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Australian Senate Inquiry into bicycle helmet law

Postby Steady rider » 22 May 2016, 5:43pm

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/how-are- ... ralian-law

Human rights in Australia are probably OK in some ways and not in others but imposing a helmet law is probably outside of their scope.

In Canada they have a system that allows laws to be challenged but in practice it fails in some ways. Cases go to court where courts tend to be/are favorable to existing legislation and costs limit presenting the case fully. The Australian Senate heard evidence in one day and received many submissions. It looks like the Senate is better placed in consider existing laws without the added expense of court proceedings and costs. These would discourage many people from challenging existing laws.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
The technicalities of the court proceeding and in balance of people/individuals trying to put a case and being opposed by the government with experts in legal and other fields and costs not really being an issue for the government side, means the process is stacked against challenges to existing legislation.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_O ... d_Freedoms

drossall
Posts: 4700
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Australian Senate Inquiry into bicycle helmet law

Postby drossall » 22 May 2016, 7:49pm

People here disagree about the research evidence, but I thought that their pro campaigners presented the evidence as much stronger than I have seen done elsewhere.