https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bu ... rt%20d/c05
Clarke's evidence was accepted.
Olivier's evidence was challenged. He and others were trying to say cycling had not been discouraged, and Senator David Leyonhjelm reported he was not persuaded.
1.2 During the course of the hearing, and based on available data, it became clear MHL have undermined cycling participation rates. Attempts to argue to the contrary, especially given evidence from around the world, were not at all persuasive.
Olivier has published several papers but his views are not sound.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... nate-hears.
The Melbourne 1992 survey included a cycle rally that increased the counts. The survey sites were known.
Senator Leyonhjelm also stated,
1.5 I also maintain, in the absence of compelling evidence demonstrating a substantial social benefit, there should be a bias in favour of individual choice and responsibility. It is especially not the role of government to protect individuals against the consequences of their own choices when the risks are small, foreseeable and borne personally.
Clearly the helmet issue does not show compelling evidence demonstrating a substantial social benefit and the advice to wear one should be reconsidered.
Regarding the NZ data for TBI.
The researchers reported,
Our analysis showed the declining trend in rates of traumatic brain injuries from 1988-91 to 1996-99. However, it is unclear whether this reflects the effectiveness of the mandatory all-age cycle helmet law implemented in January 1994 or simply reflects a general decline in all road injuries during that period.
and
The travel surveys show that from 1989/90 to 2005/08, the average time spent cycling per week decreased from 28 minutes to 8 minutes among those aged 5-12 years and from 52 minutes to 12 minutes among those aged 13-17 years [7].
and
Of particular concern are children and adolescents who have experienced the greatest increase in the risk of cycling injuries despite a substantial decline in the amount of cycling over the past two decades.
Details for NZ were not published by age group to know how much of the reduction in TBI could be due to helmets or due to reduced cycling levels.
Information from Canada shows the rates by age groups,
https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/nt ... 2006_e.pdf
For Canada
Between 1994-1995 and 2003-2004, 61% of cycling related traumatic head injuries occurred among those between the ages of 5 to19 years.
the highest risk ratio of injury hospitalizations appeared in those aged 10 to 14 years (RR = 9.
The relative risk of head injury was 9.8 times higher for the 10-14 age group.
NZ data shows cycling reducing from 80 minutes to 20 minutes for the 5-17 age range
The definition of TBI can also change, so it was unclear if the reduction in TBI was due to helmet use.