Cost Benefit of MHL

[Bruce dreaming]

I posted this on Freestyle FB, but private posts just seem to get lost in the noise. If this idea interest you respond on our private group or to get some discussion going on Facebook.

Cost Benefit of MHL

What is the society cost versus the benefit of Australia’s MHL?

If this ratio of cost/benefit gives us a number greater than ONE, then this is a bad law and it must be repealed.

How to measure this, lives saved, injuries saved in absolute numbers or converted to some equivalent dollar amount for each life saved?

Let’s use lives saved.

I have no doubt that this polystyrene hat has prevented someone from dying.

Benefit: That is the end of the known benefit.

Cost: As the physical size of the head is dramatically increased many people have now hit their head when without the helmet they would not have.

Cost: As the physical size of the head is dramatically increased many people have now hit their head and due to the high friction of this helmet it has caused high head rotation causing cranial and neck complications when without the helmet they would not have.

Cost: Humans are well known to have a perceived level of risk (danger) that they will tolerate before they do something to reduce this risk. It is called risk compensation. This fact reduces the benefit of any safety device that is perceived by that person to make them safer in so doing making a crash more likely.

Cost: The law making it Mandatory and the police hunting down people who fail to wear this hat. Can only achieve one thing reduce the absolute numbers of cyclist. These non-cyclists the cyclists that now you do not see, still get around, they are now motorists. All government stated policy is to reduce the numbers of motorist. These now victims have been deprived from a basic human right, to have Active Transport, this reduces the health of the entire population.

Cost: As now less people are cycling than without MHL, the probability of a motorist hitting a cyclist has now increased.

Cost: As motorist now perceive (as everyone is told) that a helmeted cyclist is safe then the motorist now drives closer to the cyclist when doing the normal illegal pass, this increases the probability of the motorist hitting the cyclist.

The list of costs has not been exhausted but the known benefit is one.

So what is the cost benefit ratio of cycling in Australia versus cycling in a safer country, it is hard to get real figures but no one can deny it is something like.

Cost:Benefit       8-20:1    This means, we are killing more people than a safer country. Eight deaths for every one person saved or even worse twenty deaths for every person saved.

Remember society does not exist as just a cyclist only but it is in fact a real human being, we call them people. It is impossible to only talk about just a cyclist when looking at this subject. Life has never been in isolation and the helmet brigade only talk about isolated figures.

Okay but back to the cost benefit of MHL.

From hospital data we can conclude that of cyclist’s deaths and serious injuries 80% involve the body and not the head. This means for every 10 deaths only 2 people could possibly be saved by a helmet.

This means MHL has at least an 80% failure rate. This directly means that 8 out of every 10 deaths derive zero benefit from MHL and in fact suffer from all the costs of MHL.

For this above group of people; cost/benefit is 1/0          so this group has infinite costs and zero benefit from MHL.

What about the remaining 2 out of 10 deaths that are head related?

This is a lot harder, but it comes down to without a helmet would they have hit their head versus with helmet how much more likely are they to hit their head and suffer with head rotation?

Let’s just stick with a few facts; due to the increase head size and friction of this polystyrene cap, head and neck injures must be higher but possibly the polystyrene does provide some benefit remember it is not a motorcycle hard helmet. Reading lots of papers on this provides little clarity and being generous let’s say it saves 50% of the victims. 2 people times 0.5 gives 1 person saved.

So out of 10 deaths 1 is the benefit this gives us 10x1 or 0.1

Of the remaining people with zero benefit this gives us out of 10 deaths 9 is the cost gives us 10x9 or 0.9

Cost/Benefit      0.9/0.1 = 9

The cost is 9 people killed for every person saved.

Did you say “But if it saves one life”…. Then we kill another nine to achieve this.

It will be great to get your comments and it would be great if you have absolute numbers.

Regards

Bruce Sutherland

[Bruce dreaming]

I posted this as the first comment (edited for to many words) after this rubbish article some interesting responses, ignoring the ones that said "the helmet saved my life so you must wear one"

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/compulsory-bicycle-helmets-are-still-a-nobrainer-20160901-gr6edy.html

Bruce

[Stephen Bricknell]

I think even those who support the laws would have been embarrassed with this piece. 

Stephen Bricknell

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Freestyle Cyclists Australia and New Zealand" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to freestyle-cycli...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nicholas Dow]

I posted a reply within minutes of the article going up, advantage of being in a remote time zone. My comment was not published, perhaps because it included a link to Freestyle Cyclists website. Because it wasn't published, I removed the tweet that linked to the article. It appears the Age wants to pretend they are the only ones with a website, perhaps that's why the author was so embarrassingly short on facts.

On Thursday, 8 September 2016 11:24:38 UTC+10, Etienne de Briquenel wrote:

I think even those who support the laws would have been embarrassed with this piece. 

Stephen Bricknell

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to freestyle-cyclists+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Bruce dreaming]

Okay Nik, you posted first and myself second. Freestyle was the winner at least we got another point of view out.

Bruce

[Stephen Bricknell]

I follow all media stories on cycling very closely and observe how much reach they've gained in terms of readership, comments and sharing on social media. This one pretty much disappeared as soon as it was released. As I said, even people in support of the laws rubbed their hands of this one. I wouldn't be too concerned..

Stephen Bricknell

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to freestyle-cycli...@googlegroups.com.

[Herve]

That is an interesting perspective Bruce.

Listing side by side the cost and benefits provides a contrasting picture.

What has been the feedback so far?

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Freestyle Cyclists Australia and New Zealand" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to freestyle-cyclists+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Thanks,

Herve.

[Bruce dreaming]

It is just an idea I am working on so I posted it on Freestyle FB just to see what feedback I got as it is just a private post it is not very visible and is now all invisible.

So I thought I would post the same idea where I know our friends will at least have a look and give me some feedback.

I think it's a good argument and yes it needs work if it does not engage and make the MHL lovers then even if its a good argument it is not worth pushing.

Basic idea is everyone suffers from the MHL costs and the only benefit is in a crash and only if the head itself is involved and only if the helmet did not cause the head/neck injury.

So please any suggestions will be very welcome.

Regards
Bruce

[K Phillips]

It was unfortunate that many people responded negatively to Bruce's piece. I can only assume that this is because we cyclists are still generally regarded as the "other". It is human nature to distrust the "other"; and MHL's serve only to keep cyclists looking that way. With few exceptions, when I'm driving and I come up behind a cyclist, I am greeted by a lycra-clad arse, something in weird clothing, and at the front there's a helmet. To me, it's a living human being indulging in a beautiful pastime; but to some people, it looks like the "other". So our dilemma is that cyclists are distrusted for looking weird; but because cycling has become so de-normalized, the lycra-clad enthusiasts have become the visible majority.

With MHL repeal, would come more cyclists and cycles like we see in Amsterdam, Groningen, and Copenhagen; then the "other"ness of the lycra-clad enthusiasts would become diluted and they would once again be recognized as living human beings.

My own experience on my bike is wonderful. It's a Breezer Downtown 8 (Nexus 8-speed hub), with the longest head stem you've ever seen. So there I am, sitting high off the ground, barstool-style, in my cruising attire—cotton work trousers, steel-capped work boots (they're the most comfortable footwear for riding), and a grey t-shirt flapping in the breeze. Even with my helmet (which I always wear), I look like a working-class yob, the bloke next door, a human being—I'm not the "other". The motorists are more polite to me when I'm on my bike than they are when I'm driving my car.

I look forward to the day when the motorist-cyclist relationship in this country becomes as unremarkable as it is in Europe.

Keep up the good work, Bruce!

Kevin

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to freestyle-cyclists+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Thanks,

Herve.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Freestyle Cyclists Australia and New Zealand" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to freestyle-cyclists+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Kevin Phillips

[Nicholas Dow]

That's very interesting, good to know you are on to this.  Good that I deleted FS twitter post linking to the article.  Next time I'll wait to see if they publish a comment first.

On Friday, 9 September 2016 12:01:49 UTC+10, Etienne de Briquenel wrote:

I follow all media stories on cycling very closely and observe how much reach they've gained in terms of readership, comments and sharing on social media. This one pretty much disappeared as soon as it was released. As I said, even people in support of the laws rubbed their hands of this one. I wouldn't be too concerned..

Stephen Bricknell

[Nicholas Dow]

The cost/benefit argument has been won already, very convincingly, by Prof de Jong's paper, see http://www.freestylecyclists.org/modal-share/ where there is a link to a good commentary on the paper.

One strong point of his approach is to accept the "benefit" side claimed by supporters of MHL, so they have nothing to attack there.  The costs of helmet law are so high it wouldn't matter if helmets prevented 100% of all head injuries, the law still costs more in health costs if even a tiny % are discouraged from cycling.

Getting into arguments on rotation etc we can't win. It's quite possible that these things are true, which makes MHL even worse than Prof de Jong shows, but it's not necessary to go there.

On another topic, the recent post by Chris Gillham on the Australian Bicycle Strategy draws out the acceptance of the authors that helmet law is decreasing participation and causing injury rates to go up as participation continues to go down: 

http://www.freestylecyclists.org/national-cycling-strategy-fails/ 

IMHO it's the best government report yet on MHL, the authors weren't allowed to explicitly call for repeal but they make the case for it as strongly as I've seen in a government publication.  Here's a long bit from the report Chris didn't have room to include in his article:

"While other Australian safety
innovations such as mandatory seat belt laws have
been adopted worldwide, very few countries have
adopted Australia’s mandatory bicycle helmet laws.
The reluctance to adopt mandatory helmet laws
internationally is due to concern that these laws are a
barrier to increasing cycling participation.
Since the introduction of bicycle helmet laws in
Australia, the Northern Territory relaxed the laws in the
early 1990s to allow cyclists over 17 years of age to ride
on footpaths and shared paths without a helmet.
The ACT recently announced that they will “investigate
the risks and any potential benefits of allowing
people to ride bicycles without a helmet in low speed
environments.”
In 2013, the Queensland Parliamentary Inquiry into
Cycling Issues recommended a trial and evaluation of
changes that would exempt cyclists aged 16 years and
over from the mandatory helmet road rule when riding
in parks, on footpaths and shared/cycle paths and
on roads with a speed limit of 60 km/h or less. The
exemption would also apply for those aged 16 years
and over using a bicycle from a public or commercial
bicycle hire scheme. The recommendations were not
adopted by the Queensland Government."

[Herve]

Bruce, I found the cost / benefit post difficult to follow, even in its simplified version. Most people not so interested in the topic would not make the effort to try to understand it. 

It might benefit from being simpler to digest. Simple messages like increased risk of accidents or flimsy polystyrene hat.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Freestyle Cyclists Australia and New Zealand" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to freestyle-cyclists+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Thanks,

Herve.

[K Phillips]

Any comments on this nonsense?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-22/cycling-helmets-save-lives-researchers-say/7867904

Article quotes:

Many who argue against the laws say helmets prevented people from cycling, particularly commuters.

Dr Olivier said there was no credence to the idea.

"We published a study right before this one in the Medical Journal of Australia where we looked back at some really good high-quality studies ... before and after helmet laws, and we found there was no change in the number of people cycling," he said.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to freestyle-cyclists+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Kevin Phillips

[Tom Nockolds]

"We published a study right before this on in the Medical Journal of Australia..."  

Does someone have the link to the research Olivier is referring to?

One of my gripes with Grzebieta and Olivier is they do these studies like the recent one on helmet efficacy...and they then get into the media and conflate the study they just did with efficacy of the laws.  It's junk logic and shows just how much of an ideological mission they're on.

Anyway, I'd be interested to see the research he's referring to that allegedly disproves all the existing evidence that cycling numbers went down after the helmet laws were introduced.  That must be one heck of a paper they wrote.

Here's my thoughts on their recent study (it's the helmet laws, stupid!)  https://www.facebook.com/tom.nockolds/posts/10153751328682751

Tom Nockolds
tom.no...@gmail.com
ph: +61 400 992 112
skype: tom.nockolds

--

Kevin Phillips

[Kimmo]

You can tell this study is complete bollocks by the assertion that cycling participation didn't fall with the introduction of MHL.

What a crock.

[Herve]

Given their performance at the senate enquiry, they most likely made it up, then searched for data to "prove" their assertion. 

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

These fanatics seem trapped in their groupthink. They are starting to believe their own manufactured "facts". 

Their policy-driven "studies" on helmet effectiveness are similarly flawed.

This can't go on like that forever. Such obvious junk science will lead to the downfall of this ideology. 

--

Thanks,

Herve.

[Nicholas Dow]

The earlier paper used cherry-picked studies that didn't find a decrease in riding due to helmet law. They ignored and didn't mention any studies that indicated there was a decrease. Some studies had a decrease in their data but concluded that there was no decrease, and the conclusion is quoted while the data is ignored, e.g. http://crag.asn.au/trying-to-deny-that-the-helmet-law-reduces-cycling/ The Vicroads funded study quoted there is relied on by the Vic government via their Vicroads website to claim that the initial decrease in cycling levels recovered after 2 years.

If you start with the conclusion and write a "paper" to affirm that conclusion, of course you will ignore any evidence that doesn't suit the pre-determined "conclusion".  I wonder if that would be academic misconduct, if it were found to be the case?

On Friday, 23 September 2016 16:01:11 UTC+10, Tom Nockolds wrote:

"We published a study right before this on in the Medical Journal of Australia..."  

Does someone have the link to the research Olivier is referring to?

One of my gripes with Grzebieta and Olivier is they do these studies like the recent one on helmet efficacy...and they then get into the media and conflate the study they just did with efficacy of the laws.  It's junk logic and shows just how much of an ideological mission they're on.

Anyway, I'd be interested to see the research he's referring to that allegedly disproves all the existing evidence that cycling numbers went down after the helmet laws were introduced.  That must be one heck of a paper they wrote.

Here's my thoughts on their recent study (it's the helmet laws, stupid!)  https://www.facebook.com/tom.nockolds/posts/10153751328682751

Tom Nockolds

On 22 September 2016 at 18:49, K Phillips <> wrote:

Any comments on this nonsense?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-22/cycling-helmets-save-lives-researchers-say/7867904

Article quotes:

Many who argue against the laws say helmets prevented people from cycling, particularly commuters.

Dr Olivier said there was no credence to the idea.

"We published a study right before this one in the Medical Journal of Australia where we looked back at some really good high-quality studies ... before and after helmet laws, and we found there was no change in the number of people cycling," he said.

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Herve <> wrote:

Bruce, I found the cost / benefit post difficult to follow, even in its simplified version. Most people not so interested in the topic would not make the effort to try to understand it. 

It might benefit from being simpler to digest. Simple messages like increased risk of accidents or flimsy polystyrene hat.

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Bruce dreaming <> wrote:

It is just an idea I am working on so I posted it on Freestyle FB just to see what feedback I got as it is just a private post it is not very visible and is now all invisible.

So I thought I would post the same idea where I know our friends will at least have a look and give me some feedback.

I think it's a good argument and yes it needs work if it does not engage and make the MHL lovers then even if its a good argument it is not worth pushing.

Basic idea is everyone suffers from the MHL costs and the only benefit is in a crash and only if the head itself is involved and only if the helmet did not cause the head/neck injury.

So please any suggestions will be very welcome.

Regards
Bruce

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Freestyle Cyclists Australia and New Zealand" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to freestyle-cyclists+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Thanks,

Herve.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Freestyle Cyclists Australia and New Zealand" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to freestyle-cyclists+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Kevin Phillips

[Chris Gillham]

The MJA article is at http://www.cycle-helmets.com/mja-july-2016.pdf

It's an odd little article claiming that all the surveys that showed a cycling decline were based on convenience sampling, whatever that is, and are thus invalid.

Their star evidence that Australian cycling hasn't declined is Table 1 supposedly showing an increase in WA and SA cycling from 1990 to 1993. It seems that everybody who might be discouraged by helmet laws had been discouraged by 1993.

Their table data shows SA weekly cycling down from 21.8% in 1990 to 21.0% in 1993. Hmmmm. Is it relevant that the National Cycling Participation survey 2015 (http://www.cycle-helmets.com/cycling-1985-2015.html) showed weekly cycling in SA at 16.6%, down from 17.9% in 2011? Or that the Olivier et al table shows SA monthly cycling at 27.0% in 1990 and 27.0% in 1993, but NCP 2015 shows SA monthly cycling at 23.1%?

Their table data shows WA weekly cycling up from 26.6% in 1990 to 27.7% in 1993. Is it relevant that the National Cycling Participation survey 2015 showed weekly cycling in WA at 23.0%, down from 23.1% in 2011? Or that the Olivier et al table shows WA annual cycling at 48.0% in 1990 and 50.8% in 1993, but NCP 2015 shows WA annual cycling at 43.3%, down from 45.1% in 2011?

The NCP surveys are endorsed by the MJA article as accurate.

In SA, the weekly cycling difference between 21.8% in 1990 and 16.6% in 2016 is 5.2%. The SA total population in 2015 was 1,698,594, of which 5.2% is 88,327 fewer people cycling at least once a week.

In WA, the weekly cycling difference between 26.6% in 1990 and 23.0% in 2016 is 3.6%. The WA total population in 2015 was 2,591,585, of which 3.6% is 93,297 fewer people cycling at least once a week.

Together, that's 181,624 fewer people cycling weekly in WA and SA in 2015 compared to the 1990 pre-law population proportion. WA and SA comprised 18.0% of the Australian population in 2015. Multiply 181,624 x 5.555 to match the Australian population and you have 1,009,022 fewer Australians cycling weekly in 2015 compared to the 1990 pre-law population proportion.

So the MJA evidence that Australian cycling hasn't declined shows a million fewer Australians cycling.

__

[ian redfern]

If Jake Olivier was so clever, he wouldn't have relied on the early '90's Thompson and Rivara studies which have long been discredited:

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/09/06/ije.dyw153.full.pdf+html

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to freestyle-cycli...@googlegroups.com.