8 May 2013

Australia's helmet law disaster

| Sgt.Bungers
Join the conversation
60

Helmets make sense in extreme cycling conditions… such as mountain biking or high speed road cycling. On paved paths away from motor traffic, it’s arguable that a casual cyclist pottering along at 15km/h is unlikely to receive much of a benefit from wearing a helmet should they come off. That’s certainly the way the rest of the world sees it.

In discussions regarding compulsory cycle helmets, it’s imperative that we consider the ~16,000 people who die of obesity related diseases in this country each year (well over 10 times the road toll). We are one of the fattest countries in the world; an epidemic that’s devastating families whilst costing our health system and economy a fortune.

With figures suggesting an 80% reduction in cycling within some demographics upon the introduction of compulsory helmets in Aus; would the repeal of the laws deliver an overall benefit to the health of the Australian population by increasing incidental exercise and decreasing obesity levels?

Luke Turner from the IPA has nicely summarized everything I dislike about compulsory cycle helmets in Australia:

Australia is one of only two countries in the world with national all-age mandatory bicycle helmet laws (MHLs).

Introduced by state and territory governments under threat of cuts to federal road funding in the early 1990s, the idea that it should be a criminal offense for an adult to ride a bicycle without a helmet has since then only been copied in New Zealand (1994) and a handful of regional or local jurisdictions (mainly in North America).

Israel experimented with national legislation, but repealed the law in 2011 after a four year trial. It’s no mystery why the rest of the world has shunned making bike helmets compulsory. From almost every perspective, helmet laws have been a disaster.

There are many objections to MHLs: they don’t improve injury rates, discourage regular recreational exercise in an era of high obesity, and are an unnecessary and unjust intrusion into individual freedom.

The first criticism of bike helmet laws is simple-they don’t do what they’re intended to do.

The most extensive study of the real-world effects of MHLs on injury rates was by Australian researcher, Dr Dorothy Robinson from the University of New England, who found ‘enforced helmet laws discourage cycling but produce no obvious response in percentage of head injuries’.

Even after 20 years and plenty of research, there is still no compelling evidence that Australia’s compulsory helmet laws have reduced injury rates on a population-wide basis.

While there is evidence that wearing a helmet will provide some protection from a knock to the head, the benefit is small. Severe head injuries amongst cyclists are not particularly common, and helmets do not prevent all or even a high proportion of those that might occur, but rather provide some marginal decrease in the likelihood of injury.

The reasons that the protective benefits of helmet-wearing are not evident across the whole population are not completely known, but almost certainly have something to do with the significant unwanted side-effects of helmet laws.

MHLs change people’s behaviour and perception of risk. Some cyclists take more risks while riding with a helmet than they would without, while studies have shown that some motorists drive closer to helmeted cyclists, than unhelmeted ones. This tendency for individuals to react to a perceived increase in safety by taking more risk is known as risk compensation.

Importantly, helmet laws severely reduce the number of cyclists on the road, leading to increased risk among those who remain through reduced safety in numbers, a researched and acknowledged influence on cyclist accident and injury rates.

Unsurprisingly, compulsory helmets have also discouraged cycling.

When the laws were introduced in the early 1990s, cycling trips declined by 30-40 per cent overall, and up to 80 per cent in some demographic groups, such as secondary school-aged females.

Today mandatory helmets are still a major factor deterring people from riding. A recent survey from University of Sydney Professor Chris Rissel found 23 per cent of Sydney adults would ride more if helmets were optional-a significant proportion given that only about 15-20 per cent of people ride regularly at present-and that amending helmet laws to allow adult cyclists free choice would lead to an approximate doubling of cycling numbers in Sydney.

MHLs are the main reason for the failure of Australia’s two public bike hire schemes. Brisbane and Melbourne are the only two cities in the world with helmet laws to have attempted public bike hire. While schemes in places like Paris, London, Montreal, Dublin and Washington DC have flourished, Brisbane and Melbourne have amongst the lowest usage rates in the world.

To facilitate increased cycling participation, the City of Sydney has recommended that current bike helmet legislation should be reviewed.

Cycling is generally a safe activity, the health benefits outweighing the risks from traffic accidents by a large margin. British research suggests life years gained through cycling outweigh years lost in cycling fatalities by a factor of 20:1. A recent study of users of Barcelona’s public bike hire scheme puts this ratio at 77:1.

Given that MHLs reduce cycling numbers so dramatically and produce such a small (or probably non-existent) safety dividend, it’s probable that the laws create a net health and financial burden on the community and health system.

By any measure, health problems associated with a lack of exercise are a far greater problem than cycling head injuries in Australia. According to the Heart Foundation, lack of physical activity causes 16,000 premature deaths each year, swamping the 40 or so cycling fatalities.

It makes little sense for Australian governments to be conjuring questionable attempts to ‘encourage’ exercise while at the same time maintaining legislation which actively discourages and prevents people from partaking in a simple form of exercise like cycling.

Each year police issue tens of thousands of fines to Australians for engaging in a peaceful activity which poses no danger to any other person or property. Some have even been imprisoned for refusing or being unable to pay bike helmet fines.

Australian cyclists who want to ride sans-helmet are being prevented from doing so, not because it’s reckless or dangerous, but simply because this already safe and healthy activity might be made marginally safer with the addition of a helmet. This is surely a flimsy basis for incarceration.

The best judge of when a helmet is necessary is the individual, who can take into account the particular circumstances of his or her ride. Downhill mountain bikers and high-speed road warriors would probably overwhelmingly still don lids if given the choice. Those out for a sedate ride on bike paths or on short local trips might be more inclined to want to feel the wind in their hair.

MHLs are not only unnecessary and unjust, they are inconsistent. Pedestrians and car occupants are each responsible for more hospital patient days for head injuries than cyclists. Despite this, few argue that compulsory walking and driving helmets are essential for safety.

After 20 years, the results are clear: the compulsory bike helmet experiment has failed. We need to amend the law to allow adults the freedom to choose if a helmet is necessary when they cycle.

Some will still choose to wear helmets at all times, and this is a totally reasonable decision. However in many situations it is perfectly safe to go without and Australia should join the rest of the world in allowing this simple freedom.

Original Article

Join the conversation

60
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

howeph said :

You didn’t reply

Of course I didn’t, you didn’t have the decency to answer anything I asked and instead went on a rant about how you should be rewarded for riding a bike while dodging questions.

I originally had more typed out but it is just summed up as this:

The notion that helmets contribute to the perception that cycling is a highly dangerous activity which has a flow on effect in being responsible for the obesity epidemic just shows your arguments are flawed and are filled with nothing but personal opinions, straw clutching, exaggeration and misinterpretation. The poll thread goes to show the desperation that you’ve resorted to.

A note to Aeek and howeph. You are kind enough to refer Dilandach to a study of cognitive dissonance and logical structure. I’d suggest Dilandach google on over to the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Dilandach said :

You know you’re on the bad side of a discussion when you’re coming up with nonsensical statements in a failed attempt to prove a point, any point.

I can see you know that.

Hi Dilandach,

I don’t know how many times you want to keep on going around the merry-go-round but I’m up for one more.

(The quoting has gotten all mixed up so I’m just going to use “You said” and “I said”)

I said:

Great. Show me where my logic or reason is wrong.

To which You said:

Because you’ve just been raging on about something you personally don’t like being responsible for people not riding bikes when there is zero evidence of having to wear a helmet being the primary reason behind it. Its a laughable argument

It’s a little unclear exactly what your meaning is here, but I get the gist. The points I’d make is that:

a) Me being frustrated or angry about something doesn’t make what I’m saying untrue.

b) There is evidence that helmet laws stopped people riding their bikes which I have linked to repeatedly and
do so again here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410838/?tool=pubmed#__sec3title You just refuse to look (an example of confirmation bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias).

c) If it’s a “laughable argument” then it should be easy for you to disprove. You could do this by clearly stating the assumption(s), or logical step(s) that I’ve gotten wrong and provide a counter argument (not just an opinion) or better yet, some evidence to show that I am wrong.

You said, quoting me (I hope this quoting works):

howeph said :

howeph said :

Mandatory helmet laws and the scare campaign to support it IS stopping people from ridding
Source: http://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/content/view/526/9/

Case in point, not even a mention of helmets or the helmet law in the article. You’re just projecting what you dislike and drawing an extremely long bow to come up with your wild conclusions

Sorry, I was paraphrasing the argument that I had mad a few comments earlier that I shall provide again here in full for you:

The main reason people don’t ride is because of the ongoing scare campaign required to sell and sustain mandatory helmet laws.

“Cycling Promotion Fund (CPF) and the National Heart Foundation of Australia has found more than 62% of Australians want to be able to ride a bike for transport, but road safety fears are keeping bikes in the shed and off the road.”
Source: http://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/content/view/526/9/

More evidence of the ongoing scare campaig was the press release posted here yesterday:
http://the-riotact.com/police-and-michael-milton-want-you-to-share-the-road/103238

You wouldn’t know it from those scary statistics provided, but the average number of cyclist fatalities from road accidents in the ACT for the same period 2000 – 2012 is:

0.4

One death each in 2005, 2006 and 2012 and two in 2010.
source: http://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/safety/fatal_road_crash_database.aspx

Lots more information is available at http://helmetfreedom.org/908/how-safe-is-cycling-in-australia/ that will help me draw that bow.

You said:

No one is saying that cycling isn’t safe.

Lots of people are saying that cycling is unsafe (see above).

You said:

This is hardly a right reason for sticking it to the man its not even a reason, its just straight up tin foil hattery.

I’m not actually “sticking it to the man”. In my first post to this thread where I described my own feelings (please note this is not an opinion. I AM THE AUTHORITY about my own feelings):

howeph said :

But in my case, the reason why I didn’t ride a bike for so long; it was as a misguided form of protest against people telling me what to do for no good reason!

I thought “You can’t tell me what to do. If I don’t ride at all then they wont have made me wear a helmet”. Stupid I know but it’s not a rational thing (just like some people don’t like fishing).But with approaching middle age, a family and the beginning of a beer gut I realised that riding to work was the most sensible way of getting some exercise.

That doesn’t change the fact that every time I *have* to put on a helmet to ride my bike I hate it. I’m an adult, perfectly capable of assessing the risk and deciding to wear or not to wear a helmet.

Notice how I used words and phrases like “misguided”, “stupid”, and “not a rational thing”. This is called being reflective, and honest with yourself. I provided this information so that people, like you, could clearly see where I was coming from.

Also, it might have slipped your notice, but nowhere have I said that I will never wear a helmet, nor that you should never wear a helmet.

You said:

If you really want to ride ‘free’ then man up and accept the repercussions that would come from it. You should be arguing at the same time that if you were allowed to ride without a helmet you would support having to pay full medical costs for any associated injuries from not riding a bike. Not being covered by medicare or private health, completely out of your pocket. Whether your fault or not.

We have already had this argument. I refer you to my comment #4 where I said:

The article you referenced indicated that the medical cost *might* have been reduced by $64 million if those riders had been wearing a helmet. However if you compare this to the NSW health budget of $18.3 billion that would represent a saving of just 0.003%.

But do you know what one of the biggest costs to the health budget is… heart disease. One of the primary causes of heart disease is obesity and lack of exercise. Studies have shown that even a small amount of regular exercise significantly reduces your chance of heart disease. So I would argue that getting more people to get on their bike saves health costs. Perhaps we should get a rebate?

You didn’t reply.

Dilandach, here is a challenge for you. Answer the question relating to the photos that I linked to at the end of comment # 45.

If you find it hard to answer those questions, if feels like a trick or a trap, then may I suggest that it is you who is confused on this issue [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance%5D.

Aeek said :

Many times, as I looked down past the ankle height armco barrier at the tree tops far below, I have thought “My helmet will protect me”.

You know you’re on the bad side of a discussion when you’re coming up with nonsensical statements in a failed attempt to prove a point, any point.

[‘not riding a bike’]

should be ‘not wearing a helmet’

howeph said :

Dilandach said :

Logic or rationality isn’t something you’re appealing from.

howeph said :

Great. Show me where my logic or reason is wrong.

Because you’ve just been raging on about something you personally don’t like being responsible for people not riding bikes when there is zero evidence of having to wear a helmet being the primary reason behind it. Its a laughable argument

Dilandach said :

They’re not being stopped from riding, put on a helmet and ride.

howeph said :

Mandatory helmet laws and the scare campaign to support it IS stopping people from ridding
Source: http://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/content/view/526/9/

Case in point, not even a mention of helmets or the helmet law in the article. You’re just projecting what you dislike and drawing an extremely long bow to come up with your wild conclusions.

Dilandach said :

Of course protecting against head injuries should come second to bike hair and sticking it to the man.

howeph said :

“Helmet Hair”, whilst a reason for some, is largely a straw man argument. And what’s wrong with “sticking it to the man” for the right reasons?

Cycling is safe.

No one is saying that cycling isn’t safe. This is hardly a right reason for sticking it to the man its not even a reason, its just straight up tin foil hattery. A helmet is hardly an inconvenience, its not even a minor one.

If you really want to ride ‘free’ then man up and accept the repercussions that would come from it. You should be arguing at the same time that if you were allowed to ride without a helmet you would support having to pay full medical costs for any associated injuries from not riding a bike. Not being covered by medicare or private health, completely out of your pocket. Whether your fault or not.

howeph said :

Dilandach said :

Logic or rationality isn’t something you’re appealing from.

Great. Show me where my logic or reason is wrong.

Any argument which relies on the assumption that others are currently dumb, but will become smart if we just changed one little thing, is hard to classify as rational.

Rollersk8r said :

So I say fine, go ahead, change the law. I’ll keep wearing my helmet but chances are you’ll get away with it 99.9% of the time if you don’t.

Thanks Rollersk8r. That’s all we want.

howeph said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

What we need is a register of self-righteous morons who believe that they always know best.

Couldn’t agree more. Lets call it the “Wowser Register”.

Supporters of mandatory helmet laws can top the list.

But only below the petulant children who only don’t want to do something because someone is telling them they should without any rhyme or reason.

Someone said so! Oh boy that means I gotta stick it to the man and rebel against it.

Dilandach said :

Logic or rationality isn’t something you’re appealing from.

Great. Show me where my logic or reason is wrong.

Dilandach said :

They’re not being stopped from riding, put on a helmet and ride.

Mandatory helmet laws and the scare campaign to support it IS stopping people from ridding
Source: http://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/content/view/526/9/

Dilandach said :

Of course protecting against head injuries should come second to bike hair and sticking it to the man.

“Helmet Hair”, whilst a reason for some, is largely a straw man argument. And what’s wrong with “sticking it to the man” for the right reasons?

Cycling is safe.

Many times, as I looked down past the ankle height armco barrier at the tree tops far below, I have thought “My helmet will protect me”.

Not needing a helmet when you’re going for a slow ride is the same as not buckling the kids’ seatbelts because you’re only dropping them to school. But guess what – I see people riding without helmets and kids being dropped to school without seatbelts EVERY SINGLE DAY.

And in both cases the risk of actually getting fined for not wearing a helmet or not wearing seatbelts is about the same – very low. So I say fine, go ahead, change the law. I’ll keep wearing my helmet but chances are you’ll get away with it 99.9% of the time if you don’t.

PS. Directly linking obesity rates to helmet laws is absolute nonsense.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

What we need is a register of self-righteous morons who believe that they always know best.

Couldn’t agree more. Lets call it the “Wowser Register”.

Supporters of mandatory helmet laws can top the list.

howeph said :

Ok,

So if an appeal from reason, logic, risk assessment, statistics, economics, health policy, freedom and liberty doesn’t make you think that mandatory helmet laws are dumb and counter productive…

How about an appeal to your emotions.

Please reflect on these two photos:

http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/nieuws/holland_bikes.jpg

and

http://image1.masterfile.com/em_w/06/12/34/623-06123464w.jpg

Ask yourself:

* Are these people irrationally and recklessly endangering their lives?”

* Should they have a law and fines imposed on them to stop them from doing what they are doing?

Logic or rationality isn’t something you’re appealing from. They’re not being stopped from riding, put on a helmet and ride.

Of course protecting against head injuries should come second to bike hair and sticking it to the man.

Ok,

So if an appeal from reason, logic, risk assessment, statistics, economics, health policy, freedom and liberty doesn’t make you think that mandatory helmet laws are dumb and counter productive…

How about an appeal to your emotions.

Please reflect on these two photos:

http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/nieuws/holland_bikes.jpg

and

http://image1.masterfile.com/em_w/06/12/34/623-06123464w.jpg

Ask yourself:

* Are these people irrationally and recklessly endangering their lives?”

* Should they have a law and fines imposed on them to stop them from doing what they are doing?

Ghettosmurf8710:15 am 09 May 13

Diggety said :

We need a nanny state register, where all those who need the government to make little decisions like wearing a helmet for them to sign up.

The grown ups can then continue on in life with the freedom and responsibility to make decisions for themselves.

What we need is a register of self-righteous morons who believe that they always know best.

It is invariably these idiots which, unable to realise that they are not the be all and end all of common sense and good ideas and who ignore regulations put in place to protect them, make stupid decisions that result in accidents, injuries, shoddy construction etc and inevitably cost people more and cause greater government funds to be expended than would otherwise have been the case.

Surely people see everyday that numerous “grown-ups” make awful decisions. Now, if we’re lucky, these decisions only affect themselves, but so often they affect the people and infrastructure around them too. I certainly don’t trust a large percentage of the adult population to “do the right thing” should it stop being the law and become just a guideline or recommendation.

I’m all for personal responsibility, but what in the world is the point of a government if it will not regulate and maintain some form of social contract that ensures a level of structure and harmony in the world we live in?

Or I guess you could just live in pure unregulated chaos?

There is a reason so many people observe that common-sense is anything but common.

bundah said :

I haven’t seen anyone in recent times riding a bike baring a shiny chrome dome but pls feel free coz i’d like to see it 🙂

You’re just a little sick…

Admittedly it tends to be cold on the skull at many times of year, and risking sunburn at most times of year, but a beanie or baseball cap respectively fixes that. Now if only I could get a Kevlar beanie…

But really, the only riding I would do is about 1km to my local shops, so neither sunburn nor the cold really enter the equation.

IP

Incidentally, I drive more carefully around cyclists who aren’t wearing helmets because I see their disregard for the law as an indication that they may engage in other risky behaviour while riding. Wearing a helmet is a small sign that the rider is taking steps to manage their own safety.

Correlation != causation, etc.

We need a nanny state register, where all those who need the government to make little decisions like wearing a helmet for them to sign up.

The grown ups can then continue on in life with the freedom and responsibility to make decisions for themselves.

Frankly, it seems contradictory to say that on one hand people aren’t riding because they’re worried about hat hair, and on the other that they’re capable of making sensible decisions about their own safety. If they’re more worried about their hair than their skull then they’re not doing it right.

neanderthalsis said :

Did mandatory seatbelt wearing laws stop people from driving?

Not riding simply because you have to wear a helmet and you might look a bit silly is the lamest of lame excuses. Helmet laws are hardly the reason we’re a corpulent nation. If wearing a helmet was an effective behaviour changer, we could legislate that helmets must be worn during the consumption of fast food. Obesity rates would halve overnight.

Seatbelts didn’t stop people driving because there is no convenient alternative.

Helmets DID* stop people riding because there is a convenient alternative… the car.

*source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410838/?tool=pubmed#__sec3title

The main reason people don’t ride is because of the ongoing scare campaign required to sell and sustain mandatory helmet laws.

“Cycling Promotion Fund (CPF) and the National Heart Foundation of Australia has found more than 62% of Australians want to be able to ride a bike for transport, but road safety fears are keeping bikes in the shed and off the road.”
Source: http://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/content/view/526/9/

More evidence of the ongoing scare campaig was the press release posted here yesterday:
http://the-riotact.com/police-and-michael-milton-want-you-to-share-the-road/103238

You wouldn’t know it from those scary statistics provided, but the average number of cyclist fatalities from road accidents in the ACT for the same period 2000 – 2012 is:

0.4

One death each in 2005, 2006 and 2012 and two in 2010.
source: http://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/safety/fatal_road_crash_database.aspx

It’s apparently heretical to say “Cycling is SAFE”.

IrishPete said :

snoopydoc said :

There is good evidence that helmets reduce the incidence and severity of head injuries in cyclists who crash. There is no good evidence that compulsory helmet laws cause people to avoid cycling. There is no good evidence that reduced numbers of cyclists is linked to higher rates of obesity in the population, let alone higher rates of obesity-related morbidity or mortality.

“There is good evidence that helmets reduce the incidence and severity of head injuries in cyclists who crash.” – Yes, true.

“There is no good evidence that compulsory helmet laws cause people to avoid cycling.” – No, there is such evidence, and someone quoted it earlier. This isn’t doesn’t mean that large numbers of people wake up in the morning and say “Shall I ride to work today? No, dammit, I’d have to wear a helmet.” It’s been a cultural change, started with the 40% reduction in cycling that someone quoted when helmet laws came in, and maintained since then.

“There is no good evidence that reduced numbers of cyclists is linked to higher rates of obesity in the population, let alone higher rates of obesity-related morbidity or mortality.There is no good evidence that reduced numbers of cyclists is linked to higher rates of obesity in the population, let alone higher rates of obesity-related morbidity or mortality.” – Perhaps not, but it’s an obvious connection if you accept the previous statement, that cycling has reduced.

The question being asked isn’t actually about whether helmets reduce serious injury. It’s whether the effect of reduced exercise levels across lifetime and across huge numbers of people outweighs that. No-one on this forum knows the answer, so people can continue speculating as long as they want, but until some good public health researcher, or economist, actually does the research, we won’t know.

And if it helps, I know I use my bicycle less because I have to strap an ugly and uncomfortable piece of plastic onto my shaved head. As I feel too time poor to walk, I drive instead. I could ride the bike without a helmet but it would set a bad example to the local kids.

IP

I haven’t seen anyone in recent times riding a bike baring a shiny chrome dome but pls feel free coz i’d like to see it 🙂

Blen_Carmichael9:17 am 09 May 13

“In discussions regarding compulsory cycle helmets, it’s imperative that we consider the ~16,000 people who die of obesity related diseases in this country each year (well over 10 times the road toll).”

Wearing cycle helmets will prevent obesity related diseases?

I’m surprised you would support this idea. I agree that helmet laws adversely affected cycling numbers but I wonder how much initial numbers were affected by those original ugly and heavy plastic helmets and, more recently, by Australia’s affluence which has resulted in the next generation of potential cyclists being driven everywhere by Mum or Dad? Would people stop driving or walking if they also had to wear helmets?

I feel that the big issue is getting people (back) onto bikes. Once on the bike, helmets become second nature for bike riding just like bike lights and bells. Modern helmets are ventilated and lighter and sun visors, more visible helmet mounted lights and rear vision mirrors are added incentives to use helmets.

I don’t agree especially with the comment that abolishing helmet laws “..poses no danger to any other person or property…”, unless as others here have pointed out, cyclists without helmets waived their right to third party claims as well as health care and other related welfare and insurance claims – none of which is realistic or sustainable. The claims that people might take more care around cyclists without helmets may well be true but could it be true also that in a crisis, over reactive evasive action to avoid a non helmeted cyclist might result in others being put unnecessarily at risk?

If anything, bikes are capable of being faster now than they ever were; especially with the probable future uptake of electric bikes. And where would you draw the line? Legal (and illegal) electric bikes are getting faster and there are small registerable motor cycles that are barely capable of the same speeds as bicycles. Should they be permitted to go without helmets?

A better option would be to make car travel more expensive, slow traffic down even further in suburban areas, make public transport more bicycle friendly and give cyclists more priority and legal rights on the road. Disincentives for car driving as well as the evolution in electric bikes would rapidly get people onto bicycles and tricycles. (Perhaps we should make car occupants wear helmets as an added disincentive to car travel…..).

neanderthalsis8:55 am 09 May 13

Did mandatory seatbelt wearing laws stop people from driving?

Not riding simply because you have to wear a helmet and you might look a bit silly is the lamest of lame excuses. Helmet laws are hardly the reason we’re a corpulent nation. If wearing a helmet was an effective behaviour changer, we could legislate that helmets must be worn during the consumption of fast food. Obesity rates would halve overnight.

snoopydoc said :

There is good evidence that helmets reduce the incidence and severity of head injuries in cyclists who crash. There is no good evidence that compulsory helmet laws cause people to avoid cycling. There is no good evidence that reduced numbers of cyclists is linked to higher rates of obesity in the population, let alone higher rates of obesity-related morbidity or mortality.

“There is good evidence that helmets reduce the incidence and severity of head injuries in cyclists who crash.” – Yes, true.

“There is no good evidence that compulsory helmet laws cause people to avoid cycling.” – No, there is such evidence, and someone quoted it earlier. This isn’t doesn’t mean that large numbers of people wake up in the morning and say “Shall I ride to work today? No, dammit, I’d have to wear a helmet.” It’s been a cultural change, started with the 40% reduction in cycling that someone quoted when helmet laws came in, and maintained since then.

“There is no good evidence that reduced numbers of cyclists is linked to higher rates of obesity in the population, let alone higher rates of obesity-related morbidity or mortality.There is no good evidence that reduced numbers of cyclists is linked to higher rates of obesity in the population, let alone higher rates of obesity-related morbidity or mortality.” – Perhaps not, but it’s an obvious connection if you accept the previous statement, that cycling has reduced.

The question being asked isn’t actually about whether helmets reduce serious injury. It’s whether the effect of reduced exercise levels across lifetime and across huge numbers of people outweighs that. No-one on this forum knows the answer, so people can continue speculating as long as they want, but until some good public health researcher, or economist, actually does the research, we won’t know.

And if it helps, I know I use my bicycle less because I have to strap an ugly and uncomfortable piece of plastic onto my shaved head. As I feel too time poor to walk, I drive instead. I could ride the bike without a helmet but it would set a bad example to the local kids.

IP

bd84 said :

Easy solution. It’s fine if you don’t wear a helmet when riding, however to forgo any insurance or compensation available above basic injuries. Contributory negligence.

So as mentioned in the article, car drivers/passengers and pedestrians are at greater risk of serious head injury than cyclists.

I’m assuming you wear a stackhat whenever you exit your house.

In discussions regarding compulsory cycle helmets, it’s imperative that we consider the ~16,000 people who die of obesity related diseases in this country each year (well over 10 times the road toll).

No its not. Not in any way. At all.

T1G3R said :

This has to be one of the most moronic things I’ve read recently. I didn’t even read it all the way as it was completely and utter BS. Who gives a shit if people were riding less, it was bound to happen with our sedated lifestyle. Helmets of all kinds save lives. Go ride around town without one, then maybe one of our hopeless drivers might clip you and that’ll shut your idiotic dribbling.

P.S directed at original article writer

bd84 said :

Easy solution. It’s fine if you don’t wear a helmet when riding, however to forgo any insurance or compensation available above basic injuries. Contributory negligence.

Surely we can say the same for any medical costs caused by people choosing to smoke, drink or get fat. If you eat too many cheese burgers and get diabetes, no insurance coverage for you right? Need some physio after an injury at the gym? Too bad; it’s your fault for leaving the safety of the couch.

T1G3R said :

This has to be one of the most moronic things I’ve read recently. I didn’t even read it all the way as it was completely and utter BS. Who gives a shit if people were riding less, it was bound to happen with our sedated lifestyle. Helmets of all kinds save lives. Go ride around town without one, then maybe one of our hopeless drivers might clip you and that’ll shut your idiotic dribbling.

U mad bro? 😮

This has to be one of the most moronic things I’ve read recently. I didn’t even read it all the way as it was completely and utter BS. Who gives a shit if people were riding less, it was bound to happen with our sedated lifestyle. Helmets of all kinds save lives. Go ride around town without one, then maybe one of our hopeless drivers might clip you and that’ll shut your idiotic dribbling.

Easy solution. It’s fine if you don’t wear a helmet when riding, however to forgo any insurance or compensation available above basic injuries. Contributory negligence.

Pork Hunt said :

I’ll bet my remaining sperm producing nut that no one ever died because they were wearing a helmet on a bicycle…

If I can find a case of someone getting run over on their way home from buying a helmet do I win?

I’ll bet my remaining sperm producing nut that no one ever died because they were wearing a helmet on a bicycle…

Alderney said :

I got up to the part where you mention the IPA and then, for some inexplicable reason, started goose-stepping around the house shouting sieg heil with my arm outstretched.

So you’re a Nazi sympathiser, fine. But what was your take on the article?

Alderney said :

I got up to the part where you mention the IPA and then, for some inexplicable reason, started goose-stepping around the house shouting sieg heil with my arm outstretched.

Oh dear, I don’t have the patience to help young Alderny out on this one, might just leave it with Godwin.

There is good evidence that helmets reduce the incidence and severity of head injuries in cyclists who crash. There is no good evidence that compulsory helmet laws cause people to avoid cycling. There is no good evidence that reduced numbers of cyclists is linked to higher rates of obesity in the population, let alone higher rates of obesity-related morbidity or mortality.

“Summarized” isn’t spelled that way in Australia.

21 US states have compulsory helmet laws similar to ours. So do many other foreign jurisdictions, if not at a national level.

What is the evidence that any compulsory helmet law has proved “a disaster”?

Airing an opinion is fine, but don’t expect to be taken seriously if there’s no rational evidential basis for it.

Hi,

As a paramedic I’ve had to deal with people injured in all types of different ways. With cyclists there is a huge difference in injuries for those wearing helmets and those who are not. This can be taken for those who are , as one post put it, “casually riding less than 15kph” etc, but even though there are so many variables…..helmets work.

Trust me on that one.

Whether the rider is on a footpath, roadway, velodrome, trail or going downhill, high or low speed, or even just starting off or halting, I’ve seen some interesting results.

Also, the general focus of what has been posted so far seems to flow as adult concepts of adults on bikes. Don’t forget children.

Simplest things happen with long and often painful results. Kids going over the handlebars on scooters, small bikes run over by large cars etc,

Naturally a helmet isn’t the be all and end all in safety but it does in most cases make a huge difference.

However if (and this is now my personal opinion) you wanna be a goose and insist on riding around thru traffic and intersections or ride out straight across a pedestrian crossing with no helmet just because you want to snob the ‘man’, well go right ahead. I care for injured people, even if they were doing something stupid. Ive undertaken an oath and follow a code of practice to help all in need. Plus I never knock back a opportunity to practice my skills. Just so long as you’re willing to accept the consequences of your actions and not blame anyone but yourself.

There.

I got up to the part where you mention the IPA and then, for some inexplicable reason, started goose-stepping around the house shouting sieg heil with my arm outstretched.

I got hit by a reversing car while casually (hands off handle bars, leaning back) riding along a footpath as a young teen. At the time I hated buckling up my helmet when not on the road. Luckily it stayed between me and the car’s body. Only broke a few bones. The dent the helmet made was significant.

My opinion is that we should encourage safety even in normally safe situations. It breeds safe behaviour. You can see this in any discipline that involves working around unsafe environments. Shooters always consider their guns loaded for example. I buckle up even if I’m only driving in 50km/h backstreets at 40km/h. That way, if you’re not buckled up, or you find yourself looking down the barrel of a gun, your brain knows that something is wrong.

I haven’t seen a study yet which indicates the number of head injuries prevented due to wearing a helmet. I’ve seen a number of people with cracked bike helmets after crashes and otherwise no injuries. I am pretty sure an impact significant enough to crack a helmet may have caused some serious damage to a skull. These are the crashes that are not captured in the data.

People dying of obesity are not likely to ride a bike because they don’t have to wear a helmet. They are dying of obesity because they eat too much processed foods and are lazy.

One person I know lost 60kg because he went out and bought a bike (and a helmet) and simply got on it. Probably saved his life.

My thoughts are anyone not willing to ride a bike because of helmet laws are simply looking for an excuse not to. Other excuses are: too hot, too cold, may hair won’t look good, have to get changed, blah blah blah.

Comparing Australian cities to the Netherlands is also fairly difficult. The Netherlands are flat – really nice for cycling. They also have significant cycling infrastructure which many Australian cities don’t. Check any number of cyclist v driver rants on Riotact to see why many do not ride on roads.

On the other hand why legislate against stupidity. A helmet is an easily worn protective device which could save your life. Why have OH&S, seat belt laws, work cover or road rules? – surely adults can make the right decision.

farnarkler said :

The helmet law is a sham anyway. The Sikhs have proven that. Wear a turban and no fine for not wearing a helmet. Jeez and I thought there was meant to be separation between state and religion.

I wonder if a turban offers any protection – it’s bound to offer some (at bicycle speeds, maybe not motorbike speeds).

IP

Sgt.Bungers said :

Tooks said :

Helmets make sense in extreme cycling conditions… such as mountain biking or high speed road cycling. On paved paths away from motor traffic, it’s arguable that a casual cyclist pottering along at 15km/h is unlikely to receive much of a benefit from wearing a helmet should they come off. That’s certainly the way the rest of the world sees it.

I haven’t read your full post (I will later), but I take issue with your first paragraph. I’ve known two people who took a tumble on pathed paths and suffered serious injuries. The first guy, many many years ago not, suffered serious head and facial injuries. He would’ve died had it not been for his helmet.

Another one last year: woman (without a helmet) fell off her bike and landed on her head, again on a pathed path and not at high speed. Last time I heard she was in Canberra Hospital with a bandage on her head. Written on that bandage was ‘no bone’.

Cycling is safe, and we don’t want to scare people with horror stories about people dying and getting seriously injured, but those risks exist. Why not just wear a helmet.

If I’ve caused you offence, I apologise. There is absolutely no arguing that if a person falls of a bicycle and hits their head, a helmet could decrease the risk of injury.

However, if you read the entire article, it’s also arguable that forcing people to wear bicycle helmets has significantly decreased cycling rates in Australia. At a time when 2/3 of our population is at an unhealthy weight, when our biggest killer is obesity related diseases, why do we continue to enforce a law which has greatly decreased levels of incidental exercise, when so many are dying from lack of it?

22 years after helmets were made compulsary, only one country (NZ) has followed suit. Some states in the US and Canada have also done the same. Overwhelmingly however, the entire world disagrees that compulsary cycle helmets contribute to the greater good.

No, no need to apologise at all. I appreciate your articles and I spent my childhood getting around on a bike, never once wearing a helmet. As an adult I’ve just always thought wearing a bike helmet was a no brainer.

It would be interesting to find out the actual level of enforcement of the helmet law (how many tins issued etc). Im betting enforcement is usually plod telling a cyclist sans helmet to get off his bike and walk.

gungsuperstar6:15 pm 08 May 13

Binning helmets will cause fat people to ride more? Please… what a ridiculous notion.

People will always find an excuse to be fat. Making helmets optional isn’t going to make people suddenly start riding.

And lets be honest, anyone so stupid as to rule out cycling because of compulsory helmets is probably an idiot, and not someone you want riding a bike anyway.

On the suggestion that helmets increase risk-taking behaviour – I’m going to call “rubbish!” on this as well. Cycling in and of itself is a dangerous pursuit. One wrong move, you go down – one idiot driver, you go down.

On this idea that helmets offer only minimal assistance – well, we’re reading very different articles. Other research indicates that helmets reduce the risk of death or serious injury by up to 50%.

As a cyclist myself, I wouldn’t be without my helmet. I’ve only crashed once before, but I landed on my head, broke my helmet clean in half… and walked away without so much as a headache. If it didn’t save my life, it at least saved me a very serious injury.

As I said, cycling is a dangerous enough pursuit as it is. I don’t support any proposal that makes it more dangerous, nor do I support any proposal that will make other road users hate me more – which I suspect optional helmets would do.

DrKoresh said :

Dilandach said :

On the other hand if people think their freedom is somehow stifled, then the choice should be there but with the proviso that if someone riding a bike that refuses to wear a helmet suffers any head injuries that would have been avoided from wearing a helmet then they should not be covered by the public or private system, full medical costs charged.

What a cruel and selfish notion.

People having to take responsibility for the risks that they personally take. What a novel notion.

bundah said :

DrKoresh said :

Dilandach said :

On the other hand if people think their freedom is somehow stifled, then the choice should be there but with the proviso that if someone riding a bike that refuses to wear a helmet suffers any head injuries that would have been avoided from wearing a helmet then they should not be covered by the public or private system, full medical costs charged.

What a cruel and selfish notion.

Well in that case you would also support the notion that drink-drivers who are injured in an accident or anyone who does anything that is considered stupid and dangerous also be required to foot the bill? That is the sort of heartless society that i want no part of..

I absolutely would. You take a stupid risk then you should take the consequences. Why should anyone pay for Johnny Bogan getting tanked up and purposely drink driving?

howeph said :

Dilandach said :

https://theconversation.com/bike-helmets-an-emergency-doctors-perspective-13935

No, sorry no MJA subscription to the report.

The article you referenced has been discussed on the RiotACT at http://the-riotact.com/you-really-should-wear-a-helmet-on-your-bicycle/103049

As I said then, the study has a problem called selection bias, and to quote myself “Public health policy should not be based on studies conducted on very select populations – in this case only seriously ill patients arriving at major trauma centres”.

So you’ve got a study and data backing up that? Or is that just your hunch?

Dilandach said :

Saying that people are not riding bikes because of helmets and is partially responsible for obesity levels in the country is just all kinds of levels of stupid.

Thanks for your opinion… care to back it up with some evidence?

The data shows that the introduction of mandatory helmet laws did reduce the number of cyclists.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410838/?tool=pubmed#__sec3title

There are probably many reasons why this is the case:

* Fashion and hat hair for some
* Inconvenience for others, particularly when your looking for an excuse not to get some exercise
* A major reason I think is that to sell mandatory helmet laws a big fear campaign was launched telling everyone how dangerous riding your bike is, and therefore you need a helmet. Subconciously this turned into “well if it’s so dangerous that I need a helmet to protect my head maybe I just not ride altogether and protect the rest of me.

But in my case, the reason why I didn’t ride a bike for so long; it was as a misguided form of protest against people telling me what to do for no good reason!

Nothing but your own personal opinion. ‘Probably’ with a list of what you think isn’t ‘valid data’.

howeph said :

I thought “You can’t tell me what to do. If I don’t ride at all then they wont have made me wear a helmet”. Stupid I know but it’s not a rational thing (just like some people don’t like fishing).But with approaching middle age, a family and the beginning of a beer gut I realised that riding to work was the most sensible way of getting some exercise.

That doesn’t change the fact that every time I *have* to put on a helmet to ride my bike I hate it. I’m an adult, perfectly capable of assessing the risk and deciding to wear or not to wear a helmet.

Fine do that, just don’t expect other people to have to pay for you taking risks.

Dilandach said :

On the other hand if people think their freedom is somehow stifled, then the choice should be there but with the proviso that if someone riding a bike that refuses to wear a helmet suffers any head injuries that would have been avoided from wearing a helmet then they should not be covered by the public or private system, full medical costs charged.

howeph said :

Yes, our freedoms are being stifled by the wowsers who introduced the law and continue to support it.

The article you referenced indicated that the medical cost *might* have been reduced by $64 million if those riders had been wearing a helmet. However if you compare this to the NSW health budget of $18.3 billion that would represent a saving of just 0.003%.

But do you know what one of the biggest costs to the health budget is… heart disease. One of the primary causes of heart disease is obesity and lack of exercise. Studies have shown that even a small amount of regular exercise significantly reduces your chance of heart disease. So I would argue that getting more people to get on their bike saves health costs. Perhaps we should get a rebate?

You’ve offered nothing but your personal opinion on why fatty mc fat won’t ride his bike. Being fashion conscious is quite a ridiculous excuse considering the slim and sleak designs of helmets. If it was the 80s and there were nothing but stackhats, I’d tend to agree but I don’t see any valid arguments apart from a rebel with a terrible and selfish cause.

As I said, if people are perlexingly that lazy that they wouldn’t ride a bike because a helmet is somehow an inconvenience or they’re that fashion conscious about ‘bike hair’ then they should be free to do so but if they’re taking the risk they shouldn’t have medical costs reimbursed. You can’t argue that its a waste of tax payer money to enforce the rule together with the minimal cost of medical care, then you can hardly argue that people should be covered by the state for the people who have accidents related to head injuries from not wearing a helmet. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

DrKoresh said :

Dilandach said :

On the other hand if people think their freedom is somehow stifled, then the choice should be there but with the proviso that if someone riding a bike that refuses to wear a helmet suffers any head injuries that would have been avoided from wearing a helmet then they should not be covered by the public or private system, full medical costs charged.

What a cruel and selfish notion.

Well in that case you would also support the notion that drink-drivers who are injured in an accident or anyone who does anything that is considered stupid and dangerous also be required to foot the bill? That is the sort of heartless society that i want no part of..

The helmet law is a sham anyway. The Sikhs have proven that. Wear a turban and no fine for not wearing a helmet. Jeez and I thought there was meant to be separation between state and religion.

Thanks for bringing some reason to the debate Sgt.Bungers.

justsomeaussie said :

Another counter perspective from doctors in ERs:

https://theconversation.com/bike-helmets-an-emergency-doctors-perspective-13935

No. That’s the same one… again.

Dilandach said :

On the other hand if people think their freedom is somehow stifled, then the choice should be there but with the proviso that if someone riding a bike that refuses to wear a helmet suffers any head injuries that would have been avoided from wearing a helmet then they should not be covered by the public or private system, full medical costs charged.

What a cruel and selfish notion.

Tooks said :

Helmets make sense in extreme cycling conditions… such as mountain biking or high speed road cycling. On paved paths away from motor traffic, it’s arguable that a casual cyclist pottering along at 15km/h is unlikely to receive much of a benefit from wearing a helmet should they come off. That’s certainly the way the rest of the world sees it.

I haven’t read your full post (I will later), but I take issue with your first paragraph. I’ve known two people who took a tumble on pathed paths and suffered serious injuries. The first guy, many many years ago not, suffered serious head and facial injuries. He would’ve died had it not been for his helmet.

Another one last year: woman (without a helmet) fell off her bike and landed on her head, again on a pathed path and not at high speed. Last time I heard she was in Canberra Hospital with a bandage on her head. Written on that bandage was ‘no bone’.

Cycling is safe, and we don’t want to scare people with horror stories about people dying and getting seriously injured, but those risks exist. Why not just wear a helmet.

If I’ve caused you offence, I apologise. There is absolutely no arguing that if a person falls of a bicycle and hits their head, a helmet could decrease the risk of injury.

However, if you read the entire article, it’s also arguable that forcing people to wear bicycle helmets has significantly decreased cycling rates in Australia. At a time when 2/3 of our population is at an unhealthy weight, when our biggest killer is obesity related diseases, why do we continue to enforce a law which has greatly decreased levels of incidental exercise, when so many are dying from lack of it?

22 years after helmets were made compulsary, only one country (NZ) has followed suit. Some states in the US and Canada have also done the same. Overwhelmingly however, the entire world disagrees that compulsary cycle helmets contribute to the greater good.

Dilandach said :

https://theconversation.com/bike-helmets-an-emergency-doctors-perspective-13935

No, sorry no MJA subscription to the report.

The article you referenced has been discussed on the RiotACT at http://the-riotact.com/you-really-should-wear-a-helmet-on-your-bicycle/103049

As I said then, the study has a problem called selection bias, and to quote myself “Public health policy should not be based on studies conducted on very select populations – in this case only seriously ill patients arriving at major trauma centres”.

Dilandach said :

Saying that people are not riding bikes because of helmets and is partially responsible for obesity levels in the country is just all kinds of levels of stupid.

Thanks for your opinion… care to back it up with some evidence?

The data shows that the introduction of mandatory helmet laws did reduce the number of cyclists.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410838/?tool=pubmed#__sec3title

There are probably many reasons why this is the case:

* Fashion and hat hair for some
* Inconvenience for others, particularly when your looking for an excuse not to get some exercise
* A major reason I think is that to sell mandatory helmet laws a big fear campaign was launched telling everyone how dangerous riding your bike is, and therefore you need a helmet. Subconciously this turned into “well if it’s so dangerous that I need a helmet to protect my head maybe I just not ride altogether and protect the rest of me.

But in my case, the reason why I didn’t ride a bike for so long; it was as a misguided form of protest against people telling me what to do for no good reason!

I thought “You can’t tell me what to do. If I don’t ride at all then they wont have made me wear a helmet”. Stupid I know but it’s not a rational thing (just like some people don’t like fishing).But with approaching middle age, a family and the beginning of a beer gut I realised that riding to work was the most sensible way of getting some exercise.

That doesn’t change the fact that every time I *have* to put on a helmet to ride my bike I hate it. I’m an adult, perfectly capable of assessing the risk and deciding to wear or not to wear a helmet.

Dilandach said :

On the other hand if people think their freedom is somehow stifled, then the choice should be there but with the proviso that if someone riding a bike that refuses to wear a helmet suffers any head injuries that would have been avoided from wearing a helmet then they should not be covered by the public or private system, full medical costs charged.

Yes, our freedoms are being stifled by the wowsers who introduced the law and continue to support it.

The article you referenced indicated that the medical cost *might* have been reduced by $64 million if those riders had been wearing a helmet. However if you compare this to the NSW health budget of $18.3 billion that would represent a saving of just 0.003%.

But do you know what one of the biggest costs to the health budget is… heart disease. One of the primary causes of heart disease is obesity and lack of exercise. Studies have shown that even a small amount of regular exercise significantly reduces your chance of heart disease. So I would argue that getting more people to get on their bike saves health costs. Perhaps we should get a rebate?

Dilandach said :

https://theconversation.com/bike-helmets-an-emergency-doctors-perspective-13935

No, sorry no MJA subscription to the report.

“Any meausres that discourage cycling by 30-40% (such as helmet laws in Australia) are likely to produce real and significant increases in the risk of injury per cyclist.”

Robinson, DL. Safety in numbers in Australia: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling. Health Promotion Journal of Australia: Official Journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2005 Apr: 47-51

Dilandach said :

Saying that people are not riding bikes because of helmets and is partially responsible for obesity levels in the country is just all kinds of levels of stupid.

The year that helmets became compulsary in Australia, cycling rates fell by 30-40%. How can you immediately dismiss the suggestion that less people partaking in incidental exercise increased the level of sedentary lifestyles in Australia?

Dilandach said :

On the other hand if people think their freedom is somehow stifled, then the choice should be there but with the proviso that if someone riding a bike that refuses to wear a helmet suffers any head injuries that would have been avoided from wearing a helmet then they should not be covered by the public or private system, full medical costs charged.

The same could be said for any person who chooses to smoke, drive dangerously, partake in extreme sport, or to eat an unhealthy diet all their life.

Helmets make sense in extreme cycling conditions… such as mountain biking or high speed road cycling. On paved paths away from motor traffic, it’s arguable that a casual cyclist pottering along at 15km/h is unlikely to receive much of a benefit from wearing a helmet should they come off. That’s certainly the way the rest of the world sees it.

I haven’t read your full post (I will later), but I take issue with your first paragraph. I’ve known two people who took a tumble on pathed paths and suffered serious injuries. The first guy, many many years ago not, suffered serious head and facial injuries. He would’ve died had it not been for his helmet.

Another one last year: woman (without a helmet) fell off her bike and landed on her head, again on a pathed path and not at high speed. Last time I heard she was in Canberra Hospital with a bandage on her head. Written on that bandage was ‘no bone’.

Cycling is safe, and we don’t want to scare people with horror stories about people dying and getting seriously injured, but those risks exist. Why not just wear a helmet.

https://theconversation.com/bike-helmets-an-emergency-doctors-perspective-13935

No, sorry no MJA subscription to the report.

Saying that people are not riding bikes because of helmets and is partially responsible for obesity levels in the country is just all kinds of levels of stupid.

On the other hand if people think their freedom is somehow stifled, then the choice should be there but with the proviso that if someone riding a bike that refuses to wear a helmet suffers any head injuries that would have been avoided from wearing a helmet then they should not be covered by the public or private system, full medical costs charged.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.