Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Excellence in Public Sector consulting

Politics trumps hard-headed reason on bicycle helmets

By johnboy 4 December 2013 103

bicycle helmet

By Chris Rissel, University of Sydney

For a few hours, late last week, it looked like Queensland could become the first Australian state to start relaxing its strict bicycle helmet laws.

After months of careful review of the evidence, a state parliamentary committee backed the need for A new direction for cycling in Queensland, releasing a 200-page report that recommended, among other things, letting cyclists over 16 ride helmet-free in certain conditions.

Yet within hours of that report being released, the state Transport Minister Scott Emerson called a press conference to reject relaxed bicycle helmet laws, in what I would argue was a clear example of personal views and politics trumping science and evidence.

While the minister will support many of the report’s 68 other recommendations, such as safe passing distance rules for motorists and increased penalties for breaking road rules, he declared that:

Personally I’m a big believer in the benefits of helmets and I believe the evidence shows helmets reduce the risk of serious injury.

That statement sums up well the confusion around this issue.

While on the one hand helmets can protect against some head injuries, particularly minor scrapes and contusions, making them compulsory at all times does not automatically reduce rates of serious injury at a population level.

Clashing heads over helmets

The evidence on the effectiveness of mandatory helmet legislation is highly contested, with many analyses reporting negative effects on cycling participation.

There is compelling evidence that cycling head injury rates were consistently declining before the introduction of helmet legislation (see figure 1, p4 of this report), with any reductions in head injuries attributed to the legislation actually due to a marked reduction in the number of people cycling.

After examining the evidence, the Queensland parliamentary committee summed this up well:

The report notes Australia is one of the few countries in the world that has compulsory helmet laws and the committee was not convinced there was sufficient worldwide evidence of the safety outcomes of compulsory helmet wearing to justify the mandating of helmet wearing for all cyclists.

In other words, the committee was not against encouraging helmet use; instead it was a recognition that, in some circumstances, a helmet may not always be required when cycling.

Making adult decisions

The committee’s recommendation (number 15) was to have a two-year trial, exempting 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/hr or less.

Those people who want to wear a helmet can certainly continue to do so. The focus on adults is important, as 50% of cycling injuries are among children.

Further, the conditions of the trial are those scenarios where the risk of a cycling crash, or the even less likely event of a head injury, is very, very low. In the conditions where the risk of cycling is high, such as road racing or mountain biking, helmets are still required.

An important aspect of this recommended trial was to evaluate it carefully, with baseline measurements and data collection on injury and cycling participation. This trial could have established the evidence, either for or against this helmet law reform, and finally lay to rest the debate over the value of helmet legislation.

What a sensible idea! We could have had real world evidence to inform policy, but instead we have seen one politician and his advisers who know better.

Is this another example of politicians being out of touch with the majority views of the public? Consider the views on increasing spending of taxpayers’ money on public transport in Sydney (supported by the public) versus investment in motorways (supported by the government).

On this issue, many local councils around the country, including Brisbane, Fremantle, and the lord mayors of Adelaide and Sydney have publicly expressed their support of reviews of helmet laws, seeing them as one barrier to increasing cycling participation.

The negative effect of helmet legislation on the bicycle share schemes in Brisbane and Melbourne has also been well-documented.

Queensland has missed a good opportunity to start bringing Australia back to parity with the rest of the world.

It is worth remembering that the Northern Territory already has legislation, which allows helmet-free cycling on footpaths and cyclepaths. They have one of the highest rates of cycling participation by women, and cycling mode share for journey to work in the country. Their cycling injury rates are no different to the rest of the country.

Despite this lack of political leadership on bicycle helmet law reform, if the other recommendations of the Queensland parliamentary committee are implemented, there should be significant improvements in cycling. These are to be applauded.

If the Queensland transport minister can’t be persuaded to change his mind, then perhaps it will be up to another state now to do what needs to be done to trial and evaluate what happens when you relax bicycle helmet laws.

Chris Rissel receives funding from the Australian Research Council for the a project to evaluate cycling infrastructure in Sydney. He is a member of the Australian Cyclists Party and Bicycle NSW.

The Conversation

This article was originally published at The Conversation.
Read the original article.

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
103 Responses to
Politics trumps hard-headed reason on bicycle helmets
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
thatsnotme 11:04 pm 18 Dec 13

gooterz said :

Don’t like it? Then invent a better safety device, maybe airbags for bicycles.

Already done

FWIW, I had a mountain bike accident a couple of months back. Wasn’t going fast, or doing anything extreme by any measure, but things went wrong, I was pitched over the handlebars, and I now have a whole lot of metal in my left shoulder. It could just as easily happened on my road bike, and when I eventually get back to riding I’ll need a new helmet, cause mine took a decent blow when I came off.

My helmet is possibly the reason I’m now just having to do physio to get movement back in my left shoulder, rather than having to learn to talk again. I get all the arguments about participation, and see how they apply to Amsterdam or Denmark. Canberra though? I can easily see how my stack (which was at jogging pace, at most) could have happened just as quickly off the dirt, on our roads or cycle paths.

(Off topic, but if you’re ever after a practical demonstration of how our ageing population is going to blow out health funding, first get admitted through A&E, then spend a few days in the osteo ward. Sheesh…)

gooterz 8:46 pm 18 Dec 13

Its Pascal’s wager:
Don’t wear a helmet and nothing happens your fine.
Don’t wear a helmet and you die.
Wear a helmet and be fine even if something happens.

When doing a survey do they include those that aren’t around anymore to do the survey?

Given you can die from falling over without a helmet on a helmet is a good choice.
I’m all for people having the right to cycle without a helmet ad long as when they become a cripple or die they don’t then become a drain on my tax money and hospitals.

Don’t like it? Then invent a better safety device, maybe airbags for bicycles.

desertdreaming 8:06 pm 18 Dec 13

This is not hard bicycle users. Read on:

– where a helmet. If you fall off and hit your head, it will not hurt as much.

– where bright colours, even hi-viz. Where it over your dark grey office clothes as you are hard to see

– stop at pedestrian crossings, check that the driver has elected to give way when otherwise not obligated, and proceed across mounted or dismounted – your choice. But just stop and check please.

– when you are riding in groups and packs on the weekend, think about how motorists might react when encountering your pack coming around a blind corner at speed. Probably best thin out and keep to verge,


Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | | |

Search across the site