- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
White cycle helmetAussie helmet law does more harm than good, Senate hears
Australia's mandatory helmet laws do more harm than they do good, the country's Senate has heard during an inquiry.
Submissions to the inquiry, led by libertarian senator David Leyonhjelm, have contained criticisms levelled at the law as being another part of Australia's "nanny state", and "laughable", putting people off cycling.
There was a sharp, almost overnight, decline in cycling in 1990-91 when the helmet law was introduced and its opponents say the health effects of fewer people cycling outweigh the protection element of mandatory helmets, while government should instead focus on making roads safe.
- Repealing compulsory helmet laws could double number of cyclists in Sydney, says academic
Chris Gillham is a research journalist who investigated the helmet law when it was introduced in 1991, and who maintains the website www.cycle-helmets.com.
In his submission he says: "Data published over the past 25 years has consistently shown a substantial and permanent decline in the proportion of Australians cycling, with consequent damage to public health.
"The data show tens and probably hundreds of thousands of Australians are discouraged from regular or occasional recreational exercise and instead mostly use their cars for transport, increasing traffic congestion and the likelihood of road trauma."
He cites data from Austroads which show that since 2011, weekly cycling participation levels have continued to decline, falling by 0.8 of a percentage point (187,248 fewer cyclists), monthly cycling by 2.8 percentage points (692,475 fewer cyclists) and yearly cycling by 3.9 percentage points (950,257 fewer cyclists) since 2011.
He said mandatory helmet laws "breach a fundamental liberty to ride a bike without prosecution because an individual’s bare head poses no plausible threat to the safety and wellbeing of others."
VicRoads, the Victoria state government's transport body, says bike helmets reduced head injuries by 16 per cent in Melbourne and 23per cent in the state as a whole, and "helmet wearing significantly reduced the risk of moderate, serious and severe head injury by up to 74 per cent".
However, Gilham points to hospital records suggesting helmet laws resulted in a 10-20% decline in the proportion of cyclist head injury but an approximate 30% increase in the total number of cyclist admissions.
Sydney doctor, Lisa Parker, said: "It does seem odd that we, as a community, should have a law about something that reduces population health."
- Byron Bay – the ‘non-formist’ Australian town where 4 in 5 cyclists ignore compulsory helmet laws
Barrister Edward Stratton-Smith says infrastructure, not helmets, should be the focus to improve safety.
He said: "Despite being forced on pain of a fine to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle (any type of bicycle anywhere), Australia does not appear to be safer than any other country for riding a bike. Indeed, it is demonstrably more dangerous than places like the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden and Denmark."
"Why do we single out something as mundane as riding a bike to be the subject of a law making the activity criminal in the absence of a polystyrene helmet?"
"People on bicycles do not belong on fast-moving multi-lane roads. It is unfathomable that we still expose people to that danger. That we then place the onus on them by mandating what is really a quite ineffective piece of protective equipment is frankly laughable.
Dentist, Dr. A. Schwander, said: "The impression of living in a so called ‘nanny state’ is very common today in Australia. The bicycle helmet laws are a brilliant example for overregulation in the name of safety at the cost of personal freedom."
Laura Laker is a freelance journalist with more than a decade’s experience covering cycling, walking and wheeling (and other means of transport). Beginning her career with road.cc, Laura has also written for national and specialist titles of all stripes. One part of the popular Streets Ahead podcast, she sometimes appears as a talking head on TV and radio, and in real life at conferences and festivals. She is also the author of Potholes and Pavements: a Bumpy Ride on Britain’s National Cycle Network.
Latest Comments
- David9694 2 sec ago
Ramsey St Mary's family home destroyed by BMW on October 7...
- E6toSE3 8 hours 49 min ago
I've posted before about being 69, lifelong cyclist as my main transport, much of it in, through, under, over London and how it's bicycles that...
- check12 11 hours 31 min ago
200 people out of a close by population of how many? Just build it and stop being a wuss
- Spangly Shiny 13 hours 4 min ago
To paraphrase Field of Dreams, "Build it right and they will come: and use it!"
- Rendel Harris 15 hours 25 min ago
And a Happy Christmas to you, road.cc staff!
- Rendel Harris 16 hours 13 min ago
The odds of not being able to find a single pedestrian - just one, note, "any pedestrian" - in an area containing more than about ten of them who...
- bikeman01 17 hours 52 min ago
I love how wannabe racer reviewers talk about fork flex under braking like their tyres are made of glue. I find traction gives long before fork flex.
- hawkinspeter 18 hours 59 min ago
They don't make them like they used to
- LongitudeLatitude 19 hours 49 min ago
Thanks for using my picture of chocolate in your opening picture. The original can be found here, chocolate! | LongitudeLatitude | Flickr.
- lesterama 20 hours 16 min ago
Fair comments. I'll put my hands up and say I got the wrong end of the stick with this one. ¡Feliz navidad! Here's a pic for the season of goodwill.
Add new comment
40 comments
I echo the above; I frequently ride to the trails / skatepark without a helmet, then put it on. It's partly about the heat of a TSG piss pot helmet; I generally do wear a helmet for road riding and always for MTB. Habit, I suppose. I have no idea whether the road helmet would do me any good in a crash.
1. Wearing a helmet reduces the chances of a serious head injury
2. cycling on multi lane roads increases the chances of being killed
3. compulsory helmets reduce the number of people choosing to cycle
4. Attitude of drivers to cyclists affects safety
5. road design affects safety of road users
Perhaps there is a behavioural economics solutions. People are free not to wear helmets, but lose access to medical treatment if they suffer head injuries due to their own incompetence.
Personal note. Restricted motorbikes are not allowed on motorways for a reason, so god know why some people think cyclists should not be discouraged from dual carriageways.
http://www.ecf.com/wp-content/uploads/Standards-helmets-etc.pdf
That may work, so long as those driving motor vehicles without the latest ABS braking system agree to pay £10m for any bump they cause, people that are overweight get no treatment on the NHS etc.
Also, if someone without a helmet gets knocked off their bike and there's not a mark on their face/head but one of their legs need amputating and their ribs are crushed; should they forego treatment also?
Another stupid idea!
Next!
Taking your argument to its logical conclusion that would apply to pedestrians too since the risk is about the same for cycling and walking?
http://understandinguncertainty.org/micromorts
As long as the same applies to anyone who chooses to drive a car. If you make such a choice - knowing that driving [as opposed to walking, cycling, taking a train, or just not making the journey at all] increases the chances of injury for you or for others - and either you are injured or someone else is, as a result of that choice, you pay for the cost of medical care.
Indeed, apply the same to every other activity, from eating too much or exercising too little [no cardiac care for those who drive rather than cycle or walk!] or going for a hike and getting caught in a thunderstorm...
Essentially, then, you are saying 'end all free healthcare'. Which I know is something some people favour, but at least be consistent about it!
Actually no - cyclists would get free health care as the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by a factor of 20:1 - but anyone not cycling or doing any healthful exercise would therefore be denied free healthcare on the ground of not meeting necessary activity targets
smokers would have to pay double for instance on the ground that they're deliberately doing something utterly pointless that has the only effect of damaging their health
Hold on sir. I once knew a girl who could be swayed by the gift of a few cigarettes. And that definitely had a point.
Actually no - cyclists would get free health care as the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by a factor of 20:1 - but anyone not cycling or doing any healthful exercise would therefore be denied free healthcare on the ground of not meeting necessary activity targets
smokers would have to pay double
Actually no - cyclists would get free health care as the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by a factor of 20:1 - but anyone not cycling or doing any healthful exercise would therefore be denied free healthcare on the ground of not meeting necessary activity targets
smokers would have to pay double
Quite a lot of statements there which are presented as facts which are not facts or are at least arguable and your list is hardly inclusive.
1. Wearing a helmet has never been shown to reduce the chances of a serious head injury.
2. Actually, the data seems to show that city streets and country lanes are probably more dangerous than multi-lane highways, but that may be because cyclists avoid them.
You then suggest that cyclists who don't wear helmets should lose the right to free medical treatment, so presumably you'll also apply that rule to all other modes of transport? Like walking, driving, motorcycling. And why stop at transport? Any activity which could conceivably lead to injury should also lose the right to free treatment, including; football, hockey, cricket, rugby. And of course, inactivity also causes avoidable illness, so couch potatoes also lose that right. In fact, regular cyclists live longer and suffer less from all forms of illness, and our health system would save billions a year if the same proportion of people cycled as did so in Holland or Denmark.
Yes, it has. Virtually every study ever conducted has shown this. Impact modelling has shown it. Epidemiology has shown it. Statistical analysis of coroners' reports has shown it. Regression analyses of injury rates and helmet usage rates have shown it.
The evidence all converges.
Thinking otherwise shows complete and utter ignorance of the scientific literature.
"As an aside; Queensland has already changed its laws such that bicycle helmets are not required for recreational use on bicycle paths and footpaths"
this was commented on in a previous thread, I live in Victoria and don't know the ins and outs of Sunshine State road rules but was surprised by this - think someone else pointed out that it was proposed but never acted on
talking about overtaking Queensland has a trial minimum passing distance law - but of course cyclists need putting in there place....
http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/moreton/more-cyclists-than-motor...
Australia (not uniquely) has an overwhelming number of ignorant, poorly educated and selfish people in vehicles who think nothing of striking another person who has done nothing wrong with that vehicle... but only when they are in their cars.. ie these people are cowards...
A piece of foam on your head is the most irrelevant part of this whole situation... but dealing with the real problem is in the too hard basket.
This driver attitude is prevalent to all other road users not just cyclists. Its manifestly more dangerous to the more vulnerable cyclist though.
If they think foam on our heads means nanny state, just imagine if the governments had the means to deal with the indiscretions in a timely manner.. ie cctv everywhere and perhaps 10 times the number of law enforcement staff...
As an aside; Queensland has already changed its laws such that bicycle helmets are not required for recreational use on bicycle paths and footpaths... All states could follow suit if they chose too..
Another week, another Helmet debate
"People on bicycles do not belong on fast-moving multi-lane roads"
and that popularly held belief is the key problem though I may be taking the comment a little out of context
the compulsory wearing of a helmet adds even less when drivers have a fairly universal attitude that cyclists don't belong on their roads
Given that the helmet debate has displaced any discussion about overtaking in another article. Can we discuss overtaking here?
Fire away. What is it you have to say about overtaking?
I think the Overtaking Debate goes like this:
"A miss is as good as a mile!"
"No it's not, a miss is bloody terrifying! And 100 misses is cumulatively traumatic! And after 1000 misses, it's not unlikely that one of them will be a hit! And a hit is as bad as being attacked by a stampeding rhinoceros!"
...I can't remember how it goes after that.
Indeed.
Risk compensation is the grown up name, but I have friends who raced downhill mountain biking and they saw putting on full face helmets and pads as putting on armour, and rode with less caution as a result.
It is instructive to ride without a helmet; the vulnerability you feel is how vulnerable you should feel whether you have one on or not...
Writing as someone who races BMX regularly and wears a full face lid and body armour for competition, risk compensation does not enter the picture when you're padded up.
I always wear a helmet for racing/training or for skate park riding. I rarely wear one for road riding.
If you behave differently when doing the same thing depending on what protection you are wearing then that is absolutely risk compensation.
Whether or not that change in behaviour makes things a higher or lower risk depends on how much protection you think you are getting vs how much you are actually getting. Risk compensation does not always mean more risk, just that the true risk is being altered by your perceptions of the risk.
You could only claim that if you've ever competed in an event without being helmeted and padded up but the other competitors were.
Have you, and did the lack of padding affect your riding style? If you've never competed without the helmet and padding, how do you think you'd compete? Would your style change?
I've ridden on BMX tracks many times without a helmet. I don't race without a helmet, because it's not allowed. I've crashed many times while training and racing and it hurts. But wearing protection means the injuries will be lessened.
If you think I'm compensating when racing because of the kit I'm wearing, then sorry but it's clear you've never competed in a BMX race. If you had done, you wouldn't raise the point. BMX racing is a full-on dangerous sport and injuries are pretty common, with serious ones not at all unknown. If you participate in the sport, you can expect to come off with a bang at times and everyone who does BMX racing knows that those spills can result in injury. I've torn ligaments in my shoulder and broken a wrist in the past, and had countless lesser bashes and bumps.
I expect the same attitude is prevalent with downhill MTB racers, and I do know quite a few.
I don't ride any slower when I'm just wearing a helmet (and the mandatory long sleeved top and full length trousers) than when I'm wearing a helmet and body armour. But I wouldn't race without the helmet and body armour because I've seen the results of what happens when people clip each other on a berm or misjudge a jump on so many occasions.
If I was risk averse, I'd choose another cycling sport.
I remember a lot of talk about risk compensation when mandatory helmet use was introduced for motorcyclists in the UK. But the KSI rate amongst motorcyclists declined significantly nonetheless.
I haven't read the whole thread, so I'm not clear why the discussion is about BMX racing. So I'm just jumping in in a way that might well look a bit silly once I go back and read the thread.
But I don't see that the issue is the same if its about a sport, the incentives and risks are not the same as with travel undertaken in order to get somewhere (in the presence of other vehicles). Its just an entirely different argument.
But as for motorcycle helmets - motorcyclists are to a much larger degree responsible for creating the risk they face. Its their own speed that can endanger them, not that of third-parties so much. Again, its a different issue.
You've made a measured point. Basically, I wear a helmet for racing but not for commuting. Racing is inherently more dangerous because it's about going as fast as you can. Commuting is about getting from here to there.
About motorcycling though, most crashes are not the fault of the rider (65%) and are in effect, caused by third parties.
"I remember a lot of talk about risk compensation when mandatory helmet use was introduced for motorcyclists in the UK. But the KSI rate amongst motorcyclists declined significantly nonetheless."
The motorcycle helmet example is hardly conclusive, and the evidence is not convincing and is disputed. The death rate for motorcyclists fell immediately on the introduction of the helmet law, but it is unlikely that this was due to the protective effect of the helmet. Analysis of the deaths of motorcyclists after the helmet law found that all the lives saved seemed to be between the hours of 2200 and 0200, and unless helmets suddenly became magically effective for those four hours, the reason for the fall in the death rate was due to something else. What happened at the same time? Well, the road traffic act that introduced motorcycle helmets also introduced the seat belt law and the breathalyser, and the fall in the rate is almost certainly because of the breathalyser: no drunk motorcyclists, no drunk drivers.
What ? The helmet law was in '73 (remember that one) and as far as i'm aware the seatbelt stuff wasn't introduced until the early '80s. Google suggests that breathalysers were introduced in the mid- to late-60s so suggesting that it all happened at the same time seems a bit far fetched. There was no one act that enacted them all at the same time.
As for the sweeping claim about 'all the lives saved' - citation please.
".......risk compensation does not enter the picture when you're padded up."
I'm afraid it does. Risk compensation isn't something you can switch on and off, it is entirely a subconscious process. If you don't believe me, try taking off all your armour and doing the same ride, you will be more cautious and ride slower: that's risk compensation.
It's not that simple.
Wearing armour/helmet means I'm not so worried if I do fall off and can ride in a more relaxed and thus safer manner. Being tense and uptight in case one falls off because you are not protected will lead to very poor riding and a greater risk of crashing. Belief in being able to do something is a huge part of being able to do something. Confidence gives you ability, lack of confidence results in failure and injury. Over confidence is separate issue.
Pages