- 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
news
Sydney helmet protest ride (via Facebook video).jpgAussie cyclists protest mandatory helmet laws with helmet-optional rides
Cyclists have been riding without helmets across Australia today in protest at mandatory helmet laws they believe are discouraging people from cycling. The Sydney ride was closed down by New South Wales Police with long-time bike helmet reform campaigner Sue Abbott picking up yet another fine.
In 1991 Australia became the first country to require cyclists to wear helmets.
Alan Todd, the president of Freestyle Cyclists, which organised the protests, told the Guardian: “We find that the mandatory helmet law is the single greatest barrier to the uptake of bicycle use in Australia. It has created an image of cycling as a high-risk activity, and practically killed off the casual everyday use of the bike.”
On its Facebook page, Freestyle Cyclists reported: "A tale of two cities. In Melbourne, the Freestyle Cyclists Helmet Optional Bike Ride attracted zero police activity. Meanwhile in Sydney today, the bike hating capital of Australia (maybe the world), the police closed it down. Threatened with a $330 fine two people including long time bike helmet reform campaigner Sue Abbott took one for the team.
“Rides also took place in Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide and across the ditch in Wellington where police no longer prioritize the helmet law.”
There’s some Ten News footage of the Sydney ride.
Rudy Botha, who co-ordinated it commented: “With Sydney facing a lot of transport challenges, we need to be encouraging people to look at riding a bicycle as alternative.
“Threatening them with one of the world’s highest fines for something that is considered normal in most countries, is having the opposite effect.”
Todd added: “We accept that a helmet might help in the event of an accident … [but] you must distinguish between crash data and population data. It hasn’t had any measured safety benefit at the population level. Across population, the reduction in injuries was no more than the drop in cycling.
“It beggars belief that in the 21st century we take something as benign and beneficial as bike riding and we punish people.”
Edward Hore, the president of the Australian Cycle Alliance, expressed support for the protests.
“We think helmets should be a choice. We’re not talking about banning helmets, we’re talking about making them optional.
“If you’re in a peloton down a beach road, and you’re not wearing a helmet, you’re a bloody idiot, let’s be frank. But we’re talking about the rider in the park with a family, the local commuter, the gentle ride down the street. Once you’ve measured your risk you can decide whether or not you want to don a helmet.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- Eton Rifle 45 min 22 sec ago
The system for elderly drivers in the UK is insane. Basically, once you hit 70 years old, you have to re-apply for your driving licence every three...
- Moist von Lipwig 1 hour 14 min ago
Bit of googling gone wrong in the article - the JAT is the Junction Assessment Tool, the Joint Approval Team appears to be a coutner terrorism...
- Mr Blackbird 1 hour 37 min ago
We need to also take into account the van driver's viewpoint. He may have been obese and on his way to McDonalds for a salt/ sugar / fat fix. Can...
- HKR 2 hours 29 min ago
Can't believe that child threw his bike on the floor at the end of that. Young people today have no respect... ;))
- Griff500 1 hour 16 min ago
Its not the same stem fitted to the two bikes though, and we aren't talking about HTA we are talking about stem inclination or "stem rise" to use...
- TheBillder 10 hours 30 min ago
My new double glazed wooden framed sash windows are £1600 plus vat per (quite large) window. House built in 1904. The cost includes fitting and...
- galibiervelo 10 hours 45 min ago
We promote #bikefriday You dont need it - go for a spin. Nice bikes and kit are lovely, but not as noice as a dawn spin this friday morning with a...
- David9694 10 hours 49 min ago
Council acting like ‘the Sheriff of Nottingham’ with parking charges...
- David9694 10 hours 53 min ago
Man taken to hospital after vehicle crashes into pub...
- David9694 11 hours 3 min ago
Car flips in Millennium Way, Sheerness, near former Aldi supermarket that reopens as Home Bargains this weekend...
Add new comment
240 comments
[
The big problem with using neurologists evidence is that they only see people with head injuries, and not those with cuts, grazes, breaks, bumps and bruises (unless head related).
I noted that in my pro race crashes, that they dont to land on their heads, even as a secondary part of crashing, lots of shoulders and arms first, so broken collar bones and wrists, which are common injuries. Even in the pre helmet, hairnet, casquette wearing days.
Similar in motorcycle racing
So stormtrooper armour might do more good?
Just on observation
And the evidence seems to be that the pros have had more fatalities since the helmet rule than before, even if the figures are too small to be conclusive.
If you imagine neurosurgeons are the last word on helmets here is one who thinks they are useless.
Cycle Helmets are useless , says brain surgeon.
Leading neurosurgen tells the Hay Festival cycling helmets are too flimsy to be beneficial.
Reported in the Daily Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10866273/Cycle-helmets-are-useless-says-brain-surgeon-html
Sorry, forgot the link to the BMJ editorial.
http://www.badscience.net/2013/12/bicycle- helmets-and-the-law-a-perfect-teaching-case-for-epidemiology/
Very well worth reading.
http://www.badscience.net/2013/12/bicycle-helmets-and-the-law-a-perfect-...
When I clicked on your link, it didn't find it, but the link above seems no different ???
Ta.
Helmets are claimed to reduce head injuries and deaths. If they work it seems to me that we should be able to tell.
Ben Goldacre, Wellcome research fellow in epidemiology, and David Spiegelhalter, Winton professor for the Public Understanding of Risk, looked for evidence that helmets work. They found that it could not be shown that they do.
This is what they publiushed in an editorial in the British Medical Journal.
In any case, the current uncertainty about any benefits from helmet promotion or wearing is unlikely to be reduced by further research. Equally, we can be certain that helmets will continue to be debated, and at length. The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for road safety may lie not in their direct benefits- which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies- but more with the cultural, psychological and political aspects of popular debate around risks.
Helmets are a major distraction from these other strategies.
Note that these two guys are not neurosurgeons, who have no special knowledge of accident causation and mitigation, but scientists who specialise in analysing data about risk and medical interventions.
I think that helmet laws, and strong pressure to wear helmets, are a sign of a cycle hating culture. All the Anglo-Saxon countries funnily enough well illustrate this.
USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand are all low cycling rate countries where helmets are either mandated or pushed hard. Have you ever read the anti cycling venom spewed out in web forums by Australian motorists? It is chilling.
We are somewhere between these countries and the high rate countries, in riding rate, injury rate and helmet wearing. Why we should emulate the dangerous countries beats me.
There is a strong correlation between low cycling rates, high cyclist injury and death rates and helmet wearing.
All the countries I list have cyclist injury rates a multiple of ours.
They all have riding rates a fraction of ours.
In spite of near a hundred percent wearing rates in Australia and New Zealand their injury rates are a large multiple of the Netherlands where only the sort of cyclist who reads this website wears a helmet. For them and those readers a helmet is part of the uniform, but they have a higher injury rate than the shoppers, schoolchildren and other cyclists who use a bike as their everyday transport, and in far larger numbers, and make the difference in cycling rates from us.
Helmets do not seem to be the answer to the fragility of cyclists' skulls. Cycling should not be an extreme sport for intrepid young men.
I live in one of the US's fifty states and we don't even require seatbelts for adults riding in motor vehicles, let alone helmets for cyclists or motorcyclists.
I don't see this as being anti-cyclist. You can find posts that are just as repugnant by cyclists. Don't believe me? Two words: "Critical Mass". In some places, it's peaceful and orderly. In others, the exact opposite, the type of thuggery and venom that motorists tend to post whenever they get the chance. Don't tell me you've never seen comments about using d-locks as weapons.
This is more about over-reaching governments, control, and the end of civil liberties. Why do you think so many Australian police responded to this ride? It had nothing to do with the law that was being broken. Those Aussies chose to not only challenge the law, but to defy it openly. The government doesn't want to risk having people feel as though they have free will or any control over their lives. They commited the ultimate crime of choosing for themselves.
When you say "we don't even ..." are you referring to your own state? My information is that more than 20 states require youths to wear helmets. I am aware USA is a federal country and laws vary from state to state and that some cities do encourage cycling. In others the roads are, I believe, quite unfriendly, and quite a few jurisdictions require all riders to wear a helmet.
As regards rates and injuries I find
Netherlands 864 Km. cycled p.a. per inhabitant. 10.7 deaths per billion Km. ridden
UK 75 Km. 28.1 deaths
USA 47 Km. 44 deaths.
CH 261Km. 18.4 deaths.
Even Hilly Switzerland does better than USA and UK
You see the difference from countries which actually encourage cycling and those where the road environment is, for some reason, more dangerous.
Yes, it's a state issue. I can't speak for all of them, but the three I ride in most often aren't "against" cycling. They don't spend a ton of money on infrastructure for us, but they're slowly getting better at supporting road users other than motor vehicles.
My own experience is the exact opposite of this story. I can cross an intersection on a red light after slowing and looking both ways right in front of the police and they have zero interest. Perhaps it's because cyclists are so outnumbered by motor vehicles that they don't consider it worth the effort to cite them. They're neither pro-cycling nor anti-cycling, they just don't even think about cyclists. We're invisible to them.
There are a whole lot of variables involved. Far too many for that kind of generalization, IMO.
I can't be arsed looking, but what exactly is a helmet?
What are the safety levels they have to achieve?
Because I can't believe that a $5.00 https://whatson.melbourne.vic.gov.au/visitors/transport/bike/Pages/Bike.... can offer the same protection as a £150.00+ helmet.
What sort of protection will my 10 yr old helmet provide for me?
And why are the pro helmets more concerned about the helmet itself and not the quality of the helmet? They seem happy for these $5.00 helmets to be sold.
It seems to me that pro helmets don't actually know what they're advocating.
Actually, it is likely that the $5 helmet protects better than the $150 helmet. The first has been designed solely to pass the tests, with no attention paid to style, vents, aerodynamics or anything else. The latter has been designed to pass the tests, but has been styled, with maximum vents, aerodynamic shape and anything else that might sell it.
The $5 helmet has no vents and is likely to be stronger than one with lots of vents and other design features designed to sell it rather than be protective.
Here in Australia as long as it complies with Australian Standard 2063 and has the little red stick affixed inside the helmet it's fine to use for the purpose of riding, cost is not a factor. To the pro helmets it is the perceived idea that it will afford 100% protection. I think the Foreword at the beginning of the Standard sums it up
https://www.saiglobal.com/PDFTemp/Previews/OSH/AS/AS2000/2000/2063-2008.pdf
Helmets which comply with this Standard are considered suitable for cycling activities where the wearer may be thrown or fall from a height, particularly while mobile. They are not, however, to be used by motor cyclists on public roads or in other public places where the various State and Territory Traffic Regulations require the use of helmets complying with AS/NZS 1698:2006, Protective helmets for vehicle users, nor are they to be used for high-speed sports such as motor cycle racing and car racing.
The protection given by a helmet depends on the circumstances of the impact and the wearing of a helmet cannot always prevent death or injury. A proportion of the energy of an impact is absorbed by the helmet, thereby reducing the force of the blow sustained by the head. The structure of the helmet may be damaged in absorbing this energy and any helmet that sustains a severe blow should be replaced even if damage is not apparent.
To achieve the performance of which it is capable and to ensure stability on the head, a helmet should be as closely fitting as possible consistent with comfort, and it must be securely fastened, with the retaining strap under tension at all times.
From Melbourne, Australia
Most people appear foolish. The monetary power via an expensive expiation notice seems to encourage safety much better than powers such as monarchy and monastery.
$330 seems a bit rich!!! Really??
Something, something, neuro-surgeons, something, something, material scientists, something, something dark side.
4566177167_4789dc9c80_b.jpg
this is why it should be compulsory for cyclists to wear a strap-on
I only enter cycling events where full body armour is mandated. Yes, bones can heal, but have you seen the price of top quality cybernetic replacements? (You've only got one appendix - protect it while you've got it).
082.JPG
As a cyclist on the road we are highly exposed to all manner of risks, not least from other road users. A helmet will have little benefit in a collision with a motor vehicle. However, if I may use a specific event, my son came off his bike at about 30 mph (whatever that translates in kph). His head hit the kerb and split his helmet. However, his head was fine (if it was in the first place). Three broken ribs healed in time, but it begs the question as to what head injury he might have suffered.
Please don't just use the example of a collision with a car to justify this argument. I agree that nothing will save you from injury. Just ask yourself what happens if your head impacts with a hard surface. You can mend a broken bone, but not a broken brain. At the end of the day we must all weigh up the risks, consequences and responsibilities. Who will be affected by you brain injury apart from you.
However small we might say are the benefits of wearing a helmet, I choose to wear one, as I also do with skiing. The choice is yours.
I choose not to.
One post, with anecdata, eh? Hmm...
So you choose to wear a helmet when cycling and skiing but not in a car where the danger of serious head injury is much higher?
Please provide a link to research that demonstrates I am at greater risk of serious head injury driving my car around town, versus cycling.
Rather than asking trauma and neuro surgeons about wearing helmets, I decided to ask a dentist, an undertaker and a small dog. Unfortunately, I didn't bother listening to their answers, so there you go - undeniable proof that a helmet WILL save your life even if you don't ride a bike.
2012-11-03+Bicycle+Friends+Storm+Trooper.jpg
I'm sure you have read this before but you are better off wearing a long haired wig.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/research/news/2016/01/25/helmet-wearing-risk-taking/
I find wearing a skirt or pink generally sufficient.
No one is stopping you wear a helmet if you want to.
If bike use declines with the introduction of such measures then I'd speculate that heart disease, obesity etc increases as a result.
A bit like a fat car driver telling me it's unsafe to ride a bike, but 160000 people/year in the UK die from heart and cirulatory disease. The number one killer.
I wear a helmet most of the time but it's my choice.
Bingo!
MoominPappa wins the contest to provide the first ill-informed, worthless contribution.
Will anyone else chip in and give us the benefit of their ignorance? Come on compulory helmet fans, don't hold back, you know you want to deliver your patronising little lectures...
Does this have to include a personal story of a helmet saving a life thus elevating the wearer/victim into a global expert?
Pages