Cycling in Melbourne Australia
Australia's helmet law disaster
IPA REVIEW ARTICLE
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Israel experimented with national legislation, but repealed the law in 2011 after a four year trial.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.
Not sure if I really want to get into this argument but here is a video by Mike Rubbo explains that not all major cities in Australia have mandatory helmet laws.
Interesting video. Thanks Jack.
Smoking is heavily taxed to apparently pay for medical treatment, as is alcohol consumption. Smoking is illegal in areas where it may harm others. Other drugs such as marijuana and heroin remain illegal even though they are essentially self harm - and personal choice.
Seat belts are a safety legal requirement. What do we think about those?
I'd love to wear a helmet, even if there is a small chance it will make a difference. However, my head is too big.I have a circumference of 65cm, and the biggest helmet I can purchase is 63cm. I recently got pulled over by the police, and even though I explained this to the officer, he was more interested in getting his quota of offences for the day rather than listening. I later received a $280 fine. I went to the station to contest, and firstly had the officer on the desk laughing at me, and then explain to me that the reason it is law is because 'they were tired of washing brains off the road' Not a real basis for a law I feel.
I have refused to pay and am awaiting my court date. I am preparing my defence in that my alleged crime was not wearing an appropriately fitting helmet that is approved by Australian regulations. Now firstly as per above I cannot get an appropriately fitting helmet as they do not make them. But it is also my understanding that Australian law dictates that every style, colour of that style and size of that style needs to be tested by the manufacturer so that it meets Australian regs. Therefore understandably manufacturers do not ship all of their helmets to Australia as it is not cost effective and stick to the mainstream sizes.
Therefore I cannot abide by the law as even if a company made a helmet that fitted me, more than likely they would not sell it here. Which also means if I buy it outside of Australia and imported it in, I would still be breaking the law. So basically I can't abide by Australian law. As a result my bike has been locked at the bottom of my stairs for nearly three months now.
Does anyone have any advice that might help my cause?
Given that my helmet is full of adjustable bits of foam which can be added or subtracted to ensure a snug fit, I find it surprising that you can't find something to fit. On the other hand, if you really want to ride and not cop the fines, think laterally and find something that "looks like" a good bike helmet from thirty paces. Eg cut a helmet in half and add in a section to make it bigger! Or eg get one of those stretch helmet covers and put it over some other hat, add some fake straps. Or eg make you own helmet from a baseball cap, polystyrene and bits of an old helmet. Still not legal, I know, but the intention of the law is not to prevent you from riding (tell the magistrate that!).
And yet 50% of cycling deaths in Vic last year weren't wearing a helmet.........bit of an over-representation wouldn't you think?
I find this hard to believe. Source?
TAC figures. Of course it's hard to believe if you don't want to. When you only listen to arguments that support your a priori judgement, the facts get in the way.
"Of the eight fatalities involving cyclists, 50 per cent (four) were not wearing a helmet."
"Of course it's hard to believe if you don't want to. When you only listen to arguments that support your a priori judgement, the facts get in the way."
Completely unsupported by anything I said, and uncalled for!
The article is actually based on the fact that researchers have not been able to find ANY reliable evidence that the intro of MHLs has made a positive difference. Scraping a helmetless someone off the bitumen after being doored then hit by a truck says nothing about the efficacy of helmets.
Sorry if that sounded a bit narky Rob, but I know your position in this debate from previous postings.
It says a lot about the efficacy of helmets - helmet wearing riders make up somewhere around 80% of riders but they made up 50% of deaths. the other 20% of helmet-less riders made up the other 50%. This disproportionate representation is a clear indicator of...........,well, you work it out.
Here's my problem - without seeing the article or the stats, the fact that 50% of the fatalities were not wearing a helmet does not mean that the lack of helmet had anything to do with their deaths.
All it means is they were not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident.
If the law is repealed it doesn't mean that everyone will be obliged to throw away their helmets - it'll be a matter of personal choice, not Government enforcement. If you believe in helmets, you'll be able to wear one, if you think they're of marginal or no benefit, it should be your choice to not wear one.
Nick, you are a casino owners dream with that understanding of statistics. No, it doesn't just mean that they were not wearing a helmet. If helmetless riders made up exactly half of the riding population I would agree with you, but they don't.
It means that a group that makes up a tiny fraction of overall cyclists made up half of the deaths of all cyclist deaths.
Even allowing for the fact that that small group may have increased their risk factors by behaviour such as not having lights/wearing dark clothing at night or riding in a manner which increases their chances of being hit (something I have observed over the years) - they are not incredibly more likely to have been hit than helmeted riders.
Thus you can see that for far fewer accidents (because of the smaller proportion of helmetless riders being hit at roughly the same rate as helmeted riders) there are proportionally far more deaths - therefore there is a much greater rate of death.
Given that, it is obvious that there is a factor leading to that way higher death rate, or the converse, there is a factor leading to far greater survivability of helmeted riders. Now, I can't put it much more clearly than that - you work out what that factor is.
It doesn't matter that a bunch of right wing wallys at the IPA are regurgitating the same old tired arguments, look at the statistics.