Earlier this year, the Cycling Promotion Fund, in conjunction with the National Heart Foundation conducted a survey of 1000 Australian adults in relation to whether or not they ride a bike for transport.

We’ve mentioned the CPF survey previously. It has a great deal of useful information, regarding people who use a bike as a form of transport. But what is probably more interesting is the information on those who currently don’t ride a bike for transport. Do they want to and if so why aren’t they riding?

Of the 1000 people surveyed only 158 had used a bike for transport in the last month. However a further 515 reported that although they don’t ride regularly or at all, they would like to.

So what are the things that are preventing over 50% of the population from hopping on a bike, and what can our governments do to help the situation? Here’s what the they said was stopping them:

  • Unsafe road conditions: 46.4%
  • Speed/volume of traffic: 41.8%
  • Don’t feel safe riding: 41.4%
  • Lack of bicycle lanes/trails: 34.6%
  • Destinations too far away: 29.9%
  • No place to park/store bike: 23.5%
  • Do not own a bike: 22.5%
  • Weather conditions: 22.1%
  • Not fit enough: 21.8%
  • Too hilly: 19.6%
  • Don’t feel confident riding: 18.6%
  • Not enough time: 16.7%
  • Don’t like wearing a helmet: 15.7%
  • No place to change/shower: 14.6%
  • Health problems: 14.4%

Clearly some of the reasons offered are beyond the control of anyone – no government can change the weather, reduce the steepness of the hills, make our destinations closer or give us more time in the day. But some things can be improved.

The first four reasons are variations of exactly the same theme: safety and perceived safety on the roads. There is no doubt that this is the most important barrier to getting more people on bikes. People generally don’t like cycling with fast moving motor traffic – they want to be safe and they want to feel safe. But if we eliminate those other responses which are beyond the control of government, we see that there are only really three things that can realistically be improved upon:

  • Road and traffic conditions / safety: 50%+
  • No place to park/store bike: 23.5%
  • Don’t like wearing a helmet: 15.7%

We can see that mandatory helmet laws, while not the most common deterrent, are clearly a significant factor in discouraging people from cycling. While the provision of more Dutch-style bike lanes would be without question the best way to get more people on bicycles, the unfortunate reality is that this sort of infrastructure will take decades and huge amounts of money to introduce to our cities and towns. In contrast, repeal of helmet laws is costless and immediate. However, it’s not an either/or proposition. Helmet choice and better infrastructure support each other – more people riding means more support for quality bike infrastructure, and ultimately a safer road environment for everyone.

It’s not just those who aren’t cycling that our helmet laws are discouraging. Even amongst those people who do cycle for transport, 16.5% reported that they would ride more often if they were not required to wear a helmet at all times.

So around 16% of people who are interested in cycling are riding less, or not at all, due to our mandatory helmet laws.

Even adjusting for the fact that some people do not have any desire to cycle at all (around a third of all respondents), it’s clear that helmet laws are preventing a huge number of people from riding a bike.

In fact, if the CPF survey is an accurate representation of the population, it shows that compulsory helmet laws are keeping 2.4 million Australians off their bikes.

Getting 2.4 million people to start riding or ride more often would be hugely beneficial to cycling in Australia, especially considering only 3.6 million are riding currently according to this survey.

Given that it is widely acknowledged that the health benefits of riding a bike vastly outweigh the risks of having a traffic accident – even while riding without a helmet – it does not make sense to be preventing so many people from cycling, simply on the basis that this already safe activity might be made even safer with the addition of a helmet.

The evidence is clear – mandatory helmet laws deter people from cycling. Even after 20 years, our laws are still reducing cycling levels by 30-40%.

* See the comment from Dave below.  Given a sample of 1000, population of 20 million and 95% CI, the margin of error in the survey is +/- 3.1%.  So the fully qualified claim is that 15.7% (+/- 3.1%) of Australians are put off cycling by helmet laws. That equates to between 1.8 and 3 million Australians.

  • Guest

    So… what you are saying is, by REMOVING safety gear, you can increase the number of people who will ride, even though it is putting their lives/livelyhood at risk.

    This is THE MOST STUPID ARTICLE I HAVE SEEN! While we’re at it, lets remove the need for safety gear on construction sites. Or seatbelts for that matter,,,

    • http://dave.kinkead.com.au Dave Kinkead

      Thats for you comment Anon.  You’d be absolutely correct if helmet laws didn’t have any negative impact on cycling numbers and/or actually made cycling safer.  Sadly, that’s not the case.

      As we clearly state pretty much everywhere, we think bike helmets are good.  There a lots of times, and plenty of science to show that if you have a linear impact to the head, you are better off with a helmet.  What we are against are helmet laws.

      There is a very important different between helmets and helmet laws that you seem to be missing.  There is no scientific evidence that shows helmet LAWS improve cyclist safety.  That is because 90% of all serious cycling injuries & fatalities involve a motor vehicle, and 99% of those occur in 50kph zones and above.  At those speeds most injuries & deaths would still occur whether or not cyclists wear a helmet (only 25% of fatalities are caused solely due to head injury).

      The way to improve cyclist safety is to stop these collisions in the first place. A helmet does nothing to help, and by discouraging cycling and changing cyclist/motorist behaviour helmet laws make collisions more likely.  If you are still not convinced, think about why it’s 20 times safer to ride without a helmet in places like the Netherlands, than it is to ride with a helmet in Australia.

    • http://dave.kinkead.com.au Dave Kinkead

      Thats for you comment Anon.  You’d be absolutely correct if helmet laws didn’t have any negative impact on cycling numbers and/or actually made cycling safer.  Sadly, that’s not the case.

      As we clearly state pretty much everywhere, we think bike helmets are good.  There a lots of times, and plenty of science to show that if you have a linear impact to the head, you are better off with a helmet.  What we are against are helmet laws.

      There is a very important different between helmets and helmet laws that you seem to be missing.  There is no scientific evidence that shows helmet LAWS improve cyclist safety.  That is because 90% of all serious cycling injuries & fatalities involve a motor vehicle, and 99% of those occur in 50kph zones and above.  At those speeds most injuries & deaths would still occur whether or not cyclists wear a helmet (only 25% of fatalities are caused solely due to head injury).

      The way to improve cyclist safety is to stop these collisions in the first place. A helmet does nothing to help, and by discouraging cycling and changing cyclist/motorist behaviour helmet laws make collisions more likely.  If you are still not convinced, think about why it’s 20 times safer to ride without a helmet in places like the Netherlands, than it is to ride with a helmet in Australia.

    • Anonymous

      It is likely that you’re not very well travelled,  nor have you read widely on this subject.

      Nobody is asking *you* to remove *your* ‘safety gear’ – if you think it helps improve your safety. What this site is saying is that the law forcing all cyclists to wear a bicycle helmet at all times is misguided. It is illegal to ride at 10km/h on a bikeway without a helmet yet legal to ride rollerblades at 20km/h without one.

      I’m sure you are aware that there are many exemptions to seatbelt use in this country – all perfectly legal – not to mention that no public bus passengers have seatbelts. Why not?

      I would be happy to 1) take you more seriously and 2) discuss this in more detail, if you were willing to put your real name and contact details to your post.

    • Anonymous

      I’m curious as to your position on the recommendation by a coroner recently that all Ironman competitors should wear ‘flotation devices’ and ‘helmets’ due to the recent (and rare) death of a competitor.

      If you agree with mandatory helmet laws then you must agree with the above recommendations as your logic is the same.

  • http://dave.kinkead.com.au Dave Kinkead

    A few people have queried these figures and accused us of drawing a long bow by extrapolating from a survey of 1000 to a population of 20 million.  Actually, the bow isn’t very long at all.

    Statistical analysis is typically conducted using a 95% confidence level.  That means assuming the null hypothesis is correct, there is only a 1 in 20 chance that the sample result is a false positive (it shows something that isn’t really there).   Of course this assumes that the sampling technique is appropriate – in this case it was a randomised survey of all Australians.

    This is a descriptive survey so rather than testing a hypothesis, we are interested in the margin of error.  For a sample size of 1000, population of 20 million and confidence level of 95%, the margin of error is 3.1%.  So a more accurate statement is that 15.7% (+/- 3.1%) of all Australians are put off cycling to some extent by mandatory helmet laws.

  • Anonymous

    I just came across your article this morning. As a Dutchman I would love to add two things.

    First off, we never wear helmets unless going off-road on mountain bikes. False feeling of safety? Perhaps. Would riding with a helmet be potentially safer? Yes. Does anyone care? Euhm, not really. The biggest reason for that is that we grow up with riding bicycles. It is everyone’s first personal experience of going through traffic faster than walking. At 3 both my girls started cycling to school (with either me or my wife cycling besides them of course). It makes sure you grow up with this type of transport. As a result, we are aware of the risk, but so is every motorist, having been on the same two wheels at some part of his life, or even 10 minutes before getting into the car. I think that awareness is one of the biggest factors in the safety of Dutch roads for cyclists.

    On the Dutch style bike lanes, they don’t have to cost much money or take years to implement. I don’t have exact figures here, but As an estimate, the bike lanes on probably 80% of all our roads just consist of a dotted line that is designated for bikes with a little white bike spray painted on it every couple of hundred meters. That would cost your responsible ci council no more than a couple of hundred in time and road quality spray paint.

    Just my Dutch thoughts here.

  • Jeremy

    Well I hope you guys don’t work in finance, or anywhere else where basic maths skills are a prerequisite.
    Add up the percentages….they tally to almost 400%. So what does this mean? Each of the 1000 respondents gave 3-4 different reasons why they don’t ride a bike. So, if you removed mandatory helmet laws tomorrow, who knows how many would actually ride a bike, because each and every one of them has 2-3 OTHER reasons why they wont ride a bike.

    • http://dave.kinkead.com.au Dave Kinkead

      @c79a323ef29f327589e185d5774f65c8:disqus, if you click on the link you can actually read the exact questions the Heart Foundation asked such as “Which of the following, if any, discourage you from riding a bicycle for transport more often? (multiple response)”.

      Whether or not accepting the idea that people can have multiple motivations for an activity excludes one from working in finance is a tad unrelated, but lets see where your logic takes us anyway….

      “So, if you removed mandatory helmet laws tomorrow, who knows how many
      would actually ride a bike, because each and every one of them has 2-3
      OTHER reasons why they wont ride a bike.”  What you are saying here is that either repealing helmet laws would have no effect because the other reasons remain, or that no conclusion can be made as to the effect of repealing them because all reasons must be addressed. 

      As you’ve astutely noted, the sum of the individual responses to the multiple response question implies that at least some people listed more than one reason why they didn’t ride more.  What the survey doesn’t tell us is any relation between the reasons such as did all people who listed helmet laws list that as the only reason or did all of those people list multiple.

      If those that listed helmet laws as reason listed that as the sole reason, then clearly that is the only reason keeping 16% of the population off bikes.  If not, then other reasons contribute.  But lets say we miraculously address every other issue people have listed except helmet laws (assuming we could solve the weather or hill problem). 

      If that was the case, then according to your logic either the 16% of people who did list helmet laws as one of many reasons still wouldn’t cycle (because not all reasons have been address), or that we can make no conclusion to the effectiveness of making Australia a flat, temperate, denser, time & shower abundant cycling nirvana – you can’t have it both ways mate.

      The post never says that helmet laws are the only reason people don’t cycle more – perceived safety is by far the biggest reason. Getting rid of helmet laws is not a sufficient condition for a achieving a significant increase in cycling levels. It is however, a necessary condition to increase cycling as demonstrated by this survey and a range of other research on the subject.

      • Jeremy

        But you say that if mandatory cycling helmet laws were revoked, 2.4 millions Australians would suddenly start riding a bike. This is so obviously BS due to the facts that:
        1. The sum total of percentages is something like 370%, so **on average** each person lists 3-4 reasons why they dont ride a bike. Removing one of these probably wont get these people riding. Thus, mandatory helmet laws ARENT stopping 2.4 million people from taking up cycling.
        2. Your summation of the survey assumes that if we removed every one of the 15 reasons listed, suddenly every one of the 1000 people surveyed (and by extrapolation all 20 million Australians) would be riding a bike. Do you really believe that? People filling in a survey about why they dont do something versus the practicalities of them actually doing it are two very different things.
        3. Even if your “long bow statistics” are 10% true, the benefits of cycling without a helmet (in terms of public health) only outweigh the benefits of wearing a helmet (in terms of reduced head and neck injuries) if the uptake of cycling by individuals is sufficient to actually benefit their health. Making helmet wearing optional if it only means that an extra few hundred thousand people go for one ride every 6 months does not outweigh the increased risk of head/neck injuries. Your summation of the survey failed to state whether the respondents indicated that they might actually ride more than once a week.

        Ive got nothing against you saying “remove mandatory helmet laws and more people might start riding a bike” but I do strongly object to you saying “mandatory helmet laws are stopping 2.4 million Australians from riding a bike”.

      • Jeremy

        But you say that if mandatory cycling helmet laws were revoked, 2.4 millions Australians would suddenly start riding a bike. This is so obviously BS due to the facts that:
        1. The sum total of percentages is something like 370%, so **on average** each person lists 3-4 reasons why they dont ride a bike. Removing one of these probably wont get these people riding. Thus, mandatory helmet laws ARENT stopping 2.4 million people from taking up cycling.
        2. Your summation of the survey assumes that if we removed every one of the 15 reasons listed, suddenly every one of the 1000 people surveyed (and by extrapolation all 20 million Australians) would be riding a bike. Do you really believe that? People filling in a survey about why they dont do something versus the practicalities of them actually doing it are two very different things.
        3. Even if your “long bow statistics” are 10% true, the benefits of cycling without a helmet (in terms of public health) only outweigh the benefits of wearing a helmet (in terms of reduced head and neck injuries) if the uptake of cycling by individuals is sufficient to actually benefit their health. Making helmet wearing optional if it only means that an extra few hundred thousand people go for one ride every 6 months does not outweigh the increased risk of head/neck injuries. Your summation of the survey failed to state whether the respondents indicated that they might actually ride more than once a week.

        Ive got nothing against you saying “remove mandatory helmet laws and more people might start riding a bike” but I do strongly object to you saying “mandatory helmet laws are stopping 2.4 million Australians from riding a bike”.

        • http://dave.kinkead.com.au Dave Kinkead

          No BS at all.  That would be like saying that perceived unsafe road conditions are discouraging 46% of from riding is BS when it is a clearly stated as the primary reason of those surveyed.  To address your points:

          1) Clearly multiple reasons were listed on a multiple selection question but you seem to think the cycling motivation is a binary function – if all reasons are not met, then no one will ride. People are clearly more nuanced than this. Removal of helmet laws may not change their decision to commute on a busy road (at until infrastructure has been addressed), but if the laws are one of their reasons, then removing them will result in them cycling more often (say to the corner shop or in the park).  In no way does that contradict the statement “So around 16% of people who are interested in cycling are riding less, or not at all, due to our mandatory helmet laws.”

          2) Actually, the survey lists group who would never ride regardless so I don’t think we’d ever have the whole population riding (even in cycling nirvana) while other options exist.  Yet in some European cities they have around half of all journeys taken by bike.  I agree that there are always differences between stated intentions and actual behaviour, but this is all the social sciences have in many situations.

          3)  Our general argument is that while helmet are good, helmet laws are bad.  You are making an assumption that helmet laws lead to an increase in cycling safety.  While there is plenty of science showing the benefits of helmet wearing but none that shows helmet laws improve safety. 

          I agree with your statement “Making helmet wearing optional if it only means that an extra few
          hundred thousand people go for one ride every 6 months does not outweigh
          the increased risk of head/neck injuries” as this applies to pretty much all cyclists. The health benefits significantly outweigh any risks (by 77 times in a recent BMJ paper of Spanish bike share) and helmet laws don’t reduce the risk of head/head injuries.  The survey did not indicate how frequently ‘more’ meant to respondents.

          Anyway, thanks for your comments.  Would you be more comfortable with the (more verbose) claim that “approximately 16% of surveyed households are discouraged from cycling in some way by helmet laws”?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stephen-Humble/100001851063829 Stephen Humble

      Good survey sponsored by the heart foundation and great that they included a helmet question – but from some people’s comments seem to show their ignorance of the % values – each question in the survey is a YES- NO % so each question my attract up to 100%.
      If they had added a further questions such as “Did Not own/have a helmet available” (something causing problems for bike hire schemes.) then the SETSUM of answers for helmet related problems could easily have been higher than the single question answer of ~16%. and in some places there would have been many people who would have answered YES pushing the setsum upwards if they included such additional questions.
      The 2.4 million extrapolation is probably conservative – the perception of bicycle usage as being dangerous (41% YES) is partially a result of Australia’s helmet laws distorting perceptions of risk which are in fact incredibly low. 
      I wonder how people in say the US,  China,  Europe, Asia where there is a less negative view of safety would fall. Also  the NT would be an interesting place to compare with as they have a partial exemption.

  • Pingback: Dutch Courage? « Helmet Freedom

  • steve

    Good survey by the heart foundation and great that they included a helmet question – but from some people’s comments seem to show their ignorance of the % values – each question in the survey is a YES- NO % so each question my attract up to 100%.
    If they had added a further questions such as “Did Not own/have a helmet available” (something causing problems for bike hire schemes.) then the SETSUM of answers for helmet related problems could easily have been higher than the single question answer of ~16%. and in some places there would have been many people who would have answered YES pushing the setsum upwards if they included such additional questions.
    The 2.4 million extrapolation is probably conservative – the perception of bicycle usage as being dangerous (41% YES) is partially a result of Australia’s helmet laws distorting perceptions of risk which are in fact incredibly low. 
    I wonder how people in say the US,  China,  Europe, Asia where there is a less negative view of safety would fall. Also  the NT would be an interesting place to compare with as they have a partial exemption.

  • Pingback: Pollution, Cycling & Obesity « Helmet Freedom

  • Pingback: So just where did I lose you? « Helmet Freedom

  • It must be l♥ve…

    OHH GOSH ALL YOU SMART ONES SHUT UP!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/John.S.Rawlins John Rawlins

    As a Brit who loves to see the Aussies get beaten by us in any sport I urge you to not to change the mandatory helmet legislation. The more Aussies who refuse to cycle because of helmets the better. That means whole families can stay indoors, watch TV, and eat crisps. The result will be more fat Aussies, fewer athletic Aussies, and more glorious victories for British sports teams. Keep those helmets, keep eating anything sweet, keep drinking fizzy drinks, and drive everywhere.

  • http://www.facebook.com/John.S.Rawlins John Rawlins

    As a Brit who loves to see the Aussies get beaten by us in any sport I urge you to not to change the mandatory helmet legislation. The more Aussies who refuse to cycle because of helmets the better. That means whole families can stay indoors, watch TV, and eat crisps. The result will be more fat Aussies, fewer athletic Aussies, and more glorious victories for British sports teams. Keep those helmets, keep eating anything sweet, keep drinking fizzy drinks, and drive everywhere.

  • Gerald Harvey

    helmets are the most uncomfortable thing ever, my head gets all sweaty, and its like wearing a toque in the summer. putting down my bike for good