Helmets are great.
Helmet laws are a disaster.

Bicycle helmets are great for what they are designed for – limiting head injuries in low-speed collisions. Mandatory helmet laws (MHL), however, are very bad for cyclist safety.

Cycling is a very safe activity. It is about as risky as taking a walk or watching TV.  Being hit by a car, on the other hand, can be rather bad for one’s health.  Helmet laws are bad for cycling safety because they fail to address the main source of danger, and discourage cycling as a normal activity.

For a variety of reasons including inconvenience, perceived danger, comfort and even helmet hair, MHLs make cycling less attractive as an everyday activity.  When MHLs were introduced into Australia, cycling levels dropped by more than 30%.  Similar falls have been reported elsewhere whenever helmet laws are introduced.  No region with MHLs has ever achieved a high or even moderate cycling modal share, just as no bike-share scheme has succeeded in cities with MHLs.

Yet the most important safety factor for cycling is the number of cyclists riding bikes – the ‘safety in numbers’ effect.  As more people ride, fewer people drive and those who do drive become more accustomed to people cycling.  The result is less traffic and fewer cars hitting cyclists.

MHLs are also bad for cyclist safety because they fail to address the main source of danger.  Very few adults suffer serious injury or death simply from cycling.  Like pedestrians, the overwhelming majority of serious injuries among cyclists are caused by impact with a motor vehicle.  Yet helmets don’t stop collisions and, by discouraging cycling, helmet laws can even make collisions more likely.  Mandating helmet use for cyclist safety is like trying to stop gun crime with bulletproof-vest laws – it ignores the problem and blames the victim.

Australia and New Zealand are among less than a handful of countries that have national, mandatory, all-age helmet laws.  During the 20 years they have been in force, there is no evidence that helmet laws have reduced the risk faced by cyclists.  Contrast this with European nations that have tackled the source of the problem with reduced urban speed limits, proper cycling infrastructure and legal protection for non-motorised road users.  Cycling without a helmet in Europe is 10-20 times safer than cycling in Australia with one.

No one should be prevented from wearing a helmet if they choose to.  At the same time, cyclists should not be singled out amongst other road users and forced to wear a helmet without any evidence that bicycle helmet laws work – even after almost 20 years of having them!  That’s why we support Helmet Freedom and ask that you do too.

  • NeilA

    Can I suggest a rewording of the form letter, especially the heading. “Helmet Laws in the Northern Territory” is not going to grab a NSW politician as an issue they should be concerned about. I have sent the letter below which is an edited version of that you provided. Thanks for the template. If you like you can use my edited version as a template in future. Best wishes, NeilA

    The Hon Kristina Keneally
    Premier of NSW
    Governor Macquarie Tower
    1 Farrer Place
    Sydney NSW 2000

    Dear Ms Keneally,

    RE: Bicycle Helmet Laws

    I am writing to ask you to consider a relaxation of the all-age mandatory bicycle helmet laws, in line with amendments the Northern Territory enacted in the 1990s.

    Mandatory bicycle helmet exemptions already exist in many Australian states. For example, in Queensland, New South Wales & Victoria there are two exemptions:

    * If a rider has a medical certificate stating that they cannot wear a bicycle helmet for a stated reason & duration, and
    * If one is a paying passenger on a three- or four-wheeled bicycle.

    In the Northern Territory there is a further exemption, unique to the Territory:

    * If you are over 17 years of age and cycling on a separated cycleway or footpath the wearing of a bicycle helmet is optional.

    The NT allows adults to decide if the wearing of a bicycle helmet will be of benefit to them based on their route and skill level. It is interesting to note that the Northern Territory has a bicycle mode share of 4.2% compared to our 1%, while 31% of their bicycle users are women, compared to less than 20% in our state. Their safety record shows they have paid no penalty at all for this amendment; just the opposite, the NT has a lower injury rate of cyclists per head of population.

    Disappointingly, cycling in Australia is often seen as ‘dangerous’. Gone are the days when it was seen as a valid method of transport to the shops, to school or to work which is safer, healthier and more environmentally responsible than driving. The need for special equipment is a deterrent for many people. Police blitzes on helmet wearing also deter cycling and take police away from detecting dangerous driving and serious crime.

    We are now seeing improvements in cycleway connectivity. Adults on bicycles could be treated as such and should be given the choice to wear a bicycle helmet, particularly on footpaths and cycleways.

    Can you please explain to me why such an exemption is not being considered in New South Wales given the great safety record of the Northern Territory?

    Sincerely,

    ************

    References:

    Cycling Infrastructure for Australian Cities, Background Paper, March 2009 – http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/files/Cycling_Infrastructure_Background_Paper_16Mar09_WEB.pdf

    Cycling to Work on the Increase, Cycling Fact Sheet – http://www.cyclingpromotion.com.au/images/stories/downloads/Riding_to_Work_Fact_Sheet.pdf

    Helmet Laws: Northern Territory – http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1114.html

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

      @NielA,

      Thanks for the feedback – I think I like your version better!

      And thanks even more for taking the time to write to your local member or minister. The only way things will change is if lots of people start making some noise. Our goal is to get 10,000 letters written this year – 1 per month from 1000ish people. So if you can, please get 2 other people along with yourself to write. Its only 5 mins once per month.

      Cheers,

      Dave

  • petert

    Firstly, I think you guys are doing a great job and this a great start for an Action plan.
    Because there is an instant, irrational reaction from most people that removing MHL = banning Helmets, I’ve added :

    Exemption of Mandatory Helmet Laws does not restrict riders who do want to use helmets, just like it does not restrict riders who opt to don reflective vests, helmet lights, gloves – what this exemption does do is to de-criminalise Australian cyclists and allows them to decide if and when they should use a helmet depending on the mode of cycling they engage in.

    It can probably be re-worded better.
    Also, will sending one of these to the Shadow Minister for Transport help?

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

      Thanks Peter,

      I’ve added local members in NSW and and some shadow minsters so go for it. Its a long process to map postcodes to state and council electorates (federal is well documented).

      If you can, send a letter once per month until the law has been repealed. Get 2 others to do the same (both mail & recruit). Pretty soon, the pollies will take notice!

      Cheers,

  • Kathyfrancis

    I’ve just found this site and I’m very impressed at what you’ve put together. I hope it was not too much work. I am completely against MHL and wish to be part of the move to have the laws repealed. I have already sent off two emails but will also use the templates to create letters which I will also send. I will send each of the letters in turn with a short time delay between each one.

    Do you know if there is any benefit to sending the same letter once a month as you suggest or do they ignore subsequent identical letters .

    There seem to be many many groups against MHL. Are you intending to contact them and try to get a larger movement ?
    I’d like to know more about your group if you have any more information.

    Best of luck.

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

      Thanks Kathy,

      Personally, I’d adapt each monthly letter based on any response you get – feel free to share them here and we can update the templates over time.

      We will be getting in touch with other groups shortly but we are based in Brisbane and have other more pressing issues to deal with right now!

      Subscribe to the blog for updates

  • Steelesmith

    Who are you guys? WHy is there no about us??

    I commute regularly but out west and have do far done 34k km on my bike and never been hit by a car thank GOd. ALso wear the lovely yellow and have alight on at almost all times. . But I have hit a traffic island and bounced on my helmet. ALso had both my sons trash helmets saving fractured skulls, so I love helmets (not sure of best solution to the Mary Poppins effect though, but I try treating them as I want to be treated – and as I have a right to be there and I know they are there – and that works OK for me, for which I am also thankful)

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

      Why I’m me. Good point about the about us as it probably good for people to know that my co collaborator is an ER Doctor.

      Glad that you love helmets – I too have flipped upside down over a jump and landed on my head while mountain biking. While I can’t claim that it ‘saved my life’, it certainly stopped more serious injury.

      But that is just the point, nobody here thinks that helmets should be banned. I for one will continue to wear one racing or mountain biking. But helmet laws have done little to make cycling safer while destroying ‘normal’ cycling in Australia. Its all about freedom.

  • Kathyfrancis

    I need a reference for your claim in the second last paragraph that

    ‘cycling without a helmet in Europe is 10-20 times safer than cycling in Australia with one’

    is that per km travelled, per time spent on a bike, per head of population or other ?

    I’m discussing this with someone and need proof. These claims are often made but I don’t know where it comes from

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

      Hi Kathy,

      One of the challenges in Australia is that we have very poor exposure data (ie how many people ride when/how often) in order to determine specific risk. All we have in Aus is approx modal share to compare against population and injury stats. The figure quoted above is a comparison of Australian with best practice European cities based on number of journeys taken.

      So say for 2007, in NSW with 1.2% modal share, population of 7.2M and 14 deaths gives approx 44.4 cyclist deaths per 100M journeys in NSW. In Copenhagen with 37% modal share, population of 1.9M and 5 deaths gives 1.95 deaths per 100M journeys and a comparative safety difference of 22 times. (Sydney would be even worse with modal share of 0.7% but I only have fatality data by state).

      Typical national safety rates are about half that of best practice cities, hence the 10-20 times safer claim.

      The source data for this can be found in the following publications
      http://www.pcal.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/36785/Cycling_in_NSW_-_What_the_Data_Tells_Us.pdf
      http://www.vejpark2.kk.dk/publikationer/pdf/413_cykelpolitik_uk.pdf

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

      The City of Copenhagen cycling policy that I linked to provides an excellent discussion of how to achieve meaningful cyclist safety. Returning to Oz after a couple of years in Copenhagen, I was really struck with how we’ve got bike safety backwards here – stopping people getting hit by cars in the first place is much better than making everyone wear foam hats.

      The safety section starts on page 15.

      http://www.vejpark2.kk.dk/publikationer/pdf/413_cykelpolitik_uk.pdf

  • KathyFrancis

    Thanks Dave for the link. I should be able to use it.

  • Bo
    • paulmartin

      Great article, Bo. Sorry to see the unpleasant comments that follow it though. Keep up the great work!

  • Dirkspeeder

    How much does JC Decaux pay for this website?

  • http://twitter.com/Will_Watt William Watt

    Guys, Great work with the site so far.
    I was wondering, do you have a facebook page or twitter account set up? 
    You should really be harnessing social media more prominently as it creates an easy point of contact and place for people to connect/join. If you do already then it should be made clearer on this page.
    I will be featuring a photo next week related to helmet laws in Melbourne and would like to link it up with you.
    Cheers, 
    Will.

    • paulmartin

      Will, we have both a twitter account @helmetfreedom and a Facebook page. Regards, Paul.

  • Geoffrey McLeod

    I’ve just come back from Italy and, after seeing so many Italians happily using bikes for their daily transport needs, I found myself getting increasingly frustrated with Australia’s head-in-the-sand approach to mandatory helmet laws. Bike riding should be more popular here but it’s hopelessly unpopular. I would like to see more promotion for this issue. Maybe a national protest day or some kind of media support. I’m starting by filming a tv commercial in the hope that it could be used in some way to convey the message.

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

      Excellent Geoff, looking forward to seeing it.  You should also check out some of Mike Rubbos films if you haven’t already
      http://www.youtube.com/user/MikeRubbo#p/u/14/fGEewrHr2q0

      • Geoffrey McLeod

        I’d like to give the ad a relevant call-to-action, in other words, to tell the viewer what to do to take action – a website or something. Maybe I could put this website on the end graphic telling people to send the letters? Who do I talk to to get permission?

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

          You are more than welcome to use helmetfreedom.org as a call to action Geoff.

          Cheers

    • Tanya

      I travelled to New York in July this year and rode a bike almost everyday that I was there. They have no mandatory helmet laws there except for children under 13 years of age, which is fair enough. I felt liberated, happy, and unburdened by having to carry a helmet around with me everywhere I went. I could let my hair down or wear a hat, and during a heatwave it was nice not to have to bear the discomfort of wearing a borrowed helmet soaked in someone else’s sweat. 

      Like you, I have also been frustrated with Australia’s MHLs since returning home. From my experience in riding in one of the busiest metropolises in the world, I’ve seen that helmets are absolutely not necessary for rider safety. I felt safer dodging traffic on Broadway without a helmet than I feel riding the sleepy streets in Adelaide with a helmet. There was such a feeling of tolerance in NY towards cyclists, which I just loved. It seems a lot of motorists in Adelaide don’t seem to understand that for every cyclist on the road, it means one less car. Which actually makes their journey quicker, not the other way around.

  • Lyle

    I was reading some of the facts presented on your website and there is
    one section for which I think you need to clarify your reasoning a
    little.

    Your correctly point out that a helmet, if hit at 60kmh by a car will be
    destroyed and afford no protection. However you then use this to claim
    that a helmet will therefore be no use to a cyclist in a collision. This
    may be incorrect. Think about the resultant motion of a cyclist as they
    fall after being struck by a car.

    1) presumably in most cases they will receive the majority of the impact
    force on there lower body and legs. (due to the position of a bike and
    the height of car bonnets, sides etc…

    2) this force will be adequate to throw them from a bike etc… some other falling action. (over the bonnet maybe)

    3) at this point things become interesting, because the head etc. will
    tend to accelerate towards the ground via gravity…. meaning the
    cyclist head will strike he ground with a fairly complex momentum vector
    with two main contributing factors, the gravity force acceleration
    component (vertical) and the resultant lateral component made up of a
    combination of resultant vectors from the initial momentum carried by
    the cyclist and that contributed by the impact with the car.

    4) when the head strikes the ground, I think the helmet will provide
    exactly the kind of protection it is designed to do as it will not be
    receive the full force of the cyclist striking the ground at 60kmh an
    hour or that of the car, or even that of the cyclist original momentum.
    Instead it will probably be receiving force mainly contributed by the
    acceleration of the head as it fell post crash. The lateral component of
    the force is acting normal to the body that actually does the
    deceleration i.e. the ground and therefore does not incur much impulse
    on the helmet itself as it will roll skid etc…

    5) essentially, what im saying is, that as the riding falls, the major
    deceleration force on the head will be the ground acting on the helmet,
    but this force will be relatively similar to a low speed impact since
    the acceleration of the head was from the original riding height to the
    ground, while the lateral force that slows the rider will be a)
    distributed across there whole body, b) the impulse will be speed over a
    longer time as the skid/roll.

    Now, this is not to say that helmets will protect you in all situations,
    it is a very simplified version of what will happen after an impact.

    I only wanted to write to you in the hope that you would consider this
    before advocating for helmets only helping with ‘minor scratches’ after
    collisions with cars.

    You may want to say something closer to:

    The magnitude of injuries scales up with impacts at increased speed and
    with heavier objects however the basics functionality of helmets remains
    the same. I.e. they affords no more or less protection than if you were
    to simply fall over sideways.

    In way also to clarify why im writing to you, Im an avid cyclist
    commuting, racing, riding down steep things etc… I love it all.

    My only interest is in more developed discussions about these issue and clarity of facts.

    I don’t necessarily agree with compulsory helmet laws since adults are
    capable of making up their own minds but I think we should recognise how
    important helmets are and never diminish there role without clear
    justification. So when people to make a decision they are correctly
    informed.

    All the best

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

      @6526aebd2507434912f63020e85e9ef7:disqus,

      Thanks for your well thought out comment.  Broadly speaking I agree with the majority of what you are arguing here.  To be a little more specific however:

      - We are not saying that helmets provide no benefit, merely that helmets offer only marginal benefit when a cyclist is hit by 2000kg of metal travelling at 60kph.  It is by all means correct to say that you may be better off having worn one in this circumstance (in the manner you describe) as wearing a helmet may offer an (slightly) increased window of survivability (perhaps reducing death to serious injury or serious injury to minor).

      - But, head injury as the cause of death only occurs in approximately 25% of cyclist fatalities and of these, 60-80% are helmeted (in Australia).  That means the most common cause of death is trauma to the rest of the body.  This improved window of survivability is therefore less significant than most people think.

      - Furthermore, there is some research that indicates helmets may increase risk from lateral impacts (diffused axonal injury).  Research on this topic is quite sparse but a EU study into motorbike injuries found evidence of DAI in approx 60% of fatalities.  The big question with this is how significant DAI is verses the benefits of reducing linear impacts – personally, I’m not sure.

      So what I’m saying here is that even in the scenario you proposed, the benefit of helmet wearing is limited to only those cases where head injury is the sole cause of death, and even then only in a limited number of cases where the impact is marginal enough for the helmet to make a difference and if those impacts are linear, not rotational.  A very small set indeed.

      Discussions of helmet efficacy miss the point however – no one is advocating banning of helmets. Its the law that compels us to wear one in every circumstance regardless of the risk that we are fighting against.  Personally, I choose to wear one when I ride in groups or mountain bike but not when I’m riding for transport. Then I choose to wear a hat as the protection from the sun it affords is much more significant than the protection a helmet affords from head injury.

      Safe riding!

  • Mike O’Connor

    Thank you so much for bringing this to light.. Having lived in the U.K., the Netherlands and Australia before the helmet laws; I’ve experienced both sides of the coin.
    If I want to jump on my pushie and dawdle along the path to the shops, or take a cruise along the beachfront here on the Gold Coast, why the hell should I be constantly in fear of being pulled over by the police and fined?
    I’ve had heaps of accidents on my bike before without a helmet: not once did I sustain a head injury. I’m sick of these nanny-state laws. Repeal them now!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=694670528 David Bremner

    I spent the first 6 months of this year in Rio de Janeiro, and although they don’t have a cycle commute culture, they do HEAVILY cycle for recreation and in the whole 6 months I was there, right in the midst of a city of 11million people I only saw about three high speed cyclists in lycra with helmets. Everyone else was in their normal everyday wear, just like those around them walking to the beach, stopped at the juice bar, meeting friends at a cafe or delivering goods around town. It was the numbers of cyclists (including delivery cyclists even on main roads) and the good provision of infrastructure – separate lanes, in the low speed environment that made things safe. I loved it, there is nothing more freeing than riding with a helmet and not having to worry about being yelled at or fined by the cops!

  • Phil Best

    The other problem that prevents bike riding is the glass that lies around on the roads.
    We and BQ have asked the Qld State government to bring back deposits for glass containers (as they have in SA) however they continually ignore our pleas. However one glass or bottle can leave splinters of glass on the road that remain lethal to a bike tyre for some years and prevent an employee from getting to work on time. (so next time then leave the bike at home and take the car).
    regards, Phil.

  • Harrybind

    Guys, great initiative with a list of facts handy for discussion and letters to send as well.
    Although the letters seem to be out-dated as at least Kristina Keneally hasn’t been the premier of NSW for a while now.

    There is such randomness about enforcing this law: in Bondi Beach the bike is a really popular mode of transport and next to no one wears a helmet.
    But the other day police were fining for the offense, having been specifically told to target cyclists without helmets. Everyone pay $50 and let that be a lesson to you that we care about your safety!
    A parent cycling her kid to school got fined as the child was wearing a helmet but she wasn’t.

    Then we go about a whole 3 months of pretty much everyone ignoring this law again and cops looking the other way, no fines. Not altogether a very convincing approach.

  • Chris

    The add should read “End all nanny state laws!!!”

  • Antonio

    Finally! The helmet is the one thing stopping me from buying a bike in Oz! Full support!

  • Steve

    Why do CityCycle users have to wear helmets, but passengers in Green Cabs do not?
    http://www.greencabs.net.au/index.php
    They are both pedal powered vehicles travelling on Brisbane roads and bike-ways.

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

      A better question is why do non-paying pedicab passengers & riders have to wear one but paying passengers do not?

      They are both on the same bike!

      The answer I think, is that pedicab companies lobbied the government when the law was introduced and correctly pointed out the helmet laws and pedicabs dont mix.

  • Reece Heald

    Aren’t most adult cyclist riding at low speed where helmets are considered to be beneficial? The statements on the home page kinda of contradict themselves. 

    Agree?

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

      Helmet laws are a problem because they discourage cycling which counters any positive contribution from the safety benefit of cycling.

      If people are free to choose to wear helmets if they want, then these negatives are largely eliminated.

      Mountain biking is a good example. Road rules only apply on roads & road related areas.  Mountain bikers are not subjected to the helmet laws (when not on road related areas) yet almost mountain bikers still choose to wear one.

  • Christina

    I have to disagree with your comment that cyclists should be singled out amongst other road users and be forced to wear helmets. I can’t see how cyclists are singled out when motorists are forced to wear seat belts.

    Also you comment that helmets don’t stop collisions is a bit silly really, of course they don’t, that was never their purpose. Just like seat belts, their purpose is to minimise injury in case of a collision. I don’t care if I only have a 25% chance of being in a bicycle car collision, I will still wear my helmet every single time I ride because that 25% chance doesn’t shrink to 0% when I ride on the footpath instead of the road and I want to protect myself from the risk regardless of whether the risk is 5% or 50%. I wouldn’t say I have a 25% chance of having a car to car collision when I’m driving within 5kms of my home so I will wear my seat belt for the first 5kms of my trip then take it off for the rest of the trip because my risk has dropped so why doesn’t the same reasoning apply for my bike helmet?

    Another factor, increasing the number of cyclists will never decrease the number of motorists, as there will always be people that live too far away to commute by bicycle. Even if that did work, the number of cyclists doesn’t decrease the number of collisions. There have been many collisions between a single car and a group of cyclists. And statistically the more bikes on the road, the more incidences there will be.

    What’s absolutely ridiculous here is not wanting to wear a helmet because you might get too hot or you might get helmet hair, a seat belt is uncomfortable, but I would assume you find it reasonable to wear one of those? Or would you prefer they be voluntary too?

    • Tanya

      You can still wear a helmet if you choose to, even if there is no law forcing others to do so. So what is your problem with other people wanting the right to choose? 

    • Tanya

      Also, yeah I do think wearing set-belts should be voluntary. Of course, I’ll still wear mine, because I find it neither a hassle nor uncomfortable, and it’s for my own safety. But if someone wants to take the risk, why should I stop them? It’s their life, not mine. And why there are there no seatbelts on buses then?

    • Mick

      “And statistically the more bikes on the road, the more incidences there will be.”
      Do you have these statistics you speak of? If so, please provide a link of where you obtained them. Just curious, because there are a lot more bikes on the road in say, Copenhagen or Amsterdam, but I have not yet heard that there is a proportionately higher rate of accidents.

      Thanks.

    • Joe

      If the only consideration is safety, regardless of how people feel about how they look, and practicality, then surely we should all have to wear crash helmets and full fireproof suits when driving?? Surely that’s even safer and should be the law? What is your argument against that? Is anyone objecting to that being “absolutely ridiculous”?

  • Dutch Trader

    I have been talking this same talk since helmet laws came in.  Remove the compulsory helmets for recreational riding and watch the boom in cycling.  Watch whole new markets open for utility bikes.

    Leave the lycra nazis to wear the helmets..

  • Leah

    How hard is it to buy a helmet? This is ridiculous. Helmets are a basic safety precaution and if you don’t value your life enough to spend 15 bucks at Kmart and take 10 seconds to put it on, regardless of where you’re riding, you’re a moron. Heads don’t bounce off bitumen.

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

      And how hard it is to buy one for driving? Or a hat for going to the beach, or a life jacket for swimming.  All those things would make every day activities even safer but I don’t hear you calling for compulsory motor helmet laws.

      The only thing ridiculous is having an ineffective law that does more harm than good.

      • John

        Dave wearing a helmet when you ride your bike is sensible.
        Wearing a helmet when you are driving in a metal box with seatbelts and airbags is ridiculous as is swimming with a life jacket on. Arguing for the ridiculous does not refute the sensible.

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

          John,

          Thanks for your comment. Everyone should respect your choice to wear a helmet on the bike if you want to, just like they should respect your choice for not wearing one in the car.

          But to say that’s ridiculous is just wrong. Its not just me who disagrees but the science is against your position as well.  Please take the time to read the following abstract http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/atsb160.html

          “Prevention of head injuries to car occupants: an investigation of
          interior padding options:  …however, an even greater level of protection would be provided by the
          use of protective headwear. The total benefits associated with headwear in the form of a
          soft shell bicycle helmet were estimated to be $380 million (assuming a fully airbag
          equipped fleet), or $476 per car ($626 for cars without airbags).”

          That’s 50 times the benefit of bike helmets.

      • DomT

        Dave,
        I asked some relevant and important questions yesterday. Yes, they challenge your argument, but instead of answering them, you’ve simply taken them down.

        Surely if you had a solid argument you’d be happy to field anything thrown at you.

        A blog is the perfect forum where you can thrash these things out.

        Dom

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

          Dom – you did ask some good questions yesterday but nobody took them down.  You just asked them on a different page:

          http://helmetfreedom.org/action/#comment-353402261
          http://helmetfreedom.org/action/#comment-353419702
          http://helmetfreedom.org/action/#comment-353387242

          We leave all comments up (unless they are spam), even ones like this:
          http://helmetfreedom.org/action/#comment-353619089

          But to your argument.  No one is debating the effectiveness of helmets. I am convinced beyond a doubt that IF you receive a linear impact to the head, you are better off wearing a helmet.  But what we are campaigning against is helmet laws because they have many negative consequences and don’t make cycling any safer.  The only way your argument holds water is if you believe that the only reason people wear helmets is because the law forces them to.

          Looking forward to hearing more well through out comments from you

          • DomT

            My point wasn’t about effectiveness. It’s about getting people en mass to act responsibly while left to their own devices (i.e. without legislation). It isn’t going to happen. Seatbelt and drink driving laws vs protective motorcycle wear show  pretty clearly that if it isn’t legislation, people will blissfully not even think about it and put themselves in danger. If you look at the number of people dying by not wearing seatbelts (or drink driving), it’s you could argue that the legislation isn’t strong enough.
            Giving people the freedom means they are more likely (and of course a helmet can’t do everything, though on has definitely saved my life), to not wear one, with the whole state paying the consequences in terms of paying for rehabilitation in cases where they live.
            Someone’s argument that they’ve never needed a helmet isn’t an argument before. The day they need one is when they’ll need it, and they can’t plan for that. 
            Imagine if your own kids (not sure if you have them, but stay with me here), died needlessly because they ddn’t wear a helmet because it wasn’t law.
            Because that’s going to be the end result for someone’s kids somewhere if the legislation was overturned.

          • DomT

            In reply to your comment, you’re absolutely right – I believe a large number of people wouldn’t wear a helmet unless they were told they had to by law. That’s the whole problem. People do not think critically about a potentially dangerous situation.

            And yes helmets do make cycling safer. As mentioned in a previous post, I’d be long dead without one.

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

            Dom,

            You seem to be missing the point we repeatedly make.  We AGREE that helmets can make cycling safer.  But helmet LAWS do not.  If you think this is the case, please show me a single peer reviewed piece of research supporting a link between helmet laws and improved cycling safety that properly addresses confounding variables.

          • DomT

            Dave, pls see my reply above. I do understand there’s no argument about helmets being safer. My argument is (and has alwars been) that people won’t wear them if they’re not told to. Highlighting a responsible few who use them doesn’t cater to the masses.

            If people really could think for themselves, John Howard would never have been in power for so long,  Alan Jones wouldn’t have a radio show, and Rupert Murdoch would be broke.

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

            Dom, your argument that people need a law to act in their own interest is not supported by evidence.  To refute it, let me offer the following examples:

            The UK does not have helmet laws. Yet despite this, many people choose to freely wear one when they feel the need. As an example, see here http://vimeo.com/21371050. According to your augment, this can’t happen.

            Mountain biking: Helmet laws only apply on roads and road related areas. Yet despite this, mountain bikers still willingly choose to wear helmets even if they are in national parks or private land. According to your augment, this can’t happen.

            Skiing: Ski helmet use in Europe has increased from 10% to 63% in less than 10 years despite their use being purely voluntary. According to your augment, this can’t happen.

            Sun protection: There is no law requiring us to wear sunscreen & a hat to the beach. Yet, the vast majority of people choose to do so.  Again, your argument says this can’t happen without a law to force it.

            How do any of these things happen without a law forcing people to do it?

          • DomT

            As mentioned, it’s not the people who can think critically and clearly that I’m talking about. It’s those who can’t. They’re the ones the laws have been made for – because if they didn’t exist, it wouldn’t enter their head.

            If everyone could think for themselves, there would be no need for helmet laws, or seatbelt laws or drink driving laws, or a whole lot of other laws. Because eveyrone would self-regulate (and by everyone, I don’t mean 63%, I mean 95%).

            Tell me, if there were no helmet laws, do you think more or less people (as a % of total) would wear helmets? 

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

            “it’s not the people who can think critically and clearly that I’m talking about. It’s those who can’t.” By that logic, they should be allowed to vote either because by voting they influence the law.  You may believe this about others but they may also believe it about you.

            “Tell me, if there were no helmet laws, do you think more or less people (as a % of total) would wear helmets?”
            Absolutely.  Yet the rate of head injuries wouldn’t get any worse because they haven’t in any other country in the world (unless you think our skulls are some how different).

            You don’t need to wear a helmet if the NT if you are not riding on the road.  Their head injury rate is no worse than the rest of Australia (and they have much more utility cycling that the rest of us)
            Dublin bike share: 2 million trips, no helmet laws, no head injuries. http://www.dublinbikes.ie/Magazine/Reports/dublinbikes-the-stats!
            London bike share: 8 million trips, no helmet laws, no head injuries. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/20389.aspx

            I can see that you believe people won’t act in their own interest, and that without helmet laws, there will be blood on the street.  All I can say is you are wrong because this hasn’t happened anywhere else in the world and it wont happen here.  Just look outside Australia to see the evidence.

  • John

    There is no way you can compare Australian cycling to the European experience.
     We have a totally different road system based on large roads to move as many cars as efficiently as possible (even though it doesnt  work well).
    I ride my bicycle nearly everyday and have had several accidentals due to different factors including racing and involving cars.
    I would say that wearing a helmet has had a significant effect in reducing the severity of any head injury to pretty much nil. My helmet has cracked to absorb the impact as it is designed to and has worked very well.
    To say the helmet is no good because it is not designed to be worn on motorcycles is ridiculous. Motorcycles go much faster and require, by their very nature a different level of protection.
    The reason bicycle helmets are not to be worn on motorcycles is because they are designed for bicycle riding.
    Your campaign is irresponsible and you should focus on upgrading the facility for riding in Australia and changing drivers attitudes and you will see more people riding bicycles.
    It is lack of safe paths and aggressive drivers that deter many people from riding, not helmets

  • Bob

    I too support freedom of choice. Along with helmet laws, I’d like to see recreational drugs legalised, as well as the abolition of mandatory education. These too are about personal choice. Away with the nanny state!

  • Diggler2002

    What is the big deal?  It is a $20 light weight piece of polystyrene and plastic and you say it deters cycling.  It is not like you are being asked to tie lead weights around your genitals.  If that is your idea of a deterrence, how do you function in society?  So many rules.  You have to put pants on in the morning.  Is that too hard?  Poor baby.  Would you like some help?  Do you manage to brush your teeth or is that too hard too?  I think I can solve all Australia’s problems.  Require bicycle helmet usage when buying heroin for example.  Helmet?  No f’en way.  I’d rather go without smack than wear a bicycle helmet.

  • Kathy Francis

    Congratulations team helmetfreedom for taking this issue to a new level this week with the addition of Geoff Mcleod’s ad. There are many people throughout Australia waiting for a breakthrough  but not sure how to make it happen. For a couple of years now small groups and individual bloggers have been trying to get this message into the Community but until that ad started circulating they had not reached more than a few hundred people.
    I think linking the ad to helmetfreedom and linking helmetfreedom to the GetUp suggestion campaign is a good strategy. I recommend that the Get up link is mentioned regularly in the blog. 
    Even if Get Up doesn’t go with it we have the makings of a National Campaign now and could adopt GetUp type strategies with a new link.
    There appears to be little resistance to removing the helmet laws in the general community now. Our main opponents are the Government, the State Roads Boards and the Government subsidised State cycling ‘advocacy’ groups.
    Well done.

  • Glenpaynter

    Problem with mandatory legislation is that sometimes cops take it to far. I ride downhill from home everyday and wear a protec helmet on the downhill run. on the way home I take it off when I get hot and sweaty and riding uphill at walking pace through a parkland. One day a cop was waiting for me outside the park and pinged me for failing to wear a helmet.

    I refuse to have such a basic right as acces to bike riding taken away so I am fighting it through the courts. It has been going on for almost a year and I have been comitted to stand trial for the offence. I won a similar case in 2005.

    Some facts I have uncovered during my research.

    –In the year following 1995 in SA when helmet laws were Introduced, the government boasted that head injuries due to bike accidents had reduced by 40%. At the same time, Business in bicycle shops dropped by on average 60%. I claim that statisticaly head injuries increased because people felt safer in a helmet and took more risks.

    – All helmets approved by standards Australia are produced from polystyrene. In the USA in June this year polystyrene was declared a carcinogenic material. I have a doctors cirtificate I show police because I am alergic to polystyrene and that is why I wear a protec but it is not legal.

    –In SA the only possible way to obtain an exemtion is to be muslim and wearing a turban. This in discrimination in my opinion.

  • Regie Gilmore

    The issue is simply whether the benefits associated with helmet wearing outweigh the benefits associated with adults having the ‘freedom to choose’ whether or not they wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. 

    While there are a wide range of factors to consider, in my opinion, the main question is:

    “Whether the injury reductions associated with helmet wearing outweigh the detrimental health and safety impacts associated with reductions in cycling that are caused by mandatory helmet laws.”

    According to the CARRS-Q Bicycle Helmet Research:

    “The Queensland date show reductions of 60% in the likelihood of head injury, 53% for serious head injury and 58% for head and/or facial injury associated with wearing a helmet. Injuries to other body regions did not differ noticeably between helmet wearing riders and non-helmet riders, except for should and upper limb injuries.”

    This data by itself demonstrates the significant benefit of helmets. It is unlikely that increased cycling participation because of the ‘freedom to choose’ whether or not to wear a helmet outweighs the significant benefit of mandatory helmet-use.

    Further, even if the mandatory helmet laws are repealed, there is the issue of contributory negligence. There is a common law principle in Australia and the UK that if a cyclist is injured while failing to wear a helmet they will be found to have been contributorily negligent.  With respect to compensation, there is a semi-automatic discount of 20-25%. This means that if and when someone is seriously injured, at least one quarter of compensation the insurer or negligent motorist would normally be liable to pay will be automatically deducted. This website says “very few adults suffer serious injury or death because of cycling.” It has always been right and proper to protect a minority at the expense of some rights of the majority. These ‘few adults’ should be protected.

    Mandatory helmet laws are beneficial for the whole community. This website says that “helmet laws are bad for cycling safety because they fail to address the main source of danger, and discourage cycling as a normal activity.” This is clearly wrong. 

    First, helmet laws, which force someone to wear a helmet, can only be good for cycling safety. 

    Secondly, if the main source of danger is impact with a motor vehicle then direct your efforts towards encouraging the government to either:
    (a) improve bicycle lanes (ie size and number); 
    (b) harsher penalties for motorists; and
    (c) mandatory education for motorists on bicycle safety.

    There are a number of other steps that could and should be taken. 

    Repealing mandatory helmet laws, however, is clearly not the answer. 

    • Geoff McLeod

      Regie, the CARRS-Q report tested helmets but not the helmet law. There is a big difference. It uses outdated data that contradicts more recent studies and practical observations from the other 98% of the world.

      While your argument is largely based on your opinion. You have every right to think that repealing helmet laws are ‘clearly wrong’ (that’s the great thing about having the right to choose) however, the observations all over the world contradict what Australia is doing. In fact recent studies have shown our helmet laws suppress cycling numbers by around 30% (conservative estimate). Meanwhile it is a well established fact that more cyclists have a positive effect of safety. However, with Australia’s MHLs, we are held back from achieving the critical numbers of cyclists needed for safer motorist behaviour and acceptance. 

      Helmet laws have had no impact on head injuries. It’s true that there are half the number of head injuries compared to 1991 levels. But the ratio of wrist to head injuries never changed. If helmets worked you would see a dramatic change in these ratios. Both wrist and head injuries were halved over the last 20 years and this trend correlated to all other traffic injury statistics as a result of drink driving initiatives and 50km speed reduction in built-up areas. Of course there are more separated bike lanes now than there was 20 years ago and this alone would help bring down fatality rates.

      As far as litigation is concerned, it’s a bit of a long bow you’re drawing. The Northern Territory repealed mandatory helmet laws in 1996. Today the have the highest percentage of cyclists in the country. And in spite of having more cyclists riding without helmets, their injury rate has remained on par with the national average. Litigation is not rampant and the sky never fell in as people like you hypothesise.

      Additionally, our obesity rate has more than doubled in the last 20 years, which now costs us tax payers $21 Billion per year. It’s imperative that the government do more to make cycling more appealing and our bike share facilities more accessible. We need people to take part in active transport and MHLs curtail our efforts.

      The remaining states in Australia the support MHLs, are more isolated today than ever. After 20 years this MHLs can not deliver any compelling evidence that they save lives and help promote cycling. That is why it has never caught on in the rest of the world. Think about it, 20 years? Seat belts caught on quicker than that because the data was there which proved they saved lives.

      Regie, there was no thought placed into MHL in comparison to other modes of transports. It’s a one-size-fits-all law. Yet, every
      other form of transport offers exemptions to safety gear, depending on the risk.

      For example, motorbikes such as quad bikes
      don’t need helmets unless they are on the road. And seat belts have similar exemptions. In
      the government’s own words:

      “There are some circumstances in which a
      person may be exempt from wearing a seatbelt, such as when the driver is
      reversing the vehicle, or is engaged in the door-to-door delivery or collection
      of goods or garbage and is travelling under 25 km/h.”

       

      http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/SafetyAndRules/SaferVehicles/BuyingASafeCar/SeatBelts.htm

       

      The exemptions continue on the
      water for marine vessels:

      “In Queensland, a marine licence is
      required to operate a recreational boat which is powered by a motor greater
      than 4.5 kW (over 6 HP) and you must have a personal watercraft (PWC) licence
      to operate a personal watercraft.”

       

      http://www.msq.qld.gov.au/Licensing/Recreational.aspx

       

      Here’s an extract from NSW marine
      frequently asked questions section:

      “If they save lives, why not make
      lifejackets compulsory at all times?

      Because stakeholder consultation supports a
      staged approach and because the safety of people anchored safely in a quiet bay
      in summer, near the shore in a well found boat, is quite different to a person
      boating alone in a small runabout offshore with conditions deteriorating. This
      latter scenario is what would be called a time of heightened risk.”

       

      http://www.maritime.nsw.gov.au/wh/lifejacket_reforms_faqs.html

      Reggie, if only bicycle helmet laws were as fair and considered as other laws we wouldn’t need this website and I would be typing this on Sunday night. However, helmet freedom is worth supporting because it’s about having laws that work and have no detrimental effect of the very people they’re trying to save. Would it be so bad if adult cyclists had the right to choose? I happens all over the world. How would it effect people like yourself? 

      There are many forms of cycling just like there are many forms of car use. Just because motor sports drivers wear helmets and fireproof suits, doesn’t mean we should mandate them for casual driving conditions. They would certainly save lives if we did.  That’s why helmet laws are more suited to cyclists in peak hour traffic amongst cars and trucks but they have no place in parks and separated bike paths, on beaches or shared footpaths or even side streets.

      • Regie Gilmore

        First, what is the “critical numbers of cyclists needed for safer motorist behaviour and acceptance”? How many motorists are required to either stop or reduce the amount they drive for safer motorist behaviour and acceptance to change in an area? Increased numbers of cyclists is great. However, according to the Cycling Promotion Fund, which is referenced on this website, only 16.5% of people put “Don’t like wearing a helmet” as the reason for not riding a bike for transport more frequently. 
        This should be compared with the main reasons people, in that study, gave for not riding a bike for transport more frequently:
        - unsafe road conditions: 67.1%
        - speed/volume of traffic: 52.5%
        - lack of bicycle lanes/trails: 48.1%
        Time and effort should be spent on improving these issues, such as reducing speed limits in certain areas, harsher penalties for dangerous motorists and improving bicycle lanes. It is more likely, based on this data, that these measures would help Australia reach the ‘critical number’.

        Second, you said that mandatory helmet laws have had no impact on head injuries because the ratio of wrist and head injuries has remained the same over 20 years. This is an interesting statistic, however, it cannot be fairly concluded that this alone demonstrates that mandatory helmet laws have had no impact on head injuries. 

        Third, you said that litigation is not rampant in NT where cyclists have the choice to wear helmets. It is not expected that litigation would be rampant. The only effect is that cyclists injured will have reduced compensation. The sky isn’t falling, this is just a reality of Australian law. I was surprised that this website does not warn cyclists that this is a consequence of the freedom to choose. The responsibility for care is then placed on the family and government. 

        Fourth, obesity is an important issue in Australia today. I agree that the government should do more to make cycling more appealing. But as stated above, only 16.5% of people, in that particular study, indicated their dislike of helmets as the reason for not riding a bicycle. Improvements to bicycle lane alone would ‘arguably’ increase cycling 48.1% based on that study. On a personal note, I find it impossible to accept that the freedom to choose whether to wear a helmet or not will ‘significantly’ improve obesity in Australia.

        Fifth, the argument that it happens all over the world is weak. Australian cities are different to those found in other countries. It would be wrong to compare Brisbane and Sydney to London or New York, for example. 

        As I have said before, repealing helmet laws are clearly not the answer to improve cycling participation. It might be the cheapest alternative compared with the cost of infrastructure of new bike lanes, but it is not the safest. Increased cycling numbers is a great initiative and I think that is what this website is really trying to achieve. There are more realistic ways to increase numbers than repealing helmet laws.

    • http://twitter.com/TurnerLukeJ Luke Turner

      Regie, you ask a fair question but come up with the wrong answer.

      Do the benefits of the helmet law outweigh the disadvantages? The answer is no.

      You simply assert that it’s “unlikely that increased cycling participation because of the ‘freedom to
      choose’ whether or not to wear a helmet outweighs the significant benefit of mandatory helmet-use.”

      What are you basing this assertion on? You provide no evidence or reasoning – is it just your hunch? In fact it is untrue.

      The evidence that mandatory helmet laws reduce cycling levels is very strong – even the most ardent supporters of the law concede this point.  Cycling levels declined 30-40% across the board when MHLs came into force in Australia (and the decline was even greater for some sub-groups).

      Surveys today reveal that the laws are still discouraging a similar proportion from riding (http://helmetfreedom.org/888/2-4-million-australians-put-off-their-bikes-by-helmet-laws/ ). The benefits of cycling vastly outweigh the risk associated with a traffic accident by a large margin – even if you ride without a helmet. From that very same CARRS-Q report which you referenced is this:

      “the combined evidence presented in these studies [from countries without universal helmet legislation] indicates that the health benefits of bicycling far exceed the health risks from traffic injuries”

      Mandatory helmet laws are clearly not beneficial for the health of the community when you take into account all the effects – good and bad – of forcing people to wear helmets when they prefer not to.

      And even if you ignore the significant health costs associated with fewer people getting exercise by cycling, and just consider the effect on traffic injuries, MHLs do not even make sense on that limited basis. No study has ever established that our helmet laws have reduced the rate of traffic injury per cyclist or per trip.  The most thorough examination of the effect of Australia’s MHLs was done by Dr Dorothy Robinson (published in the British Medical Journal in 2005, http://helmetfreedom.org/290/review-of-helmet-law-efficacy/ ) who found that:

      “Before and after data show enforced helmet laws discourage cycling but produce no obvious response in percentage of head injuries.”

      The point of repealing helmet legislation is not to directly increase cycling safety.  You make a valid point that improved infrastructure and legal protection for cyclists are essential for this. However getting more people cycling will contribute to a safer road environment as well.

      The point is that MHLs are ineffective at what they are intended for and are very detrimental to cycling in general. They are unnecessary and unfair to individual cyclists who just want to be able ride their bicycle sans helmet – something which is perfectly safe, and legal in virtually every other country on earth.

      • Regie Gilmore

        First, what am I basing my assertion on? In any discussion, the arguments for and against a subject are compared and balanced in order to see which argument outweighs the others. My assertion is based on common sense after balancing the different arguments. This opinion is also shared by the Centre of Accident Research and Road Safety. Second, you said that the “evidence that mandatory helmet laws reduce cycling levels is very strong.” This is not the issue. This issue is ”[w]hether the injury reductions associated with helmet wearing outweigh the detrimental health and safety impacts associated with reductions in cycling that are caused by mandatory helmet laws.” Reduced levels of cycling is only one factor to consider when balancing the different arguments. It is obvious that MHL reduce levels of cycling. According to the Cycling Promotion Fund, which is referenced on this website, only 16.5% of people put “Don’t like wearing a helmet” as the reason for not riding a bike for transport more frequently. This should be compared with the main reasons people, in that study, gave for not riding a bike for transport more frequently:- unsafe road conditions: 67.1%- speed/volume of traffic: 52.5%- lack of bicycle lanes/trails: 48.1%This data speaks for itself. Time and effort should be spent on improving these issues, such as reducing speed limits in certain areas, harsher penalties for dangerous motorists and improving bicycle lanes. It is more likely, based on this data, that these measures would improve the number of cyclists.Third, you said the “benefits of cycling vastly outweigh the risk associated with a traffic accident by a large margin – even if you ride without a helmet. From that very same CARRS-Q report which you referenced is this: the combined evidence presented in these studies [from countries without universal helmet legislation] indicates that the health benefits of bicycling far exceed the health risks from traffic injuries.”This is a blatant misquote of CARRS-Q. The reference was in fact: Pucher, Dill and Handy (2010). CARRS-Q had the opposite conclusion: Cycling does have significant health benefits… but protection of the individual by simple and cost-effective methods such as bicycle helmets should also be part of the overall package of measures. This overall package of measures includes those I have stated above. Fourth, you said the “point of repealing helmet legislation is not to directly increase cycling safety.” This is obvious. Repealing legislation which will then allow cyclists to choose not to wear helmets will directly reduce cycling safety.Fifth, you said that mandatory helmet laws are “unfair.” Helmets are a cheap alternative to the real risk of sustaining a head injury and automatically losing a quarter of compensation the cyclist would be entitled to had they worn a helmet. 

        • Regie Gilmore

          First, what am I basing my assertion on? In any discussion, the arguments for and against a subject are compared and balanced in order to see which argument outweighs the others. My assertion is based on common sense after balancing the different arguments. This opinion is also shared by the Centre of Accident Research and Road Safety. 
          Second, you said that the “evidence that mandatory helmet laws reduce cycling levels is very strong.” This is not the issue. This issue is ”[w]hether the injury reductions associated with helmet wearing outweigh the detrimental health and safety impacts associated with reductions in cycling that are caused by mandatory helmet laws.” Reduced levels of cycling is only one factor to consider when balancing the different arguments. It is obvious that MHL reduce levels of cycling. 

          According to the Cycling Promotion Fund, which is referenced on this website, only 16.5% of people put “Don’t like wearing a helmet” as the reason for not riding a bike for transport more frequently. This should be compared with the main reasons people, in that study, gave for not riding a bike for transport more frequently:- unsafe road conditions: 67.1%- speed/volume of traffic: 52.5%- lack of bicycle lanes/trails: 48.1%This data speaks for itself. Time and effort should be spent on improving these issues, such as reducing speed limits in certain areas, harsher penalties for dangerous motorists and improving bicycle lanes. It is more likely, based on this data, that these measures would improve the number of cyclists.

          Third, you said the “benefits of cycling vastly outweigh the risk associated with a traffic accident by a large margin – even if you ride without a helmet. From that very same CARRS-Q report which you referenced is this: the combined evidence presented in these studies [from countries without universal helmet legislation] indicates that the health benefits of bicycling far exceed the health risks from traffic injuries.”This is a blatant misquote of CARRS-Q. The reference was in fact: Pucher, Dill and Handy (2010). CARRS-Q had the opposite conclusion: Cycling does have significant health benefits… but protection of the individual by simple and cost-effective methods such as bicycle helmets should also be part of the overall package of measures. This overall package of measures includes those I have stated above. 

          Fourth, you said the “point of repealing helmet legislation is not to directly increase cycling safety.” This is obvious. Repealing legislation which will then allow cyclists to choose not to wear helmets will directly reduce cycling safety.

          Fifth, you said that mandatory helmet laws are “unfair.” Helmets are a cheap alternative to the real risk of sustaining a head injury and automatically losing a quarter of compensation the cyclist would be entitled to had they worn a helmet. 

          • http://twitter.com/TurnerLukeJ Luke Turner

            Regie, the health benefits of cycling are substantial and hugely outweigh the risks including from traffic accidents. A number of studies have examined this exact question and come up with a number of estimates for the benefit-to-risk ratio. Hillman (1) found it to be 20 to 1. A more recent study (2) found that it was as high as 77 to 1. The lowest figure I have seen quoted is 10 to 1.

            So even taking the lowest benefit-to-risk number of 10 to 1 and using an extremely conservative estimate for the reduction in cycling of 10%, helmet laws would have to eliminate 100% of the risk of cycling for your common sense explanation to make sense.

            Clearly helmets do not prevent all cycling risks (some studies have found air pollution to be a greater risk than traffic injuries). They do not even prevent all head injuries, let alone all the other types of injuries (arm and shoulder injuries are the most common cycling injury in Australia).

            And in reality MHLs probably reduce cycling numbers by closer to 30-40%. The Cycling Promotion Fund survey you referenced confirms this. 16.5% of people cite compulsory helmets as a factor in not riding (or riding less). This is a very significant number of people considering that same survey revealed only 15% of people actually ride regularly.

            I agree with you that other things are also very important for improving cycling numbers, such as better infrastructure and more legal protection. No-one has ever said repealing MHLs is the only important step. But it is one necessary step.

            The CARRS-Q report you have been quoting has been discussed extensively on this site ( http://helmetfreedom.org/668/we-werent-born-yesterday and http://helmetfreedom.org/753/assuming-the-worst ).

            CARRS-Q came to their bizarre “opposite conclusion” about the risks of cycling without a helmet (a conclusion which was not supported by any of the research they put forward) because they were directed to do so by Queensland Transport who commissioned and paid for the report. Copies of this communication was obtained under freedom of information laws by Brisbane CBD BUG, which you can see for yourself here: http://www.cbdbug.org.au/2011/06/helmet-research-paper-released/ .

            Repealing helmet legislation will have very little effect on injury rates.  Researchers are still arguing 20 years on whether bringing in helmet laws actually had any effect on injury rates.  It’s obvious that any benefit is very small if it is there at all.  But the unwanted side effects are significant and very real.

            (1) Hillman, M. “Cycling and the promotion of health”
            (2) Rojas-Rueda (2011) “The health risks and benefits of cycling in urban environments compared with car use: health impact assessment study” (http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d4521.full.pdf )

    • Anthony Denahy

      Regie, you say that ”
      helmet laws, which force someone to wear a helmet, can only be good for cycling safety”. This is “common sense” for most people who are thinking about the case where a cyclist is in an accident which involves impact to their head. However, my experience is that other road users behave in a more courteous manner towards me when I look like a pedestrian on wheels (no helmet), and they give me more space when passing. If this is the case for most helmetless riders, then NOT wearing a helmet is good for cycling safety, as fewer accidents will occur.

  • Tony

    So far 8 million Boris bike journeys in London to date, over 95% without helmets, and no head injuries or even serious injuries.  How dangerous is cycling in a major city?

    • Dick

      crap

  • Tony

    I understand Brisbane has 400 loan helmets with its bike scheme.  How well do the one size fits all helmets fit and how are the lice and ringworm infections coming on?

  • Anonymous

    I would like to support this cause, but it is riddled with self interest. Expecting “infrastructure” to be built for a small percentage of population that does not pay road user charges without considering the loss of parking which is essential to the normal day to day life of as many disabled people who really can not park two blocks away. The insistence of choice for adults while still advocating that children have their childhood stolen from them by needing to be more responsible than the adults in the same situation. No question about why councils are spending tens of millions on a small percentage of the populations local travel when those same councils do not single out any other group for massive money pits. Advocate for lifting of rules and regulations for their own group (removing helmets) while advocating the increase of rules and regulations for everyone else (reduce speed in inner city to improve cyclist safety).

    Grow a second eye, and I will support you. As a disabled adult in a wheelchair being further disabled with the removal of street side parking, and with children that will never learn to ride a bike until they can ride them without helmets if we chose to let them, I will fight against you.

    • Paul van Bellen

      As a disabled adult in a wheelchair being further disabled with the removal of street side parking, and with children that will never learn to ride a bike until they can ride them without helmets if we chose to let them, I will fight against you.”That’s a shame boybunny, I just came back from Holland and I’ve never seen so many people in wheelchairs and older people in electric carts on the streets before all enjoying themselves. They were all using the 1st class bike/share paths. It’s ironic you will fight against this potential benefit for the less able-bodied in Australia.

  • Sunset in December

    I am a somewhat uptight, stressed, A-type personality lawyer, (yes I hate me too..), but last Friday I rode a friends bike to the Strand (boulevard beach front in Townsville) without a helmet and it was the most liberating fun I have had for-ever!  It goes against all the things that are supposed to define a person like me, but as often in life, the most simplest things bring the most joy.  Riding a bike without a helmet!! I support Helmet Freedom!

    • Geoffm

      Thanks Sunset in December. Australia and NZ are the only counties that make adults have to wear helmets. You’re not alone in how you feel. Utility riding has almost disappeared in this country. Cycling is mostly represented by extreme sports riding (who wore helmets before helmet laws). Make sure you lobby your local MPs and make some noise about this issue.We need this law relaxed.

    • http://www.facebook.com/SaveNature.free SaveNaturefree Here

      Sunsets, We see almost 5 deaths per day from preventable skin cancer in Australia, A lawyer should know that the uv danger outdoors means outdoor head-ware that fails to meet with the medical recommendations for outdoors would place the user in harms way if he/she were required to use it by law. Children can only be required to use a bicycle helmet at night or indoors.

  • Anthony Denahy

    I ride without a helmet, in normal clothes, and relatively slowly. I find that most motorists are very courteous to me, often giving way to me when they didn’t have to etc. My first bike was a 28inch, single speed (it wasn’t trendy then), with rear “foot brake”. I so loved that bike and the freedom to zoom about town and along bush tracks. I couldn’t even sit on the seat at first because I was only 9 and a little too short!
    It is very sad that all this is taken away from us – that people think cycling requires silly lycra clown clothes and helmets, all of which creates a quite aggressive appearance. I insist my children wear helmets, the way things are currently, but I do hope that one day we return to sanity, and it becomes safe for everyone to just ride around in freedom.

  • Warwick Malone

    Thumbs up for the site, it was when the MHL came to NZ that I bought a bicycle after not having ridden since school days.  Just to spite the bastards.  Must be up around a couple of thousand helmetless k’s now.

  • Janina Morgenstern

    So true!
    I’m from Germany and have been cycling there for 20 years without a helmet and never ever did i fall on my head or was even close to injuring my head.
    Yes, cycling in Europe is definitely safer than in Australia. There is hardly any cycling infrastructure around (only for recreational bike riding in parks but not for actually getting from home to work for example).
    And to let bikes share the road with cars is just not good enough (unless the road is wide enough to safely accommodate both of them).  Bicycles need their own separate lanes (infrastructure) and there needs to be more awareness amongst drivers that bicycles have the same right to be on roads as cars and other road users.

  • Kate

    So when I was young I had an accident on my bike while travelling home from school, I received a lot of head/ facial injuries and the helmet saved my life. I was a child, non caring, too busy talking to my friends and being silly to care about safety. So I support laws for young children to wear helmets. Now that I’m an adult though I see no reason why I should be enforced to wear a helmet! I ride slow, on the path and usually about 200 metres to the beach or the shops. My partner usually skates next to me, you can’t tell me skateboarding is less dangerous than cycling and he doesn’t have to wear a helmet. Having lived in Japan for a number years I had the pleasure of being able to ride every day without my helmet and you would be so surprised how much more you ride your bike! It makes riding your bike a much more casual and enjoyable experience.

    • Adenahy

      Good on you Kate. Many people when they have the experience of being “saved” by a bike helmet come to the conclusion that all people should be forced to wear helmets. However, as you have correctly pointed out, we do not insist people wear a helmet for many potentially hazardous activities (e.g. walking across a busy road), so why not make helmets optional for riding a bike? And yes – isn’t riding a bike so much more enjoyable without a helmet! I have a chain guard and mud guards too, so I just jump straight on without the need for any preparation – and like you, I don’t feel the need to speed usually (except an occasional free ride down a hill). Be brave – I have been riding without a helmet in Melbourne for over a year and only once the police gave me a warning. I do tend to take back roads and bike paths when I can.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Richards/1167761743 Paul Richards

    (Cycle) Industry Update – May 2012

    Modifications to the Victorian helmet laws

    In a letter to the industry, the VicRoads Director of Road Safety indicated that there has been a modification to the definition of an ‘approved bicycle helmet’.
     
    Any person or passenger on a bicycle must wear an ‘approved bicycle helmet’.
     
    The new definition now identifies that the helmet must have an identifying mark from an accredited body. (the previous definition it must be able to meet Australian standards, but this did not necessarily mean it had to have been tested or have the accredited sticker).

    Source ;
    Bicycle Industries Australia Ltd. (BIA) & Cycling Promotion Fund (CPF)Ground Floor, Suite 2 | 616 St Kilda Road | Melbourne | Victoria | 3004 

    • SP

      Sounds like a ploy for more revenues for Bicycle Industries Australia. And more fines. The situation down here in VIC is particularly unpleasant and the debate in the May 20 Herald Sun (now behind a paywall- can you republish it?) exemplifies the sense of frustration.

    • http://www.facebook.com/SaveNature.free SaveNaturefree Here

       I have yet to see an approved helmet for bicycles that meets the recommendation for outdoor head wear.

  • Wanda

    Mandatory seat belt laws for cars created
    a great problem when introduced especially in European countries where to put
    on a seat belt is looked on as strange, un necessary and there are still many who for whom
    freedom is to not wear one. But do they help prevent injury when in an
    accident? Cycling is the same you choose to participate in a community space
    and the community is responsible for providing the ambulance that collects you
    after an accident, the emergency treatment and after care for your injury, so
    prevention is better than cure.  Freedom
    is not just a catch cry for personal preferences it is preserving the freedom
    of the community, there are rules if you choose to participate with in the communal
    space. The Monash University Research Team crash data so fondly used in this
    effort to justify repealing the helmet laws, show there were 13,901 crashes involving
    bicycle riders and motor vehicles in the period 2000 -2004 and you have a 27%
    chance of being seriously injured if you interact with a car. The research Henley
    and Harrison, 2009 found that 17% of all land transport accidents resulting in
    serious injury involved a cyclist, the maths are not in favour of the cyclist,
    protecting your head (One Blow can kill) could be a good idea.  

    • Warwick

       The single most compelling point the buybodies and control freaks have is ‘public health care’, it gives them the excuse to get up on their high horse and act all self righteous. Wanda, I would quite happily sign a disclaimer freeing responsibility for my health care from all those that do not wish to contribute to it, On the proviso I don’t have to pay for the health care of those others that IMO recklessly endanger their health by living sedantry lives sitting in fromt of computers and TVs while eating junk food.
      What I take issue with is your phrase ‘freedom of the community’.  A community cannot have freedom, only individuals have freedom, it’s an important distinction.  Freedom is the absence of force. So while protecting your head maybe a good idea, as you say at the end of your post (And I don’t see anyone arguing against that point) if we were to meet I might have some ‘good ideas’ about how you should live your life, but I would never dream of forcing those ideas on you, could you please grant the same consideration to me.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Richards/1167761743 Paul Richards

    GOOD NEWS 
    The changes in thinking are surfacing. It is fair that it starts where the first helmet law in the country was instigated Western Australia.

    Fremantle in call for no helmets trial
    The City of Fremantle wants cyclists to be able to ride without helmets as part of a two-year trial that has angered safety experts.Independent Fremantle MP Adele Carles and Fremantle mayor Brad Pettitt proposed a “no helmet” trial as a way to encourage more people to take up cycling.Under the trial, helmets would be optional for adults cycling on separated cycleways, dual-use paths and roads where the maximum speed is 50km/h or less.Helmets would remain compulsory for those aged under 18.The trial would be monitored to determine whether cycling numbers increased.The council needs State Government permission for the trial.

    More here at the source; 
    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/13656583/fremantle-in-call-for-no-helmets-trial/

  • Anonymous

    I always ride with a helmet, that is my personal decision. But many people fail to look, or refuse to look at the realities of the helmet laws. They cannot comprehend that benefits may actually outweight the risks in the big picture view – that’s a symptom of not being able to shift perspective and look at a problem from another valid pointo f view.

  • http://www.facebook.com/SaveNature.free SaveNaturefree Here

    Repealing the MHL would save about a hundred lives each year in Australia. Around 80% of those no longer cycling due to the helmets are young females. Tens of Thousands stopped getting regular moderate exercise. The number in this risk group who suicide each year is high. it is often the result of bullying due to obesity.

    Besides s326 in the Qld criminal code makes the law unenforceable. end of story.
    more on this at terrordownunder.ning.com    

  • Victorjohnbrown

    I stopped riding riding bikes or stop myself riding bikes beacause of the helmet law, can you imagine how many people would jump on a bike to go to the shop or to dinner or to work if the helmet law was dumped, heaps! there is so many reasons which have been covered here, but there is also the convenience & the vanity part of not having helmet hair,change the law & decrease obesity.Get with the times & give us a bit more say in our own lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Dick

    Anthony Denahy, are you serious?? Lycra is aggressive. Get a life. Last I checked wearing high -visibility , comfortable clothing while riding was not a crime. Yes that means lycra you silly twat. OMG .

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002942815783 Rachael Berkeley Thomson

    as a regular cyclist i totally agree with relaxing the law on wearing helmets, i have been doing some research into australia’s law and other countries laws on this matter and one piece of information i’m having trouble finding out about is how this law has affect cycling popularity with youths/teenagers – if any one can help it would be much appreciated :)

  • Warrior Factor

    Bicycle Helmet Law Fascists Missing the Point

    A response to “Bike helmet critics not using their heads”

    http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/bike-helmet-critics-not-using-their-heads-20121003-26yvc.html

    Again, another article the fascist helmet-law campaigners that misses the point. The
    key issue is the NEED of a helmet law. This is a law that brutally criminalises an
    activity that is inherently low risk, good for your health and the environment, all
    because a mostly useless piece of foam is not on the cyclist’s head. In Victoria, we are
    talking about a $176 fine – the same fine for a speeding motorist, when on the other hand,
    there’s no compassion and certainly no action against far more egregious ills against
    society like obesity, inactivity and baking in the sun for skin cancer. While I can smoke,
    guzzle a slab of beer and live off hamburgers and chips quite freely, if I dare ride to
    the shops without a helmet to acquire these items, I’m a criminal. At the minimum, helmet
    law advocates can at least see the discrimination and the absurd inconsistencies applied
    to individual
    liberty here, and such an excessive fine is grossly unfair. 

    The second big point is the hysteria and scare-mongering. The headline is “Bike
    helmet critics” when the truth is “Bike helmet LAW critics”. The way this
    article speaks – and thanks to the helmet law it is a view now shared by most in society –
    is that cycling is a suicidal activity, it’s never safe, that repealing helmet laws means
    repealing helmet wearing and there’ll be a mad rush of cyclists out there with no helmets,
    turn kamikaze and the fatality rate will storm from 8 per year to 8000. Just look at the
    accompanying photo of a woman weaving between tramlines and a truck. Does this constitute
    the majority of cycling? No. Nor does it correlate to actual crash data, which is
    overwhelmingly on busy roads during busy times. Why not show a photo of leisurely cyclists
    on the dedicated bike paths, or even the volumes of happy commuters in European cities?
    Oh, because it won’t scare the hell out of people or scare our nanny-stater politicians
    into keeping the anachronistic helmet law.

    Reality is that if the helmet law is repealed, 90% of cyclists will still CHOOSE to
    wear a helmet 90% of the time. It’s probably even higher. Many jurisdictions in the USA
    already have 70% to 80% of helmet wearing with no law. Given Australia’s helmet culture,
    wearing one will remain exceedingly high. For commuters, especially those in traffic,
    wearing one could remain close to 100%! The difference no law will make is an explosion in
    recreational riding along dedicated paths, more utility riding like shopping and errands,
    and actual use of the bike-share schemes. Most importantly, if a cyclist does choose not
    to wear one along a casual beach-path ride in summer, he won’t be treated like a criminal.

    Some of the ignorance in this article is just astounding. “Bicycles are inherently
    unstable and cyclists will still crash on cycleways”? Do these people even ride bikes
    or see riders? Do they see riders wobbling all over paths trying to keep their unstable
    bike upright? No. Cyclists are never likely to crash other than for a collision or losing
    the front wheel taking fast corners. The only way a cyclist can hit his head is by such
    high speed cornering for a possible side impact, or by hitting an obstacle at high speed
    and going over the top. These are the reasons pro cyclists wear helmets, not for
    protection against cars. On low-speed cycleways, helmets are just not necessary.

    Why single out arm injuries? That just proves the above point that most cycle crashes
    are harmless and the increase in ratio is due to improved safety conditions of extra
    cycleways that separate cyclists from motorists. Rather than admit to infrastructure being
    the most critical safety device, these selfish do-gooders and stingy politicians point to
    the helmet law. More relevant than arm injuries is the comparison of head to leg or torso
    injuries. Where is that? Hmm, maybe the statistics just don’t quite match. Of the
    “head injuries”, how many of
    those are scrapes and bumps? No doubt very high.
    Remove that and the ratio collapses. 

    The notion that “bicycle-related head injuries fell by 29 per cent immediately
    following mandatory helmet legislation” is because because 29% of people (or more)
    stopped cycling. Cycling has not “flourished” since helmet laws started. It
    dived, stagnated, and is barely increasing with population growth (+1). If you want
    examples of “flourishing”, see cycling-culture Europe where there’s no helmet
    laws and safer cycling. (+2)

    To say between “1991 and 2010 population increased by 22%” and “arm
    injuries increased by 145%” suggests cycling increased at a rate of 650% faster than
    population in that time. That’s total nonsense, not to mention totally incongruous with
    the subsequent claim “in the past decade alone, cycling participants increased by
    51%”. Based on arm injuries, that means cycling is far more dangerous than before the
    helmet law if the growth is 51%. Does that suggest helmeted cyclists now take far more
    risks? If we believe other research (+1) that cycling has actually decreased with
    population growth (22%) and that “head injuries rose by just 20%”, that suggests
    the helmet law has done absolutely nothing.

    “Crash reconstructions show that when cyclists and cars collide, the head often
    strikes the bonnet or windshield – usually with debilitating consequences”. Helmets
    only offer protection at impacts less than 20kph so are not designed to protect against
    car collisions like this. Those involved in such crashes would no doubt also have leg and
    torso injuries that mysteriously are not reported in this article.

    “Ask any trauma surgeon.” Why don’t these surgeons have the same compassion
    and sympathy for motorist and pedestrian head trauma? Of all road deaths each year, less
    than 3% are cyclists (+3).

    “There is no sign of widespread grassroots ideological opposition to the law, any
    more than there is to mandatory helmets for motorcyclists or seatbelts in cars.”
    Utter nonsense. Good laws spread worldwide. Australia has basically gone alone.
    Consistently, newspaper polls and reader comments show helmets to be optional, with
    opposition by non-cyclists typically based on the irrational fear that the helmet law has
    created. Specific polls among cyclists are overwhelmingly against the mandatory helmet
    LAW. Ask the many cyclists snagged by the helmet law, and those that don’t ride because of
    the helmet law, and there’s certainly a grassroots call against the law.

    Statistics can be debated for eternity. The key issue is of a law that punishes
    cyclists, rather than encourages them. Even with helmets, it’s to be encouraged to wear,
    not punished for not. The fines started out exactly with this ideal at $20. They increased
    to $50 over the years until suddenly trebling to $154 about 4 years ago under the Brumby
    state government. They just don’t need to be this high to make a point. For helmet
    encouragement, there’s other ways to go rather than fining at all. The government has a
    “Slip Slop Slap” campaign against skin cancer, not a militant police state
    fining those baring their skin. If the vast bulk of the world happily survives without a
    helmet law, surely Australia and New Zealand does not need one.

    Proposition – 2yr trial
    1) Drop the fine to a more sane and realistic $30
    2) Fine only applies to roads. Segregated bike paths and shared bike/footpaths all exempt.
    3) For 18 and over, exemptions for CBD and residential streets. Ideally drop speed limit
    to 30kph. This encourages cyclists to stay off major roads and allows the bike-share
    schemes to prosper.
    4) Make helmet purchases a tax deduction. This encourages both an initial purchase and to
    purchase better, more comfortable helmets that are more likely to be worn.

    +1 http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=9507

    +2 http://cyclingresourcecentre.org.au/page/safety_statistics_common_crashes

    +3 http://m.theage.com.au/victoria/drop-speeds-ditch-helmets-cycling-experts-say-20120529-1zg64.html

    (c) warriorfactor@twitter
    The author of this response is a frustrated cyclist of over 30 years now restricted to
    short work-day commutes, no utility cycling and no recreational summer riding due to the
    helmet law. The author bought his first helmet in 1983 – 7 years before the helmet law in
    Victoria – and none have been remotely close to being called into action..

    • Charlotte

      1. For people to start riding a bike, it must be encouraged until people get used to it.

      2. Most people who enjoy being on a bike as a way to go from A to B, do not enjoy cycling as the Australians do on Saturday morning for 100km. (As well as someone who enjoys walking to work etc. but does not enjoy trekking).

      3. If we want people to use bike for conveniency then, the helmet should not be banned but suggested as a very good choice without being mandatory.

      4. For most women that would like to go to work on a bike (yes a bike can be ridden with a skirt, heels etc. See Europe) the perspective of not having to remove your hair do or even your hat, every single time makes it out of the equation.

      5. Most people that use a bike it is: to go down the shop, for a short stroll etc. and most people that enjoy cycling for many km tends to make the appropriate choice of wearing a helmet because of the speed reached on the bike.

      6. How can we justify a person wearing a helmet will riding on the foot path? How are there children with helmets while riding in a park or even going on their little scooter? We should stop considering children silly and wanting to protect them more than necessary. Life is the way it is, we cannot prevent everything. Stop making laws for parents and for children. I guess the parents know best. If you think you child does need one, make the choice of obligating him to wear one but not all children are careless or dreamers. An example: in France ski helmet are not mandatory but encouraged. My parents never thought that this was necessary for us until they had my brother who was a risk taker. After explaining him the reason, he wore one until he reached a time where it was not needed anymore. My parents made a responsible and appropriate choice for this particular child. No need to make it mandatory.

      The law is a cover up to once more prevent people to take responsibility for their actions. saying that there should be cycling lane for cyclists and drivers should be educated as well as cyclists. In Europe at 7 and 10 of age we spend a half day in a park that as traffic lights, road lanes etc. it is like a city but on a child scale. This is done by the police that inform us about traffic: to obtain our certificate, we then have to respond to a quiz and then we spend 20 min, riding on those roads. The more mistakes you make the less the likelihood of passing.

      Just hope that this law will be cancelled.

      Good Day to everyone.

  • Wily_quixote

    Whilst there is a strong argument for making cycling without a helmet a personal choice in adults, the srgument that they ‘do nothing’ or ‘make injuries worse’ is fallacious.  The evidence is clear that helmet laws have led to a 10-20% reduction in reportage of head injuries in every jurisdiction of study.
    It’s pointless arguing from the point of their efficacy, unless youbelieve newtonian physics doesn’t appy to cyclists. 
    Push the personal liberty and relative risk angle or you’ll appear like a buncg of zealots.

  • http://www.beaconfaceanddermatology.ie/ laser treatments

    Injury prevention are efforts to prevent or reduce the severity of bodily injuries caused by external mechanisms, such as accidents. If you have been involved in an accident , which was not your fault, you have right to claim compensation and other losses you have suffered as result of an accident. We should always take care while driving. We should not use any distracting device while driving . Always drive safe.