Those on the sharp end of cycling injuries want to keep the laws

The problem with laws that force helmets is that they basically break bike share schemes. How many people would carry a helmet about to pop on when they borrow a bike to ride couple kays down the road from such schemes?

They also discourage 'casual' cycling (to the beach, the shop down the road, the pub, etc). Scenarios where having to carry a helmet at the end of the trip would be a PITA and you're not going to go either very fast, or very far.

Go visit in Holland, Denmark, Japan, etc. for a while and you'll see riding without a helmet can work just fine.

Sure, if you are going to cycle 'seriously' (on or off road) then wear a helmet, but don't force people to do so when they aren't.

FWIW, I'll bet plenty here didn't wear a helmet when they were a kid and learning to ride. I know I didn't, and fell off plenty - didn't do us any harm did it?

I've also been into a windscreen and over the back of a car (driver running red light as I pulled out from traffic that had stopped) in Amsterdam and survived that without a helmet too. OK - bl00dy lucky - but you get the idea!

I completely agree with helmet laws being prohibitive for casual riding, bike share schemes, etc. and for that reason I do not support them but it irks me a little when comparisons are made between us and European, etc. countries. They are soooo much more bike friendly to the degree that laws support bike riders over cars and there is an almost universal acceptance of bikes being a part and parcel of being out on the road regardless of whether you are a cyclist or a motorist. Compare that to Sydney where, at times, it is almost a competition between cyclists and motorists for use of the road and you have a very, very different situation.

I hope that we get where they are one day but we are not even nearly there yet. For that reason I support helmets for riders who interact with serious traffic but for casual riders (to the shops, around the park, etc., etc.) and bike share schemes which tend to be short journeys through more friendly streets, they do not make sense. The relative benefits in terms of injuries avoided are far exceeded by how much they discourage people from getting a little exercise!

For me, and also whenever (been a while now) I have organised rides with NoBMoB, I'll not have you along without a helmet. When mountain biking or anything off-road, or doing a semi-serious road ride, then a helmet is just sensible. I've seen too many helmets split in half to ever consider riding off-road without one.

As I drive to the shops, I can't really comment on that scenario. Sometimes I forget to do up my seatbelt when driving to the shops, is that the same thing?

I should have added to my original post that I too don't believe it should be law that you have to wear a helmet when riding. One has to take responsibility for yourself and your family and not rely on the state to mandate all the time.

I agree with Rob's comments too that bikes schemes are compromised by these laws. I noticed the other week when I was in Melbourne, their share bikes (coloured Blue) parked around the city and only one bike was in use as far as I could see from the 4 bike stations we saw.

I still would wear a helmet though even going up to the shops, however this should be my choice, not the legislators.

Winco

I'm not sure what has caused the recent spike in articles on this topic from the Herald - this one seems to be the best and presents the first reasonable case for not wearing helmets.

The arguments seem to run along two lines:

ARGUMENT 01: There is "safe" cycling and there is "dangerous" cycling.

ARGUMENT 02: By relaxing laws (to the detriment of the individual) the community is better off.

No one could disagree that riding Manly Dam has higher risks than riding on the foot path. The fact is whether you fall off at 20km/h, 5km/h or even slower, the impact of your head onto a hard surface will not turn out well. Having recently hit a gutter at less than 15km/h and smashing in my teeth, I wake up everyday in the knowledge that had I not worn a helmet I'd at least be a quadriplegic (that is based on the minor injuries to my neck). No ifs, no buts. Anyone that has had an experience similar to mine knows what I mean. Anyone that hasn't is in no place to offer commentary regarding just how critical this safety device is. There were no cars involved, no other riders, just my misjudgement of a very simple situation in the urban environment.

There are literally hundreds of factors to take into account with regard to demarcating "safe" and "dangerous" cycling. In likelihood those that only ride short distances will be less experienced, ride older, cheaper and poorly maintained bikes. These are the same people that the argument goes shouldn't have to wear a helmet. These people sound like a high risk category to me. I live in the city and I see the broad cross section of people that are arguing for no helmets. The same people that think riding in a bike lane is safe. The same people that think they'll never have a pedestrian step out in front of them or a car not see them at dusk and pull out on them.

The second argument regarding relaxing the laws is fundamentally flawed. No one will argue that as you reduce barriers to entry more people will take up an activity. I have no doubt that if bike helmets were relaxed tomorrow you would see an increase in bike usage. That increase would lead to an overall health benefit for the community. Putting aside the issue of the negative outcomes of a large number of inexperienced riders with older equipment it makes you wonder. If this is the 'positive' outcome that is being argued for, you'd be far better off to ban all cars. Think about it. The overall community benefit would be a 1000 times that of people going for 5 minute rides to the shops to get milk and bread. Whilst you're talking about simple steps to improve community health ban tobacco and alcohol.

I'd never go for a ride with anyone without a helmet, just like I'd never go to the snow with anyone that doesn't wear a helmet. We all make our own choices. I just happen to fundamentally disagree with most of you.

Andrew

As I drive to the shops, I can't really comment on that scenario. Sometimes I forget to do up my seatbelt when driving to the shops, is that the same thing?

No it's not the same thing. Evidence shows a direct correlation between wearing seat belts and a reduction in injury and death in motorists. No such correlation has been shown in wearing bike helmet reducing head trauma.

Yes, yes. I know every one has seen a helmet crack or has been "saved" by their helmet but we're not talking about for serious riding here and the documented injury rates do not support the "helmets save heads" the way they support "Seat belt save lives"

I got clobbered by one yesterday , if I had been turning around I would surely have lost an eye. If I hadn'e been wearing my helmet he wouldn't have bothered me.

sorry mate, it was late when i posted so may have read it wrong, but i still struggle to see the fight against the law, at the end of the day a bicycle is still a vehicle that often achieves above human average speeds, therefore helmets can do nothing but benefit the rider,whether it be "safe or dangerous" cycling surely it's a case for responsible cycling.
Anyway, just had a cracking idea, there is only one way to thrash out this debate...... TO THE PUB!!
Dan

that the evidence seems to be buiding in favour of the view that making helmets compulsory depresses participation rates significantly.

To put it in a black vs white frame, the benefits of reducing head injury and brain trauma rates and the associated cost on the state health system appear to come at the expense of much greater rates of inactivity, obesity and associated illness, which appear to have a greater and longer term cost on state health budgets than the savings.

Here I'm using the impact on the state health budget as a proxy measure for overall impact on societal health and fitness. The higher the adverse impact on the budget, the worse for society.

So while quoting neurosurgeons makes for snappy press and a dramatic story, they don't see the big picture. It's the econometricians in the public health policy area who are probably best placed to analyse whether compulsory helmet laws make sense.

That's my take on the evidence at this stage. If the evidence changes, I'm happy to change my view.

one major issue is that the bike share schemes like that recently introduced in Melbourne will be much better patronised if users don't have to lug around a helmet to enable them to do it. Hence the trade off between a specific health issue (helmet protecting head) and a general health issue (better lifestyle) - if people rode around the cbd more, there'd be less cars, less buses, better air, better health outcomes from the exercise etc etc.

Gotta go with what data you can get on that one.

We all seem to be in basic agreement that laws likely hinder participation and should be up to the reader, but what happens if they are relaxed, more people take it up and we see a spike in injuries related to non use of helmets?

It's fine in europe where they are more tolerant of bikes but I'm not convinced it is the same and it's not wise to use overseas examples as an analogy. I've ridden in the UK and here and would consider certain routes in the UK without a helmet but not here.

... it is the government who picks up the tab when it all goes pear shaped...

Sadly not... you and I (and everyone else) picks up the tab. You probably know this but it's worth repeating. Governments get's their cash either from taxes or by inflating the money supply (which undermines the buying power of the dollars already in existence through inflation). Either way, citizens pay for all the needs of 'the government'.

This isn't a go at anyone here, but who else finds it annoying when they hear people complaining that 'the government' should pay for this or that... hello!

By government, yes, I do mean the government on behalf of us but it is the government nonetheless. Cynical perhaps, but our ability to directly influence much of of the day-to-day decisions that the government makes is very limited (isn't that up to Oakeshott, Windsor, et. al. now??!). Obviously, we vote for the government that we think will best serve our needs but this is never going to be the case with every decision that is made on our behalf.

We do not pay a plumber so that we can be involved in what the plumber decides to do with a problem that we have, we pay them for their expertise and ability to get the job at hand done. The same is true for our politicians but, yes, the money that is spent comes directly from us or is then not available to us. In this case, the task of managing where our health dollars go.

Lets jump in a time machine and go back to the late 80's when the idea of mandatory helmet laws were starting to take shape.

What were the options?

1. Follow the trend of Europe by introducing some form of Vulnerable road users legislation that legally protects cyclists from the danger that is automobiles?
2. Reduce cbd and back street speed limits to 40kph or dare i say it 30kph(i believe they were 60 back then)?
3. Provide Cyclists with safer travelling options by Introducing cycleway networks that link as many major towns and centres with each other as possible?
4. Change the road rules to resemble that of Japan; Catering for children and elderly cyclists by accommodating cyclists at pedestrian crossings (perhaps even allow teenage and adult cyclists to do the same thing instead of forcing them to ride with automobiles)?
5. Bring in Mandatory helmet laws and make everyone consider forking out the extra money so that they can wear a stack hat instead of a foam doam?

Considering all the options; bringing in a Mandatory helmet law appears to be the worst option and an obvious cop out.

More cyclists = Less unnneccesary motor vehicle use and that results in safer streets.

Having snow skied forever and then worked in the NSW ski fields last year, there has been an ever increasing number of skiers and snowboarders wearing helmets on the slopes. It has come to the point of many ski schools reaquiring kids to wear helmets on a compulsory basis to be involved in paid ski school activities. I now witness many kids harrassing their parents to wear helmets as well! There have been a number of serious head injuries and a few fatalities each season for the past few related - but not solely - from head trauma. I now religiously wear a helmet skiing. Granted, I ski fast onchallenging slopes, I have my intermediate and less challenging partner shopping for one for herself. Helmets are compulsory in some terrain parks (where jups and obstacles are featured - similar to MTB freestyle), but not across the whole mountain. I think they will go that way eventually.

I rode bikes daily up until mid-teens, when I copped a hit and run from behind at the end of my street. To this day my Doc jokes that this is still the worst concussion he has seen as a family doctor. I hit head and shoulder first going OTB (according to the LBS mechanic looking at the damamge to the bike - I can't remember 5 hours of the day and had little idea what the cause was), was grazed, cracked the end of my left clavicle in 3 places. Potential was for huge lifeling brain damage. I lucked out and recovered thoroughly. I only got back on bikes this year because, after years of snow skiing, I cannot jog due to knee wear and tear for fitness.

I wouldn't get on a bike without a helmet. No question. Being a rider (and accident victim previously) myself, I consider myself accutely aware of riders when I am driving. Since I have been commuting to work from Mosman to City, I have been near missed too many times to count. By drivers and CYCLISTS. Riders running wide on the corner of the City side ramp of the Harbour Bridge with oncoming - you tools! IDrivers turning right into corners in front of me, despite blaring lights, a flouro yellow jacket and loud vocal chords advising their decision was poorly considered.

I wear a helmet for the circumstances that I cannot control or forsee. I ride within my limits with an "OUT" option because of this. Kids especially should be required to wear helmets - they possess less formed peripheral vision and have a lower level of risk assessment. How can you determine and age where the risk is lower. If by wearing a helmet these factors are at least reducing risk of head injury, I will maintain my support.

Now I'll take a breath. Sorry for the rant if I bored you all!

Also despite rider numbers dropping off after helmet laws came in the incident and severity of head injuries didn't.

Head injuries rate in cycling are in line with those in pedestrian accidents.
Sure it doesn't sound dangerous but I have a friend who got hit by a car while walking to the shops. He suffered a bad head injuries.
Shouldn't we make it law to have a helmet on when walking?

Pedestrians wearing helmets!

Funnily enough we were talking about compulsory wearing of helmets at work yesterday prior to seeing this thread. My work colleague had his helmet stolen whilst at beach to which he crosses one road to get to so now does not wear one for commuting to shop or beach but will wear one on long commutes on the road.

Anecdotaly you are more likely to see a serious head injury in pedestrian vs car accidents than cycling accidents. What about trail runners or the significant amount of head injuries from people falling off ladders, maybe they should wear helmets as well. One could also argue that we make body armour compulsory. What cost to the community are broken wrist, arms, pelvis and knees. I would suggets these injuries when all combined would be quite a significant cost in medical, productivity, sick leave etc...

In my opinion it should be compulsory for commuting over long distances, high speeds, children and MTB or similar. I certainly don't want to downplay the cost and devastation caused by a serious brain injury as they are very significant however do we not get out of bed from fair of injury.