You are hereForums / General Discussion / NoBMoB Chat / Those on the sharp end of cycling injuries want to keep the laws

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


Winco's picture

By Winco - Posted on 16 September 2010

SMH article on the merits of the federal law relating to compulsory wearing of helmets while cycling. Interestingly, the poll in the article is currently split 50/50! It's a no brainer for me. Protect yer noggin at all costs.

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/head-c...

Winco

Rob's picture

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? Eye-wink

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!

hawkeye's picture

+1 to Rob's post.

To which I'd add: it has very successfully created the impression that cycling is somehow "dangerous" ... since you are required to wear a helmet.

There is a very good reason why public health authorities in numerous jurisdictions around the world have examined the Australian experience and decided that compulsory helmet laws are a bad idea. They provide a short term benefit for significant long term public health pain. Latest to look at and reject compulsory helmets on this basis are the Jersey Islands and a state in Italy.

The only places where bike share schemes have failed is in jurisdictions with compulsory helmet laws.

I will continue to wear one and encourage others to do likewise, but it should not be compulsory.

daveh's picture

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!

Brian's picture

I don't support the current helmet laws and in fact any law that was created solely to protect the person the law is enforced on.

Justin's picture

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?

HeezaGeeza's picture

I'm not sure if it was here, Rotorburn or MTBR but I remember a year or so ago a post from someone who lost their Dad after he cycled down the shops without a helmet - a five minute journey and I think he misjudged a kerb in the dark or something similar but very basic, and because he wasn't wearing a helmet he unfortunately suffered severe head injuries.

The tragedy was that although he was on life support he knew he would never come off it (doctors had confirmed this and for some reason he could understand and communicate - if the OP is reading this please forgive me if I get anything wrong, I'm going purely from memory).

Anyway, he made a conscious decision to have his own life support switched off so his organs could be donated. I remember at the time how moving the post was from his Son. Now although we don't know what difference a helmet would have made, I know it would not have hindered his chances.

I still agree with most that it doesn't need to be law, you should use your own judgement. I posted this purely to highlight the scenarios in which a tragedy can occur.

Winco's picture

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

CB's picture

I don't ride anywhere without a helmet and I'd certainly question the sanity of anyone riding off road without one... but that's my choice.

It certainly shouldn't be law. If the lawmakers were serious about reducing the injuries from cycling, they'd try to prevent accidents in the first place.

When I first arrived in Australia, I couldn't believe how car focussed the legislation was.
At traffic intersections, the cars get a green light at the same time as pedestrians ( wouldn't want the car drivers to have to wait an extra 10 seconds for pedestrians)... motorbikes aren't allowed to split lanes at traffic lights( that would mean that car drivers would have to look out for motorbikes)....cyclists have to wear helmets so the cars only maim them instead of killing them( so what if it discourages people from cycling, that's what the car lobby want anyway) .....

Always legislating against the vulnerable to avoid inconveniencing the dangerous.

Ok.... not sure where that rant came from ( I'm a car driver too...)

CB

Pratters's picture

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

brakeburner's picture

100% agree, the fact a cycling forum's general feeling is against a simple piece of self protection comes as a bit of a surprise to be honest. Sydney is well documented as an unfriendly place for cyclists,having ridden on the road a couple of times i am more than happy to take my chances with tree's and rocks while being protected than having a massive influx of chaotic factors i.e people, cars, traffic lights etc. to deal with unprotected. seriously, i'd love to see the for and against debate for this one-
FOR-
i could write a list as long as your arm here, but you get the idea
AGAINST-
errr..messes with my hair and doesn't match my handbag!
so for those who don't where helmets
CRACK ON!

Flynny's picture
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"

CB's picture

@ brakeburner... interesting that you see the general feeling in these comments is against helmets.

I thought it was fairly clear that all of these comments are from people who are very much pro helmets, people who wear helmets by choice but don't believe that it should be a law.

I'd never get on a bike without one but that should be my choice not the governments.

CB

LadyToast's picture
Another aspect of wearing a helmet:

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.

daveh's picture

It seems convincing but growing up, as we have said, no-one ever wore a helmet and have not-so-fond memories of being hammered by magpies come spring. Not just when cycling but walking or kicking the footy around as well. There is a particularly nasty one near Miller's Reserve on my way to work at the moment who has decided that that Kamikaze "slam into my head" technique is best. Forget taking an eye out, this one nearly does enough to knock me off my bike.

Anyway, slightly left of topic but a good vid!

brakeburner's picture

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

brakeburner's picture

it's also funny that every one is pro helmet and willingly wears one but doesn't want to get told to wear one!

hawkeye's picture

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.

Pratters's picture
The issue is that the evidence seems to be buiding in favour of the view that making helmets compulsory depresses participation rates significantly.

If the use of a piece of safety equipment "significantly depresses participation rates" in what I believe is the most enjoyable activity one can do outside with oneself or the company of others then we all need to take a good long hard look at ourselves as a nation and ask - "what went wrong?"

Seeing as I am currently writing a PhD in the area of statistics I can say with reasonable authority that the types of data used, the assumptions, the validity of the analysis would never hold up to people well versed in this area. There are literally hundreds of factors (I outlined a few in my previous post) all of which require massive data sets (>10,000) to be accurately accounted for, to seriously understand the outcomes being argued for. There is no conceivable manner in which this form of data set could ever be collated. If it could, then you'd run into time effects.

I strongly believe the Government should not only keep the laws, but that they should be enforced. If these "short trips" are so crucial to improving well being can't people simply _walk_ to the shops? Ironically they would probably get better health benefits than cycling and they could do it right now. The problem is, there is no excuse for not doing this. Maybe someone could come up with one and we can debate the merits of that instead.

Andrew

Lach's picture

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.

hawkeye's picture
Gotta go with what data you can get on that one.

Quite right. Our data set is imperfect. It is small. It has inherent problems.

And it works equally against those who propose that helmet laws should stay. My understanding is that the original research used to support the proposal to make helmets compulsory suffers exactly the same issues.

So let's work with what we have instead of throwing our hands in the air and doing nothing because everything isn't perfect.

As I said, I'm happy to go where the evidence points. So far that seems to be that it works against bike share schemes, promotes the view that cycling is "dangerous", and acts as a disincentive to use bikes for short trips.

And yes, I think there probably is something seriously wrong with our society, because that's where the evidence points too. Smiling

HeezaGeeza's picture

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.

daveh's picture

We all know, although there are other factors, a massive factor for what the government decides is best for us is simple economics. Why does the government feel that they have a right to decide what is best for us on so many levels, be it obesity, smoking, alcohol, education, etc., etc.? At the end of the day it is the government who picks up the tab when it all goes pear shaped and therefore they feel, and probably have half a point, that they then have the right to tell us what to do which reduces the end cost to them. The obvious problem is the nanny-state mentality which leads them to take it too far but that is another debate. Sure there are issues of morality and popularity and all those tings that also have an influence but how much the option that the government chooses is going to cost them (us) in the end is a big part of it.

Spend millions of dollars on anti-smoking advertising, why? Because that is far, far less than dealing with smoking related disease. If helmet use is optional and this increases people exercising and this then reduces the cost to the health system more than the cost imposed by head injuries then the government is obviously going to entertain changing the laws. Cynical but the greater good and all that.

The paradox is that most people here have more experience riding than the average person on the street and would not ride without a helmet yet most, me included, would like to see laws relaxed. Whilst I would always use one for a commute or a mtb ride, if there was a bike share scheme in the city and I needed to go from George Street to Town Hall it would be great to be able to jump on a bike sans helmet as it is unlikely that I would carry one around.

Rob's picture
... 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!

hawkeye's picture
... 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?

I'd suggest we will see a spike in injuries related to non use of helmets. Sticking out tongue

They will most likely be the superficial kind - scalp injuries, brusing, concussion, maybe skull fractures (at the intermediate end). The more serious kind I don't expect to see much change, because the evidence seems to indicate helmets don't do a whole lot when the impacts are more serious. And they do nothing to stop spinal injuries. Actually, scratch that. Serious head injuries and spinal will both go up too, because there will be more people on bikes.

However, they will go up less quickly than the increase in cycling. In other words, the injury rate per kilometre cycled will actually fall. Mostly this comes from a greater awareness and tolerance of bikes on the road because bike riders will be less of an "out group". More people will be exercising more than just their right foot, obesity levels will be contained, stress levels will fall, and the overall health bill per person will fall.

To put it another way: yes, some people will get hurt, sometimes seriously, but more people will avoid getting seriously ill from the consequences of a sedentary lifestyle.

daveh's picture

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.

nix85's picture

ive seen myself what happens to a man who comes off his bike not wearing a helmet... and guys its not a pretty site...he was casually cycling down to his local shops.... hes been in hospital for a long time... in such a bike unfriendly countries where cars dont give a rats about bike riders i rarely go down the road without a helmet... ive been causally riding down the street when a car turned straight in front of me, almost went straight over the bars.. felt the back wheel go up i jsut was lucky enough to weight shift and make it all better (the drivers reaction was to smile!!) I think it should be everyones choice whether they where a helmet or not...though it erks me when i see 7&8 kids riding with their parents on the roads without helmets....kids dont have the amount of foresight to realise what the consequences are if things go badly...it should be compulsary for kids...

Doddsy's picture

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.

Noel's picture

When little Johnny smacks his head on the pavement with no helmet on, it's you and I who help pay for him to recover and survive so he can breed more people who continually make poor decisions.

Charles Darwin says "NO" to helmets.

G-Stroke's picture

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!

hawkeye's picture

No issue with you wanting to wear a helmet and encouraging others to do the same. I've had a number of quite serious crashes in the last 18 months and I am strongly pro helmet myself.

However, you haven't addressed the issue. The issue is the legal compulsion. The evidence - while imperfect - nevertheless points to a 30% drop in cycling as a result of the enforcement of the rules, from which it is has never recovered. Note that prior to the introduction in the 80s cycling was going through massive growth that looks to have been stopped in its tracks by the introduction of Mandatory Helmet Laws.

MHLs have effectively been repealed in the NT for adult riders in certain circumstances, and apparently cycling is beginning to flourish again: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1020.html

Flynny's picture

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?

Rob's picture

@G-Stroke... not at all bored by your commentary - very interesting.

@Flynny... don't be silly... it should be illegal to get out of bed unless wrapped in Cotton Wool!

OK... excuse the attempt at 'humour' Eye-wink

There are many good arguments in this thread, clearly a hot topic. Which probably means things will stay as they are, for better or worse?

antc's picture

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.

Lach's picture

Alan Kohler talking about examples of the nanny state in Australia:
Here's another example, of many: Melbourne has introduced a free bike scheme, with standard government bicycles strategically placed around the city for people to ride around on, just like 135 other cities around the world. Except ours doesn't work. Everywhere else in the world happy citizens tootle around on their free bikes but in Melbourne the bikes sit there forlornly, vastly unridden, if that's a word. Why? Because Melbourne is the only one of the 136 cities that requires cyclists to wear helmets, by law. There are no helmets attached to the free bikes, because they'll get pinched, and people don't normally carry helmets around, so they can't ride the free bikes supplied at great expense thanks to the bright, but limited, idea of a well-meaning bureaucrat who persuaded an equally stupid politician.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Best Mountain Bike