- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Helmet Freedom.org YouTube stillAussie advert calls for end to Queensland's compulsory helmet laws for adults
A film-maker in Australia is looking to secure TV airtime for an advertisement he has shot which calls for an end to the country’s compulsory helmet laws, at least where adults are concerned.
Geoff McLeod, from Brisbane, believes that forcing Australia’s cyclists to wear helmets has contributed to rising obesity rates in the population, as well as deterring people from taking to bicycles for their daily journeys, reports the website News.com.au.
Filmed in the Italian city of Florence at a reported cost of A$40,000, the 60-second slot on behalf of the campaign group Helmetfreedom.org shows a succession of cyclists going about their business without a single helmet in sight – although, it should be noted, a slow-moving police car apart, there’s very little motorised traffic in evidence either.
“Australia is only one of two per cent of nations that have this absolutely ridiculous law,” Mr McLeod pointed out.
“It’s the equivalent of telling people who drive cars that they have to gear up like [five-time Bathurst 1000 motor race winner] Craig Lowndes, or telling beachgoers they have to wear life jackets or surfers to wear headgear.”
He insisted that bike riders aged 18 or over should have the personal choice over whether or not to wear a helmet.
According to News.com.au, last year some 6,522 tickets were issued in Queensland relating to bicycle helmet infringements, compared to 7,500 in 2009. During the first half of 2011, 3,153 cyclists were ticketed.
Adults not wearing a helmet face a A$100 fine, while children aged between 10 and 16 are in theory fined on their third offence, having first been issued with a caution and a warning.
That's not how the law is always applied in practice. Last year, we reported how police officers in the state had let down the tyres on the bike of a teenage boy they had discovered riding without a helmet, meaning that he had to walk home.
However, Mr McLeod maintained that “Police time could be much better spent than patrolling parks giving cyclists tickets for not wearing helmets.”
A spokeswoman for Queensland's Department of Transport and Main Roads dismissed Mr McLeod’s claims, insisting that deaths of cyclists on the state’s roads had fallen by nearly half since the introduction of compulsory helmet laws in 1991.
“A recent Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland report found that bicycle helmet wearing reduces the likelihood of brain injury by 69 per cent and the likelihood of severe brain injury by 74 per cent,” she explained.
“A black and white shot of cyclists in Europe is a lot prettier than the reality of a bicycle accident without a helmet,” she continued.
She added that the number of people commuting by bike in south-east Queensland, after an initial decline, was now higher than it was before helmets were made compulsory, “Therefore there is little evidence to support that many people would take up riding if the legislation was changed.”
The report referred to by the TMR spokeswoman was published in November last year and concluded that “Current bicycle helmet wearing rates are halving the number of head injuries experienced by Queensland cyclists.”
Quoted in the Brisbane Times, Professor Mary Sheehan of Queesnland Technology University said of Mr McLeod’s proposal to scrap helmet compulsion: “I don't understand why people would consider that. All the statistics point against it.”
The study acknowledged that it was “reasonably clear that it [compulsion] discouraged people from cycling twenty years ago when it was first introduced,” but added that “having
been in place for that length of time in Queensland and throughout most of Australia, there is little evidence that it continues to discourage cycling.”
It also said that “there is little evidence that there is a large body of people who would take up cycling if the legislation was changed.”
However, Mr McLeod insists that the legislation is deterring some from riding bikes, saying: “People don’t like wearing helmets. They’re hot and uncomfortable. A lot more people would jump on a bike and go for a ride if they didn’t have to and this is what this is about. Increasing the number of people cycling rather than getting into their car.”
He added that the idea of the advert had gained a lot of support on Facebook and YouTube.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 2 sec ago
May not be in her manifesto but she has frequently said in interviews that she will remove any cycle lane that impedes traffic flow - obviously a...
- andystow 14 min 41 sec ago
I don't know why, but I know someone should summon Gandalf.
- chrisonabike 21 min 1 sec ago
Thank your chosen deity (except Sciurid-related ones) we invented spanners - we should be able disable them by undoing their nuts!
- andystow 22 min 15 sec ago
My granny started driving before driving tests were implemented. When they were, she was grandfathered (grandmothered?) in, and she ticked all the...
- Hirsute 32 min 15 sec ago
Road was closed so I had no choice https://youtu.be/NV7XHFiXhyU
- wtjs 43 min 59 sec ago
A delightfully tactful description of being arrested for vagrancy and loitering? No. A friendly offer and an open cell door!
- Bungle_52 1 hour 7 min ago
Thank you for all the considered comments. I have thought about what happened a great deal over the last few days....
- arowland 1 hour 12 min ago
Engo Eyewear heads up glasses "offer real-time information in your field of vision, such as ... how far it is to the next cafe."...
Add new comment
47 comments
anyway spout as many stats as you like ... at least my head is kept safe.
As long as the missus does not have to pick you up or spend £500k using the air ambulance to collect you when you go head of wheels on a dirt path onto a brick, tree root or a pavement then thats all good. You looked cool and before you fell off.
you x6, you predict a lot of accidents involving you, you do, you.
A thin, softshell helmet is not keeping your head safe. It might spare you a flesh wound or make the difference between a headache and concussion, but what will save you from death or serious injury is not having an accident. Anything else is a distraction.
PS Ta for the typo headsup.
Leonrushworth: I don't have any problem with people making their own informed choices about their own safety. If you feel a helmet is the best trade-off of risk/convenience/etc for you, then great! I fully support your choice.
I am against the blind *advocacy* of bicycle-helmet wearing - often based on unscientific, anecdotal evidence & an incomplete assessment of the trade-offs involved (e.g. not considering the overall societal public health impact).
PS: Given you seem very concerned about road safety risks and how injuries to you would affect loved ones, I do hope you also wear your helmet when walking near roads and driving.
WOW .. why is it about they dont do it so why should I , it is a selfish justification really.. not about deaths but possible brain damange and the implications not just to yourself and way of life but the people left to pick up after you and pay for your wellbeing. You fall off your bike, bang your head, if you dont show yourself any respect and not be protected and you end up having to be nursed by your family for the rest of your life at the cost to the state . As a person you should have a duty to protect yourself and not fall into the poor selfish attitudes of benefit scroungers and nhs tourists, jay walkers , bad motorists. The arguments for not wearing one .eg i want to look cool does not have any mileage at all. Its not all about fact and figures, deaths but just looking after yourself to remain healthy.
"The arguments for not wearing one .eg i want to look cool does not have any mileage at all."
Why did you ignore all the reasonable points and introduce your own one? Read that chap's comment again. It's rather good and mentions some other arguments for not wearing a helmet.
Selfish for not wearing a helmet?! Do me a favour.
leon - what are you talking about?
You claim it's disrespectful to yourself if you don't wear a helmet?
Let's add all these activities to the list of being disrespectable... Living in a city (breathing 'poor' air will shoten your life), running (more likely to injure yourself than sitting on a sofa), watching fireworks (potential blindness from falling debris)
Basically you (you love the word you btw, you) are a berk.
I've never worn a helmet, but seeing what a blow to the head can apparently do to your grasp of grammar, I'm certainly going to consider it.
Mandatory helmets on stairs now! Stop the carnage!
Equally we might ask what is it about 'I do it, and so should you'.
It essentially comes down to whether one has an authoritarian view of society, where the state compels people to do things for their own good OR a libertarian view where people are compelled/prevented from doing only to the extent that such actions cause harm to others.
Cyclists as a whole will impose a much lighter burden on the state than others, because they are in general fitter, healthier and more affluent.
The motorists' road infrastructure is subsidised by everyone. The smokers and the obese are not denied hospital care because of their lifestyle choices.
Even if one could show that not wearing helmets caused increased need for support (which it doesn't, but let's pretend) it's just not a sustainable argument to suggest that cyclists should change their behaviour any more than other more numerous groups.
Sorry about the punctuation BTW, hope you can still understand it.
"Even if one could show that not wearing helmets caused increased need for support (which it doesn't, but let's pretend) it's just not a sustainable argument to suggest that cyclists should change their behaviour any more than other more numerous groups."
You can turn that argument the other way too..
If a cyclist cocks up not wearing a helmet - gets a brain injury, and ends up in rehabilitation programmes for the rest of his life - paid by the tax payer then it is a matter of public interest that cyclist wears helmets.
if you're going to make it about saving the taxpayer money then there's no argument, so far as i can see: every study conducted finds increased cycling gives a net financial benefit due to increased health and productivity, even accounting for higher incidence of cycling injury. since one of the effects of helmet compulsion is reduced cycling uptake, helmet compulsion costs the taxpayer money.
You can't pick on one particular outcome and say it would be expensive, without considering all the other possible outcomes, the most obvious of which is that the cyclist doesn't die or suffer a TBI, and lives a longer and healthier life. Yes it's possible they'll get a bang on the head. I've yet to see any population-scale data to suggest more helmets means less incidence of head injuries though. The most useful data, Australia and NZ pre- and post-compulsion, suggests that helmets are pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
Leon Rushworth: Common sense sometimes turns out to be wrong when tested scientifically. When it comes to helmets, then, yes they provide some protection to your head, however the latest top-tier meta-study says the effects are a lot less strong than thought before. Further, while protecting the head, they *increase* neck and facial injuries, such that the net overall benefit of helmets may actually be negligible.
Next up, helmets make cycling seem unusually dangerous (peds don't wear them, car occupants don't wear them - even though far more of them die on the roads), which likely discourages people from cycling. Low cycling rates mean there's less political motivation to spend on cycling infrastructure (which would make cycling more attractive to non-cyclists), etc..
Next, wearing a helmet changes people's behaviour. Both of motorists - who take more risks around cyclists if they wear helmets, and/or are male. Also, almost certainly, of the cyclists, who may take more risks because they feel they're safer from the consequences.
Finally, you have to balance the very low risks of cyling & not wearing a helmet, against the very definitely positive health effects of cycling, and the potential increase in cycling rates across the population (which could make cycling safer through safety-in-numbers) if we would stop singling out cycling as being some extreme-sport that requires special safety equipment.
See my blog for references for some of the above claims: http://pjakma.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/the-case-against-bicycle-helmets-...
Most road deaths are of car occupants (835/1850 in 2010), followed by pedestrians (405/1850). Surely, if helmets are a good idea for cyclists (111/1850 deaths), it would be an even better idea for motor vehicle occupants and pedestrians? It'd save far more lives in absolute terms!
I think we need a campaign for compulsory full-face helmets and HANS devices for motor vehicles! Also, roll-cages in cars makes their passenger compartments much much stronger and would save many lives. Sure, it makes cars less practical, but if it saves one life!
BMLH - you dont need to be hit by a car to have a head injury , but falling off a bike at 20 - 25 mph onto a pavement or even off roading I am sure a helmet offers more protection than none, its about common sence after all not common nonsence... If you choose not to wear one and you come off your bike and end up with a long term injury that the state has to look after you then I think thats a bit selfish to be honest. We should all have a rsponsibility to be safe and not just lucky..
Well I believe in helmet wearing , my girlfriend who works for the ambulance service has seen first hand what happens when you dont wear a helmet and it is not a pretty sight.
Should it be mandatory, well if you can safely say you wont get hit on the head by a passing gazelle or a road surface then no.. there are plenty of helmets out there to choose from and you should be safe.
I too have seen what happens when I don't wear a helmet. My neat side parting was a little tussled by the breeze. Apart from that I made it to the park with slight perspiration and a grin.
I usually wear a helmet for the commute.
Next anecdote, please.
leonrushworth --- please do give us details of the accidents that your girlfriend attended that give her absolute knowledge of plastic hats saving lives when bicyclists get hit by weighty vehicles...
Perhaps she has witnessed twins on identical bikes both hit in exactly the same fashion, both being flung through the air in the same way. Oh and 1 wears a helmet and is fine, except for a scratch on the hat and the other has brain damage.
That would be good anecdotal evidence... Otherwise, evidence, stastically robust data not BS please.
Pages