Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Aussie advert calls for end to Queensland's compulsory helmet laws for adults

But images of Florence's citizens riding through the streets bare-headed fail to sway powers that be...

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.

Add new comment

47 comments

Avatar
PeteH | 12 years ago
0 likes

giff, my point about seat belts has nothing whatsoever to do with safety. It is to do with civil liberty.

My point is that the government stepped in and made something that had previously been optional, compulsory. Their reasons (whether right or wrong) may have been safety-driven, but their reasons are not overly relevant since in a court the crown does not have to justify "why" something is illegal. It just is.

With seat belts, this all happened a sufficiently long time ago that tempers have cooled and we are able to look at this a little less emotionally. I don't particularly feel "oppressed" at having to put a seat belt on when I get in my car (although I might have felt exactly that in 1983 when the legislation first came in, in the UK).

With bike helmets the discussion evidently has not cooled but (especially wrt Australia) is exactly parallel.

Avatar
don_don | 12 years ago
0 likes

Meanwhile, the Netherlands groans under the expense of treating thousands of brain-damaged cyclists... erm...

Incidentally, I was under the impression that the UCI mandated helmet wearing mainly to increase the sponsorship possibilities and allow manufacturers to market their products. I may be wrong about that one, but that's the impression I'm under.

Avatar
KirinChris | 12 years ago
0 likes

On purely libertarian grounds seatbelts would not be compulsory but it is more clear-cut than helmets and one would have to be an extreme libertarian to argue against it.

With seatbelts there is clear and unarguable evidence about their effectiveness AND it strongly correlates to the types of accident likely to be encountered.
There is no benefit which would outweigh or even mitigate making them compulsory - it would not stop people driving, it does not affect their health or prevent them doing anything and it does not have a significant effect on price.

With helmets the argument about their effectiveness is far from settled, one aspect of which is whether they are actually fit for purpose.
Plus there is evidence that not making them compulsory has a net advantage in terms of encouraging cycling and overall fitness and health to the extent that it may outweigh the negative effects (if one admits them to be correct).

@seabass Yes I had already made that point in the comparison to smokers or obese people. We don't compel those groups to change their behaviour - although they are a far greater drain on resources than cyclists - so why crack down on one group and ignore others.

Avatar
giff77 | 12 years ago
0 likes

Sorry Pete, misunderstood what you were getting across. Would agree with you to a point.

Seat belts though, were needed due to the poor driving skills and while very few choose to wear them the govt was forced to have them legislated.

Avatar
Paul J replied to don_don | 12 years ago
0 likes

don_don, it'd be really interesting to do a study of injuries in UCI races from before and after mandatory helmets. Particularly as it'd be a very homogeneous group, with very similar riding behaviour, at least compared to normal riders. It'd also be interesting to consider only closed-road, professional UCI road races - could be an even tighter group, and would exclude cars as a variable.

E.g. have deaths on the big races decreased since mandatory helmets?

Avatar
jazzdude | 12 years ago
0 likes

I always wear a helmet but that is my choice. I fully support peoples right to choose whether or not to wear a helmet. Can anyone tell me if this Aussie law applies only while riding on a public highway or when riding off-road also? If it applies off-road then that is a scandalous infringement on peoples human rights. I can't stand it when governments try to nanny people to the point where they are not allowed to have any fun just in case they might get injured and sue. I thought the Aussies were easy going but I'm beginning to change my mind. Next thing you know they'll be asking you to sign a disclaimer before crossing the road.

Avatar
rogie40 | 12 years ago
0 likes

I totally agree with Andy, in so far as that I have chosen to always wear a cycle helmet (while cycling)due to my 9 year old nieces' life being saved by her helmet(and the wonderful ambulance crew/hospital staff)after she was hit by a police car on a quiet country road.
A couple of months after she was brought back from the brink of death, there was a church service held where she asked all the cyclist present to promise to where a cycle helmet in future.
I, like many other cyclist, absolutely hated the idea but went along with the promise and I can quite honestly say that over 99% of the time I have worn my lid. In fact it feels weird not too!
Having said all of that, I still feel that people should not be forced to wear a helmet as cyclist will always put more value on their freedom to do what they want over what is safest for them.

Avatar
hairyairey | 12 years ago
0 likes

How long have helmets been mandatory for motor cyclists? Would anyone suggest that these should not be compulsory? Yet, the majority of cycle deaths are due to head injuries. When moving forward the part of you that is likely to hit the ground first in a collision is your head. If you are struck at an angle you'll fall on your hands or your elbows, probably breaking bones.

I'm sorry to say that if people aren't cycling because they don't want to wear a helmet then they are pretty pathetic. It seems to me just being picked on as a reason to be lazy.

Cycling isn't itself dangerous it's the collisions that are. So why take an unnecessary risk? It's not like we are being asked to wear body armour. I've had gravel scraped out of wounds in casualty before, not a pleasant experience, but that's just the risk you take. The head does not repair quite so well. I'm brain damaged enough as it is! (I have Aspergers Syndrome and probably bipolar too)

Avatar
paulfg42 | 12 years ago
0 likes

As someone else mentioned, some of the daft aguments on here mirror the attitude of the refuseniks when the compulsory seat belt law was introduced. I've had a couple of serious falls and it's pretty clear from the damage to the helmet that I was spared a serious head injury. Nothing the libertarians can say will persuade me differently.

And while it could be argued that adults are daft enough to decide for themselves, it's when that attitude is transferred to young children that it really bothers me.

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 12 years ago
0 likes

Let's face it, at least 80% of cycle helmets on the market offer such minimal protection a cyclist may as well wear a wet paper bag over the head instead. Unless you wear a proper helmet as a cyclist, and most don't, there's simply no point. The vast majority of shell type cycle helmets are a waste of money, so if you've got one you might as well put it in the bin and do without. If you wear a shell type helmet, please don't bang on about how you're looking after yourself, because in all likelihood you're just kidding yourself.

Motorcycle helmets have been compulsory since 1976 in the UK. But motorcycles travel considerably faster than bicycles and the nature of injuries to motorcycle riders are different from those involving cyclists.

I've been cycling across London for over 20 years and have come off a few times, my injuries injuries have been to arms and legs. If you look at the injuries cyclists suffer, head injuries are by far the minority.

Avatar
Paul J | 12 years ago
0 likes

Since when is there a health benefit to motorcycling?

How does a broken or damaged helmet prove that it was effective? You could strap an egg, or some other fragile thing, to your noggin and claim it saved your life using that kind of faulty logic.

The facts are these:

- helmets reduce head injuries somewhat, though increase neck & facial injuries slightly.

- bicycle helmets change the behaviour of motorists, making closer passes.

- helmets discourage cycling

- in the UK, cycling has about the same fatality risk as walking (slightly less than or slightly more than, depending on how you compare).

- the long-term health benefits of cycling **greatly** outweigh the quite low risks

- Rates of helmet wearing in developed nations correlate *inversely* with cycling safety - the safest countries have the *lowest* helmet wearing rates, the worst countries (which are still pretty safe) have the highest helmet wearing rates.

This last fact could be interpreted in a number of ways. Draw your own conclusions.

Avatar
pmr | 12 years ago
0 likes

We dont have mandatory law in this country though do we?
(uk)
I only got a Helmet to race in Triathlons where its a rule.
I feel like it is probably giving me a false sense of security.
I would have to have a pretty bad accident for my helmet to come into play, and then I'd probably have serious injuries whatever.
When I come off my bike, my hands and knees take the hit, not my head.
A helmet didn't have a hope in hell of saving Wouter Weyland, sad to say.
When you see kids on the pavement and parks going no more than 2mph, with great big helmets on, it is pretty sad really.
But my helmet is pretty cool anyway I think, it also gives me somewhere to put my sunglasses.  1
It is ridiculous, but we cant go back now, they've got us by the short and curlys.

Avatar
Simon_MacMichael replied to pmr | 12 years ago
0 likes
pmr wrote:

We dont have mandatory law in this country though do we?
(uk)

It might not be on the statute books, but helmet compulsion exists in the UK, alright. In my case, it's enforced by the missus  3

Avatar
OldRidgeback replied to Paul J | 12 years ago
0 likes
Paul J wrote:

Since when is there a health benefit to motorcycling?

.

Since you ask, riding a motocross bike requires co-ordination and upper body strength. It's a pretty tough workout just to manage a couple of laps, never mind a whole race. Just about any kind of competitive motorcyle event requires strength and ability in fact.

I agree with your other points though.

Avatar
dontcoast | 12 years ago
0 likes

I wear my helmet every time I ride.

I choose to ride like a maniac most of the time.

When I ride relaxed, I'm usually hauling my kids in a trailer, and want to set a good example.

that being said...

•HELMET LAWS ARE OBNOXIOUS OUTSIDE OF COMPETITION!

•Adults can make their own descisions.

Many counties near where I live have helmet laws for adults. Imagine risking a ticket because your rode your commuter bike two blocks in a bike lane to get a carton of milk. That's just silly!

And one final anecdote: Ive been hit by more cars than I care to count. Helmet or not, never hit my head.
Urban assault and bike polo? Helmet saved my life both times!

Avatar
andyp | 12 years ago
0 likes

'anyway spout as many stats as you like ... '
genius. Yeah, stay away from an argument like this if you've got FACTS on your side.

Avatar
Paul J | 12 years ago
0 likes

OldRidgeback: Yeah, I agree that all-out riding on a track with a motorbike can be a decent work-out. It's *very* expensive though: you chew through costly tyres very rapidly, track fees, fuel, crash damage & lots of maintenance needed. All-out riding on the road will however get you killed very quickly. Riding a motorbike at the pace needed to have a fair chance of staying alive/uninjured on the road doesn't need much physical exertion IME (but does need lots of mental focus/exertion).

That's one reason I switched to bicycles, much *much* safer - and it hurts far *far* less when it goes wrong.  3 (Of course, some cyclists enjoy hurting themselves deliberately by pushing themselves hard up hills & stuff - but that's a good kind of hurt  3 ).

Pages

Latest Comments