- 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
White cycle helmetAustralia to examine mandatory cycle helmet law
Australia is to examine its mandatory helmet law as part of a broader inquiry into ‘personal choice and community impacts’ reports Bicycling Australia. The Federal Government Senate Standing Committee on Economics will be looking at a number of measures which restrict personal choice ‘for the individual’s own good.’ As well as cycle helmets, this will include the sale and use of tobacco and alcohol and the classification of publications, films and computer games.
In 1991 Australia became the first country to require cyclists to wear helmets, and while there has been a fall in the number of head injuries recorded among cyclists since then, opponents of the law claim this is down to other factors. Furthermore, they say the law deters many people from riding bikes, arguing that this has an even bigger impact on public health in a wider sense.
The Australian reports that the new inquiry into ‘nanny state’ laws and regulations was initially launched by New South Wales senator, David Leyonhjelm, who is described by the newspaper as being ‘a staunch defender of the right to make bad choices.’
Leyonhjelm said:
“It’s not the government’s business unless you are likely to harm another person. Harming yourself is your business, but it’s not the government’s business.
“So bicycle helmets, for example, it’s not a threat to other people if you don’t wear a helmet; you’re not going to bang your bare head into someone else.
“I’m expecting the people who think we should all have our personal choices regulated will find this uncomfortable. These are the people who think they know better than we do what’s best for us.”
Submissions to the committee close on August 24 with a report due by June 13, 2016.
Earlier this year, Arnold Schwarzenegger became the latest celebrity to fall foul of Australia’s compulsory cycle helmet laws after he was stopped by a policeman for not wearing one while riding a bike in Melbourne. Boris Johnson and Twilight star Robert Pattinson have also been stopped in the past. Last year, police also said they might fine any riders who took part in an anti-helmet compulsion protest ride in Adelaide if they didn’t wear a helmet.
In 2010, two researchers at Sydney University claimed that Australia’s compulsory bicycle helmet law did not work and called for a trial to be conducted to try and predict what would happen if it were repealed. They said that the fall in head injuries largely came about before the law was introduced due to other road safety measures, such as random breath testing, and suggested that having greater numbers of cyclists on the roads would do far more to make cycling safer.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- David9694 29 min 21 sec ago
Woman seriously injured as car crashes into house in Exeter...
- dh700 1 hour ago
“I didn’t indicate because there was no one else there whatsoever. The cyclist has come just after I checked over my shoulder.”...
- andystow 1 hour 1 min ago
That's not why we use the word "beef." The meat wasn't for the Middle English speaking commoners, it was boeuf (or something like that) for the...
- dh700 1 hour 16 min ago
Precisely -- and this is a far bigger problem than their skin-color or body-type. Which is why wearing a bicycle helmet -- that provides no useful...
- quiff 1 hour 55 min ago
"With £100 to spare, he adds: "That'll be most likely new brake pads for my rim brake selection, chain, bar tape and tyres." Good luck
- eburtthebike 2 hours 12 min ago
"I've witnessed, many times, bicycles flying through the town centre."...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 37 min ago
Presumed liability is another tool but it's also something that comes after the fact (the bad thing already happened). Unfortunately I don't think...
- james-o 4 hours 30 sec ago
A shame the Endura GV500 isn't reversible - would have one by now if it was.
- oceandweller 4 hours 4 min ago
Actually, while I can't comment about base jumping - not gonna get me doing anything relying on equipment that has a potential single point of...
- quiff 4 hours 18 min ago
Yes, and on reflection that bit is not stupid exactly, if frustrating. But the crossing rules are a bit circular. To extend brooksby's point, it...
Add new comment
65 comments
Indeed they have had problems, which is why they are more scrupulous.
In any case that is a diversion. Do you allege the figures in the piece are made up? Or do you refuse to believe anything the NYT prints?
As for the rates I will get around to that when I have a bit more time.
In the meantime, can we have your evidence for helmet efficacy?
The Blair scandal was from 2003, and your article was from 2001, so becoming more scrupulous since then is hardly relevant.
It is, as you say a diversion; but you're the one who brought it up. Ultimately, a newspaper's fact-checking procedures are of very limited probative value; what is needed are peer-reviewed scientifi studies.
I've provided a whole range of them. Despite being asked first - and repeatedly - you have not provided any evidence at all for a specific claim
Toro toro,
you have been repeatedly attacking the evidence which shows that helmets are ineffective. Would it be too much to ask you to give us some evidence that they are effective?
I would like a bit more than "It's obvious innit. It's commonsense."
ONCE AGAIN, I'm not advocating compulsory helmet-wearing. I don't approve of the law, which I've now said on I think five separate occasions on this thread. I think everybody should have the choice, and one of the choices is deeply stupid.
Now, have you got those stats, or is this an attempt to change the subject?
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1239.html
There is a lot more stuff on this site.
I did not accuse you of advocating compulsion. Helmeteers often claim the effects of compulsion are not the same as of voluntary wearing. I was showing that the ineffectiveness is the same.
I think you should stop calling those who disagree with you stupid etc. It is not likely tohelp change their mind and it looks like the tactic of someone who does not have a good argument otherwise.
Which reminds me. You are the one telling others to wear foam. I think it is up to you to show that it works. A reminder, anecdotes are not data.
The total number of people who walk each day is similar to the total number who cycle?
Or a similar proportion of journeys by foot and journeys by bike result in head trauma?
Either way, I'd *really* like to see stats. Neither seems remotely plausible.
Per mile travelled as I recollect. I will get the evidence when I have finished my cooking duties.
Aregument from personal incredulity is invalid.
It's not an argument from personal incredulity, it's a demand for evidence on the basis of incredulity. Evidence which you still haven't provided.
Chris - it's tasteless, yes, and for that my apologies. The aim here is to get people to take the possibility of severe mental trauma a bit more seriously, so perhaps mission accomplished in that regard. But yeah, my phrasing and frustration with a wonky internet connection let the rhetoric drift carelessly into the insensitive on that occasion. So, sorry.
kie - safety is always a matter of trade-offs. There are some respects in which cyclists would be more safe in motorbike helmets, and some in which they would be far less (balance, heat build-up, visibility, aerobic obstruction...). But "bike helmets aren't even as good as these other helmets, so I'm not wearing any sort of helmet at all" is a pretty obviously spurious piece of reasoning. Again, only somebody *really, really determined* to justify not wearing a helmet to themselves would think that it made sense.
As to pedestrians and motorists - this is the base rate fallacy again. Yes, they'd be marginally safer wearing them. But only marginally, because the risk of head trauma is much lower in those activities in the first place. And that is consistent with more pedestrians and motorists than cyclists presenting head injuries, because there are many more pedestrians and motorists in the first place.
It is not the base rate fallacy because the RATE is similar for peds and motes.
Actually, the most important thing about this review isn't whether helmets work or not, it's that a politician is prepared to admit that a law might be wrong. This may not be the first example of this, but it is certainly welcome, and if the law is dropped, it should reduce pressure from helmet zealots for laws elsewhere.
@ ToroToro: informed choice is just that, and your mangling of all sorts of pseudo-statistical nonsense into an argument supporting the single most anti-cycling policy tool in existence would be an absolute joke, were it not such a deadly matter . Your passive-aggressive douchebaggery can Get In The Fucking Sea right now.
You can *use* the word "pseudo-statistical" all you like; I'm the one who's explained simple statistical errors in the anti-helmet reasoning.
And *once again* - I'm not in favour of a compulsory helmet-wearing policy. I don't know how many times or ways I can say that. To still be banging that drum just shows again your absolute wilful resistance to facts and evidence.
Here is how the case against the law in Oz and NZ works.
1. Take government figures for amount of cycling.
2. Take government figures for number of head injuries.
3. Divide 1 by 2 to derive rate.
Pass law. Observe rate of wearing increases from about a third to rather above 90%.
Repeat 1 to 3.
Note head injury rate does not change, although marked decrease in cycling means fewer casualties. Since less cycling is bad for public health (in one of the fattest countries in the world) this is an own goal, especially from a cyclist's point of view.
Please explain the simple errors in that.
The effectiveness of a helmet cannot vary depending on whether it is worn voluntarily or the rider is forced to wear it.
Here is a piece from the New York Times, a paper famous for the rigour of its fact checking.
A Bicycling Mystery: Head Injuries Piling Up
By JULIAN E. BARNES
Published: July 29, 2001
Edited to add link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/29/business/a-bicycling-mystery-head-inju...
Millions of parents take it as an article of faith that putting a bicycle helmet on their children, or themselves, will help keep them out of harm's way.
But new data on bicycle accidents raises questions about that. The number of head injuries has increased 10 percent since 1991, even as bicycle helmet use has risen sharply, according to figures compiled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But given that ridership has declined over the same period, the rate of head injuries per active cyclist has increased 51 percent just as bicycle helmets have become widespread.
Why do you sciency types insist on putting random words in inverted commas? It's so weird.
This, meanwhile, is an instance of a *really* elementary statistical error known as the Base Rate Fallacy.
It's true that "*vastly* more" people who present with head injuries have been climbing stairs, drinking alcohol, or travelling in motor vehicles when the injury took place. But that's because vastly more people climb stairs, drink alcohol, and travel in motor vehicles than cycle. There are vastly more events where someone does one of those acts than events where someone cycles. Even most cyclists do these things more often than they ride their bikes.
That doesn't mean they are more likely to cause head injuries. Consider; far more people present with head injuries after cycling than do after playing Russian Roulette, or hitting themselves in the face with hammers. Does that mean cycling is much more dangerous than Russian roulette, or hitting oneself with a hammer? That it's more likely to cause head injuries? Of course not. It just means that fewer people are doing the more dangerous thing.
Again, this is pretty elementary stuff. Only very strongly motivated disbelief would blind someone to it. Which makes the constant banging on about "look at the evidence" equal parts hilarious and dispiriting.
wasn't aware Queensland trialing that .... live in Victoria hate putting on a helmet for a 5 minute ride to the shops but don't like the idea of footpath (pavement) riding - here under 12's can ride on footpath and an adult can ride with them but I found it as dangerous as riding on the road with sight lines for driveways/carparks often dangerously poor. Driver attitude to cyclists reverts to that they should be treated like cyclists and don't have the rights of pedestrians. Add in the hassle of weaving around tram and bus queues, tables and signs, push chairs and toddlers, the elderly and dogs it really is a very poor outcome for cycling and for other footpath users. Looks to me like a quick fix to get cyclists off the road rather than politically unacceptable methods like reduction in speed limits and taking road space/parking spaces away from vehicles
Just a FYI this is law did not come into being in Queensland. It was proposed a few years ago as a trial and was being considered but politics won and they did not implement it. Helmets are still mandatory on paths.
As a side note it is already legal to ride on footpaths in Queensland and I find it a godsend in busy parts despite the risks of driveways etc. I do wonder if it delays better on road infrastructure though.
It's not that there is a dearth of evidence, Joe, it's that people determined not to wear helmets are strikingly poor at interpreting it coherently, at resisting the urge to cherrypick recalcitrant data points, at distinguishing reliable from anecdotal studies, and solid from wildly speculative conclusions to draw from it.
For instance; yes, it is obviously much safer to cycle without a helmet in Denmark or the Netherlands, because safety is environment-relative. Since those are much safer environments for all sorts of reasons, it is much safer to ride without a helmet in them.
But to extrapolate from that, as you have done, to the claim that it is therefore safer to ride without helmets in *this* environment, which has British rather than Danish drivers and British rather than Danish road infrastructure, is just scientifically illiterate.
FWIW, it's *still* safer to ride with a helmet in Denmark or Holland than without. It's just that given the far safer environment - WHICH WE DON'T SHARE - the marginal improvement in one's safety which it achieves is comparatively tiny, and so much more easily outweighed by considerations of convenience and the like.
Anyway, this is the reason for the crack about anti-helmeters' cognitive capacity; because your global-warming denialist-style attempts to wilfully cherry-pick and distort clear medical and statistical findings in order to support your claim are so thoroughly, thoroughly inept and, well, dumb.
What hypothesis? What does this even mean?
All of which would be beyond the cognitive capacity of someone with severe brain trauma, so your comparison was not only distasteful but pretty, well, dumb.
Don't have to wear a helmet in Queensland as long as you are riding on a bike path (not a bike lane on the road) or the footpath..
That ruling is on trial and was introduced at the start of the year..
Its awesome to see more people; families and kids rolling around having fun...
Riders on the roads though certainly take a calculated risk, as the level of ignorance, selfishness and arrogance in drivers in QLD is staggering to behold.. (not uniquely to this area...).
Many of the educationally challenged really do seem to fear anything different..
Just a FYI this is law did not come into being in Queensland. It was proposed a few years ago as a trial and was being considered but politics won and they did not implement it. Helmets are still mandatory on paths.
Joe, I specifically said that I *wasn't* in favour of compulsory helmet laws. So why the lack of evidence that they worked would confound me, I've no idea.
I said that choosing not to use helmets was, nevertheless, the province of idiots. And congratulations; you and the three-and-counting fellow-misreaders who "liked" your comment confirm my hypothesis quite nicely.
Why is choosing not to use helmets "the province of idiots" when there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that helmets help to reduce injuries or deaths? The limited data that *is* available suggests that helmeted cyclists are actually *more* likely to sustain serious injuries than those who don't. The uncomfortable truth for PPE advocates like you.
Are the cyclists in the Netherlands and Denmark all "idiots" in your opinion ... despite the fact that virtually none of them wear helmets ... and yet they happen to experience the fewest deaths and injuries whilst cycling compared to anywhere in the world?
Do you wear a helmet when drinking alcohol, using stairs or being in a motorised vehicle? Why not? Statistically, all of those activities are *vastly* more likely to result in a serious head injury than cycling.
But hey ... don't you let the actual facts get in the way of your own personal decision-making. I particularly enjoy the way you judge others by the same feeble-brained and deeply-flawed hypothesis by which you live your own life. Keep up the good work!
A shame then that the protective effect of helmets is so poorly represented in population wide studies, No?
...and instead of beginning from the point of view that helmets are indispensable, it would be refreshing if you and all the other people wait for a while and let the 20 odd years of data be examined, y'know, in a scientific way?
The main reason compulsory helmet laws are a bad idea is that further brain trauma will not make an appreciable difference to the cognitive capacity of anyone dumb enough to choose not to wear a helmet.
So that's "proof" for your side of the argument is it? A bit of angry name-calling? Thanks for your contribution.
No, that's not angry name-calling, that's expressing his point of view in a witty and concise way.
The fact that his opinion is wrong-headed and ill considered doesn't demean his ability to present it well.
Pages