- 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
Sydney helmet protest ride (via Facebook video).jpgAussie cyclists protest mandatory helmet laws with helmet-optional rides
Cyclists have been riding without helmets across Australia today in protest at mandatory helmet laws they believe are discouraging people from cycling. The Sydney ride was closed down by New South Wales Police with long-time bike helmet reform campaigner Sue Abbott picking up yet another fine.
In 1991 Australia became the first country to require cyclists to wear helmets.
Alan Todd, the president of Freestyle Cyclists, which organised the protests, told the Guardian: “We find that the mandatory helmet law is the single greatest barrier to the uptake of bicycle use in Australia. It has created an image of cycling as a high-risk activity, and practically killed off the casual everyday use of the bike.”
On its Facebook page, Freestyle Cyclists reported: "A tale of two cities. In Melbourne, the Freestyle Cyclists Helmet Optional Bike Ride attracted zero police activity. Meanwhile in Sydney today, the bike hating capital of Australia (maybe the world), the police closed it down. Threatened with a $330 fine two people including long time bike helmet reform campaigner Sue Abbott took one for the team.
“Rides also took place in Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide and across the ditch in Wellington where police no longer prioritize the helmet law.”
There’s some Ten News footage of the Sydney ride.
Rudy Botha, who co-ordinated it commented: “With Sydney facing a lot of transport challenges, we need to be encouraging people to look at riding a bicycle as alternative.
“Threatening them with one of the world’s highest fines for something that is considered normal in most countries, is having the opposite effect.”
Todd added: “We accept that a helmet might help in the event of an accident … [but] you must distinguish between crash data and population data. It hasn’t had any measured safety benefit at the population level. Across population, the reduction in injuries was no more than the drop in cycling.
“It beggars belief that in the 21st century we take something as benign and beneficial as bike riding and we punish people.”
Edward Hore, the president of the Australian Cycle Alliance, expressed support for the protests.
“We think helmets should be a choice. We’re not talking about banning helmets, we’re talking about making them optional.
“If you’re in a peloton down a beach road, and you’re not wearing a helmet, you’re a bloody idiot, let’s be frank. But we’re talking about the rider in the park with a family, the local commuter, the gentle ride down the street. Once you’ve measured your risk you can decide whether or not you want to don a helmet.”
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
- Rendel Harris 1 sec ago
Looks to me as if he's totally understood the spirit of the jersey, judging by that comment.
- Daveyraveygravey 8 min 46 sec ago
The driver is saying he moved over to the right, to give the cyclists as much room as possible, but the victim still managed to get in front of him...
- brooksby 11 min 5 sec ago
And of course, it was a "tragic accident" rather than a rather significant failing by a so-called professional driver.
- Owd Big 'Ead 12 min 3 sec ago
Who? They won't be missed. Bet the cultural experience will be tawdry in your new home. Make sure the door doesn't hit you on the arse on the way out.
- brooksby 20 min 37 sec ago
Dear "member of the road.cc staff" - is there any chance you could publish a transcript of this episode? - thanks!
- Freddy56 31 min 43 sec ago
I am a bianchi owner, A lovely Sprint with 105 hydraulic but this has concealed cables on a bike that isn't build for speed?
- Secret_squirrel 34 min 58 sec ago
Parcel Force via Parcel Monkey are usualy as cheap and more trustworthy than most of the rest. Never had a problem with them.
- Steve K 56 min 56 sec ago
Right - I've now worn them in the rain. Just for a short walk and a short ride. But they performed well - initially the rain was just beading off...
- Secret_squirrel 1 hour 9 min ago
Why the fudge would you employ a CEO who's previous exeperience was in selling a purely digital product, when your business model is selling an...
- mark1a 2 hours 6 min ago
A bit more about it here https://road.cc/content/feature/cycling-tech-innovations-never-took-off-...
Add new comment
240 comments
When is our (UK) Great Government Road Safety Review being done? Coming soon, to a park near you...
They must have so little crime if this is the best use of their police.
What the ?
That seems like a sensible non-rabid article on the DailyFail featuring cyclists. Is it April 1st?
storm-trooper-bmx-bike-rider-700x.jpg
Come on, it's always been obvious the Mail has various prejudices that quite often work at cross-purposes. Clearly this was a 'nanny state' and 'police wasting resources' story and that trumped cycle-hate.
Its up there with "violent young unemployed yob attacks elderly Muslim" or "asylum-seeking unlicenced driver runs over cyclist" and such-like.
The comments don't always fall the same way as the editorialising though. Clearly different Mail-readers have different heiarchies of hate.
Yeah, it's similar to a broken clock.
Those comments were atrocious, even for Australians (sorry for the bad generalisation, but a lot of Australians living there are fond of their right wing hating of out-groups).
DailyFail readers, (mostly drivers hating fellow humans on bicycles, especially crazed Aussie drivers); commenting underneath that article, still are fully of hatred & bullsh!t,
despite the article's slant.
That website. My eyes!!
I wouldn't read any of the comments if you want to remain sane.
"No ifs and buts, the law is the law" says one liar, who doesn't recognise the laws that they have (probably, as no one is perfect) chosen to break.
"You'll need a helmet" says another advocate of violence in order to stamp out this illegal activity, "if I come across you on the footpaths."
What is the collective noun for fuckwits?
Australia.
The data on the effects of New Zealand's helmet compulsion law is very clear. As BurttheBike says, it requires almost wilful ignorance to imagine that the law had a positive effect. Take a look at the graph on this website. It is drawn using NZ Government figures.
https://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/17/the-effects-of-new-zealands-helmet/law/
The website is well worth reading.
A graph is a very effective way of presenting information clearly. For those who cannot cope with graphs, here is a rough summary of what it shows.
When helmets were mandated numbers cycling went from about 250,000 down to about 150,000.
Injuries per 100,000 cyclists went up from about 500 to about 900.
Helmeteers claim this shows the law was a good idea.
What your graph and interpretation is missing is any indication that the helmet law was responsible for the drop in numbers of cyclists, and that the increase in injury levels were in any way not related to the reduced numbers of cyclists. You need to show both these links before your graph can be considered to represent any kind of causative link. Otherwise it could be related to the number of sheep in New Zealand which showed a similar drop in numbers across that period. Or inversely related to the amount of autism, which showed a corresponding increase over the time.....
Cognitive dissonance. Look at the slopes, and the timing. Its one hell of a coincidence, and one repeated anywhere helmets have been mandated.
Its clear that something caused a step change in both figures. What is your candidate? You suggest that the 40% decrease in numbers cycling caused ( perhaps you think by the safety in numbers effect ) the 80% increase in casualty rate, but you don't suggest any reason for the decrease in numbers.
Perhaps the deterrent effect of a helmet law (also repeated in Oz ) ultimately causes injury rate to increase, because numbers on the road decrease. Not a lot of consolation for those who don't give up cycling.
Felix, I don't have an axe to grind in this argument, I'm pro personal choice, anti-mandate. However, Burt continually makes unsubstantiatable remarks and resulting conclusions which just are not possible to make from the available data. He then accuses everybody else of assumption and jumping to conclusions.
In asnwer to your question, I gave 2 possibilities in my earlier response. It is impossible to draw conclusions without providing a causative mechanism. Perhaps the drop in sheep numbers reached a certain threshold, which altered conditions in the road environment (less sheep wandering on the road, fewer pretty sheep to look at in the paddocks, less itchy wool jerseys to irritate and distract drivers in town at critical moments) and as a result there were less cyclist injuries. As you haven't suggested a plausible mechanism (nor has Burt) this holds just as much water as anything else said so far. The rise in Autism could also suggest various threshold scenarios that could be projected on to the cycling figures and provide a vaguely credible alternative hypothesis
Again, Burt continues, willfully, to conflate individual choice in helmet wearing and the concommitant demonstrable injury preventions, and the sociological effects of mandatory helmet wearing. The two things are probably not related. Again, it's called a paradox. No amount of graphs, statistics or (probably) stormtroopers will reconcile that.
The BMJ link referenced earlier is really worth a read. It sums up a lot of the factors and studies and then shrugs its shoulders, but comes out firmly against mandatory helmets, as, I think, everyone on this thread does.
It also says it's an unresolvable micro vs macro muddle. Individually, if you have a classic 'bang my head, look at the state of my helmet' spill, that's all that matters to you. If you have the same spill and get whiplash and blame your helmet (and this is a factor - see the BMJ link) then that's all that matters to you. It saved your life, or hurt your neck - you think. This is a classic individual response and deals with the micro aspects of this argument.
However, throw in the macro factors and things get really messy.
1. What's going to kill you is another vehicle, not an under-judged bend, right?
2. We're all safer if there are more cyclists: safety in numbers, right?
3. Cycling appearing the dangerous preserve of sporty daredevils (with safety equipment that is promoted and mandated in certain events) puts off non-cyclists from cycling, right?
4. That reduces the safety in numbers aspect and makes us more at risk from real threats (see 1), right?
There's 'evidence' (statistics that can be bent, or limited surveys) to support all of these points, but there'll never be an all-encompassing conclusive study threading it all together like I have. I happen to like the logic and follow that argument - I think the insistence on helmets in events probably is, on balance, A Bad Thing, but I can't possibly back that up or even quantify it. Nor can those that claim it's Not A Bad Thing.
And all it takes is for you to be the poor bastard who nuts a lamppost and the macro arguments go out of the window. On a micro level, it saved your life, didn't it?
We should really split these debates into a micro 'helmet saved my life' type one, and a macro 'stop making people wear helmets' one, but normally when I make that plea the immediate following post is a 'shut up yous, a helmet saved my life'.
Meanwhile, in NZ, where we all have our heads screwed on straight, and our helmets on slightly crooked....
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/102357890/meagre-turnout-for-...
Judging by the comments and their 'likes', it seems you have that the wrong way around.
I was frankly astonished by the comments, I thought Kiwis were generally more intelligent. Perhaps in future years, cycle helmets will be used as a classic case of indoctrination.
JCHL reminds me of someone, I just can't think who at the moment....
wearing a helmet prevents traumatic brain injury. Wow, you learn something new everyday.
In which case the comments were probably mostly from Australians
Much as I enjoy decending into the helmet debate, can we do some more of the stormtrooper thing, that's funny.
No.
9f03f9bf70d5f9340bc3310eb5d206c9.jpg
Do what you want but if you happen to smash your head into the tarmac(and shit happens) then your gonna wish your wearing a helmet and you aint gonna be thinking thank fuck im not wearing one.
I realy don't get this. Helmets are great. They stop your brain from being crushed. Not wanting to wear one is like not wearing a seatbelt in a car at 110kph while saying no thanks to airbags as well.
Just dumb.
Why do they not demonstrably reduce cyclists' head injuries then?
See Goldacre's and Spiegelhalter's BMJ editorial I refer to above.
Did you know that when seat belt use was made mandatory that cyclist and pedestrian deaths and injuries increased?
Given the known facts you wear a helmet for motor travel and walking right, more so for going down the pub on a Friday or Saturday night, make sure to advise your oldies they need to wear a helmet too. Also I hope you aren't so dumb as to allow your kids/child relatives to travel without helmets in motors and insist on helmets for PE and in the playground at school?
If they are so great why don't governments force adults and children to wear them 24 hours a day?
There are approx 1,400,000 head injuries reported to hospitals in the UK, around 160,000 admittances (so the number of serious head injuries are much greater than this), the majority of these by a massive amount are NOT people on bikes. Serious injuries of ALL body parts for people on bikes is circa 3000 annually, the majority caused by motorists and from that something that a helmet cannot prevent serious injury from.
More children die solely of head injuries in motor vehicle incidents (In just E&W) than the total number of child deaths by all injuries in the UK UK government stats for 2016..
More children suffer death by head injury in playgrounds, not to mention other activities than children on bikes.
Clearly if you don't wear a helmet everywhere else in your life you're just dumb!
Let's not even get on to the dumbness of trying to compare to seatbelts and airbags on top of how these things have not worked that well for road safety.
Do they?
Do they really?
I've got a fiver that says they don't.
I got a nice concussion from slipping on an icy walkway a few weeks ago. Should I wear a helmet when walking? They protect your brains, not wanting to wear one while walking is just dumb.
We're all adults, this is a choice we should make for ourselves. I did ride helmetless for a while because ironically, due to a head injury when I was wearing a helmet, my head is extremely sensistive to pressure in certain areas. It took a while to find a style of helmet I could tolerate. While that's uncommon, I'd hate to think the law should force me to stop riding because of it.
I'm not going to bang on about the efficacy of a cycle helmet, it's pretty conclusive to all but the indoctrinated, those who refuse to accept the facts and those with an agenda.
What I will talk about is my support for groups like Freestyle cyclists and 'repeal mandatory bicycle helmet laws', these people are at the forefront of fighting back (& it is fighting in reality), fighting for basic human rights, fighting against bias and discriminatory acts that not only breach common law (Laws that are celebrated by Australian government in fact in their recognition of Magna Carta) but the policing of people on bikes breaches the oath or attestation of a police officer chasing helmetless cyclists as opposed to criminal motorists and are anti constitutional.
Importantly its support to fight against governments whose actions and inaction have costs thousands of lives as well as hundreds of thousands of life changing injuries.
Discussing ways to defeat local judges to get fines overturned would be useful but not only are you fighting against people who are similarly indoctrinated but like here their magistrates ignore the law and discrimination, they even ignore the Australian constitution itself and will not listen or act fairly when given facts and told about the defence of necessity (that cycling with a helmet actually increases endangerment).
Some areas like Northern Terrotories allow people to cycle on cycle lanes sans helmets but not on roads (where a helmet is even less effective), funnily enough NT have the highest % of cycle use.
NZ also has activists whom are attempting to overturn these unlawful acts by their government, it's a sad state of affairs all round.
Penalising and even worse criminalising people for doing something that has so many benefits not just for the indiidual, not just a country but the whole planet is a disgusting breach of innate rights, it's about time it was exposed as an atrocity on a par with others that oppresses and kills minority groups just wanting to go about their business and live their lives free from fear, harm and encumbance.
[
Pages