"Scrap bike helmet law" says health expert

[Lukas]

Huh? What insurance company?
Your injuries will be covered by third party insurance today if you are injured in a traffic accident regardless of helmet or not.

well injuries yes (but maybe), for example Allianz CTP conditions are pretty clear: "Compensation may be reduced for victims who ignore certain basic road rules" (and one of the road rules is: cyclist must wear helmet)
also there is no income loss compensation in case you will be out of work for example 6 months.
I'm not sure if you will get any lumpsum (for example from BV) if they will find out you didnt have helmet on.

 

[thecat]

well injuries yes (but maybe), for example Allianz CTP conditions are pretty clear: "Compensation may be reduced for victims who ignore certain basic road rules" (and one of the road rules is: cyclist must wear helmet)
.

But if the law is changed so it's doesn't say "cyclists must wear helmets" (you know, the point of the whole thread) then you are not breaking any road rules............

 

[RigidMount]

And cars don't run into cars? or pedestrians? Do you still drive, and walk along the pavement? Fatuous argument.

As per one of the previous posts, its risk minimisation...

Cars hitting Cars - safety cells, defensive driving, they've all got intrustion bars, ABS, airbags etc etc
Cars hitting Pedestrians - 75% of the time its the pedestrians fault, i'm aware of my surroundings & if a car comes for me - there's more ways to jump outta the way than on a bike

 

[Adrian]

I have flattened/destroyed three helmets. One on bitumen, one on gravel, and one on the panel of a moving car.

My head still seems to work, and my face is still semi-symmetrical.

I'll take helmet thanks.

 

[toodles]

I just went and checked out the statistics on head injuries.

"In the US, falls account for 28% of TBI, motor vehicle (MV) accidents for 20%, being struck by an object for 19%, violence for 11%, and non-MV bicycle accidents for 3%."

In children, the leading cause of head injury is violence/child abuse.

 

[Mark S]

Sometimes you have to protect people from themselves.

I have been involved in two incidents over the years:

1) Just rolling along around 10km per hour in the CBD, a pedestrian stepped out from between cars without looking and I plowed straight into them. Even though I was travelling at such a slow speed, I still went over the handlebars and my head actually bounced on the bitumen a couple of times.

2) The bike path was a little bit wet after rain when riding to work and, without warning, the bike just slipped sideways, presumably on some wet leaves. Again, my helmet slammed straight into the concrete.

In both incidents, my helmet cracked as a result of the impact. I'm not saying I would have ended up with brain damage, but I would certainly have suffered a serious injury.

 

[niftydog]

Any law that sets out to protect idiots from themselves is pointless. We all know they build f'n awesome idiots these days.
Having a personal opinion about the usefulness of helmets is fine, but that's not an argument to force every cyclist in the country to wear one all the time.

...compulsory helmet laws mean that all helmets are required to be approved to Australian Standards. If helmets weren't compulsory, helmet manufacturers wouldn't bother...

To legally sell helmets in Australia manufacturers must comply with the standard. Compulsory helmet laws or not, those standards are still enforced. There's no link between the two laws.

 

[Lukas]

But if the law is changed so it's doesn't say "cyclists must wear helmets" (you know, the point of the whole thread) then you are not breaking any road rules............

I was just explaining that there are more issues with insurance policies. Also if the law will be changed i believe insurance companies will change their policies. And no matter of helmet yes or not - insurance companies will force you to wear helmet to minimise claims. so for those who are or will be insured this law (what is about this thread) is actually pointless.

No mater of the law i'm (and i will) wear helmet (while riding my bike)

P.S. I saw guy hitting the kerb head first (down the Surry Hills). and i believe if he didn't wear helmet he will be dead. and that's the point of short city distances.

 

[Arete]

I was just explaining that there are more issues with insurance policies. Also if the law will be changed i believe insurance companies will change their policies. And no matter of helmet yes or not - insurance companies will force you to wear helmet to minimise claims. so for those who are or will be insured this law (what is about this thread) is actually pointless.

No mater of the law i'm (and i will) wear helmet (while riding my bike)

P.S. I saw guy hitting the kerb head first (down the Surry Hills). and i believe if he didn't wear helmet he will be dead. and that's the point of short city distances.

You made a sweeping statement claiming that not wearing a helmet voids insurance cover - which is untrue for the major insurance at play - 3rd party injury. Whenever 2 vehicles collide, a road rule has been broken. Do insurance companies turn to drivers and say "You ran a red light - no cover for you" ? No they don't. Do insurers say "You weren't wearing a seatbelt - no cover for you"? No they don't. If you present to hospital having been in an mva, they hand you a form and charge it to CTP - even if there was no driver or the driver cannot be identified. At no stage do they ask you if you were wearing your lid however.

The other points I see are the assumption that a helmet will save your life in an accident with a motor vehicle. Having been hit by a car, having my helmet obliterated and suffering several days memory loss I can tell you from first hand experience - the helmet may or may not have had a role in reducing my head injory. If you are going to be struck by a motor car at significant speed and suffer a large impact to your head, you are extremely likely to vastly exceed the capability of your helmet to protect your noggin - and survivorship from such an accident is likely to be related to other factors. Testing of helmets goes nowhere near aprroximating the forces involved in a mva - and bicycle helmets simply aren't designed to protect you in those circumstances. Don't let the glorified esky on your head delude you into thinking it offers any significant protection if you are going to be hit by a car.

The other point I see is the assumption that your average commuter will stop wearing a helmet if the law says they can choose to. There's plenty of legal things that aren't good for you - smoking, drinking, swimming in the Torrens etc and so on ad infinitum. Does it mean everyone does them? No. Most commuters I see have additional safety gear - such as hi vis as well as a helmet. I'd still wear a lid when I commute - but I'm not doing it because I have to I'm doing it because I choose to.

The point of reppealing the legislation is not that if you have an accident a helmet has a proven (rather than anecdotal or logically deducible) ability to reduce injury, it is that REGULATION of helmet usage has a PROVEN lack of effectiveness in reducing injury and a PROVEN effect on the nuber of cyclists. If the laws aren't having a positive effect, why have them?

 

[Delmar]

It seems to have been lost in here (I *may* not have read every post in detail) that the argument is not the effectiveness or otherwise of helmets should an accident occur, but that the total health benefit to society would outweigh the risks of doing away with the helmet law.

You can pick and choose your evidence/stats, but there is research (which the guy who's quoted in the article cited on the radio yesterday) which shows that: 1. compulsory helmet laws prevent lots of people riding (also my own just empirical experience, talking to people, etc). 2. there is a huge public health benefit therefore lost, and he is suggesting this health benefit outweighs the safety cost of not wearing helmets.

Beside us and NZ, this the approach the rest of the world takes. It doesn't seem so outlandish to me that we should dismiss it out of hand. I'd like to see it go (more people on bikes, I'd love to see that), but personally, riding at the speed I generally do, I would continue to wear a helmet almost always.

 

[smeck]

.................In both incidents, my helmet cracked as a result of the impact. I'm not saying I would have ended up with brain damage, but I would certainly have suffered a serious injury.

All most helmets do is protect your skull. Brain damage and concussion comes from your brain rattling around inside your skull, which comes from the rate of decelleration of your skull. Hence while a helmet will have a significant role to play in stopping your skull getting cracked, it's going to do sweet FA saving you from needing to eat through a straw. To get real protection you need to go to a Tri-composite motorbike helmet with are about $700 and up. Cheap moto and every full face DH lid I've seen are polycarbonate, which deflect instead of absorbing impact and have no benefit on brain injuries, the same as the plastic covered eskies most cyclists wear.

It's brain injuries that are significant. While you got away without stiches in your head, the helmet did naught to protect your brain or neck, those are the injuries that turn you into a vegetable. Anything is better than nothing, but they're not the 'helmet of invulnerability' that people like to think. The fact that your's cracked instead of crushing shows it failed on impact and thus absorbed minimal force. It merely shielded your scalp from the ground, it did nothing to slow your rate of decelleration to cushion your brain or ease the load on your neck/spine.

If the proven effect of helmets is to give the impression of danger whilst actually having no more than a placebo effect for existing cyclists, I can't see the point in making them compulsory. As for insurance, premiums might change, but if the injury rates and treatment costs don't change and haven't changed why would they?

 

[thecat]

2. there is a huge public health benefit therefore lost, and he is suggesting this health benefit outweighs the safety cost of not wearing helmets.

It's not just health benefits there is benefits to traffic decongestion with hire a bike schemes, which currently struggle to get off the ground in Australia partly because you need to carry a helmet around with you or use a hire one....

 

[sean_23]

Everything on this topic has been said a million times, but just to cast my vote:

I don't think it should be illegal to ride without a helmet.

I would always wear a helmet mtbing, commuting, road rides, or riding with the kids (to set a good dad example).

I'd always make my kids wear a helmet.

On the morning ride to the corner shop I mostly won't bother.

 

[miko]

I say scrap it too, it's like forcing people to vote in a democracy, a bit odd. Having said that, I'd always wear one. It would be good to see these city bike hire schemes working, I was amazed to see the racks in Melbourne recently. It's a great idea, but I think it could be doomed, helmets or not. Australian cities need to stop trying to be European cities. It sounds nice to be able to do short trip rides with returnable bikes, but unfortunately the cities just aren't bike friendly enough for that.

 

[m_g]

studies suggest it may work

I read a report (trying to find online) where a researcher studied the distances kept by cars from cyclists when cyclists wore helmets vs when they didnt...

Motorists gave more room when cyclists had no helmet (and more room to females than males!). They concluded that this MAY reduce the chance of a crash. Obviously the problem of not wearing a helmet becomes apparent if and when you do actually crash...

 

[stinkybigmacc]

This not really a for or against but my own personal story which influences me everytime I think about not wearing a helmet. My brother and I were riding in our street after school one day when he went to stop by the side of the road. As he went to put his foot down it got caught on the pedal lugs thus throwing him off balance and he ended up falling awkwardly in a heap of tangled human and bike. As I came up to him laughing he said he was ok but his head was sore. An hour later and the pain was worse so my father took him to the hospital. On the way my brother lapsed into a coma due to pressure on his brain from bleeding. Luckily the ambulance which was to take him to Brisbane was late and the doc decided to relieve the pressure and saved his life.Two operations later he has two large scars and plate on his skull.

Bad luck is all it was but for the sake of a helmet all the drama could have been avoided. I suppose I don't see why a helmet is such a problem to carry around, to me its just another part of the bike.

 

[frensham]

Here is a test for you, smack yourself in the head with your knuckles,which hurts the most head or knuckles? Now smack the road or sandstone or a tree or a car with the same knuckles, which hurt your knuckles the most ? Imagine having your beloved family wipe your arse for the rest of your life and spoon feed you. A bit harsh I know but shouldn't we take every reasonable precaution in the persuite of our sport.I always wear a helmet for the same reason I check my brakes and service my bike regularly,to minimise risk.Minimum of $40 for a helmet for cheap protection.We can argue if and when but it's always the "first time" it happens that may be the last.

Compulsory Helmet Laws have absolutely nothing to do with cycling as a sport. 'Sporting' cyclists would be less than 10% of all cyclists.

 

[grimzentide]

It seems that the majority of the people replying would continue to wear a helmet, so let me ask a different question(s)....

Do you think that making helmets optional will increase the number of people cycling?

Will this also make the city hire bike schemes work in Melbourne and other cities that have implemented it?

 

[frensham]

I have flattened/destroyed three helmets. One on bitumen, one on gravel, and one on the panel of a moving car.

My head still seems to work, and my face is still semi-symmetrical.

I'll take helmet thanks.

No one is telling you NOT to wear a helmet if you want to. Not having compulsory helmet laws doesn't prevent you from making the choice to wear one. It's LEGAL to smoke, but I choose not to. If it were legal to NOT wear a helmet whilst cycling I would still choose to wear one on most occasions except for a quick pootle to the shops and back.

 

[Cypher]

I personally love the argument that people would not ride a bike because of the compulsory helmet requirement.

Does this sound weak to anyone else?

It always seems to me that these people are looking for an excuse not to ride. Helmets range from the very cheap to the very expensive and you can generally purchase helmets in a range of stores. They are not hard to come by.

I see plenty of people ignoring the law. In fact, on occasion, I also ride to work without my helmet (it is mostly shared path/footpath). I don't think the law needs to be repealed. How often is it enforced anyway? On more than one occasion I have stood next to a police car at the lights with my bike and no helmet. Nothing happened (Ok I wasn't on the road, but on the footpath, but still)