"Scrap bike helmet law" says health expert

[3viltoast3r]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/16/2983587.htm?section=justin

A public health expert has called for laws making the wearing of bike helmets compulsory to be repealed, to encourage more people to ride bikes.

Australia became the first country to make riding without a helmet illegal in 1991.

Associate Professor Chris Rissel, from Sydney University's School of Public Health, says the greatest drop in head injuries was in the 80s - before the laws were introduced - because of road safety campaigns and speed controls.

He says the number of head injuries has remained steady since then, creating a case to overturn the helmet law.

"What it does is it puts people off cycling and makes people think that cycling's a dangerous activity, even though it's a really healthy thing to do and it increases people's physical activity," he said.

"And you're seeing things like in the Melbourne bike hire scheme - it's not working as well as it has in the rest of the world because people don't walk around with a helmet just in case.

"You've got helmets creating a barrier to cycling, particularly spontaneous, short-trip cycling.

"People who ride short trips down to the shops, or ride in parks or just going along quiet streets. Their risks are very, very low."

What do you think? Certainly doesnt apply for mtb..

 

[flamin'trek]

dumb idea.

think about how this law has encouraged kids to ride more safely while they are still learning to ride. Adults can make their own decisions, sometimes adults make good decisions for their kids - "you must wear a helmet"

do you think seatbelt laws should be repealed because the road toll has dropped and aibags make cars safer? I don't.

 

[toodles]

Scrap it. It hasn't made a difference for the better and its not like you can't wear a helmet if you want to. I doubt many people will stop wearing their helmet because its no longer mandatory anymore.

 

[frenchman]

Interesting timing this is. Just when BCC was being criticised for how it would implement helmet usage with the CityCycle scheme... But only 4-5 months ago BCC said "there was no chance of loosening the state's tough helmet laws."

 

[houli77]

i agree, scrap it..

our society is becoming way too controlling. i think most people would still wear one where necessary and i can't see a massive amount of injuries from those who don't.

i'd still always wear one when riding trails hard, i've had a few head knocks in my time and fully respect the protection lids provide, but it'd be nice to be able to pop down the corner store or just cruise bike paths without one.

focus should be to improve the separation of cyclists from cars. cycle lanes etc. helmet or no helmet this would have the biggest impact.

 

[HimynameisMike]

I would love to hear from a member of the police or ambulance regards this subject.
I see the helmet laws as a good thing. Yes, you are going to have people who will go against the laws put in place. However, if the law guides even a few people into wearing a helmet then how is that a bad thing?

 

[dain2772]

I would love to hear from a member of the police or ambulance regards this subject.
I see the helmet laws as a good thing. Yes, you are going to have people who will go against the laws put in place. However, if the law guides even a few people into wearing a helmet then how is that a bad thing?

I think the problem is that there are many people out there who don't ride because they have to wear a helmet, particularly for short trips. And when they try to introduce these bike-city schemes, they don't work because ppl don't carry helmets, and don't want to wear one when hiring a bike to travel 2-5km.

I personally would continue to wear a helmet unless I was doing a very casual, non-road ride (ie, primarily bike paths)

 

[Dozer]

Yeah, get rid of it. Get rid of wearing seat belts in cars and encourage people to drink and drive and do speed at the same time! What a dickhead..................

I will never ride a bike without a helmet on.

 

[grimzentide]

Helmets should be mandatory for all people under the age of 16 to protect their developing skulls and brains... But because 16 year olds dont have legal indentification, that might have to change to 18 year olds just to make it easier for the police to enforce. It's similar to different road laws for younger drivers (power to weight ratios for motor bikes or turbo law's for P platers). Once they turn 18, they should have the skills required to ride safely, but they have also used helmets for most of their lives so it should be almost second nature for them to continue to ride with a helmet.

If you make hemet use for 18+ as optional, the CityCycle plans could actually start to work in major cities.

 

[crampy]

If your going to share the roads with cars than you need something to protect your head.

If you don't agree, try getting t-boned by a car and let me know if you don't change your mind.

 

[gorezilla]

This isn't a thread about whether helmets work or not, or whether it is sensable to use them.

I always wear a helmet and would continue to do so most of the time if the helmet law was repealed. But I support the law being repealed and giving people a choice, especially in regards to a bike share scheme, where a helmet makes no sense.

 

[Slank]

It would be interesting to see the report to determine if the number of injuries remains constant comment refers to the number of reported injuries say 500 per year or if it is proportional to bike sales. If it is just a flat figure it seems to me that there is a pretty good case for it actually doing its job as there are more bikes being used each year so the number of avoided instances is potentially growing. Similarly there is no way to report how many near misses have occured because someone was wearing a helmet. So justifying the repealing of the law this way doesnt seem to make sense.

Maybe change the law and put a surcharge on those who get a head injury whilst cycling instead, make it non claimable through medicare etc. That way those who dont want to wear a helmet can not run the risk of getting a fine until they have also had there head beaten in by the ground.

 

[mad greek]

Scrap it. It hasn't made a difference for the better and its not like you can't wear a helmet if you want to. I doubt many people will stop wearing their helmet because its no longer mandatory anymore.

Agreed

If you want to wear a helmet, wear one. For social riding along the beach at 10-15 km/h, you generally will fall and your arm will be the first to protect you anyway. I'd like to see the statistics of falling at 10 km/h on a bike and how many head injuries are caused at that speed.

I do however believe if you're under the age of 15 though that you should wear one, as your head is still susceptible to damage that an adults wouldn't necessarily notice (maybe due to lack of brain cells from drinking).

Downhilling and any other form of cycling that is off a bike path should perhaps be investigated as a separate discussion though in my opinion.

Cheers,
Theo

 

[grimzentide]

If your an adult, you should be capable of making a decision on your own safety and being responsible for your own actions.

 

[SuperSix]

I'm for a helmet...

I alsow put one on another head for "extra protection"

 

[smeck]

I would love to hear from a member of the police or ambulance regards this subject.
I see the helmet laws as a good thing. Yes, you are going to have people who will go against the laws put in place. However, if the law guides even a few people into wearing a helmet then how is that a bad thing?

Or you could say that if the law is doing as the Professor says then how is it a good thing?

I don't think this will have any effect on MTB or Racing rules or common sense with wearing helmets in higher risk environments, but if I'm going for a 10-15km/h stooge with the girl along the riverside bikeway what good is a helmet? If the law guides people into wearing a helmet and that helmet creates a situation where they are still just as likely to be injured, what point does the helmet serve?

It goes against everything risk management is about by applying an adminstrative and PPE control to reduce the impact of the hazard instead of removing of substituting the hazard. Goverment workplace inspectors drive the workplace to develop reforms to make workers safer, why should the same logic not apply not here?

I doubt the Police or Ambo's/Paramedics have anything to contribute here. I'm sure they've seen some horrific accidents but dealing with the consequences and having a solution are two very different things. Every year the Police get more draconian speed regulations yet the road toll continues to hold steady. Blind Freddy can see they aren't getting to the cause of the issue, but they plug away and stick to the message regardless.

Going back to the original statement:

He says the number of head injuries has remained steady since then, creating a case to overturn the helmet law.

"What it does is it puts people off cycling and makes people think that cycling's a dangerous activity, even though it's a really healthy thing to do and it increases people's physical activity,"

If it's affecting potential increases in participation but not reducing the injury rates then all it's doing is keeping cars on the road and therefore creating situations that continue to injure cyclists. The easiest way to reduce the risks in cycling is to reduce the interaction cars and bikes, if canning helmets does that by increasing participation and thereby reducing the number of cars on the road how could it be a bad thing?

Less cars would mean less money needed to be spent on road infrastructure and more money available for stand alone and relevant bike infrastructure that actually goes to places we want to go. Since bike infrastructure generates more benefit for the community than road infrastucture you could make the argument (here and here) that it will save a lot of public dollars as well as helping fight obesity, carbon pollution, and congestion. Again, how could it be a bad thing?

 

[grimzentide]

I live in a small country city (Albury - 50,000 people) which is quite flat in town but surrounded by hills. It is a city that could very easily build on the current bike path infrastructure (which is quite good) and make bikes the #1 mode of transport. At the moment, people drive 5 to 10kms into the centre of town, park their cars for 8 or 9 hours and then go home. I believe that making the use of helmets optional will help this particular city get to a point where people will use a bike for these short trips or as a transport option over the car and it would certainly help with the limited car parking options here. Sure a few more places to lock up your bike is needed, but that doesn't cost that much at all.

Governments at all levels are all talking about going green, so maybe this idea of optional helmets could become a reality.

Would I stop wearing a helmet? No.
Would I build a cool single speed commuter bike? Yep

 

[harmonix1234]

Law, or no law, just wear a damn helmet.

It's a hell of a lot better then an acquired brain injury, and having to be spoon fed for the rest if your life.

 

[Lukas]

Law, or no law, just wear a damn helmet.

It's a hell of a lot better then an acquired brain injury, and having to be spoon fed for the rest if your life.

I will not say better.

 

[frenchman]

Law, or no law, just wear a damn helmet.

It's a hell of a lot better then an acquired brain injury, and having to be spoon fed for the rest if your life.

Helmets are designed to stop linear forces acting on the skull by acting as a crushing layer between the ground and the brain. Severe head injuries are caused by a rotational force (whiplash etc). Generally

The protection a helmet would offer at the slower speeds for the 'gentle stroll down the bike path' would be somewhat questionable considering it would be very unlikely that you have a square impact. Even if that was the case it would cause a localised injury and not effect the brain.

Unless you're wearing your neck sleeve with an approved fitting helmet, an open face lid will do sweet FA if you get collected by a car.