Why I Don't Wear a Bicycle Helmet

Here's a fun and well done video by one of New York's most well-known cyclists. He covers the basics of the bike helmet concern, but in a personal way that I hope just about anyone will be able to relate to. 

Aggressive Drivers See Cyclists as ‘Less than Human’ Especially with Helmets

This recent article summarizing a new study reveals disturbing attitudes toward cyclists. Many people in the study actually saw cyclists as less than human, which justified their aggressive driving behavior. Sometimes they justified their behavior to the point of doing harming to cyclists.

Comments during the study so often referred to cyclists as insects that the researchers had to create a new evolution chart using insects so that subjects could point to where they believed cyclists fell.

The final paragraph of the article reveals a disturbing link to bicycle helmets:

"The research team did not make specific recommendations about how to improve public attitudes toward cyclists. But they did speculate that Australia’s mandatory helmet law may contribute to the problem by obscuring riders heads and faces. Riding “uniforms,” kits and Spandex, may further contribute to the “othering” of cyclists."

Read the article here: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/03/28/study-aggressive-driving-is-linked-to-seeing-cyclists-as-less-than-human/

Bicycle Network Questioning Helmet Law

Bicycle Network, Australia's largest cycling organization, has recently begun questioning their support of their country's mandatory helmet law.

Help them work through this admirable process by taking their survey. You do not have to be a resident of Australia to participate.

Also on that page you will find a means for uploading academic papers to support your postion. Please take a few minutes to add your voice and perspective.

https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/our-campaigns/policy-reviews/helmet-review/

Cycle of Reform Film Nails Problems with Bike Helmet Laws

This recent film, The Cycle of Reform - Mandatory Helmet Laws, demonstrates the most harmful effects of these laws in a clear, easy-to-understand format. Australian bicycle advocates have struggled for many years to articulate the harm of their country’s all-ages helmet law as it continues to undermine bicycling initiatives.

As is the case anywhere, single factual statements are shot down with emotional reactions. Simply presenting the data that bicycling has decreased dramatically since the helmet law was passed is usually met with a cry that if one life is saved it is worth it. Showing that bike helmets offer little protection in a crash with a motor vehicle is met with exclamations that any protection is better than none.

Finally, through this superb film, viewers can see these issues in the context of a place that has suffered these effects for many years. We see quality of life and the saving of lives set into legitimate perspectives, including zero proof that any life has been saved because of the law.

Whether a bike helmet law is at the local, regional, or national level, the population effected suffers the same degradation of their bicycle community, infrastructure, and support system. If your area is pinned down by such a law or if you know of efforts to pass such a law, please watch this film to learn how you can fight back. With this film, Australia is sure to gain momentum toward a nationwide repeal of their mandatory all-ages bicycle helmet law.

My only concern is their emphasis on “low-risk” versus “high-risk” cycling. This angle was used in Spain and resulted in laws that set strange parameters for mandatory wearing of helmets based on individual officials’ opinions of risk. Let’s hope that Australian officials avoid that ridiculous route and simply repeal their law for all cyclists, leaving the choice to individuals. 

Sue

Australian Bike Helmet Laws Ignite Heated Discussion

A tweet by John Myers, our resident cyclist has sparked the mandatory helmet law debate once again.
 
Deputy Brisbane Mayor Adrian Schrinner went head to head with Queensland’s Road Minister Mark Bailey after our tweet lit the fire.
 
Cr Schrinner tweeted that the Brisbane bikeshare had recorded 1.9 million trips since 2010. Nothing to crow about when compared to daily bikeshare trips in cities like New York (50,000 trips on average per day).
@mediawisemelb said that if helmet laws were relaxed trips would soar. “It’s not rocket science, just how the rest of the world succeeds in bikeshares”.
 
With around 1,000 bikeshares around the world only a handful have mandatory helmet laws. No surprise to see them all failing.
 
Cr Schrinner called on Minister Bailey to make helmets optional for Brisbane’s CityCycle scheme.
 
Like Cr Schrinner, MediaWise would love to see a one year trial for relaxing the helmet laws for bike share in Brisbane and Melbourne where daily trips are very low. Just watch those daily rates soar!
 
Footnote – Our bike riding Director is not against people wearing helmets, he just wants the act of riding helmet free not to be a crime. He is currently bike touring in France with a helmet and his sporty lycra on during the day but riding helmet free without lycra in towns most evenings.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/councillor-adrian-schrinner-sparks-debate-with-mp-mark-bailey-over-brisbanes-helmet-laws-20170628-gx0vmg.html

Link to original article

Aussie Situation Worsens

One of the top reasons any of us fight bicycle helmet laws is that they set a foul stage for more anti-bicycling laws. Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening in New South Wales, Australia with proposed laws that will stop many more people from bicycling and make criminals out of those who do.

This urgent alert dropped into my email box this morning:

"You have probably heard about the anti-cyclist New South Wales government and their new laws and higher fines. It's presented as a "trade-off" for a 1 meter passing law, but that makes no sense - if a law is worthwhile then it shouldn't require a bad law to justify it.

Increased penalties include:
- Not a wearing helmet (from $71 to $319)
- Running a red light (from $71 to $425, 500% increase)
- Riding dangerously (from $71 to $425, 500% increase)
- Not stopping at a pedestrian crossing ($71 to $425, 500% increase)

Making it compulsory for adult riders to carry photo ID at all times.

There is no evidence that higher fines or compulsory ID will make anyone safer. There is plenty of evidence it will turn people away from using the bicycle for transport.

Sign the Community Run petition, whether you live in NSW or not, it concerns you. Compulsory ID is an idea that needs to be stopped now. By the way, it's not just any photo ID. If you don't have a NSW driver's licence,   you must obtain specific cycling ID from a NSW government department before you can ride a bike in NSW. So if you aren't a NSW resident, don't think about visiting - cycling there will be illegal for you.

For NSW residents, cycling ID and higher fines are just another barrier to the convenience and ease of using a bicycle to get around. This government has ripped up cycleways in Sydney and is now looking for other ways to make cycling less popular. Overall result? More traffic congestion and higher health bills as exercise levels go down.

If this anti-cycling government succeeds in having the NSW Parliament pass this new law, it could spread, just like bicycle helmet law spread after Victoria became the first jurisdiction in the world to make helmets compulsory. We need to stop it now, so lend your support by signing the petition organised by cycle.org.au at

https://www.communityrun.org/petitions/a-cost-too-high-for-cyclist-safety "

Until we can wipe overzealous bicycle helmet promotions and bicycle helmet laws from this planet, we are going to have to spend valuable time mopping up the messes they create. But we've got to do it. Please sign the petition and offer your support to these battered bicycle advocates. Thank you!

Sue

Are Helmet Programs Scaring Kids Away from Bicycling?

When I was in elementary (primary) school in the 1970s, my friends and I rode our bikes as naturally as we walked. We might walk to the house next door, but a journey of any farther distance was obviously done by bike – duh, no discussion. Also no helmet. And no finger wagging at “improper” riding methods.

The only bike safety course I recall was in fifth grade when the teachers cleared our paved playground to show us braking distances. A car was brought in and set at one end of the playground. At the wave of one flag, the car took off. At the wave of another, the driver slammed on the brakes. Tires squealed and blue smoke billowed. The distance was marked between the flag wave and where the car stopped. Then we each got our chance on our bikes and the braking distances were compared. The whole exercise took about half an hour, but it stuck with us because it was cool and involved us in the discovery of the message. From then on, we gave cars a lot more room.

We never went through bike rodeos or learned hand signals or got lectured about our heads splattering like dropped melons. How did we survive? Quite happily, thanks. And with those happy memories of riding as children we became proud adult cyclists.

As I found myself involved in bicycle advocacy, bicycle safety programs gave me pause. I get twitchy anyway around the term “safety.” To set something out as “safe” is simply a lie. We all know that it is an impossible aim. And yet bike safety programs propagate along with their escalating assertions that if cyclists do this or that they will be safe.

I understand that certain riding behaviors will increase the likelihood of a cyclist reaching their destination unharmed. But these behaviors are easily taught through exercises like the one I enjoyed on that playground. We weren’t frightened about any potential outcomes, only shown a bit of physics so we could change our riding behavior to accommodate them. The same could be done to show riders why riding with traffic is a better choice than riding against it.

Yet today’s bicycle safety programs go far beyond physics and most land squarely on an irrational assertion – that all cyclists must wear a helmet all the time in order to be “safe.” Not only is this a lie, it does nothing to teach cyclists better riding behaviors so they can avoid a crash.

Taking this message to our schools is a dramatic change from my experience as a child. I wonder how my friends and I would have responded if we had spent that half hour watching our teachers drop melons and eggs as if they were our heads as we rode our bikes. I hope we would have been independent thinkers enough to call bullshit and just continue to ride. But we sure wouldn’t have learned about braking distance and the whole thing would have been a negative, miserable, and scary experience.

Do an internet search for kids bike safety videos and you will find countless, proud examples of melon drops. Look for kid’s bike safety brochures and you will find many with scary titles like “The Dangers of Bicycling.” This is the backdrop teachers are now expected to use when discussing bicycling with their students.

Never mind that bicycling is one of the least likely ways to suffer brain injury. Find a few charts that show this clearly on One Street’s Bicycle Helmet page. I’ve never seen a melon drop video made for children who ride in cars, but that would be the more logical reason for searing this horrifying image into children’s memories.

Never mind that frightening children into wearing bike helmets does nothing to show them how to avoid a crash.

And never mind that bike helmets are only designed to withstand crashes up to the speed reached by falling over from a standstill. They do little if anything to prevent brain injury in most crashes. See my previous post “My Bike Helmet Saved My Life!” for more details on this misconception.

More importantly, I am concerned that bicycle safety programs are scaring our kids away from bicycling. If children aren’t riding, we are losing our next generation of adult cyclists. The evidence is frightening in itself:

• U.S. National Sporting Goods Association found: fewer kids riding bikes
• European Cyclists’ Federation article showing significant drop in child cyclists after helmet law: What happens when you mandate helmet-wearing among young Swedish cyclists?
• This U.S. Bicycle Market found that bicycling is not for kids any more.
• Australian studies show significant drop in child cyclists since helmet law was passed.
• U.S. Safe Routes to Schools programs show no measurable increase in kids bicycling.

Kids who buck the trend, perhaps because they are independent enough thinkers to call bullshit on these scare tactics, are losing the Safety in Numbers protection we enjoyed as kids. We rode in packs, which made us very visible. But my pack was just one of many packs of bike-riding kids in my town and others around the world. Drivers expected to see kids out on bikes and drove accordingly. Now to see even one kid riding a bike is a surprise.

This mess bothers me to no end. I can hear all the bike safety schoolmarms justifying their strict doctrine with their belief that if just one life is saved the reduction in bike riding by kids is worth it. Bullshit. No one can claim they saved a life with a frightening safety message. The life, rather the person in charge of that life, needs a whole package of knowledge in order to make the decisions that will keep them from harm. With that full package, including the knowledge of how safe riding a bike actually is and how little protection a bike helmet offers, the decision to wear a bike helmet will be the last on their list for crash avoidance tactics.

Even as I wallowed in the sorrowful heap of fearmongering materials to write this post, I was cheered by one hopeful discovery from, of all places, Detroit. Awhile back some fearmongers had passed a slate of ordinances criminalizing any kid in Detroit who dared pedal a bike in the streets. As I waded through the muck left by similar fearmongers all over the world, I came upon the uplifting news that Detroit has repealed all their restrictions on youth cycling. While it was a sad occurrence to begin with, this repeal may be a sign that people of all ages are finally calling bullshit on scare tactics that do nothing but frighten away our next generation of cyclists. Thanks Detroit!

Are you fed up with fearful tactics that could be scaring kids away from bicycling? Do you have childhood memories that cause you to question their claims? If so, please offer them in the comments section. A solution may take many small steps like the one in Detroit, but the more people who stand up against these scare tactics, the more small steps will be taken until kids can finally ride free again.

Sue

Australian Mandatory Helmet Law Challenged

Readers who have followed bicycle helmet initiatives over the years will be familiar with the Australian law. Australia and New Zealand are the only two countries with all-ages, fully enforced mandatory bicycle helmet laws. These laws have been central to arguments opposing proposals for similar laws because of the evidence showing significant reduction in cycling after the law was enacted.

Well, after many years of calling for a repeal of their law, some Australian bicycle advocates are thrilled to announce that it is being seriously challenged. I received the below call to action in my inbox last evening. I’m not sure if non-Australians are welcome to respond, but if you are Australian, please submit your response by August 24^th. Also, please forward this on to any Australians you know.

It’s been a long, dull slog to this point, but suddenly your action could make an enormous difference!

Sue

The Australian Federal Senate has appointed a committee to inquire into “Personal Choice and Community Impacts”.  The Inquiry, instigated by Senator Leyonhjelm, is better known as the Nanny State Inquiry.  The committee is currently seeking submissions from the Australian community.

Senator Leyonhjelm has singled out mandatory bicycle helmet laws as the foremost example of where the State exceeds its proper bounds by interfering in a matter that should be left to the individual.  It would be a pity to miss out on this opportunity to be heard, and to influence government policy.

I understand that many of our supporters may be reluctant to become involved, on account of political differences with the inquiry’s instigator.  It must be pointed out that this is a Federal Government inquiry, and that Senator Leyonhjelm’s role is as a member of the committee, and that it is not a vehicle for any particular party or point of view.

My understanding is that the committee do not want to restrict discussion to submissions from the usual health and safety professionals. Rather, they are seeking a broader input to include members of the public who can bring before them an understanding of the impact of a range of “nanny state” regulations on their day to day lives.

I know that many of our supporters have the knowledge and skills to include detailed analysis of the many failures of our mandatory helmet laws, and I would encourage them to include this in their submissions.  But please, if you are just someone who has been put off riding a bike, fined or harassed by the police and the courts, or are just plain upset by the dead end path that mandatory helmet laws have taken us down, please make your voice heard.

The closing date for submissions is 24^th August.  There will be some opportunities to be heard in person by the committee in all State and Territory capitals in the ensuing months. It would be best to make it clear in your submission if you wish to be invited to appear in person. Details of how to make a submission are at http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Economics/Personal_choice

Thank you for your support.

Alan Todd
President, Freestyle Cyclists