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. 

The Big Bike Helmet Debate

Today I found a refreshing article that shows the waste of energy spent on trying to force cyclists to wear helmets and why that energy should be focused instead on making streets safer for cycling.

Here’s a fun excerpt:

“That’s more or less what the infamous helmet debate has become,” Hussey lamented. “Shouty strangers shouting at other shouty strangers for choices that don’t affect the first shouty stranger’s life. It’s a bit weird, definitely a waste of energy, and not a fun place for cyclists to share space in.”

As Boardman noted, in the Netherlands, perhaps the least perilous country for cyclists in the world, helmets and hi-vis are almost unknown. You don’t make cycling safe by obliging every rider to dress up as if for urban warfare. You do it by creating a road system that insulates them from fast-moving and unpredictable road traffic.

Read the full article here:

The Guardian "The big bike helmet debate: 'You don’t make it safe by forcing cyclists to dress for urban warfare'"

Public Outcry Against Seattle’s Bike Helmet Law

Seattle’s bicycle helmet law has been an unyielding blemish on the U.S. bike advocacy effort for decades. No data comparisons, no results from other parts of the world showing the damage done by these laws, no pleas from local cyclists could budge lawmakers to even consider repealing it.

Finally, a new study showing outrageous disparities in who police target for bike tickets has brought the law up for potential repeal.

Here are a few good articles about this impressive change in attitude:

Crosscut - King County to reexamine decades-old bicyclist helmet law

Bicycle Retailer & Industry News - Cycling groups call for an end to helmet laws

Cascade Bicycle Club - Cascade and Washington Bikes Support Decriminalizing Helmet Use

Let’s keep an eye on this effort. If Seattle, and surrounding King County, repeal this of all bike helmet laws, some more dominos could fall. I’m cheering!

Sue

Why Forcing Cyclists to Wear Helmets Will Not Save Lives

Over the years, there have been noteworthy attempts by journalists and media channels to capture the problem with bicycle helmets. Most will fixate on one particular element of the problem such as scaring people away from cycling or police harassment. Others will make a gallant effort to touch on all the concerns, usually in list form. Unfortunately, the one thing that most of these articles, news clips, and videos have in common is a concluding plea for cyclists to always wear a helmet, as if they hadn’t paid attention to what they had just presented.

Today I was pleased to find an exception to this rule. This video from the Guardian does a good job of explaining a few of the main concerns about bicycle helmets. But most importantly, it ends with the very real point that car occupants suffer far more head injuries than cyclists. The final plea is not for cyclists to wear helmets, but for car occupants to clad their heads in Styrofoam instead. Well done!

Sue

Malta Repealed Bike Helmet Law as Incentive for More Bicycling

Just two days ago, the transport ministry of Malta announced their repeal of their mandatory bicycle helmet law as part of a package of incentives to increase bicycling. This is fantastic news, not only because it adds Malta to the growing list of places repealing these harmful laws, but because Malta’s officials have recognized the harm their helmet law had caused. This makes Malta an excellent example for other places – cities, regions, and nations – also considering repealing their mandatory bicycle helmet laws.

Monday’s article from Times Malta highlights this helmet law repeal and lists other incentives the government is taking to increase bicycling. The article starts:

A series of initiatives to encourage the use of bicycles was announced on Monday by Finance Minister Edward Scicluna and Transport Minister Ian Borg. Listed among them is the removal of the obligation of using a bicycle helmet, especially when renting pedelecs.

Read the rest of the article here.

Sweden Is Moving Beyond Vision Zero and Helmets

I’ve never liked the concept of Vision Zero. This program, started in Sweden twenty years ago with the goal of preventing all deaths in traffic, seemed to me to set the stage for heavy handed safety initiatives. I could just hear the shouts justifying unjust laws, “If it saves one life, it will be worth it!” This is a common justification for mandatory helmet laws. And Vision Zero seems to create a perfect footing for it.

So you can imagine how impressed I was when I read about a new initiative coming from Sweden that not only recognizes such concerns about Vision Zero, but offers a far more effective approach, including steering away from mandating bicycle helmets. Here is the summary of their key points:

According to the Swedish Traffic Safety Council for Active and Sustainable Mobility the main tenet of Moving Beyond Zero is that the active element of cycling should be included within the road safety/public health discourse. This has these key elements:

1. The socioeconomic models that dictate our infrastructure investments must begin to take into account illness prevention and increased life quality provided by active mobility.
2. The Transport Agency must be tasked with increasing active mobility. It is unacceptable that the Swedish Vision Zero national plan for cycling begins and ends with helmet promotion and lacks national cycling goals. Cycling is currently not mentioned in the Transport Authority’s mission statement nor in the national transport plan.
3. Sweden needs a Vision Zero that saves, improves, and lengthens lives. Modern environmentally sound and healthy transport planning has to create a vision for a more active and healthier population.
4. The Council calls on the Swedish Minister for Infrastructure Tomas Eneroth to develop a new goal for traffic and health that looks beyond Vision Zero. A new goal should lead to traffic that saves lives and improves quality of life in addition to reducing traffic fatalities and injuries by promoting active mobility in the form of cycling and walking.

Read the rest of the article here: Moving Beyond Zero.

Sue

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

Portugal Drops Mandatory Helmet Study Following Public Backlash

By Mark Sutton at cyclingindustry.news

27 April, 2017

Portugal’s Government has dropped exploratory plans to introduce a mandatory helmet law for cyclists on the back of strong public opposition.

Launched to public consultation over the Christmas break, cyclists responded by organising a march through Lisbon, while over 500 written objections landed with the Road Authority.

Evidence based on studies of countries that have employed mandatory lid laws have largely resulted in a vast decrease in cycling levels, somewhat counteracting the aim of the legislation. (See the base of this piece for more on that)

Almost simultaneously a public petition calling for better conditions for cyclists on the roads surged past 10,000 signatures. On the back of this a meet with the Minister of Internal Affairs in parliament is now to take place with representatives from various Portuguese cycling and road safety organisations set to press cycling’s case for safe infrastructure provision. By law, the discussion has to take place and in theory should now provide legal results for improving active travel conditions, reports the ECF.

Ceri Woolsgrove, the ECF Policy officer on the Portugal victory; “Excellent lobbying activities in Portugal has seen some great results for cycling safety and promotion. Dropping the mandatory helmet proposal will remove a barrier to the uptake of cycling and the new road code will improve cycling safety. It is to be applauded that the Portuguese public authorities have listened to public pressure and cycling associations. We sincerely hope that this dialogue continues in order to improve cycling safety in the future, particularly regarding vehicle speeds which are a major road safety factor and are being reduced throughout Europe.”

Portugal saw Europe’s largest drop in road deaths between 2010 and 2015, delivering a 37% drop, some 20 points higher than the average 17% decline in cyclist deaths. Bicycle use has been steadily increasing in the region in recent years.

Aside from cycling levels, Portugal’s reputation as a heartland for industry manufacturing got a shot in the arm recently with the news that Fritz Jou will set up a manufacturing plant. 

Why helmet compulsion very often has undesired effects:

• Helmet compulsion in Australia and the negative effect on numbers cycling. The compulsion law came in during 1991 and numbers immediately dipped.
• Motorists more at risk of head injury than cyclists, says study.
• Senate told to remove mandatory helmet laws as they’re harming cycling.

Link to original article

Bosnia and Herzegovina Repealed Their Bicycle Helmet Law!

With the recent repeal of their mandatory all-ages bicycle helmet law, Bosnia and Herzegovina has become our best model for similar efforts. Congratulations to all their citizens and visitors for the return of the freedom to ride bikes normally, without a helmet.

Mandatory bicycle helmet laws undermine efforts to increase bicycling by making bicycling seem more dangerous than it is, then putting the blame on cyclists if a crash does occur. If we expect more people to ride bikes, these laws must be removed from the books. Such repeal efforts usually seem impossible because of the emotional, overblown rhetoric that caused their passage in the first place. Mexico City is one rare example of a successful total repeal. Israel is a partial example by repealing at least the adult portion of their law. But there were no nationwide total repeals. Until now!

Join with us in celebrating this important victory by forwarding this post and reposting the press release from the Centre for Environment, pasted below:

Repeal of obligatory bicycle helmet law in Bosnia and Herzegovina

After six long years of campaigning for the abolition of the compulsory wearing of bicycle helmets in Bosnia and Herzegovina the Centre for Environment welcomed the adoption of the Law on Amendments to the Law on traffic safety on the roads of Bosnia and Herzegovina. With exceptional joy and pride we can confirm to all the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina that they can now choose whether or not they want to wear a safety helmet. We would especially like to thank Mr Zoran Andric from the Ministry of Communication and Transport of Bosnia and Herzegovina who proactively informed all stakeholders as well as gave us opportunity several times to explain our facts and figures that were against obligatory bicycle helmets. The conduct of the representatives from this ministry during the public hearing process and decision making is a model for all public institutions. 

Tihomir Dakic, Transport Program Coordinator at the Center for Environment: "This is a major step towards greater and easier promotion of the use of bicycles as a means of transport. It returns the focus from reducing the consequences of crashes, to minimizing the causes of traffic crashes. Since 2006 until now cycling was incorrectly presented as a dangerous activity. In fact the health benefits of the daily use of the bicycle outweigh the traffic risks by around 20:1.  Now it is up to the local communities to pay more attention to the traffic regulation, demotivation of the use of motor vehicles, promotion of healthy ways of movement and reducing air pollution. We invite all those who stopped using the bicycle due to the helmet law to return to it, to respect traffic rules and enjoy all the benefits that cycling provides. "

Milenko Dzever, Associate for roads and licenses at the Agency for Traffic Safety of the Republic of Srpska: "On behalf of the Agency we welcome the changes to the Law, and we wish to note that Article 102 does not prohibit the wearing of helmets, but gives the choice to people whether they want to use it or not. Of course, we recommend that children wear helmets until they master riding a bicycle well enough. So far the old article of the Law discouraged bicycle use, and it should be the opposite, to discourage users of motor vehicles, especially in urban areas. Since the motor car is still seen as a status symbol in our country about 80% of trips are made by personal motor vehicle. This urgently needs to be changed. By investing in cycling and pedestrian infrastructure for the local community we will significantly improve traffic calming, increase the level of traffic safety, which in turn will significantly improve the health of people and economic development of local communities".

About changes in the law in Bosnia and Herzegovina, they said:

Ceri Woolsgrove, expert on traffic safety, the European Cyclists Federation, Brussels:

"European Cyclists Federation (ECF) believes that cyclists should be able to choose whether to wear or not to wear helmets and reflective vests. We do not agree with the mandatory use of helmets and reflective vests. We welcome the excellent work of the Centre for Environment, a member of the ECF that highlighted this important issue representing the interests of cyclists to the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Cycling is not an overly dangerous activity and brings tremendous health benefits for individuals, and has a positive effect on the environment and society as a whole. Defending cycling in all its forms, helmeted or non-helmeted, is important to the development of cycling and the use of all its benefits. We welcome the work of the Ministry of Communications and Transport for allowing citizens the freedom to choose their clothing with which they want to ride a bicycle. We also expect that the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina contribute to facilitating the development of safer traffic, especially for cyclists and pedestrians".

Sue Knaup, Executive Director of the international association One Street, Prescott, Arizona, USA:

"Bosnia and Herzegovina has set an important precedent with this repeal. Any law that mandates the wearing of helmets or other articles, criminalizes the use of bicycles as an efficient and affordable means of transportation. We at One Street applaud this important repeal and look forward to showcasing Bosnia and Herzegovina as a model for jurisdictions ready to remove their own unjust laws against bicycling."

Before the campaign started the paragraph about bicycle helmets in the Law adopted 2006 was:

“Article 102

Riders of bicycle, bicycle with a motor, light motorcycle or motorbike and persons transported on those vehicles must wear protective helmets while riding.“

During these years the police rarely fined cyclists, but they started to lobby to integrate better definition of bicycle helmet wearing as well as impose reflective vests.

Then police and transport safety experts lobbied for defining it further to protect cyclists and Ministry of Communication and Transport changed it in 2010 to this:

“Article 102

Riders of bicycles, mopeds, light motorcycle, motorcycle, tricycle, light quads or quads and persons carried on those vehicles must properly use safety helmet while riding, and in the period from dusk to complete dawn, as well as during the day in case of low visibility, cyclists must use reflective vest.“

This was the moment in which we started to investigate all Laws on traffic safety from different countries and soon we found out that we were “The worst”.

We spent countless hours and days over six years lobbying with no funds, only huge enthusiasm and energy to repeal this most serious negative impact on cycling promotion.

Then, with the help of the authorities noted above, this was the result of our struggle:

“Article 102

(1) The rider of a moped, light motorcycle, motorcycle, tricycle, light quads and quads, as well as persons transported on these vehicles must carry on his head buttoned protective helmet.

(2) The rider of the bicycle during the period from dusk to complete dawn, as well as during the day in case of reduced visibility, they need to use reflective vest or reflective appropriate equipment that provides adequate visibility of the rider or the bicycle.”

We succeed to exclude the word “bicycle” from paragraph (1) and the protective helmets became history. Meanwhile in paragraph (2) we added second part after reflective vests to allow a choice of ways for making us, cyclists, more visible and with more comfortable accessories.

For more information contact Tihomir Dakic at tihomir.dakic{at}czzs.org or visit Centre for Environment's website at www.czzs.org.

#   #   #

Bicycle Helmets – Today’s Bloodletting

(I wrote this article seven years ago. So sad it remains relevant today.)

Bloodletting seems a distant absurdity to us and yet, just a few hundred years ago, we lost George Washington because he trusted its rhetoric over logic when he agreed to it as treatment for a nasty cold. With only a few quiet voices protesting the countless deaths caused by bloodletting, the practice continued well into the 20^th century. Today’s bicycle helmet promotions and laws hold an alarming resemblance to the pronouncements used by the bloodletters. When an illogical practice is presented as the only means of safety and dismissal of the practice is equated to certain death, even the most brilliant leader can succumb to its absurdity.

Myths about helmets charm countries most where bicycling is not commonplace. In these countries, helmet rhetoric has escalated to the point where those not familiar with bicycling believe that if you so much as swing your leg over a bicycle without wearing a helmet you will smash your head open. In such places, those who ride a bike without a helmet are chided by onlookers at every turn for their reckless, irresponsible behavior.

Where did these chiders get their information? Most helmet propaganda is originally published by insurance companies, health practitioners and government agencies who have avoided countless law suits by blaming bicyclists in crashes for not wearing a helmet, sometimes even when their injuries or death did not involve injuries to their head.

While many studies have shown that bicycle helmets do little to prevent major head injuries beyond minor skull fractures and lacerations (Curnow 2001), a few poorly executed, misleading studies are the only ones to have reached mainstream distribution. The most common bit of jargon of them all is that “cycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries and 88% of brain injuries” when in fact, where helmet use is high, there has been no detectable reduction in head injuries. See this link for a good overview: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1027.html .

Helmet rhetoric that sets bicycling out as far more dangerous than it is, is the greatest hindrance to programs for increasing bicycling. A great deal of truthful yet catchy promotions will be necessary to counter this noise. Remember, bloodletting was “common sense” for 2,000 years! One of the best examples for illustrating the truth is this fun quiz on the dangers of bicycling: http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm

Mandatory helmet laws often follow the spread of bicycle helmet rhetoric, adding the weight of the law to the idea that bicycling is more dangerous than any other form of transportation. In fact, as you will have found in the above quiz, if these laws took a realistic approach to their attempt to prevent head injuries, all pedestrians and car drivers would be required to wear helmets as well. And, it seems, a law requiring the wearing of helmets inside the house would also be a good idea.

Helmet laws also present another barrier to potential cyclists who already see many barriers to starting cycling. Mandatory helmet laws add to this list and thus prevent many new riders from starting. These laws have also been proven to decrease numbers of current cyclists thus increasing the potential for crashes by hindering safety in numbers. This theory has been proven to show that a motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking or bicycling when there are more people walking or bicycling (Jacobsen 2003).

Bicycle helmets may provide some protection against minor skull fractures and lacerations, but they do not prevent major brain trauma that happens within the skull. In fact, because bicycle helmets are soft which increases friction in certain crashes, unlike motorcycle helmets, some studies have shown that they can cause neck and brain injuries from rotational motion (V J M St Clair, B P Chinn. 2007).

So, in minor crashes, bicycle helmets can assist in preventing minor injuries, though the potential of their doing harm in a major crash must be considered. Like bloodletting, which, in retrospect was found to have unintentionally benefitted a few lucky survivors because they were later discovered to have high blood pressure, helmets have surely prevented nasty gashes and painful skull fractures.

Bicycle helmets can be a good choice for someone concerned about minor head injuries as long as they understand their helmet’s limitations for preventing major head injuries, not unlike choosing to wear knee pads and gloves. However, some studies have shown that helmeted bicyclists take more risks than those not wearing a helmet (Pless IB, Magdalinos H, Hagel B. 2006). Thus, whenever a potential helmet benefit is mentioned, the potential of a helmet causing neck and brain injury, as well as this risk compensation, must always be included for bicycle helmets to be presented in a truthful light.

Another important point to understand is that helmets do not prevent crashes. Improved road and pathway conditions, driver and bicyclist education, better protections for cyclists and increased numbers of bicyclists through safety in numbers, prevent crashes. Too often government officials, health practitioners and insurance companies grasp at helmet laws as a quick and cheap solution that removes them from liability and the responsibility of providing quality provisions for bicyclists.

Helmet laws and overblown promotions also set in place a ready-made blame-the-victim reaction. Each time a helmetless cyclist is in a crash, their bare head becomes the focus even if the driver deliberately hit them and their injuries were not head related. Remember that whenever one of these laws is presented, it is from a knee jerk reaction, either to a recent crash or fabricated rhetoric, usually by officials seeking to avoid liability, framing the argument as making crashing safer.

Let’s replace our helmets with thinking caps. If we can agree that increasing bicycling is in the best interest of our people and our planet, it’s time to shift our promotions and policy efforts away from the illusion of safer crashing and into reshaping our communities into places where everyone knows the safety of bicycling.

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

Aussie Fund for Helmet-Free Cyclists

Seems like Australian bicycle advocates are gaining some momentum in their fight against their mandatory bicycle helmet law. I posted about a potential overturn of the law last summer in my post called Australian Mandatory Helmet Law Challenged. That decision has been deferred until June 2016.

But that doesn't mean it's nap time for the advocates fighting the law. They've started a fund to pay the fines of cyclists ticketed for riding without a helmet. Here's their intro to their fundraising page:

"Help us make bicycle riding normal in Australia again.

In the early 1990's Australia introduced an all ages, nationwide ban on bicycle riding without a helmet.
The result on normal bicycle riding has been devastating. Thousands of everyday people simply stopped riding. Only sport cycling has survived.

It's now 26 years later, and despite a mountain of evidence against mandatory helmet laws , the Australian government has never actually evaluated the effect of the law and the ban is still in place..." READ MORE

Take a look and drop them a donation to keep their spirits up as they wait for that next big challenge to their unjust law.

BMJ Article Finds No Benefit to Bicycle Helmet Laws

I have read countless scientific studies since embarking on this bike helmet discovery journey more than ten years ago, so when I find one that is readable, concise, and easy to understand, I just have to share. This one, recently published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), clearly shows the important finding that bike helmet laws have little if any effect on head injury rates.

To give you an idea of how thorough the study is, here is an excerpt:

“…Helmet legislation was not associated with hospitalization rates for all injury or traffic-related injury causes. We separately examined potential associations for each body region expected to be protected by helmet use (brain, head, scalp, skull or face; brain; head, scalp or skull; face) as well as for the neck which, in some studies, has had elevated odds of injury with helmet use. ^{7 8} There was variation in helmet use with helmet legislation, and this may have been related to municipal by-laws mandating helmet use within some provinces or territories without helmet laws (table 3). We therefore also examined the relationship between hospitalization rates and helmet use proportions in the strata, and again did not find the expected protective effect. Studies among those injured in a cycling crash consistently show lower odds of head, brain or face injuries among those who wore a helmet,^{7 8} though the potential for uncontrolled confounding in observational studies of a health behaviour suggests that confidence in the effect estimates should not be unquestioning.⁴⁷ Before–after studies of the impact of helmet legislation have shown weaker and less consistent effects. Some have found reductions in brain or head injuries of 8–29% related to legislation,^10–13 whereas others have found no effect for some or all outcomes.^{9 11 13} Differences may be attributable to study design features including location, the selection of a control group unexposed to helmet legislation, whether baseline trends in injury rates were modelled, and whether surrogates were used for cycling rates and if so, which ones. Our study compared bicycling hospitalisation rates across jurisdictions rather than within a jurisdiction before and after legislation, and used exposure-based denominators to control for differences in cycling rates.”

To read the whole article, click here. Great stuff.

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