Thursday, January 2, 2014

Helmets: Are they the only thing stopping you from cycling?

Off the back up my last post, I ended up in a long-winded debate (at least by twitter standards) with some card carrying members of the anti-mandatory helmet crew. Was a good insight into their perspective (so I thought I'd try summarise).

I'd probably describe them as being idealists rather than deluded (which was a long way from where I started today). Predictably they put more stock in the scientific studies that show helmets having negligible effects. No shock there. They though see mandatory helmet laws (MHLs) as a *massive* dampener on people's interest in cycling and willingness to take up riding, (not a view I share, but anyhow) which in turn slows the development of cycling infrastructure (which would certainly help cycling safely massively).

They also see as helmets as being a last line of defence, and that the focus should instead be on car drivers giving cyclists more respect and preventing accidents happening in the first place. And when reports such as this one emerge from the University of Adelaide, which showed drivers were the at fault party in 8 out of 10 accidents involving cyclists, one can see where they are coming from. It also raised their ire that a cyclist not having a helmet on was pretty much the end of accident investigation - rather premature, as having a helmet on wouldn't have prevented the accident nor perhaps limited the severity.

There was also a feeling that helmet law was a government cop out, a rather feeble substitute to developing proper infrastructure.

The anti-MHL types were also keen to point out they are practising a rather cruisy form of cycling - low speed, local rides avoiding major roads as much as possible. They feel this type of cycling is far lower risk. Some will actually happily don helmets for more "hardcore" cycling.

There were also numerous references to Amsterdam, and frequent civil libertarian ("I don't judge your decision to wear a helmet, don't judge my informed decision not to") comments throughout the discussion.

So that's the summary. If any anti-MHL folk feel I haven't captured their position fairly, leave a comment or ping me on Twitter

I'm still though very much pro-MHL, and would counter their key points as follows:


  • Eliminating helmet laws won't magically turn our cities into Amsterdam, and flood the streets with cyclists. Most of the major cities in Europe have no bike helmet laws, but have similarly low cycling participation rates to our own. This BBC article looks at why participation is so high in Holland v other countries, and came up with infrastructure (again), the fact kids are taking up cycling early (it's on the school curriculum), and Amsterdam is flat and compact.
  • For every publication that casts some shadow over the efficacy of helmets, there is another clear cut study like this publication in the Medical Journal of Australia (summarised by TheConversation) which showed you are 5 times better off (ie. safer) with a helmet (versus without) in an accident when you hit your head.
  • Tying to argue everyone else needs to do more to ensure cycling safety whilst trying to remove laws that articles such as the one above (even if you don't buy into it's findings for whatever reason) show protect cyclists is an incredibly tough sell. As I said in the previous post, refusing to don a helmet because it's inconvenient, uncomfortable, strikes at your civil liberties or costs 50 bucks then asking others to spend millions or alter their behaviour is entirely unrealistic. Surely one would be better off accepting the helmets for now in the interests of getting other aspects of cycling safety have improved and revisiting it in a few years time.
  • I agree cruisy cycling is lower risk than commuting or riding fast. Is it zero risk though? No. You're still subject to drivers not paying attention or giving you due care, imperfect riding surfaces, etc.  
  • By focusing almost entirely on the behaviour of drivers, they fall into the unhelpful blame cycle I mentioned in an earlier post


It would though be interesting to know how many people are genuinely turned off cycling because of helmet laws in Australia (let me know in the comments). Studies have been conducted, but they've given widely varied results. And I keep coming back to other European cities without MHLs not having an Amsterdam like uptake of cycling.



1 comment:

  1. Enjoying the blog, and just catching up on some of the older articles. I've had this discussion with my brother on a couple of occasions and agree with you. Dropping MHL won't suddenly increase the cycling population massively - I believe that they have been around so long that most people view them as just part of cycling like seat belts are to driving a car. Most people just accept it as the way it is. That being said I do see people riding most days just popping out sans helmet and have never seen anyone being stopped by police. I assume it was enforced as is jay walking - not really apart from an occasional crack down or to add on to another fine if you're being an idiot. Anyway MHL or not I'll still be donning the helmet every time I ride!

    ReplyDelete