Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Aussie cyclists protest mandatory helmet laws with helmet-optional rides

Seven New South Wales Police vehicles met protesters in Sydney park

Cyclists have been riding without helmets across Australia today in protest at mandatory helmet laws they believe are discouraging people from cycling. The Sydney ride was closed down by New South Wales Police with long-time bike helmet reform campaigner Sue Abbott picking up yet another fine.

In 1991 Australia became the first country to require cyclists to wear helmets.

Alan Todd, the president of Freestyle Cyclists, which organised the protests, told the Guardian: “We find that the mandatory helmet law is the single greatest barrier to the uptake of bicycle use in Australia. It has created an image of cycling as a high-risk activity, and practically killed off the casual everyday use of the bike.”

On its Facebook page, Freestyle Cyclists reported: "A tale of two cities. In Melbourne, the Freestyle Cyclists Helmet Optional Bike Ride attracted zero police activity. Meanwhile in Sydney today, the bike hating capital of Australia (maybe the world), the police closed it down. Threatened with a $330 fine two people including long time bike helmet reform campaigner Sue Abbott took one for the team.

“Rides also took place in Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide and across the ditch in Wellington where police no longer prioritize the helmet law.”

There’s some Ten News footage of the Sydney ride.

Rudy Botha, who co-ordinated it commented: “With Sydney facing a lot of transport challenges, we need to be encouraging people to look at riding a bicycle as alternative.

“Threatening them with one of the world’s highest fines for something that is considered normal in most countries, is having the opposite effect.”

Todd added: “We accept that a helmet might help in the event of an accident … [but] you must distinguish between crash data and population data. It hasn’t had any measured safety benefit at the population level. Across population, the reduction in injuries was no more than the drop in cycling.

“It beggars belief that in the 21st century we take something as benign and beneficial as bike riding and we punish people.”

Edward Hore, the president of the Australian Cycle Alliance, expressed support for the protests.

“We think helmets should be a choice. We’re not talking about banning helmets, we’re talking about making them optional.

“If you’re in a peloton down a beach road, and you’re not wearing a helmet, you’re a bloody idiot, let’s be frank. But we’re talking about the rider in the park with a family, the local commuter, the gentle ride down the street. Once you’ve measured your risk you can decide whether or not you want to don a helmet.”

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

240 comments

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
1 like

Road safety charter and 'good practise' is littered with victim blaming bullshit and helmet promotion

here's one from Slovenia 

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
2 likes

And more

 

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
2 likes

And more, the EU is absolutely wanting help countries to promote helmet wearing and have done so for years and despite the increases in wearing there have been no positive results over and above pedestrians or other modes. The whole thing is a fucking sham/victim blaming risk zero load of bullshit.

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
0 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

And more, the EU is absolutely wanting help countries to promote helmet wearing and have done so for years and despite the increases in wearing there have been no positive results over and above pedestrians or other modes. The whole thing is a fucking sham/victim blaming risk zero load of bullshit.

 

True, those are a few snippests of circumstancial evidence that the EU is insitutionally pro-helmet (though I'm not sure where the first 'cutting' is actually from), but I was hoping more for a link to a credible site with some convincing analysis and research on the topic demonstrating that the Commission is taking real action to push a determined agenda of pushing for places like the NL in particular to introduce compulsory laws.

 

I'm not being dismissive about it, because I am genuinely suspicious of what the EU gets up to without getting much media attention (and because it did publish that ridiculous report).  But for the time being I'd have to put this one down as 'unproven'.

Avatar
Tommytrucker | 6 years ago
4 likes

.

Avatar
felixcat replied to Tommytrucker | 6 years ago
3 likes

Tommytrucker wrote:

.

 

A little known tip for you Tommy. Don't click on any thread with helmet in the title and then you won't have to read them.

Avatar
CygnusX1 | 6 years ago
3 likes

And which is more aero - Stormtrooper full face or Alliance tear-drop?  

Avatar
CygnusX1 | 6 years ago
2 likes

What I want to know is how effective the Empire's helmet is compared to the Rebel Alliance's speeder helmets...

 

Avatar
brooksby replied to CygnusX1 | 6 years ago
3 likes

CygnusX1 wrote:

What I want to know is how effective the Empire's helmet is compared to the Rebel Alliance's speeder helmets...

 

Are we talking about a standard Stormtrooper helmet or a Scout Trooper helmet (the ones speeder bike Stormtroopers wear)? 

(Yes, this is all getting a bit "which sub-species of swallow..." isn't it?)

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
1 like

So, do have any sort of conclusions yet?

I would like to say that I've found the debate extremely interesting, no, I really would, I'm struggling, but I would...

 

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to don simon fbpe | 6 years ago
5 likes
don simon wrote:

So, do have any sort of conclusions yet?

I would like to say that I've found the debate extremely interesting, no, I really would, I'm struggling, but I would...

Yes! The empire has to mandate the wearing of helmets, not because they improve their safety, but because otherwise, they just don't fit in with the uniform look.

Avatar
andyp | 6 years ago
4 likes

The only thing my neurosurgeon said to me about cycling was that I shouldn't do it in the six months in which I had a large area of brain with no skull to protect it.  If we're after anecdotes from neurosurgeons that's my offering.

 

 

And this is it all in a nutshell -  chapeau (cotton, not polystyrene)  pjclinch. 'The context of a cycle helmet is getting back on your bike and finishing your race rather than sitting down holding your head going "ow" and abandoning.  The design spec is not that high: they should mitigate minor injuries, they will very probably not save you from serious or fatal ones.'

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to andyp | 6 years ago
3 likes

andyp wrote:

The only thing my neurosurgeon said to me about cycling was that I shouldn't do it in the six months in which I had a large area of brain with no skull to protect it.  If we're after anecdotes from neurosurgeons that's my offering.

 

 

And this is it all in a nutshell -  chapeau (cotton, not polystyrene)  pjclinch. 'The context of a cycle helmet is getting back on your bike and finishing your race rather than sitting down holding your head going "ow" and abandoning.  The design spec is not that high: they should mitigate minor injuries, they will very probably not save you from serious or fatal ones.'

And yet I bet the surgeon wouldn't dream of saying don't be driven home or walk home?

As for pro/competitive cycling, this is another bit of wrong thinking. if the helmet acts to increase incidents/crashes and given the data on deaths and casual observance of racing and weekend warriors they tend to crash a hell of a lot more than they did before helmets became a thing.

Thus the overall effect just like it is everywhere else and for all age groups and sexes is that the helmets have put more people out of races than they've allowed to carry on because the chances of crashing sans helmet is less than with.

the effects of helmet wearing/safety aids particularly effect negatively the competitive and the risk takers, this applies to all sports and and indeed in the work place AND a seen in multiple studies children. The protection offered is simply not enough to offset the additional risk kids take, even so fewer children die in the UK of ANY injury type in the whole of the UK than do children dying solely of head injuries in motorvehicle incidents in just England and Wales.

Helmets in gridiron whilst they protect in the moment most of the time, they encourage overt agressive behaviour and recklessness which results in severe injuries in play despite the helmets and to other body parts not just the head (same as cycling) but has massive mid to long term effects that have being proven to be catastrophic. Meanwhile rugby of either code adjusted the way one plays the sport, they attempt to modify behaviour of the participants and whilst you cannot eliminate risk unhelmetted/virtually unprotected it is a massively safer sport than gridiron, particularly re head injuries. The scale is off the charts as to how bad helmets have being for participants because all those years back some people just like in Australia, NZ, the UCI etc thought simply putting protection on was the solution to the problem.

The comparisons in safety between two very physical sports and the wearing/non wearing imitate and highlight beautifully the problem with helmets in sport/activities ... and still we have people like rich CB banging on deluded as ever with no proof and still maintains that the facts and evidence is wrong and that denounced and state sponsored lackeys like Jake olivier are correct. Despite the fact he and others have been outed, have used not just flawed methodology going against his own advice re meta-analysis but dishonest use of  certain injuries to add extras to the head injury total when in fact they are not head injuries at all and certainly not remotely preventable by wearing a helmet.

 

the sickening thing is that even the EU road safety commission uses flawed study data, they are very keen to push helmet wearing particularly in NL and DK where they see that as a problem for their road safety solution and point the finger at these two low helmet wearing nations as being more dangerous than the UK all the whilst ignoring the modal share and distance travelled, they use the Australia data to prove that helmet wearing states have fewer head injuries but ignore the fact that using absolute numbers is BS when you have a huge drop in actual people cycling.

I've written to the ECF to warn them of this prevalence to promote helmet wearing by the EU commission but it seems the ECF aren't interested in this stealth attack on freedoms and utterly failing to understand safety.

 

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 6 years ago
0 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

 

the sickening thing is that even the EU road safety commission uses flawed study data, they are very keen to push helmet wearing particularly in NL and DK where they see that as a problem for their road safety solution and point the finger at these two low helmet wearing nations as being more dangerous than the UK all the whilst ignoring the modal share and distance travelled, they use the Australia data to prove that helmet wearing states have fewer head injuries but ignore the fact that using absolute numbers is BS when you have a huge drop in actual people cycling.

I've written to the ECF to warn them of this prevalence to promote helmet wearing by the EU commission but it seems the ECF aren't interested in this stealth attack on freedoms and utterly failing to understand safety.

 

 

Any links to real evidence for this claim?

 

I have seen the laughably innumerate EU report on road safety, that did indeed just look at absolute (or per capita) figures while ignoring milage and modal share, and then conclude that NL has a bad record for cyclist accidents.  That did indeed make me think the EU is run by morons.

 

But is there real evidence that there is a serious behind-the-scenes agenda involved, rather than just the stupidity of a handful of report-writing, pen-pushing Eurocrats?

 

I haven't seen any such evidence myself, but then, one of the things that makes me a very lukewarm remainer is how little we are told about what the EU actually gets up to. 

 

E.g. we hear the occasional never-expanded-upon references to the Commission pushing France to 'liberalise it's labour market' (e.g. cut pensions and reduce job security) or allusions to Merkal, influenced by the German car industry, having some role in the uselessness of the EU emissions tests, but never anything in any detail.

So I find it impossible to judge whether there's any truth in what you say or not.

 

  It's all very well pro-EUniks laughing at tabloid stories about 'straight bananas', but the media rarely seem to do any proper investigative reporting on what the EU commission and civil service actually does all day.  How can there be accountability or real democracy when there's so little transparency?

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 6 years ago
1 like

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

 

the sickening thing is that even the EU road safety commission uses flawed study data, they are very keen to push helmet wearing particularly in NL and DK where they see that as a problem for their road safety solution and point the finger at these two low helmet wearing nations as being more dangerous than the UK all the whilst ignoring the modal share and distance travelled, they use the Australia data to prove that helmet wearing states have fewer head injuries but ignore the fact that using absolute numbers is BS when you have a huge drop in actual people cycling.

 

I've written to the ECF to warn them of this prevalence to promote helmet wearing by the EU commission but it seems the ECF aren't interested in this stealth attack on freedoms and utterly failing to understand safety.

 

 

Any links to real evidence for this claim?

 

I have seen the laughably innumerate EU report on road safety, that did indeed just look at absolute (or per capita) figures while ignoring milage and modal share, and then conclude that NL has a bad record for cyclist accidents.  That did indeed make me think the EU is run by morons.

 

But is there real evidence that there is a serious behind-the-scenes agenda involved, rather than just the stupidity of a handful of report-writing, pen-pushing Eurocrats?

 

I haven't seen any such evidence myself, but then, one of the things that makes me a very lukewarm remainer is how little we are told about what the EU actually gets up to. 

 

E.g. we hear the occasional never-expanded-upon references to the Commission pushing France to 'liberalise it's labour market' (e.g. cut pensions and reduce job security) or allusions to Merkal, influenced by the German car industry, having some role in the uselessness of the EU emissions tests, but never anything in any detail.

So I find it impossible to judge whether there's any truth in what you say or not.

 

  It's all very well pro-EUniks laughing at tabloid stories about 'straight bananas', but the media rarely seem to do any proper investigative reporting on what the EU commission and civil service actually does all day.  How can there be accountability or real democracy when there's so little transparency?

here's an extract that despite the author admitting that helmets are flawed, admited that they reduce cycling numbers, ignored that the protection level of helmets is not that great in motorvehicle/cyclist incidents goes on to say that helmets should be brought in as a general society for riders of bikes.

There are more of these dotted all over the place. It's clear that the EU commission see wearing cycle helmets as a solution and have a blind spot for looking at data particualrly when jumping from one absolute numbers stat to another. So absolute drops in numbers of injuries is pushed as a good thing but is ignoring a bigger drop in cycling so the rate of injury has actually gone up, and again the author uses absolute numbers of deaths (doesn't mention head injuries as such) despite the fact that the % of total deaths is less for cyclists than the modal share but again she uses an absolute % of road deaths being from people on bikes without mentioning the fact that that modal share is a bigger number. No mention of the fact that most of the deaths are people on bikes in their 70s and 80s who are also not wearing helmets and would otherwise be in a care home or dead if they had being forced to wear helmets as per other states or made cycling unattractive by pushing for helmet wearing!

She uses this slanted and blind ignorance to catagorically state that NL and DK are less safe than the UK for cycling due to low helmet wearing rates and from that that helmets must be pushed for for general use across the EU. It truly beggars belief! 

 

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 6 years ago
11 likes

For a time I used to wear a helmet on my regular 16km cycle commute across central London. Before that I didn't. And after that I didn't. The head injuries I received before I started wearing my helmet and after I stopped again were all of exactly the same severity. I didn't have any.

There's some anecdotal evidence of no value at all.

 

 

 

Avatar
davel | 6 years ago
5 likes

Throw Malta and Bosnia into the mix - recently seem to have 'seen the light' and repealed their helmet compulsion laws. Reason? Overall they discouraged cycling, and the minor benefits that helmets *might* have (slightly different debate), when you aggregate any effect on a macro level it just isn't worth putting people off cycling over, helmetless or otherwise.

@Rich_cb - I've kind of lost track of positions a bit, so this isn't walking you into a trap or anything, but is the gist of where you're coming from:

helmet compulsion doesn't discourage cycling

?

Avatar
CygnusX1 | 6 years ago
3 likes

I saw this thread kick off and avoided reading the comments below it for my health, but I am curious... were there any graphs?

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to CygnusX1 | 6 years ago
2 likes

CygnusX1 wrote:

I saw this thread kick off and avoided reading the comments below it for my health, but I am curious... were there any graphs?

Only a couple, I'm quite disappointed (especially after being called "flippant").

I had a look on Amazon for that "Risk" book by John Adams and the Kindle edition is £30! However, I've found an earlier book of his on EBay for a couple of quid, so maybe I'll have a read of that one instead (Risk and Freedom: Record of Road Safety Regulations).

 

Avatar
davel replied to CygnusX1 | 6 years ago
8 likes

CygnusX1 wrote:

I saw this thread kick off and avoided reading the comments below it for my health, but I am curious... were there any graphs?

This thread doesn't need graphs - it has empirical stormtroopers. 

Avatar
Smartstu | 6 years ago
3 likes

Quite interesting - in that you guys actually agree on the pro-choice position!? I was initially interested by the debate but ultimately turned off by the intellectual posturing... Let's fight for choice, let's campaign for safer roads and let's get more people cycling. BTW Stormtrooper's helmets were scientifically proven to be ineffective in battle - let alone on a bicycle (see evidence in ROTJ and the defeat by Ewoks).

Avatar
felixcat replied to Smartstu | 6 years ago
3 likes

Nobody wants to ban helmets, Smartstu. All the anti-choice people are those who want to force others to wear a polystyrene hat.

Smartstu wrote:

Quite interesting - in that you guys actually agree on the pro-choice position!? I was initially interested by the debate but ultimately turned off by the intellectual posturing... Let's fight for choice, let's campaign for safer roads and let's get more people cycling. BTW Stormtrooper's helmets were scientifically proven to be ineffective in battle - let alone on a bicycle (see evidence in ROTJ and the defeat by Ewoks).

 

I have never heard or read somebody who doubts that helmets work, and advocates not wearing, propose that they be legally forbidden.

It is only a proportion of the helmeteers who want to remove choice.

Avatar
RTB | 6 years ago
0 likes

Helmet saved my life last year after being smashed off my bike by a car from behind.  I suffered a broken (& disclocated) back along with many other fractures but as the sugeons told me it is only because of a helmet that I lived to be able to wake up in ICU.  The helmet (Kask) is smashed up a goodun but my goodness it saved my head from suffering that trauma directly which would have been game over.  Even with it I still suffered bleeding on the brain so heavy was the impact.

Astonishing some of the flippant, anti-helmet comments written on this thread.  Sorry but this is ignorant and naive in the extreme.  Unless you have been through what I have been through you ain't really qualified frankly to cast such negative aspersions on them.

 

Helmets save lives people!

Avatar
felixcat replied to RTB | 6 years ago
6 likes

RTB wrote:

Helmet saved my life last year after being smashed off my bike by a car from behind.  I suffered a broken (& disclocated) back along with many other fractures but as the sugeons told me it is only because of a helmet that I lived to be able to wake up in ICU.  The helmet (Kask) is smashed up a goodun but my goodness it saved my head from suffering that trauma directly which would have been game over.  Even with it I still suffered bleeding on the brain so heavy was the impact.

Astonishing some of the flippant, anti-helmet comments written on this thread.  Sorry but this is ignorant and naive in the extreme.  Unless you have been through what I have been through you ain't really qualified frankly to cast such negative aspersions on them.

 

Helmets save lives people!

 

There are some flippant comments on Star Wars, but the comments questioning the evidence for helmet efficacy are serious and considered. I suggest you read them and think about them. You might then retract your "ignorant" aspersion.

The idea that only those who have hit their head are qualified to comment is silly. One example proves nothing. Science proceeds by the accumulation of data. In none of the countries where helmets have been mandated has there been a reduction in cyclist head injury rate.

 

It has been pointed out that if all the "helmet saved my life" anecdotes were added together the total would far exceed the number of head injuries suffered by cyclists before helmets and by unhelmeted cyclists.

I once hit my head in a fall. Luckily I was wearing a cotton Festina cap, I was uninjured and recommend cotton Festina caps.

Avatar
Pudsey Pedaller replied to felixcat | 6 years ago
5 likes

felixcat wrote:

RTB wrote:

Helmet saved my life last year after being smashed off my bike by a car from behind.  I suffered a broken (& disclocated) back along with many other fractures but as the sugeons told me it is only because of a helmet that I lived to be able to wake up in ICU.  The helmet (Kask) is smashed up a goodun but my goodness it saved my head from suffering that trauma directly which would have been game over.  Even with it I still suffered bleeding on the brain so heavy was the impact.

Astonishing some of the flippant, anti-helmet comments written on this thread.  Sorry but this is ignorant and naive in the extreme.  Unless you have been through what I have been through you ain't really qualified frankly to cast such negative aspersions on them.

 

Helmets save lives people!

 

There are some flippant comments on Star Wars, but the comments questioning the evidence for helmet efficacy are serious and considered. I suggest you read them and think about them. You might then retract your "ignorant" aspersion.

The idea that only those who have hit their head are qualified to comment is silly. One example proves nothing. Science proceeds by the accumulation of data. In none of the countries where helmets have been mandated has there been a reduction in cyclist head injury rate.

It has been pointed out that if all the "helmet saved my life" anecdotes were added together the total would far exceed the number of head injuries suffered by cyclists before helmets and by unhelmeted cyclists.

I once hit my head in a fall. Luckily I was wearing a cotton Festina cap, I was uninjured and recommend cotton Festina caps.

Equally, the surgeons treating the 'helmet saved my life' patients aren't exactly qualified to comment on the effectiveness of cycling helmets either. They will likely have an understanding of the injury to the skull and/or brain, but not whether or not a helmet would have made any difference to said injury.

Avatar
burtthebike replied to RTB | 6 years ago
5 likes

RTB wrote:

Helmet saved my life last year after being smashed off my bike by a car from behind.  I suffered a broken (& disclocated) back along with many other fractures but as the sugeons told me it is only because of a helmet that I lived to be able to wake up in ICU.  The helmet (Kask) is smashed up a goodun but my goodness it saved my head from suffering that trauma directly which would have been game over.  Even with it I still suffered bleeding on the brain so heavy was the impact.

Astonishing some of the flippant, anti-helmet comments written on this thread.  Sorry but this is ignorant and naive in the extreme.  Unless you have been through what I have been through you ain't really qualified frankly to cast such negative aspersions on them.

Helmets save lives people!

Anecdotes are not data, and your anecdote joins all the other thousands of "helmet saved my life" stories so popular in the media.  The only problem being that the death rate of cyclists doesn't fall as helmet wearing rates increase, so either the stories aren't true, or wearing a helmet increases the likelihood of being in a fatal crash a million times.

Your surgeon may be of the opinion that the helmet saved your life, but most of the "helmet saved my life" stories are based on the same opinions of people not qualified to comment.  They aren't experts in collision mechanics or the protective effects of helmets, they are qualified in surgery.  If opinions were facts, the death rate of cyclists would fall dramatically when helmet wearing rates rise, but if anything, it increases.  The opinion of a surgeon in the case of cycle helmets is just about as useful as that of a plumber or a computer engineer or a weather forecaster.

Avatar
davel replied to RTB | 6 years ago
3 likes

RTB wrote:

Helmet saved my life last year after being smashed off my bike by a car from behind.  I suffered a broken (& disclocated) back along with many other fractures but as the sugeons told me it is only because of a helmet that I lived to be able to wake up in ICU.  The helmet (Kask) is smashed up a goodun but my goodness it saved my head from suffering that trauma directly which would have been game over.  Even with it I still suffered bleeding on the brain so heavy was the impact.

Astonishing some of the flippant, anti-helmet comments written on this thread.  Sorry but this is ignorant and naive in the extreme.  Unless you have been through what I have been through you ain't really qualified frankly to cast such negative aspersions on them.

 

Helmets save lives people!

You appear to be suggesting that unless you have experienced something directly, you are not qualified to criticise it.

Just think that through for a minute. 

Avatar
brooksby replied to davel | 6 years ago
1 like

RTB wrote:

Astonishing some of the flippant, anti-helmet comments written on this thread.  Sorry but this is ignorant and naive in the extreme.  Unless you have been through what I have been through you ain't really qualified frankly to cast such negative aspersions on them.

Helmets save lives people!

But isn't the argument in this thread not whether or not helmets save lives (and that argument will run and run), but whether people should be legally obliged to wear one or not.  We're all grown-ups (well, most of us on here), so shouldn't we be trusted to make our own decisions...?

Avatar
Legs_Eleven_Wor... | 6 years ago
1 like

Erm, that isn't 'a protest'.

That is a crowd of pussies kneeling down before the state and bleating, 'Please sir ... let us go out without helmets!'

In other words, the same cowardly behaviour exhibited across the globe by cyclists confronted with the selfishness and the bigotry of the car lobby.  Whether it's an Australian policeman saying you can't cycle without a helmet because you might hurt yourself (FFS!), or white van man on the North Circular forcing you to the kerb so he can get to a set of red traffic lights four seconds sooner.

To quote Thomas Jefferson, 'If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so'.  It is painful to contemplate, but there are times when the use of force against agents of the state is not just a right, but a duty.

This is one such occasion. 

Avatar
burtthebike | 6 years ago
4 likes

"Is this what Australia is coming to? Man fights $330 fine in court after seven police cars were sent to a quiet park to catch cyclists without a helmet"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5517259/Cycle-rules-nanny-state-...

Pages

Latest Comments