- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Australian flag.pngGreat Australian helmet debate continues to rage
An Australian academic who helped compile a report into the impact of the country’s compulsory helmet laws has acknowledged that some of the data used may have been flawed, but insists that the central finding of the research remains unchanged, and that lower levels of head injuries since the law was introduced are due to factors other than compulsory use of helmets.
The original research was published by Clinical Associate Professor Chris Rissel and Dr Alex Voukelatos of the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney in the August 2010 issue of the Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety (JACRS).
In their study, the pair sought to assess whether the introduction of a law in 1991 in New South Wales that had made it compulsory for cyclists to wear a helmet had resulted in a demonstrable reduction on the level of head injuries among cyclists, as reported on road.cc at the time.
However, in a response published in JACRS in its November 2010 issue (page 76) and reported on the health-focused blog Croakey, epidemiologist Tim Churches highlights errors in the original data used and disputes the researchers’ findings.
Professor Rissel, for his part, has wasted no time in admitting in an article on Croakey that, yes, the data used were flawed, and that corrected data will be submitted to JACRS. However, he asserts that the essential finding remains the same – that evidence across Australia shows a downward trend in head injuries among cyclists even before helmets were made compulsory in 1991.
You can read his response, which is accompanied by graphs illustrating the data, on the Croakey blog, while the edition of JACRS containing the original research, a special issue of the journal that focused on bicycle safety in general, can be found here.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- stonojnr 37 min 5 sec ago
crazy that his own brief describes it as "his long suffering partner" also how come the two blokes he collected from the snooker club to assist in...
- stonojnr 45 min 13 sec ago
but in cases where you report other cyclists close passes, you literally are the witness to it, not the victim ?...
- S.E. 48 min 31 sec ago
1. It's obviously more aerodynamic, even a small backpack or hydration pack can help, there are studies about this....
- stonojnr 53 min 21 sec ago
theres an attitude I encounter alot locally, and demonstrated in bucket loads by drivers on my commute home tonight, that cyclists shouldnt be on...
- FionaJJ 1 hour 13 min ago
When I was a student it was virtually unheard of for someone to have a car. It wasn't even that it was considered a luxury that almost no-one could...
- Keesvant 2 hours 12 min ago
If the chains snap that is lack of build quality or material.....
- Hirsute 3 hours 8 min ago
"Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner destroys much good."
- Jaijai 3 hours 33 min ago
His life was only worth shy of 7 years ,that's too lenient in every book .Let alone drugged up and leaving him to die
- webbierwrex 3 hours 38 min ago
I came here to basically write the same thing, the floating bus stop near me has a very narrow cycling lane between a very narrow pavement and a...
- AS52 4 hours 1 min ago
It wasn't an official consultation meeting - see my comment above.
Add new comment
7 comments
The point of the research is that compulsory the helmet laws in Australia discourage many from cycling and impact other schemes, for instance the Melbourne bike hire scheme is basically a flop, whilst at the same time the London scheme is a huge success, mostly because people don't have to wear a helmet.
As has been noted repeatedly, the difference is not helmets but that, unlike London (or Dublin), Melbourne has decent public transport.
Apparently, what Rissel did was incorrectly plot helmet use versus accident rates, which completely invalidated his conclusions.
As the new report states, once the data was correctly plotted:
"It is immediately apparent that the sharp and substantial drop in the head-to-arm injury ratio coincides exactly with the introduction of the helmet laws and the corresponding increases in the proportion of cyclists observed to be wearing helmets in the RTA surveys."
This is from the journal itself:
"On the receipt of Tim Churches’ letter, a copy was sent to the authors Dr Alexander Voukelatos and A/Prof. Chris Rissel on 7 October 2010 seeking their response. A reply letter was subsequently received from the authors on 20 October 2010 .... The outcome of the review to date is that all reviewers unanimously indicated that Tim Churches’ letter should be published in the journal and all supported that his criticisms, his graph and comments appear valid. Concerning Dr Voukelatos and A/Prof. Rissel’s response, all reviewers agreed it was deficient and required further elaboration and re-review to address adequately Tim Churches’ concerns. The reviewers were particularly critical in regard to
the scientific evidence Dr Voukelatos and A/Prof. Rissel
presented in their reply as support of their main conclusion that ‘mandatory bicycle helmet legislation appears not to be the main factor for the observed reduction in head injuries among pedal cyclists
at a population level over time’. The editors have decided to further communicate with the authors and seek another written reply that addresses all reviewers’ concerns. This reply will be further assessed by the reviewers."
Classic.
There is no study that bears close examination showing proven results in favour of cycle helmet use on grounds of safety. There has been a study showing drivers pass helmet wearing riders more closely, suggesting a higher risk of impact.
Other than that, read my first post.
there's plenty of people who assert that you're more likely to suffer a rotational brain injury as a result of wearing a helmet, also lots who cite risk compensation as a factor – both by cyclists and by motorists. But the evidence across the board – pro and anti helmet – is pretty inconclusive, which is why the debate doesn't ever seem to get anywhere
In some incidences wearing helmet can save life or prevent serious injury. In other cases wearing one won't make any difference. I wear one for those times when it can make a difference. Has anyone ever published data to show that wearing a helmet is dangerous and reckless and could actually lead to serious injury?
"Yes they are."
"No they aren't."
"Yes they are."
"No they aren't."
"Yes they are."
"No they aren't."
I think I pretty much sum up the great Australian cycle helmet debate.