Spinning debates around helmet laws

New research on helmet laws and cycling in New South Wales has stirred a hornet’s nest of debate.

An article recently published in the Health Promotion Journal of Australia asserts just over one in five people said that they would ride more if they did not have to wear a helmet.

The paper’s authors, Chris Rissel and Li Ming Wen, said that repealing mandatory helmet laws – which require all cyclists to wear a helmet when riding- would produce a substantial increase in cycling levels throughout Sydney.

In an interview with Sydney University, Mr Rissel said such an increase would  help the New South Wales Government achieve its goal of amplifying cycle numbers without spending millions of dollars on new bicycle paths.

The article, ‘The possible effect on frequency of cycling if mandatory bicycle helmet legislation was repealed in Sydney, Australia: a cross sectional survey’, states that concerns surrounding a significant increase in injuries resulting from a repeal of helmet laws are not founded.

The article claims an increase in cyclists would create safety in numbers as with more cyclists on the road drivers would alter their behaviour and  mprovements would be made to bicycling environments.

The article also refers to the Northern Territory which has no mandatory helmet laws and where cycle injury rates are similar to other Australian states.

Groups opposed to  mandatory helmet laws welcome this research. Co-founder of Helmet Freedom, Dave Kinkead, said these findings are consistent with other research and are common sense.

“If you make something less convenient and seem more d dangerous than it is, people won’t do it as much,” he said. President of Cycling Rights Action Group, Bill Curnow, said he agrees with the report’s conclusions and a repeal of helmet laws would “simply be a reversal of what happened then they were imposed.”

Mr Curnow also said the safety benefits of helmets are “largely illusory”.

Not everyone agrees  with the paper’s findings. A researcher at the University of New South Wales, Jake Olivier, who has also examined helmet laws and bcycle safety, said removing mndatory helmet laws might lead to an increase in rider numbers but he said the paper’s conclusions were overblown.

This sentiment is shared by the Surgeon Representative of the Australian Medical Association, Brian Owler, who repels any suggestions that safety benefits of mandatory helmet laws, in effect since 1991, are negligible.

Both Mr Owler and Mr Olivier said having more non-helmeted cyclists on the road will equal more people suffering serious head injuries.

Mr Owler said safety should not be compromised either for environmental reasons or to reduce traffic congestion, and that any change in laws would be a “giant leap backwards.”

An official spokesperson from the New South Wales Roads and Maritime Services said helmets play an important role in reducing cycle-related injuries or fatalities.

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the City of Sydney Council said the Council wants to see a review of the mandatory helmet legislation.

By Dominic Dietrich