To those who have experienced the sense of freedom and the exhilaration of breeze in their hair, riding a bicycle—how confining and claustrophobic the idea of a helmet! But cycling without a helmet is something about which Australians only can dream. “I ride a bike and I never wear a helmet …” remarked a leading British neurosurgeon at the 2014 Hay Festival in Wales, UK.
Our public health authorities regard cycling as inherently dangerous and risky. Every transport jurisdiction obliges cyclists to wear a helmet, although the Northern Territory exempts those over the age of 17 on footpaths and cycle paths. States introduced mandatory helmet laws in the early 1990s in exchange for ‘black spot’ road funding from a Federal Labor government.
The Queensland government’s recent response to its Parliamentary Inquiry into cycling epitomises a prevailing wisdom about Australia’s helmet laws. It rejected a series of its Inquiry’s modest recommendations to relax them, including a 24-month trial along the lines of the Northern Territory’s model with an exemption in streets with speed limits up to 60 kph.
Australia’s helmet laws are unique—apart from New Zealand’s which followed Australia’s in 1994. In most countries, use of bicycle helmets is voluntary or applies only to children; although laws with exemptions apply in some North American state and provincial jurisdictions and in Finland and Spain.
Epidemiological evidence of the impact of helmet laws on head injuries is doubtful. Despite a similar hourly risk of death from head injury for unhelmeted cyclists and motor vehicle occupants, only cyclists must wear head protection. So far as the effect of Australia’s helmet laws deters cycling, they reduce the health benefits that come with cycling.
Analysis of data after helmet law was introduced in NSW revealed that head injuries fell 40%.It is impossible to determine, however, whether this could be attributed to increased helmet wearing or reduced cycling because of the helmet law.Non-head injuries fell by almost as much as head injuries, suggesting the main explanation was reduced cycling.
Helmet laws impose costs on cyclists associated with purchasing helmets and the inconvenience of wearing them. A cost-benefit analysis of helmet law analysing injury rates before and after its implementation in New Zealand shows that for adults, helmet costs outweigh the value of health savings.
In the Netherlands, where use of bicycles is the world's highest, helmets are a heresy. In Amsterdam the probability of death from a cycling accident for an average cyclist is once each 63,368 years. Hence, even if it were possible to show that use of cycle helmets may reduce relative risk, absolute risk of mortality without them remains extremely small.
Australia’s regime of mandatory helmet law for cyclists is discriminatory, inefficient and infringes personal autonomy. It is another manifestation of public health zealotry. Apart from violating the principle of personal choice on helmet use, evidence supporting compulsion remains in contention. Many Australians nevertheless are accustomed to accepting encroachments on personal liberty. They have no experience of the alternative.
David Gadiel is a senior fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.
Home > Commentary > Opinion > Helmets for everyone!
Helmets for everyone!
To those who have experienced the sense of freedom and the exhilaration of breeze in their hair, riding a bicycle—how confining and claustrophobic the idea of a helmet! But cycling without a helmet is something about which Australians only can dream. “I ride a bike and I never wear a helmet …” remarked a leading British neurosurgeon at the 2014 Hay Festival in Wales, UK.
Our public health authorities regard cycling as inherently dangerous and risky. Every transport jurisdiction obliges cyclists to wear a helmet, although the Northern Territory exempts those over the age of 17 on footpaths and cycle paths. States introduced mandatory helmet laws in the early 1990s in exchange for ‘black spot’ road funding from a Federal Labor government.
The Queensland government’s recent response to its Parliamentary Inquiry into cycling epitomises a prevailing wisdom about Australia’s helmet laws. It rejected a series of its Inquiry’s modest recommendations to relax them, including a 24-month trial along the lines of the Northern Territory’s model with an exemption in streets with speed limits up to 60 kph.
Australia’s helmet laws are unique—apart from New Zealand’s which followed Australia’s in 1994. In most countries, use of bicycle helmets is voluntary or applies only to children; although laws with exemptions apply in some North American state and provincial jurisdictions and in Finland and Spain.
Epidemiological evidence of the impact of helmet laws on head injuries is doubtful. Despite a similar hourly risk of death from head injury for unhelmeted cyclists and motor vehicle occupants, only cyclists must wear head protection. So far as the effect of Australia’s helmet laws deters cycling, they reduce the health benefits that come with cycling.
Analysis of data after helmet law was introduced in NSW revealed that head injuries fell 40%.It is impossible to determine, however, whether this could be attributed to increased helmet wearing or reduced cycling because of the helmet law.Non-head injuries fell by almost as much as head injuries, suggesting the main explanation was reduced cycling.
Helmet laws impose costs on cyclists associated with purchasing helmets and the inconvenience of wearing them. A cost-benefit analysis of helmet law analysing injury rates before and after its implementation in New Zealand shows that for adults, helmet costs outweigh the value of health savings.
In the Netherlands, where use of bicycles is the world's highest, helmets are a heresy. In Amsterdam the probability of death from a cycling accident for an average cyclist is once each 63,368 years. Hence, even if it were possible to show that use of cycle helmets may reduce relative risk, absolute risk of mortality without them remains extremely small.
Australia’s regime of mandatory helmet law for cyclists is discriminatory, inefficient and infringes personal autonomy. It is another manifestation of public health zealotry. Apart from violating the principle of personal choice on helmet use, evidence supporting compulsion remains in contention. Many Australians nevertheless are accustomed to accepting encroachments on personal liberty. They have no experience of the alternative.
David Gadiel is a senior fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.
• Subscribe
Subscribe now and stay in the loop with our giving appeals, event alerts, newsletters and research updates.
We are always pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us here: