Lift of helmet requirement in Canberra on the cards as ACT government looks at getting more people on bikes

[Ross]

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-new ... 0wi4m.html

Canberra cyclists may yet feel the wind in their hair, as the ACT government is considering helmet-free cycling in low-speed conditions.

ACT Road Safety Minister Shane Rattenbury confirmed the government's commitment on Thursday to investigate the risks and benefits of allowing people to ride bicycles without a helmet in certain environments.

Speaking on the release of the 2018 Road Safety Report Card, Mr Rattenbury renewed the territory's commitment to zero deaths on the roads.

But he admitted the issue of mandatory bike helmets in Canberra was a vexed one.

"The issue is one that throws up a tension between immediate trauma and public health benefits," he said.

"If removing the requirement for helmets actually encourages more people to cycle, and the overall health benefits that come from that outweigh the risk of immediate trauma from an accident, this is a tricky area to weigh up. But it's a question worth asking and worth examining, which is why it's in the road safety action plan, to actually have a look at it."

Although there had yet to be any substantive research into the issue under the action plan, he said there were indications that the requirement to wear a helmet was putting some people off cycling in Canberra.

"There are people that indicate that having a helmet is a barrier to them riding a bike, they don't like to wear them, they see it as inconvenient, and certainly when it comes to things like bike-sharing schemes, it has proved to be quite challenging," he said.

[DavidS]

Woohoo!

DS

[Mulger bill]

I like it when people stop looking at trees and see the forest

[Cyclophiliac]

Helmet-free cycling in low-speed conditions? I think I just p!ssed myself laughing. Given that helmets aren't tested in anything BUT low-speed conditions, they're pretty much useless in higher-speed conditions, so Canberra should be waiving the helmet requirement for higher-speed cycling, not lower.

[Thoglette]

Anyone in Canberra should be quoting the BMJ
Goldacre, B; Spiegelhalter, D (2013) Bicycle helmets and the law.
BMJ (Clinical research ed), 346. f3817. ISSN 0959-8138 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f3817

The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct
benefits—which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies—but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk.

[AdelaidePeter]

Helmet-free cycling in low-speed conditions? I think I just p!ssed myself laughing. Given that helmets aren't tested in anything BUT low-speed conditions, they're pretty much useless in higher-speed conditions, so Canberra should be waiving the helmet requirement for higher-speed cycling, not lower.

I guess that's why pro cyclists never wear helmets.

[madmacca]

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-new ... 0wi4m.html

Canberra cyclists may yet feel the wind in their hair, as the ACT government is considering helmet-free cycling in low-speed conditions.

ACT Road Safety Minister Shane Rattenbury confirmed the government's commitment on Thursday to investigate the risks and benefits of allowing people to ride bicycles without a helmet in certain environments.

Speaking on the release of the 2018 Road Safety Report Card, Mr Rattenbury renewed the territory's commitment to zero deaths on the roads.

But he admitted the issue of mandatory bike helmets in Canberra was a vexed one.

"The issue is one that throws up a tension between immediate trauma and public health benefits," he said.

"If removing the requirement for helmets actually encourages more people to cycle, and the overall health benefits that come from that outweigh the risk of immediate trauma from an accident, this is a tricky area to weigh up. But it's a question worth asking and worth examining, which is why it's in the road safety action plan, to actually have a look at it."

Although there had yet to be any substantive research into the issue under the action plan, he said there were indications that the requirement to wear a helmet was putting some people off cycling in Canberra.

"There are people that indicate that having a helmet is a barrier to them riding a bike, they don't like to wear them, they see it as inconvenient, and certainly when it comes to things like bike-sharing schemes, it has proved to be quite challenging," he said.

That will never get past the anti-cycling ACT coroner, who wants to make cycling as expensive and impractical as possible in the name of "safety".

[Cyclophiliac]

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-new ... 0wi4m.html

Canberra cyclists may yet feel the wind in their hair, as the ACT government is considering helmet-free cycling in low-speed conditions.

ACT Road Safety Minister Shane Rattenbury confirmed the government's commitment on Thursday to investigate the risks and benefits of allowing people to ride bicycles without a helmet in certain environments.

Speaking on the release of the 2018 Road Safety Report Card, Mr Rattenbury renewed the territory's commitment to zero deaths on the roads.

But he admitted the issue of mandatory bike helmets in Canberra was a vexed one.

"The issue is one that throws up a tension between immediate trauma and public health benefits," he said.

"If removing the requirement for helmets actually encourages more people to cycle, and the overall health benefits that come from that outweigh the risk of immediate trauma from an accident, this is a tricky area to weigh up. But it's a question worth asking and worth examining, which is why it's in the road safety action plan, to actually have a look at it."

Although there had yet to be any substantive research into the issue under the action plan, he said there were indications that the requirement to wear a helmet was putting some people off cycling in Canberra.

"There are people that indicate that having a helmet is a barrier to them riding a bike, they don't like to wear them, they see it as inconvenient, and certainly when it comes to things like bike-sharing schemes, it has proved to be quite challenging," he said.

That will never get past the anti-cycling ACT coroner, who wants to make cycling as expensive and impractical as possible in the name of "safety".

... and who will never propose a mandatory driving helmet law, despite the evidence supporting it.

[bychosis]

That will never get past the anti-cycling ACT coroner, who wants to make cycling as expensive and impractical as possible in the name of "safety".

That'd be a shame. ACT is small, reasonably well serviced in terms of cycleways etc and probably a good sample size to see what changes would happen if the rules are relaxed.

[g-boaf]

Helmet-free cycling in low-speed conditions? I think I just p!ssed myself laughing. Given that helmets aren't tested in anything BUT low-speed conditions, they're pretty much useless in higher-speed conditions, so Canberra should be waiving the helmet requirement for higher-speed cycling, not lower.

I guess that's why pro cyclists never wear helmets.

They didn't wear helmets until more recently when it became mandatory.

I don't suspect removing the helmet requirement will all of the sudden convert everyone to riding instead of driving.

[Thoglette]

ACT is small, reasonably well serviced in terms of cycleways etc and probably a good sample size to see what changes would happen if the rules are relaxed.

The data's in. It's been in for a long time. However the pro-law people remain in denial.

[ValleyForge]

The ACT better start training Neurosurgeons again.

[Thoglette]

The ACT better start training Neurosurgeons again.

Why?

The evidence shows that those who might benefit from helmet use mostly wear them regardless of MHLs.
Those who don't benefit mostly don't wear them. And stop cycling when MHLs are enforced.

This is why MHLs have, statistically, had bugger all impact on injury rates (see previous BMJ quotation) but decimate the participation rate, particularly on short utility trips.

Unfortunately, Aunty couldn't resist a similar cheap shot in their reporting of the matter
Bike helmet laws to be examined by ACT Road Safety Minister amid rise of bike-sharing services by a) only showing MAHILs and b) rehashing Peter Gee's opinion on his accident as fact.

The elephant in the room, statistically, remains bad driver behaviour.

[human909]

That'd be a shame. ACT is small, reasonably well serviced in terms of cycleways etc and probably a good sample size to see what changes would happen if the rules are relaxed.

Hasn't that already been done with the other Territory.

I don't suspect removing the helmet requirement will all of the sudden convert everyone to riding instead of driving.

Since nobody is suggesting anything of the sort I'm not sure what your point is here.

[bychosis]

That'd be a shame. ACT is small, reasonably well serviced in terms of cycleways etc and probably a good sample size to see what changes would happen if the rules are relaxed.

Hasn't that already been done with the other Territory.

Is that official though or just that no-one cares if you don't wear a helmet despite the law?

[g-boaf]

That'd be a shame. ACT is small, reasonably well serviced in terms of cycleways etc and probably a good sample size to see what changes would happen if the rules are relaxed.

Hasn't that already been done with the other Territory.

I don't suspect removing the helmet requirement will all of the sudden convert everyone to riding instead of driving.

Since nobody is suggesting anything of the sort I'm not sure what your point is here.

The topic says:

Lift of helmet requirement in Canberra on the cards as ACT government looks at getting more people on bikes

I suspect that some people just don't want to ride, helmet or no helmet.

[baabaa]

I suspect that some people just don't want to ride, helmet or no helmet.

On any given day in and around Canberra it is pretty easy to see lots of people biking without lids. Having heaps of well designed, made, maintained and easy to use bike paths make this easy to do. In the cbd poking along by bicycle on the footpath without a helmet does not even warrant a second look.
But yes you are right, people who don't want to ride still wont ride.

[human909]

From the ABC article:
It found helmets reduced the chance of a serious head injury by almost 70 per cent, fatal head injuries were cut down by 65 per cent, and facial injuries were reduced by a third.

Another useless and misleading fact. I'd expect you would fine similar results for MOST activities from driving cars to showering.

Hasn't that already been done with the other Territory.

Is that official though or just that no-one cares if you don't wear a helmet despite the law?

Official for off road use, aka shared paths, bike paths and footpaths. But not enforced on the roads anyway. More info in this video:

I suspect that some people just don't want to ride, helmet or no helmet.

I'll have to repeat my response: Since nobody is suggesting anything of the sort I'm not sure what your point is here.

You seem to be enjoying using straw-man arguments here.

[g-boaf]

I suspect that some people just don't want to ride, helmet or no helmet.

On any given day in and around Canberra it is pretty easy to see lots of people biking without lids. Having heaps of well designed, made, maintained and easy to use bike paths make this easy to do. In the cbd poking along by bicycle on the footpath without a helmet does not even warrant a second look.
But yes you are right, people who don't want to ride still wont ride.

We can hope that it might be replicated elsewhere - but it'll take time for the powers that be to get a move on.

[Thoglette]

The topic says:
Lift of helmet requirement in Canberra on the cards as ACT government looks at getting more people on bikes

I suspect that some people just don't want to ride, helmet or no helmet.

The topic says "more" not "all".

Every study I've seen that has addressed this issue (the relationship between MHLs and intention-to-ride) clearly shows that MHLs discourage cycling.

The pro-MHL crowd immediately chant "but it's not the top reason".

It will come as no surprise that having to ride with dangerous traffic and/or dangerous motorists is inevitably the top reason for "not riding" or "not riding more".

[g-boaf]

It will come as no surprise that having to ride with dangerous traffic and/or dangerous motorists is inevitably the top reason for "not riding" or "not riding more".

I think that's the biggest one that will make the greatest change, probably even more than changing helmet laws. Or making it so it is safe to ride on any road someone wants to use.

[ValleyForge]

The ACT better start training Neurosurgeons again.

Why?

Maybe some simple thought on the matter might help. On the presumption that "more people will ride" with the relaxation of MHLs in the ACT, more people will fall. Those people will have head injuries of varying severity (trivial through to severe). A proportion of these will need expert care.

Simple. But I'm biased for good reason.

[martin_12]

The ACT better start training Neurosurgeons again.

Why? There may even be a surplus of Neurosurgeons because as participation in cycling increases fewer people will be admitted to hospital with strokes requiring surgery. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22770457

[fat and old]

The ACT better start training Neurosurgeons again.

Why? There may even be a surplus of Neurosurgeons because as participation in cycling increases fewer people will be admitted to hospital with strokes requiring surgery. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22770457

Whilst I'm living proof of the cycling=reduced chance of stroke.....I don't think it's as simple as that.

Oh yeah, your vid human....what a crock. No MHL's bring other cultures into cycling..... "There's lots of Asian women on bikes, that's something you don't see down south". Where does this fella come from? I see heaps everyday. In Melbourne. Met heaps of Asian fellas riding about too. Road, path whatever.

[human909]

Whilst I'm living proof of the cycling=reduced chance of stroke.....I don't think it's as simple as that.

Sure it isn't as simple as that. Nor is it as simple as non MHLs leads to more head injuries in society. Holland has insanely more cyclists and very low helmet use. But funnily enough no epidemic of head injuries.

Again all this is missing the point. Why are we even talking about head injuries when the rates of head injuries in cycling are so low? Helmets reduce head injuries in ALL activities, the same logic being used for bicycle helmets could be readily applied to countless other activities.