Australia is to examine its mandatory helmet law as part of a broader inquiry into ‘personal choice and community impacts’ reports Bicycling Australia. The Federal Government Senate Standing Committee on Economics will be looking at a number of measures which restrict personal choice ‘for the individual’s own good.’ As well as cycle helmets, this will include the sale and use of tobacco and alcohol and the classification of publications, films and computer games.
In 1991 Australia became the first country to require cyclists to wear helmets, and while there has been a fall in the number of head injuries recorded among cyclists since then, opponents of the law claim this is down to other factors. Furthermore, they say the law deters many people from riding bikes, arguing that this has an even bigger impact on public health in a wider sense.
The Australian reports that the new inquiry into ‘nanny state’ laws and regulations was initially launched by New South Wales senator, David Leyonhjelm, who is described by the newspaper as being ‘a staunch defender of the right to make bad choices.’
Leyonhjelm said:
“It’s not the government’s business unless you are likely to harm another person. Harming yourself is your business, but it’s not the government’s business.
“So bicycle helmets, for example, it’s not a threat to other people if you don’t wear a helmet; you’re not going to bang your bare head into someone else.
“I’m expecting the people who think we should all have our personal choices regulated will find this uncomfortable. These are the people who think they know better than we do what’s best for us.”
Submissions to the committee close on August 24 with a report due by June 13, 2016.
Earlier this year, Arnold Schwarzenegger became the latest celebrity to fall foul of Australia’s compulsory cycle helmet laws after he was stopped by a policeman for not wearing one while riding a bike in Melbourne. Boris Johnson and Twilight star Robert Pattinson have also been stopped in the past. Last year, police also said they might fine any riders who took part in an anti-helmet compulsion protest ride in Adelaide if they didn’t wear a helmet.
In 2010, two researchers at Sydney University claimed that Australia’s compulsory bicycle helmet law did not work and called for a trial to be conducted to try and predict what would happen if it were repealed. They said that the fall in head injuries largely came about before the law was introduced due to other road safety measures, such as random breath testing, and suggested that having greater numbers of cyclists on the roads would do far more to make cycling safer.
Add new comment
65 comments
Your own 'cognitive capacity' is clearly limited as you appear to be incapable of understanding that there is absolutely no evidence that compulsory helmet wearing saves lives or injuries ... despite over 20 years of data from 'the great experiment' in Oz and NZ. None whatsoever.
Someone who ignores all the available evidence ... in preference to their own ignorance, assumptions and misconceptions ... is the 'dumb' one.
You should be on the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs. They ignore all the evidence too. You'd be perfect. Much better than that Professor Nutt who had to be sacked when he started discussing actual facts.
Bicycle helmets are not very effective, motorcycle helmets are much more effective at higher speeds than 12mph, so you wear one of them right, or do you stick to 12mph?
By your logic if you're not wearing a motorcycle helmet that means your cogitative ability is lacking / you are dumb.
Are all pedestrians and drivers also dumb for not wearing a helmet?
"while there has been a fall in the number of head injuries recorded among cyclists since then"
STOP THE TRUCK RIGHT UP THERE
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet-law-spin.html sez:
"the reduction in cyclist DSHI was just 23%, which is less than the 36% reduction in numbers of cyclists counted in the 1991 survey"
...a rather important distinction for an article on a cycling website concerning helmets, wouldn't you say Alex? That post-helmet-law, cycling got *more dangerous*?
Apart from the issue of personal freedom, there is the question of seeing cycling as inherently hazardous, and the kind of message that sends out.
Also the evidence: for evidence on lack of effects of helmet compulsion in nearby New Zealand, and the reason for this lack of evidence, are here http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/17/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law/ and here
http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/27/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-l...
Hear, hear.
Pages