Aussie advert calls for end to Queensland's compulsory helmet laws for adults

OldRidgeback: Yeah, I agree that all-out riding on a track with a motorbike can be a decent work-out. It's *very* expensive though: you chew through costly tyres very rapidly, track fees, fuel, crash damage & lots of maintenance needed. All-out riding on the road will however get you killed very quickly. Riding a motorbike at the pace needed to have a fair chance of staying alive/uninjured on the road doesn't need much physical exertion IME (but does need lots of mental focus/exertion).

That's one reason I switched to bicycles, much *much* safer - and it hurts far *far* less when it goes wrong. (Of course, some cyclists enjoy hurting themselves deliberately by pushing themselves hard up hills & stuff - but that's a good kind of hurt ).

'anyway spout as many stats as you like ... '
genius. Yeah, stay away from an argument like this if you've got FACTS on your side.

I wear my helmet every time I ride.

I choose to ride like a maniac most of the time.

When I ride relaxed, I'm usually hauling my kids in a trailer, and want to set a good example.

that being said...

•HELMET LAWS ARE OBNOXIOUS OUTSIDE OF COMPETITION!

•Adults can make their own descisions.

Many counties near where I live have helmet laws for adults. Imagine risking a ticket because your rode your commuter bike two blocks in a bike lane to get a carton of milk. That's just silly!

And one final anecdote: Ive been hit by more cars than I care to count. Helmet or not, never hit my head.
Urban assault and bike polo? Helmet saved my life both times!

We dont have mandatory law in this country though do we?
(uk)
I only got a Helmet to race in Triathlons where its a rule.
I feel like it is probably giving me a false sense of security.
I would have to have a pretty bad accident for my helmet to come into play, and then I'd probably have serious injuries whatever.
When I come off my bike, my hands and knees take the hit, not my head.
A helmet didn't have a hope in hell of saving Wouter Weyland, sad to say.
When you see kids on the pavement and parks going no more than 2mph, with great big helmets on, it is pretty sad really.
But my helmet is pretty cool anyway I think, it also gives me somewhere to put my sunglasses.
It is ridiculous, but we cant go back now, they've got us by the short and curlys.

Since when is there a health benefit to motorcycling?

How does a broken or damaged helmet prove that it was effective? You could strap an egg, or some other fragile thing, to your noggin and claim it saved your life using that kind of faulty logic.

The facts are these:

- helmets reduce head injuries somewhat, though increase neck & facial injuries slightly.

- bicycle helmets change the behaviour of motorists, making closer passes.

- helmets discourage cycling

- in the UK, cycling has about the same fatality risk as walking (slightly less than or slightly more than, depending on how you compare).

- the long-term health benefits of cycling **greatly** outweigh the quite low risks

- Rates of helmet wearing in developed nations correlate *inversely* with cycling safety - the safest countries have the *lowest* helmet wearing rates, the worst countries (which are still pretty safe) have the highest helmet wearing rates.

This last fact could be interpreted in a number of ways. Draw your own conclusions.

Let's face it, at least 80% of cycle helmets on the market offer such minimal protection a cyclist may as well wear a wet paper bag over the head instead. Unless you wear a proper helmet as a cyclist, and most don't, there's simply no point. The vast majority of shell type cycle helmets are a waste of money, so if you've got one you might as well put it in the bin and do without. If you wear a shell type helmet, please don't bang on about how you're looking after yourself, because in all likelihood you're just kidding yourself.

Motorcycle helmets have been compulsory since 1976 in the UK. But motorcycles travel considerably faster than bicycles and the nature of injuries to motorcycle riders are different from those involving cyclists.

I've been cycling across London for over 20 years and have come off a few times, my injuries injuries have been to arms and legs. If you look at the injuries cyclists suffer, head injuries are by far the minority.

As someone else mentioned, some of the daft aguments on here mirror the attitude of the refuseniks when the compulsory seat belt law was introduced. I've had a couple of serious falls and it's pretty clear from the damage to the helmet that I was spared a serious head injury. Nothing the libertarians can say will persuade me differently.

And while it could be argued that adults are daft enough to decide for themselves, it's when that attitude is transferred to young children that it really bothers me.

How long have helmets been mandatory for motor cyclists? Would anyone suggest that these should not be compulsory? Yet, the majority of cycle deaths are due to head injuries. When moving forward the part of you that is likely to hit the ground first in a collision is your head. If you are struck at an angle you'll fall on your hands or your elbows, probably breaking bones.

I'm sorry to say that if people aren't cycling because they don't want to wear a helmet then they are pretty pathetic. It seems to me just being picked on as a reason to be lazy.

Cycling isn't itself dangerous it's the collisions that are. So why take an unnecessary risk? It's not like we are being asked to wear body armour. I've had gravel scraped out of wounds in casualty before, not a pleasant experience, but that's just the risk you take. The head does not repair quite so well. I'm brain damaged enough as it is! (I have Aspergers Syndrome and probably bipolar too)

I totally agree with Andy, in so far as that I have chosen to always wear a cycle helmet (while cycling)due to my 9 year old nieces' life being saved by her helmet(and the wonderful ambulance crew/hospital staff)after she was hit by a police car on a quiet country road.
A couple of months after she was brought back from the brink of death, there was a church service held where she asked all the cyclist present to promise to where a cycle helmet in future.
I, like many other cyclist, absolutely hated the idea but went along with the promise and I can quite honestly say that over 99% of the time I have worn my lid. In fact it feels weird not too!
Having said all of that, I still feel that people should not be forced to wear a helmet as cyclist will always put more value on their freedom to do what they want over what is safest for them.

I always wear a helmet but that is my choice. I fully support peoples right to choose whether or not to wear a helmet. Can anyone tell me if this Aussie law applies only while riding on a public highway or when riding off-road also? If it applies off-road then that is a scandalous infringement on peoples human rights. I can't stand it when governments try to nanny people to the point where they are not allowed to have any fun just in case they might get injured and sue. I thought the Aussies were easy going but I'm beginning to change my mind. Next thing you know they'll be asking you to sign a disclaimer before crossing the road.

Sorry Pete, misunderstood what you were getting across. Would agree with you to a point.

Seat belts though, were needed due to the poor driving skills and while very few choose to wear them the govt was forced to have them legislated.

On purely libertarian grounds seatbelts would not be compulsory but it is more clear-cut than helmets and one would have to be an extreme libertarian to argue against it.

With seatbelts there is clear and unarguable evidence about their effectiveness AND it strongly correlates to the types of accident likely to be encountered.
There is no benefit which would outweigh or even mitigate making them compulsory - it would not stop people driving, it does not affect their health or prevent them doing anything and it does not have a significant effect on price.

With helmets the argument about their effectiveness is far from settled, one aspect of which is whether they are actually fit for purpose.
Plus there is evidence that not making them compulsory has a net advantage in terms of encouraging cycling and overall fitness and health to the extent that it may outweigh the negative effects (if one admits them to be correct).

@seabass Yes I had already made that point in the comparison to smokers or obese people. We don't compel those groups to change their behaviour - although they are a far greater drain on resources than cyclists - so why crack down on one group and ignore others.

Meanwhile, the Netherlands groans under the expense of treating thousands of brain-damaged cyclists... erm...

Incidentally, I was under the impression that the UCI mandated helmet wearing mainly to increase the sponsorship possibilities and allow manufacturers to market their products. I may be wrong about that one, but that's the impression I'm under.

giff, my point about seat belts has nothing whatsoever to do with safety. It is to do with civil liberty.

My point is that the government stepped in and made something that had previously been optional, compulsory. Their reasons (whether right or wrong) may have been safety-driven, but their reasons are not overly relevant since in a court the crown does not have to justify "why" something is illegal. It just is.

With seat belts, this all happened a sufficiently long time ago that tempers have cooled and we are able to look at this a little less emotionally. I don't particularly feel "oppressed" at having to put a seat belt on when I get in my car (although I might have felt exactly that in 1983 when the legislation first came in, in the UK).

With bike helmets the discussion evidently has not cooled but (especially wrt Australia) is exactly parallel.

Seatbelts were made compulsory because cars were getting faster and drivers were becoming less responsible in their driving. Do you really think a seatbelt would have been necessary in a vehicle doing 10/15 mph?? The only thing these 'safety' features do is create an illusion of being indestructible!!

Go to a theme park, are you issued with a neck brace and helmet? NO. Yet, you are on rides that throw you around and subject you to similar forces of a car accident and present you with the risk of whiplash and brain damage!!

It does not matter how much you wrap your noggin up. All it will do is prevent the skull being pushed into the brain. NOTHING will stop the actual brain being thrown against the skull in the case of sudden deceleration.

The majority of people who take up cycling are those who take a leisurely pedal round the park or a wee tootle to the shops/work. They are not interesrted in building up their mph or what max speed on a descent Many are put off cycling because they have to deal with dangerous drivers. To be told you have to wear a helmet for your safety will further enforce the perception that cycling is a dangerous activity!

I wear a helmet because a lot of the time it seems sensible to do so. I wear one most days on my five-mile commute, and i wear one on longer rides and off-road rides.

but riding to sainsbury's 300 yards away from my house? riding into town when i know i'll have to carry my helmet around because it won't fit in the lock shackle? i can't see how the state needs to intervene in those decisions for the good of society. If, like today, i was prevented from riding into town at lunchtime because i didn't have a helmet with me (i drove in), who does that benefit?

Seat belts are a different proposition because there's unequivocal scientific data to back up their efficacy. That simply doesn't exist for bike helmets. No large scale study that I've seen shows a correlation between increased helmet use and decreased incidence of cycling head injuries. If anyone knows of such a study, I'd really like to be made aware of it. I'm happy to be persuaded, I really am. But as far as I'm concerned for now, helmets are a red herring that diverts attention from the real causes of road deaths.

just wondered what people thought about seat belts?

When they brought that in in the seventies there was big opposition to this, notably from people like Michael Foot, on libertarian grounds. Essentially the same range of viewpoints that people are expressing here. But am I right in thinking that now, 30 years on, we just accept it as a fact of life / common sense? Or do people see it as state oppression?

Personally I've come off my bike twice. First time I buggered my hip, second time - at 30mph - I did my collar bone. But both times the helmet did its job and protected my head, so I'm sold. But do I really give a monkey's if you wear one or not? 'fraid not.

I wear a helmet because i want to, not because i'm told to.

I wear a helmet because i had a broken cheekbone and concusion after coming off my bike and was in hospital for 5 days getting an operation. I wasn't wearing a helmet then.

Would wearing a helmet stop that happening again? I don't know but i wear a helmet because i don't want to go through that again and if wearing a helmet gives me a chance, well that is good enough for me.

Most of you are old enough and ugly enough to make your own decisions. Make your own mind up and live by your actions.

Let's just hope that the Government don't try to enforce this in the UK. As you all know that once you are told to do something, you go on the defensive. I don't want to see you on the tv sleeping in a tent somewhere...

I have suffered head injuries 4 times in my life. None of these were on a bike.
The incidents occurred once whilst running in a fell race, once slipping in the gym, once as a passenger in a car and once as a pedestrian being hit by a car. Should I have been wearing a helmet during these activities?

It's crazy to say that all cyclists should always wear a helmet. Most head injuries actually happen in the home (some even falling out of bed!) - should we wear helmets whilst going around our houses? Of course not.

There are risks in everything we do and as adults we should be free to make our own assessments of those risks and act accordingly.

The UCI probably has a fair case for insisting on helmets in racing - the risk there is from inter-cycle collisions where the primary risk is from the fall to ground. In a similar vein it makes sense to wear a helmet for off-roading - a slip on gravel or a tip on a tree root could likewise lead to head making contact with ground, at a speed within the deisgn norms for cycle helmets (ie about 12mph and a fall-height of 1m).

If anyone thinks that a helmet is going to do much good in a collision with a cement truck they are deluding themselves. The sheer momentum will crush their head like an eggshell, and in any case body crush injuries are far more likely. As someone else above says, there is no statistically meaningful evidence to support helmets in these circs. Simply saying "a helmet saved my life" or "my wife is a nurse, and she sees better outcomes for helmet wearing casualties" lacks any scientific validity.

There is s a reason why the UCI imposes rules that the BEST road cyclists in the world has to wear a helmets when racing.

And they wear it on "closed" stages with no other dangers than other riders, the occational crowdee, and the pavement.

And its not because they think it looks cool..

Here:
http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm

"Head injuries accounted for 62.6 percent of bicycle fatalities."

So yes - a plastic piece on you head can save your life, and/or your dignity.

But I am unsure whether it should be ILLEGAL to cycle without one - perhaps it only should be if you are cycling on the road.

Oh and Leon - thanks for reminding me to be responsible. I'll now be wearing my lid when walking the streets in case a tile falls of a roof or I trip on a paving stone. Afterall the forces generated their are the same as falling off a bike at 10mph

life's full of danger, leon. in the grand scheme of things, cycling isn't one of the things you should be worrying about. DIY and walking places are much more dangerous. Why should cyclists be forced to wear helmets if DIY enthusiasts and pedestrians aren't?

this isn't about whether wearing a cycle helmet can mitigate against injury. It can, in some instances. There's evidence to suggest that in other instances it can make things worse. And the large scale data suggests that the effect on head injuries of a mass helmet uptake is statistically insignificant. The large scale data also suggests that helmet compulsion leads to a fall in cycling. So the sum of those two would appear to me to be that helmet compulsion has little effect on overall injury rates and leads to a fall in cycling, from which it's not hard to infer higher obesity rates and preventable deaths.

And why are you insisting that anti helmet compulsion is to do with 'looking cool'? So far as I can see, the only person that's mentioned that is you. Argue if you want, but don't ignore the counter arguments.

Helmet wearing should be a choice. I wear a lid soley because I am going much faster than the average leisure cyclist. The forces involved if I came off would actually mean a lid will provide some vague form of protection BUT there is the risk of rotational injury. It should be noted that the average cyclist's speed is below 10mph. If they come off, they are more likely to break an arm in the fall. Meanwhile NOTHING will protect you from being hit at 40mph by a distracted, inattentitive driver in a one ton box of metal!! When I have come off my bike it has been slow speeds and the only injuries have been sprained wrists, grazed knees and bruised ego.

I am fed up that vunerable road users are continually being told to take percautions for their safety - bright clothing, helmets etc. Yet, if you tell drivers to slow down, stop using mobiles, wear a seat belt regards road safety, you are waging a war on them. It is the motorist that kills not the cyclist or pedestrian. Interesting quote below...

Coroner at the inquest into the first UK death of a pedestrian in a car accident (1896): 'I hope such a thing will never happen again...' 

Until the authorities robustly address the behaviour of many of the motorists our roads will continue to be dangerous.

Well BMLH I am sure that as you are so precise in your posts I will google the word "shoten" and see what it means . As for a Berk, well glad you can spell it. If you want to start to be personal then fine but that is always the sign of uneducated morons.

Sven never ridden a Marin Mountain Bile either... so dont throw stones in glass houses.

Anyway , i will probably see you both at number 1 on Silly Cyclist some time soon.