Lately there has been a blitz action by the police cracking down on law breakers in Sydney. Speeding cars? No. Unroadworthy cars? No. Noisy cars? No. Cyclists not wearing helmets?
Yes. Serious anti-social crime is the target! Why is it that someone feels they can tell use what to wear when we are on our bikes? And fine us if we don’t like helmets?
Statistics can be misleading and interest groups love to manipulate others with generalisations suggesting misfortune for all covered by a category. Lawmakers in Australia are forcing cyclists into wearing helmets, although 80% of cyclists killed on the roads by petrol powered vehicles were wearing helmets and 80% of those injured seriously by them were wearing helmets. Does this mean helmets are dangerous? Or is this just statistics at play?
Compared with other death and injury statistics, the death of helmeted and unhelmeted cyclists is a small number. It is avoidable but small. Cycle path networks would improve things. Reducing the number of cars on the roads and reducing speed limits (as well as enforcing them) would do wonders. Getting more cycles on the roads also reduces death statistics. But a compulsory helmet is pure tokenism with dangerous and negative outcomes aimed at a very small problem.Why is there no helmet requirement for pedestrians or car drivers? Or a requirement for a spinal protective hard casing like beetles have for everyone who goes anywhere near roads and cars or onto their own driveway where toddlers are crushed by their parents’ SUVs? There is ill will towards cyclists because of their apparent freedom of mobility and their relaxed expressions. It is resentment pure. And they don’t use petrol.
Then why the inconsistencies? What about banning smoking altogether?
In Britain in 2009, 104 cyclists died on the roads. In the same year 35,000 people died of lung cancer. Is it a matter of
civil liberties that the smokers have a right to kill themselves in large numbers? Then it would make sense in terms of liberty to allow a cyclist to choose about what risks they take in a relatively risk-free activity like moving slowly and easily about on 2 wheels.
Hooper and Spicer in the British Medical Journal argue that unlike motorcycle helmets made of hard material, bicycle helmets do not protect against head injuries from collisions with cars. They are only suitable for injuries caused by falling off your bike as children may do. For collisions, where most deaths and injuries occur for adults, they are not suitable. Motorcycle helmets are not suitable for cyclists either. So helmets do not work at all except possibly for little children learning to ride.
Some types of cyclists may benefit from special protection. The lycra-clad sporting groups which speed down hills as fast as the speed limit are exposed to some risk from heavily armoured SUVs whose drivers can’t see well and are probably driving above the ‘safe’ speed limit. However the functional cyclist who uses a bike for shopping or going from one place to another travelling on back streets and cycle ways without trying to break Olympic records is taking no more risks than walking the same route. But death statistics for cyclists put us all in the same category. So a helmet law was made to apply to all which may only be useful for some. Maybe freedom of choice is a better way to regulate the matter.
Anti-cycling activists want to make cycling appear dangerous, therefore forcing people to wear clothing determined by others which appears to be a safety measure. This has risk implications for the larger picture:
◦ fewer people cycle thinking it is dangerous. If more cyclists are about it forces cars to drive more safely. Safety in numbers.
◦ people do not cycle because it loses its spontaneity. You can’t just go out in the clothes you are wearing but have to put on something chosen by a lawmaker.
◦ if you do wear a helmet you have the inconvenience of having to carry it around with you all the time at your destination
◦ rent-a-bike doesn’t work easily
◦ more people end up driving dangerous vehicles such as cars causing more accidents
◦ death from heart disease and lifestyle illnesses increases when people do not get adequate exercise by driving instead of cycling
◦ perception is limited by enclosing the head.
Other local factors also play a role:
◦ a helmet both attracts birds such as magpies and prevents you from seeing them easily.
◦ a sun protection hat is incompatible with a helmet.
Australia is perhaps the only place in the world where helmets are compulsory on bikes. It is also one of the worst places in the world to be a cyclist. Cycle infrastructure is minimal, status on the road is low and the number of cyclists is kept low by government policy. No wonder we are the biggest green house gas producers per capita of all countries.
How about a little official support for those trying to do something positive for a change. Leave the helmet up to the free citizen.
