The helmet laws are undoubtedly present to protect bicyclists. I know what your knee-jerk reaction will be. “Yes, you moron, wearing a helmet protects your head while riding a bike, therefore helmets are safe”. And you would be right. But there’s just one factor that we have tactfully ignored when looking at helmet safety data. That is the fact that, as a collective, human beings are mind-numbing stupid. Like Tommy Lee Jones said in Men in Black, “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.”
So buckle up and strap on your helmet… or not. We’re going to take a look at why Western Australia’s seen an approximate 30% increase in cyclists admitted to the hospital since implementing the mandatory helmet laws
So according to this statistical data, the number of cyclists in Western Australia skyrocketed in the 80s. It’s hard to pinpoint the exact reasons why, but Australia shares a lot in common with European cultures, and Europe loves its bicycles, so it’s probably safe to say that Australians were simply getting caught up in the trend. Whatever the reason, between 1982 and 1989, the number of cyclists in the region nearly doubled, from 220,000 to around 400,000.
During that same time period, according to hospital data, the number of cyclists admitted to hospitals for serious injuries or death dropped to the tune of 33% and 48%. We’re not going to get into the likely causes just yet, however, it’s likely that some of those figures can be explained with simple relative math; if 60 out of 100 people get injured, that’s 60%, but if 100 out of 1000 people get injured, it’s only 10%. The rate of injuries dropped by 50% even though 40 more people were injured. It’s the same thing. In other words, a fraction of that 33% and 48% can be explained away by simply having a larger sample size. Of course, that is not the only reason, nor is it the biggest reason (which we will get to later), but it is one of the small factors that contribute.
In 1992, Western Australia introduced mandatory bike helmets for cyclists. Sounds like a good idea right? Protect the noggin of all the cyclists on the roads, reduce the rate of injuries even further, and make yourself look like the kind of politician that actually cares (and securing that pro-cycling niche must help during election season). But a peculiar thing happened.
Instead of the rate of serious injuries and fatalities dropping, it skyrocketed. The rates went up by as much as 30% between 1992-2000 and still continue to be proportionally higher since the law’s introduction.
According to a study released in 2009 by Macquarie University, the health care costs that result from the bike helmet laws are around $500,000,000 a year.
Is this just a case of having the same number of injuries but with fewer cyclists, inflating the percentage? Nope.
While it is true that many people, especially women, either cycled less or stopped entirely after the laws came into effect, there is still a huge, measurable and disturbing trend – wearing a helmet seems to make you more of a target for motorists.
Yup. You read that right. It’s not that the helmets themselves are a problem, it’s that for some reason wearing a helmet is like riding around with a “drive into me” sign on your back. Cyclists have reported that drivers are more aggressive around them, giving them less space to operate it, and are generally more likely to ignore safety measures when sharing the road with a helmeted cyclist.
Some people were quick to respond along the lines of “well that’s just Australia, one place. It’s an isolated incident.” However, an experiment by Ian Walker from the University of Bath in England confirmed this theory.
The general idea behind the theory is that the element of helmets affect the psychology of both cyclists and motorists – in other words, cyclists will take more risks, and motorists will take fewer precautions. This is because the helmet doesn’t only make people more likely to survive a crash, it makes people feel safer too. This is an important thing to note because feeling safe has the unfortunate tendency to make us take unnecessary risks, because “Why not? I’m wearing a helmet, I’ll be fine.”
This becomes combined with the fact that we have a huge problem with over-estimating the capabilities of a bicycle helmet. They are not designed to withstand bad crashes. They’re made to protect you from getting concussed when you hit a curb or something, not when you get obliterated by a pick-up in an intersection.
That being said, there are also innumerable piles of evidence that supports the idea of bike helmets saving lives, so we find ourselves in a catch-22, where you’re more likely to survive a bad crash when you wear a helmet but you’re less likely to be in a bad crash if you don’t wear one.
Should We Not Use Helmets?
The simple answer is, No. Do wear a helmet. Helmets are super important to wear and you should definitely keep one on your head. A helmet can save your life. If you ever fall off your bike and hit your head you’ll be kicking your concussed self if you didn’t wear a helmet. We are not saying you shouldn’t wear one. We’re saying that if you do, it might put you at a higher risk of getting struck by a car.
Knowing that fact shouldn’t deter you from wearing a helmet, it should inspire you to exercise caution.
So what does this have to do with the mandatory bike helmet laws?
Not every place that has adopted mandatory bike helmets has seen an increase in head injuries. In fact, in many regions of Canada, these laws have DECREASED the number of fatal head injuries among cyclists. So what is it? What’s going wrong here?
Well, for starters, let’s look at what keeps cyclists safe on the roads. A cyclist on the road is safest when riding in a bike lane, wearing safety gear on a route with heavy bike traffic separate from cars.
According to the West Australia Department of Transport, they actually have pretty standard cycling infrastructure. It’s nothing too impressive but it’s effective. That being said, many popular routes in the region lack bike lanes, so many cyclists inevitably wind up riding on the road. That alone probably contributes to some of the numbers, but not so much to the inflation of deaths and injuries post helmet law.
But here’s the other thing – cyclists are safest when surrounded by other cyclists. And many cyclists did not respond well to the mandatory bike helmet laws. The number of people cycling as a part of their commute dropped. One of the biggest reasons for the drop in injuries and deaths prior to the introduction of the helmet law was the kind of herd protection provided when you’re with a group of cyclists.
One lone cyclist can be difficult to spot, and with the psychological impact that helmets have on both cyclists and motorists, it becomes easy to see how some poor guy on a bike can get obliterated by a careless driver. On the other hand, it’s a lot less likely for a motorist to accidentally plow through a group of cyclists. As a group, they have a much larger presence, obviously.
In other words, if cyclists aren’t clustering together, they are more likely to get struck. Since the mandatory bike helmet laws rubbed many people the wrong way, there were fewer cyclists on the roads, making things less safe for the ones who remained.
Is The law ineffective?
It’s hard to say if the law itself is the problem, or if it’s just the symptom of the problem. What is clear though is that something has to change – whether this is a sign that the law itself is broken and needs to be changed or removed, or it’s a sign that Australia needs to put more time and energy into cycling infrastructure, is a matter for debate.
Whether the law is a failure or not also depends on the metric in which you measure its success – is the purpose of this law to reduce fatalities and serious injuries among cyclists? If so, then clearly they screwed up somehow.
Is this law merely designed to force people to wear helmets? If so then the law itself isn’t so bad. But this brings up a different issue related to the helmet law; in many places that have mandatory helmet laws, the law isn’t actually enforced very efficiently, so many cyclists who didn’t wear helmets before aren’t going to start after. I am actually personally guilty of not wearing a helmet as a teenager, a habit that I had to break as an adult. People are stubborn – if they don’t want to wear a helmet, they most likely won’t.
As we said above, this issue is not specific to just Western Australia. It’s something that’s been observed in many places that have put in mandatory helmet laws for cyclists. There is currently a debate on this very topic hitting the USA.
Critics have also pointed out that mandatory helmet laws have a negative impact on the economics of cycling, making that business niche less profitable and putting less pressure on politicians to develop and invest in cycling infrastructure.
With that being said, many supporters have drawn comparisons between mandatory helmets and seatbelt laws. In their opinion, bike helmets are an essential part of safety. But the numbers don’t lie – there is a direct correlation between bike helmet laws and an increase in serious injuries among cyclists. Clearly, bike helmets aren’t saving as many lives as lawmakers and supporters have hoped.
So what’s the solution?
For adults, it’s clear that helmets are not the most essential factor when it comes to cyclists and safety. As mentioned above, there are other, more important factors to a cyclist’s safety. On top of that, as I said earlier, bicycle helmets are not sturdy enough to offer realistic protection in a bad car accident.
So what should Australia do? Based on the evidence, I think they should scrap the mandatory helmet laws for adults. It’s clear that the laws haven’t effectively protected people like they thought they would. Yes, helmets save lives. But forcing people to wear them clearly has the opposite effect.
Instead of focusing on forcing people to wear helmets when they don’t really help the general public, the best way to protect cyclists is to focus on other methods.
One of the best methods is to improve cycling infrastructure. As we’ve seen in cities like Copenhagen and New York, more bike lanes and better infrastructure save lives. And this solution has the added benefit of having all kinds of non-safety-related perks that vastly improve cities.
Furthermore, the government should focus on making cycling a more viable mode of transportation for commuters, increasing the number of cyclists on the road.
More cyclists mean that not only will more and more people benefit from being healthier physically, but all cyclists will also be much safer. I said earlier that the more cyclists there are, the safer each cyclist becomes. And there is a good way to boost the number of cyclists in Western Australia really fast: getting rid of the helmet law.
According to a study published by the Health Promotion Journal of Australia, getting rid of the law could possibly double the number of cyclists.
My personal take on the matter is that the law should be removed. The law was passed with good intentions – the supporters genuinely believed it would help, and Western Australia was really the first place to have such large-scale mandatory helmet laws. But they didn’t work. It’s nobody’s fault, and I do believe that wearing a helmet is a good idea regardless, but people shouldn’t be forced to.
9 thoughts on “Why Australia’s Bike Helmet Laws Kill People”
As a cyclist I’ve been eyeing off whilst eating my popcorn the debate around legislating in Australia the use of helmets in cycling. There is certainly no shortage of passion it appears from both sides of the camp. I came across your article and was interested by the arguments and evidence you use to support this rationale. It seems the more I explored it the more concern I had about your article and the data presented.
For example, you state that when referring to the incidence of injuries and fatalities post 1992, ‘Instead of the rate of serious injuries and fatalities dropping, it skyrocketed.’
Between the period of 1985-1991 the average West Australian hospital cyclist admissions were 653, between the period of 1992-2000 it rose only 12% to 733. Not quite the Skyrocket. Furthermore, there is a significant drop in admissions from 730 in 1991 (pre-law) to 574 in 1992 and did not increase beyond 730 until 1997.
With regards to the study that the concluded ‘…the health care costs that result from the bike helmet laws are around $500,000,000 a year.’ Well, when mathematical models are based on some facts buts many assumptions, they are good in theory only, ask any economist.
The next claim in the article states that ‘…wearing a helmet seems to make you more of a target for motorists’. Whoa there champ, let’s look at this a bit closer. You go on to say that ‘Cyclists have reported that drivers are more aggressive around them, give them less space to operate it, and are generally more likely to ignore safety measures when sharing the road with a helmeted cyclist.’ Ok a few things here, is this just anecdotal data, and secondly, more aggressive around them compared to what?
Now, to your credit you quote the experiment by Ian Walker, and you go on to say ‘cyclists will take more risks, and motorists will take less precautions’ with regards to cyclist wearing helmets. However, some real life statistical data contradicting this theory comes from a study by M.R. Bambach et al. I’ve provided a copy of the Abstract from the study, note particularly the last paragraph.
The effectiveness of helmets in bicycle collisions with motor vehicles: A case-control study
M. R. Bambach, R. J. Mitchell, R. H. Grzebieta, J. Olivier
There were 6745 cyclist collisions with motor vehicles where helmet use was known. Helmet use was associated with reduced risk of head injury in bicycle collisions with motor vehicles of up to 74%, and the more severe the injury considered, the greater the reduction. This was also found to be true for particular head injuries such as skull fractures, intracranial injury and open head wounds. Around one half of children and adolescents less than 19 years were not wearing a helmet, an issue that needs to be addressed in light of the demonstrated effectiveness of helmets.
Non-helmeted cyclists were more likely to display risky riding behaviour, however, were less likely to cycle in risky areas; the net result of which was that they were more likely to be involved in more severe crashes.
Therefore I cant agree with your closing comment that ‘…you’re less likely to be in a bad crash if you don’t wear one.’
Then we move on the topic of the helmet itself where you state ‘…we have a huge problem with over-estimating the capabilities of a bicycle helmet. They’re made to protect you from getting concussed when you hit a curb or something, not when you get obliterated by a pick-up in an intersection.
A huge problem, really. I’ve read a lot of arguments regarding the safety aspects of the helmet debate, however, I’ve not come across a rationale ‘Pro’ argument that over estimates the capabilities of the helmet. Furthermore, I’ve not read anywhere, either claimed by the manufacture or otherwise that the primary aim of a helmet was protection against concussion. A helmet’s primary role is to help prevent head injury in the event of a crash. This is typically done through absorbing the impact energy through the distribution of the load.
Here’s some details regarding a study done on the effectiveness if bicycle helmets by Peter a Cripton et al.
Bicycle helmets are highly effective at preventing head injury during head impact: Head-form accelerations and injury criteria for helmeted and unhelmeted impacts
Peter A.CriptonabcdDaniel M.DresslerabdCameron A.StuarteChristopher R.DennisonabDarrinRichards
52,000 cyclists were injured in the US in 2010. Head injuries account for approximately two-thirds of hospital admissions and three-quarters of fatal injuries among injured cyclists.
The study performed biomechanical testing of paired helmeted and unhelmeted head impacts using a validated anthropomorphic test headform and a range of drop heights
These biomechanical results for acceleration and HIC, and the corresponding results for reduced risk of severe brain injury show that contemporary bicycle helmets are highly effective at reducing head injury metrics and the risk for severe brain injury in head impacts characteristic of bicycle crashes.
A further study done by Michal Bila Martin et al
Cycling fatalities: When a helmet is useless and when it might save your life
Author links open overlay panel
MichalBíla Martin, Dobiášb Richard, Andrášika Martina, Bílováa PetrHejnac
Autopsy reports of 119 cyclists who died in two Czech regions between 1995 and 2013 as a result of traffic crashes were studied
Altogether 44 cyclists (37%) from this study could have survived if they had been wearing helmets during the crashes
Though helmet use in a crash it is still plausible that a significant head injury can be avoided, whilst the person still suffered a loss of consciousness. This does not therefore render the helmet ineffectual. There is also an enormous gap in the severity of crashes from hitting the curb to getting obliterated. Between this gap is where I believe the majority of crashes occur, and where the helmet proves it’s value.
As an avid cyclist I am passionate about the sport and trying to get as many people participating in it as I can, be it little Johnny (or Jill) on their first tredley, the daily work commuter, or A grade racer. Do I agree with the mandatory helmet law, well yes I do. I been involved in enough crashes, seen enough crashes, including my own kids to know the dangers that exist when cycling, even at low speeds. My kids are not perturbed at all in wearing a helmet, neither are the kids that voluntarily were then at the skate park or pumpt track. To single out helmets as the key factor in seeking to address cycling participation numbers is I think misguided. I personally think having suitable road infrastructure such as cycle lanes that makes cycling safer on the roads, support from business through ‘end of trip’ facilities at places of employment and appropriate laws (1.5 Mtrs etc) are by far the key factors here.
I know the helmet debate will rage and your point of view wont shift, however, it would do the debate no harm to provide greater accuracy and balance.
I disagree with your conclusion. Car drivers are not going to look to see whether you have a helmet on before plowing into you, it is more of a sign of our current society. Mobile phones,quiet cars, big stereos lots of gadgets in cars, and more cars on the roads, these are the things that have made a difference. Having people not wearing helmets and having more people riding bikes will not lower the amount of people being hit, but it will change the percentage as you mentioned. As you mentioned better infrastructure, cycle safe roundabouts proper width cycle lanes, and off road cycle lanes will go along way to separating bikes from cars and save lives
Helmets are not safer, research shows that. Maybe it protects your head in some cases but what about your neck? Look at one of your own pictures above: what would happen with that neck if this was a serious case? Helmets can safe your life, can, that is true. If the impact on your head is large as it is above 25 km/h. Underneath that speed, neck injuries are a lot more common thanks to that helmet, leaving you paralyzed for the rest of your life. This is well known in the medical world of independent research, not in the one that believes all the “research” from the lobby of helmet producers. There are people out there who live thanks to the helmet and more people who don’t or are disabled thanks to it. Would be nice if you point this out too. A mandatory helmet as in Australia is insane not to say stupid. When you go faster than 25 km/h: wear one, if you go slower: please don’t. is my advice as a neuroscientist.
I’ve been reading and discussing the issue of bike helmets for years and this is the first time I’ve heard about the higher risk of neck injury – although I have read about something called lateral twist injuries,” creating rotational forces on the brain” – perhaps this amounts to the same thing. On my commute to work by eBike I go all speeds, occasionally up to 40km/h on some deserted straight sections. I feel I am OK as I am very focused, and if on road I believe drivers give me more space because of my bare head. Wearing a flimsy plastic and foam hat (otherwise known as a bike helmet) I might take more risks, and drivers might take more risks too. In 53 years of riding, I’ve never fallen off and hit my head. In fact I’ve only had about four falls, and never a serious collision.
It’s simple, there is NO evidence to support more cyclist deaths due to not wearing a bicycle helmet. Head injuries are just one of the different types of injuries possible. A much bigger killer in Australia is Melanoma… I will continue wearing a broad brimmed hat thank you.
Just a question though… if head injuries are the most common injury in a car accident then why aren’t we made to wear helmets in cars???
I have had the following accidents:
– Hit a parked car at 50km/hr at night when I was 13 years old and smashed the corner of HQ Holden with my leg and my helmet left a dent on the boot.
– Ran into a wall at 60km/hr on a new ride that went over railway tracks unable to turn when required – smashed helmet into many pieces and the ED Doctors indicated that usually brains are mush when they see a helmet like that.
– Hit by a ute from behind recently with no warning – helmet deformed but head OK.
While wearing a helmet is no guarantee of survival it has saved my life three times.
To wear a bike helmet properly, you should prepare a tape measure and the bike helmet itself. Doing this with a partner can help you achieve the goal of having a perfectly fitted helmet.
The research you have used to back up your mistaken belief have been scientifically proven to be wrong and biased.
The it causes neck injuries was shown to be equally wrong.
the stat that more people end up in hospital wearing helmets is because more people are wearing helmets.
They are helmets they do a specific job, like seat belts and airbags in cars.
Australia is well known for its anti-helmet brigade and they have been rebutted so many times by now, you think they might learn.
I have traumatic brain injuries due to being assaulted. I know more about TBI’s than most people. I live with them. I know what is needed to protect my brain and helmets do that for cyclists.
What if I’m just a bike rider who doesn’t fang it wherever I’m going and who exercises caution. Helmet is pretty useless, then.
The amount of times I’ve seen share bikes in the cbd and have been unable to use them because I don’t have a helmet with me is countless. Helmets prevent most ordinary people who aren’t enthusiasts from using bikes for everyday use because they either don’t have a helmet on them, don’t want to carry it around post ride, or don’t want to mess their hair.
If you’re a fast bike rider, helmets are probably a good idea. If you’re a slow bike rider, sticking to bike paths, helmets are pointless.