Helmets are in the news again. For all the wrong reasons of course.
First, some disclaimers:
- I’m not about to claim that helmet law repeal or reform will on its own will usher in a new golden age of cycling.
- Despite the practical limitations of cycle helmets, few would argue that they’re not of some likely nett benefit to some groups like sports cyclists.
- This post doesn’t pretend to be an in-depth examination of Colin Clarke’s report.
Colin Clarke’s 10 page report [pdf] is relatively condensed, and to be honest, I’m still mulling over some of it’s findings. Some key points:
- Average hours cycled has dropped 51% from 1989-90 to 2006-09.
- 2003-07 cyclists had a 20% higher accident rate compared with before the law change, but appears to have levelled comparing 1989-1990 to 2006-09.
- Riders injuries more than doubled compared with pedestrians from 1988-91 to 2003-07
Not to belittle Clarke’s scholarly work, but my sense is that the way it has been received, may have even more significance than the report itself.
New Zealand media have gone to their usual go-tos: The Herald to Auckland School of Population Health’s Professor Alistair Woodward, and Barbara Cuthbert of Cycle Action Auckland; others to Patrick Morgan of Cycle Advocates Network. And the responses couldn’t be more different: The former trashing, and the latter broadly confirming, reminding that it’s CAN’s policy, [of which CAA is a member, by the way], to review the law.
At the very least the report makes some sobering reading. At the very least it should cause us to be asking more questions, not less. It may be arguable that Colin Clarke (or anyone for that matter) hasn’t yet, via the W.H.O. based methodology he has applied, tracked an absolute causal link between the regulation and our calamitous halving in cycling; with its inevitable costs in obesity, pollution, effective cycling safety, and our economy.
However his side reference to New South Wales child cycle use falling 44% after two years of regulation really should have all of us deeply concerned, and it just isn’t good enough to write off the report with a cursory mention of ‘other things changing as well’.
For Woodward to note a more recent “increase in cyclists despite no change in helmet requirements” is equally meaningless, undermining his own cheap shot. Barbara Cuthbert’s statements give no hint of the level to of disrepute which the law has both here amongst a large proportion of advocates, and almost universally, around the world. In fact I have to ask – is this the same Barbara Cuthbert who once said: “…helmets were a useful safety device but contentious for some cyclists who thought they portrayed cycling as dangerous…”?
Even if we were to take Barbara’s marginalisation of Clarke’s report as “leftfield” in its narrowest sense, general readers won’t. in fact the Herald’s headline is “Cyclists Rubbish Bike Helmet Claims”.
Jo and Joanne Blow have just been told: ‘Go about your business, these are not the droids you’re looking for’.
But CAN’s Patrick Morgan is on the money with: ”It does more harm than good and our policy is that it needs an independent review. Helmets can be useful but cycling is no more risky than things we do every day like gardening, like walking, like driving a car.” He said CAN would like to see an independent review based on the best evidence available. “If it was an effective programme then surely other countries would follow our shining example.”
The helmet law, and the danger culture it springs from may or may not be one of the biggest barriers to cycling adoption we have, and we may not all agree in every respect about this, as CAN policy reflects: it’s clearly a compromise. But enough of who are intimately aware of the dynamics of cycling adoption are very sure a serious review is well overdue, as CAN’s policy states.
It is entirely inappropriate for anyone supposedly speaking for cycle riders to try to brush this under the carpet. Barbara Cuthbert, Alistair Woodward, and Cycle Classic Tour director Jorge Sandoval (in as much as he is referring outside sports cycling), are already on the wrong side of history.
There’s no joy in my drawing attention again to yet another mangling from too many of our purported spokespeople. Frankly I was looking forward to spend some time quietly working on a somewhat more positive little cycling initiative; but I was asked to comment, and to be honest, I’m pretty much done with being a bystander to our never ending misrepresentation in the media.
But while I normally fear to venture near the Herald’s comments section it actually turns out that that a majority of Kiwi readers, like our Aussie cousins faced with the failures of their expensive bikeshare schemes, aren’t buying the denial either. The police have little or no enthusiasm to enforce such a miserable and failed law, and while by the numbers about 10% of us are happily lidless, but anecdotally, I’m seeing far more of us bareheaded in my hood.
In contrast to this weeks denial, let’s ponder for a moment, some effects we can be sure of seeing post deregulation:
- Drivers will be more cogniscent of their responsibilities to vulnerable road users. They will literally give us more room on shared roads.
- Riders will similarly be less prone to risk compensate, exaggerating the actual level of protection offered by helmets.
- A reduction in helmet wearing will reduce the exaggerated perceiption of its actual danger level, and see more people adopt cycling
- Cycling will be more approachable to the obese who will feel less like they have to ‘look sporty’, and general heath will improve.
- More non-cyclists riding will both create greater safety in numbers, and create further demand for real cycling infrastracture.
- Public Bikeshare will be much more viable,
- Our civil rights will be improved.
Yes, undoubtedly, until we can realize Paris grade safety levels (ie zero deaths), there will be some isolated individual tragedies, for which a helmet may otherwise mitigate injuries, and arguably plenty of situations in which it may be still be advisable to wear a helmet, but overall, on balance, the benefits of de-regulation will far outweigh any short term or individual benefits.
New Zealand’s helmet law is actually a regulation, requiring only the Minister of Transport’s signature to change. That still won’t come easy, because the ‘aesthetics’ of head injury are far more emotive than the considerably larger consequences of reduced cycling – not to mention how disinterested the current administration is in cycling.
Yes there many other important elements to successful cycling growth, beyond helmet freedom. Like public bike share for instance. But even here, bikeshare, while a central part of the recent rapid (700% in five years) growth in Seville, has failed everywhere there is an adult helmet law, including New Zealand. Ireland’s bikeshare has TEN times the takeup of Melbourne’s. If even a fraction of this difference is helmet law related, then it’s a serious issue, that we best not ignore.
So let’s not put our heads in the sand. Let’s not be afraid to lift the lid on anything that is holding back cycling for regular people.
@Alan Number 2 – so benefitting ones own health while also saving the country money is giving cyclists a “bad name” and deserves a fine?
If it is giving cyclists a bad name because people have been lied to and believe it is a cost on society, rather than the benefit it is, wouldn’t it be better to correct the lie?
Hi NigelToo,
Apologies if I didn’t explain it fully (wanted to beat the rush home). If truth be known, I probably agree that helmets shouldn’t be compulsory. But I also think that people should wear one. Because what I’m sure that everyone here can agree on, is that many motorists have a negative perception of cyclists, and these motorists are less likely to treat us with the respect and care we need to be safe on the road. And every time we choose to ignore laws, we reinforce the perception that we’re all law breaking, self-centered, suicidal hypocrites, making the road a more dangerous place for everyone, including those cyclists who do follow laws.
So yes, whilst I would happily support changing the law, until that happens, expecting people to wear helmets is perfectly reasonable.
@Alan 2 – Do you know of the research which shows that motorists treat helmeted cyclists worse than unhelmeted ones? That this might happen was predicted long before that research – a sort of “reverse risk compensation” – rather than the cyclist taking more risks as they feel protected (which does happen, even if subconsciously – it is a factor in all safety measures, nothing to do with helmets per se), the motorist takes less care because they see the cyclist as less vulnerable – which in the case of helmet vs. car isn’t true.
As to the notion that people should always obey bad laws, and accept being fined for for improving their health and saving the country money – then I would have to disagree. Civil disobedience has always had a place in democracy. When a law is so bad it both violates human rights and manages to achieve the opposite of what is intended (the law has never worked – HI rates for cyclists have not been reduced by it) it would seem to be rather a good candidate for civil disobedience. Add to that, when you as an informed cyclist obey the law you re-inforce the validity of the law in their minds – and there are many who are unhappy doing that. Of course some people just ride bareheaded because they prefer to.
So the law vs. a fundamental human right. You vote for the law, others vote the other way. I’d say that is very unfortunate, at least, and I trust you compensate by working hard to correct those incorrect negative perceptions held by motorists – which of course are partly created and sustained by this heinous law.
Final thoughts:
I have worn a helmet since the 1980′s when cycling on the road (personal choice) but I can see the attraction of not wearing a helmet, especially on a cycleway where it would be easy to argue it is not required (no cops there so should be safe from a ticket I guess).
As a parent, I encourage my 4 1/2 yo son to wear a helmet (he did a 15km ride along the Twin Stream cycleway last weekend – proud dad
) , and part of that encouragement is that I wear one as well obviously.
How about some gentle nudging to get the law changed to be compulsory for say, kids (age < 15 ??). How to enforce it? Hmmmm….that's the tricky bit but I don't think tickets are the best option if we actually care about people getting active.
Personal choice for adult? Well, if rugby / rugby league players can opt for headgear, even when concussion seems to be a reasonably common thing these days, why can't cyclists?
Finally, check out the link below. This is from ACC. Have a look at the costs paid out to fatalities while fishing. I'm not saying cycling is absolutely safe, nothing is, but when it is kept in context with other sporting activities it is not as bad as many believe. Of course a major increase in funding from NZTA would bring significant benefits to cycling safety but they still want to build motorways.
http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/statistics/ABA00053#P87_8037
Have a safe day. Out
@Alan 2 – “civil disobedience” doesn’t resonate with everyone, but of course it is just one reason people may disobey the law. And as pervious postings show, its good to elaborate other reasons.
The following story is real, it actually happened, nothing is made up.
Not long after the law was enacted I received a letter from a retired lady, we didn’t know each other but she had tracked me down. She was at her wits end and turned to me for help, she even include some money in the envelope to cover my costs (it was of course returned immediately).
She was a retired lady, living in a semi-rural area, and caring for her housebound older husband. Her sole transport, to get to the shops etc., was her bicycle. She had tried to wear a helmet but found it gave her bad headaches. She went to her GP, who filled in an exemption application, and off it went.
The application was sent back saying they had not provided the information correctly. She returned to her GP to find he had left and she now had a new GP. Her new GP refused to resubmit the exemption, it is better that she stop cycling than ride without a helmet the new lady GP said. But what about caring for my husband? Etc.
The poor lady was badly upset. She didn’t want to be a law breaker, but she was concerned her husband might have to go into care. After exhausting all her avenues she tracked me down – a scientist on the record as objecting to this crime against humanity. Could I help?
I tried to reason with her GP – “cycling is dangerous” was deeply ingrained, no go there. I tried her MP – National, they’d enacted this crime, no luck there. And on (I can’t remember what the Minister’s response was, “f.o.” using political words I expect). In the end all I could do, apart from sympathize, was advise her to simply carry on cycling and hope the local constable had more brains than the rest (many did and still do).
We lost touch, I don’t know what happened in the end. At least she never came back to me for help over a ticket (I’d have argued her case in Court if needed) – let’s hope she carried on and wasn’t ticketed.
Everybody should be appalled that this situation ever occurred, what are we to do this to somebody? How many others did this effect? How many do not cycle today for the same reasons? How many children have been denied cycling to school by their parents because “it is too dangerous”?
All based on a lie. The benefits; to the individual, society, and business; of cycling bareheaded outweigh the costs.
Do you really believe this retired old lady cycling bareheaded to the shops was a bad image for cycling and that she should have been hauled in and fined?
This law has ZERO upside, and immeasurable downside.
Has anybody yet met anybody who has said “I only ride because the law makes me wear a plastic hat”?
@Bryce – When my son was young I taught him to ride. I rode with him as well. He stood out from his friends because (and I’m not joking, sadly) he was the only one in his circle who hadn’t suffered the trauma of being saved from death/brain damage by their helmet (either the child or their parents believed this). Why had his helmet never saved him? He never wore one of course! I rode with him bareheaded, I took him out on the roads for on-road training (radical – just give them a helmet!)
He is in his twenties now, sadly he drives too much, he still has a bike.
Child-only laws?!? I won’t lie to kids over the benefits of cycling anymore than I’ll lie to adults.
BTW the law is actually unenforceable on children (under 16′s IIRC). The Police will still hassle them and give them tickets, but you can just rip the tickets up (though I expect you should officially advise you’re doing so). Bit strange for a law brought in on the argument we had to protect the kids! Though as this “protection” was “lie to and harm them” I don’t object.
I really didn’t believe that figure about the 9,000 tickets. And I couldn’t actually find it online. But I did find a report from the road safety police outlining their targets for next year – and one of them was to get between 8,000 – 13,000 tickets for helmets. Which astonishes me! I just had no idea a) that many people rode around without helmets and b) they got ticketed for doing it. When you consider that on a typical day in Auckland about 13,000 people cycle during peak hour, and we are the biggest city in NZ, that number seems massive. Who are these helmet-less cyclists? Why do I never see them?
@LucyJH – Who are these 13,000? The percentage of the unrepresented who’ll be targeted for fines for improving their health and saving the country money next year maybe?
Why do you never see them? Hmmm… Plastic hat wearing rates vary around the country, that Herald article gives the Auckland rate as 88% so if that is even across the day then there is around 1,560 (out of the 13,000 figure you gave) without plastic hats during the peak hour and on average there is ~1:8 chance of spotting one. Do you see more then 8 cyclists during the peak hour? They’re out there somewhere…
Thanks for referencing that report, hadn’t seen it – added it to my library.
Turns out you don’t need PressDisplay for the NZ Herald article, it is at: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10718438
Thanks all for the contributions to what feels like a generally cut above the average discussion; particularly @Nigeltoo for the contribution of his planet-sized ‘sciency brain’, which the elephant in the room should be very scared of. Enough mangled metaphors…
Touching on Colin Clarke’s report, it does seem that there is some general consensus that it’s on the in-penetrable side, (to my relief – i was wondering if it was just me) – so Colin, if you’re out there – perhaps an annotated version sometime, with diagrams? Like for the kids?
Seriously, this is an issue that should cause us all at the very least great disquiet, and, I’m going to go out to say that that anything less requires a particularly incurious approach to life, the universe, and everything. There I said it.
@NigelToo: I fear you might be just stretching the point a tad if you want to claim the state is criminalizing people for acting in the best interests of society and their own health – though certainly they are disincentives and penalizing us for doing so.
@LucyJH: The required testing environment you propose is so far fetched and impractical as to make it pretty clear that you just want to move the fence-posts until they fall off the side of the hill.
As for Green party policy: I understand the GP is the most democratic of our parties (I’m card carrying myself), but Kevin Hague (cycling spokesperson) told me last year, that he was going to spend a few weeks “writing the cycling policy”. I’m not sure what came of that, and of course with Julie Genter as transport spokesperson we could anticipate more transport focused cycling direction, or a more cycling focused transport direction; but my point is – let’s not give up before we’ve even started. The Aussie Greens have already introduced a bill making dooring people on bikes an actual offence, so if they can get it together…?
Again some context. The helmet law is a regulation, and for what it’s worth I’ve been thinking that referring to ‘deregulation’ in this context – something that connects with many kiwi’s across different party lines – may help put it in a better context. While there is some serious political baggage to contend with in this struggle, progress shouldn’t have to be of the proportions of Fran Wild’s or Sue Bradfords epic legislative achievements.
@Max & @LucyJH: The public are interested even if CAA isn’t. The issue is at the very least a great opportunity to reassert the reality of cycling as a life-extending and (secretly) relatively safe activity– squandered. But it is so much more than this.
If this elephant in our room is of no interest or importance to advocates who, whether they choose the role or not, are identified by the media as cycling’s spokespeople – then they really should make it clear they have nothing to say. And really, could probably find a more accurate tagline than “Building a Cycle Culture For Auckland”.
@Alan2 – law breaking: The business of breaking the law isn’t to be entered into lightly, there are plenty of ethical reasons why I not only choose to disregard the helmet law, but personally feel I MUST – the subject of another post perhaps, but NigelToo said it well: “when you as an informed cyclist obey the law you reinforce the validity of the law in their minds”. No pressure guys, but for me, it definitely preyed upon my soul. So I dare to bare. That the helmet law is increasingly debated publicly is a good thing. I relish the chance to talk to drivers and pedestrians who challenge me about not wearing a helmet (as if it’s their business, but I try to let that pass).
And I’ve found that actually, the simple act of riding a sit-up bike, comfortably, with good all round visibility, lidless, gets me cheers from the pavement, and people walking up and chatting. It’s tragic that normalized cycling is still such a novelty, but overall, the picture people get of brazenly nekkid heads is, I’m sure a positive one. And one I believe more likely to encourage people to cycle, than if if my riding style signals that this is an arduous, dangerous way to get around.
But if you really want to avoid scaring the natives, I suggest just wear a regular comfy hat. Somehow, nobody actually notices, and you will at least be spare of petrolheads shouting out inanities as they zoom off into the.. next gridlock.
@LucyJH again: So the helmet free are some kind of dark matter in the cycling cosmos? We can calculate that they’re out there but not actually see them? Here’s a clue: Look for the hats. Of the non plastic kind. Actually, I think numbers will vary by location, or kind of trip . For what it’s worth I’m typically seeing maybe 20% unlidded in Ponsonby, but have seen as many as 8 out of 10, on a weekend. The Truth is Out There.
@TheHatLawDependentAmongUs: This is a regulation which isn’t in need of a smoking howitzer to maybe just be even… questioned? This is a law which is actually short of reasons to exist at all.
The burden of proof should not be on advocates of a normalized, un-dangerfied cycle culture as enjoyed in most places in the world, to say why this discredited regulation should be questioned; but rather placed on those who insist that New Zealand transport institutions know so much better than the Japanese, Dutch, Irish, Spanish, Chinese, Hungarians, Columbians, Mexicans etc etc when it comes to achieving safety in numbers. Numbers of people. On Bikes, doing something good for society and themselves.
To clarify the statement about dooring (which always was an offence):
“Victorian Greens MP Greg Barber has introduced legislation into Parliament that, if passed, would raise from $366 to $1220 the maximum fine that could be imposed on motorists who create a hazard by opening their door in front of a bike rider.” http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/greens-push-for-increase-in-bike-dooring-fines-20120213-1t17w.html#ixzz1mXC5ihDA (13 Feb 2012)
Anyone know the penalties in NZ, other Australian states, or UK/Europe?
Interesting fact from the Roger Geller presentation today – Portland does NOT have a mandatory cycle law (except for kids – adults are bviously assumed to be responsible enough to make up their minds either way).
Yet despite their increasing cycle mode share (now around 8%, up from 1% in the early 1990s), their VOLUNTARY helmet wearing rates are also climbing (I was too far to the back to read the slide / graph description closely, but I think the helmet wearing rate is about 70%, and showed a steady increase from about 40-50% back in the 90s).
For those who race to their keyboards to write counter-opinions: This Portland fact says nothing at all about whether helmet wearing is positive or negative, whether it should be encouraged or discouraged. It’s a pretty neutral statement.
But it does go strongly contra the “Without a helmet law repeal we will never be able to get an everyday cycle culture” statements.
If this elephant in our room is of no interest or importance to advocates who, whether they choose the role or not, are identified by the media as cycling’s spokespeople – then they really should make it clear they have nothing to say. And really, could probably find a more accurate tagline than “Building a Cycle Culture For Auckland”.
Tim – this kind of “my way or the highway” talk from you (while setting yourself up as the arbiter of where cycling is and should go, and what a REAL advocate is) – that kind of talk is is why people have a real problem working with you. Maybe you should consider THAT elephant in your room.
Census data, please check
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2754975/pdf/1479-5868-6-64.pdf
provides census data, it appears from 1986 to 1991 a small reduction in the proportion of people cycling and from 1991 to 1996 a larger reduction.
Could Glen please check his previous post to see if the data was correct
Glen K
February 13, 2012 at 12:58 am
@Bryce
We don’t have national travel survey data prior to 1988; only 5-yearly “travel to work” census data. If we assume that this is a reasonable proxy for changes in all cycling, here are the stats for you (with Auckland-only regional figures in parentheses):
1981 -> 1986: 25% increase in cycling (+33%)
1986 -> 1991: 22% decrease in cycling (-29%)
1991 -> 1996: 17% decrease in cycling (-16%)
1996 -> 2001: 20% decrease in cycling (-18%)
@Tim – just a minor point, but one I know we all need to be careful on; I have never suggested “the state is *criminalizing* people” but that it makes it illegal to do something good and fines people for doing so – I know you were just paraphrasing, this is a friendly correction – though of course I’ll disagree with you that this argument is stretching it, I’ll love to know how you think they’d shoot it down.
Why the distinction? Well the bicycle helmet road user rule is not listed in the Crimes Act, so as I understand it violating it is *not* a crime and cannot get you a criminal record. However if you then fail to pay the fine, that is a crime… Legalese maybe, but I assure you politicians know the difference and will jump on you, as a supposed indication that you’ve no idea what you’re talking about, if you mention the word “crime” – they’ll take any morsel they can as they know they have no argument.