Article: Bicycle stack hats are here to stay

[ozbob]

From the Sunday Mail click here!

Bicycle stack hats are here to stay

Bicycle stack hats are here to stay

    Kelmeny Fraser
    From: The Sunday Mail (Qld)
    June 19, 2011 12:00AM

QUEENSLAND'S tough bicycle helmet laws are here to stay after a report found any relaxation could increase head injury rates by 50 per cent.

The Sunday Mail can reveal the State Government secretly commissioned a $34,000 study into potentially scrapping compulsory helmet laws ahead of the roll-out of Brisbane's controversial CityCycle scheme and the release of a report questioning the effectiveness of helmets in preventing injury.

The confidential study by Queensland University of Technology's Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety examined whether cyclists off-road or in 40km/h speed zones should be allowed to ride helmet-free.

Any such relaxation would throw a lifeline to the struggling CityCycle scheme after speed limits in the CBD were reduced to 40km/h in 2009.

Helmet laws are seen as the key roadblock for the struggling scheme, leading to discussions this month about the introduction of helmet vending machines.

Exemptions from Australia's 20-year-old helmet laws for all adults was also considered in the State Government-commissioned report.

Documents released under Right to Information laws show researchers were asked to look at benefits and disadvantages of compulsory bicycle helmet laws and examine "evidence to support a segmented approach to mandatory helmet legislation''.

Debate about the worth of helmet laws and concerns about the impact on public bike hire schemes triggered the study, according to documents.

The report was kept secret until early this month when it was released to Brisbane cycling group CBD Bicycle User Group via an RTI request.

A spokesman for Transport Minister Annastacia Palaszczuk said the report showed helmets reduced the likelihood of head injury by 60 per cent.

But Bicycle Queensland's Ben Wilson said it was unlikely to stem debate over helmet laws, with the subject set to heat up ahead of the Asia Pacific Cycle Congress in Brisbane in September.

Helmet critic Dr Chris Rissel, who triggered the debate with a report last year questioning the effectiveness of helmets, will speak at the conference.

CBD Bicycle User Group co-convenor Paul French wants exemptions for cyclists riding off-road, saying adults were being treated like children.

[somebody]

Increase by 50% off what base though??

[Zoiks]

How much would we gain through lessened congestion, pressure to increase cycling infrastructure, increased exercise etc

[ButFli]

I've never had a head injury. Fallen off a bike a few times but never hit my head. A 50% increase in head injuries for me is still zero. Does that mean I can ride without a helmet now? (haha)

The simple truth is that wearing a helmet would reduce head injuries from any activity. Sleeping at night? Better wear a helmet because it would reduce head injuries from falling out of bed. Walking down the street? Better wear a helmet in case you trip and fall. The mere fact that wearing a helmet reduces head injuries by 50% is not justification for making them compulsory for cyclists unless they are made compulsory for every activity that would see a similar improvement.

There could be two minor head injuries a year with helmets which would increase to three minor injuries a year without helmets. Without knowing the raw numbers we have no reason to believe they are any less ridiculous than that.

[Golliwog]

I've made good use of a now ex helmet back on highschool. Riding down a hill, managed to roll the bike head over heels and landed on my head. Don't remember much because I'm pretty sure I got knocked out but when I came to my helmet was in pieces. Had to walk the bike home as the front wheel was jammed but other than that I was relatively unscathed thanks to sliding to a stop down the hill on my school bag for about 5m.

IMO I think helmets should be worn off-road on unpredictable terrain, where similar things are possible, but for riding on smooth roads, paths, etc while I still think there are benefits from a helmet, I'm not sure if they should be compulsory. Very much the same as a motorbike, except that you're not going to be getting a push bike up to 110km/hr down a highway.

[nitramluap]

All very sensible comments here. It really ought to be a matter of choice, at the very least for adults. Not all cycling is about scooting around on a road bike at 5am!

For more on this: http://helmetfreedom.org/ and for a critique of the CARRS-Q helmet study, see here: http://helmetfreedom.org/668/we-werent-born-yesterday/

[somebody]

I for one gave up on cycling pretty much as helmets became compulsory.

[Fares_Fair]

I'm a little surprised by the responses here (and that's ok).
But would it not be worth it for the one who may be left brain injured for life by a cycling accident, or killed.
To think it may have been avoided by wearing a helmet would be a terrible thing to live with.

The statistics for falling out of bed or falling over and hitting one's head walking would have to be negligible.
There have been many reports in the media of assaults, e.g. king hits causing deaths after heads hit pavements,
but that is not a fair comparison to the numbers or potential numbers for head injuries cycling.

I'm a regular short distance cyclist, mostly road and would accept all the protective help I can get out there.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Zoiks]

How many people hit their head in car accidents? Racing.harnesses and helmets for them?
Airbags for trains and buses?

[Fares_Fair]

Probably the other way around.

Regards,
Fares_Fair.

[Golliwog]

FF, I think wearing a helmet is worthwhile. However you should be able to access the risk yourself and take whichever option you choose. If I was to ride from my house to the train station (which I hopefully will be once I eventually get around to getting a new helmet (the dog decided my old one made a great chew toy)) I would wear a helmet. While all of it is either on a road with bike lanes or on wide bike paths, theres a decent hill and some speed involved going down that. However if I had a bike on campus at uni and was using it to get between classes and just around in general, I would probably choose not to. Riding around the CBD would be similar, though with more of an eye kept on motorists.

I think a key factor in this as well is the provision of more bike lanes and bikeways. I've been to Barcelona and we did a bike tour there riding around town in their bikelanes with no helmets. Theres very little risk as you have your own lane seperate from cars, and everyone respects that. The worst I remember seeing was a cyclist riding the wrong way down a cycle lane.

[Zoiks]

Exactly. I think that a limited helmet free area would be fine. Ie. Roads under 50ks and bike paths. Basically you can't ride on any major road without a helmet

[johnnigh]

The CARRS report is rather dodgy. Yet another 'provide us a report to reinforce our policy and you'll get more contracts' job.

If the argument and evidence provided was used for policy on helmets for car occupants we'd have had compulsory helmets in cars ever since we've had seat belt compulsion. Both good public policies, but only seat belts have been legislated. Wonder why?

[ButFli]

The statistics for falling out of bed or falling over and hitting one's head walking would have to be negligible.
There have been many reports in the media of assaults, e.g. king hits causing deaths after heads hit pavements,
but that is not a fair comparison to the numbers or potential numbers for head injuries cycling.

And this is exactly what is wrong with the helmet debate. Everyone "knows" that cycling is more dangerous than other activities so it must be "common sense" that helmets are compulsory. Never any comparative statistics. Just vague supposition. I "know" that I will never have an accident as I peddle at 20km/h to the shops. Does that mean I don't have to wear a helmet?

It can't be denied. Compulsory helmets for sleepers and walkers would reduce head injuries. That seems to be more than enough reason to make helmets compulsory for cyclists. Why should sleepers and walkers be any different?

[ozbob]

The compelling reason for stack hats for all is meteorite strikes ...  

My first job was delivering telegrams for the PMG.  We had nice grey uniforms, little bags for the telegrams and these very sturdy red bicycles.  I delivered newspapers every morning in Melbourne using a bicycle for years (two rounds) prior to that, often rode my bicycle down to St Kilda pier for fishing, sometimes school, on Sundays we often pedalled to Franskston with the racing bike crowd.  Only time I wore a helmet was a short stint on the track for sprints.

If crash helmets are needed today, then improved availability of the same must be got to help make the CityCycle scheme accessible, the other thing is integrate with go cards.

[colinw]

The compelling reason for stack hats for all is meteorite strikes ...   

... and the annual aerial assault by magpies (b***dy Collingwood supporters!)

[johnnigh]

For another analysis of the CARRS-Q report:
http://helmetfreedom.org/753/assuming-the-worst/

You might have noticed that I don't wear my helmet in every situation. Usually do on my road bike, except when riding to and from the railway station before or after a long ride, or on a 20km climb (up Mt Ventoux in Provence in the piccie), but I do have it with me, just in case  . Never wear a helmet to go to the local shops on local roads and footpaths. With my helmet on, I get these urges to ride like a maniac and, yes there is evidence that this is a general reaction - do you feel invulnerable in your helmet? Just like in your car ...