Statement: Helmets to stay, rego no way

[ozbob]

http://www.scottemerson.com.au/media/media-releases/499-helmet.html

Helmets to stay, rego no way

Helmet laws will stay in place and no bicycle registration will be required as part of the Queensland Government response to the cycling inquiry.

Transport and Main Roads Minister Scott Emerson said he would table the final response detailing support for 50 out 68 recommendations from the Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee's Inquiry into cycling.

"The recommendations we support demonstrate our strong plan for a brighter future and align with our promise to improve safety for cyclists on our road," Mr Emerson said.

"Unlike the previous Labor government we promised to do more, particularly given last year there were 13 cyclists who tragically died on our roads, almost double the number of fatalities compared to five years ago.

"The decision to keep helmet laws the same is based on scientific evidence that clearly supports the effectiveness of helmets in reducing head injuries.

"While I agree with freedom of choice, it is not in the public interest to introduce a trial that may increase any risk of head injuries to cyclists.

"The government also supports the committee's recommendation not to introduce registration for bicycles as the fee would likely deter people from cycling.

"It would also be inconsistent with other jurisdictions in Australia given no other state or territory currently registers bicycles or requires them to have a number plate.

"A recommendation we did not support was to allow a 'rolling stop' rule whereby cyclists could treat a stop sign or red light, like a give way sign.

"Not only could this lead to serious injury, we could not support a rule that would see inconsistencies between what motorists and cyclists were allowed to do at a stop sign or red light."

Mr Emerson said a new campaign to drive behavioural change on our roads would also be developed.

"The share the road campaign will include improving the interaction between cyclists and other road users and is scheduled to be launched later in the year."

Mr Emerson implemented nine recommendations from the inquiry last month including a two year trial of the one metre rule and bringing fines for cyclists into line with motorists.

The final response will be tabled later today and can be viewed at www.tmr.qld.gov.au/cyclinginquiry

[ozbob]

Seems sensible outcomes to me ...   :bi

[#Metro]

Helmet compulsion should go. Plenty of people in Europe riding without them! OPTIONAL.

[ozbob]

I rode bicycles as a boy, and in my first job (telegram delivery boy) all my childhood/youth without helmets. Delivered papers each morning using a bicycle for years as well. Only exception to no helmets was the limited stint I did track racing, but the helmets were rather minimal as such. Just covered the top of head with ribs of padding basically. Rode bicycle to school some days as well, without helmets.

Had the usual spills that you do on a bike, but I survived. 

Today, there is a growing body of evidence that does confirm that serious head injuries are reduced through helmets.  I guess that is now the bottom line.  If the Govt makes helmets optional, opens the door to legal issues and damages.  Like it or lump it, today's society is litigious ... and will probably get even more so.

[newbris]

I also think mandatory helmet laws should go, especially on bike paths. The few accidents where helmets make a difference would still see many people with helmets on.  A lot of evidence shows cycling safety increases significantly the higher mode share it has - drivers expect cyclists, infrastructure improves, more drivers are or know cyclists, safety in numbers etc. These studies show mandatory helmet laws suppress cycling and therefore reduce safety.

Helmets would help car drivers as well occassionally, maybe they should be made mandatory? 

I also disagree with the equalization of fines to make them the same as cars.

[ozbob]

This is what Governments see --> http://theconversation.com/putting-a-lid-on-the-debate-mandatory-helmet-laws-reduce-head-injuries-1979

[#Metro]

The best evidence would be to do a pilot. Let people use helmets optional for 1 year.
This could even be done in a small area, such as Gold Coast only and then see.

[ozbob]

Twitter

Alan Davies ‏@MelbUrbanist 1m

Should repealing the bicycle helmet law be a priority? The Urbanist http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2014/05/28/should-repealing-the-bicycle-helmet-law-be-a-priority/ ...

... The upshot is that the social cost from deterred cyclists is likely to fall well short of the social benefits from the reduction in head injuries provided by compulsory helmet use. (3)

In my view, the public debate about the helmet law is a waste of energy because it's got virtually no traction politically. So far as the public are concerned the law is common sense, like seat belts; 94% regard the law as a non-issue. (4) Ultimately, concerted opposition to the law distracts resources from the key issue – the danger, whether perceived or real, of cycling in traffic.

The bottom line is the gains to cycling from better infrastructure and better regulation of motorists dwarfs any likely benefit from repealing the mandatory helmet law.

[Fares_Fair]

I'm a cyclist of 9 and 1/2 years (but I don't wear spandex), and I ride from home to Palmwoods station and I ride on the road.
Wearing a helmet IS ALWAYS A MUST for me. I have family responsibilities which I will not risk over a head trauma or severe injury that could be avoided or minimised.

I have been twice hit by cars over this period.
No one should ride on the road without wearing one, in my opinion. 

EDIT
pOST sCRIPT

I also wear a yellow reflective vest on my body and an orange one on my backpack (because it obscures the body one from behind).

[newbris]

I'm a cyclist of 9 and 1/2 years (but I don't wear spandex), and I ride from home to Palmwoods station and I ride on the road.
Wearing a helmet IS ALWAYS A MUST for me. I have family responsibilities which I will not risk over a head trauma or severe injury that could be avoided or minimised.

I have been twice hit by cars over this period.
No one should ride on the road without wearing one, in my opinion. 

Yes, though obviously that is a different discussion to the one asking whether each adult should be allowed to judge the danger of their particular cycle trip themselves.

Compulsion in all sorts of areas could decrease individual risk (car passengers) in a single event in all sorts of activities but obviously we must balance that against other negative factors caused by that group compulsion.


Here's what the Qld Govt committee tasked to investigate queenslands cycling laws found and recommended:

"Note: on 29 November, 2013, a Queensland inquiry into cycling issues by the Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee tabled its findings in state parliament:

The Committee is appreciative of the fact that bicycle helmets, that meet national standards and are correctly fitted, provide some protection against head, brain, and facial injuries and is therefore of the view that the use of helmets should be encouraged. However the Committee is not convinced there is sufficient evidence of the safety outcomes of compulsory helmet wearing to justify the mandating of helmet wearing for all cyclists of all ages regardless of the situational risk.

The Committee is concerned that the introduction of mandatory helmet laws may have had an unintended, adverse impact on cycling participation rates in Queensland and therefore the overall health of the state. It also believes there is sufficient evidence provided by the Northern Territory example that a relaxation of mandatory helmet laws in lower risk situations (such as cycling on footpaths and on dedicated cycle paths), does not inevitably reduce the safety of cycling.

The Committee is therefore of the view that relaxing mandatory helmet laws in specific circumstances is likely to increase cycling participation rates with a range of associated health benefits and economic benefits in tourism areas. The Committee also believes that a relaxation of mandatory helmet laws may assist in normalising the perception of cyclists by motorists.

The Committee is therefore making a number of recommendations regarding relaxation of the mandatory helmet laws in specific circumstances.

The Committee is aware that police enforcement of helmet wearing by children is hampered by the fact that the children are not able to pay the fine and their parents have no legal responsibility to pay the fine on their behalf. The Committee believes parents should be responsible for ensuring their children wear helmets and should therefore be responsible for paying any fine their child incurs.

The Committee notes that a similar provision is currently contained in Schedule 9 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Driver Licensing) Regulation 2010 Part 4-14 which states that a driver of a vehicle failing to ensure a passenger at least 16 years wears a seat belt (without an excuse) is subject to a demerit point penalty and fine.

Recommendation 15

The Committee recommends that the Minister for Transport and Main Roads:

- introduce a 24 month trial which exempts cyclists aged 16 years and over from the mandatory helmet road rule when riding in parks, on footpaths and shared/cycle paths and on roads with a speed limit of 60 km/hr or less and

- develop an evaluation strategy for the trial which includes baseline measurements and data collection (for example through the CityCycle Scheme) so that an assessment can be made which measures the effect and proves any benefits."

Source: this interesting read -> http://www.cycle-helmets.com/

[johnnigh]

Emerson has done exactly what was expected of him, ie, taken the easy decisions, avoided offending the pooh-bahs and blatherers, and, most important, the motorist lobby. He's avoided implementing any of the recommendations that might have made cycling either safer (eg, cars will still park in bike lanes) or more convenient (eg, giving way without stopping at stop signs, left turn on red), and implementing at least one that makes it more dangerous to cycle (multi-lane roundabouts).

And nothing about reducing urban speed limits.

Nothing has changed. Cars still rule. And with a government at state and federal level that is ideologically opposed to public transport as well as active transport, we can look forward to more congestion, more death and disease from road trauma, pollution and the results of obesity.

But, hey, we've kept the shock-jocks and other blatherers happy, keeping on with the serious business of blaming cyclists for all their problems.

[ozbob]

CBD BUG Media release

28 May 2014

Cyclists slam Qld Government inaction on inquiry report

The Brisbane Central Business District Bicycle User Group (CBD BUG) has described the Queensland Government's response today to the Inquiry into Cycling Issues report as a missed opportunity and indicative of there being no genuine commitment to enabling people to choose to ride a bike instead of driving everywhere.

In June 2013 the State Government announced a review of Queensland's cycling laws would be conducted by the Queensland Parliament's Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee.  The announcement came in the wake of a Supreme Court jury's not guilty verdict in the case of the driver of the cement truck that killed violinist Richard Pollett.  Shortly after this verdict, on 11 May 2013 avid Cairns cyclist Tanya Roneberg was killed by a ute driver.

The Queensland Government has already initiated a two-year trial of the Minimum Overtaking Distance rule that started on 7 April 2014.  In what has been seen as a political quid pro quo, fines for cyclists were also increased to match those of motorists.

CBD BUG Co-convenor Paul French said the CBD BUG's 700-plus members and the broader cycling community was very disappointed with the government's response, which he summed up as "weak and limited to administrative fiddling at the edges".

"The Committee made 68 recommendations in its milestone report that were overwhelming well considered, and the CBD BUG had called for the implementation of the recommendations lock, stock and barrel - to avoid the very cherry picking that we have seen in today's response by the Queensland Government" said Mr French.

"Sadly for the community, what has been announced today is essentially a business as usual approach that will not result in any significant travel mode shift".

"Just one example is the Queensland Government will continue to allow motorists to park out in bike lanes.  These are the same bike lanes that Brisbane City Council trumpets about as part of their mythical 1,100 kilometre dedicated bikeway network.  It's a con."

"The government has even rejected recommendations that would only make cycling safer and more convenient and not affect anyone negatively, like the proposed 'ruling yield ' rule".

"We know from surveys there is a large proportion of the community who want to use active transport modes like cycling, but who will only do so when they feel it is safe and convenient" he said. 

"Queensland's Road Rules are overwhelmingly car-centric and contain a host of cyclist-hostile provisions.  Because of the risk and inconvenience these rules create for cyclists they ensure Queenslanders have little choice other than to drive their cars – often for distances so short that walking and/or cycling would have been viable".

Ends

[ozbob]

Sydney Morning Herald --> Bike helmet review throws cold water on sceptics: they'll likely save your life

[#Metro]

Sydney Morning Herald --> Bike helmet review throws cold water on sceptics: they'll likely save your life

Bit of an exercise in The Obvious really. Of course banning cycling altogether would give 100% safety with zero head injuries.

[newbris]

Sydney Morning Herald --> Bike helmet review throws cold water on sceptics: they'll likely save your life

This article seems to misrepresent the totality of the argument. Many will agree that a helmet may reduce injury. But many also agree that sedentary lifestyle is killing us in large numbers. May also agree that lack of cyclists also reduces infrastructure which increases injury. All these need to be balanced.

Presenting the whole discussion as helmets reduce injury, yes or no, is a misrepresentation imo.

[tazzer9]

Northern Territory doesn't have the stupid helmet laws.   And EVERYONE cycles, even in the middle of summer. 
Never seen so many people out on bikes, let alone in 40+, 80% humidity weather.

[ozbob]

Calls for no helmet bike hire on Coast > https://t.co/N5FfWeLUeX #qldpol
ping @Schrinner

— Robert Dow (@Robert_Dow) April 7, 2017

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Schrinner/status/932760989006643200

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/railbotforum/status/1057651940014714880

[tazzer9]

When I was in the northern territory a few summers ago, I could not believe how many people were out cycling.  Simply because you didn't need to wear a helmet.   Myself and my father are fairly keen cyclists and we were so astounded by how many were out we had to ask someone if everyone was breaking the law or if you didn't need to wear a helmet.  Turns out you don't need to wear a helmet.   Now in the 40+ degrees and 90% humidity of the northern territory summers, if not wearing a helmet makes people get off their butt and onto a bike then that's a good thing.

[Otto]

I used to ride a lot until the helmet law was bought in.. Then I just rode a few times before deciding, I don't like helmets. Bike just rusted away after that. Been using the car for very short trips ever since.. Got the stomach to prove it !! LOL
Always thought about getting a bike again, but then I remember how much I hate helmets..  :bi <--- our emoji does not wear a helmet...