
Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012) - awjr
https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2012/vol-125-no-1349/article-clarke
======
awjr
For those with too little time, the basic premise is that helmet laws appear
to suppress cycling significantly, increase the risk of cycling and cause
premature deaths through lack of exercise

TL;DR "The following trends were observed following the introduction of New
Zealand’s helmet law:

Cycling usage reduced by 51%. Cyclist’s injury risk per hour increased by
20–32%. Estimated to have contributed to 53 premature deaths per year (due to
reluctance to cycle and hence people not exercising). Thousands of fines are
issued annually for not wearing a helmet. May contribute to discrimination in
accident compensation and the legal processes. Could have contributed to
environmental pollution and environmental harm (due to use of vehicles in
place of cycles). Possibly diminishes civil liberties and human rights (by
imposing a requirement to wear a helmet when several reports raise serious
doubts whether they improve safety overall)."

~~~
thedragonaut
No, helmets aren't killing cyclists, car drivers are.

In the 1980's the New Zealand government removed tariffs on imported cars
leading to a massive growth in car ownership.

More cars leads to more driving and less cycling. Then, with more cars on the
road, cycling becomes more dangerous.

This trend just happened to coincide with the change in helmet law.

~~~
awjr
Not sure your argument stands up to the 0-17 age group having a 75% reduction
in cycling.

~~~
thedragonaut
Also, see this response [https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-
issues/...](https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-
issues/2010-2019/2014/vol-127-no.-1389/5988)

"there was a 67% decline in serious traumatic brain injury (TBI) comparing
data for the years nearest the helmet law (1988–1991 vs. 1996–1999)."

"Tin Tin et al6 list several reasons apart from the helmet law for declines in
cycling rates and increases in cycling injuries. These include the lack of
cycling focus in the New Zealand road safety agenda, an increase in children
being driven to school due to parental concerns of safety and an already
existing pre-law decline in cycling rates."

~~~
aidos
I don't think that totally stacks up though. A decline in injuries at the time
of the introduction of the laws is natural - there was a lot of campaigning
and awareness at the time.

And ultimately a net decrease in head injuries doesn't mean that much when
there are many other injuries with cycling generally being more dangerous.

I'm just a single data point but I stopped cycling in nz after they introduced
the fines for being caught without a helmet. I've cycled daily in London for
years now an it's a much safer place to cycle. My feeling is that's generally
due to the awareness from having a lot of cyclists on the road. Whatever nz
are trying to do with their foisting of rules upon people, it's not working.

~~~
WildUtah
"Whatever nz are trying to do with their foisting of rules upon people, it's
not working."

Based on funding and who advocates these laws, a substantial amount of
advocates are supporting them in order to clear the roads to promote motoring.

I'd say that's working just fine.

------
matt_morgan
I don't doubt the conclusions of the report, really, but it's missing the part
where it explains how helmet laws suppressed cycling. You didn't ride your
bike to school because you had to wear a helmet? Maybe. Or maybe you didn't
ride your bike to school because nobody rides their bike to school anymore
because their parents are scared to let them. (That also changed in the last
25 years or so).

Obviously both are a factor and maybe mine is the lesser, I'm just saying that
it's not in the report.

~~~
canberroid
I'd be far more inclined to jump on my bike and ride to my local shops instead
of driving if I didn't have to wear a helmet. If I'm riding on the shoulder of
a busy road then I wear a helmet by choice, but riding around my quiet
neighbourhood is a far more pleasant experience without a helmet.

Riding around city streets in Europe without a helmet further demonstrated to
me just how nanny-state Australia really is.

------
shasheene
Correlation does not imply causation - the observed 75% reduction of cycling
among children aged 5-17 (from 40 minutes to 10 minutes per person per week)
from 1989/90 to 2005/08 coincides with the increase in popularity of
internet/video games etc (and I believe, a drop in all forms of outdoor
activity)

Also this article is 3 years old and should probably be appended with [2012]

~~~
Svip
In the latter half of the period you mention, distance cycled in Copenhagen
has gone up about 25%.[0]

I realise that Denmark and the Netherlands are the 'exceptions' to the rule,
because there cycling is used to actually get places rather than for fun. But
I know Denmark has no strict helmet laws. Not sure about the Netherlands.

[0] [http://cyclehelmets.org/1257.html](http://cyclehelmets.org/1257.html)

~~~
andreasvc
No helmet laws in the Netherlands.

------
allendoerfer
I think the problem with laws like this is drawing a line when to stop. How
much should a state protect you from yourself? I would argue, that the state
should indeed protect mentally ill people from doing harm to themselves but
should not hinder me to harm myself if I do not endanger others with my
actions. I value my freedom much higher than winning the world life-expectancy
competition.

Unfortunately our society works around fears. You need fear to get attention
or political approval. Everything is getting more complex and thus more and
more people want the to step in and regulate things for them.

Additionally this liberal [0] thinking is a bit elitist. To make it actually
work in a society drifting apart, you would have to invest huge amounts in
education and welfare to prevent typical health problems of the underclass.
This would ironically increase the size of the state.

[0]: In the European meaning of the word.

------
cpearce
My bicycle helment saved my life. You'll never convince me they're a bad idea.

~~~
nols
No one is saying you shouldn't wear them, the debate is whether or not
countries should make it mandatory. If you require bicycle helmets then fewer
people ride their bikes, leading to fewer people pushing for safe bicycling
laws, more cars on the road, and a less active (and thus less healthy)
population.

~~~
sxcurry
But this isn't shown by the article. Cycling dropped, but there is no
indication that this was caused by helmet laws. A much more detailed study
would be required to determine the cause of reduced cycling.

~~~
shoegumfoot
Well, except that the same thing has been found in other studies as well. The
results of this study are _completely_ unsurprising to anyone who has read any
other study of helmet laws in his/her life.

At some point you just have to accept the evidence.

~~~
enraged_camel
It's not about accepting the evidence. It's about making sure we interpret it
correctly.

The main question to ask is this: why exactly do mandatory helmet laws reduce
bicycle usage, and what needs to be done to address it?

Is it that helmets are too expensive? (They aren't.)

Is it that they are too difficult to put on and take off? (They aren't.)

Is it that they are too uncomfortable? (Maybe, but not any more so than seat
belts, and yet most people aren't arguing against seat belt laws.)

Essentially, I'm not against accepting the validity of the evidence from these
studies. I'm simply against the mentality of "mandatory helmet laws reduce
bicycle usage, therefore we must not have mandatory helmet laws." That
conclusion is too simplistic. The topic requires further study.

~~~
jessaustin
Helmets are quite inconvenient. One's head gets sweaty, one's hair gets
mussed, one can't hear anything for the wind noise, and seeing a helmet gives
autocage drivers the psychological permission to leave about eight inches when
passing. Those who chose to cycle without a helmet have their reasons, just
like most other human beings who do as they choose.

------
tjradcliffe
This is barely above junk. Most strikingly, there is no data that shows trends
_prior_ to the introduction of the helmet law. Therefore there is no model for
comparing the before and after scenario to the "do nothing scenario", which is
what you care about.

There are good, well-known, well-understood methods for handling all the
problems with this paper, but since the author hasn't used any of them this
work does not do more than incrementally increase the plausibility of the
proposition that "Helmet laws make cycling less safe".

------
blissofbeing
Any chance to repeal this law?

~~~
alrs
The problem is that these laws are pushed by the insurance and auto lobbies
specifically to discourage cycling.

Look behind the big bicycle advocacy organizations in the United States and
you'll see serious funding from the American Automobile Association and
bicycle companies. I assume the situation in NZ is similar.

~~~
thedragonaut
More like, the auto-lobby pushes motor vehicle infrastructure at the expense
of cycling infrastructure.

Would you rather cycle helmet-less on the road or helmeted on a dedicated
cycle path?

~~~
alrs
I ride helmetless on the road, and I avoid cyclepaths, as I'm far less scared
of car drivers pulling something sketchy than I am of rollerblader-dogwalker-
strollers pulling something sketchy.

I also live in California, where case law has determined that government is
_never_ responsible for injuries that occur off the road and on a bike path.

Additionally, it is flat-out unethical to ride faster than 10mph if you're
weaving through pedestrian foot-traffic.

The auto lobby loves cycle infrastructure. It gets cyclists off the road.

------
adwf
The study makes some comparisons to UK cycling which should be taken with a
pinch of salt. The UK has some of the highest density road traffic in the
world - NZ nowhere near.

Not to mention the argument that increased cycling deaths offsets deaths by
obesity is completely specious. Obesity kills when you're 40-50+, not wearing
a helmet kills kids when they're 10. I know which I'd prefer as a parent.

