6 ms·

Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

49 points by awjr 12y ago

awjr 12y ago
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)."
- kken 12y ago
  I believe this kind of trend has been known for a while and was a main reason for not introducing helment laws in Germany.
  - Mithaldu 12y ago
    Yes, exactly this issue was discussed last summer and helmet laws declared detrimental for exactly the points laid out in the article.
- thedragonaut 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    Not sure your argument stands up to the 0-17 age group having a 75% reduction in cycling.
    - thedragonaut 12y ago
      Yes, their parents drive them about until they're 15 when they get their first car.
    - nzealand 12y ago
      Fewer children are cycling and walking to school. More children are being dropped off at school by car. More cars and less cyclists ultimately results in less safe conditions for cyclists.
      - analog31 12y ago
        >>>>> Fewer children are cycling and walking to school. More children are being dropped off at school by car. I'm actually astounded by this. I grew up in a fairly typical suburban neighborhood, and everybody walked to school. A few weeks before I started kindergarten, my mom walked me to school, to make sure I knew the way. The kids who got driven to school, were teased for it. Today, every kid in that neighborhood gets driven. There's a long line of cars in front of the school, and the amount of traffic is cited as a reason why it's no longer safe to walk.
        WalterBright 12y ago
        When I went to school, the bike racks were large and jammed with bikes. These days, there's maybe one 6 foot rack for the whole school, with 3 bikes in it.
    - thedragonaut 12y ago
      Also, see this response https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2014/vol-127-no.-1389/5988 https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/... "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."
- tjradcliffe 12y ago
  You are correct that the basic premise is that cycling laws cause problems. Unfortunately, there is no data or analysis that would tend more than incrementally toward that conclusion.
blissofbeing 12y ago
Any chance to repeal this law?
- alrs 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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 12y ago
      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.
cpearce 12y ago
My bicycle helment saved my life. You'll never convince me they're a bad idea.
- blissofbeing 12y ago
  I don't think the argument is if bicycle helmets are good or bad, but rather bicycle helmet laws. You can be for wearing a helmet at all times and still against bicycle helmet laws. Much the same way you can be for the legalization of drugs but not be a drug user yourself.
- nols 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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 12y ago
      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 12y ago
        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.
shasheene 12y ago
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]
- alrs 12y ago
  This has been observed across time and across the world. Alberta, Canada. Ten years later, same result: http://cyclehelmets.org/1250.html http://cyclehelmets.org/1250.html
- Svip 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    No helmet laws in the Netherlands.
- andreasvc 12y ago
  I am so tired of this phrase. Please stop citing it as if it is some kind of knockdown argument. Evidence for causation consists of a correlation and a proposed causal mechanism. Presenting us with random correlations does not disprove anything.
matt_morgan 12y ago
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.
- shittyanalogy 12y ago
  Too scared to let them because they fear physical attack? Or too scared to let them because they fear a bicycle injury?
- canberroid 12y ago
  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.
adwf 12y ago
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.
tjradcliffe 12y ago
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".
allendoerfer 12y ago
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.

49 points by awjr 12y ago

awjr 12y ago

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)."

kken 12y ago
I believe this kind of trend has been known for a while and was a main reason for not introducing helment laws in Germany.
- Mithaldu 12y ago
  Yes, exactly this issue was discussed last summer and helmet laws declared detrimental for exactly the points laid out in the article.
thedragonaut 12y ago
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 12y ago
  Not sure your argument stands up to the 0-17 age group having a 75% reduction in cycling.
  - thedragonaut 12y ago
    Yes, their parents drive them about until they're 15 when they get their first car.
  - nzealand 12y ago
    Fewer children are cycling and walking to school. More children are being dropped off at school by car. More cars and less cyclists ultimately results in less safe conditions for cyclists.
    - analog31 12y ago
      >>>>> Fewer children are cycling and walking to school. More children are being dropped off at school by car. I'm actually astounded by this. I grew up in a fairly typical suburban neighborhood, and everybody walked to school. A few weeks before I started kindergarten, my mom walked me to school, to make sure I knew the way. The kids who got driven to school, were teased for it. Today, every kid in that neighborhood gets driven. There's a long line of cars in front of the school, and the amount of traffic is cited as a reason why it's no longer safe to walk.
      - WalterBright 12y ago
        When I went to school, the bike racks were large and jammed with bikes. These days, there's maybe one 6 foot rack for the whole school, with 3 bikes in it.
  - thedragonaut 12y ago
    Also, see this response https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2014/vol-127-no.-1389/5988 https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/... "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."
tjradcliffe 12y ago
You are correct that the basic premise is that cycling laws cause problems. Unfortunately, there is no data or analysis that would tend more than incrementally toward that conclusion.

blissofbeing 12y ago

Any chance to repeal this law?

alrs 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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.

cpearce 12y ago

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

blissofbeing 12y ago
I don't think the argument is if bicycle helmets are good or bad, but rather bicycle helmet laws. You can be for wearing a helmet at all times and still against bicycle helmet laws. Much the same way you can be for the legalization of drugs but not be a drug user yourself.
nols 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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 12y ago
    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 12y ago
      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.

shasheene 12y ago

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]

alrs 12y ago
This has been observed across time and across the world. Alberta, Canada. Ten years later, same result: http://cyclehelmets.org/1250.html http://cyclehelmets.org/1250.html
Svip 12y ago
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 12y ago
  No helmet laws in the Netherlands.
andreasvc 12y ago
I am so tired of this phrase. Please stop citing it as if it is some kind of knockdown argument. Evidence for causation consists of a correlation and a proposed causal mechanism. Presenting us with random correlations does not disprove anything.

matt_morgan 12y ago

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.

shittyanalogy 12y ago
Too scared to let them because they fear physical attack? Or too scared to let them because they fear a bicycle injury?
canberroid 12y ago
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.

adwf 12y ago

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.

tjradcliffe 12y ago

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".

allendoerfer 12y ago

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.