Australia and New Zealand are the only two countries with blanket mandatory helmet laws. Mandatory helmet laws are constantly debated, with public health proponents saying they save lives, and with its dissidents pointing out that they may reduce cycling participation and therefore actually increase the incidence of accidents. These laws have required cyclists to wear helmets for 27 years, so have they actually made riding our bikes any safer?
Mandatory helmet laws were first introduced in Victoria in 1990, after a huge push by a number of public health advocacy groups, chiefly the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. At the time, mandatory helmet laws in Australia were unique. They were the only laws in the world to require everyone riding a bike to wear a helmet. Many other countries have helmet laws for children, but Australia was the first to legislate their use for adults.
The biggest issue with legislating helmet laws is that there is currently no consensus on whether or not they work at a population level. For the individual, helmets work. They decrease fatal head injuries by up to 65% (1) (2). However, what really makes cycling safer is increasing the number of people on the roads, and this is the biggest issue that anti-helmet law groups have. They claim that requiring helmet laws discourages people from cycling, either because they can’t afford to buy a helmet, or because they make riding unenjoyable, leading to decreased numbers of cyclists on the road.
There is a well-established link between increased numbers of cyclists and decreased road fatalities. The Netherlands has the highest rate of cycling in the world but has one of the lowest rates of cycling fatalities, yet the Netherlands has zero laws concerning bike helmets. Compare this to the United States, which has 1/20th of the cycling participation but four times the rate of cycling fatalities. More cyclists means better cycling infrastructure and more cyclist-conscious drivers, both of which are more effective at promoting cycling safety.
The problem, however, is that whilst there were some initial findings that may have suggested helmet laws decreased cycling participation, more recent studies have suggested that this might not be the case (3).
The graph above highlights how better cycling infrastructure could really save lives.
Helmet laws aren’t the solution to Australia’s rising rate of cycling fatalities, but better cycling infrastructure is. One study in Belgium (4) found that 93% of fatal bike crashes occur on the road, compared to 3% and 4% on cycle lanes and cycle paths respectively. The problem with this solution is that better infrastructure takes time and money, so if helmets help reduce the severity of cycling-related injuries, why wouldn’t we decrease the risk of injuries and fatalities from accidents while we’re waiting on that better infrastructure?
1- Jake Olivier, Prudence Creighton; Bicycle injuries and helmet use: a systematic review and meta-analysis, International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 46, Issue 1, 1 February 2017, Pages 278–292.
2- Bicycle helmet legislation for the uptake of helmet use and prevention of head injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD005401. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005401.pub3., .
3-Mandatory helmet legislation and children’s exposure to cycling
4 – Based on data from ITF (2013), Cycling, Health and Safety, OECD Publishing, Paris.