Cycling in Sydney Australia
How did the helmet law change cycling?
I arrived in Sydney in 1991, the year the helmet law was introduced in NSW. I have noticed that cycling has changed quite a bit since. It seems that the helmet law has had a far bigger impact on cycling than what was intended.
The most comprehensive data we have in terms of impact on cycling numbers are two studies done in Melbourne and Sydney. The result of the count of cyclists before and after the law has been reported here. Another survey in Melbourne between March 1990 & March 1991 reported a 37% drop in adult commuter cyclists.
The data indicates that:
1. It killed an uptrend in cycling. Cycling was growing strongly in the 1980's. It was rising at 10% per year from 1986 until 1989. Before the helmet law, cycling increased by about 250% in the 1980s in Sydney. That uptrend was stopped by the helmet law. Cycling has struggled to recover since. The previous trend would probably have continued without the helmet law. We are currently 60% below the previous trend.
2. Fewer children cycling. More children are growing up without the experience of cycling. Later on, they are less likely to be able to relate to cyclists, to take up cycling, and more likely to become car drivers with little respect for cyclist. Long term, this is unlikely to be positive for cyclists safety.
3. Fewer women cycling. In NSW, there was a measured 90% drop in girls cycling to high school after the helmet law. Australia now has the lowest proportion of women cycling in the world, with only 21% of all trips made by women. A recent City of Sydney Council research has revealed that only 13% of cyclists are female.
Before the helmet law, cycling in Sydney seemed to be more casual than it is now. I used to see more people in normal clothes, hop on their bike, riding slowly and casually, using bicycles as a mode of transport.
It was mainly casual cyclists that seem to have given up cycling after the helmet law. This has changed the image of cycling, turning it more into a sport, less as a form of transport. Cycling seems to have turned into an activity that requires specialised equipment. Cyclists seem different, having less in common with the average person than before. The specialised gear and the helmet contribute to the perception that cycling is a marginal and dangerous activity.
The casual cyclist (like me) seem to have become a minority. I'm not sure it is good for the image of cycling. Fewer children, fewer women, fewer casual cyclists, specialised cycling gear, have given cycling a less friendly image, perhaps contributing to the animosity with car drivers.
In the early 1990's, there were still 30% of cyclists ignoring the helmet law. The govt staged a heavy advertising campaign to change people's perceptions that cycling is safe. Loaded slogans like "Where's your helmet? ... Don't you realise you will hit your head?" or "No Helmet ... No Brains" were used relentlessly. Riding without a helmet was associated with being careless.
There were powerful emotional testimonies from people claiming that "my helmet saved my life". It was exaggerated and unscientific, but it worked in convincing people that they suddenly needed a helmet when cycling. Various emotional and exaggerated "testimonies" made you believe it was impossible to ride a bicycle without landing on your head. Authorities, including the police and various people presented as "safety experts", appeared on TV to tell you what you NEED to wear a helmet when cycling, cycling is too dangerous without one.
It worked. More people wore helmets. More and more people believed that cycling is more dangerous than it really is. The risks of cycling have been exaggerated by this type of campaign.
We now have a discrepancy between the actual risk and the perceived risk from cycling. Safety concerns are the top reason mentioned when people are asked why they don't cycle. This misperception is now one of the key factors that discourage people from cycling.
Despite all this, there seems to be a new generation of cyclists emerging. They tend to ride slowly and casually. Many ride with normal clothes in sit-up bicycles. Many openly ignore the helmet law. It makes you wonder how many more would take up riding if it wasn't illegal to ride without a helmet. Is this a sign that many among the younger generation would be keen to cycle, resurrecting the slow & casual form of cycling that was cut down after the helmet law?
I'm curious to find out whether people have observed the same change in cycling since the helmet law. I'm not sure whether all of it was caused by the helmet law, but it seems to have had a big influence.
The most comprehensive data we have in terms of impact on cycling numbers are two studies done in Melbourne and Sydney. The result of the count of cyclists before and after the law has been reported here. Another survey in Melbourne between March 1990 & March 1991 reported a 37% drop in adult commuter cyclists.
The data indicates that:
- Cycling dropped by 40% among children, 30% among adults
- For every cyclist persuaded to put on a helmet, 3 cyclists gave up cycling
- About 30% of cyclists ignored the helmet law
This picture, taken from one of the links below, helps illustrate what happened when the helmet law was introduced:
There seems to be have been three major impacts of the helmet law on cycling:
1. It killed an uptrend in cycling. Cycling was growing strongly in the 1980's. It was rising at 10% per year from 1986 until 1989. Before the helmet law, cycling increased by about 250% in the 1980s in Sydney. That uptrend was stopped by the helmet law. Cycling has struggled to recover since. The previous trend would probably have continued without the helmet law. We are currently 60% below the previous trend.
2. Fewer children cycling. More children are growing up without the experience of cycling. Later on, they are less likely to be able to relate to cyclists, to take up cycling, and more likely to become car drivers with little respect for cyclist. Long term, this is unlikely to be positive for cyclists safety.
3. Fewer women cycling. In NSW, there was a measured 90% drop in girls cycling to high school after the helmet law. Australia now has the lowest proportion of women cycling in the world, with only 21% of all trips made by women. A recent City of Sydney Council research has revealed that only 13% of cyclists are female.
Before the helmet law, cycling in Sydney seemed to be more casual than it is now. I used to see more people in normal clothes, hop on their bike, riding slowly and casually, using bicycles as a mode of transport.
It was mainly casual cyclists that seem to have given up cycling after the helmet law. This has changed the image of cycling, turning it more into a sport, less as a form of transport. Cycling seems to have turned into an activity that requires specialised equipment. Cyclists seem different, having less in common with the average person than before. The specialised gear and the helmet contribute to the perception that cycling is a marginal and dangerous activity.
The casual cyclist (like me) seem to have become a minority. I'm not sure it is good for the image of cycling. Fewer children, fewer women, fewer casual cyclists, specialised cycling gear, have given cycling a less friendly image, perhaps contributing to the animosity with car drivers.
In the early 1990's, there were still 30% of cyclists ignoring the helmet law. The govt staged a heavy advertising campaign to change people's perceptions that cycling is safe. Loaded slogans like "Where's your helmet? ... Don't you realise you will hit your head?" or "No Helmet ... No Brains" were used relentlessly. Riding without a helmet was associated with being careless.
There were powerful emotional testimonies from people claiming that "my helmet saved my life". It was exaggerated and unscientific, but it worked in convincing people that they suddenly needed a helmet when cycling. Various emotional and exaggerated "testimonies" made you believe it was impossible to ride a bicycle without landing on your head. Authorities, including the police and various people presented as "safety experts", appeared on TV to tell you what you NEED to wear a helmet when cycling, cycling is too dangerous without one.
It worked. More people wore helmets. More and more people believed that cycling is more dangerous than it really is. The risks of cycling have been exaggerated by this type of campaign.
The initial 30 to 40% drop of cycling occurred without full enforcement. A survey in Sydney across 25 sites reported 48% fewer cyclists between 1991 and 1996. It seems that cycling numbers dropped further after the scare campaign, when helmet wearing rates increased.
We now have a discrepancy between the actual risk and the perceived risk from cycling. Safety concerns are the top reason mentioned when people are asked why they don't cycle. This misperception is now one of the key factors that discourage people from cycling.
Despite all this, there seems to be a new generation of cyclists emerging. They tend to ride slowly and casually. Many ride with normal clothes in sit-up bicycles. Many openly ignore the helmet law. It makes you wonder how many more would take up riding if it wasn't illegal to ride without a helmet. Is this a sign that many among the younger generation would be keen to cycle, resurrecting the slow & casual form of cycling that was cut down after the helmet law?
I'm curious to find out whether people have observed the same change in cycling since the helmet law. I'm not sure whether all of it was caused by the helmet law, but it seems to have had a big influence.
Please keep in mind that this discussion is not about whether you like helmets or not.
It is about understanding the unexpected social impacts of the helmet law.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dan on -
Oh, and I might also add that there is evidence that MHL continues to affect cycling participation levels:
- the long downward trend (the reversal of the previous trend) that occurred after MHL shows that the effects of MHL were more than transitory
- cycling participation levels when comparing areas with MHL compared to those without, for example different Canadian provinces
Indeed, given just how strong the effect of MHL were when introduced, I would say the onus is on you to demonstrate it no longer has an effect. You can't make it true simply by asserting it.
However, I am starting to sense a pattern, which is a pity. You seem to change your argument to suit whatever point you are trying to rebut; if you can't find an argument you simply misrepresent the facts. It looks far more like you are simply interested in justifying MHL by whatever means, rather than actually engaging in any debate, and looking at the issue with an open mind.
I've genuinely enjoyed our discussions on this topic; you have clearly read around the subject and have made some useful contributions. However, we have now reached an impasse; I want to discuss the evidence but you are no longer engaging in that debate, but just asserting your beliefs and trying to score points. As I said, I think that's a pity.
-
Permalink Reply by John H on -
Frommany of BB's comments on SC, I really think this is an inappropriate comment about his views.
-
Permalink Reply by Dan on
-
I agree John, some threads in this topic are getting unnecessarily personal. it's not pleasant. Why oh why does this topic always drift in this direction?
(And if I've contributed to the drift, please call me out on it!)
-
Permalink Reply by sydneyCommuter on -
did the ad campaign show a cyclist being hit by a car
I didn't see that particular ad, but it is typical of this type of campaign. Scare tactics are being used to manipulate people. That tends to discourage cycling and create a misleading impression among the general public that cycling is dangerous.
Similar scare tactics are used in campaigns to promote helmets, with similar results. In many countries, it was found that cycling usage declined in places where helmets promotion campaign occurred.
Is this a good thing for cycling? Not everybody thinks so. One of them is Mikael, the creator one of the famous cycling advocacy blog copenhagenize . Mikael is focused on the cycling culture, cycling advocacy, and cycling social impacts. It seems that, recently, in Denmark, there has been a lot of helmet promotion campaigns (I'm not sure how it happened). Mikael has researched the impact and is rather worried about how helmet promotion campaigns can impact cycling. After looking at many countries, Mikael found that you could either put helmets on cyclists, or you could have more cyclists, but you coudln't do both. You have to choose between one or the other.
There is also an interview of him here where he compares Denmark's safety approach with Holland's approach on how to communicate a safety message without using scare tactics. It takes a bit of creativity, but it is possible.
In Australia, in the mid 1990's, roughly 1% of the population was cycling and 30% of them were not wearing helmets. The govt set up a massive advertising campaign to influence about 0.3% of the population. It mostly achieved its aim, but there was a side-effect. 99% of the population was mislead into thinking that cycling is dangerous. OOOPS!
Now the govt is trying to encourage cycling. This effort is being hampered by the misperception about safety created in the 1990's, as well as by the helmet law itself. How about that for shooting yourself in the foot?
-
Permalink Reply by sydneyCommuter on
-
"There are young children living all around me who ride bicycles & I choose to set an example for them."
Be an example for the children! I've heard that one so often!
We have two kids. At the beginning, It got swayed by this argument.
Then I paid attention to what actually happened. There are many kids in our suburb who ride without helmets, despite most adults wearing helmets.
Are theses kids influenced by the fact that most adults are wearing helmets? Obviously not. Would they wear a helmet if say, more than 95% of adults where wearing a helmet? I'm not convinced.
If we are really trying to influence those kids, how about going and talk to them? We might understand a little better how they feel about wearing a helmet, and how they might be persuaded to wear one. This might give people who can't understand why others wouldn't want to wear a helmet a much better understanding of what really is going on.
If we are that concerned for the safety of those kids, why dont we focus on proven measures that can make a difference, like learning road skills and awareness of the traffic, rather than presume that all we need to do for their safety is to put a helmet on their head? Which of these measures is likely to be the most effective?
I am getting the impression that some people are refusing to consider the possibility that there is a significant group of people who would not want to ride their bicycle if they are forced to wear a helmet. I believe that it is more important to understand why this is hapenning rather than to pretend it doesn't exist.
To argue that you must wear a helmet 'as a example for the kids' sounds like a guilt-trick to me. I don't see why it would be effective, it certainly doesn't work in my suburb.
Have you considered that you might be sending a different message when you wear a helmet, at least to some people? The message being that cycling is a dangerous activity that requires a helmet.
John, I understand that you have seen lots of accidents as a police officer that are very unpleasant to experience. It is natural to assume the 'a helmet would have helped'. We had a long discussion on this topic where Dan showed in a very patient, well-researched, and well detailed way that there no evidence that helmets have improved safety. So what is the rationale to have a helmet law exactly?
John, I understand that you do a lot of advocacy and volunteering for cycling. You are very keen to promote cycling. I have a lot of respect for your opinions and your contributions to the cycling community. However, I just don't understand what is your thinking here.
Why do you spend so much time trying to deny that the helmet law discourages cycling though? Earlier in this thread you mentioned 'climate change' and 'stats', using the old argument that stats are all lies. I thought you were talking about complex stats.
From your many posts in this discussion, it seems that you are talking about the cyclist count pre and post MHL that are described in the post. Theses are not stats, nothing complex there. You simply count the number of cyclist before and after the hemlet law, then you calculate the difference. How much room is there to manipulate or misrepresent the data? It's as simple as it can be. I don't understand how anybody can claim that these results can be dismissed using the excuse that 'stats are all lies'.
-
Permalink Reply by John H on
-
My argument wasn't that all stats are lies. It is a simple fact that statistics can and are manipulated to achieve the high ground in an argument on many occasions. The IPCC has released results of their studies on climate change & their research base was quite large, yet there are detractors to their theories. Who is right & who is wrong? There will always be variables that can be used to support your side of the argument.
To simply do a count before & after MHL & claim those statistics prove that MHL caused a drop in cycling is flawed.
There are too many variables to use that simple number.
I don't assume from personal experience that a helmet would have saved a life, far from it. The helmet MAY have prevented a more serious injury. There are no definites in motor vehicle collisions, a slight bump in the wrong place & you are dead, end of story.
I buy insurance each year for my car, house, contents, personal accident, health etc,. I hope most times I don't have to use it, but there are times when I have. I wear a helmet. I am a skilled rider who doesn't take unneccessary risks. I hope I don't have to use it. However, my helmet MAY have saved me from more serious injury on two occasions. I will never know fore certain.
The message I send when I wear a helmet is that it is a sensible thing to do. My suburb must be slightly different to yours. My immediate neighbours always wear helmets & encourage their children to do so. We were home to two Olympic Cyclists at one time & they both always wore a helmet when riding.
If there is a significant group of people who don't ride a bicycle because they don't want to wear a helmet, how do you explain bicycle sales in excess of 1 million unite per year, more than motor vehicles, and an increase in sales within the adult market? If they choose not to cycle because of helmet laws, then that can only be a good thing.
I think you hit the nail on the head with the following comment :
"If we are that concerned for the safety of those kids, why dont we focus on proven measures that can make a difference, like learning road skills and awareness of the traffic, rather than presume that all we need to do for their safety is to put a helmet on their head? Which of these measures is likely to be the most effective"
That discussion has been started before in Sydney Cyclist, only too be largely ignored because it is a simple answer to a complex question, whereas MHL is emotive & polarised into two main groups - for & against.
As for education there are some wonderful programmes out there waiting to be taken up & promoted. How about a discussion on positive cycling strategies instead of this one?
-
Permalink Reply by sydneyCommuter on
-
To simply do a count before & after MHL & claim those statistics prove that MHL caused a drop in cycling is flawed.
There are too many variables to use that simple number.
This research was done by the RTA. You can hardly claim that the RTA is biased against helmets. They did a simple count of cyclists before and after the law. There was no difference in weather. The time lag was too close for other significant factors to come into play. This result has not been challenged since it was released in 1993.
This result is also consistent with what many other similar surveys have reported.
Changes in cycle use in Australia
Brief Summary of Surveys Showing a Decline in Cycling due to MHL
If those results are not clear enough for you, then I am afraid that nothing will be good enough.
I find hard to understand the claim that this data can be dismissed on the grounds that the statistics are not reliable.
That puzzled me at first.
Then, I looked through many of the govt reports in this topic, and found a disturbing pattern of misleading reports hiding evidence of the helmet law negative side-effects.
For example, in 1994, the Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS) made a submission to a committee of the Parliament of Western Australia which reviewed the helmets law.
The FORS acknowledged that cycling by children had fallen but argued that this was not a proven result of helmet laws and that cycling by adults mostly increased. To justify its claim, the FORS compared cycling levels in 1991 with 1987 in Victoria, in two different seasons. This ignored the rising cycling trend of the late 1980's, where cycling rose by 10% per year.
This is clearly flawed. It is unlikely that the FORS made that claim in good faith. Why take data from 1987, almost 3 years before the introduction of the helmet law? The increase in cycling from 1987 until 1990 conveniently hides the drop after 1990. What is much more likely is that this is a deliberate attempt to deny & cover up the drop in cycling after the helmet law.
As a police officer, you are probably frequently exposed to this type of misleading material. This might be why you might find it hard to believe the data.
Yet when you look at the raw data objectively, the picture is pretty clear. It's hard to argue against the underlying data.
-
Permalink Reply by sydneyCommuter on
-
The message I send when I wear a helmet is that it is a sensible thing to do
How do you know?
You can send a message, but the interpretation / meaning is the choice of the receiver. To really understand the message you sent, you need to ask the receiver what is their interpretation.
If you asked many different types of people what is their interpretation of your message, you might be surprised by the answer, especially from the younger generation or recent migrants who have not been exposed to the helmet advertising campaign of the 1990’s.
If they choose not to cycle because of helmet laws, then that can only be a good thing.
I don't understand that statement. I stopped cycling on roads from 1991 to 2008. I can tell you it wasn't good for my health. I am still trying to recover.
Have you ever heard of the 'safety in numbers' factor? It was found that, the more cyclists on the road, the safer cycling becomes. This is the most significant finding from the safety research in the last 10 years. This finding has been confirmed by many studies all over the world. It is one of the most solid pieces of research we have on cycling safety.
The research on helmets is still inconclusive. They provide limited protection against linear acceleration. On the other hand, they can increase the risk of rotational acceleration, which is the primary cause of brain injury. Most people overestimate the level of protection provided by a helmet. There are few real-world scenarios where a soft-shell helmet would have done much more than preventing a few bruises. This topic was covered in this thread.
If you take out 30% of cyclists from the roads, what do you think happens to cycling safety according to the 'safety in numbers' factor?
I'm afraid the assertion above is more the product of a faith in helmets than the result of a rational evaluation. It indicates an overestimation of the protection provided by helmets while ignoring the 'safety in numbers' factor.
-
Permalink Reply by PeterT on -
I was taking a step back and thinking about this topic.
Impact of MHL may have forced some 30% cyclist off the road., but that's history now.
Hypothetically, if MHL is rescinded, will it bring back 30% more riders ?
Personally I doubt if the impact will be reversed since riding a bike is also an investment, - ie removal of MHL will not force people onto bikes.
Putting efforts into other more attainable initiatives would be better use of energies.
Working on the hypothesis - How will MHL be rescinded ? How many signatures will be needed before even the statistics will be considered ? What will happen if one person who injured his head decides to sue due to the lack of MHL ? Afterall apparently there were parents who were unhappy a Lady Gaga concert wasn't rated R18+ or similar.
To hijack the thread, there's a ongoing campaign to allow Australian cheese makers to make cheese out of Raw milk (as opposed to pasteurised ) (link: http://slowfoodaustralia.com.au/projects/australia/raw-milk-cheese/) and to date it has hit 5000 or so and that hardly looks like that is enough, I imagine overturning the MHL is going to be far harder with very many more skeptics.
-
Permalink Reply by sydneyCommuter on
-
I am concerned that this discussion is not very constructive.
It seems to fall too easily into an exchange of arguments for or against the helmet law. I am guilty of that too, having participated in it.
The purpose of this discussion is to gain a better understanding of the social impacts of the helmet law.
This discussion was set up to understand, not to argue.
I am going to disengage from this discussion for a little while. I prefer to focus on how the discussion can be made more constructive. I will rejoin later on.
In the meantime, could I please ask people to refrain from putting forward arguments for or against the helmet law. This is not what this discussion is about.
-
Permalink Reply by Martin Geliot on -
Agree, understanding was clearly the goal.
My own summary my interpretation of the discussion is as follows:-
1. It killed an uptrend in cycling. ABSOLUTELY YES
2. Fewer children cycling. MAYBE
3. Fewer women cycling. MAYBE
Looking forward I can't see a cat in hells chance of MHL going, even if that's what the people want.
Where there might be a useful opportunity is fixing up the liability/compensation laws, so that people who get hurt at least get some compensation. MHL and other little issues cannot be allowed as an excuse for not paying up.
-
Permalink Reply by sydneyCommuter on
-
I broadly agree with what you are saying Martin.
With regards to children, the drop measure (40%) was a bit higher than what it was for adults (30%). Over the 20 years, there are other social factors that have reduced children cycling. Still, it seems that kids don’t like to wear helmets. I am rather surprised that there has been not much research trying to understand why. It seems that the govt prefers the denial approach: let’s pretend that everybody wears helmets and there is no issue with compliance. Not very helpful.
With regards to women, we have the lowest proportion of women cyclist in the world. I don’t know if it was like that 20 years ago. I haven’t found any stats showing whether the proportion of women cyclists decreased after the helmet law. Still, being the lowest in the world seems a hint that there might be a problem. Interestingly, both BNSW & the City of Sydney have programs to encourage women cycling.
The City of Sydney has reported that "Many of the women interviewed by council on their attitudes to cycling complained of "helmethair" ". I have a lot of respect for what the city of Sydney has done. They have achieved real results without a huge budget. They seem to be one of the most professional and effective govt organisation when it comes to promoting and encouraging cycling. They have noticed that the helmet law discouraged people from cycling, particularly women. Council research has revealed that only 13 per cent of cyclists are female.
As far as whether the mhl can be repealed, I'm not convinced that it is impossible.
© 2010 Created by DamianM.
