History of helmet law in Australia


Doctors developed a belief that helmets would be essential to reduce cycling injuries. They lobbied for compulsory helmets, without trials to assess their effectiveness.

Pressured by doctors, politicians set up a committee to introduce compulsory helmets. The committee prepared for compulsory helmet legislation without assessing its costs and benefits.

Government research warned that soft-shell helmets can cause brain injury. It recommended to strengthen the helmet standard. Instead, the committee weakened the standard to accommodate soft-shell helmets. Soft-shell helmets make compulsory helmets more bearable.

In 1988, the largest ever cycling casualty study concluded:

the bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use.

In 1989, Australia was the first country to introduce compulsory helmets. There was no trial period nor plans to assess its effectiveness. 

Australia now suffers the consequences of this negligence. The risk of accidents, death and serious injury has increased. In NSW, the risk of injury has tripled. Australia’s cycling serious injury rate is now 22 TIMES higher than in the Netherlands.

The hidden costs of this policy are large. Cycling has declined, resulting in a loss of health benefits. This is likely to incur significant public health costs.

Following CRAG’s submission in 2009, Australia’s federal government has abandoned its compulsory helmets policy.


Table of contents

Forming the belief

Promoting the belief

Preparing for legislation

Setting the law

The illusion of safety

The consequences of negligence

Denying the failure

Making it worse

A surprising increase in accidents and injuries

The neglected human factor

Start of renewal



Forming the belief

Following the precedent of helmets for motorcyclists, a belief developed that cyclists needed helmets. The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) had lobbied for compulsory seat belts and motorcycle helmets. It was urging for a bicycle helmet law as the “third major step“.

bicycle-vs-motorcycleA leap of faith arose that a bicycle helmet law would be like the motorcycle helmet law

A leap of faith arose that this would be the solution to cycling safety. Without scientific evidence, doctors lobbied for a helmet law. The RACS claimed in 1978 that cyclists should wear helmets, but provided no evidence of efficacy. Dr Trinca said:

“We could perhaps worry a little less about and take a little less time in proving what is precisely right according to all standards … As doctors we are impatient. We cannot wait for 2 or 3 years evaluation.”

“Remedies” can sometimes be do more harm than good. The medical discipline requires careful trials of new drugs to check for negative side-effects. Yet some doctors felt urged to “do something” based on a belief, ignoring standard medical practice.

Countries with the lowest rate of cycling injuries have focused on reducing the risk of accidents. Doctors pushed for compulsory helmets with the best of intentions. But they had jumped at conclusions. The RACS pushed for an unproven theory. Doctors had stepped out of their area of expertise, with dire consequences for cycling.


Promoting the belief

Pushed by the RACS, politicians were also under pressure to “do something”. In 1978, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety recommended that:

“cyclists be advised of the safety benefits of protective helmets and the possibility of requiring cyclists to wear helmets be kept under review”.

But the evidence submitted to the committee as published in Hansard includes nothing on the efficacy of helmets as protection. Indeed, in the reports of later parliamentary committees that led to the present policy, the earliest study cited (by McDermott and Klug) is dated 1982.

They took efficacy for granted. They assumed helmets “protected”, without a proper evaluation of their effectiveness and disadvantages.

helmet_fanaticsHelmets were promoted by people with good intentions,
but limited understanding of cycling safety.

The government responded with a campaign to promote helmet wearing. In Victoria, the RACS did likewise, even putting a case for compulsory wearing to the Premier in 1982. Helmet manufacturers started advertising bicycle helmets that became their most profitable product. By the end of the 1980s about 30% of cyclists wore helmets.


Preparing for legislation

The 1978 inquiry issued a final report in 1985. It recommended that cooperation of states and territories should be sought to

“review the benefits of bicycle helmet wearing … and unless there are persuasive arguments to the contrary introduce compulsory wearing of helmets by cyclists on roads and other public places”.

A federal parliament committee was set up in 1985. Early in the course of its inquiry (before it had reviewed all the evidence), it said:

“It is, of course, this Committee’s belief that all cyclists should wear a helmet to increase cycling safety.”

The committee had made its decision prematurely. Like the 1978 committee, it took efficacy for granted. Its biased mandate included a pre-determined objective to introduce a helmet law. The committee did not conduct a cost/benefit analysis. It also failed to consider potential side-effects of a helmet law.

strange_legislationLegislation is sometimes pushed through, not because it provides compelling benefits,
but because those pushing for it cannot see compelling evidence NOT not to introduce it.

Legislation was pushed through as a biased committee could not see compelling evidence NOT to introduce it. This reverses the onus of proof. Proponents of a law are not required to demonstrate it provides a net benefit. They simply assert that they cannot see compelling evidence against it. This lacks important sanity checks.

In 1987, the Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS), a government agency, published research on helmets. This research highlighted serious deficiencies with bicycle helmets:

“The substantial elastic deformation of the child head that can occur during impact can result in quite extensive diffuse brain damage. It is quite apparent that the liner material in children’s bicycle helmets is far too stiff …

rotational accelerations were found to be 30% higher than those found in similar tests using a full face polymer motorcycle helmet. More work needs to be done in this area as there would seem to be a deficiency in rotational acceleration attenuation that may be the result of insufficient shell stiffness ….

a high proportion of impacts were to the lover facial and side of face areas and it is imperative that the temporal area be more fully protected than it is by current bicycle helmet designs. “

child cycling 4Bicycle helmets are designed for adult heads.  They are too stiff for children deformable heads.
Despite warnings they can cause brain damage, helmets are promoted as “protecting” children.

The research recommended changes in the Australian helmet standard to rectify these deficiencies. 25 years later, none of these deficiencies have been rectified. Australia still does not have a separate standard for child helmets. Helmets are still not tested for rotational acceleration, the main cause of brain injury.

There are two types of brain injury: focal and diffuse. Focal injury occur when the skull hits a surface. Diffuse injury occurs when the head rotates quickly. Although the skull is intact, there can severe internal brain injury. This article reports from a surgeon who operates on cyclists:

” “The ones with brain swelling, that’s diffuse axonal injury, and that’s bad news” …
the whole brain is shaken up, creating many little tears in its inner structure …
Such patients undergo personality change, can contract epilepsy and have difficulty controlling their anger. They might become unemployable. Depression is a common accompaniment to brain injury. Rosenfeld sees patients’ families shattered, too. “They’re never the same. It often leads to marriage disharmony and family breakdown.” …

Rosenfeld’s opinion is candid. “I don’t know if [helmets] do much to protect the inner part of the brain,” “

New Zealand doctor reports:

“cycle helmets were turning what would have been focal head injuries, perhaps with an associated skull fracture, into much more debilitating global head injuries”

A soft-shell helmet is a piece of polystyrene covered by a layer of plastic less than 1mm thick.
It can protect in a minor accident.  However, it is not designed to protect in a serious accident.

A soft-shell helmet tends to disintegrate on impact, absorbing little energy. This crumbling is what many people mistake the helmet for as having saved their life:

“The next time you see a broken helmet, suspend belief and do the most basic check – disregard the breakages and look to see if what’s left of the styrofoam has compressed. If it hasn’t, you can be reasonably sure that it hasn’t saved anyone’s life.“

It is doubtful whether soft-shell helmets provide a net safety benefit. From evidence provided in court:

“So in at least one case now, a High Court has decided that the balance of probability was, in the matter before the Court, that a cycle helmet would not have prevented the injuries sustained when the accident involved simply falling from a cycle onto a flat surface, with barely any forward momentum. …

the QC … repeatedly tried to persuade the neurosurgeons … to state that one must be more safe wearing a helmet than would be the case if one were not. All three refused to do so, claiming that they had seen severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without cycle helmets”

Replacing safety for some with the illusion of safety for all

Before the helmet law, Australia’s bicycle helmet standard required helmets to have hard shells. However, government research warned of deficiencies in the standard, as it failed to protect children, and could increase brain injury.

Instead of improving the standard based on its research recommendations, the government degraded Australia’s helmet standard to accommodate ”soft-shell helmets”. Soft-shell helmets are more comfortable and facilitate compulsory helmet wearing. However they provide little protection and can cause brain injury.

Although the standard was degraded, the Department of Transport misled its minister that it was being upgraded and would result in improved helmets.


Before the helmet law, about 30% of cyclists wore helmets like the one on the left. By degrading the helmet standard, the government legitimized a piece of polystyrene generously called a “soft-shell helmet”.

However, language cannot change the facts. Calling a polystyrene hat a “helmet” doesn’t magically give it protective abilities. Still, it can fool people into believing that it provides far more protection than it does.

After the helmet law, some claimed “success”, as the “helmet wearing rate” had increased. They failed to disclose that useful helmets had been replaced with dangerous devices providing minimal protection. The legislation provided little more than the illusion of safety.

The committee seems to have lost focus on the initial goal to improve safety.

Victorian Government’s submission to the committee said:

“The incidence of bicycle helmet use has not yet reached a sufficiently high level anywhere in the world for a scientific examination of helmet effectiveness in injury reduction to be undertaken.”

Despite flimsy evidence of efficacy, the committee recommended compulsory helmet wearing.


Setting the law

The RACS pressed the Victorian Government to make helmet wearing compulsory. The Victorian Parliament adopted a RACS recommendation for compulsory wearing, and legislation was announced. This increased pressure on the Federal Government to “do something”. The RACS was active in pressing the government. A former minister in the Hawke Government observed that after 1987:

“increasingly, the Government, and most importantly (Prime Minister) Hawke, became hostage to narrow and unrepresentative pressure groups.”

He also said the black spots program was not evaluated properly and was driven by opinion polls, a view supported by official documents. In 1988, the largest ever cycling casualty study was published, involving more than eight million cases of injury and death to cyclists over 15 years in the US. It concluded:

There is no evidence that hard shell helmets have reduced the head injury and fatality rates. The most surprising finding is that the bicycle-related fatality rate is positively and significantly correlated with increased helmet use.

Rodgers, G.B., Reducing bicycle accidents: a reevaluation of the impacts of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, Journal of Products Liability, 11, pp. 307-317, 1988.

This study focused on hard-shell helmets, that provide better protection than soft-shell helmets. Though this study was published a year before the announcement of compulsory helmet wearing as Federal policy, the Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS) gave no warning about it to the ministers who decided on the policy. The FORS did not act upon the 1985 committee’s recommendation that it should establish the costs and benefits of universal bicycle helmet usage. The FORS, the proper authority to advise government on the efficacy of helmet wearing, did no evaluation of it. Though the stated purpose of the compulsory helmet wearing was to reduce the cost of bicycling injuries to the community, the FORS did not seek advice from the National Health and Medical Research Council or other health authority. This was negligence.

bicycle crash 2

The government ignored evidence showing that helmeted cyclists had a higher fatality rate

By 1989, just before the government decided to introduce compulsory wearing of bicycle helmets, an officially commissioned survey showed that public support for it was 92% for children and 83% for all riders. Politicians sometimes do what most people believe should be done, regardless of its effectiveness, as mentioned here:

“Modern politicians have become so adept at monitoring public opinion that they’ve developed a preference for wanting to be seen fixing problems rather than to actually fix them.”

In 1989, Prime Minister Hawke announced compulsory helmet wearing as Federal policy. This was a condition of providing funds to the states and territories for eliminating so-called “black spots” in roads.

Responses to enquiries in 1997 showed that no government in Australia, federal or state, made the necessary verification of the efficacy of helmets before imposing legislation. A study from Western Australia indicating that helmet wearers had more severe injuries appears to have been ignored.

The Prime Minister categorised compulsory wearing of bicycle helmets as a known and effective measure. This cannot be true as it had never been tried before. The evidence indicated caution towards compulsory helmets, particularly soft-shell helmets that provide questionable protection while increasing the risk of brain injury. A trial for such experimental measure would have been appropriate. Instead, the government deployed across the nation an unproven policy without plans to assess its effectiveness.


The consequences of negligence

The timing of the helmet law was odd as cycling safety was improving. Deaths of cyclists had been in long-term decline despite bicycle travel in Australia increasing by 10% a year from 1986 to 1989. Cycling is known to be a beneficial activity, no more dangerous than being a pedestrian. Why impose helmets only on cyclists? This discriminates against a healthy, economical and environmentally friendly mode of transport – particularly important as Australia is one of the world’s most obese countries.

A side-effect of this policy has been to reduce cycling. This was predictable (in 1985, cycling had declined after some schools mandated helmets for students) and could have been measured consistently. Instead, measurements of cycling before and after compulsion were mainly incidental to surveys of helmet wearing. These surveys revealed a sharp decline in cycling of about 30% for adults and 40% for children.

This reversed an uptrend growing at 10% a year. An independent assessment estimates that cycling was 50% below previous trend by 1996. Cycling as a transport declined the most, changing the image of cycling. Sport cycling rose in prominence, giving cycling an image as a dangerous sport. Australia now has the lowest female cycling participation in the world. Julian Ferguson, from the European Cyclists Federation, observed:

“Riding in New York or Australia is like running with the bulls — it’s all young males”


The main result of the helmet law has been to reduce cycling

The helmet law only persuaded 9% of child cyclists to wear a helmet, while 44% gave up cycling.

Surprisingly, the risk of death and serious injury increased by 50% for child cyclists after the law.

Dr Carwyn Hooper from St George’s University in London reports:

“Looking at evidence, it does not matter if people are wearing a helmet or not, any serious accident on a bike is likely to kill them,”

Before the law, cycling was increasing in popularity and becoming safer. After the law, cycling was falling and becoming more dangerous.

This is explained by a well-known phenomenon called safety in numbers. Research published in the Injury Prevention journal concluded:

“the behavior of motorists controls the likelihood of collisions with people walking and bicycling. It appears that motorists adjust their behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling … A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.”


A key factor for cycling safety is the number of cyclists.  This is called “safety in numbers”.
The fewer cyclists, the more dangerous cycling becomes.

“safety in numbers” can easily be underestimated. With a 22% decline in cycling, the risk of accidents increases by 16%. A 44% decline in cycling increases the risk of accidents by 41%. This cannot be compensated by a 9% increase in helmet wearing. This results in a net increase in cycling injuries. The helmet law increased the risk of injury by increasing the risk of accident.


Denying the failure

In the mid 1990s, evidence emerged that the helmet law had failed to improve safety. A bicycle activist who promoted helmet wearing and initially believed in the helmet law looked at the data and concluded:

“It is fair to say that, so far, there is no convincing evidence that Australian helmet legislation has reduced the risk of head injury in bicycle crashes.”

Several researchers reported this, but state governments ignored the warnings. Once people have invested time and effort in something, they are reluctant to admit they have made a mistake. Bureaucrats became entrenched in their position. As noted by University of Armidale researcher Dr Dorothy Robinson:

mandatory bicycle helmet laws increase rather than decrease the likelihood of injuries to cyclists …
Having more cyclists on the road is far more important than having a helmet law, for many reasons …
[the] governments [which introduced the helmet laws] do not like to admit they’ve made mistakes“.

ostrich-in-the-sand-2The Australian government attitude towards its bicycle helmet law matches its national emblem

Bureaucrats started funding policy-driven studies defending its helmet law. Official evaluations commonly employ biased selection of research and statistics, resulting in benefits being unduly attributed to the helmet law and adverse effects like a decline in cycling or an increase in the risk of accidents ignored.

The helmet law was introduced as a part of a package of road safety measures including a crackdown on speeding and drink driving. The number of cyclists reduced significantly. Any assessment of the helmet law must take into account these confounding factors. Yet many government-funded “studies” like this one did NOT adjust for this, attributing all apparent improvements to the helmet law. Such negligence is difficult to comprehend. How could the researchers miss such basic adjustments? It is odd that these mistakes favor the legislation while the government funds the “research”.

Bill Curnow, a scientist from the CSIRO, wrote as a conclusion in a scientific article:

“Compulsion to wear a bicycle helmet is detrimental to public health in Australia but, to maintain the status quo, authorities have obfuscated evidence that shows this.”

One of the “studies” done by an Australian federal government agency in 2000 claimed to provide

“overwhelming evidence in support of helmets for preventing head injury and fatal injury”.

This claim was rebutted in 2003, the study highlighting that:

“the meta-analysis … takes no account of scientific knowledge of [brain injury] mechanisms”

The government agency did not reply to the rebuttal, effectively giving up on its claim. Despite being discredited, this analysis is still used by government to defend its policy. This study was re-assessed in 2011 by an independent researcher who concluded:

“This paper … was influenced by publication bias and time-trend bias that was not controlled for. As a result, the analysis reported inflated estimates of the effects of bicycle helmets

According to the new studies, no overall effect of bicycle helmets could be found when injuries to head, face or neck are considered as a whole”

After several attempts to justify its policy through misleading “studies”, and following CRAG submission to the Prime Minister in 2009, the federal government abandoned its compulsory helmets policy, stating it was a matter entirely determined by the states.

Despite the repeated empty claims from politicians that

“helmets save lives and lower the severity of injuries”,

independent researchers are not fooled:

“If helmet laws were effective, we should have seen a reduction in head injuries,” she said. But instead, we saw a reduction in cycling, which leads to increased sedentary lifestyle diseases – obesity, strokes, heart disease. By discouraging cycling, helmet laws actually increase health costs.”

Even helmet salespeople do make such claims. After being asked

“Can your helmet save your life?”,

a helmet salesperson shrugged and laughed uncomfortably, before responding

“Can it?” “Well, not save your life, no.”

What is it that politicians know that helmet salespeople don’t?

In 2011, the Queensland Government commissioned a “study” to defend its policy. Only 13 days were given to produced this study that was then significantly edited several times (to favor the legislation) by the Department of Transport and Main Roads. The government then used this fake “study” to dismiss calls to review the helmet law.

In 2011, the New South Wales government funded a study trying to deny that helmets can aggravate brain injury. This risk has been reported for soft-shell helmets at high speed. The “study” set up unrealistic conditions at low speed, then magically generalized the results. This is deceitful as these unrealistic conditions are not representative of real life accidents.

There is a stark contrast between the claims from the policy-driven “studies” and the findings of independent researchers. In the view of independent researchers from Norway:

“no studies have found good evidence of an injury reducing effect”.

While British doctors say:

“[A helmet law] gives out the message that cycling is dangerous, which it is not. The evidence that cycling helmets work to reduce injury is not conclusive. What has, however, been shown is that laws that make wearing helmets compulsory decrease cycling activity. Cycling is a healthy activity and cyclists live longer on average than non-cyclists. …

Since nowhere with a helmet law can show any reduction in risk to cyclists, only a reduction in cyclists, why would any country want to bring in a law for something which is clearly not effective at reducing the risk to cyclists?”

In the view of an Australian surgeon who operates on cyclists:

“The best evidence is that [a helmet] doesn’t make any difference to serious head injury when riding a bicycle …

initial research used to back the mandatory laws was “deeply flawed and criticised”. Some newer findings, he said, showed that these laws could increase the chance of serious injury. “On a society-wide basis, it seems as though the compulsory wearing of helmets is diminishing the number of people riding bicycles” he said. “The number one health concern is heart attacks and obesity. “Anything that can be done to decrease that would be a good thing.” “

The policy-driven studies have not fooled the rest of the world, who chose to shun this policy.


Making it worse

In the 1990s, compliance surveys revealed that about 30% of cyclists still ignored the law. Transport authorities staged an extensive media campaign that made people believe cycling is dangerous and that wearing a helmet makes it “safe”. Loaded slogans like “Where’s your helmet?” were used relentlessly.

In advertising, you don’t need proof. Actually, it doesn’t even have to be true. Advertising associates a strong positive emotion with a message, like associating a feeling of safety with wearing a helmet. Various emotional and exaggerated “testimonies” made people believe it wasn’t possible to ride a bicycle without hitting their head, and that a helmet will save them. Authority figures and “experts” appeared on television asserting that you NEED to wear a helmet because cycling is dangerous.

Transport authorities still fund misleading campaigns such as this radio ad broadcast in 2011 that claims:

“Don’t think that little ride to the shops warrants wearing [a helmet]? Well I’ve got news for you. Even on a short ride you can have a big fall and you can suffer a MAJOR brain injury”

A bicycle activist created an amusing parody of this deceptive message.

This scaremongering is not true. Cycling is not particularly dangerous, no more than being a pedestrian:

“risk assessment reveals that cycling is not a more risky activity than the other modes of transport. …On the other hand, risk assessment does provide evidence of the much greater vulnerability of pedestrians.”

helmet-adHelmet ads typically use scaremongering tactics to scare people towards the “protection” provided by helmets.  As a result, many people become scared off cycling.

Politicians and government officials kept regurgitating that “helmets save lives” even though the government has been unable to provide supporting evidence. Powerful emotional testimonies claiming “my helmet saved my life” were prominently broadcast. Deceitful techniques suggested that cyclists would suffer brain injury unless they wore a helmet. If you repeat the same lies often enough, people end up believing them.

This is deceitful as soft-shell helmets are known to increase the risk of brain injury, particularly chronic disability. Scientific research reveals:

“Protecting the brain from injury that results in death or chronic disablement provides the main motivation for wearing helmets. Their design has been driven by the development of synthetic polystyrene foams which can reduce the linear acceleration resulting from direct impact to the head, but scientific research shows that angular acceleration from oblique impulse is a more important cause of brain injury. Helmets are not tested for capacity to reduce it and, as Australian research first showed, they may increase it.”

Even though helmets do not provide a solution to severe brain injury, fear of chronic disability has been used as a scare tactic to promote them. This leads to an exaggerated opinion of the protection provided by helmets.

The deceitful advertising campaign was effective. Most Australians now believe that cycling is dangerous. However, such propaganda creates a culture of fear. Cycling kept declining further. By 1996, cycling in Sydney had declined by 48%. People overestimate the protection provided by polystyrene, being misled that a “helmet” will “save” them. A UK cyclist  survey following helmet promotion campaigns reports:

“the majority of the people surveyed do have an exaggerated opinion of the effectiveness of cycle helmets, and an exaggerated opinion of the risks of cycling, and that the two are associated …

the exaggerations in the promotional material are likely to both prevent some people from cycling because of the fear of the risk, and to induce risk compensatory behaviour in those who chose to cycle and wear a helmet”


A surprising increase in accidents and injuries

Cyclist hospitalisation data from Western Australia indicates an unexpected increase in injuries after helmet law:

WA-cycling-injuriesHospital admission data: Number and percentage of cyclists admitted, Western Australia.
Despite 37% fewer cyclists, cycling injuries kept rising after the helmet law.

After the helmet law was enforced in July 1992, the number of cyclists dropped by 37%. In 1993, cycling hospitalisations were slightly below 1991, despite 37% fewer cyclists. The risk of injury per cyclist increased. Cycling injuries kept rising. In 2000, the risk of injury was twice what it was before the helmet law.

This is similar to what was observed in New South Wales (NSW), where the risk of injury more than tripled.


For child cyclists in NSW, the risk of accident almost doubled, while the risk of death and serious injury increased by more than 50%.


What’s going on?
How can accidents and injuries keep rising after an increase in helmet wearing?

Perhaps it has something to do with the false sense of safety fostered by deceitful helmet promotion campaigns. There is a well-known safety phenomenon called “risk compensation“, which resulted from observations that as people feel safer, they tend to take more risks:

“the law of unintended consequences is extraordinarily applicable when talking about safety innovations. Sometimes things intended to make us safer may not make any improvement at all to our overall safety”


Risk compensation is the tendency to take more risks when wearing safety equipment.
Lured by a false sense of safety, helmeted cyclists have more accidents.
Wearing a helmet can induce cyclists to take more risks, sometimes with severe consequences, as reported in the New York Times:

“the increased use of bike helmets may have had an unintended consequence: riders may feel an inflated sense of security and take more risks. …

The helmet he was wearing did not protect his neck; he was paralyzed from the neck down. …

”It didn’t cross my mind that this could happen,” said Philip, now 17.
”I definitely felt safe. I wouldn’t do something like that without a helmet.” ”

Risk compensation affects not only cyclists but also motorists who tend to be less careful around helmeted cyclists. As reported in a study published by the University of Bath in the UK:

“Bicyclists who wear protective helmets are more likely to be struck by passing vehicles”

Both the behaviour of helmeted cyclists and surrounding motorists increases the risk of accidents.


The neglected human factor

Why these surprising results? A key neglected factor is the impact that wearing a helmet has on cyclists behaviour. For some people, it means no more cycling. For others it means taking more risks. Neither reaction improves cycling safety or public health. Helmets affect risk taking, as reported by the Institute of Transport Economics in Norway:

“There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling kilometre for cyclists wearing a helmet”

Helmets encourage people to ride faster, as reported by the Risk Analysis international journal:

“those who use helmets routinely perceive reduced risk when wearing a helmet, and compensate by cycling faster”

Increased speed significantly increases the severity of injuries in case of an accident, as reported in 2012 by the Monash University Accident Research Centre:

“Chances of a head injury increased threefold at speeds above 20km/h and fivefold at speeds above 30km/h”

What is the point wearing a helmet if it induces people to ride faster? At best, a helmet can only reduce a 50 km/h impact to the equivalent of a 45 km/h impact.


A slow and cautious rider without a helmet is less at risk of injury than an overconfident helmeted rider taking risks at higher speeds. With a helmet law, the safer type of cycling is illegal while the more dangerous type is vindicated. This is the irony of a counterproductive policy, as mentioned in a 2012 study published by the Institute of Transport Economics in Norway:

“at least part of the reason why helmet laws do not appear to be beneficial is that they disproportionately discourage the safest cyclists.”

In Australia, the cyclist fatality rate is five times greater than in the Netherlands, while the serious injury rate is 22 TIMES greater. For urban cycling, the fatality rate per commuter cyclist is 27 times higher in Sydney, Australia than in Copenhagen, Denmark.


John Pucher, a US professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, researched how several countries have made cycling safe. Infrastructure, legislation to protect cyclists, training and measures to discourage car use are emphasized. Helmets played no part in making cycling safer. John Pucher said:

“Compulsory wearing of helmets was “a Band-Aid strategy” adopted by governments shying away from more difficult initiatives of building separated cycle ways, calming neighbourhoods and educating drivers and riders.”

Helmet wearing CartoonAn overemphasis on helmets can result in neglecting more effective safety measures like reducing the risk of accidents.  This might explain why Australia’s serious injury rate is 22 TIMES greater than in the Netherlands

Australian “road safety experts” have ignored the link between helmets and risk-taking leading to more accidents. Many still believe that helmets are the key to cycling safety, even though accidents have a greater impact on injuries. Those who pushed for the helmet law have difficulty admitting that the results of their policy do not match their good intentions.

They seem unable to distinguish between the objective to improve safety and the naive way it is attempted. The increase in the risk of death & serious injury after the helmet law indicates that helmets do not compensate for the increase in accidents.

Helmets accidents cycle

20 years later, helmet law believers are still touting its theoretical benefits while ignoring its failure to reduce the risk of serious injury. How can such a narrow-minded view still influence policy? This is irrational and harmful. The helmet law should be judged on its results, not on its intent.

The discrepancy between helmet law dogma and real world evidence has been noted in Health on the Move 2, a report from an independent British society of public health and transport practitioners and researchers. The section on bicycle helmets evidence reports:

“The failure of mass helmet use to affect serious head injuries, be it in falls or collisions, has been ignored by the medical world, by civil servants, by the media, and by cyclists themselves. A collective willingness to believe appears to explain why the population-level studies are so little appreciated. ….

The disconnect between received wisdom and the facts is stark.”


Start of renewal

The four rooms of change.
Before renewal, people usually go through denial, then confusion.

In 1994, the Northern Territory of Australia relaxed its helmet law and reduced its enforcement. Since then, the helmet wearing rate is the lowest in Australia, cyclist hospitalisations per capita are the lowest in Australia and cycling to work is three times the national average.

Bike share schemes have been introduced with great success all over the world, providing valuable health and environmental benefits. Even in cities without a history of cycling, the benefits can be significant. For example, in Seville, Spain:

“Traffic congestion and pollution are declining for the first time in 30 years. Businesses are thriving along bike routes and around the newly improved public spaces that are breathing fresh life into the central city. The number of car trips into the historic city center has plummeted from 25,000 a day to 10,000″

bike-share-2Bike share schemes have been successful all over the world, except in Melbourne and Brisbane, where they are crippled by a helmet law. This form of slow, upright cycling is safe. The helmet requirement is irrational.

In 2010, Melbourne introduced a bike share scheme. However, usage is 20 TIMES lower than in Dublin, a city of comparable size. Danish urban planner Mikael Colville-Andersen, who specialises in cycling, noted:

“Good ideas tend to travel and this idea, that you simply must wear a helmet when you cycle, has not. What does that tell you? You are the fattest country in the world, you should be encouraging cycling, not convincing people it’s dangerous.”

With its low speed and upright position, bike share is safe. In London, after 7 million trips, there were no fatalities and only 9 injuries requiring hospitalisation. The serious injury rate is 3 times lower than for all cyclists.

Bike share schemes in Mexico City and Tel Aviv have boomed since the Mexican and Israeli Government repealed their mandatory helmet laws. The Australian cities of Sydney, Perth, Fremantle and Adelaide have publicly declared their support for partial helmet law repeal to encourage public use of bike share projects.

Even in the US, where the belief in helmets is strong, people are questioning the suitability of helmets for bike share, as noted by Piet De Jong:

“Pushing helmets really kills cycling and bike-sharing in particular because it promotes a sense of danger that just isn’t justified — in fact, cycling has many health benefits …

Statistically, if we wear helmets for cycling, maybe we should wear helmets when we climb ladders or get into a bath, because there are lots more injuries during those activities.”



Bicycle helmets tend to
  1. induce a false sense of safety that increases the risk of accidents
  2. encourage cyclists to go faster, increasing the severity of injuries
  3. increase the risk of neck injury and brain injury

It is easy to take for granted the protection provided by helmets without considering negative side-effects. Evidence indicates that the protection provided is minor, while helmets increase the risk and the severity of accidents.

Are additional accidents worth the “protection”?

After reviewing evidence in a court of law, NSW District Court Judge Roy Ellis concluded:

“Having read all the material, … I frankly don’t think there is anything advantageous and there may well be a disadvantage in situations to have a helmet and it seems to me that it’s one of those areas where it ought to be a matter of choice.”

Although the law was introduced with good intentions, the process to introduce it was complacent:

  1. The government did not verify the efficacy of helmets. It failed to complete a cost-benefit analysis of a helmet law, and an assessment of side-effects.
  2. Warnings that soft-shell helmets could increase brain injury were ignored. The government failed to warn the public that helmets can aggravate brain injury.
  3. Government research recommended changes to strengthen Australia’s helmet standard. Instead, it was degraded to accommodate soft-shell helmets that facilitate compulsory helmet wearing but provide questionable protection while increasing the risk of brain injury and neck injury.
  4. The legislation discriminates against cycling, a safe, healthy, economical and environmentally friendly mode of transport. This discrimination and its consequences on cycling participation were given little consideration, despite negative health benefits incurring significant public health costs.
  5. Despite being the first in the world to introduce such controversial legislation amid contradictory evidence, the government imposed an experimental helmet law nationwide, without a trial period and without plans to assess its effectiveness.

Such negligence has contributed to the increase in the risk of death and serious injury after the helmet law.

Instead of admitting it made a mistake, the government engaged in deceitful attempts to obfuscate the failure of its helmet law by funding misleading “studies”.

An obsession with helmets has diverted focus away from more effective safety measures that can reduce accidents. This might explain why Australia has one of the worst cycling safety record, with a serious injury rate 22 TIMES higher than best practice.

The helmet law prevents a safe mode of transport, bike share, from delivering significant benefits achieved in many cities around the world.

This policy has failed to achieve its stated goal of reducing the cost of cycling injuries.
Instead, it has reduced cycling, resulting in a loss of health benefits, increasing public health costs.


Acknowledgement: Much of the historical information comes from this article, and from CRAG submission to the Prime Minister in 2009.

Following CRAG’s submission, the federal government abandoned its compulsory helmets policy, stating that “helmet wearing policies are entirely determined at a state and territory government level”.

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

3 Responses to “History of helmet law in Australia”

  1. Health says:

    Usage of helmets will definitely add many advantages can we can eradicate many accidents and we can be safe enough.But using the good helmets made up of with fine material will surely have many advantages!!

    • admin says:

      “surely have many advantages!!”

      Have you considered any disadvantages, like an increase in accidents?

      Such naive beliefs like “it can only improve safety” can lead to serious policy mistakes. Public policy requires more thinking that merely relying on faith.

  2. Kim Murray says:

    I’m so damn fed up with being dictated to by know-nothing authoritarians.

    This helmet scenario is as demented and topsy-turvy as the idiotic process determining which drugs should be illicit, but at least we stand a chance of sorting this particular SNAFU, since the global economy doesn’t depend on a mighty river of black cash coming out of it…

    We only have to overcome the blood-boiling hubris of arsehole pollies sticking their fingers in their ears and going LALALALALALA, so let’s kick it up a notch.

Leave a Reply

Current ye@r *

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: Free Web Hosting | Thanks to CD Rates, Las Vegas Condos and Comer Para Perder