by Bill Curnow
An important loophole has been revealed in the helmets wearing law in the ACT. In a case last year, the ACT Supreme Court interpreted the law in such a way that any cyclist who believes on reasonable grounds that wearing a helmet would increase the risk or severity of injury need not wear one[1]. The cyclist in that particular case held that belief, but did not succeed in being acquitted because he had not produced evidence to show that he had reasonable grounds for his belief at the time, months before, when he was charged with not wearing a helmet. Since then, several members of Cyclists' Rights Action Group publicly and with prior notice to government rode without helmets, but the authorities chose not to act. They thereby confirmed they accept that reasonable grounds exist.
Note: to see the judgement handed down in the court case mentioned above, go to The Australasian Legal Information Institute and do a search on bicycle helmets.All the ACT Attorney-General could do was complain about cyclists who did not wear helmets falling back on the public hospital system. The fact, however, is that cycling on cycle paths in Canberra declined by 37 per cent following the helmets law, but admissions of injured cyclists to public hospitals were virtually unchanged. Thus, the rate of injury to the remaining cyclists went up by more than 50 per cent.
The experience of a decline in cycling but less than commensurate fall in casualties is typical everywhere in Australia where measurements have been made. In NSW, matched surveys of child cyclists (under 16) indicate changes in their numbers pre-law to post-law. For the year before the law commenced on 1 July 1991, the number passing survey sites in April 1991 was 6072. At the same sites in April 1992 and 1993, the counts were 3887 and 3478, declines of 36 and 43 per cent respectively.[2] Numbers of head injuries and other injuries to child cyclists before and after the helmets law are shown in Table 1. In brackets are shown the numbers of injuries if they had declined in proportion to the number of cyclists.
Year ended Head Incr. Other Incr.
30 June inj. risk Inj. risk
1990 453 1053
1991 384 926
----------------------------------------------------law for <16 y.o
1992 272 (246)+10% 815 (593)+37%
1993 273 (219)+25% 893 (528)+69%
Contrary to the trend to improved road safety generally, the apparent risk of serious head injury to those still cycling after the law increased by up to 25 per cent and other serious injury by up to 69 per cent. Worse, it is likely that the proportion of brain injury increased, see below. But the Roads and Traffic Authority interpreted the data as "a substantially larger decrease in bicycle head injuries than other types of injuries" and "Increased helmet wearing has had a positive effect on the head injury rate"![3] This is just one example of transport authorities obfuscating data. It is disquieting.
For Victoria, an analysis of statistics by Robinson suggested that for the same cycle use as before the law there would now be no fewer head injuries and more total head injuries to children.[4]
Empirical data such as these form part of the reasonable grounds for believing that helmet wearing increases the risk of injury. There are also sound theoretical grounds based on the mechanics of brain injury. Studies including experiments with animals and dummies show that the main cause of brain injury is rotational forces. These are generated by a glancing blow to the side of the head upon impact with a road surface,[5] but the design and testing of helmets according to the Australian Standard AS2063 takes no account of them. "Helmets have been thought of as giving protection from a direct blow. The standard acceptance tests for both motorcycle and bicycle helmets reflect this concept of direct impact in that the tests require the helmet to be simply dropped onto a hard surface. These tests do not reflect the actual crash situation which usually involves considerable horizontal acceleration of the protected head as well as vertical acceleration, resulting in high levels of rotational acceleration of the head on impact."[6] The National Health and Medical Research Council summed up that helmets may possibly reduce the incidence of scalp lacerations and other soft tissue injury, but "there is the risk that helmets may actually increase both the cerebral and non-cerebral injury rates. ... The addition of a helmet will increase both the size and mass of the head. This means that blows that would have been glancing become more solid and thus transmit increased rotational forces to the brain ... increase in diffuse brain injury."[7]
Further, the standard requirement for helmets to have a hard shell was removed in 1990, because a parliamentary committee thought soft-shell helmets would be more acceptable to users.[8] Against this, the evidence of efficacy that governments relied on to underpin the helmets laws came from studies of hard-shell helmets. Commissioned research which took account of the lethal effect of rotational forces recommended that the shells of helmets should be very stiff, with a low impact sliding reaction.[9] There was no research backing for soft shell helmets, and tests of impacts of helmets on asphalt have since shown that, unlike hard-shell helmets which slide, soft helmets grab the surface, rotating the head.[10] The amendment to the standard compromised safety. Government was negligent.
Clearly, as the facts become well known, in effect only cyclists who believe that helmets are helpful will be compelled to wear one. So why a law at all? Indeed, the ACT's Chief Minister has sensibly proposed, in a personal capacity, that it be reviewed, but Labor MLAs claim still to be unconvinced that it may be counter-productive, and will not agree. Of course, they supported the law in the first place. It seems they are more concerned with saving face than lives.
Preliminary legal advice is that the belief, on reasonable grounds, of increased risk of injury will be a good defence against the helmet laws elsewhere in Australia. Clearly, a review Australia-wide is called for.
Further details available from the author at 27 Araba St., ARANDA 2614, 06-2515357, bilcurno@pcug.org.au.
1 Van Schaik and Neuhaus, Supreme Court of the ACT, 1 May 1996.
2 Smith, N.C. and Milthorpe, F.W., An observational survey of law compliance and helmet wearing by bicyclists in New South Wales - 1993, for the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority, Sydney, 1993.
3 Roads and Traffic Authority, New South Wales, The current state of bicycle riding, June 1994.
4 Robinson, D.L. Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp.463475, 1996
5 Dorsch, M.M., Woodward, A.J. and Somers, R.L., Do bicycle helmets reduce severity of head injury in real crashes?, Acc. Anal. & Prev. 19, 3, pp. 183-190, 1987.
Holbourn, A.H.S., Mechanics of head injuries, The Lancet, 2, 338-441, 1943.
Ommaya, A.K. and Gennarelli, T.A., Cerebral concussion and traumatic unconsciousness: correlations of experimental and clinical observations on blunt head injuries, Brain, 97, 633-654, 1974.
Ommaya, A.K. and Gennarelli, T.A., Cerebral concussion and traumatic unconsciousness: correlations of experimental and clinical observations on blunt head injuries, Brain, 97, 633-654, 1974.
6 Corner, J.P., Whitney, C.W., O'Rourke, N. and Morgan, D.E., Motorcycle and bicycle protective helmets: requirements resulting from a post crash study and experimental research, Federal Office of Road Safety report no.CR 55, Canberra 1987, p. 3
7 National Health and Medical Research Council, Football injuries of the head and neck, AGPS, Canberra, 1994
8 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport Safety, Final report on motorcycle and bicycle helmet safety inquiry, AGPS, 1985.
9 Corner et al, ibid, p.36
10 Andersson, T., Larsson, P. and Sandberg, U., Chin strap forces in bicycle helmets, Swedish National Testing and Research Institute, Materials & Mechanics, SP report 1993:42
Return to CRAG Home Page