The Government introduced the compulsory helmets law in 1992 simply to meet a condition of a Federal offer of funds for roads. To justify the law, the following five conditions should have been met, but were not:
The Government says the helmets law is needed to reduce the costs of bicycle accidents to society. But it has provided no evidence that costs had been increasing pre-law. In fact, bicycle-related fatalities in Australia had been declining.
Is head injury the social ill? If so, genuine concern will be for those injured whatever the cause, not limited to cyclists - who account for only 6 per cent of hospital admissions for head injury in the ACT. Australia-wide, 690 motorists and 233 pedestrians died by head injury in 1988, but only 40 cyclists.
As it seems obvious tha wearing helmets will reduce injuries to cyclists, legislators have too readily accepted it to be true. In 1992, Mr Connolly claimed "overwhelming evidence that shows the lifesaving benefits of bicycle helmets". But when pressed he was unable to produce such evidence.
In reality, researchers disagree about the efficacy of helmets. Studies in the USA and of NSW and Victoria before and after the helmets law indicate an increased risk of casualty.
In it's 1994 inquiry into football injuries of the head and neck, the National Health and Medical Research Council said:
"The use of helmets increases the size and mass of the head. This may result in an increase in brain injury."
The helmets law distracted attention from other actions to prevent accidents: 323 cyclists fined for not wearing a helmet but only 28 for all other offences over the same period.
The law compels cyclists to use helmets protect themselves, there being no question of harm to other people. It thereby goes against a long tradition that protection of one's own person is a private matter not subject to law, and it contravenes a principle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1949, that legal sanctions against an individual are justified only to protect others.
Government argues that there is harm to others because society meets the cost of treating cyclists' injuries, and cites the analogy of motorists wearing seatbelts. But head injuries to motorists cost much more despite seatbelts, and governments have not acted on experts' recommendations that motorists wear protective headgear. The law therefore discriminates unfairly against cyclists, again contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
To sum up, the helmets law infringes civil liberties and violates international standards of non-discrimination.
The Government simply introduced the legislation as agreed in a secret meeting of Australian ministers for Transport. It failed to provide legislators and the public with supporting information and made no attempt to consult the electorate.
We contend that proper democratic processes were by-passed. Our discussion last February (1993) with Roberta McRae MLA, a local Member, confirm this. She insisted that the ACT had to comply with the Federal Government, and had no choice but to make helmets compulsory so as to qualify for funds for roads.
The Department of Urban Services did a survey of cycling pre- and post-law. It showed weekday cycling declined by a third and weekend cycling by half. The British Medical Association says the benefits gained from regular cycling are likely to outweigh the loss of life through accidents. Not only have health benefits been lost but studies in the USA, NSW and Victoria show wearing of helmets has not reduced injuries.
The helmets law distracts attention from preventing accidents.
It should be up to the government to prove the necessity of a helmets law, but they have failed to do so. Without identifying a social ill needing a legislative remedy, and short of evidence that helmet wearing would reduce injuries to cyclists, the Government forced it on us.
The helmets law violates the international standards of privacy and non-discrimination. It has discouraged cycling, with loss of its health benefits. Studies suggest no benefits in reduced injuries will ensue. The law has distracted attention from preventing accidents. But the Government refuses to review it.
Return to CRAG Home Page