Right: it has been seriously argued that the compulsory wearing of helmets has discouraged people from riding, thus contributing to an "epidemic" of obesity in Australia.
.Arguments against bike helmets remaining mandatory
1. Bike helmets have not achieved the safety benefits attributed to them
It has recent been claimed that the reduction in death injuries among cyclists that Australia has seen is not the result of making bike helmets compulsory.
Associate Professor Chris Rissel and Dr Alexander Voukelatos from The University of Sydney's school of public health have looked at the number of cyclists admitted to hospital in New South Wales with cycling-related head injuries between 1989 (before helmets were mandatory) and 2008.
The researchers claim that the greatest drop in head injuries was in the 1980s, before the bike helmet laws were introduced. They attribute this reduction to road safety campaigns and speed controls. Professor Rissel has claimed that the introduction of compulsory helmets resulted in only a slight additional reduction in casualties among cyclists.
Dr Rissel has stated, 'As the compliance of people wearing helmets increased you would expect a marked drop in the rate of head injuries and that's not what you see in the data.'
It has also been noted that in the United Kingdom, where it is not compulsory to wear bike helmets, cyclist deaths fell from 256 in 1990 to 114 in 2003 - a drop of 56%. It has been claimed that this indicates that in Australia any decline in fatalities is likely to be attributable to factors other than wearing helmets.
2. There are some hazards associated with helmet wearing
It has been claimed that wearing a bicycle helmet can actually increase the likelihood of an accident. Some studies have found an increased death rate was associated with increased helmet use.
Other studies have indicated that helmeted riders are far more likely to have struck their heads in an accident. To say that helmeted riders are at greater risk of injury seems illogical; however, it has been suggested that behavioural changes may have occurred which cause them to take more risks or less precautions, the net effect of this could outweigh the limited protective benefit of their helmets.
What is suggested here is that the sense of being protected which wearing a helmet gives may lead some riders to take more risks than they otherwise would.
3. Mandatory helmets reduce bike riding and so the benefits to be gained
Opponents of compulsory helmets argue they discourage people from cycling and so contribute to Australia's obesity problem.
Chris Gillham, a West Australian journalist who has been campaigning against compulsory bike helmets since 2000, has stated, 'All research papers at least partly blame an increasingly sedentary lifestyle for Australia's obesity levels. Greater public recreational exercise is encouraged to stem a looming public health crisis.'
The Australian Bicycle Council, a subsidiary of the Australian Government's Department of Transport, stated in March 2004, 'Bicycling is part of the solution to many of our cities problems: the obesity epidemic, traffic congestion, air pollution and more. The mainstream health message these days is that people need to do at least 30 minutes of moderate physical activity on most days, to maintain health.'
However, there are those who argue that compulsory helmets reduce the rate of bicycle use and so contribute to both Australia's obesity-related health problems and to our road congestion and pollution problems. The ACT Cyclists' Rights Action Group stated in August 1996, 'The government has neglected to consider that many people would give up cycling rather than wear a helmet, and it is only in rare cases that these declines have been accurately recorded. In the ACT the decline was measured at 33% on weekdays and 50% on weekends. The overall decline Australia-wide is estimated at 30% to 50%. Some people just don't want to wear a helmet.'
The most comprehensive data available in terms of the impact on cycling numbers are two studies done in Melbourne and Sydney. Cycling dropped by 40% among children and 30% among adults. For every cyclist persuaded to put on a helmet, three cyclists gave up cycling. About 30% of cyclists ignored the helmet law
Referring to the contemporary situation, Associate Professor Chris Rissel from The University of Sydney's school of public health has stated of compulsory helmet legislation, 'What it does is it puts people off cycling and makes people think that cycling's a dangerous activity, even though it's a really healthy thing to do and it increases people's physical activity.'
Dr Rissel has claimed that although helmets protect heads, they also discourage casual cycling, where people use a bike to get milk or visit a friend. He believes that scrapping compulsory helmet use would encourage bicycle use, improve health rates and reduce injury rates because getting more cyclists on the roads would make motorists better at avoiding them.
4. Mandatory helmets will reduce the use of hire bicycles
Melbourne's $5.5 million bike share scheme is not attracting the users anticipated and it is claimed that the city's compulsory helmet legislation may be a reason for this.
Fewer than 70 trips are being made a day on Melbourne's 600-bike system, a tiny number of journeys compared with the take-up rate in bigger schemes introduced some other cities around the world.
Melbourne is the only city in the world to have introduced a bike-share scheme and retain its compulsory helmet laws.
On August 2, 2010, on the Internet page of the Victorian Premier, John Brumby, the following comment was posted by Jack Zagorski, 'The other day I was in Federation Square enjoying a coffee and idly watching the bicycles queued up at the Melbourne Bike Share station. During the whole time I was there, approximately one hour, despite the fact that the day was clear and sunny, not one bike was rented. It occurs to me that the main blockage to the effective use of these bikes is the need for a rider to have a helmet. Unlike all other such schemes around the world, including the newly opened one in London, Riders in Melbourne are required to wear a helmet when they ride their bike. Perhaps we should reconsider the helmet law in relation to the Melbourne Bike Share.'
5. Helmet use could be mandated only for particular at-risk groups
It has been argued that helmet-wearing should be retained for only a select group of cyclists who are at particular risk. This claim has been made especially in relation to children.
Associate Professor Chris Rissel from The University of Sydney's school of public health has stated, 'The case for continued mandatory helmet wearing for adults is questionable although there is a case for it continuing for children under 15, who suffered about half the head injuries reported in this study. Helmet use is likely to prevent some injury, particularly for less experienced younger age groups. However the mandatory bicycle helmet legislation is appears not the main factor behind reduced head injuries among cyclists.'