Hacker News Reader

Comment by awjr | Hacker News Reader

For those with too little time, the basic premise is that helmet laws appear to suppress cycling significantly, increase the risk of cycling and cause premature deaths through lack of exercise

TL;DR "The following trends were observed following the introduction of New Zealand’s helmet law:

Cycling usage reduced by 51%. Cyclist’s injury risk per hour increased by 20–32%. Estimated to have contributed to 53 premature deaths per year (due to reluctance to cycle and hence people not exercising). Thousands of fines are issued annually for not wearing a helmet. May contribute to discrimination in accident compensation and the legal processes. Could have contributed to environmental pollution and environmental harm (due to use of vehicles in place of cycles). Possibly diminishes civil liberties and human rights (by imposing a requirement to wear a helmet when several reports raise serious doubts whether they improve safety overall)."

View on HN

No, helmets aren't killing cyclists, car drivers are.

In the 1980's the New Zealand government removed tariffs on imported cars leading to a massive growth in car ownership.

More cars leads to more driving and less cycling. Then, with more cars on the road, cycling becomes more dangerous.

This trend just happened to coincide with the change in helmet law.

You're overlooking one thing: The less cyclists are on the road the less car drivers will be used to their presence and on the lookout for them. This is the danger caused indirectly by helmet laws.

I was arguing that there wasn't a shift away from cycling due to helmet laws - but a shift toward driving due to other (largely economic) factors.

Of course, I agree that if "less cyclists are on the road the less car drivers will be used to their presence and on the lookout for them."

Not sure your argument stands up to the 0-17 age group having a 75% reduction in cycling.

Also, see this response https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/...

"there was a 67% decline in serious traumatic brain injury (TBI) comparing data for the years nearest the helmet law (1988–1991 vs. 1996–1999)."

"Tin Tin et al6 list several reasons apart from the helmet law for declines in cycling rates and increases in cycling injuries. These include the lack of cycling focus in the New Zealand road safety agenda, an increase in children being driven to school due to parental concerns of safety and an already existing pre-law decline in cycling rates."

I don't think that totally stacks up though. A decline in injuries at the time of the introduction of the laws is natural - there was a lot of campaigning and awareness at the time.

And ultimately a net decrease in head injuries doesn't mean that much when there are many other injuries with cycling generally being more dangerous.

I'm just a single data point but I stopped cycling in nz after they introduced the fines for being caught without a helmet. I've cycled daily in London for years now an it's a much safer place to cycle. My feeling is that's generally due to the awareness from having a lot of cyclists on the road. Whatever nz are trying to do with their foisting of rules upon people, it's not working.

"Whatever nz are trying to do with their foisting of rules upon people, it's not working."

Based on funding and who advocates these laws, a substantial amount of advocates are supporting them in order to clear the roads to promote motoring.

I'd say that's working just fine.

Fewer children are cycling and walking to school. More children are being dropped off at school by car.

More cars and less cyclists ultimately results in less safe conditions for cyclists.

>>>>> Fewer children are cycling and walking to school. More children are being dropped off at school by car.

I'm actually astounded by this. I grew up in a fairly typical suburban neighborhood, and everybody walked to school. A few weeks before I started kindergarten, my mom walked me to school, to make sure I knew the way. The kids who got driven to school, were teased for it.

Today, every kid in that neighborhood gets driven. There's a long line of cars in front of the school, and the amount of traffic is cited as a reason why it's no longer safe to walk.

When I went to school, the bike racks were large and jammed with bikes. These days, there's maybe one 6 foot rack for the whole school, with 3 bikes in it.

Yes, their parents drive them about until they're 15 when they get their first car.

I would love to see the two datasets side by side

I believe this kind of trend has been known for a while and was a main reason for not introducing helment laws in Germany.

Yes, exactly this issue was discussed last summer and helmet laws declared detrimental for exactly the points laid out in the article.

You are correct that the basic premise is that cycling laws cause problems. Unfortunately, there is no data or analysis that would tend more than incrementally toward that conclusion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com