Exemptions
Update, August 2006
Traffic Regulations 1976 section 38a has been revoked, replaced with Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 section 11.8. The relevant regulation is at: Helmet Regulations
Under subclause 7 of "Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 section 11.8 Safety Helmets for Cyclists", it's possible to seek an exemption from wearing a cycle helmet. You can apply on the grounds of religious belief or physical disability or other reasonable grounds.
I applied on "other reasonable grounds", was declined, and appealed it to the District Court.
The Court was not sympathetic.
So I applied under medical grounds, as below, and was granted an exemption. This takes the form of a laminated card issued by the LTSA which you are supposed to carry when cycling.
How to get an exemption
Go to your doctor. Tell them that you suffer from headaches, heat rash, migraine etc when you wear a cycling helmet.
Ask them to write you a letter along these lines:
To whom it May Concern
I write to support on medical grounds (name) not wearing a cycle helmet.
S/he is prone to headaches and he gets these frequently in hot weather and cycling in conditions where he gets hot, for example up hills. This is hard to avoid in Wellington.
(signed)
Send this off to:
Driver Licensing Administration
Transport Registry Centre
Private Bag 11777
Palmerston North 4442
with a covering letter saying you are applying for a bicycle helmet exemption. Something like:
Under subclause 3 of "Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 section 11.8 Safety Helmets for Cyclists", I seek an exemption from wearing a helmet on medical grounds. See the enclosed letter from my doctor.
Keep copies of your application - they 'lost' my first application.
How not to get an exemption
Here's my request for an exemption, followed by the LTSA's reply.
Hon Paul Swain
Minister of Transport
Parliament Buildings
Wellington
15 January 2003
Exemption from Traffic Regulation 38A Safety helmets
Dear Mr Swain,
Under subclause 3 of "Traffic Regulations 1976 Part 3, Regulation 38A Safety Helmets for Cyclists", I seek an exemption from wearing a helmet on the grounds that the requirement is unreasonable.
Specifically,
- Helmets don't work.
A study published in Accident Analysis and Prevention in 1997 by Scuffham on voluntary helmet wearing rates in New Zealand between 1986 and 1993 found no association with head injury despite an increase from 5% to 65% in helmet use.The weight of scientific evidence indicates that helmets don't work. Laws ought to be based on science rather than anecdote.
- Helmets may increase injuries.
It has been known for 20 years that serious head injury occurs because of the head rapidly rotating around its own axis. Imagine a football spinning on a pole. Add a helmet to this. A helmet will not reduce the forces and may by adding to the weight and volume of the head actually increase them. Helmets will protect against superficial injury but these are treatable and rarely life threatening.Additionally, the strap cuts across the throat, the helmet can catch on the ground, twisting the neck, and it causes serious over-heating when hill-climbing on a warm day.
- Helmets do nothing to reduce the likelihood of a crash.
Wearing a helmet may even increase the likelihood of a crash, as cyclists may overcompensate when they wear helmets, riding more dangerously. Additionally, drivers may exercise less care when passing helmetted cyclists. - The requirement is discriminatory.
Even if it was shown that bicycle helmets work, why is there no requirement for vehicle drivers and passengers to wear helmets? Why does the requirement not apply to off-road bicycles? - The law has led to fewer cyclists.
Bicycling has decreased by 20% in New Zealand recently, and in countries where they looked at the figures before and after a helmet law it decreased by an average of 30%. It is known that the fewer cyclists you have in a population, the more dangerous it is for the individual cyclist. It also leads to a more sedentary population, with associated health risks. I note that the British Medical Association has long opposed helmet laws.
I understand that common sense suggests that wearing a helmet improves cyclist safety. However, scientific evidence shows the opposite. The current helmet law may be well-intentioned, but it is misguided.
If the government is sincere about improving cyclist (and pedestrian) safety, as the NZ Transport Strategy states, it ought to focus on risk reduction: lowering traffic speed, getting rid of dangerous bull-bars, funding cycling facilities, road-user education etc.
Please send my exemption to the address below.
Yours faithfully,
Patrick Morgan
cc: Cycle Advocates Network
cc: Chainlinks magazine
LTSA's reply
on LTSA letterhead
18 February 2003
Dear Mr Morgan
I have been asked to reply to your letter to the Minister of Transport dated 16 January 2003 requesting an exemption from wearing a cycle helmet, because the Director of Land Transport Safety (or his delegate) has the discretion to grant exemptions.
An exemption can be granted on the grounds stated in Regulation 38A(3) of the Traffic Regulations 1976, and makes provision for religious belief or physical disability or other reasonable grounds.
The requirement to wear cycle helmets is based on sound research evidence that cycle helmets contribute to safety at reasonable cost for New Zealand cyclists. Helmets are not primarily designed to reduce accidents. They are to mitigate the effect of crashes.
The Land Transport Safety Authority (LTSA) undertook a study on cycle helmet effectiveness in 1999. This study, "Cycle helmet effectiveness in New Zealand", Povety et al, 1999, concluded that the relatively large increase in cycle helmet wearing associated with the passing of a compulsory helmet law in 1994 reduced overall head injuries by nearly 30%. Also analysing similar data, Scuffham et al ("Head injuries to bicyclists and the New Zealand bicycle helmet law", 1999) have found very similar results.
The nature of the grounds for exemption in Regulation 38A(3) excludes your request for an exemption on the basis that "helmets don't work."
According. Pursuant to the power delegated to me by the Director of Land Transport Safety, your application for an exemption from wearing a bicycle helmet is declined.
You may appeal this decision under section 106 of the Land Transport Act 1998 by filing a Notice of Appeal with the District Court within 28 days of receiving this letter.
I hope this clarifies the situation. Thank you for taking the time to write.
Yours sincerely
(signed)
Team Leader Medical Review
Transport Registry Centre,
Private Bag,
Palmerston North
Anyone out there have a cycle helmet exemption? Drop me a line