What's New

March 2004 Update: Patrick has since got an exemption.


News Release 12th November 2003 - for immediate release.

Dump harmful helmet law say cyclists.
Cycling Health supporter challenges LTSA Director in court.

Cycling Health member Patrick Morgan has appealed the Director of Land Transport's decision to decline his application for an exemption from the mandatory bicycle helmet requirement. The case will be heard in the Wellington District Court on Thursday November 13.

Mr. Morgan said "Well-meaning people believe the helmet law keeps cyclists safe. However, the evidence in New Zealand and overseas shows it discourages cycling and harms the overall health of the population."

The Land Transport Safety Authority (LTSA) has the power to issue exemptions on a case by case basis for religious or medical reasons or on other reasonable grounds. Mr. Morgan's initial application was made on reasonable grounds including the lack of protection offered by bicycle helmets and the possibility of increased risk of spinal and brain injury caused by increased rotational forces. He also claimed that the regulation is discriminatory.

Car drivers and pedestrians are not required to wear helmets despite research suggesting they should provide similar or greater protection than for cyclists, as the LTSA have already acknowledged.

The Land Transport Safety Authority (LTSA) is currently reviewing the Road User Rules which include the bicycle helmet regulation. Cycling Health spokesperson Oliver Thompson said "The law has failed to do what it was meant to do; that is, make cycling safer."

"The law should be repealed. Cycling is a safe and healthy activity which doesn't need special safety equipment. In the Netherlands, nearly everyone cycles; people see no need for special safety equipment. All the New Zealand bicycle helmet law has achieved is to make a fun, healthy and convenient transport mode less comfortable and seemingly more dangerous."

The LTSA is fond of pointing out that the number of cyclist head injuries has decreased by around 20% but they fail to mention that the the trend before the law was for reducing injuries and that has continued without any measurable impact of the law.

Mr Morgan believes he has reasonable grounds for an exemption in light of all evidence suggesting a helmet can endanger his personal safety and well-being. The law is discouraging him from a safe, healthy, non-polluting activity.

Contacts:

Oliver Thompson
04 566 9330 (evenings)
04 931 3432 (day)
021 138 0093 (mobile)

Patrick Morgan
021 155 6966


News Release 8th September 2003
Cyclists' organisation opposes bicycle helmet law. Members face charges of bicycling without a helmet and will defend charges in court on 17th September.

Contacts:

Oliver Thompson
Ph 04 566 9330 after hours.
Ph 021 138 0093

Graeme Trass
P.O. Box 1627, Taupo
Ph 07 377 1498

Cycling Health is a national organisation of cyclists which exists to promote cycling as a safe, healthy, environmentally friendly and convenient form of transport. We oppose the bicycle helmet law because:

  1. Cycling is healthy and safe! The risk of fatality or serious injury per hour of bicycling is similar to the risk from travelling by car. The risk to other road users is minimal compared to the risk of driving a car. The benefits of cycling, even without a helmet, are known to far outweigh the risks. According to Professor Emeritus Mayer Hillman of the Policy Studies Institute, London, this may be as much as by 20:1. The bicycle helmet law hasn't worked. Head injury and fatality statistics show no detectable effect of helmet wearing, despite some research claiming the contrary. The Minister of Transport and the LTSA generally refer to two studies, both of which have been shown to be flawed (See Note 1.) The benefit-cost ratio for the law, initially estimated at 8:1, has been recently estimated at 1:26. In other words, the cost of the law has outstripped its benefits by 26 times. (See Note 2.) There are better ways of improving cyclists' safety. Increasing the number of cyclists on the roads decreases the accident risk for all cyclists. An increase in cycling won't be achieved by continuing to emphasise danger in an effort to justify the bicycle helmet law. The bicycle helmet law is discriminatory. Australian Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS) research predicted that compulsory bicycle style helmets for motorists would save 17 times more in injury costs than compulsory helmets for bicyclists. If we believe that mandatory helmets are necessary, surely they should be applied first where they will do the most good.
  2. The law discourages bicycling. Compulsory helmet wearing makes cycling appear to be a dangerous activity, requiring special protective gear. This image puts people off cycling, with a real public health cost.

Currently three Cycling Health members have been ticketed for bicycling un- helmeted and each faces fines of up to $1000. Graeme Trass, from Taupo, will attend Taupo District Court on Wednesday September 17th to defend his charge. On the same day, Gregor Campbell will be defending his charge in the Dunedin district court. Peter Keller, a Wellington anaesthetist, is waiting for his court date for a defended hearing.

For further information see:
www.cyclinghealth.org.nz
www.cyclehelmets.org

Note 1.
In 1999 research from the LTSA by L.J. Povey was published which claimed that the helmet law resulted in a 28% reduction in adult bicyclist head injuries. However D. Robinson?s paper published in 2001 shows that those results were spurious, caused by flaws in the method of analysis. After applying the effect of time-trend to Povey?s data Robinson concluded: ?large increases in wearing with helmet laws have not resulted in any obvious change over and above existing trends?.

In 2000 the report ?Head Injuries to Bicyclists and the New Zealand Bicycle Helmet Law? written by P. Scuffham claimed to find a benefit from the bicycle helmet law. However, not only did they also fail to account for the underlying trend, they directly stated that doing so would produce dramatically different results: ?During preliminary analyses, we noted that the addition of a time-trend component caused the helmet wearing proportion to become insignificant. That is, a time-trend variable ?swamped? the real effect.?

In other words the effect of the law was completely insignificant.

Note 2:
The most recent research by M. Taylor on the effect of the bicycle helmet legislation in New Zealand shows that rather than achieve the benefit-cost savings predicted when the law was proposed, the costs have substantially outstripped the benefits. A recent analysis of the Taylor paper by D. Robinson concludes that the benefit-cost is at best 1:26,and maybe much worse. That is the cost of the law has outstripped its benefits by 26 times, far removed from the claim that the benefits would outstrip the costs by 8 times. It would appear that the law has been a financial disaster.


Cycling Health members ticketed
Cycling Health member Peter was ticketed for not wearing a helmet on his ride to work this morning. Graeme is also facing a court date on Sept 17 for his ticket. They both plan to fight. Stay tuned for updates.
16 June 2003

Update: Graeme is due in court 17/09/03.

Radio Pacific Interview
Cycling Health member Patrick Morgan was interviewed by Paul Henry on Radio Pacific this morning.
14 May 2003

Submission on Road User Rukes (190 kb PDF document) added
from Dr Nigel Perry, Senior Fellow, University of Canterbury
March 2003

Graeme's court date
Cycling Health member Graeme Trass has been advised that a preliminary hearing will be held on 14 May over his intention to defend his ticket for failing to wear a helmet.
31 March 2003