Quantcast
Channel: Freestyle Cyclists

Going to Court in Queensland

0
0

Traffic Infringement Notice issued 4 August 2017

Timeline

4 August 2017

On 4 August I was issued with a TIN for not wearing a helmet.  Three members of the QPS bike squad saw fit to attend to the matter.

Initially they asked for a reason, possibly expecting an exemption letter to be produced, they asked if I had one.  I do not and said as much.  At all times being courteous.

They then asked for my reason for riding without a helmet.  I explained that I felt I did not need to basically starting to explain the TGA exception that Sue Abbott has tried (and subsequently she has lost that case in Adelaide).  For whatever reason that is only apparent to themselves they were not interested in me completing my explanation, constantly interjecting, ridiculing me and claiming I should choose other transportation options.  I also explained to them that I was disabled and this is my preferred choice in order to minimise my discomfort and maximise my mobility.  

After a period of time they basically said they were not interested in anything I had to say and were going to issue the TIN, despite saying at the outset that they would take away my details and consider issuing a TIN at a later time.  At this time they also threatened me with arrest and a trip to the watchhouse if I mounted my bike again that day without a helmet. I thought this was particularly over the top.

All three were wearing body cams, and unknown to them I was also recording the interaction with a bike mounted DVR, Fly 12.  It was also obvious that they were checking out my bike in detail in order to see if they could issue any other TINs.  No chance since I know the ADRs and TORUM possibly better than they do, so my bike has everything required.

I was then forced to walk my bike around 2kms to my workplace.  Having a mobility disability, and back issues meant that this caused me to endure a great deal of pain, pain that lasted all day and through the weekend.

I was told that I could have the matter heard in court or pay the fine.  I intended to take the matter to court.  Theoretically not paying should have had the matter sent to court.

2 October 2017

I received a SPER (State Penalties Enforcement Register) notice, advising that I had an outstanding fine, the original fine plus $67.45 administration.  Obviously someone screwed up.  I signed the form, ticking the box for a court hearing.

24 October 2017

Acknowledgment letter that I would be given a preliminary court hearing date.

23 November 2017

Letter advising of my court date on 23 January 2018.  Letter also comes with official complaint from the ticketing officer stating the basics of the complaint.

23 January 2018

Court date, I arrived first so I jumped the queue from 4 to number 1, that a tip if you want to be in and out quicker.  The prosecutor advised the process while waiting for the magistrate.  Basically guilty or not guilty, most are there because they are pleading not guilty.  This means being given a “Notice to Defendant”, a trial date, when your brief of evidence will be available, and bail to ensure you turn up for the trial date.  The Notice to Defendant is to ensure you know what you can ask for as if the prosecutor needs expert witnesses they need to be organised in advance, mostly for speeding fine contests.

In my case I can ask for the body cam footage and for the three officers to attend court for questioning over the matter.  This is my email to the prosecutor, two days later on 25 January 2018:

RE: Evidence Brief and Query, Ticket No. XXXXXXXXX

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Hi Mark,

Please let me know when the Brief of Evidence will be available for collection from the court, the indicated day was 5 February 2017 for the trial date of 15 February 2017, 9:00am.  All three officers were using body cameras so I expect that there will be three videos available, plus whatever other paperwork is necessary to be provided in the brief.  I would also like to know if it is standard practice for the officers issuing the ticket to be present on the trial day?  The Notice to Defendant – Traffic Matters information suggests this is the case.  I would like to question all three officers about matters that occurred on the day as I would personally like to understand their motives behind some of their actions towards me as I am sure the magistrate would also.

Thank you in advance.

As you can see out of the box I put him on notice that I was serious about this matter and I intended to vigorously defend the matter.

2 February 2018

I received his response a week later as follows:

RE: Evidence Brief and Query, Ticket No. XXXXXXXXX

Hello,

The officer has asked me to withdraw the ticket as the court date clashes with his Commonwealth Games commitments. You can come to court on the 15th if you want or not.

Regards,

Mark XXXXXX

Senior Sergeant XXXX| Police Prosecution Corps

BRISBANE MAGISTRATES COURTS

Level 8, 40 Tank Street, Brisbane Q 4001

P: (07) 3099

F: (07) 3099

My Response:

RE: Evidence Brief and Query, Ticket No. XXXXXXXXX

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Hi Mark,

Thanks for getting back to me.  In light of that I will not attend court and consider the matter closed.  Thanks for letting me know.

Now based on some feedback, I will have someone attend court on my behalf, my daughter as I do have a business appointment to attend to that was made after this matter was considered closed.  She will have my complete file including the correspondence from the prosecutor advising the matter was withdrawn to prevent him from reopening the matter in my absence.

Summary

As at 7 February 2018, the matter is closed, however I will update this summary in a week after the trial date has come and gone.

For those wondering, the words “without prejudice” on my emails mean that the prosecutor is unable to present that correspondence in court as evidence.  He however did not precede his email with those words so I should be able have his correspondence presented as evidence of the withdrawal of the matter.

Defense Summary

My defense was going to hinge on a number of matters.

Primarily, where any law of a state conflicts with a law of the commonwealth, the commonwealth law takes precedence.

First, the TGA defense of me riding the bike for transport and as a result a helmet is considered a medical device.  This would be further amplified by the TGA considering helmets as a medical device for the prescription of the drug Clobazam, they do not specify what the minimum requirement is for a helmet, only that one be used.

Second, that as a disabled person any device that I use to aid my mobility is considered to be a therapeutic device under the TGA as follows:

Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 Section 41 BD paragraph (1)(a)(ii) of said act which defines what a Medical Device is.

  1. any instrument, apparatus, appliance, material or other article (whether used alone or in combination, and including the software necessary for its proper application) intended, by the person under whose name it is or is to be supplied, to be used for human beings for the purpose of one or more of the following:

(ii) diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, alleviation of or compensation for an injury or handicap

Third, that as I was making a choice to ride without a helmet, I undertook a strict risk assessment of the possible routes into the city from where I was parked, choosing the longer route as it was all off road (shared pathways), contained only 6 road crossings of which only one was an uncontrolled crossing.  Importantly there were only 3 driveway crossings on the city paths being traversed (none prior to the city).  The shorter route contained 17 road crossings of which less than half were controlled intersections.  Further to that there were in excess of 50 driveways to houses, businesses and car parks along the entire trip.  Each one of those a potential hazard.  Under a Hierarchy Of Controls (HOC) hazard reduction process, the first step is to always eliminate the hazard which I did through route choice.  PPE is always the last resort in a HOC process.  Since I had undertaken every possible step prior to PPE, I felt there was no risk to myself.

Fourth, under the Queensland Criminal Code, S22 (2), even if none of the above defenses apply, if you act in a manner where you truly believe you are not in contravention of the law even with knowledge of the applicable law, you cannot be found guilty of contravening the law.  Since I believe that under points One and Two above I was not in contravention of the law as commonwealth law applied I cannot be found guilty under state law, based on state law itself.


Going to Court in South Australia

0
0

On March 23rd 2018, our South Australian co-ordinator and National Vice-President Sundance Bilson-Thompson was in court in Adelaide challenging a bike helmet fine.

Those of you who have listened to one of Sundance’s presentations will know what a good grasp he has of the statistics and arguments around bike helmet law.

Although the Magistrate and the Prosecutor were clearly impressed with his defence, absurd add-on costs made his victory meaningless. The costs imposed by the Court were paid for out of our Court fighting fund https://www.gofundme.com/changehelmetlaw.

On March 23rd I went to court to fight a fine I’d received for failure to wear a bike helmet. My strategy was to appeal to section 15 of the Criminal Law Sentencing Act, which states that if a defendant is found guilty, the magistrate or judge can take several steps including dismiss the fine and record no conviction if they deem the offence to be “trivial”. I intended to argue that as the health benefits of regular cycling outweigh the injury risks about ten to one, my actions were actually beneficial to society and hence should be judge as trivial. I prepared a brief document referencing the health studies which proved this.

When I got to the stand, it was actually the police prosecutor who was most sympathetic to my case. Failure to wear a helmet is what’s called a “strict liability offence”, meaning it’s basically a matter of fact that you did it, or you didn’t. There are no real grades of technicality (such as how responsible you are in a manslaughter case, for example). The magistrate didn’t really seem to pay much attention to the argument I was making about health benefits, but the police prosecutor actually said that the point I was making was interesting, and they’d be happy with a minimal fine and no recorded conviction. So the fine was dropped from $102 to $20. Not a bad outcome, as moral victories go.

Now here’s the rub; in South Australia we have this strange beast called the victims of Crime Compensation levy, which came to $60 (hence the original fine was $162), even though failing to wear a helmet is a victimless crime. And it turns out that simply by taking the case to court, the VoCC goes up automatically to $160, and that’s pat of an act of parliament which the courts can’t do anything about. Plus there was $100 in court fees added to the total. Meaning that after starting with a $162 expiation fee, presenting a case which impressed the prosecution, and getting the actual fine itself dropped from $102 to $20, I walked away from court being stung for $280. That’s right, fourteen times the actual fine itself!

So what are the take-home messages from this experience? Firstly, I think the argument itself, that you’re doing good for society by getting exercise, was good. The fine itself was reduced by over 80% as a result. If this approach was tried in a different state, one without a Victims of Crime levy, it could be an effective way of reducing your fine considerably.

Also, the magistrate seemed to interpret “trivial”, in regard to section 15 of the criminal law sentencing act, as a trivial instance of the offence in question, not as a trivial ofence in the context of all crimes. That means a minor case of assault or theft could be viewed more leniently than a victimless act like riding a bike without a helmet on a main road. So if anyone else wants to try appealing to this particular act of the law, I’d say try it if you’re booked on a quiet road or off-road path and argue that the safety of the location makes your offence trivial.

Victorian Cyclists and the State Election

0
0

Victorian Cycling Groups are getting together to discuss coordination and goals for this year’s State election. If your group hasn’t been contacted yet, please get in touch via our Contact Us page or register via https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/cyclists-get-organised-for-the-2018-victorian-state-election-tickets-48150575668 to let us know you are coming.

The meeting will be from 5:30 to 8:00 PM on Tuesday August 7th at Maurice Blackburn, 380 LaTrobe St, Melbourne.

With both of the major parties giving little thought and less funding to safe bicycle infrastructure, what can we do? Come along with your ideas and goals.

 

Discouraged Cyclists, More Cars, More Injuries

0
0

This is a guest post by Chris Gillham, who maintains http://www.cycle-helmets.com/, a rich repository of facts and statistics on Australia’s helmet law disaster.

With Australia’s National Cycling Participation surveys suggesting either a decline of more than a million from 2011 to 2019 (if the population percentages of 2011 and 2019 are applied only to the 2018 population) or 539,046 (if the 2011 results are applied to the 2010 population and 2019 results are applied to the 2018 population), how many of them are instead driving a car to their friend’s place, the shops, etc?

Australian Bureau of Statistics data can be handy, although we concede they only show the numbers of vehicles and not how often people drive their vehicles.

They show that in 2011, there were 13,152,834 registered passenger vehicles and motorcycles in Australia.

In 2019, there are 15,374,253 passenger vehicles and motorcycles registered in Australia. That’s a 16.9% increase since 2011.

In 2011, Australia’s 17yo+ driving age population was 17,534,610 and in 2018 it was 19,717,980. That’s a 12.5% driving age population increase since 2011.

That 4.4% difference between vehicle registrations and population growth can be equated in numerous ways but, most simply, 4.4% of 15,374,253 registered motor vehicles and motorcycles is 676,467 more than if registrations had matched population growth at 12.5%.

That 676,467 excess is comparible with between 539,046 and a million fewer people riding bikes from 2011 to 2019.

Sure, the figures can’t assume that every discouraged cyclists didn’t also have a vehicle anyway, but there could be a proportion who buy a car because they’re discouraged from cycling a few kilometres, or maybe a second family car because the partner is discouraged from cycling, etc. Whatever, the data suggests an increased ratio of vehicles per person since 2011 and raises questions as to whether Australian car registrations would have risen 86.0% from 1990 to 2019 (7,797,300 > 14,504,148) vs 17yo+ driving age population growth of 54.3% from 1990 to 2018 (12,780,937 > 19,717,980).

Traffic speed is used by the Australian Automobile Association to gauge vehicle congestion in Australian cities …

i.e. traffic congestion has been increasing in all capital cities since 2013.

The most recent AIHW data show there were 34,042 hospitalised road injuries in Australia in 2011 and 38,945 in 2016.  That’s a 14.4% increase.

From 2011 to 2016, car occupant injuries were up 14.1% (16,722 > 19,085), motorcyclist injuries were up 12.6% (7,571 > 8,523), pedestrian injuries were down 0.6% (2,760 > 2,744), and pedal cyclist injuries were up 28.0% (5,393 > 6,905)..

Of course, those are only hospitalised injury figures to 2016 and if we had the extra two years to 2018 the percentage increase would probably be nudging the 16.9% increase in registered vehicles and motorbikes from 2011 to 2019.

Pedestrian data are the exception but although the figures are dated and not entirely indicative, we note ABS recreation surveys showing 4,258,800 Australians walking for exercise in 2011-12 and 3,544,900 in 2013-14, a 16.8% reduction.

The data supports a logical assumption that discouraging cyclists with helmet laws increases the injury risk to all road users.

Spotlight on America: are helmets increasing the injury rate?

0
0

This is a guest post by Chris Gillham, who maintains http://www.cycle-helmets.com/, a rich repository of facts and statistics on Australia’s helmet law disaster.

A new American study has cast further doubt on the ability of bicycle helmets to prevent concussions, at the same time raising questions about their tendency to cause more bike accidents and injuries due to factors such as risk compensation.

The paper’s title, Helmet Usage Reduces Serious Head Injury Without Decreasing Concussion After Bicycle Riders Crash more or less speaks for itself, as in the abstract:

There was no significant difference in the number of patients with a concussion in riders with or without helmets, [299/701, 42.6% versus 86/205, 42.0%, respectively].

The lack of concussion prevention should come as no great surprise as earlier studies have suggested only a 14.9% decline in 6-17yo cyclist concussions in the US from 2006-2010 to 2011-2016, despite a 17.6% decline in cycling participation, and a 42.9% increase in 18yo+ cyclist concussions despite a participation increase of just 12%.

Perhaps more surprising is that the study over nine years of 906 head injured cyclist patients at the Marin County Trauma Centre near San Fransisco reports that 77% of them had been wearing helmets when they crashed.

Do 77% of cyclists in Marin County wear helmets? Almost certainly not, and this echoes claims by the Royal Perth Hospital Trauma Centre in Western Australia that about 20% of its cyclist admissions each year hadn’t been wearing a helmet, despite about 50% of cyclists in the Perth metropolitan area not wearing helmets at any given time.

Helmet wearing proportion

So what’s the average proportion of helmet wearing among cyclists in the US? There’s no easy answer but four different sources (1, 2, 3, 4) provide an average 58.5% of children and 41.0% of adults regularly wearing helmets. Add an arbitrary 5% to make up for a possible increase in helmet wearing since the surveys were done and it’s probably close to the mark to estimate that 63.5% of children and 46% of adults in the US currently wear bike helmets.

There are 22 American states including the District of Columbia that have statewide helmet laws for children and teenagers, some up to age 18, and more than 201 localities have local ordinances. The first state youth helmet laws began in 1993 and the last to be enacted was New Mexico in 2007. In voluntary jurisdictions, there is immense parental and school pressure for children to wear helmets.

Cycling participation

How about cycling participation? Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) surveys suggest a 36.8% decline in 6-17yo cycling participation from 2006 to 2016. Alternatively, US Census Bureau data suggest a 42.5% decline in 7-17yo cycling participation from 1995 to 2009. OIA figures show a 15.5% increase in 6yo+ cycling from 2006 to 2016, with numerous studies reporting that’s because of an increase in adult cycling – particularly among baby boomers.

The following is extracted from another new US paper, Is bicycling getting safer? Bicycle fatality rates (1985–2017) using four exposure metrics, based on the National Household Travel Surveys (NHTS) and showing the number of child cyclist trips in 1995 was 221.9% higher than 1985 but by 2017 was only 18.5% above the 1985 level.


There’s also a graphic below of NHTS results showing the percentage of trips by American children and teenagers dropped from about 58% in 2001 to 22.1% in 2017. Million daily bike trips per annum within this youth demographic fell by 48.9% from 2009 to 2017.

It’s apparent that as in Australia and New Zealand, the primary cycling participation demographic has switched from children to adults over the past 20 years. Force kids to wear uncomfortable and inconvenient helmets because cycling is dangerous and they’ll otherwise probably die, and fewer kids ride bikes.

Total cyclist injuries are a fairly good proxy for participation as it can be assumed that if more people are cycling there’ll be more crashes and injuries, and vice-versa.

Cycling injuries

The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) maintained by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission provides a reliable source of cyclist injury data from 2000 to 2019, so let’s have a look at trends over the past 20 years – mindful that child/teenager participation has at least halved over that time and adult cycling has increased by about 20%.


The table above suggests that from 2000 to 2019 there was a significant increase in the hospitalised proportion of all cyclist injury presentations at American emergency departments.

From 2000 to 2019, during which time both mandatory and voluntary helmet wearing increased substantially in all age groups, the proportion of head injures fell slightly for children and teenagers but increased for adults, while concussion ratios increased for both demographics.

It’s noteworthy in the table above that although the head proportion of all injuries for 0-19yo decreased slightly, the percentage is still greater than for adults who aren’t compelled by law and wear fewer helmets.

The average annual number of all 0-19yo cyclist injuries declined by 32.45% from 2000-2009 to 2010-2019 (339,175 > 229,105) and the average number of hospitalised 0-19yo cyclist injuries declined by 25.08% (13,087 > 9,805). Compare that with the NHTS figures showing the percentage of trips by 5-15yo Americans dropped from about 58% in 2001 to 20.1% in 2017, and by 48.9% from 2009 to 2017.

Let’s turn the spotlight on different measurements within the NEISS data.


The decline in 0-19yo injuries might prompt helmet law advocates to claim success, but the decadal reduction of 32.4% is unlikely to match the participation decline within that demographic. The 35% increase in adult injuries is disturbing, particularly as there’s been an ongoing increase in helmet wearing that should prevent head injuries.

There’s a difference between cyclist injuries that just need a bandaid and cyclist injuries that put you in hospital, so let’s compare them across all ages in the US.

A 7.6% decadal reduction in all cyclist injuries and a 51.4% increase in hospitalised injuries doesn’t suggest that injuries are becoming less severe.

So what’s the demographic trend among all those extra cyclists going to hospital?

The 25.1% decadal reduction in 0-19yo hospitalised injuries is unlikely to match the youth participation decline and the 118.5% increase in adult hospitalised injuries is alarming, particularly as adult participation certainly didn’t increase by 118.5% from 2000 to 2019.

Helmets prevent head injuries so how have the demographics trended since the year 2000?

The 34.2% decadal decline in 0-19yo head injuries may be in the same ballpark as the decline in child/teenage cycling participation, but the 53.5% increase in adult head injuries again doesn’t match the smaller participation increase.

Since a majority of US children and teenagers wear helmets, have they enjoyed a greater reduction in head injuries than injuries to other body parts?

Yes, they have, and the 1.71% greater decadal reduction in head injuries over the past 20 years suggests about 2,500 fewer head injures across the US averaged over the past decade if based on the 147,941 head injuries in 2000. That’s about 250 per year, or five less head injuries per year in each American state among 0-19yo cyclists.

So how about those concussions that the new American study suggests aren’t prevented by wearing a helmet? Most American children and teenagers wear bike helmets so let’s see how they’re faring with concussion trends.

The decadal reduction in 0-19yo cyclist concussions is about half the reduction in total injuries and well below all survey estimates of the reduction in US youth cycling participation. That suggests their concussion rates have worsened.

Let’s check if the increased voluntary wearing of helmets by American adults has reduced their numbers ending up in hospital with a head injury.


It might be argued the 8.84% smaller increase in hospitalised head injuries compared to total hospitalised injuries among the 20yo+ demographic is because of helmets, but both total and head injuries have more than doubled while adult cycling participation has not.

The 317.5% increase in adult cyclist head injuries from the year 2000 to the year 2019 should ring alarm bells. It’s noteworthy that in 2019 America set a new record for hospitalised adult cyclists at 40,468 (up from 40,369 in 2018) and a new record for hospitalised adult head injuries at 15,055 (up from 11,331 in 2018).

How about concussion trends among adult cyclists?

As with children and teenagers, there’s a strong suggestion that concussion numbers have worsened among adults at about twice the rate as other injuries. The new US paper has probably understated the lack of concussion protection from helmets as the NEISS data suggests a disproportionate increase in concussion injury, possibly because of rotational forces associated with the greater head diameter created by helmets.

Another way to gauge helmet effectiveness is to compares all head and non-head injuries.

There was a 2.34% greater decadal decrease in head than non-head injuries, which equates to about 4,487 fewer head injures across the US averaged over the past decade if based on the 191,752 head injuries in 2000. That’s about 448 per year, or almost 10 less head injuries per year among all ages in each American state.

We can shine the spotlight on the 0-19yo demographic.

There was a 3.60% greater decadal decrease in head than non-head injuries among 0-19yo cyclists, which equates to about 5,326 fewer head injures across the US averaged over the past decade if based on the 147,941 head injuries in 2000. That’s about 532 per year, or just over 10 less head injuries per year among 0-19yo cyclists in each American state.

And adults?

There was a 22.11% greater decadal increase in head than non-head injuries among 20yo+ cyclists, which equates to about 9,685 more head injures across the US averaged over the past decade if based on the 43,805 head injuries in 2000. That’s about 968 per year, or just over 19 more head injuries per year among 20yo+ cyclists in each American state.

And, finally, perhaps the most damning of the NEISS figures … a comparison of all cyclist injuries with head only injuries that exclude face, eyeball, mouth, neck and ear injuries. Bicycle helmets are essentially designed to prevent injuries to the head, the skull and what’s inside, not the body parts below.

So all cyclist injuries have decreased substantially since the year 2000 but head only injuries have increased.

The all injury reduction is because far fewer American children and teenagers are cycling. A significant majority of this demographic wear helmets, so how have they fared with head only injuries?

On average, the reduction in head only injuries suffered by young American cyclists has been about 10% less than the reduction in overall injuries.

And how about the frequency of head only injuries suffered by adult American cyclists compared to their overall injuries?

An average 35.09% more overall injuries and 81.21% more head only injuries from 2000-2009 to 2010-2019, despite a large increase in voluntary helmet wearing. Comparing the year 2000 with 2019, the 174.63% increase in head only injuries suggests the ever-increasing use of helmets by adult cyclists is increasing rather than reducing the number of head only injuries.

It’s difficult to interpret these results other than an indictment of helmets increasing the proportion of overall, head and head only injuries to American cyclists of all ages, yet in late 2019 the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that all-age mandatory bicycle helmet laws be enforced in all US jurisdictions.

The US total population increased 16.8% from 2000 to 2019 (281,710,909> 329,064,917). The 0-19yo demographic increased 1.44% (80,473,265 > 81,630,000) and the 20yo+ demographic increased 22.72% (200,948,641 > 246,600,000). Cycling per capita has plunged in the 0-19yo demographic and possibly remained on par with population growth in the 20yo+ demographic.

Other studies

The findings above are currently (September 2020) the most up-to-date in the world and advance the findings of previous published studies such as Bicycle Trauma Injuries and Hospital Admissions in the United States, 1998–2013, which showed cyclist injuries up from 8,791 in 1998-99 to 15,427 in 2012-13, with the head injury proportion up from 10% to 16%, the torso proportion up from 14% to 17%, the extremity injury proportion down from 59% to 52%, and the other body part injury proportion down from 17% to 16%.

This study reports an increase in bicycle-related injuries and hospital admissions in adults in the United States between 1998 and 2013. The increase in overall injuries was driven by an increase in injuries in individuals older than 45 years. The increase in hospital admissions outpaced the increase in overall injuries, perhaps due to an increase in severe injuries in older individuals, who made up a greater proportion of injured cyclists in 2012–2013 compared with 1998–1999. These injury trends likely reflect the trends in overall bicycle ridership in the United States in which multiple sources show an increase in ridership in adults older than 45 years.

Estimated total costs from non-fatal and fatal bicycle crashes in the USA: 1997–2013 calculated the cost of nonfatal biking injuries in the US rose by nearly 140% from $9.3 billion in 1997 to $22.4 billion in 2013.

It’s worth noting Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) studies showing the number of cyclist hospital cases increased 59.9% from 7,520 in 1990 to 12,027 in 2016. National Cycling Participation surveys show 18.2% of Australians cycling at least once a week in 2011 dropping to 15.5% in 2017, yet AIHW figures show cyclist hospital cases rising 33.6% from 9,001 in 2011 to 12,027 in 2016.

Conclusion

As in Australia and New Zealand, cycling participation has and will continue to decline in America as baby boomers who learned to cycle as kids without helmets retire their bikes due to age, but are not replaced by declining numbers among younger discouraged cyclists. America is the fattest nation on earth.

Countries with mandatory all-age and youth bicycle helmet laws will continue to suffer the public health and road traffic consequences of reduced cycling, while data such as above shows cycling itself becomes less safe and with more injuries likely caused by an increase in accidents per cyclist.

2016 bike helmet penalty increase in NSW a failure

0
0

In 2016 the NSW Government in Australia increased its bicycle helmet penalty to the highest in the world, but data analysis shows the hike in fines discouraged cycling participation and failed to meet its stated aim of reducing cyclist deaths and injuries.

When the NSW Government increased its bicycle helmet penalty by 350% from $71 to $319 in 2016, it claimed the move was to save lives and reduce cyclist injuries.

In early 2016, then NSW Roads Minister Duncan Gay said:

“We don’t want cyclists’ money –​ that is not why we increased fines for high-risk and downright stupid behaviour. These changes are about changing behaviour and improving safety. With cycling injuries remaining high in NSW, I had no choice but to look at tougher deterrents and increased enforcement to improve safety for cyclists and other road users. I hope I don’t see another dollar in fine revenue but I do hope to see a reduction in cyclist injuries.”

From 2016 to 2020, the NSW Government made more than $8 million from it’s helmet penalty increase. Known revenue from bike helmet fines in NSW are:

2014 – 5,104 fines of $346,712

2015 – 4,748 fines of $332,060

2016 – 6,337 fines of $1,768,649

2017 – 5,685 fines of $1,862,775

2018 – 6,116 fines of $2,038,062

With CPI increases, the helmet penalty for riding a bike had increased to $344 by 2019. There were 6,259 helmet penalties in the 2017/18 financial year and 6,101 in 2018/19, but the revenue raised by those fines is unknown at the time of writing.

The chart below shows annual cyclist injuries and fatalities in Sydney from 1965 to 2019.

The fatality decrease in 1991 was due to the new helmet law reducing cycling participation in NSW. For example:

Same site surveys showed 3,107 students cycling to school in 1991 and 1,173 in 1992

3,332 adult cyclists at same sites in Sydney in 1991 and 2,591 in 1993

6,788 child cyclists at school, recreation and intersection surveys in 1991 and 3,798 in 1993

See Cycling participation in New South Wales

The chart below shows total annual hospitalised NSW cyclist serious injuries (on-road and off-road) from 2005 to 2019.

The chart below compares total injuries among all road users and among cyclists from 2005 to 2019.

Injury data comparing 2012-2015 with 2016-2019

In 2016-2019 there was a 3.3% increase in total NSW cyclist road injuries (+247 injuries compared to 2012-2015), a 1.6% increase in total road cyclist head injuries (+24), an 11.7% increase in total maximum severity road cyclist injuries (+44), and a 7.7% increase in maximum severity road cyclist head injuries (+15).

Those are the damning results from a collation and comparison of cyclist road injury data at the Transport for NSW Centre for Road Safety.

The data also confirms an ongoing decline in NSW 0-16yo cycling participation, with that age group’s annual average head injuries falling 29.5% from 2005-2011 to 2012-2019 (112 > 79) but annual average total injuries falling 27.7% (498 > 360). Helmets do not prevent bicycle crash injuries other than to the head and the total injury decline points to a further participation decrease.

30-49yo total cyclist road injuries increased 53.6% from 2005-2011 to 2012-2019 (418 > 642) and 50yo+ total cyclist road injuries increased 111.1% (270 > 570).

30-49yo cyclist head injuries from road crashes increased 51.2% from 2005-2011 to 2012-2019 (80 > 121) and 50yo+ cyclist head injuries increased 144.2% (43 > 105).

The 2016 increase in bike helmet penalty resulted in more total body and head injuries to middle aged and elderly NSW cyclists.

These injury increases were despite National Cycling Participation surveys showing a reduction in NSW weekly cycling from 16.7% of the state’s population in 2015 to 12.9% in 2019 – a reduction that equates to 241,572 fewer people riding bicycles in NSW.

The table below, based on Centre for Road Safety data, shows a breakdown of age brackets for cyclists who were injured on NSW roads from 2005 to 2019.

The table below shows a breakdown of age brackets for cyclists who suffered head injuries on NSW roads from 2005 to 2019.

The table below shows a 3.3% increase in total injuries and a 1.6% increase in head injuries among NSW cyclists comparing 2012-2015 with 2016-2019.

If the 2016 penalty hike convinced large numbers of NSW cyclist to wear a helmet, which it’s claimed should reduce the risk of head injury by up to 80%, the increased protection should be reflected in the number of what the Centre for Road Safety terms “maximum severity” injuries, tabulated below for total injuries.

Below tabulates the annual number of “maximum severity” head injuries among NSW cyclists from 2005 to 2019, showing an increase from 2012-2015 to 2016-2019.

Below tabulates the head proportion of total NSW cyclist injuries from 2005 to 2019, suggesting a 0.3% decrease from 2012-2015 to 2016-2019 – albeit the 20.4% in 2016-2019 still 1.1% worse than the head injury proportion of 19.3% in 2005-2011.

Below charts all injuries and head injuries among NSW cyclists from 2011 to 2019.

If the 2016 helmet penalty increase in NSW is judged by it’s stated aim of reducing NSW cyclist deaths and injuries, it has been a failure that maintains Australia’s cycling participation discouragement and injury per cyclist increase since the introduction of mandatory bicycle helmet laws in the early 1990s.

Reproduced with permission from http://www.cycle-helmets.com/nsw-2016-fine.html

New Religion – Rotavitae

0
0

It has come to our attention here at Freestyle Cyclists that a new religion has been formed which may be of interest. Their supernatural Being is called Rotavitae and they have ten core beliefs and practices:

  1. Rotavitaens are bound through recognition of the Transcendent Principle of Rotavitae.
  2. Adherents are bound in a shared reverence for Rotavitae.
  3. Knowledge of Rotavitae is shared amongst the initiate. It is not open for the non-initiate to know Rotavitae, nor ought the initiate to speak of Rotavitae to the non-initiate except in circumstances where the non-initiate are genuine seekers of enlightenment.
  4. Rotavitaens will meet for fellowship and communion.
  5. The communion shall take place in motion, on bicycles.
  6. Rotavitaens recognise four holy days, the Spring and Autumn Equinoxes, and the Solstices.
  7. Rotavitaens cherish the bicycle, believing that cycling is for the benefit of all humanity.
  8. Rotavitaens are enjoined to travel by bicycle wherever practicable.
  9. Rotavitaens will do no harm to others while cycling.
  10. Rotavitaens reject all false narratives of cycling safety, and put the inviolate primacy of the bicycle and its rider centre stage. When practising the sacred duty of bicycling, Rotavitaens will, in accordance with their custom and beliefs, bare their heads, or else wear broad brimmed hats, thick beanies or caps.

Rotavitaens, in practising their sacred duty to ride bikes, will customarily go bare headed, or wear broad brimmed hats, thick beanies or the like. If you go bare headed, you are not exempt from the legal requirement to wear a helmet in this country, but if you wear a broad brimmed hat, thick beanie or cycling cap of some sort, you should, as a Rotavitaen, be exempt in Vic, Qld, WA and the ACT. You don’t need to apply for an exemption: you are exempt, and ought not to be issued with an infringement notice.

You may choose to carry a card, for example in Victoria “I am exempt from the requirement to wear a helmet under Road Rule 256, Subrule (7)”

Rotavitea has a (private) Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/groups/485601235782755 where you can ask to join.

Policing Mandatory Helmet Laws in NSW

0
0

Legal academics Julia Quilter and Russell Hogg have published the results of recent research they have undertaken, in an article in the June 2021volume of the University of New South Wales Law Journal. The topic is the policing of mandatory bike helmet laws in NSW.

Visitors to this site will be all too familiar with the unintended (though quite foreseeable) externalities attendant on bike helmet laws, and the many studies finding significant negative consequences for participation, safety and public health following the introduction of such laws. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first academic enquiry of its kind looking at the sorry tale of negative consequences in the context of the fixed penalty notice and criminal justice system.

The authors have combined hard data, such as enforcement rates in different local government areas, alongside interviews with both victims of this clumsy heavy-handed system, and their legal representatives. The result makes somewhat depressing reading, finding for example young people just starting out on adult life burdened with crippling debts of thousands of dollars, which they have no realistic prospect of ever paying: and this as a result of being drawn into the criminal justice system because they were picked up for riding their bikes without helmets.

If I have one quibble, it is that the authors appear to accept the public health benefit of helmet wearing rather too easily. In their defence, the efficacy of the law as a safety intervention was not their brief, and there is some effort to put the origins of the law in context of the thinking widely held at the time of its introduction. This acceptance does however limit their options when it comes to recommendations to right this sorry mess, as the most obvious solution is to scrap the law altogether.

I will not try to summarise the article in any detail, as this would detract from the fine grained detail of the research, which is one of its greatest strengths. Rather, let me quote from the final conclusion, in the hope that it will encourage you to read the full article. (see link below)

Tracking the emergence of the MHL offence in the 1980s and considering its administration in the present day, we have seen a long-term movement away from the original multi-faceted policy framework in which the offence was introduced to support an approach centred on education and public safety. Enforcement, at least in some localities, appears to have become an end in itself or, worse, an instrument to serve police ends unrelated to public safety……………. police discretion is likely to be exercised in widely varying ways across the state: perhaps in some places (it would appear) to overlook violations altogether, perhaps to caution and educate offenders, and perhaps (as in instances referred to above) to adopt proactive problem-solving approaches like supplying helmets to young people. We have concentrated on what we see as the highly problematic use (or misuse) of the MHL offence and some of its baleful consequences, especially for the vulnerable, including the poor, young and Aboriginal persons. It is essential that capricious and unjust enforcement practices and their consequences be exposed and combated and that greater attention is given to positive, alternative approaches to policing in the service of public safety.

This is an important paper. It serves as a stark reminder of the folly of jumping from the (dubious!) premise that wearing a helmet might be a sensible safety precaution to the conclusion that a law should be introduced requiring this. You simply cannot advocate for such a law without bearing full responsibility for all its consequences. This article should cause anyone still spruiking the benefits of such a law to hang their heads in shame.

https://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/article/if-its-a-public-health-and-safety-thing-why-not-just-give-the-kids-helmets-policing-mandatory-helmet-laws-in-new-south-wales-advance/

If the link doesn’t work, here’s a PDF copy of the paper.


Victoria: get an exemption from Bicycle Helmet Regulation

0
0

Significant changes have been made to the process for obtaining a medical exemption from the requirement to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle in Victoria. These changes are welcomed by Freestyle Cyclists, as they make the process of obtaining such an exemption simpler, and the outcome more certain.

Previously, medical exemptions required application to VicRoads, supported by a medical report. VicRoads frequently required specialist medical opinion in support of applications, and exemptions, if granted, were for a limited time (3 years) only.

The amended legislation (Road Safety Road Rules, rule 256 removes the issuing discretion from VicRoads, and instead only requires the rider to carry a certificate, issued by a registered medical practitioner, stating that they cannot wear a helmet due to a medical condition. An extract of the relevant section of the regulation is copied below. It includes the form of wording to be used on the certificate.

256 Bicycle helmets

(1) The rider of a bicycle must wear an approved bicycle helmet securely fitted and fastened on the rider’s head unless—

(a)  a registered medical practitioner has issued a certificate to the rider under subrule (4) and the rider complies with subrule (6) …………….

…………………

(4) A registered medical practitioner may issue a certificate stating that, because of a disability or medical condition, it is impracticable, undesirable or inexpedient that the person named in the certificate wear a bicycle helmet while riding on, or being taken as a passenger on, a bicycle.

(5) A registered medical practitioner may make a certificate issued under subrule (4) subject to conditions.

(6) A certificate issued under subrule (4) must be—

(a)  carried by the person to whom it applies while the person is riding on, or being taken as a passenger on, a bicycle; and

(b)  produced by the person to a police officer or authorised person when requested to do so.

This means that if you have any medical condition (including a mental health condition), that makes it impracticable, undesirable or inexpedient for you to wear a helmet, you can get your doctor to issue you with a certificate exempting you from the requirement to wear a helmet.

The nature of your condition remains subject to doctor/patient confidentiality. All you are required to do is to carry the certificate with you, and show it on demand to an authorised person (generally a police officer), and that is the end of the matter. No argument.

If you are unsure as to whether or not your inability to wear a helmet is medical, we would suggest as a starting point that you tell your chosen practitioner that you avoid riding a bicycle because of the requirement to wear a helmet. It would be in the interests of your health in general if you were allowed to ride, which should be grounds enough to issue you with a medical certificate.

Similar legislation has been in place from the word go in Queensland, and has worked well there, so hopefully there will be no hiccups here in Victoria.

what is a registered medical practitioner?

A registered medical practitioner, generally referred to as a doctor, includes doctors and specialists who are registered with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency. Psychiatrists are medical practitioners but Psychologists are not.

Helmets Worsen Concussions

0
0

This is a guest post by Chris Gillham, who maintains http://www.cycle-helmets.com/, a rich repository of facts and statistics on Australia’s helmet law disaster.

A commentary on a new editorial from Medical Xpress editorial at https://medicalxpress.com/news/2023-04-assumptions-helmet-safety.html and the full paper at https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/13/7/4544.

In essence, it says padded helmets might have poor concussion outcomes because cerebrospinal fluids surrounding the brain work fine with the first head knock but can’t settle down quick enough when there’s a rapid subsequent knock, which might happen because padded helmets often bounce, so helmets should be designed to reduce this (a bit like the supposed rotation-reducing helmets that have emerged over the past decade or so costing more than the second-hand bike you’re going to buy).

The paper’s conclusion might better explain its findings …

While most studies on coup-contrecoup injuries concentrate solely on the two main phases of impact, our research highlights that additional movements are happening within a padded helmet after an initial blow—sudden stop. These smaller back-and-forth motions may seem insignificant compared to the first one; however, we showed that they can still cause serious damage. As these subsequent head movements occur, they compromise the ability of CSF inside the skull to prevent contact between the brain and skull bones. Therefore, even minor subsequent movement can lead to direct brain-to-skull contact with catastrophic consequences.

The authors conducted interviews with two individuals who experienced head injuries. While both individuals hit their heads in similar areas, one on a slow-moving bicycle and the other during a high-speed motorcycle accident, it was found that the cyclist suffered more serious concussion symptoms. It is hypothesized that this difference may be due to the hard-shell cover of the motorcycle helmet cracking upon impact and providing additional cushioning similar to soft-shell helmets. However, this remains speculative at this point. Further experimentation and studies are necessary to fully understand how different helmet designs can prevent concussions effectively. Therefore, more research is needed to determine the most effective helmet design and materials for preventing concussions. This highlights the importance of ongoing research and innovation in helmet design to ensure optimal protection for individuals engaging in high-risk activities. For more information, G. Tierney’s (2021) review provides valuable insights into the complex relationship between concussion biomechanics, head acceleration exposure and brain injury criteria in sports.

While our study provides valuable insights into the impact of padded helmets on the cushioning effect of CSF protecting the brain, there is a need for further research to explore comprehensively various types of helmets and their effectiveness in mitigating concussion incidence among military personnel and others utilizing head protective equipment. The framework established by Op’t Eynde et al. (2020) highlights the importance of helmet design modifications that could enhance safety standards for individuals participating in high-risk activities. Therefore, future studies should focus on developing advanced helmet designs that can provide better protection against head injuries and reduce long-term health consequences.

As seems to be the case whenever the helmet v concussion topic arises, the editorial and study repeat the inference that helmets help with concussion but not as much as would be liked. e.g. from the study’s introduction …

While there is no doubt about the safety offered by protective gear, concerns remain regarding how effective helmets are at preventing concussions/contusions.

In the light of the above study, and looking at USA data:

Data suggests there was an annual average of 5,236 18yo+ US cyclist concussions in 2002-2011 and 7,489 in 2012-2021, a 43.0% increase, while 18yo+ cycling participation in those timeframes increased 16.5% from an average 24,686,100 to 28,764,000.

It is beyond argument that mostly voluntary adult bike helmet wearing increased significantly in the US from 2002 to 2021.

Among 6-17yo US cyclists, concussions dropped 26.3% from 7,095 in 2002-2011 to 5,230 in 2012-2021, which sounds good except participation dropped 24.2% while lower body injuries dropped 32.2%.

To put it another way, from 2001-2010 to 2011-2020, the average total number of all-age US cyclist injuries in ED dropped 8.9% while head injuries increased 8.9% and TBI increased 34.7% (with upper body injuries dropping 11.5% and lower body injuries dropping 6.8%).

The problem isn’t how effective helmet are at preventing concussions. The problem is that helmets worsen concussions.

For a comparison of various US cyclist injury types, see Bicycle Helmet Influence in the New Millennium on United States Head, Traumatic Brain Injury, Upper and Lower Body Injury Rates (PDF)





Latest Images