ECONOMICS REFERENCES COMMITTEE
Personal choice and community impacts
Bicycle helmet laws, including any impact on the health, enjoyment and finances of cyclists and non-cyclists;
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow ... cation/pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A comprehensive read. I've skimmed through a fair bit of it. The overwhelming theme seems to be the same stuff as here.
Pro-MHL: "Duh, helmets save lives!"
Pro-choice: "Well actually, we should look at the full picture here...."
Pro-MHL: "Duh, helmets save lives!"
One fun little exchange:
Senator CANAVAN: Thank you all for your evidence and your work in this area. I want to start with
Professor Rosenfeld. Professor, you said words to the effect that we should do everything we can to reduce brain
injury. If that is true, though, why wouldn't we just ban cycling altogether, because that would get rid of all brain
injury, at least for cycling?
Prof. Rosenfeld: You cannot ban something that is part of normal life. People are not going to stop cycling. I
do not think it is a practical proposition. What you have to try do for people who are cycling is to make it as safe
as possible for them when they do ride their bikes.
Senator CANAVAN: I approach this from the position that there should be some level of cost-benefit
analysis about whether this particular intervention is best for the community rather than targeting just one
particular metric, which is brain injury. The evidence we have heard this morning is that, yes, it might reduce
brain injuries but it might also reduce exercise and have consequent effects of people's health and potentially
cardiovascular illnesses. Are you saying we should not weigh that up, that we should just target brain injury? Or
do we need to look at the holistic impacts?
Prof. Rosenfeld: We need to look at the holistic impact but the head injury aspect is the most expensive for
society and, as I said, for the individuals and the families who are affected in terms of their health and wellbeing.
But the monetary cost is enormous. If we can reduce all of that, it is well worth doing, and it is our mission as
neurosurgeons to do that. I did not say that I represent a large society of all the neurosurgeons in Australia, and
we are all of one mind: we need to have helmets to protect people's brains. That is our mission.
I think the argument you are getting onto about obesity and more people would ride their bikes if they did not
have to wear a helmet, and they might lose some weight, we all do not accept that argument. There is no evidence
for that at the moment. Mind you, there have not been any large studies of that, but actually we feel that the
people who are obese do not necessarily look at cycling to reduce their obesity. They might look at other things,
like diet, but cycling is not necessarily high on their list. So we do not see that as a major argument to say, 'Let's
get rid of helmets and more people are going to ride bikes', because the evidence is not there for that.
Senator CANAVAN: With all due respect, I think it is perhaps a little bit strong to say there is no evidence. I
do not know if you have seen the other submissions, and I am not picking on you, Professor Rosenfeld; I am
happy for anybody to answer this question. There was some quite compelling evidence presented by Dr Robinson
on census data. It is just an indicator, and like all data it could have other reasons—and I am happy for that to be
brought to bear. But it quite clearly showed that at the time these laws were introduced in Australia there was a
substantial reduction in the percentage of people cycling to work. Do you have other data to say that is wrong, or
incorrect, or there is another way to interpret that?