LETTERS: Helmet debate is a real headturner | Auckland Opinion | Local Voices from Auckland, New Zealand

I think the helmet debate is just one issue regarding creating a safer cycling culture within Auckland. I have cycled on the roads since my early teens (and am now in my 30's) having raced road and montain bikes competitively and having covered over well over 150,000km on a bike. I also commute most days by bicycle (or sometimes motorcycles). So, I have some experience.
Auckland does not have a culture where cycling is accepted by the majority. It is a car dominated city, which has arisen due to poor planning in the past, its urban sprawl and lack of enthusiasm in government or council to create a cycling infrastructure.
Currently cyclists have to share the road with car drivers and this automatically creates conflict.
There are very bad, arrogant car drivers who are unsure how to deal with cyclists: overtaking, braking hard, turning left into the cyclist, passing too close, opening car doors and generally being abusive. Car drivers are simply too distracted. Radios, cellphones (still it's amazing how many people I see on my daily commute using cellphones while driving), passengers, etc. Little wonder so few people with little experience of cycling want to spend $1000 on a bike to risk their life commuting. Cycling then is struggling to attract the mainstream.
There are of course, some very bad cyclists. Jumping red lights, weaving and lacking basic road craft, such as cycling too close to parked vehicles. Although, this latter point I suspect is in response to feeling pressured by the large SUV driving right up behind with distracted driver behind the wheel, talking to kids and texting husband. Fellow cyclists need to crack down on those few who spoil it for others.
Then there is the current lack of infrastructure. Auckland is backwards. Almost third world. Tim Gummer argues his daughter in Germany happily cycles 40 mins without a helmet, but fails to appreciate Germany has a fantastic cycling infrastructure, which is often separated from other forms of motorised traffic. Moreover, German drivers are significantly better than Auckland drivers. Germany has a modern infrastructure, unlike Aucklands, where even future plans seem to originate from 1960's planning policy.
The same can be said of the Netherlands, Switzerland, France, Belguim and I could go on. In Spain, France, Italy, Belguim, Germany, cycling is a national sport.
However, despite these countries having good infrastructure a large percentage of cyclists still use helmets, especially on the roads. If there was separated infrastructure, then cyclists would not be in conflict with motorised vehicles and the need to use a helmet would be much reduced.
The lack of cycling infrastructure and the perceived high risk of cycling this brings is the main problem.
Cyclists on the road still have to obey the give way to right turning traffic if they want to turn left. This rule, itself outdated, is especially dangerous for cyclists. There is a severe risk of being rear-ended in this situation.
Cyclists often use the left-hand lane. However, at signal-controlled intersections, the left lane is used by traffic either turning left or going straight on. This in itself is highly dangerous for the stationary cyclist waiting to go straight on. I have seen many people almost crushed by left-turning large vehicles in these situations. But going into the right lane is more dangerous, given motorists see this as a car only lane, and get annoyed at the two second delay caused by a cyclist.
So, basic road rule changes could have a big impact.
I think Tim Gummer has missed the point. These cities are not safer for cyclists just because more people cycle. It is because there exists a good cycling infrastructure and the cities are not dominated by the car.
It's no coincidence these cities and countries have world class mass transport systems. Auckland has failed miserably on this. The government, or council, will never invest in infrastructure for cyclists just because more people cycle. The attuitude of "she'll be right" will persist. All that will happen is more cyclists are injured, there are more bad cyclists and the animosity between human and hydrocarbon powered transport increases.
Some people have argued that cyclists are protected in a way, because they can use bus lanes in peak hour traffic. This is a joke. Buses cause many injuries to cyclists becuase the bus companies insist on unrealistic timetables for their drivers.
Dr Perry has also missed the point. Helmets do help to reduce the severity of injuries. They will never prevent fatalities or brain injury. But that was never the intention of cycle helmets. They are there to help reduce the severity of some injuries. Dr Perry surely wouldn't argue that motorcyclists should also be exempt from the helmet law?
It is claimed the risk has increased and cost is a factor. Of course the risk is increased. Risk is a product of the number of people engaging in an activity and the average exposure time to a hazard. More people are commuting by bike, which has coincided with an increase in traffic volumes, so exposure has increased and by effect so has the risk. If cost is a prohibitive factor, perhaps the government should partially subsidise the cost of bike helmets?
Most published studies argue that although the rate of cycling has decreased over the years, the number of serious injuries has increased, despite an increase in the numbers of people wearing helmets. However, many studies fail to show that the number of cars, buses and trucks on our roads has increased dramatically over the same period. Exposure and therefore risk has increased. Also, average road speeds have increased. Drivers are more aggressive than they used to be as they rush from A to B. It's no wonder the number of serious injuries and fatalities has increased.
So, what is the way forward? Cycling helmets have come along way since I started wearing one 25 years ago. I can recall a number of instances where they have saved me from serious injury (although, still a statistic).
Given the lack of cycling infrastructure in NZ, the law should remain. Cyclists and drivers should be better educated. The law shouldn't be revoked.
There is need to look at cycling in the context of growth in other forms of transport too. Not just fatality figures. Cars have become much safer since the early 1990's due to better design. So, there has been a net reduction in fatalities of car drivers, despite the number of joureys increasing. There is limited opportunuity for these sorts of systems, so anything that can help reduce the potential for injury is good.
The only negative point of a law enforcing helmet use is that it automatically increases the perception cycling is dangerous, so parents don't let their children begin cycling in the first place.
Simon Nelis
One Tree Hill

Intuitively I have wanted to believe that a helmet makes me safer and surely, in some situations, it does. But looking at the big picture, I now realise I'm actually much more at risk than I was before the law came in.
We're in a transitional period. Cycling is on the increase in spite of the helmet law and this is a great international trend. At this point I would still want to wear a helmet in some situations - but certainly not all the time. As much as possible I would prefer be seen as a human on a bicycle, not a "cyclist".
Australian Sue Abbott, who was famously fined AUS$2000 for not wearing a helmet, was told by the cop who booked her, that he gave up cycling when the helmet law came in. Closer to home, I struggled to get my 13-year-old daughter to cycle here in this country, but while she's currently in Germany she happily cycles 40 minutes a day, safely, along with millions of other cycling commuters - without helmets.
For the sake of our cities, our health, our environment, and our transport infrastructure; it's incredibly urgent that we build a culture of normalised, comfortable, and safe cycling.
For that to happen, along with many other things (like the availability of comfortable commuting bikes, separated lanes etc), we need less geeks and more people on bikes. The law should go and, in the transition period, as drivers take in the reality that cycling is more than here to say, cycle riders and parents should use good judgment about when to wear a helmet and when not to.
I'm passionate about cycling, but I also need to look at the cold hard facts which tell us that the safest cities for cyclists are those where cycling is popular - where it isn't a sport, it's a way of getting around slowly and comfortably. And where no one is wearing helmets.
Tim Gummer
Freemans Bay

Sadly the debate about the helmet law, as opposed to helmet wearing, is not a ''headturner'' - despite the fact it should be.
While there are individuals who believe a helmet has saved them from serious injury or death; and likewise those that believe a helmet has done them harm; all such reports prove little either way.
To judge any safety measure, the effect on the population, both direct and indirect, needs to be considered. Incontrovertibly the cycle helmet law has been a health, safety and financial disaster for the population.
Risk is up, health is down, and the cost is huge.
This is the very good reason why, after over 15 years, the rest of the world hasn't followed Australia and New Zealand - they look at the effect here and decide not to make the same mistakes.
Those who support the law have made no attempt to fix it, their allegiance apparently being to the law existing, not working.
A clue to this willingness to deny the truth, and harm ourselves in the name of "safety", might be found in the response of Cycle Action Auckland. The national body of which CAA is a member, the Cycle Advocates Network, has had a policy for years that the helmet law should be reviewed due to its failure (and they know it is not comparable to car safety belts at all, but to car helmets). They also have a policy, influenced by less than subtle pressure from the Government, that they will not pursue this policy. You would not catch the AA doing that if motorists were similarly abused! When the advocates refuse to advocate where do you turn?
Bizarrely, one group who do admit the law is a failure are Government officials, but only off-the-record or in public meetings when the media are not about. One can only guess that they believe that one day the tide will turn and are just readying their defence.
Until that day we'll carry on making our children's lives more dangerous and less healthy while claiming we're doing it for their own good!
Well, that's what we've been doing for the last 15 years. Maybe today the tide will turn...
Dr N Perry
Christchurch
Disclaimer: I am a scientist and have researched and published in this area. I am not a politician. I ride a cycle. I drive a car. I don't sell helmets.