The media’s tendency to seize on anything bike-related and turn it into a scandal took a new turn this week, after it was revealed David Seymour, in his role as Minister for Regulation, had asked for advice about removing the mandatory helmet requirements for people on bicycles. Newstalk ZB reports:
Minister for Regulation David Seymour asked his ministry for advice about the benefits of removing cycling helmet requirements, Newstalk ZB can confirm.
The Ministry for Regulation told Seymour the risks of removing the requirements would outweigh any benefits, and it was determined no further action was taken.
Documents on the matter have been released to Newstalk ZB under the Official Information Act, including advice which warned that removing the helmet mandate would lead to more deaths.
A regulatory response issue, sent to Seymour’s senior ministerial advisor from the Ministry for Regulation, went into depth about the current requirements. It confirmed his office asked for advice about “the potential risks and benefits of removing the requirement for helmets to be worn on bicycles”.
Bike helmets have been mandatory in New Zealand since 1994. Not wearing one carries a fine of $55.
Data quoted by the Ministry for Regulation found following that mandate, adult helmet use in New Zealand rose from 43% in 1993 to 92% the year after.
Initial analysis undertaken by the ministry recommended the risks of removing bike helmet requirements outweighed any benefits, with Seymour provided numerous reasons as to why.
Ministry officials first pointed out it did not believe there would be a material increase in the uptake of cycling by removing the bike-helmet mandate. The document stated that while cycling has declined since the 1990s, several factors including increased car ownership, urban planning and a lack of cycling infrastructure contributed to this.
Stuff took a more incredulous tone, asking where this might end; perhaps not unreasonable, given the ACT party’s approach to other health and safety policies, including those that keep road workers safe.
Will he look into getting rid of seatbelts in cars? What about aircraft safety briefings? We ask how far is too far for the Regulation Minister’s red tape crusade.
New Zealand is one of only a handful of countries with mandatory cycilng helmet laws for people of all ages. While I’m far from a fan of David Seymour, it is curious that he’s getting this attention for asking the question, especially given he’s accepted the suggestion from officials that the regulation is worth keeping.
However, the information in the report released by ZB does raise some questions about the type and quality of the advice he received.
The issue of fatalities and severe head injuries was also raised by the Ministry for Regulation, which stated helmets are “generally low cost and highly effective at preventing serious injury and death from cycling accidents”.
“There has been a significant decline in serious injuries and fatalities since a regulatory helmet mandate was introduced in New Zealand,” the advice read.
“The ministry considers that removing the helmet mandate would likely lead to an increase in serious injuries and fatalities as a result of cycling accidents. As well as personal, family and societal costs, this would lead to increased healthcare and long-term ACC scheme costs. As outlined above, we do not think there would be any material benefits‚” officials said.
Data was provided which proved cycling helmets had been “consistently shown to be effective” in reducing the severity of head injuries.
Since helmets were mandated in New Zealand, it was found the number of serious injuries and fatalities both decreased markedly.
A 62% reduction deaths and 57% decline in serious injuries is obviously very much a good thing. But the glaring hole in that analysis is that across that period, the rate of people cycling declined significantly too.
Getting a full picture of how many people cycle can be hard, but even with the few solid data points we do have, the decline in cycling for everyday transport has been significant, and goes hand in hand with a rise in driving and the number of cars on the road. It’s a vicious circle: the riskier it feels to ride a bike, the less people do so – and of course the opposite applies as well.
Census data shows the number of people who said they rode to work peaked in 1986 at just under 79,000, and by 2006 this reached a low of just 38,000. That’s a 52% reduction – which is far greater than the decline in deaths and serious injuries (DSI) at that time.
The numbers of people cycling to work has increased slightly since 2006. But the use of other modes of transport has increased more, too. There is also more in the way of safe infrastructure to support people to bike to work and school, albeit this is nowhere near universally accessible.
Side note: the Census is a one-day sample, and only represents adults, and that journeys to work remain a small fraction of the overall journeys all people take in any given day. But it’s a data point nonetheless, and available for longitudinal comparison (a reason to be concerned at the proposed end to the Census).
The decline in kids riding bikes to school is even more significant across this period, with research suggesting that rates of children riding bikes to school has declined from 14% in 1990 to 2% in 2014. That’s an 83% decline.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that mandatory helmet requirements are solely responsible for that decline – but it goes to highlight that a lot fewer people are cycling.
And again, these two data-sets are just a subset of bike use; many more trips will be happening for non-work or school purposes, that never get picked up by official measures.
Bike Parking at Western Springs College just a few years ago – before the local cycleways were built (so kids would have made these journeys via morning rush-hour roads and/or footpaths, and also before the adjacent car park became a paid parking area.
I get why the ministerial advisors have relied on the DSI figures – they’re easy to source – but they’re probably not the most appropriate to use for the question that was asked. A better metric would be to compare head injury rates against total injury rates for people using bicycles.
New Zealand’s mandatory helmet requirements were introduced in January 1994. Imagine if we had spent the last 30 years investing in making our cities safe for people of all ages to ride a bike, instead of the focus on wearing a helmet. Maybe we’d be in a better position for this comparison (from the ministerial advice to David Seymour):
It was determined the Netherlands example could not be a direct comparison to New Zealand, as the Ministry for Regulation noted they “invest significantly” in cycling infrastructure and other safety measures.
I do agree that now simply removing helmet requirements is not going see cycling numbers suddenly increase, primarily because it won’t do anything to address the reality that most of our roads still aren’t safe enough.
The perception of roads being unsafe is often cited as the biggest reason why people don’t cycle, despite many people having bikes in their garages. And as Seymour’s officials seemed to acknowledge, we need better infrastructure to support people on bikes.
Seymour himself concedes that point (in the Stuff article):
“The long and the short of it is, there are a lot of countries where they don’t require you to have a helmet, but they also seem to have cities that are more set up for cycling,” Seymour says.
A city set up for cycling: the Meola Road bike path in use after school, summer 2025.
This all doesn’t mean I don’t think removing the helmet law shouldn’t happen, or at least be tweaked.
Interestingly, David Seymour’s predecessor as ACT leader, Dr Jamie Whyte, said this in 2014.
“We need only abolish the law that makes wearing a cycle helmet compulsory. Since 1994, when Parliament established an instant fine of $150 for failing to wear a helmet, cycling has declined by over 50%. Overseas experience also indicates that laws making it compulsory to wear a helmet dramatically reduce cycling. This nanny state law does not even save lives” said Dr Whyte. “On the contrary, it costs lives. Before the legislation, few people died from cycling accidents and, of those who did, only 20% died from head injuries alone.”
” Research reported in the New Zealand Medical Journal (see http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/125-1349/5046/) shows that, over a 10 year period, only 20 Aucklanders were killed in cycle accidents and only 4 might have been saved by wearing cycle helmets. This same New Zealand Medical Journal article concluded that life years gained from the health benefits of cycling outweighed life years lost in accidents by 20 times” said Dr Whyte.
“The diminished health resulting from the reduced cycling caused by compulsory helmet-wearing costs 53 premature deaths a year. ACT would simply abolish the $150 fines for not wearing a helmet. That would save $100 million on cycle-ways in marginal seats, double cycle use and save 53 lives a year” said Dr Whyte.
It’s always fascinating to see when people want to cite the economic benefits of making it easier for more people to be able to cycle, they’re readily able to find that data. Even if they try to use it to justify not investing in the one thing that makes a difference.
In this week’s case, it’s notable that Seymour was happy to accept advice that the benefits of helmets outweigh the costs of requiring them. And yet, he and this government won’t accept the same kind of evidence about a range of other well-tested policies and interventions to improve road safety, increase public health, save money and lives, such as speed limits and traffic-calming measures. What’s that about?
Do it for them. Photo by Matt Lowrie. Kids enjoying the new Nelson St cycleway in 2016.
David Seymour is a cyclist himself. I've seen him biking around Newmarket and Grafton in his suit.