About the Site Email Newsletter Links to Cycling Organisations
Bicycle and Public Transport Bicycle Network Planning Bicycle Strategies & Plans Bike Share Programs Cycling Data End of Trip Facilities Facility Design / Engineering Land Use Planning Mobility Management
Cycling Skills: Information for Riders Cycling Skills: Programs and Resources Organisations Professional Development Research
Awards and Recognition Behaviour Change Programs Economic Benefits of Cycling Environmental Benefits of Cycling Health Benefits of Cycling Maps Marketing Ride to School Ride to Shops Ride to Work Social Benefits of Cycling Women in Cycling
Bicycle Regulations Organisations Overviews Solutions Statistics & Common Crashes
Cycle Tourism: Promotion Cycle Tourism: Strategies Organisations Recreation: Publications and Resources Recreation: Strategies Recreation: Trail and Facility Design Recreation: Trails and Facilities Research
International Local Government National Government State & Territory Government
Cycling Innovations Encouragement & Promotion Enforcement & Road Safety Engineering & Planning Funding

Search

Font Decrease Font Normal Font Increase Print

The possible effect on frequency of cycling if mandatory bicycle helmet legislation was repealed in Sydney (Australia)

This research report by Chris Rissel and Li Ming Wen was published in the December 2011 edition of the Health Promotion Journal of Australia. The research examined the possible effect of repealing mandatory
bicycle helmet legislation on the frequency of cycling in Sydney.

Issue addressed: Australia has national, state and city targets to increase levels of cycling. The possible effect of repealing mandatory bicycle helmet legislation on the frequency of cycling in Sydney is examined.

Methods: A cross sectional survey by a market research company was conducted, using quota sampling, in Sydney, Australia. Participants were 600 residents aged 16 years and older. Data were collected in October 2010 using computer-assisted telephone interviews from randomly sampled households, with one respondent per household. The primary outcome measures were propensity to cycle more if
a helmet was not required, how often a respondent who cycled would cycle without a helmet, and opinion on compulsory wearing of bicycle helmets. Frequency of cycling, and demographic questions were also assessed. Multiple logistic regression models were run for each of the three main outcomes.

Results: One in five (22.6%, 95% CI 18.8-26.4%) respondents said they would cycle more if they did not have to wear a helmet, particularly occasional cyclists (40.4% of those who had cycled in the past week and 33.1% of those who had cycled in the past month). Almost half (47.6%) of respondents said they would never ride without a helmet, 14.4% said ‘all the time’, 30.4% said ‘some of the time’ and the rest were not sure. One third (32.7%, 95% CI 28.5-37.0%) of respondents did not support mandatory helmet legislation.\

Conclusions: While a hypothetical situation, if only half of the 22.6% of respondents who said they would cycle more if they did not have to wear a helmet did ride more, Sydney targets for increasing cycling would be achieved by repealing mandatory bicycle helmet legislation. A significant proportion of the population would continue to wear helmets even if they were not required to do so.

View Attachment