Globally, road “accidents” kill more than 1 million people a year, and are the primary cause of death for people aged under 30. Australia is no exception: land transport accidents cause the highest number of deaths in Australian children.
After a single mass shooting, Australia acted quickly on gun control. Most Australians are rightly appalled by the US’s ongoing failure to do similar, with the nation instead resorting to endless “thoughts and prayers” platitudes, active shooter drills for children, and bulletproof vests for teachers.
But with transport deaths, our own grim acceptance and collective refusal to make systemic changes are very similar. Each large, multiple-fatality crash results in thoughts and prayers in Parliament, but no legislative response. Instead of making Australia’s roads safe, responsibility is placed on those in danger instead of those creating it.
Children are taught that even the streets outside their schools are highly dangerous and must only be crossed at certain designated crossings under close supervision. They are introduced to bikes via high-stress safety drills involving hi-viz and almost militaristic manoeuvres.
In lieu of separated bike lanes and slower speed limits, regular pedestrian and bike rider behaviour is criminalised. Victoria Police recently sent the CEO of Crime Stoppers on a tour of primary schools to tell kids to obey the law crossing the road, and to remind them that they’re criminals if they forget their public transport card or helmet. They’ve even said that you should be wearing hi-viz while walking to work.
Blame is consistently placed on children, pedestrians and bike riders, rather than those who drive cars and trucks dangerously fast, or the transport departments that design unsafe, car-congested, polluted roads without safe separation.
We can trace these attitudes back to the rise of the automobile a century ago. As vehicles started becoming faster and more commonplace, they consequently started killing pedestrians. To deflect the growing outrage, car manufacturers and dealers in the USA invented the crime of “jaywalking”: instead of blaming the deadly speeding vehicles, blame the “jay” (a derogatory term similar to “redneck”, “rube” or “hick”) who dared cross the road in the wrong place.
These laws then spread globally, along with the rise of the automobile, and are now so fully ingrained that we can’t imagine hanging out on or freely wandering across streets without carefully checking for speeding cars — even though that’s how streets were for most of their history.
Just as social movements like Black Lives Matter and #MeToo have had to challenge attitudes of victim blaming (“acting suspiciously”, “driving while Black”, “dressing provocatively”, “asking for it”, etc), advocates for safer streets are continually faced with attitudes that blame pedestrians and bike riders for the danger and death they face from (drivers of) cars.
Hi-vis vests and bike lights are encouraged to “help drivers see you”. Instead of expecting drivers to slow down enough to see what’s in front of them, bike riders must purchase special equipment. While bicycle helmets may reduce head injury in some situations, they are of little help in a serious collision with a motor vehicle (a piece of polystyrene is no defence against impact from a multi-ton steel vehicle), but are made compulsory anyway.
Australia is one of the few countries in the world with mandatory helmet laws, and by far the most punitive: the fine is $277 in Victoria, and $344 in NSW, compared to $60 in New Zealand. Like many areas of law enforcement, such fines are overwhelmingly issued to poor and otherwise vulnerable people in lower socio-economic areas (Victoria Police recently settled a case where an Aboriginal man was allegedly dragged off his bike, assaulted and racially vilified by police for not having lights on his bike).
These laws worsen health, increase injury and cost lives by discouraging cycling, pushing people into more dangerous and unhealthy forms of transport. In the UK (where helmets are not compulsory), the British Medical Journal found in 2017 that the mortality rates among regular bike riders are 40% lower than for non-riders: clearly, discouraging and criminalising bike riding is much deadlier than occasionally forgetting a helmet.
Wrongly framing bike riding as an inherently hazardous activity (like base jumping or deep sea submarining) allows us to dismiss deaths and injuries as the result of victims’ own irresponsible actions, instead of facing the reality that bike riding is an inherently low-risk, health-enhancing activity only made dangerous by drivers.
Worse, transport infrastructure spending is overwhelmingly focussed on cars and trucks, and the meagre spending on infrastructure for bikes or pedestrians is only required to protect them from vehicles. Separated bike lanes are only needed for separation from cars. “Pedestrian refuges” at crossings are refuges from cars. Traffic lights are only needed when vehicles are present; even at busy bicycle intersections in the Netherlands, traffic lights are unnecessary.
The good news is that fixing all this isn’t difficult (and even benefits car drivers). Perhaps counterintuitively, streets that are safer for pedestrians and bike riders are also better for driving, because by getting more people onto bikes and footpaths, they reduce car congestion. Slower speed limit signs, pedestrian crossings and separated bike lanes can be installed in days. But overcoming our national victim-blaming mindset will take much longer.
Does Australia handle road safety properly? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
In NOT ONE incident of a ‘car versus bicycle’ accident has a car driver come off worse. They’re the ones that must take responsibility even allowing for some cyclists less than intelligent riding modes
Especially if they choose to, often for a higher price, purchase a vehicle that is less safe for cyclists, pedestrians and even other car drivers.
Enlightened judges in pedestrian versus car court cases have pointed out that a pedestrian poses almost no risk of injury to the vehicle driver, yet the pedestrian is at great risk of injury or death, particularly at vehicle speeds in excess of 40kmh. Drivers have a duty of care to all other road users knowing the extent of damage their vehicle may inflict on a pedestrian or cyclist. Pedestrians are legitimate and legal road users just like cyclists are. Pedestrians don’t have rear view mirrors or brakes. Pedestrians do need to cross roads and sometimes controlled pedestrian crossings are not always available. Many drivers mistakenly believe that roads are expressly built for vehicle use and anyone or anything else that gets in their way doesn’t belong and shouldn’t be there. Freeways / Motorways are the exception and are designed exclusively for vehicles to use. Thank you Robert for this excellent article. We are all pedestrians at some time.
Victim blaming always leads to horrendous policy. It deresponsibilises perpetrators.
I’ve seen it all now! “deresponsibilises “
Give me a break
It’s a perfectly cromulent word. OMG, the spellcheck allowed ‘cromulent’.
‘Cromulent’ achieved cromulence the moment it was first broadcast; surely a record-holder in the pretend-word-becomes-legit stakes.
“deresponsibilises” ! – love it! — PaulM can getoveritiseit
I think people forget that victim blaming inherent removes responsibility from everyone else.
As a pedestrian, I find that car drivers are more impatient than ever.
That leads to them barely giving way to pedestrians, if at all.
If it is raining, they behave like a few extra seconds will cause them to get wet.
Here there are no red light cameras, so it is not uncommon to see 2 or 3 cars drive through the intersection after the red light.
Agree. Crossing roads has become an ‘extreme sport’.
The most bizarre new fad is not activating the indicator “because it’s only a pedestrian”. Last decade it was only German-made cars, but now even the pleb vehicles are not doing it.
“The British Medical Journal found in 2017 that the mortality rates among regular bike riders are 40% lower than for non-riders: clearly, discouraging and criminalising bike riding is much deadlier than occasionally forgetting a helmet. ”
This is a good argument for the long-term health benefits of cycling as a lifestyle.
An entirely separate discussion is the efficacy of helmets in preventing head injuries while cycling, which it does:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29677686/ – “The use of bicycle helmets was found to reduce head injury by 48%, serious head injury by 60%, traumatic brain injury by 53%, face injury by 23%, and the total number of killed or seriously injured cyclists by 34%”
Cyclists “occasionally” forgetting to protect themselves with safety equipment is a failure of the cyclist and no one else. And obviously the “stop asking us to wear helmets, it’s your fault we’re getting hurt” is blame shifting. I agree with the author that it’s ridiculous to solely blame the cyclist for an injury, but in the same vein it’s also ridiculous to say helmets shouldn’t be required as a result either. Cars should drive more carefully AND cyclists should wear helmets. The science has spoken.
[Note for readers: let’s see if a sarcastic straw-man argument about “if helmets are so safe, why don’t people wear them in their cars then, and pensioners should wear them in the home” etc gets put up as a counter-point. Or rather, let’s see how long it takes until it inevitably is.]
If you think that helmets reduce injury, I encourage you to wear one. That’s no argument for making them mandatory, however, which (please read the article) “worsen health, increase injury and cost lives by discouraging cycling, pushing people into more dangerous and unhealthy forms of transport”.
There are many better, proven ways to reduce injury – such as safer streets. However, you are focused this particular unproven one, *because* it criminalizes and blames bike riders. Safety and harm reduction isn’t your motivation – victim blaming is. Thanks for providing a great example of the attitude I’m talking about in the piece!
“However, you are focused this particular unproven one, *because* it criminalizes and blames bike riders. Safety and harm reduction isn’t your motivation – victim blaming is”
Look at you, telling me what my motivation is. Certainly a lot easier than acknowledging the scientific study I mentioned.
If you want to play the roundabout “bikes encourage longterm health and anything that discourages bikes therefore damages health outcomes” game, more power to you, but it’s a special pleading fallacy. Helmets reduce cyclist injuries, period, regardless of whether they “discourage” cycling.
This is why bloggers shouldn’t be allowed near the Crikey keyboard.
Again, you make a powerful case for wearing a helmet. So I encourage you to always wear one (especially in the car, where most head injuries happen – and make sure it’s a full face motorcycle helmet, which are proven to be much safer than an inferior bicycle helmet).
What you’re yet to make a case for is criminalization of helmetless bike riders.
As predicted. [41 minutes back in my comment above]
An ad hominem (“look at his motivations, never mind the study he quoted”) and then the “wear a helmet in a car” sort of nonsense, as though a car with a seatbelt/airbag/metal frame is basically the same risk as a bicycle. Bad faith trolling from someone who can’t respond seriously. And I’m paying a subscription to read it.
This drivel doesn’t belong in Crikey. Back to WordPress with you. “On yer bike”.
Rubbish. You’re completely missing the point of the article. Roads have existed long before automobiles and bicycles were using them first. The onus should be on dangerous vehicles to drive safely and for authorities to regulate the roads so that this is the case, which means prioritizing changing of the behaviour of the more dangerous motorists, not that of the more vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists. It’s a very straightforward point.
“If you think that helmets reduce injury, I encourage you to wear one. That’s no argument for making them mandatory, however, which (please read the article) “worsen health, increase injury and cost lives by discouraging cycling, pushing people into more dangerous and unhealthy forms of transport”.”
You would have to do a study to see if mandatory helmet wearing is actually a major deterrent to bike riding, or if other factors were more significant
I would think that most serious bike riders would not ride without a helmet in any case. More likely to be the occasional riders.
It’s already well established that helmet laws are a deterrent to bike riding, and in particular, a huge factor in the failure of bike share: https://www.freestylecyclists.org/what-stops-people-from-cycling/
However, the biggest deterrent of all is lack of safe streets (particularly for women and children).
> most serious bike riders would not ride without a helmet in any case. More likely to be the occasional riders.
It’s these exact people that we need to be encouraging most, not discouraging. Hardcore enthusiasts will bike regardless.
Funny thing Robert, but when share-bikes (pedal variety) were first introduced in Melbourne there was a massive furore about having to wear a helmet that someone else had worn. Oh, the nits, the disease, the filth, the dandruff. At least in the media. That bike scheme was abandoned but now there are an enormous number of share e-bikes and e-scooters with communal helmets, and I’ve not seen a word of the dangers of helmet-sharing this time around. People are very strange.
I’d wager the division is more along the lines of “people who ride fast and over long distances” and “people who ride slow and over short distances”. With another one between “people who make planned rides” and “people who make ad-hoc rides”.
For a personal anecdote, my wife and I have made extensive use of bicycle hire schemes to get around inner cities and towns in other countries without compulsory helmet laws, and never once in Australia – specifically because of compulsory helmet laws.
However, I always wear a helmet when riding for fitness, commuting, or accompanying the kids to school.
This pretty much describes my situation also. Riding slow in a segregated lane in Europe on a bike share, I don’t wear and don’t make the kids wear a helmet. Here in Australia when I take kids to school or ride on the roads, of course I wear one, it’s easy, might help in a low energy impact. But I certanly would not extend that to making them mandatory. As Robert says, we need to make safe segregated cycling possible and accessibility is part of this. On my recent trip to Paris well oevr 90% of people I saw in bike lanes were not MAMILs and were riding slow without helmets, the dream!
I regularly cycled without a helmet prior to the fines jumping from $60something to $300&something in NSW some years back. It has had no influence on the frequency or lack thereof of my involvement in accidents because I am an experienced city-cyclist. What I cannot protect myself from is bad driving behaviour on the part of motorists, amplified by the speeds they can reach in their larger, heavier, noisier, smellier, polluting vehicles that we’ve suffered as ‘normal’ for far too long.
Robert, like M. Macron, “I don’t think I know” that helmets reduce injury – see CrowReally. And it’s not just an individual choice and individual consequence. Do you have any idea of the all-up cost of a cyclist’s brain injury which is not fatal? And who do you think pays the medical, social, personal and familial costs? It’s not just the individual cyclist. So, even if helmets have a modest effect, mandatory helmet wearing is so simple and cheap that it’s an acceptable imposition, like mandatory seat belts, speed limits, stopping at red lights or driving on a predictable side of the road.
> “I don’t think I know” that helmets reduce injury – see CrowReally.
The question is not if helmets reduce injury, it’s if mandatory helmet laws reduce injury. They do not. They increase injury by discouraging cycling, thus putting more cars on the road, creating more severe collisions.
> Do you have any idea of the all-up cost of a cyclist’s brain injury which is not fatal? And who do you think pays the medical, social, personal and familial costs? It’s not just the individual cyclist.
Reducing head injuries is exactly why I’m opposed to mandatory helmet laws.
> So, even if helmets have a modest effect, mandatory helmet wearing is so simple and cheap that it’s an acceptable imposition
If it’s so simple/cheap/hardly an imposition, why aren’t they compulsory in cars?
Made easier if there is good planning to ensure cyclists have safe cycle paths that are separated from vehicles and roads, but the rights of motor vehicles, traffic lobby, fossil fuels etc. overrides all riders…..and safety when Australia tolerates accidents, deaths and injuries, leads to cutting corners….
My cycling has occurred in two phases: from 1950 to 1960, as a schoolboy first in the Victorian Country town of Wangaratta, and second in the outer Melbourne suburb of Eltham. And then, from 1980 to the present, as an adult, commuting and riding as a leisure activity around Melbourne and all over. Sixty years ago, cycling was not dangerous because there was less traffic, and maybe drivers’ attitudes were different: not sure about that, but certainly there were no mobile phones. It is different now. I get abused by car drivers, regularly get closely shaved, and route planning is a must to avoid high stress roundabouts and intersections. I know many people who don’t cycle because of the perceived danger – which is not as great as they imagine, but still, I’m always aware that I have not much control over whether I’m wiped out from behind.
Amsterdam transformed itself from being car-centric to cycle-centric. Things are improving in Australia, but in such small increments that it amounts to fiddling. Pathetic, really, but that’s how we roll: our governments give in to commercial pressures and fiddle.
By and large agree but have noticed in the inner city, as cycles have become more and more of a major presence in the last 15 or so years, driver behaviour seems to have got better on average. Perhaps because their numbers mean that cycles are part of traffic has become more normalised, perhaps because a higher percentage of drivers are cyclists or have children who are.
As a note to this, I remember that, when commuting from the city in the late 1990s I would often idly count how many other cyclists I saw. 20 to 50 was usual. By 2010 was more like 100-120. Probably not safe to risk the distraction to try and count their numbers now.
Yes, while cycling is more fraught now than it was sixty years ago, the situation is not static. Even though the Victorian metre clearance rule doesn’t get a lot of publicity, it is my impression that it has had an effect. My vague guess is that a year ago I’d get freaked out by a close encounter about every second ride, but I don’t experience that these days.
I do feel that driver behaviour towards cyclists has improved in Sydney in recent decades. But then, my behaviour as a cyclist has also adapted and (I hope) improved with experience, so I may be a poor judge.