no helmet law dot org logo

The City Council will hold a public hearing on a proposal to amend the current bicycle helmet ordinance to include adults. Current law mandates that only those under 18 wear a helmet.

History of the Law and Issues from BicycleAustin.info

League of Bicycling Voters Position Statement

1. Helmet laws distract from bicycle safety. Real safety
means training for cyclists and motorists, and good facilities.

2. Helmet laws discourage cycling. Studies have shown that
helmet laws reduce bicycle use by as much as 35%. We need
to encourage cycling, and this won't help.

3. Oddly enough, helmets don't seem to help bicycle safety. Though bike helmet use in the US has risen dramatically, head injuries have increased anyway. Furthermore, countries with the lowest helmet use have the lowest head injury rates.

4. Helmet laws are a violation of personal liberty. Far more head injuries occur in automobiles, so why pick on bicyclists?

5. Helmet use should be voluntary. Helmets work best that way.

6. The Austin Cycling Association, which donates hundreds of helmets to local kids, does not support the helmet law.

Differences between bicycle helmets and seatbelts

Mandatory helmet law proponents like to compare MHLs to seatbelt laws in cars. But there are some significant differences:

  1. Seatbelts come with the car - When you get into the car, the seatbelt is right there, for every seat. Bicycles do not have a helmet dispenser, so it takes extra effort and investment to get the helmet.
  2. Unbelted passengers pose a risk to other passengers - In a crash, an unbelted passenger will go ballistic. This means a 200-pound object ricocheting around the cab. While a cyclist can hurt themself in a crash, they are not likely to injure others. Wearing a seatbelt can protect others.
  3. It is difficult to defeat a seatbelt's protection - All you have to do is fasten the seatbelt and it is working a full capacity. Indeed, new cars fasten the belt automatically so it is difficult to avoid wearing it. Bike helmets must be adjusted properly and re-adjusted often. A poorly fit helmet does not work crash. In other words, you must have a personal interest in wearing a helmet, and keep fussing with it, for it to protect you in a crash. And it has to be tight, not loose and comfy. Wearing a helmet just to satisfy the law does not mean it is going to work, and if the otherwise non-helmeted cyclist wearing one just to avoid police harrassment then it will probably be loose (and comfortable) to do any real good.
  4. Seatbelt use is less visible to police scrutiny - While The DPS is on a "Click it or Ticket" campaign now, seatbelt violations usually only occur when a motorist is stopped for some other reason. Helmet violations are fully visible and will be used as cause for a traffic stop. It is much easier to conceal a seatbelt violation than a helmet violation.
  5. Last, but most far reaching... We are trying to encourage cycling - For most motorists (but not all), automobile use is essential. If forced to wear a seatbelt they will do so to keep driving. For most cyclists (but not all), biking is discretionary. If they don't want to wear a helmet, then they use a car, or a motorcycle. Everyone and their dog will loan you the money to get a car if you don't already have one. But even the most tepid sort of government will say that they are trying to encourage bicycling in the city. They may not do much to discourage motor vehicle use, but all agree that the volume of traffic is creating problems and it would be good we reduced automobile use. Unlike a seatbelt law, a helmet law will work counter to many other stated transportation goals.