Mandatory helmet legislation and risk perception: A qualitative study in Melbourne, Australia

Abstract

BackgroundAccess to safe and equitable bike riding infrastructure is an important public health goal. Australia is one of nine countries that mandates wearing bike helmets for adults. The policy is controversial and is theorised to discourage bike riding. This study aimed to describe understandings of mandatory helmet legislation and how it might impact decisions to wear a helmet and to ride a bike. MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 bike riders in Melbourne, Australia to discuss their experiences and how this law factors into their decision to ride a bike and impacts their perception of risk when riding. Data were analysed using grounded theory. ResultsThis study provides evidence on the complex intersection of mandatory helmet legislation and the cycling environment. Specifically, this study identified that bike riders consider risk within the overall cycling context and not in binary decisions of ‘risky’ and ‘not risky’. Interviewees saw the law as a small benefit to safety, but not an adequate substitute for meaningful infrastructure and other actions that could reduce the risk posed to bike riders by drivers of motor vehicles. Interviewees also felt that mandating helmets was an ‘easy’ policy choice as it does not require any behavioural changes from drivers of motor vehicles. ConclusionsMandatory helmet legislation is not considered a barrier to bike riding but may prevent others from exploring it as a transport option by contributing to the perception of bike riding as an unsafe activity. Policies aimed at improving safety for bike riders should focus on the development of safer infrastructure first and then use personal protective equipment to mitigate any residual risk. Policies focusing on personal protective equipment legitimise blaming bike riders for getting injured and contributes to judgement and victim blaming experienced by bike riders.