Science, media and the public - the framing of the bicycle helmet legislation debate in Australia: a newspaper content analysis

Research challenging assumptions about the value of bicycle helmets and the laws which make them mandatory recently triggered a media debate about bicycle helmet laws and prompted discussion as to the extent to which health behaviours should be legislated. This increased media coverage provided an opportunity to examine how the media frames this issue. A much greater variety of frames opposing helmet laws were identified compared with frames supporting them. The outbreak of debate in the media, and wide range of conflicting perspectives, reveal public uncertainty about the legislation, and reinforce the complexity of this issue for public health policy. Tessa Alice Piper Health Promotion Service, New South Wales Simon John Willcox Health Promotion Service, New South Wales Catriona Bonfiglioli University of Technology, Sydney Adrian Emilsen Macquarie University Paul Martin Cyclists Action Group, Brisbane, Australia Science media and the public... Piper et al Ejournalist.com.au 126 Introduction: Background The role of legislation in promoting public health has a long tradition. Within most liberal democracies, there are significant divergences over which activities are deemed a matter of public or private concern, which activities pose a risk to public health, and how regulations are applied or enforced. In some instances, there is a clear need for government action to protect public health and safety, e.g. where poor physical conditions might otherwise lead to inadequate sanitation. In other instances regulation may be required or applied where activities are undeniably hazardous to public health and/or safety, e.g. the use of tobacco products, purchase of firearms, or speeding in a motor vehicle. There are also other activities known to negatively impact on public health where no legislation exists or there are very few restrictions. This may be because the problem only applies to a small number of people, the public does not support the legislation, or because evidence of the problem or the policy solution is not clear. In other circumstances, regulation of the activity may be difficult, or there may be significant vested interests resisting restriction. There are also some activities or behaviours that are healthy and desirable, but are regulated because of the potential risk of injury, e.g. children’s playground equipment and protective equipment for a range of sports. The scope of public health regulations over a range of public and private activities is often contested within democratic societies. Cycling is well known to be a healthy activity (Bauman et al. 2008). Bicycle helmet legislation is one public health issue which, even after 20 years since its implementation, is strongly contested. This is particularly so in Australia and New Zealand, which are unique in the world in having bicycle helmet legislation. The legislation was implemented in 1991 and 1994 respectively, although mandatory helmet legislation was subsequently amended in the Northern Territory (Northern Territory Traffic regulations). A consensus has not been reached about the benefits of helmet legislation; the literature is replete with claims and counter-claims of the evidence for and against helmet legislation (Macpherson et al. 2002; Povey, Frith & Graham, 1999; Robinson, 2000, 2002; Schuffman et al. 2000) and even for and against the efficacy of helmets themselves (Attewell, Glas & McFadden, 2001; Cummings et al. 2006; Curnow, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007; Thompson, Rivara & Thompson, 1989). Injury prevention advocates champion the protection offered by helmets (Thompson, Rivara & Thompson, 1999), cycling advocates point out the drop in frequency and prevalence of cycling associated with mandatory helmet use (Robinson, 2006), civil libertarians emphasise the removal of choice from adults (Moore, 2010a), psychologists Science media and the public... Piper et al Ejournalist.com.au 127 infer that risk compensation effects may reduce safety (Adams & Hillman, 2001; Walker, 2007) and health economists focus on the cost to society of head injuries compared with the health gains from physical activity (De Jong, 2010). A recent analysis examined the ways cycling is reported in newspapers within the cities of Sydney and Melbourne (Rissel et al. 2010). There has been an increase in reporting about cycling over the past decade in line with increases in cycling in Australia, with more positive coverage (47%) than negative (30%). Three-quarters of negative stories involved injury or death of a cyclist. The issue of whether bicycle helmet use should be legislated has received much national media attention in recent times and has renewed public discussion on the positive and negative consequences of making bicycle helmets mandatory. From a research perspective, a consensus is yet to be reached on the efficacy of helmet legislation in reducing rates of head injuries (Robinson, 2006; Robinson, 2007). Considering there are competing public health interests in this public discussion (injury prevention vs. physical activity promotion), and news media coverage can influence public understandings and attitudes (Kitzinger, 2007; McCombs & Shaw, 1972), the aim of our study was to understand how the news media and participants in the public debate are framing this issue. This paper seeks to analyse the 2010 Australian public debate about bicycle helmet laws through content and frame analysis of news media coverage and associated letters to the editor (Entman, 1991, 1993; Kitzinger, 2007).