The contentious subject of cycle helmets Options

[Guest_NNo_*]

Mrs Barnham is quoted in the Newbury Weekly News as saying "We have written to the foundation expressing concern at the amount of people not wearing helmets."

Perhaps she is not aware but there is considerable controversy over promotion of cycle helmets, primarily because the effectiveness of them is far from proven and cycling is as safe as many other activities where helmets are not considered. It should be left to personal choice.

---- quotes from CTC analysis ---->
The risks of cycling do not warrant special protective equipment

You are in fact more likely to be killed in a mile of walking than a mile of cycling. Nor is cycling injuries particularly likely to be head injuries: a child injured while walking is more likely to suffer a head injury than a child injured while cycling. Pedestrians and car occupants suffer far more injuries which might be preventable through helmet-wearing than cyclists do.


The safety case for helmet-wearing is far from clear

Cycle helmets are only designed to withstand impact speeds of around 13mph (equivalent to falling from a stationary riding position), and not for collisions with moving traffic. 93% of the serious and fatal injuries which cyclists suffer on our roads are due to collisions with motor vehicles, and 22% of cyclist fatalities result from collisions with HGVs.

Compulsory helmet-wearing in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere has not led to any detectable safety gains for cyclists compared with other road users. A series of recent reports (including four papers in peer-reviewed medical journals) have found no evidence of a link between cycle helmet wearing rates and cyclists' safety.

Lack of evidence does not prove the lack of an effect, however it is by no means unreasonable to question the overall benefits of helmet-wearing. There are many related factors which could make it self-defeating or even counter-productive to promote or enforce helmet wearing, and these merit further investigation.

One is that the resulting fall in cycle use could undermine the 'safety in numbers' effect for those cyclists remaining. Another is the possibility that some cyclists (particularly teenagers) ride less cautiously when wearing helmets (this is known as 'risk compensation'). These and other factors may increase the likelihood of cyclists hitting their heads in the first place, possibly eroding or outweighing such limited protection as helmets may provide in the event of an impact.

We need to find out why increased helmet use seems never to have produced detectable benefits for cyclists’ safety (and in some cases why it even appears to have worsened), before assuming that helmet-wearing is self-evidently beneficial. This is particularly important given the weight of evidence that making cyclists wear helmets is strongly linked to reduced cycling activity.

Moreover, if “risk compensation” is a significant factor, overstating the case for helmet-wearing could increase the likelihood of cyclists endangering themselves due to misplaced faith in the protective value of their helmets.


Recent Evidence

* The British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a paper by Dorothy Robinson (a statistician at the University of New England, New South Wales in Australia) reviewing the effects of helmet laws in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Robinson shows that, despite significant increases in helmet-wearing, there was no greater improvement in cycle safety than for pedestrian safety over the same period. On the other hand, there were substantial reductions in cycle use, amounting to a significant loss of the health and other benefits of cycling. Robinson says: "This contradiction may be due to risk compensation, incorrect helmet wearing, reduced safety in numbers (injury rates per cyclist are lower when more people cycle), or bias in case control studies." (Read more on the BMJ helmet debate).

* An article in Injury Prevention magazine by Paul Hewson finds no detectable relationship between helmet-rates and on-road cycle safety in Great Britain. A second article, also by Hewson (this one published in Accident Analysis and Prevention journal), reaches the same conclusion for child cyclists. Hewson emphasises that this doesn’t necessarily mean that helmets are ineffective; an alternative explanation is that there might be some benefits for particular groups and/or for particular types of cycling, and he points out that his own data cover on-road cycling only. However, he also argues that road safety professionals have no grounds for being involved in helmet promotion, given the lack of detectable benefits for on-road cyclists.

* Another peer-reviewed paper on helmet laws in San Diego also finds no relationship between helmet-wearing rates and cycle safety.

* Finally, a report on children’s cycling from the National Children’s Bureau includes a very useful appendix surveying the literature on helmets. It states, “Those of us who cycle should be under no illusion that helmets offer reliable protection in crash situations where our lives may be in danger. Neither should we believe that widespread adoption of helmet wearing would see many fewer cyclists killed or permanently disabled. The evidence so far suggests otherwise.” Coming from a children’s charity, this is an important finding.

This evidence all backs up the findings of a report from the SWOV Institute of Road Safety Research, The Netherlands in 2001, Promotion of mobility and safety of vulnerable road users (final report of the European research project PROMISING), which says:

“5.4.7. helmets

From the point of view of restrictiveness, even the official promotion of helmets may have negative consequences for bicycle use. If the importance of wearing a helmet is stressed, the implied message is that cycling is extraordinarily dangerous. [...] To prevent helmets having a negative effect on the use of bicycles, the best approach is to leave the promotion to the manufacturers and shopkeepers.”
--------------------

[GMR]

I am a cyclist and I don't wear a helmet. But I do think it should be left up to the individual. We've got too many restrictions at the moment in this country without another one clogging our system. However, and saying that I always made sure my kids wore cycle helmets... not they are older it is their decision.

[JeffG]

This sounds similar to the thoughtfully-researched arguments against the use of seatbelts in cars...

[Guest_NNo_*]

and your thoughtfully researched arguments are ...?

[JeffG]

and your thoughtfully researched arguments are ...?

When the wearing of seatbelts was made, or about to be made, compulsory, many specious arguments were put forward why that shouldn't happen. Sorry if I appear cynical about the quoted research, but in my view any form of head protection is better than none. If it is indeed true that current cycle helmets are ineffective, then research should be directed at improving their efficacy.

[AmieB]

Its ridiculous that anyone can say a helmet does not help protect your head if you were to fall off your bike.

There have been lots of cases where it was said if the person had a helmet on they would have had less injuries.

But if you dont want to wear one, no one can make you. Were happy to pay the NHS to keep you in hospital longer to recover from your fall.......

[Iommi]

I think it is right that more technology should be used to make cycle helmets more affective, whilst not compromising the ability to enjoy cycling, but of course, one also has to ask, how much risk is acceptable for the average person to be exposed to, before legislation has to be drawn to protect the NHS from the burden of care?

To my mind, if money can be extracted from the drunken fighting class that populates A & E on any given Friday and Saturday, then perhaps there would be more money to cope with people that indulge in the more risky of 'wholesome' pursuits... but that's possibly for another thread.

[GMR]

To my mind, if money can be extracted from the drunken fighting class that populates A & E on any given Friday and Saturday, then perhaps there would be more money to cope with people that indulge in the more risky of 'wholesome' pursuits... but that's possibly for another thread.

I've been thinking along these lines as well. Hospitals, police should charge those culprits if they want to drink, cause trouble and end up in hospital all at the expense of the tax payer. If those yobs had to pay then they just might think twice.

[Guest_NNo_*]

"any form of head protection is better than none" - if so, why not wear one when, say, walking since cycling is as safe as walking and has less proportional of head injuries? Everything is a balance of risk vs actions to mitigate them, but the promotion of cycle helmets is out of kilter.

Population studies show no evidence that helmets reduce the likelihood or severity of head injuries. e.g. the Australia, New Zealand and Canada studies where they introduced laws.

I'm not saying they don't do anything at all. I'm saying it is an insignificant effect that can't be seen in studies of whole populations i.e. doesn't affect the medical bill of the country because there aren't more head injuries or worse head injuries. I'm also saying if you think the protection they do give is worthwhile, why does that not apply when doing other similarly safe activities.

Trying to insist on other people wearing helmets puts people off cycling - which is a bad thing for health. So it's healthier for the population as a whole for cycling to be seen as the safe transport mode that it is and helmets to be left to individual choice.

Individual cases can't really prove anything because you have no idea whether the helmet or lack of it would have changed the outcome. You can only guess at what might have happened.

[Andy]

Individual cases can't really prove anything because you have no idea whether the helmet or lack of it would have changed the outcome. You can only guess at what might have happened.

So you trying to convince me that if someone say, got clipped by a car, came off their bike and hit the back of their head on the kerb edge, that a helmet probably would have made no difference to the outcome!!!!?

In my opinion, it sounds as if you probably been duped by the anti-helmet brigade with so called "facts" that, let's face it can easily be manipulated to fit any cause and I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could find data that would conclude the exact opposite.

[Guest_NNo_*]

So if you think the protection they do give is worthwhile, why does that not apply when doing other similarly safe activities.

[GMR]

I think we must also think about babies in prams, walking on paths; all potentially dangerous. In fact why don’t we have helmets in cars as well? And of course sex; the potential of banging your head against the headrest could course serious damage. Head gear while having sex could reduce head injuries. Granted some sorts of sexual activity does require one to wear head gear (but that is another story)!!!

[Guest_NNo_*]

I think it's the bathroom not the bedroom where things get risky (as opposed to risqué).

[GMR]

I think it's the bathroom not the bedroom where things get risky (as opposed to risqué).

I suppose there are no forbidden places when trying out that activity

[Iommi]

If the Government genuinely had a concern for our health, I'm sure there are areas that are more deserving than legislating for compulsory cycling helmets. I'll admit that I don't wear one, mainly because I find them uncomfortable and quite frankly, silly looking. I do think though that it is sensible to wear one and I would certainly insist on my children wearing one.

[Andy]

So if you think the protection they do give is worthwhile, why does that not apply when doing other similarly safe activities.

Because quite obviously I've never been in much peril or danger of being knocked to the ground by a car whilst just walking along.

And if you now try to include crossing the road, then your trying to add a whole lot of extra stats to back up your claim, because crossing the road safely, places almost all the onus on the pedestrian doing it in a safe and timely manner.

[Guest_NNo_*]

I would imagine the data includes crossing the road since that is what pedestrians have to do when their route crosses a road.

I really can't see how you can justify excluding part of the trip for one group on the grounds that is where the danger is? If we took junctions out of the cycle stats that would remove most of the danger from that too!


As a pedestrains as well - I'm not at all sure of your statement "crossing the road safely, places almost all the onus on the pedestrian doing it in a safe and timely manner". Al the risk, but not all the onus, no. But that is a separate discussion.

[Andy]

and quite frankly, silly looking.

I think you may look silly if you received some brain damage and were incapacitated for the rest of you days with someone having to wipe your a**e and dribbling all day.

Not that I'm saying that would happen, but if there is an increased risk, why gamble with the extra possibility and burden that it would impose on your family. Personally if I was told that wearing a Kermit the frog suit would guarantee me from injury then I would cycle all the time, but I don't think that mordern day roads are currently suitable to cyclists. IT would have been nice if they introduced raised kerbs to separate roads from cycle lanes, but this really needed to be started some years ago

[GMR]

I think you may look silly if you received some brain damage and were incapacitated for the rest of you days with someone having to wipe your **** and dribbling all day.

Not that I'm saying that would happen, but if there is an increased risk, why gamble with the extra possibility and burden that it would impose on your family. Personally if I was told that wearing a Kermit the frog suit would guarantee me from injury then I would cycle all the time, but I don't think that mordern day roads are currently suitable to cyclists. IT would have been nice if they introduced raised kerbs to separate roads from cycle lanes, but this really needed to be started some years ago

Why not just put people in protective suits and be done with it.

I cycle on the roads and apart from a few V signs I am quite happy cycling on the roads.

[Road User]

Why not just put people in protective suits and be done with it.

I cycle on the roads and apart from a few V signs I am quite happy cycling on the roads.

They should make it compulsary for cyclists to wear them. Why should people on cycles be allowed to choose when those of us on motorcycles can't?

[GMR]

They should make it compulsary for cyclists to wear them. Why should people on cycles be allowed to choose when those of us on motorcycles can't?

The simple reason is that they are two different sorts of instruments (motorbike and cycle). One you can go hundreds of miles an hour so the collision would be a lot more fatal, while the bike is a lot, lot slower and would course less damage. If you are comparing the motorbike and cycle together then using your same argument/ logic a cyclist could compare a pedestrian with themselves; i.e. they should wear safety helmets if cyclists have to. If cyclists can compare pedestrians with themselves then pedestrians could – in theory - compare themselves to people who sleep in beds; i.e. there is a good argument to say that people who sleep should wear helmets. Your logic has faults and doesn’t make sense.

[Andy]

They should make it compulsary for cyclists to wear them. Why should people on cycles be allowed to choose when those of us on motorcycles can't?

Fair point, hadn't thought of that

[JeffG]

I cycle on the roads and apart from a few V signs I am quite happy cycling on the roads.

Why the V-signs? You seem to be one of the very few law-abiding cyclists these days.

[GMR]

Why the V-signs? You seem to be one of the very few law-abiding cyclists these days.

Is that sarcasm?

I use cycle lanes but I won't use cycle paths and car drivers don't like it so give me the V sign. And before you ask; you can't mix pedestrians with cyclists, it doesn't work. You get a lot of abuse if you cycle on the paths. Not only that but roads are regularly cleaned, while paths are not. I used to get punctures every week... now I hardly ever do. Also; my son uses cycle paths and one day a car was half parked on the cycle side of the path and the road. As he as going by she opened her door and my son was seriously injured. They are a death traps.

[Iommi]

I think you may look silly if you received some brain damage and were incapacitated for the rest of you days with someone having to wipe your a**e and dribbling all day.

That is true, but that wasn't the only reason I gave. I'd also say that this is likely to be one of the big reasons some people don't wear them.

[JeffG]

Is that sarcasm?

Not at all. I was referring to the growing number of cyclists who illegally ride on pavements. Seems like nearly all of them. Pavements are for feet: roads are for wheels.

[GMR]

Not at all. I was referring to the growing number of cyclists who illegally ride on pavements. Seems like nearly all of them. Pavements are for feet: roads are for wheels.

I totally agree. However, do you also accept cycle paths in your remarks about footpaths? It was a bad idea to turn half of footpaths into cycle lanes, they where never going to work. If you want them to work you have to educate the pedestrians.

[JeffG]

I totally agree. However, do you also accept cycle paths in your remarks about footpaths? It was a bad idea to turn half of footpaths into cycle lanes, they where never going to work. If you want them to work you have to educate the pedestrians.

In an ideal world, there would be completely separate routes for cyclists and other traffic, like they have in the Netherlands. (Well, they do have an advantage, since the country was designed for cyclists!) You are never going to educate pedestrians, unless the Government decides to bring in a licence to walk, with a test (not an impossibility with this government ). So you have to separate pedestrians and cyclists: ergo I agree with you.

[GMR]

In an ideal world, there would be completely separate routes for cyclists and other traffic, like they have in the Netherlands. (Well, they do have an advantage, since the country was designed for cyclists!) You are never going to educate pedestrians, unless the Government decides to bring in a licence to walk, with a test (not an impossibility with this government ). So you have to separate pedestrians and cyclists: ergo I agree with you.

Don't get me started on the government thing....

[Road User]

The simple reason is that they are two different sorts of instruments (motorbike and cycle). One you can go hundreds of miles an hour so the collision would be a lot more fatal, while the bike is a lot, lot slower and would course less damage. If you are comparing the motorbike and cycle together then using your same argument/ logic a cyclist could compare a pedestrian with themselves; i.e. they should wear safety helmets if cyclists have to. If cyclists can compare pedestrians with themselves then pedestrians could – in theory - compare themselves to people who sleep in beds; i.e. there is a good argument to say that people who sleep should wear helmets. Your logic has faults and doesn’t make sense.

It makes perfect sense. Cycles and motorcycles both share the road and are vehicles in the eyes of the law. Pedestrians are not vehicles they are humans walking. Cycles traveling down steep inclines can reach extremely high speeds I know I have done this and if I had been clocked would have gotten a speeding ticket if there had been a speed camera and can kill you just as easily as a crash on a motorcyle. I am not arguing the protection helmets do or don't provide simply that if a person is operating a two wheeled vehicle on a public road then they should have one law for all not one for cyclists and one for motorcycles. Lets face it if a person is going to ride like an a*** then a helmet isn't going to save them no matter what they are riding.

[GMR]

It makes perfect sense. Cycles and motorcycles both share the road and are vehicles in the eyes of the law. Pedestrians are not vehicles they are humans walking. Cycles traveling down steep inclines can reach extremely high speeds I know I have done this and if I had been clocked would have gotten a speeding ticket if there had been a speed camera and can kill you just as easily as a crash on a motorcyle. I am not arguing the protection helmets do or don't provide simply that if a person is operating a two wheeled vehicle on a public road then they should have one law for all not one for cyclists and one for motorcycles. Lets face it if a person is going to ride like an a*** then a helmet isn't going to save them no matter what they are riding.

That is true my friend. The trouble is if people behave that way they usually take somebody with them; i.e. injure somebody else. Maybe education might be better than helmets. As for motorbike riders wearing helmets. I got my first motorbike when the crash-helmet law came in; 1st June 1973. Thirty nine years ago this month.

[Guest_NNo_*]

Well, they do have an advantage, since the country was designed for cyclists!

Yes, but as I understand it, it has taken them time to get to that position. It was a deliberate decision. According to what I've read, they even had the same car boom in the 50 and 60s as us, but in the 70s decided to prioritise bikes.

speeding ticket

Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles. Though there are laws such as "cycling furiously" if you are that out of control.

[GMR]

Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles. Though there are laws such as "cycling furiously" if you are that out of control.

Jesus! I wish I was that fit to cycle that fast.

[cyclist]

I've fallen off my bike and broken my helmet instead of my skull. That was from what felt like a light tap on the road after my arm and shoulder took most of the impact. They do work!!

[Simon]

"any form of head protection is better than none" - if so, why not wear one when, say, walking since cycling is as safe as walking

Um......Sorry but how is cycling as safe as walking?

Cycling is on a road with cars driving past, walking is on a path away from the cars (as long as care is taken crossing roads)

Cycling is much faster than walking, meaning that there is a greater chance of injury. If you fall over walking, 99% of the time you will be fine with just a couple of scrapes or bruises as you have time to soften the fall, on a bike it happens too quickly

If your beliefs are to not wear head protection then that's your choice, but why are you trying to persuade others not to wear it? I just completed the London to Brighton bike ride, where 27,000 people happily wore head gear (good thing to, as there was a couple of nasty accidents)

[GMR]

Um......Sorry but how is cycling as safe as walking?

Cycling is on a road with cars driving past, walking is on a path away from the cars (as long as care is taken crossing roads)

Actually that is not totally true; Cycling is on a road or path (along with pedestrians). As cyclists cycle for many different reasons - such as cycling fast to keep fit or training - this could put the pedestrian in danger (in fact it has done). I have seen many collisions between cyclists and pedestrians on the foot path; in one incident a pedestrian child went over and banged his head. If the government insist that pedestrians’ should share the same walkway with cyclist then maybe it would be prudent to issue helmets to kids and adults who wish to walk on the paths.

What he should have said "Walking can be just as dangerous as cycling."

[AmieB]

I think its fair to say a cyclist is more likely to be involved in an accident then a pedestrian. Only the other day a cyclist went straight into the back of a parked lorry on Hambridge Road because he wasn't paying attention. And im sure he never had a helmet on.....

[GMR]

I think its fair to say a cyclist is more likely to be involved in an accident then a pedestrian. Only the other day a cyclist went straight into the back of a parked lorry on Hambridge Road because he wasn't paying attention. And im sure he never had a helmet on.....

To be honest I very rarely ever see a cyclist wearing a helmet; young or old. The only times I've ever seen a cyclist wear a helmet is usually a professional cyclist.

[Guest_NNo_*]

I think its fair to say a cyclist is more likely to be involved in an accident then a pedestrian. Only the other day a cyclist went straight into the back of a parked lorry on Hambridge Road because he wasn't paying attention. And im sure he never had a helmet on.....

Except that does appear to be true from the government stats.