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?