The British Medical Journal (BMJ) has published an article that gives substance to concerns about cycle helmets.
Australian statistician Dr Dorothy Robinson argues that there is no evidence from countries that have enforced the wearing of cycle helmets that there has been any benefit to public health. Robinson reviewed data before and after helmet legislation in Australia, New Zealand and Canada and believes helmet laws discourage cycling and produce no obvious response in the number of head injuries. She 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.” She suggests that helmet laws are counterproductive and that governments should instead focus on measures that lead to clear drops in casualties, such as campaigns to against speeding, drink-driving, and failure to obey road rules. “Helmet laws would be counter productive if they discouraged cycling and increased car use,” says Robinson. “Wearing helmets may also encourage cyclists to take more risks, or motorists to take less care when they encounter cyclists.”
The Journal also published a counter-opinion by four academics who have long pressed for helmet laws. The crux of their argument is that it doesn’t matter if helmet laws discourage cycling (which, for the first time, that admit takes place) because people may take other forms of exercise instead, although they offer no evidence that this occurs.
‘Rapid Responses’ now appearing on the BMJ website suggest that Robinson’s arguments are more convincing and give much other evidence in support.
Another study called The Potential for Cycle Helmets to Prevent Injury – Review . D.Hynd UK 2009 looks at the effectiveness of helmets as such and concludes that helmets protect the head…at a first glance over the 122 pages it does not seem to address the impact of helmets on cycling participation. I will look at the report in more detail at some later stage.
I must admit, I think that there would be less accidents on the road if people didn’t have to wear helmets, because the number of cyclists would rise and make cyclists (and everyday “going to the shop” cyclists, not pelotons) more acceptable to car drivers.
A lot of people do worry about what they look like and we all look like crap in helmets. Can anyone point us to a site with some facts about bicycle helmet use and safety in Australia? I sometimes ride without my helmet just for the feel of it.
I wonder what sort of message wearing a helmet sends when riding on shared use paths. If you are riding so fast and dangerously that a helmet is essential (the law says it’s mandatory) then perhaps you shouldn’t be riding on a shared use path with the pedestrians and child/elderly cyclists. If a helmet is not essential then why wear it? That’s why you’ll often see me on the cycle way without a helmet. Of course I prefer to wear one when cycling with motor traffic. The helmet is one tool a cyclist can use to take responsibility for his/her safety.
An interesting idea on helmet design deals with the problem of helmets in some cases contributing to the injuries rather than preventing them:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/02/new-helmet-design-works-like-skin.php
Being told the first time my husband was knocked off his bike by a car that he only survived because of his helmet, he was pedantic about wearing it. The second time he was knocked off his bike by a car, he was told he only survived because he was wearing a helmet.. Really what is that telling us.. Vanity or Life is a choice…. but think of your family…
Kate puts it well. My experience is the same. I am in my 50′s and have been cyclcing all my life. Wearing a helmet has saved me from serious injury, perhaps death, on two occasions. The first time was in 1989 before helmets became compulsory when I hit a drain and landed on my head. The second was in 2005 when I came down in a peleton crash and th eback of my head hit the road. Both times the helmet was cracked but not my head. If you want to increase you chances of survival then wear a helmet. Its as simple as that.
I can recommend a very good site which looks at bicycle helmets, particularly from the Australian perspective:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org
Most people believe that a bicycle helmet will save their head in serious impacts – this is not true. A bicycle helmet should be more like a motorcycle helmet if such claims have any basis in fact.
We have mandatory helmet laws here in Australia and I choose to cycle without one. Before you say anything, I am a medical doctor with plenty of experience in trauma.
What makes cycling safe:
- more cyclists (and not just the racing, lycra-clad weekend cyclists)
- the more common it is, the better everyone is at cycling and the more car drivers will respect us (as they cycle too)
- better infrastructure
- keeping cars & trucks away from bicycles (and pedestrians).
For a good site on what is good and bad for the future of cycling, have a look at http://hembrow.blogspot.com/ and search for subjective safety.
These sites are well worth a read.
Mandatory helmet legislation in Australia – introduced without any credible evidence – has done more damage to cycling than you can imagine. Look at any school or university pre- and post-helmet laws and you’ll see an enormous difference. Children just don’t cycle to school any more. The argument put forward is it is ‘too dangerous’ – usually because of all of the cars used to drive the kids to school *because* it is too dangerous! Makes no sense.
Another excellent site (the book and DVD are great too) is http://www.bikebeauty.org
Regards,
Dr Paul Martin
MBBS, FANZCA
I am sure there is truth in the scare factor that cycling is so dangerous you need a helmet, hence, don’t let your kids ever do it!
I like the idea that a mass increase in riders on the road would be best solution to improving the behaviour of other motorised road users.
I am sceptical about the benefit of road infrastructure. Shared paths don’t work, dedicated paths that force riders to subjugate their rights to motorists also don’t work, ie, better to just get back on the road, bike lanes don’t work.
I was cynical about helmet use until I had an accident on the South Perth Foreshore shared paths system. Although two separate paths exist one for riders the other for walkers, walkers were in the riders path, and didn’t react to several rings of my bell, until I was a bike length away and then one lady stepped into my path. I went over the handlebars, and my head hit the tarmac path and bounced 3 times, being shaken like a rag doll! I was sure my helmet came off, and that it was my skull being repeatedly bashed. Fortunately it hadn’t, it remained on my head with the now 4 separate pieces held together by the straps! The 2 ladies swore at me and abandoned me in a concussed state and gravel rash with a damaged bike, spokes and brake lever. What I learnt then and in some subsequent falls, is that most times you come off sideways, not directly over the bars. So head impact is more often on a forward side! I avoid shared paths like the plague!
Helmets reviews seldom cover destructive testing, ie, just looks, comfort, airflow, hence are pointless!
I would recommend wearing them, with the strap done up, although far from perfect.
All helmets issued with a SA sticker have had destructive testing. A cycle journo reviewing a helmet does not to to replicate this testing.
Like you I avoid South perth foreshore and for the same reasons – too many TIBMIN’s
thumb in bum mind in neutral
Paul L,
I have to disagree with you (and I agree with CycleSnail below) in that mass cyclists on the road will “improve the behaviour of motorised road users”. I don’t think it is that simple. You need to see how the Dutch do it – hembrow.blogspot.com – and interestingly, they have a very healthy sport cycling community with great public support – it is not a ‘subculture’ there. I wish it were the same here.
Cycling first needs to be appealing to everyone (women, men, children) and they should feel safe. Dedicated cycle paths, physically separated from motorised traffic, is the solution to this. Only after numbers have swollen will cycling be seen as a reasonable alternative by the majority and, as they are now cyclists too, as drivers they will be more careful with cyclists on the road.
For cyclists who are actually doing a ‘training run’ or trying to get from A to B as quickly as possible, by all means, ride on the road. You are less likely to injure someone on a bike path that way.
I would argue that your ‘accident’, for which you thank your helmet for saving you, may have been easily avoided. My assessment is based solely on what you posted.
When I cycle on shared paths I slow down to walking speed if I’m not satisfied that pedestrians have heard my bell. There are many reasons why they may not hear you (the wind or other noises closer to them, they’re deaf, they’re listening to music). Ultimately, on shared paths you have to GIVE WAY to pedestrians. It astounds me that this is the very attitude towards cyclists from car drivers which angers cyclists so much – and now you’re doing it to the next person ‘down’ the food chain of transport – how ironic!
If they don’t see me, I then cycle past them at walking speed. Even if I hit them I wouldn’t fall off let alone go over the handlebars – you have to decelerate quite quickly to do that. Personally, I can jam on my front brakes, short of locking my front wheel, and come to a complete stop without flying over the top so you must have been going much faster than walking speed.
Clearly the pedestrians should try to stay to the left but sometimes this is not possible – who wants to walk with friends, single file, and have a conversation! Again, think of the parallels with you, as a cyclist, on the roads with cars.
Perhaps, instead, you should lobby to have the path widened so there is both a pedestrian area and a cyclist area, particularly if the shared path is very crowded. Unpleasant interactions are only going to make pedestrians hate cyclists too (and they drive cars don’t forget!).
Regards,
Dr Paul Martin
MBBS, FANZCA
PS: I like the ‘until they’re old enough to pay their own fines’ quote from CycleSnail – that is the only logical reason for insisting your child wears one! Brilliant.
There are clearly two camps in the helmet debate. Like Paul Martin, I do not wear a helmet. But I make my kids were one “until they are old enough to pay their own fines”.
The BTA will not start a campaign against the compulsory wearing of helmets simply because we cannot justify the effort required together with the small chance of success.
I am passionate about a safe riding environment for cyclists, and in the suburbs lower speeds is clearly the answer. Looking at video clips whilst creating the loop for the Northbridge Cycling Sundowner cemented this view – all over the world localities are engineering traffic solutions that make cycling safer. All are based on separating cyclist from cars, or lowering car speeds. In Australia we have an obesity cost of $20 billion per year, and a road accident cost of $18 billion per year, but we cannot spend a few dollars on one of the obvious solutions: increase cycle use for everyday transport.
I wrecked my bike late last year, having nothing to do with traffic. At 25 mph my rear wheel locked up, I hit the road almost immediately breaking my pelvis, arm and ribs. I watched my head hit the pavement out of the corner of my eye, rather my helmet hit the pavement. No one will convince me I would not have left brains on the road without my helmet.
25mph (40km/h??)..yes you should wear a helmet. But having just come back from 12 days in Bordeaux where upright bicycles waltz through the CBD ridden by all ages/sizes it was so uplifting…and not a piece of lycra nor helmet in sight. I would ride to work everyday if I didnt have to arrive with flat hair and didnt have to compete for cycle path space with people who think they’re at the local velodrome.
Interesting arguments put forward by some “experts”. Using the same logic I believe seatbelts should also be outlawed since they promote high speed and reckless behaviour ;). Cycling in France I have been going at up to 90 km/h – I appreciated not having to be on a cycle-lane shared with pedestrians
Dr Martin
Citing cyclehelmets.org??? Discredited BS!
We are not the Fattest Nation in the World.
Nauru holds that distinction.
https://apps.who.int/infobase/Comparisons.aspx
Estimated Obesity(BMI ? 30 kg/m²) Prevalence, Males, Aged 15+, 2010
Nauru is ranked number 1 with 84.6%
Australia is ranked 16th with 28.4%
(extracting all the data is somewhat clumsy…)
This page shows statistics for OECD countries only.
http://www.oecd.org/document/35/0,3343,en_21571361_44315115_46064099_1_1_1_1,00.html
As you can see Australia may be catching up to some of the ‘wider’ nations, but we are still down the table both on WHO and OECD data.
As for the ‘supposed’ Perth traffic counts, perhaps you could review their statistics against the data collated by DoT (http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/cycling/1515.asp). Then again that may be difficult the WA links provided by cyclehelmets.org are all dead!!