- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
White cycle helmetWearing a cycle helmet may increase risk of injury, says new research
New research suggests that wearing a helmet may put cyclists more at risk of being injured in a road traffic collision.
The findings are set out in a paper entitled Effects of bicycle helmet wearing on accident and injury rates presented at this week’s National Road Safety Conference in Telford.
Former Cycling UK councillor Colin Clarke and author and journalist Chris Gillham analysed overall changes in accident risk with increased helmet wearing.
They looked at data from Australia and New Zealand, both of which have nationwide mandatory helmet laws, the US and Canada, where compulsion is widespread particularly for children but laws vary in local jurisdictions, and the UK, where there is no legal requirement to wear one.
Summarising their findings, they said: “Bicycle helmet wearing globally has increased over the past 30 years via promotion and in some cases legislation.
“Various reports have assessed the changes in wearing rates, accidents, injuries and cycling activity levels.
“A limited number of reports have analysed overall changes in accident risk per kilometres cycled, per hours cycled or in relationship to cycling levels via survey information.
“A significant number of findings suggest a higher accident/injury rate may result from helmet usage and there is strong evidence that helmeted cyclists suffer a higher rate of upper body limb injuries than non-wearers, suggesting a higher rate of falls than non-wearers.”
Besides highlighting an increased casualty rate among cyclists wearing helmets, they also noted that according to census data, the compulsory helmet laws introduced in Australia and New Zealand in the 1990s had led to a reduction in cycling.
For example, they highlighted that “Children’s cycling in New Zealand reduced from 23 million hours to 13.6 million hours in less than a 10 year period and currently is about 4 to 5 million hours per year.”
That ties in with one argument often put forward by opponents of mandatory helmet laws, namely that discouraging people from cycling through such legislation ultimately has an adverse effect on public health generally.
To put that another way, the perceived reduction in casualties of cyclists brought about by making helmets compulsory is outweighed by the fact that such laws deter people from cycling, and therefore do not aid efforts to tackle more widespread issues such as obesity which exercise can help address.
In conclusion, Clarke and Gillham said: “The possible reasons for increased risk of injury per cyclist, particularly upper extremities, appear to be due to increased falls.
“It appears helmet use increases the accident rate by more than 40 per cent.
“This should be the subject of further research to determine why overall accident and injury rates outweigh head injury benefits provided by helmets.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- mark1a 2 hours 18 min ago
I'll put you down as a no then.
- Boopop 4 hours 30 min ago
I find it deeply jarring and disappointing that Sir David agrees with these people not wanting a cycle lane. Whenever I watch one of his excellent...
- chrisonabike 4 hours 39 min ago
May need insurance, tax and a licence. No problem with the lights though.
- Simon E 4 hours 55 min ago
Yes, they look just like the Lezyne Zecto model. My club bought a couple of sets from the LBS for our midweek TTs so if someone turns up without...
- Hirsute 7 hours 26 min ago
If you can't see a %^$&ing large tractor what ^%$£"!*ing hope is there that you will see a cyclist ?...
- chrisonabike 7 hours 44 min ago
Well if you *can* interview the original riders at all surely they worked, at least?...
- David9694 8 hours 13 min ago
Live: Car plunges over wall and lands on beach rocks...
- biking59boomer 8 hours 19 min ago
Looks like yet another bike share service that's going to fold because of selfish idiots.
- brooksby 13 hours 26 min ago
And finally: I wonder how many of the "more than 3,000" signatures on that petition are actually locals, who live or work there (and are not just...
Add new comment
93 comments
Why do you take such delight in your atrocious lack of manners, not only here but on the Guardian website (and doubtless elsewhere)? You contribute nothing to debate beyond sneers and rudeness. Perhaps it's time you took a break from commenting and had a good think about what your immature behaviour says about you.
Wow, not only cross-thread feuds now, but ones from other websites! Maybe you should take your own advice?
hobbeldehoy's comment was itself rude, with thinly-veiled aggression and misguided contempt for other opinions. So he started it!
Burt is one of the elder statesmen of this here site, newbie, so mind your manners.
Do you not think that hob was being a teensy bit rude/immature and confrontational?
Been a reader of road cc since it began, I just happen to have a life so haven't the time to post 5000 comments like yourself. I wasn't aware that being an "elder statesman" on a particular site (i.e. posting more guff than anyone else) gives one the right to be rude. And no, the OP wasn't rude, unless you think rude means "doesn't agree with me."
Don't care about the post-count thing, but you are completely and obviously wrong on the last point. The OP was most definitely rude.
They said:
That's bloody rude. Patronising, insinuating anyone with a different view must be an idiot who has never enountered this 'insightful' argument before, and with the usual thinly-vielled fantasy for those who disagree with them to suffer violent injury that keeps coming up on these sorts of arguments.
For you to claim that isn't rude, is insulting people's intelligence. Which makes you rude yourself!
That's hilarious - no reasonable person with no chip on their shoulder would claim that the OP was rude. You can say it's obvious, or that you don't agree with it, but it's not rude. And to say the OP has the "usual thinly-vielled fantasy for those who disagree with them to suffer violent injury" is insane. Whereas burtthebike's comments are almost without exception, at least on the helmet issue, patronising, aggressive, demeaning and rude.
Nope, it's very obviously rude and I explained why - but apparently your reading-comprehension isn't very good. Or rather, you only see what you want to see because of your bias, presumably because you have an existing antagonism to burtthebike (who may or may not be rude, but he didn't start it this time)
And do you not notice how often helmet pushers non-arguments involve fantasies about the helmet-skeptics suffering violent injuries? You might want to ignore the obvious subtext to that, but that's again becuase of your bias.
Nope, it's very obviously rude and I explained why - but apparently your reading-comprehension isn't very good. Or rather, you only see what you want to see because of your bias, presumably because you have an existing antagonism to burtthebike (who may or may not be rude, but he didn't start it this time)
And do you not notice how often helmet pushers non-arguments involve fantasies about the helmet-skeptics suffering violent injuries? You might want to ignore the obvious subtext to that, but that's again becuase of your bias.
[/quote]
Oh yes, it must be my reading comprehension. Leaving aside the fact that I am a professional writer and qualified English teacher, do grow up. "helmet pushers [sic] non-arguments involve fantasies about the helmet-skeptics suffering violent injuries? You might want to ignore the obvious subtext to that, but that's again becuase [sic]of your bias." Those two sentences preclude your being taken seriously in any way at all. You have forfeited the right to be offered the courtesy of a reply, so froth all you want, you've made yourself look incredibly stupid and I'm done with you. Good day.
Do you wear one in the shower in case you fall over?
Don't be silly - they only work in the living room.
Or while walking down the stairs, or, of course, while in a car.
Why is there always one who smugly presents hobbeldehoy's bit of foolishness every time the topic comes up, apparently thinking they are being clever and original?
I agree with those expressing skepticism about the particular bit of research reported in the item, however.
I'm increasingly cynical about almost all research in everything, I find. At least anything that isn't exclusively about the properties of inanimate objects. Anything that has anything to do with psychology or politics or social behaviour usually turns out to be wrong and affected by the researchers' bias or shoddy methodology. Someone should do a study on it.
(Oh, I guess they have, hence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis - but should I trust their findings? )
This post is about as useful as stating that Brexit must get done because it's "the will of the people" i.e. not at all useful.
Perhaps you're new to cycling and this topic and don't understand that the effectiveness of cycling helmets not a binary thing. It's not bare headed cycling = death or injury on one side vs wearing a polystyrene hat = right as rain on the other. If you are new to all this then it would make you look less of a dick if you listen/read first before posting.
There seems no reference to increased number of cars on roads or other things that may make cycling on the road more dangerous such as increased use of road bikes on roads vs other types of slower bike. Increased use of bikes as a commuting method which clearly is more dangerous than leisure cycling in low traffic areas.
...Also in the modern world hasnt the accuracy and reporting of everything has increased from crime to health statistics to accidents?
A link to the actual paper would be good if there is one available. It's certainly interesting.
Based on how the 'research' is described, it sounds like a comparison between completely different countries to try to find some kind of correlation. This guy has no background in this kind of research, or seemingly any research at all, and it shows. There are far too many variables to even count, so trying to draw any conclusions is ridiculous and not even worth attempting. Unless of course he has found a way to control all variables except helmet usage, which is incredible and groundbreaking.
I haven't been able to find the actual paper or presentation but I've found some of this guy's previous work.
Reading his discussions with another researcher it appears the crux of this argument relates to the cycling rate post mandatory helmet law introduction.
If the rate fell then his argument regarding increased injury rates has merit, if the rates actually remained fairly static as others have argued then the injury rates figures actually support helmet use (TBIs declined faster than other injury types).
Unfortunately there is no way to determine who is right regarding the cycling rate.
Personally I'd always believed that the cycling rate fell rapidly after mandatory helmet laws but the arguments that it did not are quite convincing, now I'm not so sure.
Good starting point for the counter argument:
https://injurystats.wordpress.com/2015/05/15/colin-clarkes-assessment-of...
It could be a good starting point if most of the references weren't from Jake Oliver, someone who's recent paper relied on "no change in the rates of cycling since the Australian law was brought in".
It appears both sides of the argument rely on the change in the numbers biking. Both sides present conflicting information.
I'm inclined to believe Colin Clarke over Jake Oliver. Schools in NZ are taking out their bike parking; before the law they were full.
Given that helmet promoters have used disproved, discredited statistics for many years, of 85% reduction in head injury, 40% seems quite reasonable. But like most of the commenters here, it does seem less than likely, but it might be best to view it as indicative, showing that helmets do not improve safety, which has been the result of many credible studies.
Helmet laws and propaganda campaigns were based on faulty, biased research which predicted massive effects, none of which have been realised. The very best that can be said about helmets is that they prevent scratches and bruises, but they do not affect the ksi rate, or at least, not positively.
Well I think it is important to discern the cause behind the relationship. Otherwise it results in poor decisions.
If wearing a helmet increases the risk of individual injury then I am better off not wearing one. If however it is an effect only at the population level, perhaps for the reasons outlined by Philh68, then I would be wrong to assume I am safer not wearing my helmet.
they are different things. I try to be realistic about helmets, having something certified to limit head acceleration to 250G’s could help in the unfortunate event you need it while accepting it’s hardly likely to save your life in a serious crash. But something that may lessen injury in a collision does not mean it reduces the probability of the collision.
Too often the debate gets bogged down confusing the probability of incident with injury. As long as we allow that, then we let authorities legislate the activity rather than improve the environment for the activity, which is the situation Australia has with mandatory helmets and little safe infrastructure for cycling.
“It appears helmet use increases the accident rate by more than 40 per cent." How does this correlate with generally increased traffic levels, use of helmets in differing environments, and at specific times of day I wonder. I can hazard a guess.
"It appears helmet use increases the accident rate by more than 40 per cent."
You would think that such a marked effect would be easy to prove conclusively, and ought to be apparent even on casual observation.
yes, it sounds like extrapolation gone mad to me. As an Aussie I’m familiar with the ridership changes that followed mandatory helmets. Fact is, if you make it look like a risky activity you only get the people comfortable with the risk doing it. You reduce your data set mainly to people riding as an athletic activity, so fewer riders overall but those riders travel greater distances which increases their exposure risk. I don’t see it that helmets increase the risk, they just discourage casual riders whose lower risk level would improve the average.
The bigger problem in my experience is driver attitude and poor decisions. As ridership levels have decreased, so has the ability of drivers to behave appropriately around cyclists while their sense of entitlement has increased. It’s compounded by increasing traffic congestion raising stress levels and aggression. But those factors never show up when evaluating helmets.
100% Agree. While its good that studies like this are undertaken to help keep people informed of their choices, they often lack scope to actually, to say much more than we saw a change but their don't quite know why.
There have been studies that show that helmet wearers take more risks, but that was when helmet use was mandated and doesn't factor in the personal choices someone makes to wear a helmet. Is it that they are risk adverse or are thrill seekers who know they are taking risks so want a bit of extra protection.
So while I find these studies of interest my personal decision (and I believe it should be a personal decision) to wear a helmet will be based my own risk profile and values.
the biannual cycling participation survey in Australia has shown a 5% decline in weekly participation since the survey began in 2011. The average weekly riding time has increased. Fewer cyclists, riding more means greater risk exposure time per rider. And over 80 percent of respondents indicate recreation as the reason. 70 percent are not interested in riding for transport. So the kind of riders is heavily skewed. Female cyclist numbers are low. Teenage numbers are dropping. Middle aged males are where the increases are. I don’t believe they are deliberate risk takers, and I’m not convinced that wearing a polystyrene hat makes anyone feel safe. Maybe there are connections being drawn that don’t exist, while failing to connect the circumstances that matter?
Almost certainly the case. I think there are a lot of things that need to be taken into account, which make drawing any conclusions on research of this kind very difficult. As of yet I have seen no compelling evidence to suggest that helmets are either "good" or "bad". Only that removing the choice to wear one isn't the answer. It stands to reason that mandating helmets implies cycling is dangerous and an undesirable activity and as such people don't participate, despite other research undertaken where helmets aren't mandatory suggesting cyclists are likely to live longer than non-cyclist when considering death by any means.
Mandating helmets also means those who cannot wear a helmet for various reasons* will be harassed and victimised if they choose to ride a bike. Far worse than now.
Whenever anyone mentions mandating helmet use, the first argument against should always be on behalf of those who cannot use a helmet. You could even call it disability discrimination, as those affected are more likely to already be disabled in some way.
*e.g. physical - pressure & weight can cause mild to severe head and neck pain, some head shapes just don't fit; mental - claustrophobia, spiritual concerns; financial - affording something which fits and doesn't cause pain. (Please note: the above are examples, not an exhaustive list. For me, helmets have triggered headache and neck pain severe enough to keep me off a bike. I know people who wear helmets despite the pain they cause - that's their choice though - and those who sadly won't go near a bike due to the helmet issue.)
If you've never realised some people can't actually wear helmets, please make this more widely known. Especially if you're able bodied. Awareness and consideration/empathy for others really does help. Thanks.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I'm not sure that casual observation would detect a difference between 1 or 1.4 falls per 1000 mile cycled (note figures for illustrative purposes only).
None of the data comes from controlled conditions, it is collected in a myriad number of ways, supplied from different agencies, each with their own bias. Hence it is difficult to come to a conclusion
However it would seem to me that the logic of mandatory helmet use stands up about as well when applied to pedestrians and car drivers as it does to cyclists.
That does seem excessively high and makes me doubt the research. Showing a large effect one way or the other seems unlikely with cycle helmets as we all know that road safety has NOTHING (for certain values of nothing) to do with wearing PPE.
We're so lucky to have geniuses like the pair of you here, who can conclusively prove or disprove extensive research carried out based on a couple of third-hand quotes.
Pages