Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to news
news
Which? stirs the helmet debate with product testWhite cycle helmet

Which? stirs the helmet debate with product test

The consumer watchdog tackles a sensitive area for cyclists
by Sarah Barth
Sat, Jul 21, 2012 13:00
44

The consumer magazine Which? have tested cycle helmets in their July issue, and at the same time launched a Which? Conversation (that's a blog post to you and I ) debating whether or not EU law mandating helmets for the under-13s should be enacted here in the UK.

Regular road.cc'ers will know that's a hot topic in these parts, with those believing in personal resposibility and free choice noisily battling it out with those who think helmet-wearing saves lives and serious injury.

Which? set their stall out firmly with the following words:

There have been plenty of reports to support the use of cycle helmets spanning the last two decades. But an international review of the evidence gathered by the UK Department for Transport in 2009 concluded there was no reliable evidence that helmets resulted in a lower risk of head injury for cyclists.

While not mandatory, we think bike helmets are worth wearing when in the saddle – if you buy a good one. However, our testing found a few helmets that seriously underperformed.

For example, we awarded the Met Camaleonte Executive adult bike helmet our Don’t Buy status, having failed to meet the European Standard in our tests. We’ve even asked Met to recall the helmet. But do you think it’s better to wear a low-quality helmet than to not wear one at all?

The publication included a poll for readers, asking whether cyclists should be made to wear helmets by law, and the results were very interesting.

69 per cent (375 votes) said "No - cyclists shouldn't be legally required to wear helmets", while just a third of that number, 23% per cent, or 126 people said yes. Four per cent thought only children should have to wear helmets, and the same number weren't sure.

The comments below also gave rise to a number of interesting points.

The user Robwiz said: "For mountain biking and road and track competitions a helmet is essential. Just as a helmet is worn in motor sport. However, for everyday cyclists a helmet is an irrelevance. Cycle helmets are designed to absorb the impact of a rider falling off a back onto the ground – an accident which hardly ever happens in the real world. The most common collision mode is a motorised vehicle turning across the path of a cyclist, who is riding straight on a major road at a junction with a minor road.

"If you look at accident statistics, there are more UK fatalities from drowning and falling down stairs. Should it be compulsory to wear a helmet when going up or down stairs? Or to wear a life jacket when walking along a canal or river path?"

Other users invoked the seatbelt law for cars in the UK.

Wavechange said: "It is interesting to read the comments that fewer people would cycle if there was a requirement to wear helmets. I cannot remember if people gave up driving and motorcycling when seatbelts and motorcycle helmets became compulsory."

Another user cited the helmet laws in Australia and New Zealand.

John Irwin wrote: "So in light of no compelling evidence that wearing helmets results in a lower risk of head injury for cyclists why go ahead with it? In the countries which have implemented similar legislation (Australia & New Zealand) the result has been a significant drop in the numbers of people cycling."

The Which? helmet test sounds like it will make for revealing reading - Which? have the resources to actually test helmets to the standards they claim to meet, something most specialist publications aren't able to do. As for the Which? helmet debate… from all at road.cc to whoever from Which? has to moderate it, a hearty 'Good luck!'

 

Safety
Helmets
helmet laws
cycling safety

Add new comment

44 comments

Avatar
paulfrank | 12 years ago
0 likes

I'm only going to go on my own personal experience of trashed helmets and not trashed head. There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.

Avatar
JohnS | 12 years ago
0 likes

Good to see common sense based on evidence from Which? rather than the "Won't somebody think of the children" bollocks from other sources and Radio 4's appalling More or Less programme - supposed to untangle arguments with stats - on cycle helmets which completely ignored the evidence of the public health disbenefits of compulsory helmet-wearing.

Avatar
horizontal dropout | 12 years ago
0 likes

I read the article and the comments and I was impressed that the comments were mostly quite objective and non-religious - quite a change in the helmet debate.

Avatar
Municipal Waste | 12 years ago
0 likes

I like wearing my helmet... I don't feel like a 'proper' cyclist without.

Avatar
horizontal dropout | 12 years ago
0 likes

"please supply us with some valid statistics"

Hi Ciclismo, here's a few links:
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html

Avatar
pepita1 replied to horizontal dropout | 12 years ago
0 likes
horizontal dropout wrote:

"please supply us with some valid statistics"

Hi Ciclismo, here's a few links:
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html

Looks like what's needed is a meta analysis.

I myself have personal experience of the life-saving capability of a Snell/Ansi rated helmet so there is no lingering question about whether I should or shouldn't have to wear a helmet.

I'm happy to be here today and typing my thoughts because some bureaucrat 'made me' wear a helmet.

Avatar
Ciclismo | 12 years ago
0 likes

"John Irwin wrote: "So in light of no compelling evidence that wearing helmets results in a lower risk of head injury for cyclists why go ahead with it? In the countries which have implemented similar legislation (Australia & New Zealand) the result has been a significant drop in the numbers of people cycling."

Dear John, please supply us with some valid statistics to back up your claim. As my statistics professor loved to repeat ad nauseum "correlation does not imply causation".

I used to live in NZ and worked in the cycle industry. The main arguments I heard by people who gave up riding were that cars had gotten so cheap that the huge number of vehicles on the road made riding to commute too dangerous. Never was "helmet hair" used as an excuse.

Avatar
sparrow_h replied to Ciclismo | 12 years ago
0 likes

I grew up in NZ and was at school when the helmet laws came in.

I am pretty sure I have seen stats to back up the drop in cycling after the law change too but I don't keep track of these things so couldn't direct you to them.

From my experience, the area I lived in was not too flash and I knew children who I went to school with whose parents stopped letting them cycle as they weren't prepared to risk having to pay the fines if the kid didnt like his stack-hat and took it off round the corner. Which a lot of us did as they were nasty looking things, made you look like a lego man.

Whatever has done it, discouraging school children from cycling has led to a generation of kiwis who don't have an understanding of what it is like to be passed too close on a bike, or the idea that roads are for sharing with other types of user. I feel so much safer cycling in London than I ever have in Wellington, and I feel I am treated with much more patience. At the same time, kiwis are driving more, walking less, and getting fatter and less healthy (see obesity rates: we are almost up there with the states).

The danger on our roads needs to be tackled at source, making everyone wears hats is a nice way to make people feel like something is being done but if you actually want to save lives in the long term, making sure people feel they have safe and pleasant options other than driving every journey should be the focus.

Avatar
OldRidgeback replied to sparrow_h | 12 years ago
0 likes
sparrow_h wrote:

I grew up in NZ and was at school when the helmet laws came in.

I am pretty sure I have seen stats to back up the drop in cycling after the law change too but I don't keep track of these things so couldn't direct you to them.

From my experience, the area I lived in was not too flash and I knew children who I went to school with whose parents stopped letting them cycle as they weren't prepared to risk having to pay the fines if the kid didnt like his stack-hat and took it off round the corner. Which a lot of us did as they were nasty looking things, made you look like a lego man.

Whatever has done it, discouraging school children from cycling has led to a generation of kiwis who don't have an understanding of what it is like to be passed too close on a bike, or the idea that roads are for sharing with other types of user. I feel so much safer cycling in London than I ever have in Wellington, and I feel I am treated with much more patience. At the same time, kiwis are driving more, walking less, and getting fatter and less healthy (see obesity rates: we are almost up there with the states).

The danger on our roads needs to be tackled at source, making everyone wears hats is a nice way to make people feel like something is being done but if you actually want to save lives in the long term, making sure people feel they have safe and pleasant options other than driving every journey should be the focus.

I couldn't agree more - and the health risks of obesity outweigh those of cycling.

Avatar
Sakurashinmachi replied to Ciclismo | 11 years ago
0 likes

"John Irwin wrote: "So in light of no compelling evidence that wearing helmets results in a lower risk of head injury for cyclists why go ahead with it? In the countries which have implemented similar legislation (Australia & New Zealand) the result has been a significant drop in the numbers of people cycling."

Wrong on both counts: the studies in Australia do show a reduction in head injuries and there wasn't a drop in cycling numbers. I guess the evidence isn't compelling if your mind's already made up.

In point of fact there has been an absolute boom in cycling in Melbourne - it's recently been estimated that 1 in 5 people in Melbourne's inner northern suburbs are cycling to work. Why? Because there's safe routes.

Avatar
sparrow_h replied to Sakurashinmachi | 11 years ago
0 likes

Do you have a source for those stats Sakurashinmachi? Would be interesting to see why they are so different from NZ.

Here is a study on the effect of the helmet law in NZ published in feb 2012:
http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/125-134/5046/content.pdf

From the abstract: "This evaluation finds the helmet law has failed in aspects of promoting cycling, safety, health, accident compensation, environmental issues and civil liberties".

Avatar
doc | 12 years ago
0 likes

Fall in most canals and food poisoning would be the major concern - one mouthful and off you go to the hospital/afterlife!

Avatar
antonio | 12 years ago
0 likes

Interesting, cyclists here frequent canal towpaths, life jackets and helmets mandatory ?

Avatar
horizontal dropout replied to antonio | 12 years ago
0 likes
antonio wrote:

Interesting, cyclists here frequent canal towpaths, life jackets and helmets mandatory ?

Like this you mean? :- )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wqgryt5jhA

Pages

Latest Comments