- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Children cycling - pic credit European Cyclists FederationHelmet laws discourage safe cyclists - says new study
A new study from Norway suggests that mandatory helmet laws actually discourage the safest cyclists in society from taking to the roads.
The study aimed to find out why, despite helmet laws being introduced in countries like New Zealand and Australia, "no studies have found good evidence of an injury reducing effect".
The report by Aslak Fyhri, Torkel Bjørnskau and Agathe Backer-Grøndahl looks at responses from random sample of 1504 bicycle owners in Norway to questions about their cycling style, helmet use and accident involvement.
According to the abstract: "The results show that the cyclist population in Norway can be divided into two sub-populations: one speed-happy group that cycle fast and have lots of cycle equipment including helmets, and one traditional kind of cyclist without much equipment, cycling slowly.
"With all the limitations that have to be placed on a cross sectional study such as this, the results indicate that at least part of the reason why helmet laws do not appear to be beneficial is that they disproportionately discourage the safest cyclists."
So in plain English, speed-freak, accident-prone cyclists were quite likely to be already wearing a helmet BEFORE laws were brought in. As such, they are still having the same number of accidents that they had before, and the only real net result of helmet laws is fewer of the risk-averse cylists taking to the road at all.
Do you agree? Disagree? Let us know in the comments.
Latest Comments
- mattw 4 min 18 sec ago
I've only just spotted this....
- Another_MAMIL 28 min 27 sec ago
I also liked Polartec NeoShell and was disappointed it was discontinued. Polartec RPM looks similar, but it's unclear how NeoShell and RPM compare....
- pockstone 39 min 40 sec ago
"Due to the increasing speed of bicycles..., we have to expect that such accidents will happen more often.”...
- mdavidford 2 hours 6 min ago
Seems probably even more appropriate than what I originally intended.
- slc 3 hours 18 min ago
Credit to the author for attending the opposition meetings and trying to understand their concerns, but I agree with hp. There has been significant...
- RoubaixCube 4 hours 18 min ago
I like how youre using a Mojito X to advertise an Mojito 3
- Basemetal 4 hours 39 min ago
The PU dip on the palm and fingers is over the knitted nylon so not chilly in use, and the material is thick enough to provide some cushioning. It...
- Geoff H 4 hours 54 min ago
“jumped-up, arrogant” cyclists motorists causing “carnage” and posing a risk to pedestrians everyone else. Fixed it ..........
- chrisonabike 5 hours 4 min ago
Given that - at least in UK- we have a mostly flip-flop political system and parties in power eventually run out of credit with the electorate -...
- OldRidgeback 6 hours 7 min ago
If he'd been able to get hold of one of the rarer five speeds, it would've had a better choice of ratios. You can see it's got proper brakes, a big...
Add new comment
38 comments
The problem with this study is that the starting premise is completely wrong: there was one study in Australia which suggested that after helmets were introduced there was a reduction in TEENAGERS cycling and NOT any other group: this report is generally but inaccurately stated to be evidence for helmets leading to a reduction in cycling generally, which is incorrect. I've looked at the actual study and it has methodology problems, not least of which was that they didn't check whether their sample time coincided with school holidays (because teenagers tend not to ride to school during the holidays). And contrary to what was stated above, studies in Australia have clearly shown a correlation between the introduction of helmets and a drop in injuries - the Rissell study which suggested otherwise has been thoroughly debunked as they simply got it wrong by mismatching the relevant time periods.
I've been riding to work in Melbourne on and off for nearly 20 years and even over the last 2 years there has been a large increase in cycling here in Melbourne. If the opponents of helmets are correct that helmets discourage cycling, then how do they explain that increase?
Perhaps wearing a helmet doesn't seem safe to some, but I sure wish I'd remembered to wear mine the ONE TIME I went out without it. Going down a rather steep gravel road, I hit an unexpected pothole, flew a**-over-tea-kettle, and landed on my head. Result, severe concussion, many stitches, scar, years of intermittent vertigo, and loss of my pilot's license (due to the vertigo). I haven't biked without a helmet since then.
I have very nice hair.
It is strange that non-cyclists are so keen on mandatory helmet laws for cyclists. If they're that worried about the wellbeing of fellow road users then they could slow down, give people room and don't drive like lunatics.
I wore a helmet for the commute this morning. I don't usually wear one if I'm nipping down the shops. Neither do I wear one in the shower which involves slippery, hard surfaces.
Very much agree
Here here.
Also, Bradley Wiggins doesn't help using his enormous soapbox to weigh in with his mis-informed opinion. I can understand why he wears a helmet (quite apart from the fact he gets paid to) but to suggest that you've every right to be run over if you don't is more than a bit stupid.
I like Bradley Wiggins and his TdF win might have just done something to encourage cycling in GB. His helmet rant however will be a big step back.
It's ordinary folks who need to take up cycling to help make it safer for everybody, not nutters like us lot.
Once you remove laziness, safety is the next biggest prohibiting factor and sticking a piece of ABS on your head does not make you safe. In fact, at least one study showed the opposite - that cars pass closer to helmeted cyclists than non-helmeted ones.
The more car drivers who cycle and the more bikes on the road the better off we will all be.
Oh, thanks!
I've heard about this, but not actually seen it, can anyone point to the research or an article about it?
"Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent gender" by Ian Walker,
Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom
Available online 24 October 2006.
If you have access to Science Direct http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457506001540
Pottering to the shops or commuting to work at low speed is exactly when you should wear a helmet. It's what they're designed to cope with.
A helmet designed to protect you at 20km/h does not halve the effect of a 40km/h crash. e = mc squared remember ? Energy is the product of the square of speed. So twice the speed equals four times the energy. Your helmet is near useless.
As for studies, I don't understand why nobody has done a study on the pro peleton before and after helmet introduction. You have a consistent study group, with consistent skills riding the same courses under much the same conditions. And one which almost universally did not wear helmets before they were mandatory.
Yes it's a small sample but it should be sufficiently longitudinal to overcome that.
I suspect the reason is that it will not come out in favour of helmets so the UCI or the manufacturers who support them will not facilitate it. Or the Illuminai, maybe.
And how many of us are likely to join the pro peloton, ride at their speeds or take their risks?
And how many are there in the pro peloton? A couple of thousand? Compared with the few million non-racing cyclists in the UK alone.
Apples. Oranges.
It's not about studying apples to draw conclusions about apples - why would you need to do that ? If you are studying a variable (introduction of helmets) you need to make sure you study apples without helmets and then apples with helmets to note the effect, not apples without helmets and oranges with.
Not that I'm an expert in research methods but I know a little - enough to ask the question, if not to answer it conclusively.
It's about having a controlled and observable group engaging in similar behaviour over a period of time, without too many other variables to confuse things.
For example there have been other studies comparing accident rates and so on pre and post helmet introduction. But you have variables like driver behaviour - there is a lot more traffic on the roads than there was 30 or 40 years ago so how do you account for that in safety results ?
And as this study above highlights, has the simple fact of making a change to an external condition (introducing helmets) caused a bias within your study group by putting off cyclists with a particular behaviour which might affect results.
The pro peleton (I mean any pro teams, not just the Tour) over the last say 40-45 years has been much the same - obviously there have been some changes but these are fairly minor and should be easily accountable. They are in the same physical condition, they have the same behaviour, they use the same roads at similar speeds under the same conditions on similar equipment with the same skills.
And there was pretty much a single point where they went from mostly not wearing helmets to wearing helmets all the time - I think there was a couple of years transition between Kivilev and Casartelli where it wasn't 100% mandatory, but again it is clear exactly when it happened.
A study looks at a small sample, identifies the representative features and draws conclusions and wider applications. Otherwise you might as well look at the study quoted above and say "We're not Norwegian so it isn't relevant".
I think the apples/oranges point wasn't that the study was intrinsically flawed, but that it's not clear how any results for the pro peloton could be usefully extrapolated to the non-pro cycling population.
So, you would end up with a good study about pros that tells you nothing about non-pros, but will be (incorrectly) applied to the broader debate regardless.
One only has to go the Netherlands to see this distinction in acton. The vast majority of the Dutch - including the children - do not wear helmets and wear ordinary everyday clothes and ride mostly utility bikes. They are the ones cycling to work or school, going shopping etc. A very small minority will be seen wearing helmets, lycra and riding expensive racing or touring bikes. These are the pros or the semi-pros. The latter group, I am sure only wear this kit when they are training or touring and will dress like everyone else if they are conducting everyday activities.
Personally I am firmly with the everday Dutch cyclist. I wear no helmet or cycle-specific clothing and never have. I do have a Sam Browne belt which I do wear in The UK but not in the Netherlands. The bike accessories world must hate me!
Pottering down the shops in civvies at no great speed - no helmet
Racing or training in lycra at slightly more speed with a tail wind - helmet
Logical? Nope but I'm not alone.
Pottering down the shops in civvies at no great speed - no helmet
Racing or training in lycra at slightly more speed with a tail wind - helmet
Logical? Nope but I'm not alone.
Very sensible conclusion which tallies with that rare beast, "common sense".
I wear a helmet on my road bike and mountain bike, I don't wear one if I'm riding up and down the road fiddling with gears/brakes/seat position or bimbling to the shop or pub. My mum wears a helmet, because she wants to, but I can jog faster than she rides (and I don't wear a helmet out running obviously).
I find the idea of two sub-populations a bit weird because I seem to belong to both. I wear a helmet for leisure cycling, and I don't wear one when I'm out and about in town in ordinary clothes and shoes. I reckon my helmet might offer some limited protection if I "keel over" when my wheels lose traction irrecoverably on a rough gravel path, or while cornering on a wet road going down a mountain, or if I have trouble unclipping. In town, I don't expect those scenarios. If I did have an accident, it probably wouldn't be the sort of accident helmets are designed for, so I use my road sense to stay safe instead. Promoting helmets is the most appalling waste of resources that could be used to promote road sense. Important messages like "it's dangerous to cycle on footpaths on the wrong side of the road because drivers won't see you at junctions" have been completely lost in the general "cycling is dangerous you should always wear a helmet" cacophony.
This research is a welcome addition to the already existing body from Australia, New Zealand and other countries with helmet laws which show that the only effect of such laws was a reduction in the number of cyclists.
If the only result of helmet laws and propaganda is negative, unless you count the obscene profits made by the helmet manufacturers, could the helmet promoters like BRAKE and Headway please shut up?
Helmet propaganda is very like tobacco advertising: absolutely gigantic private profit and similarly large public cost.
The vast majority of those who are going to be attracted to cycling as a result of the recent successes will be those who will drive their bikes to the country park or take to the local (poorly maintained) cycle track. They'll probably average a speed of 8mph. If they fall off they will probably damage their limbs more than their heads. Yet, there is this unfounded perception that a helmet is needed for their safety. Granted, a helmet will CUSHION an impact if you come off at speed. BUT in a collison with a vehicle it is the torso and lower limbs that take the primary impact, the head takes the second.
Rather than pursue compulsary helmets, the govt and other bodies should be seeking to establish a safer enviroment for ALL road users. Including more stringent penalties for driving offences.
But why stop at helmets, let's make kevelar compulsary to prevent road rash. Enforce elbow and knee pads, spine, shin and arm plates to prvent chipped and broken bones. After all we are all going to have an off at some stage and need every possible protection.
I refuse to buy a helmet... that's my choice, I don't preach at others - they can make their choice.
If it was mandatory by law, I just won't cycle, simple as. And I'm sure I'm not alone.
If they make it law, I'll continue to cycle and see if the fat plod on the mountain bikes can catch me to give me a ticket. Doubt they will call in the helicopter for me.
What I find interesting is that even though a helmet could reduce risk of serious head injury/death if they were mandatory - what about the people who it would put off cycling and would allow them to continue and/or make them more prone to being overweight + all the problems that causes?
Obesity is causing the NHS a lot of money and a lot of lives are being taken by it. So could it be that the amount of people put off cycling due to mandatory helmet would increase the number of life-changing illnesses/deaths?
The number of people that cycling would benefit would not be proportionate to the number of people that get serious head injury I think. In other words maybe could promote it more instead of focusing on helmet use.
When the seat-belt laws came in no-one claimed it would put people off driving. Driving is not dangerous but collisions are.
Now consider how vulnerable cyclists are on the road at any speed, with no protective equipment other than a thin layer of clothing. Is this objectively sensible?
As for traffic light jumping, that's sometimes necessary when lights only work by the presence of cars. However, any justification for colliding with cyclists because they ride on pavements is a very poor reason.
I am sure that if you look at hospital accident records before and after a ban there would be an improvement. If I'm wrong and there isn't that does not necessarily mean that mandatory helmet laws don't work.
If you look at hospital records before and after a ban you will find that, eventually, there is a huge increase in deaths from the diseases of obesity and inactivity, among all those couch potatoes who stayed on the couch because they would have had to wear a helmet if they took up cycling, whether they did not take up cycling because
- "It's dangerous - it must be, you have to wear a helmet"
- "It's sweaty - that's why I don't wear hats anyway"
- "I've got enough stuff to cart around already and don't want another thing to carry I won't use most of the time"
- "What? I've spent £100* on a bike and you want me to spend another £50 on a hat?"
- "What? You want me to look like one of those loons who jumps red lights?"
or even
- "I'm not wearing something that will mess up my hair" (the helmet evangelists' favourite).
Cyclist deaths due to head injuries will still, however, be the rarity among dead cyclists that they are now.
It's a matter of public health, not perceived individual safety.
* The sort of people we want to cycle are ordinary joe Public - the sort who won't spend a decent amount of money on a bike coz, hey, it's just a bike.
Why don't they make them mandatory on buses and trains/the tube?
Let's not. We spend too much time worry-worting about a level of danger that's not much different from that faced when walking or driving. THAT is probably what helps put people off cycling: all the "cycle activists" moaning about how dangerous their life is.
Take a look at countries with MHLs. There's no obvious improvement in injuries that are serious enough to worry about.
True. Same as drinking your own piss to prevent cancer. You really should try it. I can point you to several studies which fail to prove it as an effective remedy. I can't understand why anyone wouldn't do something that COULD save their life.
Actually, I know for a fact that if you look at hospital records by a large margin you'll find that most injured cyclists suffer arm, hand and leg injuries. And hospital records will also show you that by a very large margin, most fatalities amongst cyclists involve major trauma for which a helmet would offer no benefit whatsoever.
I think the important word here is "most".Being in the minority wouldn't have mattered a jot to me if I came off my bike and cracked my skull because I wasn't wearing a helmet. The fact that I WAS wearing one on that occasion saved me from a very nasty injury. And perhaps if no cyclists wore helmets, the difference between the number of head injuries and other types would be less marked.
It's not a question of whether I agree or disagree. I haven't gone out and conducted my own survey of 1,500 bicycle owners and until I do I feel I should accept their findings as scientific.
I suspect that it is probably right though - you only have to look at the cyclists bunching at a traffic light in London, and watch how most (not overwhelming so, but enough to be noticeable) of the ones who sail through the red lights are helmet wearers.
Our cycling nation comprises many tribes, including full-blown vehicular cyclists at one end and wheeled-pedestrians at the other. There is no question that our roads environment foster more of the former because that is seen by manny as the only viable survival strategy for cycling on our roads. In essence, you gotta have testosterone (and that applies to the ladies too) to make it work for you.
Hardly any surprise then that fast, competitive behaviour, including red light jumping and pavement riding, are sigificant enough to be remarkable. Nothing like as commmon as the Daily Mail woudl have you believe, but common enough to give us all a bad name. It's a vicious circle - we'll continue with the conditions we have because we can't secure enough popular ergo po;llitical support to change, and that will perpetuate the conditions we have etc.
[[[[[[[[[ Nope, sorry, Paul M., have to disagree with your 2nd paragraph....I see even-steven. Seems to me just as many riders in jeans, trainers, hoods and baseball caps jump red lights as do proper bikies wearing helmets....
P.R.
Pages