Helmet laws discourage safe cyclists - says new study

Exactly, this is the message I can't seem to get across to people at work.

The non-cycling public don't seem to be able to see any difference in types of cycle usage and think that helmet laws would only discourage cyclist who don't want to wear them on stylistic grounds.

Well I was pottering to the shops with "all the time in the world" last winter when I skidded on a patch of ice, came off the bike, and my head flipped back and impacted the tarmac with considerable force. Helmet cracked, head didn't. I don't hurtle around pretending to be Wiggo, but I always wear a helmet. I do find the ongoing debate baffling. It's rather like opposing the compulsory wearing of seatbelts on the grounds that it might put some people off driving.

mattsr wrote:

Well I was pottering to the shops with "all the time in the world" last winter when I skidded on a patch of ice, came off the bike, and my head flipped back and impacted the tarmac with considerable force. Helmet cracked, head didn't. I don't hurtle around pretending to be Wiggo, but I always wear a helmet. I do find the ongoing debate baffling. It's rather like opposing the compulsory wearing of seatbelts on the grounds that it might put some people off driving.

Well I was pottering to work a couple of winters ago, quite slowly, about 12mph, slightly uphill, and I skidded on ice that had collected between speed cushions and banged my head.

Didn't hurt; didn't daze me; what I was more pissed off about was the hole in my warm winter tights and the scratched up brake lever.

Anecdotes are not evidence; and compulsory seatbelt-wearing led to less careful driving and more pedestrian and cyclist casualties. In fact, probably more KSIs than it saved.

I find the ongoing debate baffling, too. Why on earth should the GBP be discouraged from cycling just because non-cycling legislators and employees of the road safety - or rather, road danger - industry think they should go armoured as if for battle?

mattsr wrote:

It's rather like opposing the compulsory wearing of five-point harnesses, helmets, and fireproof overalls on the grounds that it might put some people off driving.

ftfy. Also, you clearly know that the conclusions drawn by the study in this very article are worthless? Please englighten me with your degree from the university of 'it stands to reason'.

Are there ANY helmet-law supporters who aren't blithering idiots with no ability to distinguish between cycling as sport by die-hards, and cycling as transport by those for whom 'will mess up my hair' or 'something more to cart around' is actually a good reason to take up driving, ruining their health and potentially others? Please let me know, I've not found one yet.

nuclear coffee wrote:

Are there ANY helmet-law supporters who aren't blithering idiots

Indeed, finding a helmet-law supporter (as opposed to someone who chooses to wear a helmet) who has cycled more than a few miles in the past year is pretty difficult.

Mattsr said:
"It's rather like opposing the compulsory wearing of seatbelts on the grounds that it might put some people off driving."

Yes, except that there is no evidence that seatbelt laws put people of cycling, whereas there is plenty of good evidence that enforcing cycle helmet laws has consistently led to sharp reductions in cycle use:
www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-bmj.pdf.

Moreover, if the health benefits of cycle use in Britain outweigh the risks by c20:1 (according to one Government-endorsed estimate, see other estimates from other countries at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1015.html), it has been shown (see http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1249.html) that helmet laws, or even promotion campaigns, would therefore shorten more lives than they could possibly save if they reduced cycle use by more than 1 unit (e.g. one cyclist, or one cycle-km) for every 20 units of cycle use which continue.

So would be counterproductive to public health if cycle use is reduced by more than c4.7%, even if helmets were 100% effective at preventing ALL cycling injuries suffered by the remaining cyclists (i.e. leg, arm, neck, spine and abdominal injuries, as well as head injuries).

If you then take account of the proportion of cycling injuries which are non-head injuries, this maximum threshold falls to c2-3%, even if helmets are 100% effective at preventing head injuries.

If individuals wish to wear helmets - whether because this gives them greater confidence or because of the kind of cycling they are doing - CTC entirely supports those decisions. Likewise the decisions of sports governning bodies to impose helmet rules for racing.

However it is entirely counter-productive to public health for Government bodies, or indeed for individual cyclists, to try and either force or even just to guilt-trip other cyclists into wearing helmets, if they would prefer not do to so. This would shorten more lives than it could possibly save, if it reduced cycle use by any more than about 2-3%. Where helmet laws
have been enforced, they have typically reduced cycle use by at least 30%, and a lot more among teenagers.

Cycling is not such a high-risk activity that you need a helmet to ride a bike - you are about as unlikely to be killed in a mile of cycling as a mile of walking. Meanwhile the health benefits are far greater. hence it is far more important to encourage people to cycle, than to worry about whether or not they wear helmets when doing so.

For further info, see CTC's campaigns briefing on helmets: http://beta.ctc.org.uk/file/public/cycle-helmetsbrf_0.pdf

CTC's overview of the evidence on helmets: http://beta.ctc.org.uk/files/cycle-helmets-evidencebrf_1.pdf

...or the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation's website, which provides comprehensive referencing of helmet-related resource: www.cyclehelmets.org.

Roger Geffen
Campaigns & Policy Director, CTC

Roger Geffen wrote:

Mattsr said:
"It's rather like opposing the compulsory wearing of seatbelts on the grounds that it might put some people off driving."

Yes, except that there is no evidence that seatbelt laws put people of cycling, whereas there is plenty of good evidence that enforcing cycle helmet laws has consistently led to sharp reductions in cycle use:
www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-bmj.pdf.

Moreover, if the health benefits of cycle use in Britain outweigh the risks by c20:1 (according to one Government-endorsed estimate, see other estimates from other countries at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1015.html), it has been shown (see http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1249.html) that helmet laws, or even promotion campaigns, would therefore shorten more lives than they could possibly save if they reduced cycle use by more than 1 unit (e.g. one cyclist, or one cycle-km) for every 20 units of cycle use which continue.

So would be counterproductive to public health if cycle use is reduced by more than c4.7%, even if helmets were 100% effective at preventing ALL cycling injuries suffered by the remaining cyclists (i.e. leg, arm, neck, spine and abdominal injuries, as well as head injuries).

If you then take account of the proportion of cycling injuries which are non-head injuries, this maximum threshold falls to c2-3%, even if helmets are 100% effective at preventing head injuries.

If individuals wish to wear helmets - whether because this gives them greater confidence or because of the kind of cycling they are doing - CTC entirely supports those decisions. Likewise the decisions of sports governning bodies to impose helmet rules for racing.

However it is entirely counter-productive to public health for Government bodies, or indeed for individual cyclists, to try and either force or even just to guilt-trip other cyclists into wearing helmets, if they would prefer not do to so. This would shorten more lives than it could possibly save, if it reduced cycle use by any more than about 2-3%. Where helmet laws
have been enforced, they have typically reduced cycle use by at least 30%, and a lot more among teenagers.

Cycling is not such a high-risk activity that you need a helmet to ride a bike - you are about as unlikely to be killed in a mile of cycling as a mile of walking. Meanwhile the health benefits are far greater. hence it is far more important to encourage people to cycle, than to worry about whether or not they wear helmets when doing so.

For further info, see CTC's campaigns briefing on helmets: http://beta.ctc.org.uk/file/public/cycle-helmetsbrf_0.pdf

CTC's overview of the evidence on helmets: http://beta.ctc.org.uk/files/cycle-helmets-evidencebrf_1.pdf

...or the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation's website, which provides comprehensive referencing of helmet-related resource: www.cyclehelmets.org.

Roger Geffen
Campaigns & Policy Director, CTC

I couldn't agree more - thank you for some sense.