Research from London University ignites long-running debate over compulsory helmets
New research from St George's University of London has found that adult cyclists should not be forced to wear bike helmets because they offer little protection against head injuries.
The research compiled by Dr Carwyn Hooper was created in response to laws in Northern Ireland making cycle helmets compulsory for cyclists, according to the Cambridge News. UPDATE: We've since had clarified that the bill was never made law in Northern Ireland, with Sustrans among those that lobbied against it.
Here's a link to the University's report (thanks to Going Going Bike).
The move to make helmet compulsory for cyclists has proved a controversial and enduring topic. A move to make UK parliament pass a helmet compulsion bill failed last November, while some medical figures – including ex-Irish Medical Organisation president Dr Fenton Howell backed calls for such a bill to be passed in Ireland last February. In April last year Transport Minister Norman Baker was forced to defend his 'libertarian' right not to wear a helmet while cycling, in the face of criticism from the likes of road safety charity Brake.
Many cycle organisations and associations have campaigned against moves to make helmets compulsory for cyclists, including Sustrans and the CTC.
Article continues belowAdvertisement
Since the new research from St George's University of London emerged, Paul Kitson – partner at Russell Jones & Walker and legal advisor for the CTC – said: “Cycle helmets offer very limited protection. In my experience of cycle accidents, it's rare that wearing a helmet would prevent or reduce the severity of cyclists’ injuries.
"Both British and European standards require helmets to withstand a free-fall drop from 1.5 metres onto a flat and kerb shaped anvil, at an impact speed of about 12 mph. This is equivalent to falling to the ground from a stationary riding position. Cycle helmets are not, and cannot be, designed for impacts with moving traffic.
“There is good evidence from Australia and Canada [see below*] that enforced helmet laws reduce the number of cycle journeys, this in itself undermines the Government's target to increase the number of cycle journeys in the UK.
"In countries such as Denmark, Holland and Germany it is rare for cyclists to wear helmets which is reflected in the number of journeys made by bicycle; in the UK approximately two per cent of journeys are by bicycle compared to approximately 27 per cent in the Netherlands. We have long way to go to catch up with the Netherlands in the promotion of cycling as a healthy, environmentally friendly method of transport and making sure cyclists are not forced to wear helmets is a vital part of this.”
The potential implications for the trade depend on your point of view. If it becomes law to force cyclists to wear helmets then retailers can either expect to sell a lot more helmets, or – as many cycle campaigners believe – bike shops will be far less busy, with potential customers put off by the fact they have to wear a helmet, or put off by the implication that cycling is a dangerous pasttime that requires a helmet to be worn.
* Robinson DL, 2006. Do enforced bicycle helmet laws improve public health?. BMJ 2006;332:722-725.
Add a new comment
You need to be logged in to post comments. If you do not have an account then please register.
Comments
2 comments
The effects of helmet wearing are equivocal, there have been some studies that find some benefit, while other find disadvantages. But there is ample evidence that compulsory helmet wearing is very bad. However, compulsory helmet laws have been shown repeatedly to deter people strongly from cycling and since many people do not receive adequate exercise, the loss of exercise from active travel is really important. 'Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law' - Colin F Clarke Partial Abstract: '….Pre-law (in 1990) cyclist deaths were nearly a quarter of pedestrians in number, but in 2006–09, the equivalent figure was near to 50% when adjusted for changes to hours cycled and walked. From 1988–91 to 2003–07, cyclists’ overall injury rate per hour increased by 20%. Dr Hillman…calculated that life years gained by cycling outweighed life years lost in accidents by 20 times....New Zealand survey data showed that average hours cycled per person reduced by 51%. This evaluation finds the helmet law has failed in aspects of promoting cycling, safety, health, accident compensation, environmental issues and civil liberties.' The evidence shows that forcing cyclists to wear helmets costs lives. The NZ Law is '[e]stimated to have contributed to 53 premature deaths per year (due to reluctance to cycle and hence people not exercising).'
Christopher Sauvarin Mar 9th 2012 at 8:44PM
0 1A spot on article. Good to see the correction over the NI Helmet Bill which was actually booted out at Committee stage. If anyone is still a bit confused or unconvinced have a look at www.cyclehelmets.org You'll see the basis of Dr Cooper's research is hardly new. Informed choice is paramount - it's a pity the information seems so hard to digest.
John Mallows Mar 22nd 2012 at 12:56PM
0 0