Helmet debate – should they be ‘compulsory’ for cyclists?
The question of whether cycle helmets should be made compulsory is a divisive subject. One side of the argument is that in the interest of safety it should be mandatory for cyclists to wear the protective headgear. Some hold a different view and highlight the potential pitfalls if helmets became compulsory.
At this point, I will admit to being congeniality bias, based on one simple fact – I’d rather my helmet hit the ground first, rather than my head.
The debate centres much on whether making helmet wearing compulsory gives out the message that cycling is a dangerous activity. There are those who point to evidence that cycling helmets work to reduce injury is not conclusive, and that it can be shown that laws that make wearing helmets compulsory decrease cycling activity. A point in case was in Australia where the compulsory wearing of a helmet saw the numbers of people cycling as part of their commute drop. The charity Cycling UK believes there is “no justification for making helmet-wearing compulsory”, arguing it could “undermine levels of cycle use” adding “the effectiveness of helmets is far from clear.”
Of course, cycling is a healthy activity and cyclists live longer on average than non-cyclists, but is this sufficient justification not to make helmet wearing compulsory. Can there really be justification for the belief that ‘life-years gained due to cycling’ outweigh the life-years lost. Can we not have the best of both worlds. For example, are seat belts still viewed as an inconvenience rather than a safety feature. Back in the 1950’s Ford Motors offered seat belts as an option but this was extremely un-popular among motorist with only 2% of Ford buyers choosing to pay for a seatbelt in 1956. Fast-forward and seatbelts have now become compulsory and the norm for drivers and passengers alike based on safety factors. So, the question arises, that just because there isn’t overwhelming evidence to say that helmets save lives, doesn’t mean wearing them isn’t a beneficial safety feature. Do we ignore this debate at our peril, just because a helmet makes us feel uncomfortable or because it messes up our hair?
Firmly in the pro-helmet camp is Tour de France champion Geraint Thomas who has called for helmets to be made “compulsory” for all cyclists in the UK and argues the development of helmet design in recent years now means there is “no reason not to” wear one. Beyond just the Tour de France, almost every professional cycling event requires its cyclists to wear helmets – have the UCI got it wrong?
Former Olympic rowing champion James Cracknell, argues that wearing a helmet saved his life. Cracknell, who was seriously injured in an accident involving a fuel truck, took too YouTube to get his message across. The video itself is extremely emotive and details the catastrophic injuries he suffered. The truck was travelling at around 70mph when the wing mirror hit the back of his head, demonstrating a helmet’s potential effectiveness at high velocity. Back in 2004, The British Medical Association adopted a pro-helmet, reversing its initial view made 5 years earlier. Dr Paul Darragh, Chairman of the BMA’s Council in Northern Ireland stated that cycle helmets “have been shown to reduce the risk of head injury and its severity should it occur in non-fatal collisions.”
There is one critical barrier to this helmet debate: the political will and bravery to push ahead with something because it is the right thing to do. This does not look likely to happen in the near future as Prime Minister, Boris Johnson sides with Cycling UK viewpoint on this issue. He said previously as Mayor of London: “I know people get very worked up about this, but the evidence about the usefulness of cycle helmets is mixed”. There will always be mixed opinions and varying evidence on such a divisive subject, although a meta-study of research covering 64,000 cycling accidents provided overwhelming evidence that bicycle helmets reduce both death and injury. The findings which can be found in the International Journal of Epidemiolgy also refute the claim that the benefits to the head are balanced by increased damage to the neck, and find that serious head injuries are reduced by almost 70 percent with a helmet.
Boris Johnson has also stated there are, “other things to be done to make cycling safer”. This is true, proper road infrastructure: dedicated cycle lanes with more segregated bike lanes that protects cyclists from cars – like those you’ll see in the Netherlands – would make it safer an easier for cyclists to get out on the road. The BMJ Open research, conducted by a group of Canada-based public health scholars gathered Canadian data on bicycle use, cycle-related hospitalisation, and a number of other variables including helmet legislation and failed to find a link between helmet use and a reduction in head injuries. One of the two main variables found in areas where more people ride bikes among all travellers, fewer riders get injured—although the analysis can’t explain for sure why there’s safety in numbers, it does offer a theory.
Both sides of the argument appear to come out with different theory’s which seems to suggest that we have two distinct groups of cyclists – sportive and recreational – trying to have the same debate using the same statistics when the answer could lay in separating the two groups apart and carrying out risk assessments on each group to get a clearer idea of the dangers associated with not wearing a helmet .
The government’s recent announcement of a £2 billion package to create new era for cycling is to be welcomed, although it’s aims to double cycling by 2025 appears to be a tad ambitious. Nonetheless, the government has published fast-tracked statutory guidance, effective immediately, which will tell councils to reallocate road space for significantly-increased numbers of cyclists. More side streets may be closed to through traffic in order to create low-traffic neighbourhoods and reduce rat-running while maintaining access for vehicles. This in turn could help prevent road accidents involving cyclists.
While there are no laws compelling cyclists to wear helmets, the Highway Code recommends their use. It is difficult to dispute that cycle helmets do prevent some fatalities and reduce many injuries so the idea of forcing cyclists to wear helmets may appear relevant, but even I – an advocate of compulsory helmet wearing – have to accept it is not without it’s pitfalls:
1. Many cyclists wear their helmets inappropriately, often tilted backwards, exposing the forehead completely or the straps not buckled up. Should these people be fined?
2. Even riding a bike without helmet probably confers a health benefit compared to driving. By over-regulating, we risk driving potential cyclists back in the cars.
3. Brute force is not an effective way of changing behaviour. Use a carrot instead of a stick: exempt helmets from VAT, encourage dealers to sell more helmets. Use a popular slogan campaign to get the message across e.g. “Use your Head – Use a Helmet”.
Whatever your viewpoint on the wearing of cycle helmets the primary emphasis of cycling should be placed on reducing the risk of accidents in the first place. What both sides can agree on, is the helmet debate being only part of cycle safety. Other issues include improving the layout of our roads and better road awareness on the part of motorists and the cyclists alike.
Whether helmets are made compulsory or not, I’ll always wear one.
