Mandatory Helmet Laws do More Harm than Good - 10/2/2012

Here'sa graph of pedestrian and bike fatalities, with the pedestrian figures scaled to have the same average.  There is more noise in the bike figures because the numbers are lower.  The drop in fatalities around the time of helmet mandation is often cited as evidence for their effectiveness, note however that the drop in pedestrian fatalities is very similar, indicating that helmets were not the reason - other road safety factors introduced at that time must have been the most important cause.


2/12/2011

In country towns the decrease in cycling after helmet laws is even more pronounced than in capital cities, perhaps because increasing congestion acts as an incentive to cycling, masking the depressing effect of helmet laws. 

11/8/2011

Join the Facebook group Freestyle Cyclists to organise against helmet laws. 

12/7/2011

Debate on The Conversation, here's a contribution from Dorothy Robinson, UNSW:

The new analysis doesn’t show that helmet laws reduce head injuries, only that there might be some small benefit in the event of a crash. 
Unfortunately, there is very strong evidence that helmet laws increase the likelihood of crashing, because of risk compensation and reduced safety in numbers.  Table 2 of the paper “Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws” Accident Analysis and Prevention, V28, 463-75, 1996 shows that the risk of a child cyclist suffering a head injury increased by 27%, and the risk of a non-head injury increased by 72%.
The increased risk of crashing totally negates any possible benefit of helmet laws, and also discredits the methodology used in this study.
Within two years of the helmet law, there were 44% fewer children cycling in NSW, according to comprehensive surveys carried out at the same time of year at 120 sites (72 in Sydney and 48 in regional and rural areas) covering road intersections, primary and secondary schools and recreational areas.
Female cyclists were particularly discouraged by helmet laws.  The risk of head injury varies with the age and sex of the cyclist, and also increases 3 to 5 fold for crashes involving motor vehicles.  If helmet laws discouraged on-road cycling for transport more than off-road recreational cycling, the change in the proportion of head to arm and leg injuries would have changed simply because of the change in the type of crashes, irrespective of whether or not helmets provide significant protection.
One overseas study showed that people who don’t cycle to work had 39% higher mortality rates than those who cycled without helmets.  Helmet laws have led to clear and significant harm from discouraging a healthy and environmentally form of transport, from reduced safety in numbers, and from risk compensation.  A UK study showed that drivers leave more room when overtaking cyclists without helmets.  The researcher, Dr Ian Walker, was hit twice when conducting this research - by a truck and a bus - both times when he was wearing a helmet! http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/uob-wah091106.php
Whether or not helmets provide a small benefit in the event of a crash is almost irrelevant, compared to the big effect of helmet laws in discouraging healthy activity and environmentally-friendly transport and increasing the risk of head injury because of risk compensation and reduced safety in numbers

18/8/2010

"Even the most optimistic model requires about 11,000 helmet years to prevent a head injury, with 90% of these being relatively minor (short stay in hospital)" Dorothy L Robinson, UNSW

Latest news: yet another study shows that mandatory helmet laws do more harm than good, but Bike NSW fails to understand and so they undermine cycling just when hope is dawning: SMH article.  See other media. 

18/6/2010

The paradox of mandatory helmet laws is that while there may or may not be a benefit to an individual rider from wearing a helmet, the effect of mandating helmets for all riders is unequivocally negative.  Why are mandatory helmet laws bad public policy?  Simply, they have a negative effect on public health outcomes.  That's right, they don't improve public health: they make it worse.  Seems illogical, how can this be?

First, understand the health benefits of cycling.  It's estimated that the health benefits outweigh the risks by 20 to 11.  Next note that Mandatory Helmet Laws reduced cycling in Australia by around 30% and continue to do so.  So the health benefits lost because of helmet laws hugely outweigh any possible benefits from improved safety. 

For example, research shows2 that cars pass closer to cyclists who are wearing helmets, i.e.  cars leave more clearance if you aren't wearing a helmet.  So wearing a helmet increases the risk of collisions. 

  • There are plenty of papers examining the statistics, start with British Medical Journal article by Dorothy Robinson, UNSW, or cyclehelmets.org. 
  • Just having helmet laws, or scare-tactic promotion of helmets, puts people off cycling because it increases the perception that cycling is dangerous.
  • Consider also that reducing the number of people cycling makes it less safe for those who continue.
  • Currently in Victoria the fine for opening a car door into a cyclist (2 penalty units) is less than the fine for not wearing a helmet (5 penalty units).  That's a blame-the-victim approach to road safety.
  • Consider that the safest countries for cycling (Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany) do not have helmet laws and do not have many people wearing helmets.

Here's the plan to enable the cycling revolution which we need, which will require repeal of helmet laws:

  • Decide to make cycling safe and just a normal part of every day life that everybody does.
  • Implement safety (perceived safety anyhow) with lots of bike lanes, separated lanes, lowered speed limits (for cars), strict liability etc etc.
  • Set some warrants e.g.  deaths per million km cycled, which if reached will trigger the relaxation of mandatory helmet laws, sending signals to everybody that cycling is now safe, which will encourage a further explosion of cycling
  • In the meantime, give an exemption to the Melbourne Bicycle Share scheme before they all rust out from disuse.

Media Articles

  • Fatal February looms as another cyclist killed, The Age February 11, 2012, includes comments about helmet effectiveness and discouraging cycling.  Photo of the crash showed that the intersection had no facilities for bikes (lanes, separate crossing points etc).  In this situation the cyclist must work around the difficulties of a road and intersection designed solely for cars.  The penalty for a mistake can be death, as in this case.  The lack of provision for bicycles fails to get a mention in The Age article, instead the focus is on helmets, lights and being in the wrong part of the intersection at the wrong time. 

Further Reading

1Hillman, M., Cycling and the promotion of Health, Policy Studies, 1993, 14: p.  49-58 (thanks to Bicycle Promotion Fund for the reference)

2Research at the University of Bath: Wearing a helmet puts cyclists at risk, Walker, I.  (2007).  Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent gender.  Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 417-425.  Further remarks from this author

Back to Articles

Help to make this page better, add your comment

(comments will be moderated, and you must verify your email address)
skip to responses
Your name
Your email
Password
Comment
Send me occasional emails about Melbourne City Bicycle Rider