Morning:
8°c
Helmet wars
Deborah Maby and Andrew Neather17 Mar 2009
A High Court judge has reignited the debate over whether to buckle up by saying cyclists who don't wear headgear are to blame for their own injuries. So which side are you on?..
HATS OFF - Deborah Maby says the benefits of wearing a helmet outweigh the risks
I admit it: the main reason I don't wear a cycle helmet is that it makes my hair look horrible (I understand Boris Johnson has the same problem).
“You won't care what your hair looks like when you're lying in a coma,” a colleague often tells me — and you can't argue with that.
Yet I also wonder why should I have to wear a helmet to protect myself from bad drivers? What's more, many experts argue that increasing your own safety simply makes you drive or cycle more recklessly.
Professor of Sustainable Transport John Whitelegg has joked that rather than airbags, cars need a big sharp spike sticking out of the centre of the steering wheel: just imagine how carefully everyone would drive then. The same could be said for cycling without a helmet.
Everyone who cycles cites Holland as the ideal — and the most noticeable thing there is how ordinary all cyclists look. There's no Lycra, no trendy expensive gear. You see young women trundling along with a baby in a sling on their front, a toddler in a seat on the back, and not a helmet in sight. Old men wobble down the road with a box of groceries on their handlebars; nobody glares at them. Cycling is not perceived as some dangerous activity that you have to dress for as if going into battle.
We're not Holland. But I think we have to change London's cycling environment for the better. The only way to make cycling safer is to increase the number of cyclists on the roads — and the sad truth is that making people wear helmets puts them off getting on a bike at all.
The first helmet legislation, in Australia in 1991, caused a drop in the number of head injuries — but in the numbers cycling, too. If instead you encourage more people on to two wheels, the public health benefits — less obesity, fewer heart attacks — would probably outweigh the few injuries the helmets save.
Why should cyclists be singled out over helmets when pedestrians are even more prone to injury? The Cyclists' Touring Club is against helmet laws for any age group, as are all other cycling organisations in Britain. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me. I'll take the risk of not wearing a helmet – and that way I won't run the even greater risk of helmet hair.
Deborah Maby cycles a daily round trip of 12 miles between Holloway and Kensington.
LET THE CYCLIST DECIDE
THE EXPERTS SAY…
“My children refuse to wear helmets. I would prefer them to ride without than not cycle at all because the benefits from the exercise far outweigh any risks that would be mitigated by a helmet.”
Dr Mark Porter, GP
“We believe people should choose whether or not to wear helmets. They should be fully informed of the possible limits to their effectiveness.”
Charlie Lloyd, Cycling Development Officer, London Cycling Campaign
“We should be allowed, in our muddled way, to make up our own minds. The important thing is that we assess the risk, we make the decision, and be it on our own heads — or, in the case of my helmet, sometimes not."
Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, 2008
Safety statistics
The average cyclist would have to pedal the roads for more than 3,000 years to suffer a serious head injury, according to the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation.
Children are four times more likely to suffer a head injury as a pedestrian than when they are on their bikes.
Results from the most recent government survey in 2006 showed that 27 per cent of people outside London wear helmets compared with 60 per cent in the city.
According to the LCC, more than half of cycle crashes are with HGVs and there is little anyone can do to protect themselves in those circumstances.
HELMETS ON - Andrew Neather says you'd be mad to leave the house without one
Mr Justice Griffith Williams is a fool to suggest that cyclists who don't wear helmets are partially liable if they get killed or injured by cars.
Cyclists, bareheaded or otherwise, are not responsible for any of the dangerous or plain stupid driving I see every day. Nevertheless, I still think you've got to be mad to cycle without a helmet.
For me, buckling on my helmet is automatic — I can't imagine not doing so, even though I grew up cycling in the days before such accoutrements.
True, there is a fierce debate about just how much difference it makes: the internet is full of arguments back and forth over various health studies and accident statistics.
One report last year even claimed that wearing a helmet made having an accident more likely, supposedly because drivers think you're harder-core and give you a narrower margin.
In fact, it's hard to prove anything much from such figures, since there are so many variables: if you wear a helmet and don't get injured, it might just be because you're more careful.
But for me the calculation is simple: if you fall off a cycle, you have a high chance of hitting your head. And if you hit your head on the road or a kerb — never mind on the bonnet of a white van — you will do yourself damage.
Although I have reason to believe that my skull is reassuringly thick — I once survived being thrown 10 feet by a car in Covent Garden and landing in the road on my head — it's not a hunch I want to test again.
Seventy per cent of all fatalities among cyclists are due to head injuries; helmets don't guarantee your safety but they greatly reduce your risk of a serious head injury. It's common sense.
I don't think I'm sacrificing much. To hear anti-helmet zealots rhapsodise about the pleasures of cycling with the wind in their hair, you'd think their morning commute was on a sunlit Pacific coastal byway, not down, say, the concrete-and-metal corridor of Blackfriars Bridge. Sure, a sweaty scalp and nylon straps aren't great on a really hot day but there are few enough of those here for it to be a major irritant.
Still, I wouldn't deny helmet-haters the right to cycle as nature intended. It is suggested that in places where helmets have been made compulsory, such as Australia, it may have discouraged people from taking up cycling.
And whether or not cyclists choose to protect themselves, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that one group of road users is responsible for the vast majority of accidents: drivers. Helmets won't change that.
Andrew Neather cycles 10 miles a day between Herne Hill and Kensington.
MAKE THEM COMPULSORY
THE EXPERTS SAY…
“Cycle helmets act as a buffer when one's skull is struck, thus reducing the impact to the brain. Cycle helmets should be compulsory for children — we have a duty to protect them.”
Colin Shieff, consultant neurosurgeon at the Royal Free Hospital
“We believe it should be compulsory, at least for children, to wear helmets. Mayor Boris Johnson should set a better example — parents with children disabled from not wearing helmets would not support his viewpoint [that it's OK not to wear them]. The effects are physical, cognitive and behavioural.”
Peter McCabe, CEO of Headway, Brain Injury Association
“It saddens me to see so many children wearing their helmets incorrectly, often worn back to front. When my son learns to cycle I will make him wear a helmet and I will wear one myself to set an example.”
Paul Walker of Head Protection Evaluations helmet testing centre
Safety statistics
Helmets can reduce head injury by 88 per cent, shows recent research in the New England Journal of Medicine.
According to the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust, approximately 90,000 of under 16-year-olds need hospital treatment for head injuries caused by cycling.
45 per cent of child cyclists who attend A&E departments in hospitals have suffered severe head injuries.
Reader views (14)
I've cycled since the mid sixties without all that health and safety crap, and will continue to do so, even if it's made law, It's my right to do so.
- Tom, crystal palace, London, 11/04/2010 01:19
Report abuse
The suggestion that anyone should be considered partially liable for not wearing protective clothing when another party is responsible for those injuries should be resisted at all costs.
The fact is that Government departments are now seriously using the expression 'passive drinking'.
This won't stop at cyclists. Old people will be held negligent for not wearing inflatable suits to mitigate liabilities to councils for poor pavments when pensioners fall over, and pedestrians will eventually be held negligent for not wearing knee and elbow pads to go with their 'walking helmets'.
- George, London, 18/03/2009 10:30
Report abuse
Everything now seems to be aimed at the least people killing vehicles on the roads; the Government cannot stop the 60 plus people a week killed by motor vehicles; the police do not catch many motorists on mobile phones driving without consideration for other road users; and the Government still allows over-powered; and over-sized cars to be made and sold to the UK public; yet the national speed restrictions are 70MPH etc; which any small car can do with ease etc.
Yes fudge the real issues; put it all down to those killing machines called bicycles.
OK if you want to wear a crash helmet do so; if you prefer not to; then also do so.
For every plus; there is a minus; if you fall upside down on the top of your head a lot; it will reduce the impact on the top of your head etc.
The cyclist I pass everyday while on my bike; that do wear helmets; tend to be the younger cyclists that love tearing along showing off to all around them; and imagining they are great Tour de France riders etc.
The normal cyclists ride along at a nice steady pace; and observe all around them; this type of cyclist is much more aware of the dangers of careless drivers; and they tend to avoid conflicts with bad drivers etc.
In my long experience; a cyclist is more likely to end up under the motor vehicles that kills them; or crushed by them etc; very few end up; upside down on their heads; which would be more preferable than the other two; if we could chose etc.
- Mickyinlondon, london, 18/03/2009 10:21
Report abuse
Helmets do make cycling safer. They are designed to protect you when you fall from your bike to a hard surface or kerb (curb in canada) - about 12mph vertical.
Helmets are also an excellent platform for bright fluorescent and reflective stickies that really make you, and your head movements, visible.
I feel naked cycling without one.
Should they be mandatory? I say yes for kids, no for adults.
Yes for kids because they are way more likely to injure themselves, and because studies show that helmets do not discourage them from the excitement and freedom of biking!
No for adults because it discourages cycling. Australian and Nova Scotian studies show cycling significantly down after helmet laws - but injuries per cyclist increased! In other words, there is safety in numbers.
Individually, wearing a helmet makes YOU safer.
Collectively, just riding makes ALL cyclists safer, helmet or not.
In any case, for adults. the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the disbenefits, for the cyclist, and for all who breathe the air and live on this planet.
- Tomtrottier, Ottawa, Canada, 18/03/2009 09:05
Report abuse
I can't believe you're still quoting "Helmets can reduce head injury by 88 per cent". This figure is old, and was later revised downwards by those who came up with it - to the point where their figures showed cycle helmets were as effective at preventing leg injuries as head injuries! In other words, whatever was protecting the helmet-wearers in the study, it wasn't the helmets.
Cycle helmets are tested up to 12mph. That's not a life-threatening impact. In faster impacts, there is no way of knowing if they will make things better or worse.
In impacts below 12mph, you have time to protect your head. At 12 mph you move about 4 feet in a typical human reaction time. In other words, the impacts they protect you from are avoidable.
And, no matter what stories people come up with, pedestrians are exposed to the same risks as cyclists and have a similar casualty rate. If you recommend cycle helmets, you are being hypocritical if you do not also recommend walking helmets.
- Colin M, London UK, 17/03/2009 18:41
Report abuse
I totally agree with Ph.
As with any activity where there is a risk of head injury a helmet should be mandatory, especially cyclying. From the moment my kids could cycle I put them in a helmet and they know I wear one when I cycle and snowboard and believe me, they work and my kids understand the safety aspect. So what if it's ruins your hair!!!! isn't that what brushes and showers are for? I'd much prefer having a bad-hair day in the office, than a bad-hair day in a hospital.
- Alan, London, 17/03/2009 14:16
Report abuse
I wear always wear a helmet 90% of the time, but i wouldn't want it to be made compulsory. i don't want to be stopped by the police for cycling 1/2 mile to the shops on a sunday afternoon.
The judge has set a dangerous precedent, but the difference in injuries between wearing and not wearing a helmet when knocked off at speed by a car is likely to be minimal.
the more cyclists there are, the safer it becomes. compulsory helmet laws would discourage them.
- Cyclist, london, 17/03/2009 14:16
Report abuse
There are many traditional styles of gentleman's hats. Cycle helmets are not necessarily big, but I won't wear one because they look childish and naff. So, who will offer a hat that looks traditional, but has the reinforcement of an approved helmet inside? Could start a whole new trend. Come on, smart hatters, here's a challenge worth rising to - PLU would pay rather well.
- Steve, London, England, 17/03/2009 14:03
Report abuse
No helmets should certainly not be compulsory. The judge has set a very dangerous precedent with this ruling. Taken to its logical conclusion, it could mean that pedestrians who do not wear bright clothing at night will be blamed for their injuries if they are hit by a car as they were 'not visible'. In every country where helmets have been made compulsory, the numbers of cyclists have fallen, yet there has been no corresponding reduction in the numbers of injuries (see Australia). The public health implications of this are obvious. The last thing we need is a ruling that will actively discourage a health (and surprisingly SAFE physical activity).
Several recent studies have noted that you are in fact more likely to be hit by a car if you are wearing a helmet as the 'perceived protection' they give means that cars will drive nearer to you - thus putting the cyclist at increased risk. Countries where cycling is perceived as a normal activity - ie one that does not require special clothing or protection, are also those with the lowest rates of cycling accidents (Holland, Denmark etc). What would improve cycling safety immensly is if motorists and pedestrians alike treated cyclists with respect, and if cyclists were properly warned of the dangers of the road (left turning lorries, non-indicating cars, suicidal peds etc) rather than just sold a useless plastic lid when they buy a bike.
- Lesley, London, UK, 17/03/2009 13:05
Report abuse
Having just read a sad story in the local newspaper (driver in horrific crash suffers severe head injuries) it occured to me to wonder whether or not all road users should wear crash helmets. Or should a different set of rules apply to drivers?
- Bob Simmons, CAMBRIDGE, 17/03/2009 13:02
Report abuse
Wear a helmet - you're a idiot not to.
- Adam, London, 17/03/2009 12:36
Report abuse
I think all judges should wear helmets.
- Steve.W, B'ham UK, 17/03/2009 12:18
Report abuse
Of course helmets should be mandatory, just like seatbelts are in a car. Start fining cyclists the same as car drivers for breaking the law and you may even see them obeying the occasional law.
Not all injuries are caused by car drives, some are caused by idiot cyclists refusing to comply with the road rules.
Alternately if cyclists don't want to wear a helmet then they should not have any insurance or publicly funded benefits for their injuries regardless of who is at fault. After all if you assume the risk you assume the consequences
- Ph, Australia, 17/03/2009 12:00
Report abuse
Having been cut up by a car whilst travelling at 25mph I can honestly say that if I hadn’t had my helmet on when my head collided with the road, I would have suffered some pretty nasty head injuries, as it was I had a slight concussion and a broken hand. Although like the author of the article I’m all in favour of letting people choose, I like to think of it as natural selection.
- Bob, Cheam, 17/03/2009 11:13
Report abuse
