Recent rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. Although a selection of rapid responses will be included as edited readers' letters in the weekly print issue of the BMJ, their first appearance online means that they are published articles. If you need the url (web address) of an individual response, perhaps for citation purposes, simply click on the response headline and copy the url from the browser window.
Displaying 1-4 out of 4 published
4 October 2012
The London Cycle Hire scheme is indeed a success. The operator Serco announced 15 million hires in August (1) and released data about casualties that tallies well with Stats19 reports from the Police. In the first year of the scheme there were 7 collisions involving personal injury per million Cycle Hire bicycle journeys. By severity of injury, this breaks down as 5 slight and 1 serious injury per million Cycle Hire bicycle journeys. This injury rate is about one third that of all cyclists in London. (2) Being on a Borisbike seems to involve the same risk as walking and driving and is probably safer than gardening.
Elsewhere cycle hire schemes are thriving...but not in places with helmet laws. (3) The mayors of Fremantle, Perth and Sydney have called for the repeal of the Australian all ages lid law due to poor use of their schemes. Melbourne has the least used cycle hire bikes of any major scheme, despite it's large population. Mexico City abolished their helmet law to make the hire scheme a success and Israel amended it's law ahead of the Tel Aviv scheme. It seems helmet laws and cycle schemes don't mix well.
Attewells' meta analysis and the Cochrane Review are both suspect and should be approached with caution. The former has been re assessed by Elvik (4) who finds all sorts of bias, enough to invalidate the conclusions. The Cochrane Review is of Case controlled studies, performed by individuals who also wrote the papers included in it and that dominate the dataset (about 70%). It looked only at small-scale, hospital based observational studies performed in North America in the 1990's. The study designs make it impossible to control for all the confounding factors. We already know that the case controlled design is useful for raising questions but does not provide proof and is by it's nature unreliable. This research has been superseded by better designed studies that have shown no reduction in head injury rates as a result of helmet use. (5,6,7) The whole field is now greatly politicized and polarized. Firm conclusions of any sort about how well helmets work are extremely hard to arrive at and a recent literature review by the Transport Research Laboratory couldn't conclude anything about helmet effectiveness.(8)
The Borisbike scheme is a huge step forward for active transport and a relatively safe way of getting about for the users. Lets not slam a lid on it!
1. http://www.serco.com/media/pressreleases/15millionbarclayhire.asp
2. http://rdrf.org.uk/2012/08/disaster-waiting-to-happen-the-london-bike-hi...
3. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1192.html#10271
4. Elvik, R., Publication bias and time-trend bias in meta-analysis of bicycle helmet efficacy: A re-analysis of Attewell, Glase and McFadden, 2001. Accid. Anal. Prev. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.01.007
5. Investigating population level trends in head injuries amongst child cyclists in the UK, Paul J. Hewson. AA&P 2006
6. Do enforced bicycle helmet laws improve public health? BMJ Robinson, DL, 2006;332;722doi:10.1136/bmj.332.7543.722
7. Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law. Colin F Clarke NZMJ 10 February 2012, Vol 125 No 1349; ISSN 1175 8716
http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/125-1349/5046/
8. The Potential for Cycle Helmets to Prevent Injury: A Review of the Evidence by D. Hynd, R. Cuerden, S. Reid and S. Adams, TRL 2009
Competing interests: Board member of the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation. (www.cyclehelmets.org)
Central Gateshead Medical Group, The Health Centre, Gateshead, NE8 1NB
28 September 2012
BORIS BIKES – AN OLYMPIC CATASTROPHE?
Neil S.P. Smith, Dominic N.P. Thompson
St George’s Hospital, London; Department of Neurosurgery, Great Ormond Street Hospital
With the astounding success of our track cyclists, London is likely to see an even greater growth in the number of cyclists sporting Wiggo burns, cruising through the capital on Boris bikes. In fact, when he isn’t dangling from a zip-line, our self-professed ‘cycle mad’ mayor has targeted a 400% increase in use by 2026 on 2001 levels (1).
Cycling brings enormous benefits to the environment and health, with estimates suggesting that 12.46 deaths were avoided annually in the equivalent scheme in Barcelona, as a result of extra physical activity, which dwarfs the average 0.03 increase in road accidents (2). How wonderful would it be if part of the legacy of these Olympics meant that more people take to their bikes, creating a clean, healthy city, where the sound of the car horn is replaced by the tinkle of cyclists bell.
So here’s the catch. Next time you find yourself on a busy road in London, take a minute to watch as Londoners Boris bike through the city. As they gently amble by with London’s busy traffic thundering around them, you will soon notice that they do not look the same as other cyclists. On the whole, they have absolutely no protection on their heads - Boris bike cyclists do not wear helmets.
We conducted a short study of 1331 cyclists in some of the main areas of Boris bike uptake – South Kensington, Oxford Street and Trafalgar Square. Up to a massive 32% fewer Boris bike users wear helmets. In a city the size of London, that’s a lot of people. More importantly, that’s a lot of lives at risk.
Aha you say, but do helmets really work? Doesn’t wearing a helmet actually mean that drivers are more likely to hit you? Come to think of it, surely an expensive piece of shaped Styrofoam strapped to your head will be of little use when a three ton truck upends you from behind? Codswallop.
Meta-analysis data shows that helmets prevent head, brain and fatal injuries (3), and a Cochrane review found a 63 to 88% reduction in risk from cyclists of all ages wearing a helmet (4). Helmet use can be particularly effective, as head injuries comprise one third of emergency department visits, two thirds of hospital admissions and three-quarters of deaths (4). Over 70% of the cyclist fatalities in London have moderate or serious head injuries, and over 45% of child cyclists in accidents suffer head injuries. (5) Convinced?
So what now? How do we prevent this tragedy, turning something so wonderful for the city, a symbol of our nation peddling into the future, from turning into a disaster? King Wiggo himself would avert this catastrophe in one fowl sweep by enshrining helmet use in law. At the very least we need to make this a requirement for Boris bike users. One needless death on a Boris bike is a death too many.
References
1. TFL, Cycling Revolution London, 2010.
2. Rojas-Rueda D, de Nazelle A, Tainio M, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ. The health risks and benefits of cycling in urban environments compared with car use: health impact assessment study. BMJ 2011;343:d4521.
3. R.G. Attewell. Bicycle helmet efficacy: a meta-analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2001; 33(1): 345–352.
4. Thompson DC, Rivara F, Thompson R. Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1999, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD001855. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001855.
5. Cycling Accidents - Facts and Figures - October 2011. http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figur... (accessed 23/12/11).
The Corresponding Author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, an exclusive licence (or non exclusive for government employees) on a worldwide basis to the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and its Licensees to permit this article (if accepted) to be published in BMJ editions and any other BMJPGL products and sublicences to exploit all subsidiary rights, as set out in our licence ( http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/authors/checklists-forms/licence-for-public...).
Competing interests: None declared
Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, WC1N 3JH
Kmietowicz is right to highlight this excellent report which builds on recent World Health Organization publications (1,2). Healthy transport can potentially have a major impact on some of our urgent public health challenges including obesity, diabetes and heart disease (1,3). But, transport policy can have a positive or negative impact on health.
We agree, current transport policy is anti-health and discriminatory. In relation to injuries for example, Sonkin et al found steep social class gradients in road traffic injury death rates (4). However, enough is known about effective and promising public health strategies to justify action now (5).
One aspect of cycling and walking that we think should have been stressed more both in the report and the article by Kmietowicz is that both can be fun and enjoyable. This is particularly important because for some people they will be trying to make some quite difficult changes to behavior. To support them with this, action will be needed in micro and macro environments (1).
Appendix 3 of the report is particularly helpful as it provides an overview of the key recommendations from NICE public health guidance relevant to transport and health. It clearly shows who should take action and what they should do.
The report recognises that no single measure will be a silver bullet and highlights roles for a wide range of groups including healthcare and road safety. However, crucially, strong commitment and leadership is needed from the Government. The time appears to be right for action, perhaps politicians from the Departments of Transport and Health can capitalize on the current interest in the Olympics and launch a major initiative that would help to integrate health into transport policy.
1) World Health Organization. Physical activity and health in Europe: evidence for action. Copenhagen: WHO, 2006.
2) World Health Organization. Promoting physical activity and active living in urban environments. Copenhagen: WHO, 2006.
3) British Medical Association. Healthy transport = healthy lives, July 2012. www.bma.org.uk/transport.
4) Sonkin B, Edwards P, Roberts I et al. Walking, cycling and transport safety: an analysis of child road deaths. The Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2006; 99: 402-5.
5) National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE public health guidance 31: Preventing unintentional road injuries among under-15s: road design. London: NICE, 2010.
Competing interests: None declared
Northern General Hospital , Herries Road, Sheffield. S5 7AU
13 July 2012
This report has lots of good stuff but re iterates the BMA's support for banning helmetless cycling. It's an opportunity missed.
The BMA's change of mind in 2004 from encouraging helmets to compulsion, followed an organised campaign by helmet campaigners. It was justified on the basis of a single discredited study from Canada (1,2). This enthusiastic advocacy has been maintained in the face of subsequent research, questioning helmet wearing and the scientific validity of the earlier small-scale, hospital based, North American, case-controlled research (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
Most recently de Jong (9) has shown even if the most optimistic estimates of helmet effectiveness are used, it would only take one person in fifty to be put off cycling by helmets to have a public health disbenefit.
To encourage cycling we need to remove barriers to participation. The stigma of helmets is a barrier, as is their practical use. Effective social marketing is important. Cycling has to be promoted as an everyday, safe activity done by all ages and sexes and in normal clothes, not just people dressed like aliens from the planet Zog.
Even in today's rather hostile road environment it is safer to be a regular cyclist; with or without a helmet. The BMA used to know this.
1. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1244.html#186
2. http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/4/380.full
3. BMJ. 2006 March 25; 332(7543): 722–725. Robinson D L,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410838/
4. Cycle helmets and road casualties in the UK. Traffic Injury Reports, Vol 6, 2005. Hewson P J,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15389580590931590
5. Investigating population level trends in head injuries amongst child cyclists in the UK, Acc. Anal. Prev. Volume 37, Issue 5, Sept. 2005, Pages 807–815. Hewson P J.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457505000588
6. Making Vision Zero real: Preventing pedestrian accidents and making them less severe.
Erke A, Elvik R. TOI, Norwegian Centre for Transport Research, Report 889/2007. 2007.
https://www.toi.no/article19378-29.html
7. Publication bias and time-trend bias in meta-analysis of bicycle helmet efficacy: A re-analysis of Attewell, Glase and McFadden, 2001
Elvik R. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2011;43(3):1245-1251. 2011.
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/Elvik2011_helmet_reanalysis.pdf
8. The Potential for Cycle Helmets to Prevent Injury: A Review of the Evidence PPR446, DfT, 2009 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090417002224/http://www.dft....
9. The Health Impact of Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws, de Jong P, Risk Analysis Vol32, Issue 5, pages 782–790, May 2012
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01785.x/abst...
Competing interests: Board member of the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (www.cyclehelmets.org) Cycles bareheaded.
Central Gateshead Medical Group, The Health Centre, Gateshead, NE8 1NB








Replacement of lead by depleted uranium: no reasons for radiophobia.
Published 23 May 2013
Please could we have some fact.
Published 23 May 2013
Re: CT radiation risks coming into clearer focus
Published 23 May 2013
Re: Should we sequence everyone’s genome?
Published 23 May 2013