Cycle helmets should not be compulsory

This article appears to be incredibly sensible, a refreshing change
in today's increasingly nanny-like state. The brutally honest truth is
that children of a certain age do not like wearing helmets (i.e. once they
become concious of 'appearing cool' amongst their peers). I absolutly
agree that the overall fitness and health of a generation of children who
would subsequently stop cycling, should take precedent over the current
risks of a relative few suffering trauma due to accidents.

From my own experience, a second thought strikes me, leading on from
the following 3 example situations:

What is the first thing you could expect to see if you were to pass
motorcycle helmet to a a small group of 9 year olds?
I imagine that the first would put on the helmet, to be immediately
attacked by the rest hitting him on the head "because the helmet stops him
getting hurt".

I'm a keen mountain biker, and frequently my decision as to whether
or not attempt a particularly tricky section or jump often comes down to
whether I feel as though I'm wearing sufficient protective gear. If
wearing a full-face helmet, gloves and shin-protectors, then I'm not too
worried about any potential crashes.

I'm also an amateur fighter. In sparring, we sometimes choose
whether to have a 'light' or 'heavy' session. If we have large, 16oz
gloves and headgear, we spar a lot harder than if wearing 10oz gloves and
no headgear.

All of the above show the same principle - if we feel that we are
sufficiently protected, we tend to take bigger risks and expose ourselves
to the possibility of greater trauma. It is part of the human psyche to
push ourselves outside of our 'comfort zones', and by forcing young
adventurous children into being more protected, you may well find that you
unwittingly encourage them to take greater risks.

Competing interests:
Mountain Biker, Amateur Mixed Martial Artist.

There is no longer a rational case to promote cycle helmets, still
less to compel their use, but since it is clear that some learn more
slowly than others, a review of world-wide experience is in order.

The gist of the Welander letter is; helmet laws reduce the number of
head injuries, therefore helmets must be promoted. Vitally, Welander
neglects to mention that reduction in head injuries is not the same as
reduction in the risk per cyclist if there has been a dramatic deterrence
of cycling.

The most effective means to make cycling safer is to promote cycling
itself. During the Seventies, there was a spontaneous mini-boom in cycling
in the UK. Annual mileage increased by 70% between 1973 and 1982, but
fatalities actually fell during this period. The risk of death per mile
halved. Evidently getting more cyclists on the road improves safety so
dramatically that the number of fatalities does not go up, and may even go
down, because of greater street presence. Cyclists win by being safer,
society wins because of the health benefits of more cycling, less
pollution, congestion and danger.

Putting it another way, 1% of mileage is by bike, but 5% of road
fatalities are cyclists. Clearly it is preposterous to maintain that if
20% of mileage were by bike, 100% of fatalities would be cyclists! Most of
the risk currently borne by cyclists in the UK stems from there being too
few cyclists. More cycling means more safety!

However, less cycling means less safety. The number of cyclists
killed is surprisingly unaffected by the number of cyclists - as we saw
above. Thus if the number of cyclists falls, the risk gets shared out
amongst fewer riders and the risk per rider increases. Obviously this will
raise the level of skill and commitment required to continue cycling, and
render the bicycle less favoured by the population at large. There is even
the danger of a downward spiral to extinction. Any measure that deters
cycling must be avoided because it will increase the risk for those who
continue to cycle.

Now, consider the statement by the Swedish Group.

Careful readers will note that nowhere does Welander claim helmets
have reduced the risk of head injury per individual cyclist. This is
because helmet compulsion only achieves a reduction in head injuries by
deterring cycling. He mentions that head injuries in New Zealand have
fallen by 19%, but this is less than the fall in the level of cycling
since the helmet law. Similarly for Australia, in Nov 1999, the Road
Accident Prevention Research Unit concluded that after taking account of
generally safer conditions, cyclist head injuries had fallen by 11% - yet
the level of cycling is still 15-20% below pre-law levels. These increases
in risk per cyclist accord with the observation above that less cycling
means less safety for those who continue to cycle. The benefits of helmet
use are slight relative to the consequences. Clinical studies
notwithstanding, helmets just don’t earn their corn in the real world. It
is time safety campaigners accepted this fact and stopped suffering from
“knowledge diabetes” (the truth passes straight through).

The only case left for the Swedish Group is that helmet promotion and
compulsion prevent cycling and therefore prevent injury. We shall not even
consider the odiousness of so penalising a group pursuing a joyful,
harmless means of transport in a smelly world. The argument is false even
on a pragmatic level.

There is no guarentee that a former cyclist driving a car will not
suffer head injury in a road accident, nor inflict severe injury on a
pedestrian, nor suffer severe injury AS a pedestrian. In fact, taking
account of the risks of driving and the risk to pedestrians from motor
vehicles, deterring cycling certainly increases the risk of death and head
injury in the community as a whole. In the UK, an urban driver is around
ten times more likely to kill a pedestrian per mile than a cyclist. There
are also enormous health benefits from cycling, which greatly outweigh the
risk of injury. By using actuarial data, Hillman showed that a regular
cyclist was 20 times more likely to increase their lifespan than reduce it
- even given the unsatisfactory conditions prevailing in the UK To deter
cycling is to promote injury and illness.

That helmet promotion is counter-productive is further illustrated by
UK experience. During the Nineties, the image of cycling transformed from
harmless, cheap transport to “dangerous”. This has discouraged millions of
adults from using their bikes, adding to the severe short-trip congestion
problems of this country (70% of car journeys are less than five miles)
and to national obesity. The choices for personal exploration available to
children have been drastically strangled off in the last decade. The five-
car family is becoming a reality for those who can afford it. The risks
faced by those who still ride are higher now because of the deterrence of
cycling by helmet promotion.

Both Australian and New Zealand government research has concluded
that neither promotion nor compulsion were cost-effective, even before
considering the costs of a less exercised population. Neither of the
leading cycle safety experts in the USA and the UK (respectively John
Forester and John Franklin) see helmets having anything significant to
offer the road cyclist, at least, not relative to the benefits of learning
skilful riding techniques. Does the Swedish Group still think it is right
in the face of all this experience to the contrary?

To my mind, the most mysterious aspect of the whole cycle helmet saga
is; why pick on cyclists? In Australia, pedestrians are more at risk per
hour than cyclists, while drivers are at least as much at risk. In New
Zealand, even the broadsheet media have hinted it might be less than just
to compel helmets on cyclists, who are typically the victims of careless
driving, when the hourly risk of car use is no less. In the USA, a study
by Failure Mode Associates suggested the hourly risk of cycling is about
half that of driving in that country. Here in the UK, where driving risks
are low by international standards, the hourly risk to a cyclist is only a
little higher than when driving (for the same individual). UK road deaths
now only amount to about a quarter of all accidental deaths.

A UK cyclist may expect to ride for around 7,500 years before
suffering a serious head injury, and for 22,000 years before suffering
death. The figures for UK car use are much the same - but a driver does
not gain the enormous health benefits of cycling. In most other European
countries, the risks of driving are far higher than the risks of cycling
in the UK. So why are Welander et al not badgering continental drivers to
wear helmets? A mile of walking is more likely to result in serious injury
or death than a mile of cycling; so why is the Swedish Group not bidding
for walking helmet promotion?

A recent study of admissions to Glasgow hospitals produced the
estimate that every year in the UK, around 150,000 people are admitted for
head injuries. That means only about 1.5% of all admissions are due to
road cycling accidents. By comparison, 30% were due to assault and 60% of
admissions were alcohol-related. Should revelling helmets be promoted?
Seriously, it is hard to accept that cyclist head injuries are a major
issue over and above many other drastically less healthy activities.

All of which brings me back to the question: why cyclists? The answer
would appear to be: what else? Such issues as motorcycle helmets, seat
belts and child restraints have been dealt with, yet the various
established bureaucracies and interest groups would be mute if they had no
issue to champion. Cycle helmets arrived as a gift in the mid Eighties to
save them from irrelevence. That is why these safety groups ignore data
and arguments such as have been presented here. That their work is against
the interests of a better cycling future and improved health for the
nation are evidently factors that do not concern them.

These campaigning groups are not in the habit of admitting their
mistakes. Hillman pointed out that after the motorcycle helmet law of
1973, pedestrian deaths and injuries caused by motorcycles increased,
while the effect on motorcycle casualties was at best slight. After the
seatbelt law of 1983, cycling fatalities rose by 12-15% and there was also
a rise in pedestrian deaths. The benefits for car occupants were
undeniable - 25% decrease in deaths of drivers and front seat passengers
in the first year. But, the benefits wore off after about five years.
Drivers “spent” the protection by taking extra risks. The benefits of the
law were temporary, while the consequences for cyclists and pedestrians
were permanent. Yet how often do you hear of calls for the repeal of the
seatbelt laws in order to make the roads safer for the two user groups
that everyone agrees should be encouraged in order to alleviate traffic
blight and improve health?

There is a need for society to deal with safety issues in a different
way.

INTERESTS: cyclist, driver, motorcylist, pedestrian, contented
seatbelt and m/c helmet wearer, cycle helmet user for MTB riding off-road.

SOURCES:

Road Casualty Report, DETR, various years (esp 1986)

National Travel Survey, DETR.

Franklin, John, Expert Witness, cycle safety expert. “Cycle Helmets;
25 years Along the Road”, paper presnted at CCN/CTC Cycle Planning
Conference, Cheltenham, April 2000.

Hillman, Mayer. “Cycling Towards Health and Safety”, BMA, 1992.

Hillman, Mayer. “Cycle Helmets; the Case For and Against”, Policy
Stdies Institute, 1993.

Sir,

Ward Parker laments:
"I believe the existing bicycle helmet laws are unconstitutional in the
province of B.C. I am not against wearing a helmet, however..." [1]

It is also 'unconstitutional' to have sex without a condom, to go
driving for no particular purpose, to not wear a seatbelt while driving,
to not get one's car tuned and make a lot of pollution, to use a needle
for more than
one injection, to smoke cigarettes, to eat an excess of saturated fats, to
enjoy fried foods, to not get regular exercise, to become a couch potato,
to let petrol prices become so low that you become so lazy that you even
drive
your car to the local shop to purchase a newspaper rather than walk, to
have pets that make a mess on pavements, to buy tropical hardwoods, etc.

And it is also very unsociable to do these things as they impinge
badly upon other people's lives, or the planet at large, and can cause
disease or worse, even though:

"There is no such thing as society; there are individual men and
women, and there are families." [2]

Sources

[1] BMJ letter, Ward Parker, Cycle helmets should not be compulsory
unconstitutional, 2 July 2000

[2] Margaret Thatcher, 'Woman's Own', 31 Oct. 1987

It is difficult to tell whether Ian Ker has concluded that mandatory
bicycle helmet legislation is good or bad, but various corrections should
be made re his citation of cyclist numbers in Perth.

The only continuous official surveys of Perth bicycle numbers
commenced in October 1991, nine months before the legislation was
enforced, at two locations - the Causeway and the Narrows bridges. It
should be pointed out to those unfamiliar with Perth that these two sites
are unique... they straddle a broad river and are thus focused and
unavoidable survey locations. Another bridge was opened about two
kilometres upstream from the Causeway in, from memory, 1996. There is no
alternative river crossing near the Narrows, unless the cyclist has scuba
gear. The closest upstream bridge is the Causeway and the closest
downstream bridge is more than 10 kilometres away. Both bridges lead
directly into the heart of the city. WA has had a population increase of
240,000 since 1992 (all cyclist number estimates ignore this) and - under
government planning, sewerage and other infrastructure policies adopted in
the early 90s - much of Perth's population growth has been inner city to
middle suburban. That is, most of Perth's strata-title, subdivision,
medium/high density population growth has occured in the vicintity of the
two bridges, with no alternative means of crossing the river, and this
should have resulted in a significant increase in cyclist numbers.

Contrary to Ian's claims, these survey locations are monitored in
detail by the WA government's road authority on a day to day basis - right
down to a precise number of, for example, 843 cyclists on a given day -
and the statistics are available to any researcher who knows how to make a
phone call (or who knows how to click to my URL, where the stats are laid
out in monotonous detail). Here is an extract:

___

The number of cyclists on the Narrows fell from an average 1200 per
day in 91/92 to 1028 in 92/93, 700 per day in 95/96 (-42%), 866 in 96/97,
962 in 97/98, and 810 in 98/99. This means there were approximately 33%
less cyclists on the Narrows in 98/99 compared to 91/92.

Four day comparisons conducted by Main Roads WA in Oct 91 and Oct 92
showed a 37% reduction in cyclists on the Narrows and Causeway combined.
Sunday cycling was down by 57%.

Between Oct 91 and July 92, there were an average 997 cyclists on the
Causeway every day. In the same months of the 97/98 financial year, the
average had recovered to 869 - still 13% less than in 91/92. The total
1998/99 average daily cyclist count on the Causeway was 720 - a reduction
of approximately 27% compared to the 91/92 Oct/July pre-law benchmark.

In Dec 91, 10,596 bikes were counted on the Causeway on weekends; Dec
92 - 6719; Dec 93 - 5295; Dec 94 - 4564. This was down from a mean daily
count of 1177 in Dec 91 to a mean of 507 in Dec 94.

___

My site - www.iinet.net.au/~property/bicycle_helmets.html -
has accurate and unaltered records from the government road authority, and
they show similar downturns whichever months or seasons are compared. The
most recent figures (1998/99) show the average daily cyclist count at the
two bridges was still about 33% less than 91/92. This is coincidentally in
line with the Perth bicycle retail sector's estimate of a 30% reduction in
bike sales, and the anecdotal fact that about one in three people say
they've either stopped cycling or cycle much less because of the
inconvenience and discomfort of mandatory helmets. Police accident
statistics, telephone surveys and results from all other Australian states
also show about 1 out of every 3 cyclists stopped riding after 1992.

How about Perth locations apart from the two bridges? I have been
allowed into the government road authority headquarters to go through all
records ever compiled and, to quote my site:

___

Timescale figures for other metro sites are scarce. However, a survey
on Mitchell Freeway north of Powis St in November 1991 showed an average
179 cyclists per workday. A survey on the freeway at the nearby
Scarborough Beach Rd crossing in November 98 showed an
average of 79.

Surveys in October 1991 at the freeway site showed the workday
averages at 202, 230, 207 and 226 cyclists. The average for October 1998
was 61 per day.

___

Ian Ker is simply wrong to claim that WA data is not comprehensive
and that the most recent figures only go to 1994. After a 10% annual
growth in cyclist numbers throughout the 1980s and with such a marked
downturn after the law was enforced, it is a patent absurdity to blame
other factors. Ian is correct in saying about 50% of school children gave
up cycling (the government's bike promotion authority estimated more than
half of all kids had stopped riding to school in the five years preceding
1996). Yes, parents might have stopped some children from riding bikes,
thanks to a government intent on convincing people that one of society's
lowest-risk recreation pursuits is dangerous, but the evidence suggests it
is elderly folk in particular who have given up.

The estimated cycling population of Western Australia in 1994 was
762,000. This Australian Bureau of Statistics figure was derived from a
household survey conducted on bicycle usage and safety representing almost
half the Western Australian population. Let's be generous to helmet
advocates and pretend this post-law figure was actually pre-law. A 33%
reduction equals approximately 250,000 West Australians. WA has
approximately 11% of Australia's total population so it might be
extrapolated that about 2 and a half million Australians have given up
bike riding - a figure in unison with surveys showing reduced numbers in
each statute.

International medical experts estimate regular cycling adds between
two and ten years to the cyclists' longevity. A recent trial organised by
the WA Government (to try to convince people to get back on their bikes)
demonstrated that four short cycle rides a week for a year could reduce
elevated cholesterol levels by 50%, that the trial volunteers (aged 21 to
65) showed reduced risk of heart attack and stroke, and that cycling
reduced the risk of debilitating backache. Whether the officials like it
or not, 2.5 million Australians are not enjoying these health benefits.
They will suffer greater pain and die younger as most people don't seek
alternative exercise since they only ever regarded cycling as fun. They
instead drive their cars, further endangering other motorists, pedestrians
and cyclists. Meanwhile, WA recorded the highest cyclist injury toll in
its history in 1997, only to be surpassed by a whopping 10% increase for a
new record to be established in 1998. Head injuries were higher than pre-
law as of 1995 (despite the significantly smaller cyclist pool), upper
body injuries almost doubled, hospital recovery times for intracranial
injuries stopped their decade-long decline, skull fracture recovery times
worsened considerably, and a litany of evidence concerning the impact of
the law uniformly shows disastrous results.

In short, Australia's various governments have effectively condemned
an unprecedented number of Australians to poor health and
early death. If the figures are even remotely accurate, the imposition of
mandatory bicycle helmet laws represents one of the greatest public health
disasters in Australian history.