CTC - the UK's national cyclists' organisation

12th September 2006



New research suggests helmets may be bad for cyclists' safety

Wearing a cycle helmet may increase your risk of a collision, because drivers leave less of a gap when overtaking cyclists with helmets than those without, according to new research unveiled yesterday.

Dr Ian Walker, a researcher in traffic psychology at the University of Bath, carried out experiments to measure how much space vehicles left when overtaking him. He found that, on average, drivers passed 8.5 cm (3 1/3 inches) closer when he was wearing a helmet than when he rode bare-headed. His findings are to be published in Accident Analysis and Prevention magazine. He also found that drivers gave him a wider berth when he wore a wig to look like a woman cyclist, and that van drivers overtook more closely than car drivers.

The research comes in the wake of a number of recent research papers, four of them published in peer-reviewed medical journals within the last year, suggesting that increases in helmet-wearing are not related to any detectable improvements in cycle safety:

* A paper in the British Medical Journal by Dorothy Robinson (a statistician at the University of New England, New South Wales in Australia) found that helmet laws in Australia, New Zealand and Canada had simply reduced cycle use, thereby undermining its health and other benefits, without improving safety for those who continued cycling.
* Two papers by Paul Hewson (one in Injury Prevention magazine looking at all on-road cycling in Britain, the other in Accident Analysis and Prevention looking specifically at child cyclists) found no link between helmet-wearing rates and safety for on-road cyclists.
* Another paper, again in Accident Analysis and Prevention, found no evidence of a beneficial effect from helmet laws in San Diego.
* A report on children's cycling from the National Children's Bureau includes a very useful appendix surveying the literature on helmets. It states: "Those of us who cycle should be under no illusion that helmets offer reliable protection in crash situations where our lives may be in danger. Neither should we believe that widespread adoption of helmet wearing would see many fewer cyclists killed or permanently disabled. The evidence so far suggests otherwise."
* A recent report to the European Conference of Transport Ministers (ECMT) said: "From the point of view of restrictiveness, even the official promotion of helmets may have negative consequences for bicycle use, and that to prevent helmets having a negative effect on the use of bicycles, the best approach is to leave the promotion of helmet wear to manufacturers and shopkeepers."

Commenting on the latest findings, Roger Geffen, Campaigns and Policy Manager at CTC, the national cyclists' organisation, said:

"It has long been clear that the main effect of efforts to make cyclists wear helmets is to put people off cycling altogether, without actually improving the safety of those who continue cycling undeterred. Cycle helmets are only designed to withstand impacts equivalent to falling under gravity from a stationary riding position, not collisions with moving traffic. So even in the event of a head impact, their effectiveness is limited at best. If they also increase the risk of having a head impact in the first place, as this research suggests, it is by no means implausible that the overall effect may be detrimental to cyclists' safety."

Aside from the possibility that drivers may subconsciously take less care around helmeted cyclists, there are a number of other possible reasons why helmets might increase cyclists' chances of suffering a head impact:

* Cyclists themselves (as well as drivers) may act less cautiously when wearing a helmet, due to misplaced faith in its protective value. Teenagers in particular are known to take greater risks when using helmets.
* The head is effectively enlarged by wearing a helmet. This may mean that incidents which would have been mere glancing blows or even complete "near-misses" without a helmet, could instead result in very serious neck injuries or rotational impacts on the brain (i.e. the brain spins slightly within the skull). These are the type of impacts most likely to lead to brain injury, helmets do not protect against them and may actually increase their likelihood.
* The extra weight of a helmet (particularly on the heads of very small children) may make it harder for cyclists to control what happens once they are falling.
* A helmet may reduce the instinctive will to ensure that, when falling, the first thing to hit the ground is something other than the head (e.g. a hand, arm or shoulder).
* The extra head inside a helmet may reduce concentration.
* There may be a worsening of cycle safety as a side-effect of the reduction in cycle use due to pressure to wear helmets. There is good evidence that cyclists gain from "safety in numbers", i.e. cycling is safer the more people there are doing it. Reducing cyclists' numbers may itself increase the risks for those who continue cycling.

None of this evidence necessarily proves that helmets are of no value. In one of his two articles cited above, researcher Paul Hewson points out that they may be that there might be some benefits for particular groups and/or for particular types of cycling which are not detectable from the overall statistics adding that his own data cover on-road cycling only. However, he also argues that his findings clearly show the promotion of helmets should no longer be central to what road safety professionals do about cycle safety, given the lack of detectable benefits from helmets for on-road cyclists.

Roger Geffen added:

"Whilst it would be premature to conclude that helmets are of no value whatsoever, it is increasingly clear that road safety professionals can no longer assume that helmets are an effective way to improve cycle safety. There is a growing body of evidence which suggests otherwise, and that their main effect is to put people off cycling in the first place. This is counterproductive for their health and overall life expectancy, as well as for tackling such problems as congestion, air pollution and climate change.

"We should therefore focus instead on measures which encourage more as well as safer cycling. These include lower speed limits, cycle-friendly street design, better traffic law enforcement and the provision of quality cycle training to the newly adopted National Standard."

Ends
For more information contact CTC Campaigns and Policy Manager, Roger Geffen on 07775 595 998

Notes to editors

* The CTC Charitable Trust promotes the use of cycling as a means of improving society through demonstration projects, practical support, inclusion projects, education & training and activities for potential cyclists.
* CTC is the national organisation for all cyclists in the UK and Ireland, including children, families, and commuters. CTC has 70,000 members and affiliates and is the oldest and largest cycling body in the UK. www.ctc.org.uk
* CTC's views on helmets can be viewed at www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3910. A page summarising the various recent research reports casting doubts on helmets - with links to most of the original documents - is at www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4379
* The website of the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (www.cyclehelmets.org) provides comprehensive information on all aspects of the helmet debate, including international evidence and references to key research papers.
* CTC was instrumental in drawing up the National Standard for cycle training, recently adopted by Government. The National Standard aims to ensure that cycle training is relevant to people of all ages and abilities, giving them the skills not only to ride a bike in the first place but to handle real traffic conditions confidently and safely.
* The Government recently allocated an extra £15m to Cycling England, the body charged with delivering the National Cycling Strategy, to promote cycling for school-aged children, and much of this is to be spent on promoting cycle training. Last week, the Government supported Cycling England in launching "Bikeability" as the new brand name for the National Standard, sub-titling it "cycle proficiency for the 21st century".



________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet on behalf of CTC, the UK's National Cyclists Organisation and CTC Charitable Trust, CTC’s charity arm . The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________

---

The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider.