Why?
In brief:
Cycling isn't any more dangerous than being a pedestrian or driving. Helmet laws cause far less people to cycle, and the benefits of more people cycling (more often) far, far, far outweigh the potential safety benefits of helmets.
I don't want to present you with an essay, here. Easy-to-read, fully-referenced reports can be found here and here. Also, a collection of highly-readable and image-friendly brochures/reports can be found here.
Instead, here is the gist with accompanying quotes/images.
Enforced helmet legislation is 'stoopid' because:
1. People are FAR more likely to cycle without helmet laws (in every example worldwide, including BC):
http://www.ctcyorkshirehumber.org.uk/campaigns/velo.htm
2. The individual and public health gains from more cycling FAR outweigh any potential safety gain from helmet laws:
Moderate cycling has many physical and mental benefits (BMA 1992, 8) by reducing the risk [by over 50%] of developing heart disease (9), diabetes, high blood pressure, colon cancer and depression, and helping to control weight and increase fitness.
Dr Hillman from the UK's Policy Studies Institute calculated the life years gained by cycling outweigh life years lost in accidents by a factor of 20 to 1 (10).3. Beyond health, the social, economic, cultural, and environmental benefits of more cyclists/cycling far outweigh the potential safety benefits of helmet legislation (citation: lif).
4. The more people cycle, the safer it is. Safety in numbers.
5. The actual safety benefits of helmets are under dispute
6. Bicycle accident rates increase with helmet use
For example, in the state of Western Australia... the annual cyclist death toll from 1987 to 1991 (pre-law) averaged 7.6 fatalities per year. From 1993 to 1997 (post-law) it was 6.4 fatalities per year, representing a 16% reduction [2]. However... cycling declined in Western Australia by approximately 30% during the 1990s following mandatory helmet law enforcement [3]. Thus, relative to cycle use, fatalities went up, not down.
[Why?] There is a good deal of circumstantial evidence that helmeted cyclists are more likely to crash, and data from one study [4] suggests that those wearing a helmet are more than 7 times likely to hit their heads if they do.7. Risk of accident and serious head injury from cycling is not high
Maybe we should have walking and driving helmet laws?
9. It violates people's personal freedom and beliefs (e.g., more plastic in landfills, etc.)
10. You'll save way more tax dollars and lives through healthy living than through helmets.
11. I'm sure there's more.
Seems like a no-brainer to me.
I will leave off with the following quote from an Australian woman who has been cycling all her life without a helmet, including over 15 years during mandatory helmet legislation. She was finally ticketed for not wearing a helmet, recently, and is taking the state to court over the law:
... by prosecuting cycling, which is beneficial to health, sedentary lifestyles have been encouraged which in turn have led to worse health outcomes and greater costs for the community.
Undoubtedly, Australia has the worst public cycling participation rate in the world, and instead [of doing something about it] has ignorantly embraced the greatest health risk of them all -- inactivity. I truly believe that... my conduct was and is a question of my survival. Therefore... it was and is necessary for me to cycle and to cycle without a helmet in order to prevent severe brain injury and / or death
(check out the ever-enjoyable copenhagenize.com for more on this story)
Your thoughts?
---
See these follow up posts:
Helmetless Cycling Images: Not for the Faint of Heart!
Bicycle helmet laws? No, car helmet laws!
14 comments:
Very interesting post. Thanks for this. My personaly story and feelings are backed up by some of this information, though I never thought of doing research or entering into the political scape with it... I may change my mind.
Hey Aj,
Thanks of the response. Glad this was helpful to you.
There is a raging debate on facebook about this topic/post, so I am going to try to copy it in here.
I read through all (31) of the comments in the epic Fbook discussion on this topic and here are my two cents:
1) Helmet laws are stupid. I'm in Evan's camp on this one, but not only because I think that they make people less likely to ride. I think they are stupid because there are more important issues to deal with than ticketing Oak Bay brats for cruising down the Avenue without a helmet. I was one of those brats. And honestly, kids on bikes in 2010 should be congratulated for not being at home in front of the PlayStation.
2) I think people are less likely to ride bikes because of the simple fact that people are lazy, and even with the hassle of parking, they would rather enjoy the comfort of their vehicles. With consumer loans easier to come by than ever during the past decade especially, banks have happily handed people cheap money to spend on whatever gas-guzzler they want. Families can easily afford to have two or even three vehicles. And really, when there is a cup holder for your coffee, an iPod jack and air conditioning, why would you ride a bike? You know, besides the whole fresh air/exercise/environmentally friendly argument. Instead of a family bike ride to the beach, they'll take the car.
Bermuda is supremely unfriendly to cyclists, with tiny, twisting, narrow roads and crazy drivers to contend with. However, there is a law here limiting each household to only one car (though, unlimited scooters). Guess what? There are cyclists everywhere, bravely navigating the terrain (helmets not required). Cars patiently drive behind them where it's impossible to pass - there is no room for error and no space for bike lanes.
Some people will cycle because they love to cycle. Others will cycle because it is easier/cheaper than the alternative and becomes a necessity. Make it a hassle (financially or otherwise) to own a car, and they will dig the bikes out of the shed.
Bikes are awesome and Victoria would be such a great place to get around on one, with some improvements.
Great post, Evan.
I'm glad you mentioned that people are more accident-prone when they wear helmets. Just wrote a final paper on risk compensation, actually, and I read a bunch of studies on how perceived decreases in risk (e.g., mandatory seat belt and bike helmet laws) lead to higher levels of risk-taking. Policymakers don't really take behavioral psychology into much consideration, do they?
Great blog - you have some excellent ideas!
@ Kristin. Thanks for your support -- again. Excellent points, all of which I agree with. Though, there are plenty of 'city' bikes out there, now, with cup holders! Nice insight re the banks and such. That is definitely something to keep in mind. Reminds me of the whole GM/Firestone 'conspiracy' of buying out the streetcar companies, etc. and tearing up all the tracks in LA. Anyways...
Victoria could be such a bike-friendly place. Right now, we are claiming to be the 'bike capital of Canada', because 5-7% of working adults cycle to work once a week or more. Whoop-dee-doo!
@TRM. Thanks for your feedback. Info like that is always nice to have added to the site! No, they certainly don't take behavioural psychology or long-term consequences or reality (prevention vs. treatment) into account. They generally look for short-term 'solutions' that will get them re-elected by the said 'yokels'.
Hey Evan, interesting post, definitely good to not blindly accept laws like this... I think the graph in bullets #1 and #4 are very telling.
A friend of mine pointed out that your bullet #6 seems to be incorrect. The study they link about helmeted people being more likely to be injured, doesn't say that at all... It actually says the opposite (see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1349400/pdf/amjph00248-0086.pdf)
I didn't follow up on the other links from that article, but I'd say that your bullets #5 and #6 need further proving :)
Hi Ryley,
Thanks a lot for the feedback and thoughts on the stats.
Your linked study does say that people wearing helmets were less likely to be seriously injured, however this is not what #6 is about.
#6 says that it does not reduce injury rate, not that it does not reduce injury per accident.
I have no issue with the safety of helmets. That is outside my concern and is a situation-to-situation issue.
My concern is more in line with what TRM is saying: People who feel safer are more likely to take risks. AND, perhaps more importantly, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that motorists are more aggressive around helmeted cyclists compared to non-helmeted ones.
That study also says that "for methodological reasons, this interpretation [about helmet safety] should be made with caution."
However, I have no intention to debate that -- it's probably accurate -- because it doesn't really matter to me in the grand scheme of things.
Great post!
I'm planning on moving to BC (Comox or Nanaimo) sometime in the coming year.
Currently I live in Ontario and have commuted year round for the past seven years. I’ve actually never gone for my driver’s license.
I only wore a helmet for a few weeks and I hated it...No I despised it.
My glasses never fit properly, blocking my peripheral vision, when it rained my head got soaked. I never wore one in the winter because my ears freezing were a much greater risk then the off chance I should hit my head.
The one thing I dread, and even makes me have doubts about moving to BC is the helmet law. I find too many people are sitting back not doing enough to get it reversed.
People throw things such as “go to a head trauma unit”, “motorists have to wear seatbelts”. Ironically enough if you go to a head trauma unit, most are there from car accidents, slips/falls or even suicide attempts.
Seatbelts are only designed to keep motorists in the car should the vehicle flip over, or to stop them from going through the windshield. They can still hit their head against the headrest and steering wheel pretty damn hard.
And if people are willing to drop helmet laws if seatbelt laws are dropped, I’m ok with that. People should still have the option.
Hey Ryan,
Thanks for the comment and feedback.
I am glad you shared your personal experiences. I am in Ontario, right now, and note that very few people wear a helmet.
I also notice that the ones that DO wear their helmets are the ones dressed like they are on the Tour de France and going 30-40km/h. Those without helmets are generally cruising around 15-25km/h.
I think this makes a lot of sense and highlights some of the relationships discussed above (risk-taking, drop in participation, safety, etc.).
Cheers.
Re people sitting back. Yes, I have received a lot of support on this issue, but also a lot of understandable, emotional, knee-jerk opposition.
I think the/a major problem is the lack of political support. Politicians are afraid to take on such a controversial subject... even though so few countries/provinces/states around the world followed in Australia and our footsteps.
Where I am in Ontario, I'd say only 30% wear a helmet (just an estimate from what I see).
Usually most of those in that 30% are the "Lance's", who are also wearing spandex and doing 40k.
I'm actually seeing more and more women riding bikes, dressed quite 'chicly', which is IMO (and those in Europe) a sign of a progressing cycling community.
I have a bike "computer", and my average speed is around 20-25k.
I found your blog from Vibrant Victoria, your post on repealing the helmet law. I was quite discouraged with the attitude of nearly everyone on their.
It appeared no matter how much data/info you threw at them, they simply ignored it.
I think for most it has to do with an anti-bike attitude.
The Urban Country has an interesting post on helmet laws/use: http://tinyurl.com/2b2kvyh
CBC.BC also has an article claiming that 60% of BC cyclists wear helmets: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/06/15/bc-bike-helmet-study.html
Yeah, agreed re sign of progressing cycling community - or just a progressing community with people who cycle (who are not 'cyclists')!
Haha, yes, the Vibrant Victoria forum was pretty much a dead-end. Most of the people were to committed to their beliefs to be reasonable in the discussion.
I gave up, as it clearly was not worth my time or energies (including those ones I put in). However, I am sure they are still making up theories to discount what I have said.
They are mostly full-on suburbaners who want a clear distinction between us and them when it comes to cars and cyclists. And, as you could tell by some of their aggressive comments, the 'them' was clearly a bunch of delinquent, law-breaking cyclists.
Thanks for the links.
With the coming (and now going) of Bike to Work Days/Weeks across Canada, there was a tonne of articles about helmets and safety. Most of them were the classic doom & gloom articles about not wearing a helmet = death or permanent brain damage. Not highly productive to encourage new people to bicycle.
Anyways....
Thanks for the feedback.
In fact helmets aren't mandatory in BC. For members of the Church of Sit-Up Cycling accident-preventing safety measures as lights, bells, height, strict compliance with traffic signals, a leisurely pace and the use of dedicated cycling streets and lanes are all that's needed. Hats are optional, and being forced to wear one would interfere with their essential religious practices.
http://flavors.me/situpvancouver
Dear Reverend,
Thank you kindly for the heads up and link. Much appreciated.
I joined your church in the facebook world.
Cheers.
Post a Comment
Two things:
1) A lot of discussion about this site happens on facebook; so, I would recommend finding the site (link on the right sidebar) and me there.
2) I'm experimenting with non-sign-in commenting to encourage more discussion (the 2 minutes it takes to create a google/other account seems like too much trouble).
Being 'anonymous' is pretty lame, so at least make up a fake name to use.