South Yorkshire Safer Roads Partnership
News
21 Feb 2023
CYCLE HELMET DEBATE - OUR STANCE
Cyclists in the UK are not required by law to wear a cycle helmet. But as a road safety organisation, you would expect the Safer Roads Partnership to promote the use of cycle helmets in a bid to reduce the severity of injuries if a cyclist comes off their bike.
We’d prefer that cyclists didn’t come off their bike as a result of a collision with another vehicle. That’s why we support our partners, the local authorities, in their efforts to provide more cycling infrastructure, maintain the highway network and make improvements to the overall road environment for cyclists. But we should acknowledge that such facilities won’t prevent all types of incidents involving a cyclist. Many riders are injured in single vehicle collisions, where no other vehicles are involved, and wearing a cycle helmet could prevent head injuries in some of these situations. The results from Czech Republic research indicated that helmets could have helped most in cases of single-vehicle crashes when cyclists fell off their bicycles or hit obstacles. Altogether 44 (37%) of the cyclists killed in collisions which formed part of the study, could have survived if they had been wearing helmets during the crashes.
As a Partnership we heavily promote messages to drivers to look out for other road users, to slow down and give cyclists plenty of room when they pass. We work with the Police, supporting their “Safe Pass” enforcement operations where plain clothes police officers cycle along key routes and identify drivers of vehicles passing too closely, radioing ahead to officers who then stop the offending vehicles and speak to the drivers.
However, the reality is that cyclists are still involved in various types of collisions on our roads and they are often the ones most seriously injured. So our advice to cyclists is protect yourself by wearing a helmet. We hope that in time cycle numbers will increase and reach a critical mass when we start to see a decline in cycling collisions, as drivers get used to sharing the road with cyclists.
The scientific evidence clearly shows that in the event of a fall, helmets can substantially reduce head injury. A 2019 study reported in the British Medical Journal looked at cycling casualties amongst a trauma database of 10,000 people who had sustained life changing and life-threatening injuries. It concluded that cyclists who had been injured were a third less likely to have suffered a traumatic brain injury if they had been wearing a helmet at the time of the incident.
The arguments against cycle helmet wearing are based on a wider range of issues including: compulsory helmet wearing leads to a decline in cycling, risk compensation theory cancels out any health gains, scientific studies are defective and the overall road environment needs to be improved.
It is also suggested that wearing a helmet changes how drivers perceive the cyclist. A 2006 University of Bath study showed that drivers, when overtaking cyclists, gave helmeted cyclists significantly less space than they gave cyclists who don't wear head protection. The study found that drivers were twice as likely to pass closely to a helmeted cyclist, and that drivers passed an average of 8.5 cm (3 1/3 inches) closer when the researcher was helmeted than when he was not. Not only does this increase the chance of being clipped by a vehicle, it leaves cyclists with far less manoeuvring room to avoid other potentially injurious road hazards like potholes and icy patches. It was suggested that the reasons for the differences was that drivers felt that helmeted cyclists were more experienced and less likely to do something unexpected. In reality, there is no real reason to believe someone with a helmet is any more experienced than someone without. Furthermore, since this study was conducted 15 years ago, cycle helmet wearing has become more prevalent in the intervening period, so the argument may have less credence.
The design of the helmets themselves may increase the chance of some types of injuries when incidents do occur. Three separate studies have shown that bike helmets may increase the probability of certain types of neck injuries. Studies from several countries published in the period 1987–1998, were reviewed and overall indicated a statistically significant protective effect of helmets. Whilst the studies provided neck injury results that were unfavourable to helmets, this result may not be applicable to the lighter helmets currently in use today.
Wearing a helmet may create a false sense of security and induce risk-taking that cyclists without head protection might not make. A study by the University of Bath found those wearing helmets may take risks that they wouldn't otherwise take without head protection.
Insisting that cyclists wear a helmet adds an extra barrier to cycling. When helmet use became mandatory in New Zealand, for example, the number of bike trips fell.
Available evidence suggests that more riders on the road make us all safer, because drivers become more attuned to cyclists and drive more carefully. However, we are not advocating that cycle helmet wearing is made mandatory. There is no evidence to suggest that encouraging or recommending that cyclists should wear a helmet has a detrimental effect on cycling levels. Furthermore the reduction in cycling in Victoria Australia, following the mandating of cycle helmets, was found to be only a temporary effect and cycling levels recovered as helmet wearing became the norm.
It is not clear, amongst a number of potential barriers that people may say deter them from cycling, what priority having to wear a cycle helmet takes.
Countries with the highest levels of cycling, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, record the lowest levels of helmet use in the world and low numbers of cycle casualties per mile travelled. However, the improved safety records in the most cycling-friendly countries are greatly attributed to a network of well-connected and high-quality dedicated infrastructure, public awareness and understanding of cycling, and a culture where most people cycle regularly rather than being in any way attributable to levels of helmet use.
Individuals should be free to make their own decisions about whether or not to wear helmets, with parents making these decisions in the case of younger children. Their decisions should be informed by the arguments for and against the use of cycle helmets. As a Safer Roads Partnership we have reviewed the evidence available and concluded that we shall continue to promote the use of cycle helmets by all cyclists. However, this decision remains one of personal choice for the cyclist and we respect that.
We’d prefer that cyclists didn’t come off their bike as a result of a collision with another vehicle. That’s why we support our partners, the local authorities, in their efforts to provide more cycling infrastructure, maintain the highway network and make improvements to the overall road environment for cyclists. But we should acknowledge that such facilities won’t prevent all types of incidents involving a cyclist. Many riders are injured in single vehicle collisions, where no other vehicles are involved, and wearing a cycle helmet could prevent head injuries in some of these situations. The results from Czech Republic research indicated that helmets could have helped most in cases of single-vehicle crashes when cyclists fell off their bicycles or hit obstacles. Altogether 44 (37%) of the cyclists killed in collisions which formed part of the study, could have survived if they had been wearing helmets during the crashes.
As a Partnership we heavily promote messages to drivers to look out for other road users, to slow down and give cyclists plenty of room when they pass. We work with the Police, supporting their “Safe Pass” enforcement operations where plain clothes police officers cycle along key routes and identify drivers of vehicles passing too closely, radioing ahead to officers who then stop the offending vehicles and speak to the drivers.
However, the reality is that cyclists are still involved in various types of collisions on our roads and they are often the ones most seriously injured. So our advice to cyclists is protect yourself by wearing a helmet. We hope that in time cycle numbers will increase and reach a critical mass when we start to see a decline in cycling collisions, as drivers get used to sharing the road with cyclists.
The scientific evidence clearly shows that in the event of a fall, helmets can substantially reduce head injury. A 2019 study reported in the British Medical Journal looked at cycling casualties amongst a trauma database of 10,000 people who had sustained life changing and life-threatening injuries. It concluded that cyclists who had been injured were a third less likely to have suffered a traumatic brain injury if they had been wearing a helmet at the time of the incident.
The arguments against cycle helmet wearing are based on a wider range of issues including: compulsory helmet wearing leads to a decline in cycling, risk compensation theory cancels out any health gains, scientific studies are defective and the overall road environment needs to be improved.
It is also suggested that wearing a helmet changes how drivers perceive the cyclist. A 2006 University of Bath study showed that drivers, when overtaking cyclists, gave helmeted cyclists significantly less space than they gave cyclists who don't wear head protection. The study found that drivers were twice as likely to pass closely to a helmeted cyclist, and that drivers passed an average of 8.5 cm (3 1/3 inches) closer when the researcher was helmeted than when he was not. Not only does this increase the chance of being clipped by a vehicle, it leaves cyclists with far less manoeuvring room to avoid other potentially injurious road hazards like potholes and icy patches. It was suggested that the reasons for the differences was that drivers felt that helmeted cyclists were more experienced and less likely to do something unexpected. In reality, there is no real reason to believe someone with a helmet is any more experienced than someone without. Furthermore, since this study was conducted 15 years ago, cycle helmet wearing has become more prevalent in the intervening period, so the argument may have less credence.
The design of the helmets themselves may increase the chance of some types of injuries when incidents do occur. Three separate studies have shown that bike helmets may increase the probability of certain types of neck injuries. Studies from several countries published in the period 1987–1998, were reviewed and overall indicated a statistically significant protective effect of helmets. Whilst the studies provided neck injury results that were unfavourable to helmets, this result may not be applicable to the lighter helmets currently in use today.
Wearing a helmet may create a false sense of security and induce risk-taking that cyclists without head protection might not make. A study by the University of Bath found those wearing helmets may take risks that they wouldn't otherwise take without head protection.
Insisting that cyclists wear a helmet adds an extra barrier to cycling. When helmet use became mandatory in New Zealand, for example, the number of bike trips fell.
Available evidence suggests that more riders on the road make us all safer, because drivers become more attuned to cyclists and drive more carefully. However, we are not advocating that cycle helmet wearing is made mandatory. There is no evidence to suggest that encouraging or recommending that cyclists should wear a helmet has a detrimental effect on cycling levels. Furthermore the reduction in cycling in Victoria Australia, following the mandating of cycle helmets, was found to be only a temporary effect and cycling levels recovered as helmet wearing became the norm.
It is not clear, amongst a number of potential barriers that people may say deter them from cycling, what priority having to wear a cycle helmet takes.
Countries with the highest levels of cycling, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, record the lowest levels of helmet use in the world and low numbers of cycle casualties per mile travelled. However, the improved safety records in the most cycling-friendly countries are greatly attributed to a network of well-connected and high-quality dedicated infrastructure, public awareness and understanding of cycling, and a culture where most people cycle regularly rather than being in any way attributable to levels of helmet use.
Individuals should be free to make their own decisions about whether or not to wear helmets, with parents making these decisions in the case of younger children. Their decisions should be informed by the arguments for and against the use of cycle helmets. As a Safer Roads Partnership we have reviewed the evidence available and concluded that we shall continue to promote the use of cycle helmets by all cyclists. However, this decision remains one of personal choice for the cyclist and we respect that.
