The Case Against Bicycle Helmets And Legislation (Abstract) The issue of bicycle helmets has been under discussion for about 20 years. Many aspects are involved - safety, health, environment, human rights, enforcement and costs. Enforced helmet laws have discouraged cycling and the health benefits of cycling are considered to outweigh the risks. With fewer cyclists due to legislation a key question is whether society benefits from such measures. Bicycle helmet legislation in Victoria, Australia, resulted in a drop of 36% in the numbers cycling in Melbourne, where 42% wore helmets before legislation. This 36% drop represents more than half of those (58%) not wearing helmets. This result of discouraging people was in sharp contrast to other measures such as seat belts, which did not discourage driving. Fatality data indicates a significant proportion of cyclists sustain serious injuries to other parts of the body than the head. For example, 63% sustained chest injuries and therefore they may not survive even if the head could be completely protected. In some cases injuries to the head are so severe that helmets are unable to prevent death. Fatality data comparing a six-year period before helmet legislation to after for both Australia and New Zealand and adjusted for the reduced cycling, shows that cyclists did not gain compared to pedestrians or other road users. A series of tests are set for helmets and legislation to see if they provide any benefit. The test for legislation indicated that in health terms, helmet laws cause far greater harm than good. There is evidence that enforced helmet laws result in a loss involving cyclist safety, the environment, public health and quality of life.
The issue of bicycle helmets has been under discussion for about 20 years. Many aspects are involved - safety, health, environment, human rights, enforcement and costs. Enforced helmet laws have discouraged cycling and the health benefits of cycling are considered to outweigh the risks. With fewer cyclists due to legislation a key question is whether society benefits from such measures.
Bicycle helmet legislation in Victoria, Australia, resulted in a drop of 36% in the numbers cycling in Melbourne, where 42% wore helmets before legislation. This 36% drop represents more than half of those (58%) not wearing helmets. This result of discouraging people was in sharp contrast to other measures such as seat belts, which did not discourage driving.
Fatality data indicates a significant proportion of cyclists sustain serious injuries to other parts of the body than the head. For example, 63% sustained chest injuries and therefore they may not survive even if the head could be completely protected. In some cases injuries to the head are so severe that helmets are unable to prevent death. Fatality data comparing a six-year period before helmet legislation to after for both Australia and New Zealand and adjusted for the reduced cycling, shows that cyclists did not gain compared to pedestrians or other road users.
A series of tests are set for helmets and legislation to see if they provide any benefit. The test for legislation indicated that in health terms, helmet laws cause far greater harm than good. There is evidence that enforced helmet laws result in a loss involving cyclist safety, the environment, public health and quality of life.
I always encourage people to wear helmets and I never ride without one but in terms of safety, good cycle paths and cycling friendly roads are probably more important.
Those stats are really interesting though. It's quite a large drop. I must say I think they have stretched things a bit in their list of disadvantages of wearing a helmet and provide no evidence for many of them.
And hello? The Case Against Bicycle Helmets and Legislation
The Holy Bible provides an early example of allowing for personal choice with David choosing not to wear either a helmet or armour when fighting Goliath. In that case Goliath's helmet failed to protect.
Words fail.
* Divine Lapidary Guidance System
Karen in Austin 'tis strange I should be old and neither wise nor valiant. From "The Maid's Tragedy" by Beaumont & Fletcher
