Helmets - Wear One If You Want
As most of you will know, the Department for Transport is running a campaign to get teenage boys to wear cycle helmets, a campaign which is counterproductive and doomed to failure. The graphic images of x-rayed heads and helmets are likely to discourage teenagers, and if they don't, they will certainly make sure that the parents won't allow them out on a bike, with or without a helmet.
Why is the DfT taking this action? It appears to be in response to a DfT review of the research about cycle helmets, which was supposed to be independent and unbiased, but has been widely criticised for being neither. Amongst hundreds of research papers, they just happened to pick the same sixteen, small-scale, hospital based papers that the Australian government used to justify their imposition of mandatory helmets, and they didn't look at any of the whole-population research which showed no benefit whatsoever. The DfT have said that they intend to bring in a helmet law when a sufficient proportion of cyclists are wearing them, and this campaign would appear to be a push to increase that level, so that they can justify a law.
The argument is frequently misrepresented by the pro-helmet lobby as being between pro- and anti- helmet factions, but this is not true; the dispute is between pro- and anti- helmet laws.
The only effect of helmet laws has been to depress the levels of cycling, a fact recognised by the BMA, which is against such laws because they would have an overall negative effect on the nation's health. In countries where helmets are mandatory, the level of cycling has fallen more than the reduction in cyclist deaths and injuries, so the risk has increased. In those same countries, there has been a similar fall in deaths and injuries to pedestrians, and they aren't wearing helmets, so any fall in the risk to vulnerable road users isn't due to helmets. If helmets were even marginally effective, why don't the whole population figures show it?
The pro-law lobby is not noted for their veracity, and they still quote research which has been utterly discredited; from the BHIT (British Helmet Initiative Trust) website “Properly worn bicycle helmets have been shown to reduce the risk of head injury by 85% and the risk of brain injury by almost 90%, and are effective in all forms of crashes including those involving a motor vehicle.” And nonsensical misleading statements as “Accidents are a major cause of death and disability affecting young people. Eight out of ten children in this country ride bicycles.” The American pro-helmet zealots are no less untruthful; BHSI (Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute) “Bicycle helmets have been shown to reduce the risk of head injury by as much as 85 percent and the risk of brain injury by as much as 88 percent. Bicycle helmets have also been shown to offer substantial protection to the forehead and mid face.” Both of these quotes refer to a report by Rivara and Thompson, which has been torn to shreds when peer-reviewed, and compared kids cycling around parks wearing helmets with their parents, with unhelmeted kids riding in city streets. If cycle helmets are so effective, why do they need to lie about them?
The tragic case of Kivilev, killed when he fell off during a road race, is often quoted as showing that helmets should be made mandatory, but what is never mentioned is the professional cyclists killed whilst wearing a helmet. On March 15th, only four days after Kivilev, Garrett Paul Lemire, 22, crashed and died during Saturday's (March 15) Tucson Bicycle Classic; he was wearing a helmet. Japanese rider Haruko Fujinawa died after a crashing while practising for the first round of the NORBA series, the US's premier MTB race series: he was wearing a helmet. Joe Hailey last year and world class US women's pro, Nicole Reinhart in 2000: they were wearing helmets. Did you read about any of them in the papers?
There is a wave of pro-helmet publicity happening at the moment, and while I try not to be a conspiracy theorist, I can't help noticing that the reports are not balanced, they are happy to quote people like BHIT, but it has proved impossible to get contrary views published. All this publicity is convincing the non-cycling public that cycling must be dangerous, otherwise you wouldn't need a helmet would you? The fact is that the benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers by at least twenty-to-one, and regular cyclists live longer. Surely, if cycling were dangerous, those most exposed to it, the regular cyclists, would have a shorter life expectation, not longer?
If helmets worked, I would be the first to support their use, but when they demonstrably don't, and their only effect is to depress levels of cycling, then any law making them mandatory must be opposed, as must misleading, inaccurate publicity.
The choice of whether to wear a helmet is an individual one: if you want to wear a helmet because you feel safer, then do so, but don't tell me that I have to do so.
It is worth checking out the arguments on the web:
BHIT- http://www.bhit.org/
John Franklin page- http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/helmets/helmets.html
By Farcycle
