Weekend musing: The bicycle helmet rears its ugly head

Under our World City Bike program we have for several years now been looking at the yes/no sudden-death helmet issue in the context of public bike projects .  If you click here you will find several postings that try to report in a balanced manner (to the extent possible) on the issues, trade-offs and implications of creating legal requirements that force all cyclists to use helmets. An absolutely well-intentioned position which has turned out to be no less than the cold hand of death strangling nascent public bicycle projects in various projects around the world. Pity to spend all that public money on a nice bike sharing system and then find that they are not being widely used. In the event, here are a handful of short videos from YouTube that take a pretty good whack at it from several perspectives. Have a look and decide for yourself.


Helmets save lives

Helmet freedom:

Ask the Dutch (and don’t miss this one.)

Professor Chris Rissel talks helmets

He’s back. (After a long absence A. Hitler comments on helmets and PBS in Oz)

There are more out there of course and I am sure that some of our readers will add to what you find here. But you probably have other claims on your time this weekend, so we thought that one handful was enough to get this started.

# # #

You may also find some value in our 2008 working paper on this topic which is available here – https://networkdispatches.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/wp3-helmets.pdf. FOr those in a hurry, here are the main lines of the argument behind the working paper.

Working Paper #3

Should Vancouver require helmets for planned new city bike system

A group brainstorm from World City Bikes


Eric Britton & Associates
The World City Bike collaborative 

Dossier Contents
1. Conclusion and Recommendation 2
2. Summary Background 3
3. Some useful reading and references: 4
4. British Columbia Bicycle Helmet Law 5
5. Discussions, recommendations from World City Bike Forum 7

1. Conclusion and Recommendation

1. No. The British Columbia Bicycle Helmet Law (attached) should be amended to provide exemptions for users of the new public bicycle service.

2. If this exception is not made, it is our professional view that the present project as a city-wide PBS implementation will not meet its ambitious objectives that would put it on a par with the best city bike projects in the world, and thus should not be advanced beyond the present pre-study stage.

3. If the law is not amended however, there still are good possibilities for a much smaller, less intensely used shared bike project or demonstration, but at a lower level of ambition than that presently being discussed as a showplace project for Vancouver during the 2010 Winter Olympics. And despite its greatly reduced ambition level such a reduced scale project would, if carefully planned, be useful for the city in its long term program to scale back private car use in the center.

4. Far more important than mandating helmets when t comes to public safety is the matter of securing the conditions of safe cycling in your city. This is a sine quo non for any city bike project, and the means for doing so are well known to bicycle and traffic planners in many places, including in Vancouver. Getting the supporting infrastructure right is the real bottom line for your city, both in terms of ensuring safety and to guarantee the chances for the success of the project.

Eric Britton
Managing Director, EcoPlan International

2. Summary Background

Basically there are two issues here. They need to be sorted out one at a time. First, the more general issue: should cyclists be obliged by law to wear helmets? Second: should “city cyclists (i..e, mainly those who are using the new PBS systems, but also anyone else on a bike in a central area that has made provision for safe cycling) be required to wear helmets.

During the last decade of the last century a slowly growing number of cities and public authorities around the world started to build and expand leisure cycling paths and trails. The greater part of these new facilities were built in areas that did not have a strong bicycling culture and where for many reasons few people actually used bicycles for daily transportation (and those who did often found themselves in high risk situations with mixed traffic the norm).

These expanded leisure facilities naturally brought in more cyclists, with the result that there were more accidents, and these often became news items. As a result in a number of places in North America, Australia/New Zealand and northern Europe well-meant laws were passed mandating helmets for all cyclists. (It being, by the way, a lot cheaper to pass such a law than to make the public investment necessary to ensure safe cycling for all in and around d the city.)

The case for wearing helmets was largely approved by medical authorities and a number of cycling organizations at the time, on the grounds that a good helmet offers protection from certain types of accidents. If all the assumptions are born out the case for these “partial assessments” looks pretty convincing. Reality however moves in other ways. Once you step outside of the partial assessment assumptions, the real world data is uncertain and ambiguous. (See attached discussions and references)

It only took a few years for other views to emerge. Among other things it was pointed out that (a) not all helmets are actually good enough to provide the needed protection; (b) more often than not they are not properly adjusted to provide this protection; and (c) in any event the clash between cyclist and motor vehicles are of such a level of violence that the helmet is rarely of much help in such cases.

More than that, some studies started to show that mandating helmets actually work to reduced cycling, a finding which is consistent with the observation whereby any additional barrier to using a transportation option works to reduce demand. This brings about corresponding losses in healthy activity, kinder and gentler cities,

Moreover, let us consider what happens in cities with heavy use of cycling for daily transport within the city limits. I offer the examples of cycling in cities across the Netherlands and Denmark, the two main cycling capitals of the world, as well as in the various city bike projects that are coming on line in places like Paris, Barcelona, Lyons and a rapidly growing number of other cities around the world. None of these cities mandate helmets, and if you go out on the street and look you will see few helmets. You will see some and this is, in my view, a wise but entirely personal choice.

3. Some useful reading and references:

• Bicycle helmet research web links – http://www.cycle-helmets.com/links.html
• Entrenchment of Helmet Laws in Australian Road Rules – http://members.tip.net.au/~psvansch/crag/natroad/
• Efficacy of Helmet Wearing For Cyclists – http://members.tip.net.au/~psvansch/crag/natroad/natrd-a.htm
• Australian Helmet Experience – http://www.helmets.org/veloaust.htm
• Advocacy should be based on Evaluation – http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/328/7444/888
• Helmets – Frequently Asked Questions – http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/hfaq.html#a0
• “The case against cycle helmets and legislation” – http://www.ctcyorkshirehumber.org.uk/campaigns/velo.htm

Organizations that advocate helmet use
• Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute: US organization promoting helmet use .
• Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust: UK-based organization campaigning for a mandatory helmet law for children

Sites critical of cycle helmets
• Cyclists Rights Action Group (Australia )
• The Vehicular Cyclist (Canada)
• Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Law in Western Australia
• Cycling Health (New Zealand)

On the next two pages you will find the text of the British Columbia Bicycle Helmet Law of 1995. It is followed by a number discussions from an international expert group including representatives of cycling associations, statisticians, experts in risk assessment, and public policy analysts. These statements by and large reinforce the main recommendations of the author above.

* For full working paper text click here.

# # #


2 thoughts on “Weekend musing: The bicycle helmet rears its ugly head

  1. no. It’s an illustration of the “Godwin Law” in internet discussion:

    “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.

    If you can’t come up with better arguments, it doesn’t make sense to invoke Hitler if your point is to actually be successful in working for change. I’m sure Victoria State and other states in Australia are going to eagerly consider these arguments when it comes to considering carving out an exception for bikesharing within helmet laws.

    I didn’t even bother opening up the original emails as I knew it’d be a worthless screed, and I favor this kind of exception from bike helmet laws.

    Richard Layman


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s