Possible Undesired Results of Helmets

Risk compensation by cyclists
Safety equipment can change behaviour under certain circumstances. This may "use up" some of the benefit or even increase the risk. Risk compensation has been formally observed amongst risk-averse child cyclists. Measured adult helmet use is highest on busy roads and at peak times. One analysis has warned: "Don't over-predict benefits. Unduly optimistic predictions will hamper injury prevention efforts in the long run".

Risk compensation by drivers
Some drivers may be less careful towards cyclists if they feel them to be protected by helmets. A cycle helmet is intended to protect in a simple fall at low speed, not in a collision with a motor vehicle. There is no known case of a UK court accepting that a cycle helmet would have reduced the severity of head injury suffered in a serious crash with a motor vehicle. Fortunately such incidents are rare.

Slower thinking
In other activities, it has been observed that helmets may slow reaction times by heating the brain. If this is true of cycle helmets, it could lead to increased risk.

Discouragement of cycling
Enforced helmet laws drive cycle use down, thereby increasing the risk for those who still cycle and negatively impacting public health. There is also evidence that child cycling levels have fallen after local helmet promotion campaigns. Insensitive helmet promotion labels cycling, incorrectly, as a dangerous activity. Some kinds of cycling do incur higher risks of head injury, such as stunt riding, mountain biking, and competition. Informed helmet use in specific activities is unlikely to deter cycle use overall. The perceived attitude that cycling is "inevitably dangerous" is a major obstacle to raising mass cycle use as daily transport. On-road cycling is a low-risk mode of travel that gets safer when it gets more popular.

Recommendations

1. Cycle helmets should not be made compulsory. It would be arbitrary to impose legislation on cyclists, who do not face clearly higher risks than pedestrians or drivers. Enforced helmet laws drive cycle use down, thereby increasing the risk per cyclist and harming public health. Enforced helmet laws have not effected material prevention of serious head injury at the population level.

2. A large increase in cycle use should have political and social priority. Increasing cycle use is one of the most effective measures to reduce the risk of death or injury per cyclist, due to the "safety in numbers" effect. It is also "probably the most effective measure" to tackle obesity and lack of physical exercise in general..

3. Helmet guidelines should be realistic. "Don't over-predict benefits. Unduly optimistic predictions will hamper injury prevention efforts in the long run".

What's your view? Email us at...
iwearahelmet@citycycling.co.uk
or
helmetwhathelmet@citycycling.co.uk