The Why? Movement
Contact us through Facebook, Twitter, or Email
  • About
    • Board
    • Code of Ethics
    • Community Partners
    • Frequently-Asked Questions
  • Calendar
    • Past Events
  • Programs and Services
  • Blogs
    • Question It!
    • "Why don't we...?"
    • Why? Questions in the News
  • Support The Why? Movement
    • Donate
    • Official Merchandise >
      • Society6 Store
      • Zazzle Store
    • Official Membership

Why is it so hard to prove that helmets make cycling safer?

11/3/2014

0 Comments

 

Originally posted in The Mirror by Marie Le Conte

The debate has been going since forever, so why can't people agree on whether helmets actually make cycling safer? Is there no simple answer?
Picture
The helmet debate was raging again on Twitter this morning as Olympic medallist Chris Boardman chose not to wear one while discussing cycling safety on BBC Breakfast.

The question has been raised times and times again, but what do we actually know on the subject? Is there really an easy answer?

Surely, wearing a helmet should protect your head?

Talking about country-wide helmet policies and the personal effects of wearing one (or not) will get you very different replies - let’s have a look at the former first.
Picture
(data from Oliver et al, UNSW, via The Urbanist)

Australia was the first country to make cycling helmets mandatory in 1990, with the law coming into effect a year later in certain parts of the country. While head injuries in New South Wales did go down to an extent in the 15 years following the changes, the benefits were hardly revolutionary. It is also worth noting that the introduction of increased cycling infrastructure from 2006 have had a more consistent positive influence from 2006 to 2010.

On the other hand, the Netherlands, which has no policy on helmets, and has the lowest non-fatal and fatal cycling injury rate in the world, keeps reducing its number of cycling-related injuries with no distinct change in policy.

This does seem to prove that a strong helmet policy may not have the effect on cycling safety one could hope for, but there are other aspects to consider.

Wearing a helmet might change cyclists' behaviour

Though several studies have found that people who wear helmets are less likely get injured while cycling, this may say more about those people and their behaviour, rather than whether or not they’re wearing helmets.

There is also the element of “risk compensation”, which suggests that people may be less careful on the road when actually wearing helmets. Sadly, these are all things which are arguably hard to effectively study. So once again, different bits of research have come to two very different conclusions.

What can be proven, though, is that there is safety in numbers - the more people cycle, the safer they tend to be. In 2006, 27% of all trips in the Netherlands were made by bicycle, as opposed to 1% in Australia and the UK.


Picture
Interestingly, the gender divide of cyclists is also quite striking: women only made 21% and 29% of all bicycle trips in Australia and the UK between 2000 and 2005, but represented 55% of all trips in the Netherlands (source).
Picture
…And this is where it gets more complicated

An article in the New York Times looked at different bike sharing schemes in cities around the world, and how helmet policies seemed to influence their popularity. It found that in Melbourne, Australia, where helmets are compulsory, bikes were only used for around 250 rides a day in 2012, even though the city is flat, therefore ideal for cycling. In Dublin, the figures were much higher - the scheme was still young in 2012, but it could count over 5,000 daily rides, regardless of how hilly and cobbled the city is.

So here’s the Catch 22

On a personal level, helmets may help reduce the risk of serious head injuries (at least to an extent), but widespread compulsory helmet policy may just reduce the number of cyclists in any given city, which, at the end of the day, would make cycling more dangerous.

One last thing!

No matter where you stand on the helmet issue, it would be impossible to deny the positive effects that cycling can have on a population’s health, and on the environment.

So hey, go on: on yer bike!


Supplementary poll question from The Why? Movement
(Please explain your reasoning in a comment)


0 Comments
    Important Note:
    The Why? Movement does not endorse the opinions expressed in this blog's republished articles and op-eds; it merely endorses the asking of the questions these articles' and op-eds' titles pose.

    The Why? Movement encourages readers to form and comment with their own answers to "why?" questions, especially when writers proffer answers to the questions they've posed in their articles' or op-eds' titles.

    Sources for Articles:
    • Google News Feed
    • Twitter News Search
    Recent Articles:
    • Why can't we vote on our smartphones?
    • Why do voters believe lies?
    • Why Isn't the Improving Economy Helping Democrats?
    • Why are Rap lyrics being used as evidence in court?
    • Why is the Republican Governor of Alaska keeping sexual assault scandal records secret?
    • Why is it so hard to prove that helmets make cycling safe?
    • Why do so many public schools still lock students with disabilities into seclusion?

    Archives:

    November 2014
    October 2014

    Categories:

    All
    Alaska
    Bicycling
    Culture
    Democratic Party
    Economy
    Education
    Elections
    Freedom Of Speech
    Hip-Hop
    Humanitarianism
    Justice
    Midterms
    Music
    Police
    Politics
    Polls
    Psychology
    Public Schools
    Racism
    Republican Party
    Safety
    Scandal
    Sexual Assault
    Students With Disabilities
    Technology
    Transparancy
    United Nations
    Voting

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly