A good reason to make helmets compulsory? (source)
I know this topic has been visited on many previous occasions; it certainly seems to create strong feelings within the cycling community. For what it is worth, I will add my own voice as to why helmet use should not be made a legal requirement. Needless to say, this does not mean I am against helmet use. Generally, I think helmets should be encouraged as part of a wider campaign to improve cycling safety. But, these are the reasons why I do not support helmet use
Helmets are Limited in Their Ability to protect Cyclists. There are numerous studies about the safety potential of cycling helmets; like any set of studies, you can be selective to find statistics to support your position. But, I think it is fair to say that on balance, helmets can play a role in minimising injury for certain types of cycling injury. However, there are also many cycling accidents where helmets unfortunately cannot save lives. Helmets can help, but, they are not the pancea many make them out to be.
‘Helmets are designed to protect against injury whilst cycling at 12mph and falling onto the ground.’
Numbers Cycling. Compulsory helmet use does reduce the numbers cycling. Again, I’ve seen conflicting reports, but, the general consensus seems to be that compulsory helmet use does reduce numbers cycling. This reduction in cycling can have various health costs such as: increased risk of heart disease and obesity. This is one of the biggest problem facing society. BMJ argue against compulsory helmet use because of health benefits of cycling [link]
For example, the number of children killed cycling in the UK, averages about 1-2 a year (whether helmet use would have saved these 1-2 children is uncertain to say the least. The number of children who are obese and face creating future health problems is a rising % of the population.
CTC argues that 15% of children aged between six and 15 were obese in 2001, numbers which are expected to rise to one fifth of boys and a third of girls by 2020.
Therefore, the highest priority of society should be to try and encourage greater physical exercise amongst the young population. Yes, cycling does have risks attached; but, we have to feel that sitting in front of a computer playstation eating fast food all day also has a much bigger hidden risk.
Moral Hazard. This argument say that if people wear a helmet they feel safer and more willing to take risks. This lulls people into a fall sense of security. If cyclists feel vulnerable they will take more caution - it is this that is the best way to protect against serious injury.
Compulsory cycle helmet law discussed at BBC
4 comments ↓
as anew cyclist i do think that cycle helmets should be worn, as new to this sport i recently had a accident where a car cut me up causing me to come off the bike, if not for the helmet the injuries would have been a lot worse.
[...] Want to read more about the pros and cons of helmet laws? Check out this post: Should cycle helmets be made cumpolsory? [...]
[...] Should Cycle Helmets be Made Compulsory? [...]
I too had a car run into me, it was on a mini roundabout, ’sorry mate didn’t see you’, My bike was wrote off, I broke the windscreen with the back of my head and hit the road rolling, I’m glad I wasn’t wearing a helmet otherwise my injuries could have been much worse, I escaped without so much as a cut but plenty of bruises. A helmet could have twisted my head as I hit the road, possibly causing a broken neck and or severe brain injury. No helmet for me, thanks. A crash helmet, yes, a cycle helmet, no. [ Anecdotal evidence is no guide to the efficacy or otherwise of cycling helmets]
Leave a Comment