Bicycle Helmet Compulsion

Whatever internet libertarians think, car use has externalities, and bicycle use doesn’t. So it is a reasonable goal of Government to facilitate cycling especially for short journeys. Standing in the way of more people jumping on their bikes for short journeys (anything less than a mile, is usually quicker by bicycle than by car…), is the vexed issue of safety. The superficially obvious sticking plaster solution so beloved of nanny-stater is to ignore the crap road design and poor infrastructure for cyclists; turn a blind-eye to appalling motorist behaviour and attitudes and compel cyclists to wear helmets and high-visibility clothing, as if that would make a difference.

The evidence is clear. In New Zealand and Australia, compelling people to use cycle helmets did decrease cycling related head injuries, by about the same amount they reduced total cycling miles. So given positive externalities of substituting bicycle journeys for car journeys, society is poorer. Individuals are poorer too, since the evidence is clear that (for adults at least) cycling, even without a helmet, saves more people from heart disease than it kills under the wheels of motor-vehicles. Given there is some “safety in numbers” for cyclists, reducing the number of cyclists makes any given journey more dangerous for the cyclists that remain.

Even the motorist is worse off if there are fewer cyclists:  if short car journeys are substituted with Bicycle journeys: There’s less congestion, especially around school run time, There’s less competition for parking spaces, and given most congestion is in the queue at the lights, journey times fall.

The solution is to make the bicycle safe, and that means separating it from all but the slowest moving traffic, and where volumes of pedestrians and/or cyclists are high enough, cyclists should be separated from pedestrian traffic too. Unfortunately most infrastructure in the UK is tailor-made to create conflict. Most roads are too narrow for cars to pass cyclists safely, so frustrating (apparent – waiting behind a cyclist on an open road almost never delays a journey, you just catch up with the car in front a little later) delays are caused by cyclists on open roads, or the motorist is tempted into a dangerous and uncomfortable close passes. Most “cycle paths” are shared-use, and pedestrians do not often keep to “their” side of the path, leading to frustration and (apparent – cyclists whizzing past pedestrians are no-where near as dangerous as it appears to the pedestrian) danger.

Many idiots think cyclists are a significant danger to pedestrians. “One nearly knocked me over…” This is risible tospottery spouted mainly by the kind of contemptible wanker who thinks UKIP isn’t a bunch of contemptible wankers.

The key is to get more people cycling, creating a virtuous circle where cycling infrastructure generates cyclists. This encourages councils to build more, which encourages more cyclists and so on. Everyone gets used to having cyclists about. Everyone is better off. There’s less noise, congestion, stress, and people are healthier and better-looking. Forget gastric bands, prescribe cycling on the NHS for being a disgusting land-whale.

What helmet laws do, however, is put out the message that cycling is DANGEROUS. Parents don’t let their kids do something that’s so dangerous the Government has made protective equipment mandatory. Instead, kids are cocooned in a steel cage, until they get their own at 17. Secondly by criminalising occasional cyclists who just want to pop to the shops and don’t have a cycle helmet, they never get on their bikes and so jump on the car. It also discourages short, urban journeys.

The reality is simple. Plastic hats aren’t much cop in a serious collision. In any given crash, a Bicycle helmet helps in around 16% of cases (more in children, who have more low-speed, sideways tumbles, for which the design of cycle helmets is optimised. Because of the very specific tests helmets are subjet to, their benefit is greater at low speeds, and especially off road. But there is a flip-side: it is probable that bicycle helmets increase the likelihood of getting into a crash – both the motorist and cyclist engage in risk-compensating behaviour. Cyclists take more risks and go faster, motorists pass closer to helmeted cyclists. Even the fact that the helmets are bulky increases the risk of a collision.

The more upright the bike, the less you need a helmet. The sportier and faster your bike, and the rougher the terrain, the more you need a helmet. Think about what happens in a front wheel skid at speed at the bottom of a hill on a “dutch bike” with a basket, compared to a racing bicycle where the rider’s weight is significantly borne by the hands. The latter ends up with the cyclist falling head first. The former lands on their feet.

Most of the assertions and statistics made in this post are peer reviewed, and can be found here.

In summary, There is little benefit to helmet use in urban utility cycling. In a collision with a motor-vehicle, a helmet is next-to-useless. In a crash not involving a motor vehicle helmets sometimes help. If you’re likely to have the former, helmets don’t matter, and the latter they might. It really should be up to the cyclist.

Helmets may help prevent injury, especially minor injury, in any given crash, but may, in some circumstances make serious crashes with motor vehicles (where helmets are not efficacious) more likely. The main effect of bicycle helmet compulsion, is fewer cyclists, an effect which dwarfs any other safety effect of such legislation. Encourage the use of cycle helmets, at least until the UK cycle infrastructure looks like the Netherlands’, by all means, but don’t pass a law making it compulsory. To compel helmet use is the single biggest thing a government can do to put back the cause of utility cycling.

If you want a take home you can tweet, here it is: If your bum is higher than your hands, wear a helmet, it might help in some crashes, but helmet law mainly reduces the number of cyclists.

11 replies
  1. Luke
    Luke says:

    The idea that someone would voluntarily do something dangerous enough to necessitate the wearing of a helmet without (a) being paid for it or (b) having the chance to show off to girls/boys is odd. For racing drivers, it makes sense on both counts. For middle aged solicitors going to work, less so.

    I do ride a bike, generally helmet less, but that's cos I don't think it's dangerous. Things that require a helmet (facing Mitchell Johnson, T de F, rock climbing) are things I do not do. I have ridden on the back of a scooter in Italy, but that comes under (b) above, as I didn't want to look chicken to the scooter's attractive owner. (Didn't work.)

    My laboured point – if you think non -sporting cycling is dangerous enough to need a helmet, then make it safer, or don't do it. (I have complete respect for those who say they don't cycle because of the danger.)

  2. Dick Puddlecote
    Dick Puddlecote says:

    Agree with all of that (almost) and I find it significant that the most vociferous (and correct on overall benefit and freedom grounds) in opposition to helmet laws are cyclists themselves. As you say, wherever it has been attempted or trialled it has failed. As a general rule, by the way, if Australia has attempted anything it's worth any other country doing the opposite as a rule of thumb.

    I do have to disagree with this, though.

    "cyclists whizzing past pedestrians are no-where near as dangerous as it appears to the pedestrian"

    There have been deaths to pedestrians recorded and cyclists can be as ignorant and self-installed 'entitled' as drivers are towards cyclists. I was walloped by a cyclist on the way to an even at UCL last year who must have been travelling at around 25mph or faster. Yes, it was my fault for wandering into a cycle lane which I didn't know was there, but the same could be said of cyclists exercising terrible judgement when negotiating motor vehicles where they might not be seen. His speed was totally inappropriate for the road (or cycle path) conditions.

    I'm a transport business owner but fully supportive of cycling being promoted for the very beneficial reasons you mention, but cyclists speeding along city streets really do pack a nasty punch, believe me.

  3. Malcolm Bracken
    Malcolm Bracken says:

    Dick,decently put. There are inconsiderate cyclists, but the number of cyclist kill pedestrian incidents (or even seriously injure) are very, very rare. I agree aggressive cycling around pedestrians is dangerous, and unpleasant for the pedestrians and should be discouraged. But I get accused of "whizzing past" and "nearly knocking someone over" when I'm pootling along, because some people are viciously prejudiced against cyclists. The main reason I wear a helmet camera is to defend myself against false allegations.

    Cyclists kill maybe one or two people a year. Motorists kill that number a day. Even pedestrians kill occasionally by knocking people over.

  4. NickM
    NickM says:

    Bikes do have externalities. I live in Disley, Cheshire and have on two occassions almost been decked by "Our Paralympian Hero" Barney Storey doing something between the speed of sound and that of light.

  5. bloke in spain
    bloke in spain says:

    Cyclists to produce externalities.
    If I'm riding my bike through narrow city streets cars cannot pass. Because it's a folder, the fastest I can manage is around 20kph & on up-inclines a lot less. So my speed limits the speed of the following traffic.
    So I make a point of frequently removing myself as an obstacle by waiting between parked cars etc.
    That's called being considerate of other road users. A trait shared by regrettably few cyclists.
    However, amen to the helmet thing. As well as cyclist & car driver I'm also a moto user. My scoot's mechanically limited to 45kph & would struggle to make that. So I have difficulty keeping up with the more energetic of the lycra cowboys. I do, however, have far superior brakes. Quite why I'm obliged to wear the same headgear as a 200kph capable biker is beyond me.

  6. Malcolm Bracken
    Malcolm Bracken says:

    There's very little evidence that scooters of low power should need helmets either. Personally, I can even see the appeal of motorcycling bare-headed from time to time and I don't think it should be banned. The costs are borne mainly by the person choosing to motorcycle bare-headed.
    This, for me, is a liberty issue more than a public safety issue.

  7. bloke in spain
    bloke in spain says:

    "There's very little evidence that scooters of low power should need helmets either."

    Curiously enough, the Spanish experience would tend to indicate the opposite. Insurance on a moto's dearer than on a proper motorbike. That reflects the high moto accident rate & Spanish law which requiring compulsory personal injury cover integral with the vehicle insurance.
    Why the high accident rate? Likely because the typical moto rider's much the same as the typical push-bike cyclist. Not a lot of road sense.

  8. Malcolm Bracken
    Malcolm Bracken says:

    The idea that a typical cyclist doesn't have road sense is risible. Sorry. They may not do what non-cyclists WANT them to, but there you go. That comment is just an indication of the arrogant entitlement of the the motorist who assumes his preferences (even if he gets on a bike from time to time) are the norm.
    Typical moto riders are young. As they get money, they move up to cars, and judging by spanish cars (almost all dented) I wouldn't vouch for the road sense of spanish motorists much either.

  9. bloke in spain
    bloke in spain says:

    Remember, Jackart, I'm a cyclist, moto user, car driver, even biker on occasion. I'm taking no sides.

    And it's not solely to do with age of moto riders. If it was, there'd be more of a differential in insurance premiums between young & older riders. It's similar to that of cars. And moving from a 49cc speed limited moto to a 125cc bike sees a reduction in premiums for all insured.
    It's just a reflection, the sort of person rides a moto is the sort of person rides a moto. Same sort of person rides a push-bike in Amsterdam. Same reasons.
    As for Spanish drivers…. don't trust 'em with any vehicle doesn't have a leg at each corner.


Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *