That’s right, folks. I just looked into this after asking a friend of mine why he cycles without a helmet.
The site http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ provides a well-written and referenced account on the topic. Here’s an excerpt (references suppressed) from the FAQ summary.
“There have been many predictions that cycle helmets are effective in reducing serious injuries. Most of these predictions come from case-control studies, which are based on small research populations and have been criticised for methodological limitations.
On the other hand, large population data, from sources such as traffic casualty statistics and hospital treatment records, do not support these predictions. These sources show no improvement in serious injury trends as helmet use has become more common. Indeed, sometimes they suggest that the number or severity of injuries has increased…
In Australia, helmet laws caused head injuries to fall by 11% to 21%. But cycle use fell by 30% to 60%, suggesting that those who continued to cycle were more at risk. In New Zealand, large increases in helmet use have not brought any reduction in the proportion of serious head injuries. Some reduction in mild concussions and lacerations has been balanced by an increase in neck injuries. An analysis of enforced helmet laws in Australia, New Zealand and Canada has found no clear evidence of benefit and increased risks for cyclists post-legislation.”
No joke.
a study in the UK showed that motorists tended to give a cyclist who wore helmets LESS road space than a cyclist not wearing a helmet
My personal experience is that it has saved the life of a friend when he was hit by a truck wing mirror, and me from at least a concussion when I rear ended a car.
I don't think they should be compulsory but would still wear one for most of the routes I ride. When riding at low speeds (with correspondingly low-speed motorized traffic) or on bike paths the helmet would be left at home.
Fatalities per bn-km cycled is a terrible measure for this purpose.
1) It's based on distance cycled, which is a wild estimate (probably small self-reporting surveys extrapolated to entire populations).
2) It's based on *numerous* estimates of distanced cycled, which are incomparable with each other.
3) Correlation doesn't equal causation.
I'm open to reassessing the benefit of helmets, but this is not evidence of anything.
I know from personal experience,riding to and from work each day,that cars and other vehicles
give me a much wider berth when I'm not wearing my helmet.
I like this post in the San Francisco Bay Guardian
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2010/05/13/should-bicycling-adults-wear-helmets
I found the helmet to be very useful in keeping my hair from obstructing my view in windy conditions.
But as long as it's the law—whether or not the law makes sense—I will wear it so that motorists won't have another weapon in their arsenal of Weak Excuses to Be Rude to Cyclists to use against me on internet forums.
There's a bunch of stuff about this on the 'Helmets' page of this website (under 'The Rules') http://cyclingauckland.co.nz/rules/helmets/
Also, interestingly the safest form of travel per kilometer is space flight – even though around 30 of the 500 odd people that have gone into space have died! Statistics can be very misleading but what we do know is that there is safety in numbers – the more people that cycle, the safer it is for everyone and countries with compulsory helmet laws have the lowest numbers of cyclists.
This is also interesting – http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/05/fewer-swedish-kids-cycling.html
I most ride on a rural state highway, with traffic around 100 km/h. It would be a foolish person that thinks a helmet would help me in an encounter with a vehicle at that speed. I'd be better off with a good beanie in winter and a sunhat in summer, but wear a helmet to keep up appearances and because of that silly law.
I think the general feeling is that people would like to wear helmets to match conditions. Eg no need for helmets in the park/beach
If the law gets repealed, it doesn't mean that you can't wear helmets anymore!
David Haywood covered this very well on his first slot as RadioNZ's Nine to Noon's new science commentator: http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn-20100616-1148-Science_-_David_Haywood-048.mp3 – the best media coverage (OK.. only coverage) on the issue I've seen so far.
Not wearing a helmet is just bizarre. Even the most casual observer at the injury tent for the Round Taupo ride would see the worth. My handlebars broke in two once depositing me on the rear of a parked car. My knee obliterated the indicator/brake light and my head encased in a helmet smashed the rear window. All that happened to me was that I was a bit dazed! Thank God, and Parliament for the helmet law!
@Neil: Not to say that helmets are a bad idea all of the time because there is a difference between racing and commuting—not unlike rally car drivers and people driving themselves to work
I definitely *feel* safer with one on. But by the exact same token I feel more alive with it off.
For those who think you dont need to wear a bike helmet would you like to call round and see the state of mine after I had a fall on Great North Road in June. I was concussed three ribs broken cracked pelvic bone and no doubt about it, no helmet would have been no me as well. Plus four days at Auckland Hospital and no memory about what actually happened. Just wear one – dont even think about going for a ride without a helmet.
@ Michael – unfortunately it doesn't work like that, people do think and what they think when they see everyone wearing helmets is that cycling is dangerous (which it isn't compared to a lot of other things we do) and that it's dorky (no one wants to be part of that club!). I'm sure your helmet is a mess after your crash and you were probably glad to be wearing it but the fact is that since the helmet law was introduced, the number of head injuries has gone up, not down, and the number of people cycling has gone down. This is not good. The best improvement in safety for cyclists is achieved through more people cycling. The helmet law keeps cycling numbers low and is therefore damaging to cycling in general BUT as Su YIn mentioned above, if the law was repealed, it does not mean you can't wear a helmet, it just means that you wouldn't feel like a criminal if you were dawdling along a cycle path on a Sunday afternoon without your helmet on.
In the complex board game that is Auckland's urban wasteland, the helmet issue is a bigger piece of the puzzle than it might first appear. We can trivialize the issue as revolving around vanity, but for whatever the reason, it is a matter of fact that the introduction of this law in a number of countries has been accompanied by a major drop in cycling. Frequently a major drop in injuries, (in australia's case, I believe around 30%) but this is entirely accounted by the parallel, disastrous drop in cycling – in every country the law is enforced.
And that drop is cycling has made cycling in itself more dangerous. Intuitively I have wanted to believe that a helmet makes me safer – and surely in some situations it does – but looking at the big picture – I now realize I'm actually much more at risk than I was before the law came in.
Defenders of the current law are assuming that reformists are arguing that all cyclists shouldn't wear helmets, anywhere, as of now. I don't know anyone who is suggesting that.
We're in a transitional period – cycling is on the increase in spite of the helmet law, and this is a great international trend. At this point I would still want to wear a helmet in some situations – but certainly not all the time. As much as possible I would prefer be seen as a human on a bicycle, not a "cyclist".
Australian Sue Abbott, who was famously fined AUS$2000 for not wearing a helmet, was told by the cop who booked her that he gave up cycling when the helmet law came in. Closer to home, I struggled to get my 13 year old daughter to cycle anywhere in this country, but while she's currently in Germany she happily cycles 40 minutes a day, safely, along with millions of other cycling commuters – without helmets.
The current law was ushered in with the best of intentions – it certainly made sense to me at the time – but it doesn't stand up to the big picture perspective, one that takes in both the statistics of our local implementation, and the reality of healthy, vibrant cities with a normalized cycling culture. In the meantime our aspirations for the same will be best served by an urgent, high profile campaign to reform the law so that cyclists and parents can use good judgment, and inspire more citizens to cycle, without becoming criminals.
There is nowhere in the world where bicycles are a prevalent mode of everyday transport, that the wearing of helmets is either compulsory or practiced by anything more than a small minority of cyclists.
Extrapolating from this 'inconvenient truth', it must be concluded that the helmet law is a MAJOR impediment which is dissuading the vast majority of New Zealanders from taking what is arguably the most health-enhancing activity that could/should be an integral part of our everyday lives.
http://sites.google.com/site/urbanbicycles/helmets
An important point to note would be that the inclusion of more cycle-dedicated lanes in the city is far better than an open road for a cyclist to ride on.
An example is the city of Berlin. Throughout swathes of streets in the city, part of the footpaths (and not roads) are designed for the cyclist. The only difference between the footpath and the lane for the example may be a change in the ground pavers that show clearly what belongs to whom.
The bicycle is important in Berlin and should a pedestrian stray into the lane of an oncoming cyclist, the shrill bicycle bell alerts them to go back onto the footpath.
As such, many many cyclist (if not sports cyclists) opt to ride without a helmet. The fact that they are not targets for cars and that so much of the city is dedicated to their passage, the use of a helmet is an optional extra which in the event of a fall would be a help and not a hindrance but in Auckland's case is merely a means of discouraging potential cyclists.
I really do tire of those who think their or friends/relative's anecdotes are a basis for continuing to criminalise cyclists who choose not to wear helmets.
By the same token, because last summer was a bit cooler, global warming is a myth.
Fact: My mum would be dead had she been wearing a seatbelt in the 70's when her Mk II Cortina was hit driver-side on by a truck. Evidence enough not to use a seatbelt, eh?
Anecdote is completely worthless in the context of decades of worldwide research into the effectiveness of helmets. Possum Borne died in a car crash when he wasn't wearing a helmet, yet survived many crashes whilst wearing one. So everyone touting a helmet-breaking anecdote, please begin by wearing one when you travel in a car. Then I'll maybe take your points as valid.
Until then, all your anecdote does is stop people using bikes for everyday tasks as a natural, normal, and above all safe means of transport. Yes, your anecdote is the enemy. It does do harm, by undermining the concept of cycling as safe. It must be countered at every utterance.
Mike
Yes – all motorists should be required to wear helmets
I was hit by a car on Symonds St two months ago. Dude pulled out across four lanes, turning right. I switched from the left northbound lane to the right, so as not to rear end him. Had a moment sitting just behind him thinking it was a near miss before he decided to u-turn back to where he came from, without looking or indicating.
My helmetless head dented his boot as I rolled over it, then slammed into the ground. I walked away with superficial facial grazing. No concussion, no head injury.
I suffered worse injuries to my knees and shoulder.
Anecdotal evidence about being in a serious accident and being 'saved' by your helmet is misleading, because we have no way of knowing whether the helmet made any notable difference. The human skull can be surprisingly resilent.
If your helmet is visibly cracked or shattered, rather than merely compressed, it has exceeded its design parameters, failed, and transferred all the excess force to your head.
i hate to say it but i will……. all those cyclists recently killed were probably all wearing helmets. Their helmets gave them no protection whatsoever.
On the cycle path today I wore my sunhat. The threat of cancer worries me more. I can control that but I can't control a speeding driver running me over.