EDITORIAL: To Encourage Biking Officials Forgot About Helmets
IN THE FIRST study of its kind, researchers from Washington State University and elsewhere found a 14 percent greater risk of head injuries to cyclists in cities that have bike share programs. Researchers compared head injury data for cyclists in five cities before and after they added bike share programs, and found a 7.8 percent jump in the number of cyclist head injuries.
Even though research clearly shows that bike helmets prevent head injuries, no U.S. bike share programs, including Ann Arbor’s, provide helmets. Seattle — where the law mandates helmets for all cyclists will soon use vending boxes. The boxes operate much like the bike share stations themselves. Riders will swipe a credit card and take a helmet from a box then return it when they’re done. After each use, helmets will be picked up and taken to a warehouse for cleaning and inspection before they are returned to the kiosks.
Bike advocates fight mandatory helmet laws because they discourage people from getting on a bike to begin with—and one of the clear ways to reduce injuries is more cyclists on the road. However, the National Center for Statistics and Analysis of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration cites a study by the Centers for Disease Control: “Bicycle helmets are 85 to 88 percent effective in mitigating head and brain injuries in all types of bicycle accidents, making the use of helmets the single most effective countermeasure available to reduce head injuries and fatalities resulting from bicycle crashes.”
U-M is a co-sponsor of the Ann Arbor Bike Share program and if any institution understands the need to prevent head injuries before they occur, it is that one. C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital, in fact, has the Protect Ur Brain Program. It educates kids about helmet use. The program’s website explains, “Wearing a helmet is the single best way to reduce serious brain injuries.”
In Michigan, according to the 2013 bicycle crash data available from Michigan Traffic Crash Facts, 1,479 bicyclists were injured in motor vehicle accidents and 27 were killed. Of those bicyclists killed, 80 percent were not wearing helmets. Among Michigan residents, the 16-20 age group had the largest number of cyclists injured while 45-55 year-olds accounted for 51 percent of the total cycling deaths.
We believe Ann Arbor officials must implement a mandatory helmet law for the Bike Share Program for the health and safety of residents who are encouraged to use the bicycles.
With regard to Australia, here is a study
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457513000183
“There were 6745 cyclist collisions with motor vehicles where helmet use was known. Helmet use was associated with reduced risk of head injury in bicycle collisions with motor vehicles of up to 74%, and the more severe the injury considered, the greater the reduction. This was also found to be true for particular head injuries such as skull fractures, intracranial injury and open head wounds. Around one half of children and adolescents less than 19 years were not wearing a helmet, an issue that needs to be addressed in light of the demonstrated effectiveness of helmets. Non-helmeted cyclists were more likely to display risky riding behaviour, however, were less likely to cycle in risky areas; the net result of which was that they were more likely to be involved in more severe crashes.”
Here’s just one take on that study…
http://helmetfreedom.org/1921/helmets-helmet-laws-its-chalk-cheese/
There are a lot of studies, for and against. That’s the problem.
After 22 years of helmet law, the evidence is still not strong enough to support that law, the law survives on scaremongering.
And here’s an Australian professor of Health stating:
“A significant problem with mandatory helmet legislation is that it stops people from cycling. When mandatory helmet legislation was introduced in Australia in 1990 it led to a 30%–40% reduction in the number of people cycling.
The same thing happened in New Zealand in 1994 when they introduced similar legislation. A recent survey found that about one in five adults (20% of both non-regular and regular cyclists) said they would cycle more if they didn’t have to wear a helmet.
Numerous studies have identified that the health benefits of cycling (through increased physical activity) significantly outweigh the injury risk. Therefore, there is a population health cost due to helmet legislation.”
“It is worth considering that not all types of cycling are equally dangerous. Mountain biking and road racing are far riskier than recreational cycling on a bike path.
Legislation is a blunt instrument to protect people from their own behaviour. We do not make it punishable by the police to smoke tobacco, eat junk food or not wear sunscreen.
Conversely helmet legislation restrains a fundamentally healthy behaviour. It has more negative health effects than positive.” – Prof. Chris Rissel
You’re hoping for a successful bike share program?
Australia’s bike share programs are a failure, probably the worst in the world.
In Australia, the pro-helmet law supporters are either non bike riding motorists, or Lycra clad sports riders who wear helmets as part of their uniform regardless. (Dare say it’s the same the world over.)
From the CDC:
“Bicycle helmets reduce the risk of head and brain injuries in the event of a crash. All bicyclists, regardless of age, can help protect themselves by wearing properly fitted bicycle helmets every time they ride.”
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Bicycle/index.html
From a study:
“In conclusion, the evidence is clear that bicycle helmets prevent serious injury and even death. Despite this, the use of helmets is sub-optimal. Helmet use for all riders should be further encouraged to the extent that it is uniformly accepted and analogous to the use of seat belts by motor vehicle occupants.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11235796
also from the CDC….
“Every day, about ten people die from unintentional drowning. Of these, two will be children aged 14 or younger. Drowning is the sixth leading cause of unintentional injury death for people of all ages, and the second leading cause of death for children ages 1 to 14”
Mandatory Life Jacket Law for anyone entering the water?
also from the CDC….
“Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the United States. Most cases of melanoma, the deadliest kind of skin cancer, are caused by exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light.
Stay in the shade, especially during midday hours.
Use sunscreen with SPF 15 or higher and both UVA and UVB protection.”
Mandatory Sunscreen Law & Stay in the Shade Law for everyone
What I’m trying to get across is…
YES. Helmets may prevent head injuries (IF you crash)
Life jackets may prevent drownings.
Sunscreen may prevent skin cancer etc.
But a mandatory law that enforces everyone to comply is wrong!
Over the weekend 2 of the 7 Australian states held cycling conferences.
The topic: “How can we make cycling normal again?”
Australia and New Zealand are both heading towards revising the helmet laws because of the damage it’s done, versus the benefits.
A ‘law’ is not the answer.
Traffic Crash stats show college aged students most likely to be injured. It just seems like common sense to make helmets available to the people most likely to get hurt riding a bike. The bike share program is centered on campus and downtown. Again, students, who Traffic Crash stats suggest are in the age group that accounted for the most injuries. Again, seems like a ‘no brainer’.
The results originally posted by the Washington State University research team have been amended. The numbers and results they posted were skewed; and here’s why:
In cities that have implemented bikeshare programs, injuries from cycling have decreased significantly as a whole. That means body injury and, importantly, it includes head injuries.
Head injuries are DOWN in cities that have implemented bikesharing programs. Here’s where the study by Washington State went wrong- they used the overall ratio of total injuries to head injuries to come up with their conclusion. The problem is that injuries as a whole decreased significantly. Did head injuries also decrease? Absolutely. But body injuries decreased even more than head injuries. So when you look at it as a percentage- the percentage of head injuries increased compared to the overall percentage of injuries. That’s simply because bikesharing and the visibility and awareness of biking that it has created, has considerably decreased injuries across the board in those cities. Head injuries did not increase. They decreased quite a bit.
If there were 2,000 total injuries in 2005, and of those, 300 were head injuries, and there were only 800 total injuries in 2013, and of those 200 were head injuries, then yes, the overall percentage of head injuries when compared to the whole, does seem higher. But to make the claim that head injuries increased as a result of bikesharing and/or no helmets, is outright misleading and inaccurate. This entire article, as well as the Washington State University original assessment, are flawed at the very core of their argument.
You should review your premise and amend this entire article/opinion.
@Matt @SpokeyB this is a complicated discussion and as we all know, data can be interpreted in a variety of ways. This interpretation is from Boston Magazine:
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2014/06/17/happened-head-injuries-bike-share-cities/
Any thoughts on the final sentence?
“As for the fact that injuries in bike-share cities are now more likely to be head injuries, this could be because bike-share riders are less likely to wear helmets, as the study suggests. CityLab has another thesis:
It’s also possible that bike-share bikes are safer in general — with their heavy frames and wide tires — producing fewer total injuries that require treatment and thus making head injuries appear proportionately more frequent.
The study’s point is well taken. The authors focused on the conclusion that pointed out a potential cause for concern, and made recommendations to cities accordingly. But riders shouldn’t be overly discouraged by headlines like “Wear Your Helmet! Bike Shares Linked to Brain Trauma.” According to this data, bike-share is as linked to an overall decline in brain injuries as it is to an increasing proportion of them to total injuries.”
You might also note that overall cycling numbers in Australia also decreased over that time. Less cyclists = less injuries.
Australia is slowly recognising “we got it wrong” on making helmets compulsory.
22 years after the introduction of mandatory helmet laws, The state government of Queensland recently held an inquiry into cycling: http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/committees/THLGC/2013/INQ-CYC/rp-39-29Nov13.pdf
‘Report No. 39 – Inquiry into Cycling Issues Transport, Housing and Local
Government Committee (November 2013)’.
One of the recommendations from the inquiry (on page 47) states;
“The Committee is concerned that the introduction of mandatory helmet laws may have had an unintended, adverse impact on cycling participation rates in Queensland and therefore the overall health of the state. It also believes there is sufficient evidence provided by the Northern Territory example that a relaxation of mandatory helmet laws in lower risk situations (such as cycling on footpaths and on dedicated cycle paths), does not inevitably reduce the safety of cycling.
The Committee is therefore of the view that relaxing mandatory helmet laws in specific circumstances is likely to increase cycling participation rates with a range of associated health benefits and economic benefits in tourism areas. The Committee also believes that a relaxation of mandatory helmet laws may assist in normalising the perception of cyclists by motorists.”
Are you prepared to ignore these findings from a country that has 22 years of mandatory helmet law just to find out the hard way for yourself?
Helmet laws are a smoke screen for the real problem, cars kill cyclists, cars kill pedestrians, not lack of helmets.
Do we make the wearing of bullet-proof vests mandatory to fix a shooting problem?
We could, and it might save a few lives.. but you’re not addressing the real problem.
@SpokeyB No argument from this regular cyclist (with a helmet) that cars injure and kill cyclists. In Ann Arbor there is the constant tension between bicyclists who refuse to follow the rules of the road when riding in the street, and drivers who believe drifting into the bike lanes for ANY reason is just fine. Locally, our bike lanes are poorly maintained (not swept regularly enough, i.e.) and this creates even more problems as cyclists are forced to cross out of the bike lane to avoid trash, piles of leaves, glass, etc….Helmets decrease head injuries. They just do. I see this as akin to the discussions prior to state/federal regulations which made seat belts mandatory and other safety regulations eventually imposed on automakers.
Seat belts & helmets are two different beasts, providing two different functions, which is why motor sport drivers wear both. They don’t choose one over the other.
Cycle helmets are more akin to bullet-proof vets. The onus placed on the ‘victim’ to prepare and protect themselves for the day the get ‘hit’.
In fact, if any helmet should be mandatory, it should be for motorists. Take a look at the stats for motoring head injuries.
You have more chance of head injury in your car. Higher speeds, head only inches away from glass and steel.
If preventing head injuries is your real focus, why aren’t you mandating driving your car with a helmet?
If saving cyclists lives is your real focus, look beyond mandatory helmet laws, because cyclists will still be getting hit by cars.
Once again, you cannot ignore the findings from Australia.
There is no ‘latest research’ you could post that outweighs 22 years of real, mandatory helmet law experience.
SpokeyB you might think about wearing a helmet when you write your comments. Doctors call motorcyclists without helmets “organ donors.” Mandatory helmet laws for bicyclists cut down on injuries. There’s no way around it. Personal responsibility is part of the equation. Yes, cars kill people. That’s why states are requiring seat belt use for drivers. Seat belts cut fatalities and injuries. Bike riders without helmets are tempting fate.
Why the insult Dave?
I know several doctors who see the bigger picture and view mandatory helmet laws as a barrier to healthier living. (Eg. Look at the Dutch).
I agree that Motorcyclists should wear helmets due to the speeds they travel, I have no problem with that. I have no issue with helmets, I wear one when I exercise on my bike. I don’t wear one when I ride my upright bike through the park. I do have an objection to mandatory laws that blindly ignore the style of bike, location, age or experience. They label cycling as dangerous (it’s not) and ultimately discourage people from enjoying a simple pleasure. Fate? Take the stairs, you tempt fate. Wear a helmet Dave.
@SpokeyB no insult intended. If we’re wearing helmets when driving, maybe when commenting, too? Bike sharing is a great program. I just can’t get behind a program aimed at cyclists injured most often in crashes that won’t go the extra mile and keep customers (these are customers) as safe as possible.
By the way, that 85% to 88% injury prevention claim used in your article is no longer valid.
In 1989, a study in Seattle estimated that helmets prevent 85% of head injuries. Later efforts to replicate those results found a weaker connection between helmets and head injuries, but public health advocates, government web sites, and the news media often present it as fact.
In June 2013, US federal agencies The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) decided that they could no longer justify citing the claim that bicycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85%. The agencies had been challenged under the Data Quality Act to show why they ignored later research, none of which had produced such convincing results. Other US Government agencies are expected to follow suit. (GGW, 2013)
@SpokeyB: You are right that 100 percent of cyclists in Australia were killed wearing a helmet: the country has a mandatory helmet law. This is a link to the government report Road Deaths in Australia: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1079188/Research/Road_Deaths_Australia_2012_Statisitcal_Summary
It shows that between 2003-2012 a 2.3 percent reduction in cyclists’ deaths. In 2012, in the entire country of Australia, 33 bicyclists died, six more than were killed in the state of Michigan in 2013. Australia’s pop. is 23 million. Michigan’s is 9.8 million.
Helmets prevent head injuries when bicyclists use helmets properly. Bike Share programs in other cities are implementing mandatory helmet laws to keep riders safe.
There’s so much wrong with this article, I don’t know where to begin!
“Wearing a helmet is the single best way to reduce serious brain injuries.”
So you wear one in your car? Or when you walk?
Motorists and pedestrians both individually outnumber cyclist head injury rates.
How about for those who choose to take the stairs, getting out of a bath, or just simply slip on an icy pavement?
Why single out riding a bike for a mandatory helmet law?
Surely 23million bikeshare rides and zero deaths to date, without having mandatory helmet laws, is worth consideration?
Mandatory helmet laws were introduced in Australia in the early 1990’s.
20+ years later, cycling numbers still haven’t returned to anywhere near the numbers pre-helmet law.
And finally, here’s a statistic for you:
100% of cyclists killed this year in Australia… were wearing helmets!