The study published last week in BMJ Open [British Medical Journal] compared data from provinces like B.C. that have introduced mandatory helmet laws to those without them. Although helmet legislation was effective in getting more cyclists to wear helmets, it did not translate into fewer head injuries.
“Helmet laws didn`t make a difference to hospitalization rates for head and brain injuries,” said study author Prof. Kay Teschke.
To many people helmets took the fun out of riding a bike. Ok for smaller kids but to me it became a symbol of the nanny state and I gave my bike away.
And I bet lowering the blood alcohol limit to .05 in BC won’t do anything to reduce drinking/driving convictions over the long term either.
We watched the Danish TV series Borgen. Many scenes of Danes, including the Prime Minister, cycling and no-one with helmets.
It may actually increase convictions, but it will do nothing to accidents.
The study has an ulterior motive, it’s suggesting separate bike lanes as a solution.
Bike helmets should be in an government ADVISORY mode only, listen and learn or bust your noggin and weep!!
Lots of studies like this have gone before with the same message. Helmets increase the risk-taking nature of the rider, i.e., you go faster than you would otherwise. Anyone that cycles faster than a casual pace or in traffic w/o a helmet is nuts. That said, I think any cost/benefit analysis would suggest that helmets make sense. But you can’t legislate out stupidity.
There is a difference between injury rates and extent of injury. If you go sailing over your handlebars you’re going to get injured. If you aren’t wearing a helmet the extent of your injury will almost definitely be greater.
A better study would have been the most common cause of a cycling accident. I suspect not yielding the right of way. It’s probably a toss up whether it’s the cyclist or the automobile driver. Not sure that can be solved by bike lanes either.
Agreed. Also, bike helmets created the illusion of safety, which got more people out biking, which created a critical mass of cyclists on the road, which got motorists used to sharing the road, which is the real key to reducing cycling injuries.
The better solution is to simply build separate bike and road infrastructure – drivers have their space, cyclists have theirs. Helmets recommended, but optional.
Thank you for your intelligent and constructive comment, Steve.
I bicycle several thousand kilometers annually. I lived in Silicon Valley for thirty-four years, and used my bicycle most of the time to get to graduate school or, later, to my job. I’ve also had my left ankle broken on two different occasions when an automobile hit me.
Now that I’ve established my credentials and the fact that I’m pro-bicycle:
Cyclists, as a group, are their own worst enemies. In my experience, it’s not a toss up whether it’s the cyclist or the automobile driver. It’s usually (my guess would be about 75% of the time) the cyclist. I’ve seen a significant minority of cyclists (and possibly a majority of those involved collisions) riding on the wrong side of the road, ignoring stop signs and stop lights, failing to yield the right of way, or riding with earbuds from their iPods in their ears (a book about bicycling that I read in 1974 said, “it’s your ears that save you every time”, and I’ve found that to be true). Frequently, they are indulging in more than one of these behaviors. They are simply accidents waiting to happen.
I do believe that my helmet saved my life on the first occasion that a car hit me. The car was moving fast enough that my head, protected by my helmet, smashed through its windshield. I’ve worn a helmet every time I’ve been on a bicycle, with the exception of riding on my rollers in my basement, since 1977, and I’ll continue to do so.
I understand and sympathize with libertarian arguments against making bicycle helmets mandatory. I think that there is a justification for laws doing so, in that the rest of us have to pay the medical expenses for those involved in accidents who aren’t wearing them.
I love Tucson AZ , it’s truly still a freedom loving state, no helmet laws, no gun laws , kids can ride in the back of your pick up no problem o see it all the time, motorcyclists don’t need helmets, red lights are right of way in other words if no one is around look and you can drive through them and cops don’t care I watch cops do it too no big deal, no distracted driving laws, they are soft on speeders too.
I really like it here. Once my visa runs out I might apply for residency.
Funny thing is it’s a republican state strong federally but democrat run locally and it’s a shit hole, (Tucson is anyway) . You can Hunt with anything ,pistol, bow, shotgun, what ever. Here and Montana I believe are similar
I ride a bike an awful lot. I have an old bike that I use for most of my trips around town and a new high end road bike which I use for commuting to work in season. Its 20 km each way. I wear a helmet when I ride my road bike, but I don’t ususally when I ride my city bike, which is much slower. I have had a few accidents over the years, most recently six months ago I was going fast down a hill on a bike bath, skidded on some wet leaves and went skidding down the pavement at 30 odd km/h. It was three weeks before the swelling went down. I was wearing a helmet. I have never hit my head while falling of a bike, but I have lost lots of skin. I suppose a head injury would be more serious, but it has never happened.
Trying to follow the rules of the road on a bike is not safe, they were designed for cars, and even if you are in the right you will lose. My credo is to drive like no one can see you. In part that means I don’t stop at stop signs if there is no point. You can see whats coming and if there is nothing coming why stop? In reality you are usually going as fast as cars do when they “stop” going through intersections anyway. I have had three collisions with cars over the years and one very nearly fatal near miss with a big truck. The one thing these incidents had in common was that I was obeying the rules of the road at the time. Obeying the rules of the road on a bike is suicidal, if you have a collision you will lose. Best safety tip is to pick your route based on which has the safest streets. There is usually no reason to ride on main roads with lots of traffic. If you must go on the side walk. There is usually no one on the side walk on these roads anyway, and if you encounter someone get out of their way. They have the right of way on the sidewalk.
There is a good chance this study was funded by the ‘build more bike lanes’ special interest lobby. I am for bikes, and bike paths, bike trails, and very much against bike lanes. Sidewalks which Canada builds everywhere (the US does not) are significantly underused. Bike should be able to use all sidewalks with the exception of downtown areas. Of course in Canada helmets might of might not be certified by the CSA and we know this is not the most ethical organization.
Most people in BC do not use bike helmets except for the Tour de France wannabes who have spent thousands on their costumes and bikes.
Same kind of wishful thinking that thought gun registries impacted crime rates. There are NO peer reviewed academic studies to show gun control has any impact on crime rates – but there is empirical actuarial evidence armed citizens reduce violent crime rates – put that in your politically sanitized Med Journals and smoke it.
You know you’re living in a soviet hell hole when both the police and doctors join politicians in lying to you.
Same kind of wishful thinking that thought gun registries impacted crime rates. There are NO peer reviewed academic studies to show gun control has any impact on crime rates – but there is empirical actuarial evidence armed citizens reduce violent crime rates – put that in your politically sanitized Med Journals and smoke it.
You know you’re living in a soviet hell hole when both the police and doctors join politicians in lying to you.
Thanks for the comments Iowa Jim and kt.
I live in the country here in Southern Ontario, a place with winding back roads, usually covered in tar and crushed gravel. Nowhere to pull off to the side and tough for cyclists if they venture too close to the edge of the pavement and hit the loose gravel (as I have done a few times myself).
On occasion I’ve followed large groups of cyclists (up to maybe 40 at times) traveling 4-5 people across, chatting and laughing as they go. Often some of them even cross the line into incoming traffic. I gave up trying to pass these groups a long time ago unless I have a nice straight and flat road ahead.
But in the city it’s a different story. I just don’t know what the rules are. I often travel by car in downtown Toronto (like Queen St going east past Spadina). On the right side is a bike lane. One day when I’m turning right I have to wait for the pedestrians to cross and I stay in the road without venturing into the bike lane. I have my right turn signal on and the cyclists keep passing me on the right. The car behind me starts to honk. More pedestrians, more cyclists and more honking.
A few days later, the same place, I’m in my car, behind a car turning right. The car keeps edging across the bike lane and into the pedestrian crossing, very close to pedestrians and completely blocking the bike lane. A woman pushes her stroller around the car and offers a nasty look. The cyclists swerve around the car and keep going. Then, a cyclist, not too happy about the car, pounds the hood of the car with his fist and blocks the intersection. Eventually the guy behind me (in a car) starts honking.
That’s probably why I live in the country.
T C – If anything it would increase convictions. Its not meant to reduce convictions. its meant to reduce the number of drinking drivers on the roads.
That’s odd. I would have thought increased convictions meant more drinking drivers on the road? You are saying that there is no correlation between drunk drivers on the road and the number of drivers blowing over .05?
This is your typical flawed bicycle helmet study and its conclusion isn’t even unique: mandating helmet usage doesn’t appear to reduce serious head injuries (Bob Goldacre has a better BMJ paper that tries to explain this — but can’t because the data doesn’t exist). Note: nobody questions that wearing a helmet reduces head injuries they just can’t prove that mandating it would have a net benefit to society.
A quick skim raised these issues with this paper:
– It only tracks hospitalizations (aka the serious injury in KSI stats) if you went to an ER and were discharged or just spent the night, you aren’t counted.
– Helmet usage %’s are based on a survey and you are assumed to have been wearing a helmet if you said you wear one most of the time.
– There is no direct linkage to your hospitalization and whether or not you were wearing your helmet at the time (they use the % from above to estimate)
– The reason for the hospitalization is even less attributable. Based on personal experience you tend to sustain head and body trauma in a serious fall if you were to be hospitalized for the body injury but escaped serious head injury because of the helmet (or vice versa) it is accounted for in the data.
– the cycling data is weak…a Stats Canada survey that asks you to estimate the number of times you cycled over the last 3 months. No data on the # of hours, where, terrain, speed, etc. so a ride around the block counts the same as a day shredding DH trails
– they try to remove the trail riding (and I presume road racing) where the risks are higher but helmet wearing is near 100% but it is not clear that they don’t bias the analysis in the process
– the problematic unobserved events (falls with no injury, no record, no trip to the ER, etc.) are ignored (the failing of every helmet study). Since this is the goal of wearing a helmet you would need to factor this in to any study — but nobody can because they are invisible to the analysis
In general, there are so many assumptions and estimates based on an incomplete data set that I would challenge their basic conclusion never mind let the paper be published. In fairness it is one of the most complete flawed studies though.
“helmet legislation was effective in getting more cyclists to wear helmets”
Yeah, threatening people with fines and/or incarceration seems to work for everything! Funny, no?
Intended or not, this “report” is a tactic in a plot to expand bike lanes.
Bicycle riders want lots of nice flat surfaces and that means they want significant chunks of our roads (and many of them just use our sidewalks).
Roads were built and are maintained for motorized transport, not for bicycles. Until recently, drivers tolerated bicycles.
Bicyclists believe, many with a religious fervor, that they belong on the roads. They don’t.
For starters, bicycles contribute very little to the enormous cost of the roads or, indeed, to the overall economy, almost nothing compared to the contributions of motorized vehicles.
Bicycles can’t transport anything but one rider and, perhaps, a few belongings. (The idiotic child trailers are death traps.)
Bicycles are useless and/or dangerous at night, in bad weather and nearly all winter. And, despite the clamor for more road rights, there really aren’t that many bicycles in the bike lanes anyway. Count them in a bike lane near you some day.
Bicycles should be allowed only in bike parks, roughly the equivalent of dog parks. Riders can load their bikes onto the racks at the front of buses to get to the parks where they can pedal to their hearts’ content … out of the way and, even better, out of sight.
I bet over time the evidence will prove that helmet laws actually cause an increase in head injuries. I worked as an EEG tech for 30 years . I can remember seeing exactly one case of a head injury while riding a bike.
I rode a bike a lot and never wore a helmet but I was careful. I did not ride on busy streets and I used the sidewalk if I had to . If I had to get across busy intersections I got off my bike and pushed it across. You have to use your head. I tumbled of my bike on more than one occasion but usually lost some skin off my hands and my knees. I can never remember hitting my head.
I have noticed a real change in the behavior of cyclists especially the ones who wear helmets. They seem to think they are wearing a car instead of a helmet. If you get hit by a car you lose helmet or no helmet.
The majority of serious head injuries that happen today are the result of car crashes. Why has big brother not mandated the wearing of crash helmets in a car?
The problems with those big crash helmets is that they obstruct your vision. I would like to see the stats on fatalities in motorcycle crashes in states like Arizona where there are no helmet laws . When you look at those big helmets those motorcyclists have to wear you wonder how much peripheral vision they actually have.
I suspect that another unintended consequence of these helmet laws is that a lot of individuals forgo riding their bikes because they don’t want to wear a helmet. Therefore they are foregoing physical activity.
I would say the same change in attitude, a new feeling of invincibility came to skiing with the advent of skiing helmets, as I remember correctly the majority of injuries moved from the lower extremities to upper body injuries.
J
I switched to helmets for biking and skiing in the last few years as my reaction time has dropped in my old age and I don’t want to go any slower. I do however stop at the top of the blacks and contemplate a route or a change of heart. Really need armour for my left side which always takes the brunt of a fall
Roads predate cars, and so do bikes, so to say that roads were built for cars is wrong. The road I live on has been here for two hundred years.
I own two cars, and a house, so I spend probably the same money as you do on the upkeep of the roads, especially since the “road tax” went to general revenue. There is no road budget specifically paid for by drivers anymore.
My bicycles transport me to work and pretty much everywhere I have to go in the city I live in. These are all trips I would be making in one of my two cars if i didn’t do them by bike.
I agree with you about the winter, but It’s mid November and I am still riding my bike. You are also correct that you often don’t see many bikes on bike lanes. You don’t where I live now, but in the old city of Toronto there are traffic jams on the bike lanes most of the year.
I used to live in Toronto and I could get anywhere I needed to go in the city faster by bike than either driving or TTC. I could go from the east end to down town in twenty minutes. A trip that would take an hour by TTC or even longer by car. This is what pisses off people in cars the most. Cars are totally useless in an old urban area like the down town cores of our major cities, (which were built before cars were invented) they are slow, and they take up huge quantities of valuable real estate, even when they are not being used. Cars should be banned from down town, like they have been in many places because they serve no purpose. They are as useless in a modern econmoy as the horses they replaced.
Rita,
Statistics on motorcycle accidents in Arizona are pretty bad. If you studied them you probably would not ride a motorcycle in any state.
For example, only 0.2% of car accidents are fatal while 4% of motorcycle accidents end in death (20 times higher). 24% of car motorists are injured in an accident while 83% of motorcyclists are injured.
The statistics for auto accidents are incredible. The most common accident is running into a stationary object (rear-end collision) during a clear day on a flat and dry road between 5:00-6:00 pm.
The most common reason for an accident is following too closely behind or driving too fast for the conditions.
Have at er…
http://www.azdot.gov/mvd/statistics/arizona-motor-vehicle-crash-facts
There is an entire section on motorcycles and helmet use. Incapacitating and fatal injuries were higher for those not wearing helmets. But the most important statistics are:
1. most common type of accident is collision with a vehicle
2. almost 50% of the accidents showed no fault to the motorcycle rider
3. 25% of the at fault accidents were excess speed
You are at high risk for injury just minding your own business on a motorcycle. Guess that is why they call the drivers organ donors.
In both motorcycle and auto accidents alcohol was a surprisingly small factor – about 5% in autos (1 in 20) and lower in motorcycles.
Roads predate cars. True. The concept of roads predates cars. But chariots and oxcarts gradually disappeared and cars predate just about all roads as they are now.
No budget for roads. There is public money spent on roads, lots and lots of it. How it’s labeled matters not a whit.
It’s delightful that you ride your bike to work. More power to you. It’s a good idea, and fun, in daylight when it’s not raining and the temperature is reasonable.
In the old city of Toronto there are bicycle traffic jams … cars don’t belong, etc. That’s what? 0.00000000% of Toronto’s roads, 0.0000000000% of Ontario’s roads? Fine, ban the cars. Explain it to Granny and to people in wheelchairs and to people with little kids, etc. but explain it on a sleety night on Front Street in February.
Cars useless in a modern economy? You sound like a thoughtful guy. I’m pretty sure you don’t mean that.
To be fair, his comment about cars being useless in a modern economy seems to be referring specifically to downtown urban areas constructed before the invention of the automobile, which is what he was talking about at the time.
As a strictly small-town person, I don’t have any experience with cities to agree with or refute it.
Exactly. My husband was riding his bike to work, going down a hill, when he was cut off by two vehicles coming in the opposite direction and suddenly turning left to park in front of a business. He ended up with broken ribs, scrapes and bruises. He was wearing his helmet, which likely saved his life. That was a good lesson.
Hope you’re right
You would have relatively the same number of drinking drivers on the roads. Lowering the tolerance level from .08 to .05 is what would lead to a higher conviction rate, at least initially. Hopefully, over time, the lower tolerances would lead to fewer drinking drivers on the roads. That is the goal. The natural effect of that should result in fewer convictions.
I don’t ride as much as I used to, but I am not in favor of mandatory bike helmets. Protective devices give people a false sense of security. I taught my children the following about driving and I use the same rules for riding a bike: Assume that everyone else driving is crazy, high, drunk, sleepy or just doesn’t give a damn. Act accordingly – be paranoid, and watch everything.
To cycling, I add one rule: Autos own the road, and challenging an auto is an act of suicide because of the laws of physics – you won’t win.
And there has never been a law that has successfully outlawed stupid or unsafe behavior. It can’t be written and even if it could, it would be unenforceable. Personal responsibility is the answer. Assume that everything you do is up to you and don’t assume that anyone will bail you out. And death is inevitable – it is only a question of when. If you act stupidly, expect death to come sooner.
Used to wonder why I bothered with a bike helmet as I don’t wear one for skiing. Last year I had bought a new helmet and was riding slowly along a road here in Toronto. The road, as is typical, was so broken up I pulled up onto the side walk. There was a fine layer of small stones at the entrance to the driveway and I skidded and fell to my right. There was a steel post about 10 inches high holding a garden border. I went head first into this post and pierced the top of my helmet. I was unhurt but my new helmet was damaged and I replaced it quickly and never ride without it.
Lesson learned.
You are right. For the most part I am being facetious. But as a avid biker and driver I see and live both sides of the argument.
In my little hermit kingdom everyone would wear suits or armor like the knights of old and the gaps between the armor and the body would be stuffed with styrofoam peanuts. Before the person could ever think about engaging in a dangerous activity like walking the dog the armor would have to be wrapped with multiple layers of bubble wrap.
Why are we aiding the hit count at CBC?
Just dropping by to let you know that every time one of you prostate masseurs get’s their just deserts under the wheels of an 18-wheeler I feel warm and fuzzy. Although I pity the driver who now will be unjustly penalized for his service to society.
Was there a change in the prevalence of neck and spine injuries?
The bicycle helmet – like the motorcycle helmet or any other protective device or apparel is only as good as its design and manufacturing quality. I’m not big on bicycle riding these days but I do ride a new Yamaha YZF R6 for fun. I spent a ridiculous $2800 on riding gear to keep my skin on my bones and my brains in my skull. At the ripe, old age of 56, I don’t bounce like I used to… Still, there are no guarantees so I use the same approach as several others have when riding bicycles.
Always remember and never forget – when you mess with a car or truck – you will lose. If you had ‘the right of way’ as I have heard so many people complain about, it’s sort of a moot point if you’re dead.
Been to Finland a couple of time lately, and they 6 foot wide bike and pedestrian paved “sidewalks”. You go darn near any were by bike, in town, safely. They even plow them and ppl use bikes for transport even in winter, and have studded winter tires. But this type of layout is preplan and not possible here in Canada. Also there is very few stop lights or stop signs over there, they have many yield signs and “round-abouts”. Their traffic flow is excellent, and so is the attitude of most drivers. A large part of accidents in Canada is due to attention and attitude, throw in low driving skills into the mix and you have a recipe for trouble. Helmut laws do not fix these problems, only education will.
As to down town Toronto, 6500 RPM scream from my F-150 helps the peds and cyclists to get out of the way:-)))
OCCAM Nails it…no matter where you go or what you do, there is always someone TELLING you not to do this or do that.
Telling you its for your safety and in doing so, taking control of every aspect of your life….whoa betide those that do not fall into line..
….vaat Doonsti here mensch..?? Papieren SCNELL..!! RAUS.!!
The constitution of the United States was an awesome document – damned shame it has no relevance today…thank Obama and a raft of other presidents and succeeding Congress’ for that…starting with Nixon by allowing the dollar to go completely fiat….the rest is history.
Welcome to hell.