Home
Researchers support helmet use but say improved infrastructure and "passive uptake" have been more effective...

A study published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) says that the introduction of compulsory helmet laws in parts of Canada only appears to have had a “minimal” effect on reducing hospital admissions for cyclists suffering from head injuries.

The authors, led by Jessica Dennis, a PhD candidate at the University of Toronto, say that the rate of admissions to hospitals among cyclists was already falling before compulsory helmet laws were introduced in certain provinces, and that “the rate of decline was not appreciably altered on introduction of legislation.”

They added: “While helmets reduce the risk of head injuries and we encourage their use, in the Canadian context of existing safety campaigns, improvements to the cycling infrastructure, and the passive uptake of helmets, the incremental contribution of provincial helmet legislation to reduce hospital admissions for head injuries seems to have been minimal.”

In all, hospital admissions data for 66,716 cycling related injuries in Canada between 1994 and 2008 were studied. Between 1994 and 2003, the rate of head injuries among young people fell by 54.0 per cent in provinces that have helmet legislation, compared to 33.1 per cent in those without such laws.

Among adults, in provinces where helmets are required by law, the rate fell by 26.0 per cent, but stayed constant in provinces that have no compulsory helmet legislation.

However, the authors say, “After taking baseline trends into consideration… we were unable to detect an independent effect of legislation on the rate of hospital admissions for cycling related head injuries.”

The BMJ article is the latest academic contribution to a debate that continues to burn fiercely, particularly in countries that have such laws, including Australia, where all cyclists including adults must wear a helmet, and Canada, where legislation varies from province to province.

Between 1995 and 1997, the provinces of British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Ontario each introduced laws requiring either all cyclists, or those under the age of 18, to wear a helmet while cycling.

In 2002, Alberta made helmets compulsory for riders aged under 18, while the following year, Prince Edward Island made them compulsory for cyclists of all ages. This month, Manitoba became the latest province to introduce a compulsory helmet law, in this case fro under-18s.

Currently, there are no compulsory helmet laws for cyclists of any age in the United Kingdom, nor are there any plans to implement such legislation.

Quoted in the Guardian, road safety minister Stephen Hammond said:"We encourage cyclists – especially children – to wear helmets to protect them if they have a crash. However, we believe this should remain a matter of individual choice rather than imposing additional regulations which would be difficult to enforce.

"To improve cycle safety we want to see more innovative measures being put in place to help prevent collisions. For example, we have made it easier for local authorities to introduce 20mph zones in built-up areas and authorised a trial of trixi mirrors in London which, if successful, could be used elsewhere in the country to make cyclists more visible to drivers."

Opponents of helmet compulsion, such as national cyclists’ organisation CTC, argue that any benefit that might be achieved by reducing head injuries –itself a matter of debate, as the latest study shows – is greatly outweighed by the negative impact that compulsory helmet laws bring about by deterring people from cycling in the first place.

A study carried out by a PhD student at the University of Alberta after helmets were made compulsory for cyclist aged under 18 in that province in 2002 found that participation in cycling among that age group had dropped by around half from 1999 to 2006, but the rate of head injuries had increased by 11 per cent. Levels of cycling participation among adults, not subject to the law, rose during the same period.

Born in Scotland, Simon moved to London aged seven and now lives in the Oxfordshire Cotswolds with his miniature schnauzer, Elodie. He fell in love with cycling one Saturday morning in 1994 while living in Italy when Milan-San Remo went past his front door. A daily cycle commuter in London back before riding to work started to boom, he's been news editor at road.cc since 2009. Handily for work, he speaks French and Italian. He doesn't get to ride his Colnago as often as he'd like, and freely admits he's much more adept at cooking than fettling with bikes.

6 comments

Avatar
themartincox [549 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

How about this?

Helmets help in a crash, a collision with a car/truck/bus etc isn't a crash - and helmets don't make much difference at all in a collision!

Avatar
Tom Amos [236 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

Crumbs. A government minister speaks and he actually seems to understand the reality for once. Incredible.

Avatar
Stumps [3471 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

Please NO NO NO, not another helmet debate  20

Avatar
joemmo [1164 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

I nearly ran into an on old lady with a dog when a wasp got stuck in the vents and stung my head repeatedly.
Just thought I'd add that bit of anecdotal evidence to the debate

Avatar
mrmo [2093 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes
joemmo wrote:

I nearly ran into an on old lady with a dog when a wasp got stuck in the vents and stung my head repeatedly.
Just thought I'd add that bit of anecdotal evidence to the debate

was riding along a main road last summer, bee flew in vent, i got stung and almost swerved into the path of a truck. On that anecdotal basis helmets should be banned as they are dangerous.

Avatar
matthewn5 [1026 posts] 4 years ago
0 likes

Helmets on sale in Oz have flywire over the vents at the front.