Wearing a helmet reduces the odds of serious head injury by 69 per cent, and fatal head injury by 65 per cent, according to an analysis from the University of New South Wales in Australia.
Statisticians Jake Olivier and Prudence Creighton reviewed data from 64,000 cyclist injuries, across 40 studies and found helmet use was associated with reduced odds of head and serious or fatal head injury, as well as facial injury. Helmets had no effect on neck injuries.
Helmets are a sticky issue, with some researchers branding mandatory cycle helmet laws in Australia a “public health disaster”, reducing cycling rates (and the associated health benefits) without improving injury rates on a population-wide basis.
Cycling helmets — everything you need to know
Findings from the “largest ever systematic review and meta-analysis of bicycle injury and helmet use” were most striking for serious and fatal head injuries.
The study’s authors conclude: “Helmet use is associated with odds reductions of 51% for head injury, 69% for serious head injury, 33% for face injury and 65% for fatal head injury. Injuries to the neck were rare and not associated with helmet use.”
The study points out cycling injuries are rare – there are 0.29 crashes per 1000km cycled in Australia, and in just eight per cent of those cases medical treatment is sought. According to Australian hospital and police data 34 per cent of hospital admitted cyclists have a head injury, 15 per cent of those serious.
Though researchers recognised the difficulties of generalising this data analysis to a population level, they suggest “results could be used as one source of evidence for the promotion of bicycle helmets for mitigating head, serious head, face and fatal head injuries”.
“Irrespective of past research, the results of this review do not support arguments against helmet legislation from an injury prevention perspective.”
However, they add, “bicycle helmets are not a panacea for cycling injury, as they do not eliminate head or face injury and they do not offer protection to other body regions. Any comprehensive cycling safety strategy should consider the promotion or legislation of bicycle helmets only in concert with other injury prevention strategies.”
Cycle helmets are only designed to withstand collisions at speeds of 5.42-5.52m/s, or a little over 12mph.
Researchers have advised caution in applying helmet safety data to population level, due to the effect of “risk compensation” and the possible effects of helmet laws in reducing cycling rates. The former is a hypothesis where helmet wearers exhibit greater risk-taking behaviour, while some motorists drive closer to helmeted cyclists, though Olivier and Creighton say there is “very little published research on the topic and no systematic review”.
Earlier this year Cycle-helmets.com analysed government data and found the number of bicycle trips in the Australian state of Victoria declined by 44.7 per cent from 1985/6 and 2012/13, between which mandatory helmet laws were introduced, while a 2015 Canadian study found no link between helmet laws and head injury rates.
Chris Gillham is a research journalist who investigated the Australian helmet law when it was introduced in 1991, and who maintains the website www.cycle-helmets.com.
In a submission to the Australian senate last year, which heard helmet laws do more harm than good, he said: “Data published over the past 25 years has consistently shown a substantial and permanent decline in the proportion of Australians cycling, with consequent damage to public health.
“The data show tens and probably hundreds of thousands of Australians are discouraged from regular or occasional recreational exercise and instead mostly use their cars for transport, increasing traffic congestion and the likelihood of road trauma.”
Gilham pointed to hospital records suggesting helmet laws resulted in a 10-20% decline in the proportion of cyclist head injury but an approximate 30% increase in the total number of cyclist admissions. Some argue this is due to the reduced “safety in numbers” effect as fewer people cycle.
Luke Turner, a Senior Infrastructure Advisor, wrote in the Institute of Public Affairs journal: “By any measure, health problems associated with a lack of exercise are a far greater problem than cycling head injuries in Australia. According to the Heart Foundation, lack of physical activity causes 16,000 premature deaths each year, swamping the 40 or so cycling fatalities.”
Sydney cyclists are now being hit with enormous fines for misdemeanours including £163 penalties for not wearing helmets as part of a cycling-focused crackdown by police.
56 thoughts on “Helmets reduce head injury odds by 69 per cent”
Lets do this
Lets do this
Oh, blimey. Buckle up.
Oh, blimey. Strap yourself in.
Gets the popcorn out!
Gets the popcorn out!
Nothing here. Anybody got an
No interest here. Anybody got an opinion they’d care to share?
nowasps wrote:
More like:
Anybody got an opinion they’d dare to share?
no wonder helmets are
no wonder helmets are compulsory in Oz:
“are rare – there are 0.29 crashes per 1000km cycled in Australia”
that’s one crash every 3-4,000k. Is that really right? A quick check on Strava shows I’ve done 30,000k (on Strava) in which time i’ve come off slowly once hitting a kerb (don’t ask) and once on ice. neither time did my helmet touch the ground… I’d be hoping for 30,000k+ for anything i’d call a “crash”
anyone else got figures they could share?
NOC40 wrote:
I’d also be interested to see how crashes per 1000km compare in different countries, but I suspect this data would be quite problematic – most falls off a bike probably go unreported to anyone collecting stats.
It wasn’t clear to me from the article how they reached the conclusion – when I’ve got time I should try to dig into it a little more, see what data they are using.
Although I usually wear a helmet (maybe 99% of the miles I ride) I am generally suspicious of studies like these. Would be interested to know who funded it 😉
NOC40 wrote:
Lordy, I knew I was behind with things but apparently I should have fallen off 3 times already this year!
I think I’ve got a shit to
No interest here. Anybody got an opinion they’d care to share?
— Mungecrundle More like: Anybody got an opinion they’d dare to share?— nowasps
I think I’ve got a shit to give round here somewhere…
So the research says that, if
So the research says that, if you hit you head, a helmet gives you a slightly better than 50/50 chance of injury. Yep. I’m sold.
OK, I’ll chip in with an
OK, I’ll chip in with an opinion.
Regardless of the efficacy of helmets, as an adult I should be allowed to decide for myself whether to wear one or not.
I’m allowed to make my own decisions about diet, exercise and smoking which will likely have a far greater effect on my health than wearing a helmet.
So why should I be forced to wear a helmet when cycling?
Rich_cb wrote:
Because you don’t bear the consequences of your decision when you front up to A&E. I am all for saving my taxes by allowing NHS to refuse to to treat smokers if condition is related to/exacerbated by smoking. Similarly for fatsos.
surly_by_name wrote:
Because you don’t bear the consequences of your decision when you front up to A&E. I am all for saving my taxes by allowing NHS to refuse to to treat smokers if condition is related to/exacerbated by smoking. Similarly for fatsos.— Rich_cb
But cycling without a helmet is still beneficial to your health and therefore reduces health cost.
It is, marginally, more beneficial to wear a helmet but the difference, in terms of health care costs, is tiny.
Research shows that compulsory helmet laws reduce cycling participation and therefore, as cycling is so beneficial for health, increase healthcare costs.
As an aside, where would you draw the line in your great health care rationing?
Would you deny healthcare to those with, for example, bowel cancer who had eaten sausages/bacon? It’s a recognised risk factor.
surly_by_name wrote:
Because you don’t bear the consequences of your decision when you front up to A&E. I am all for saving my taxes by allowing NHS to refuse to to treat smokers if condition is related to/exacerbated by smoking. Similarly for fatsos.— Rich_cb
If it’s about cost, then make it about cost and those who cost the most to the NHS should have to take the most precautions.
So lets have the numbers on running injuries and the public cost compared to cycling injuries.
Then we factor in the net benefit cycling and running have towards allaying other health conditions compared to the average citizen and deduct that from the bill.
Then we compare those figures to smokers and drinkers and binge eaters, and work out if the taxes they pay on those goods sustain their NHS bill.
This isn’t so simple to work out, but if it’s about cost, then lets do the numbers – groups with a net benefit are free to make their own decisions, and those with a net loss get nannied.
” as an adult I should be
” as an adult I should be allowed to decide for myself whether to wear one or not…”
Got to say I’m quite glad I ‘have’ to wear a helmet when on my motorbike, and that seatbelts are compulsory. As shown with diet and exercise and smoking, being an adult does not necessarily equate to good decisions. If wearing a helmet puts someone off cycling, then it’s probably no great loss to cycling.
PeterM wrote:
You forgot to add ‘…and unnecessarily using a motorised vehicle’. Why is that? Far more harm is caused by people driving when they don’t need to than by people not using a helmet on a bike. Why aren’t you demanding laws banning that?
And what on earth does ‘no great loss to cycling’ mean? What is this thing ‘cycling’ that can suffer ‘losses’? You sound like someone who sees it as an elite hobby or sport.
If someone is put off cycling by needing a helmet, they will probably use a car, which damn well is a loss to everyone.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
” as an adult I should be allowed to decide for myself whether to wear one or not…”
Got to say I’m quite glad I ‘have’ to wear a helmet when on my motorbike, and that seatbelts are compulsory. As shown with diet and exercise and smoking, being an adult does not necessarily equate to good decisions.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos ‘…and unnecessarily using a motorised vehicle’. .— PeterM
Who says it’s unecessary, and I’m not trying to ban anything…
PeterM wrote:
‘…and unnecessarily using a motorised vehicle’. .— FluffyKittenofTindalos
Who says it’s unecessary, and I’m not trying to ban anything…— PeterM
Then why did you argue with someone who said using a helmet is up to them? If you aren’t trying to ban helmetless cycling what was your purpose in disagreeing with them?
Driving 1 mile that could be walked or cycled is, for most able-bodied people, not necessary. You seem to be saying that helmetless cycling is unnecessary, so I can say short car journeys are unnecessary, no?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
” as an adult I should be allowed to decide for myself whether to wear one or not…”
Got to say I’m quite glad I ‘have’ to wear a helmet when on my motorbike, and that seatbelts are compulsory. As shown with diet and exercise and smoking, being an adult does not necessarily equate to good decisions.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos ‘…and unnecessarily using a motorised vehicle’. .— PeterM
Who says it’s unecessary, and I’m not trying to ban anything…
— FluffyKittenofTindalos Then why did you argue with someone who said using a helmet is up to them? If you aren’t trying to ban helmetless cycling what was your purpose in disagreeing with them? Driving 1 mile that could be walked or cycled is, for most able-bodied people, not necessary. You seem to be saying that helmetless cycling is unnecessary, so I can say short car journeys are unnecessary, no?— PeterM
Jeez, you are an irrascible little man. I was pointing out that just because someone is considered an adult does not mean that they are automatically endowed with impeccable judgement. You really couldn’t see that?
PeterM wrote:
But as an adult I should be allowed to make my own decisions.
Otherwise where do we draw the line? Shall we have a state sanctioned diet? State sanctioned exercise? Do you want the government to make every decision about your own life for you?
PeterM wrote:
Duplicate Post. Apologies.
Rich_cb wrote:
Playing devil’s avocado, do you feel the same about wearing a seatbelt in a car, Is that a decision you should be allowed to make as an adult ?
KarlM77 wrote:
Playing devil’s avocado, do you feel the same about wearing a seatbelt in a car, Is that a decision you should be allowed to make as an adult ?— Rich_cb
As a general rule if a decision is only going to affect me then it shouldn’t be for the government to tell me how to decide.
With seat belts I think that you are more likely to retain control of a car in a crash or be able to manoeuvre a car immediately after a crash if you are wearing a seat belt as you are more likely to still be in your seat!
Also an unrestrained person in a car can seriously injure other people in that car or even outside of the car in the event of a crash.
So compulsory seat belt use has the potential to reduce harm to people other than the driver and as such I’m OK with it.
KarlM77 wrote:
Playing devil’s avocado, do you feel the same about wearing a seatbelt in a car, Is that a decision you should be allowed to make as an adult ?— Rich_cb
When alcohol and smoking ate illegal then we can discuss the risks of cycling without a helmet.
KarlM77 wrote:
Playing devil’s avocado, do you feel the same about wearing a seatbelt in a car, Is that a decision you should be allowed to make as an adult ?— Rich_cb
No, I’d rather driver-side seat belts were banned entirely. To encourage drivers to be more careful and so not endanger others. It would be better if they took as much as possible of the risk they create.
(OK, slightly exaggerating my attitude, but, I don’t particularly favour compulsory seatbelts for drivers, no – for the most part its up to them whether they drive into something or not, I don’t really care)
Australia? Seems legit.
Australia? Seems legit.
“Researchers have advised
“Researchers have advised caution in applying helmet safety data to population level”
My main concern is with using potentially unreliable stats to make laws. Today it’s compulsory cycle helmets, tomorrow perhaps mandatory ID cards and subcutaneous microchips?
I wonder what results they’d get if they asked crash victims whether they wore a lucky charm.
I have an opinion.
I have an opinion.
The results of this study are
The results of this study are only really usefull if the researchs could shed some light on how they calculated their conclusion.
i.e. designed to offer [some] protection from a falling hight of 1.5 meters.
Perhaps I am being a little neive.. but searching for ‘risk compensation cycle helmets papers’ shows over 9000 results. Have not had time to read them all yet, but ‘very little published research’??
I don’t know why we need a
I don’t know why we need a study to know that helmet protects your head. When you go MTB people uses kee and elbow protection for reason to protect themselves when crashing.
Its no brainer to any person with common sense to know that if you have a a protective layer it will proect you from scraps and if it has cusioning (helmet has) then it also helps with impact injury.
I fell off MTB on trail once and head straight onto a rock. If it werent’ for my helmet I will be in A&E for sure.
I wear one most days as I
I wear one most days. I know I can probably beat the odds not wearing but then you read something like this
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/miracle-cyclist-horror-crash-reveals-5614706
Unless figures have changed
Unless figures have changed recently, my understanding is that the Dutch experience a similar number of deaths and serious head injurues to UK cyclists. Instead of proecting themselves with polystyrene, they pass more effective laws and build proper infrastructure.
Interesting take on Durtch attitudes here http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/08/brain-injuries-and-dutch-cyclist.html
if helmets are so efficacious
if helmets are so efficacious… they why aren’t they mandatory for all occupants of motor vehicles?
Paul_C wrote:
Because they’d ruin your hairstyle?
There’s a massive amount of head injuries in car accidents but the only people I’ve seen wearing helmets in cars have been those on roads that aren’t really roads like Nurburgring or round the IOM course in stripped out trackday cars.
Like cycling, it’s a “it’ll never happen to me thing”. And most of the time it won’t.
The headline is “Helmets
The headline is “Helmets reduce head injury odds by 69 per cent”. But that isn’t true. The apparent evidence is that where there is a crash, then head injuries are so improved. But the best way to avoid a head injury is to avoid a crash.
So, lets have better driving and better facilities rather than relying on hats.
Edgeley wrote:
You had to mention the elephant in the room, didn’t you!?
Do some people not realise that these head injuries are generally caused by crashes as opposed to head injuries are a direct result of not wearing a magic hat?
Anyone who claims wearing a
Anyone who claims wearing a helmet makes no difference, get someone to hit you round the head with a plank without one and then with, then post on here an let us know how it went. Geez.
drosco wrote:
You have just made a really compelling argument for wearing helmets in cars… right?
Chuck wrote:
That’s what all the research into air-bags has been geared towards – effective internal protection without having to wear extra safety gear.
fukawitribe wrote:
My post was an (apparently poor) attempt to get at what point drosco was making. I reckon you’d be pretty hard pushed to find someone who wouldn’t prefer to be wearing a helmet when they were hit on the head – see the post above with the guy hitting his head on the garage door
But this argument only ever seems to be made when trying to make out that it’s a no-brainer to wear bike helmets, which doesn’t follow at all.
“Helmet use is associated
“Helmet use is associated with odds reductions of … 33% for face injury …”
Helmets reduce face injuries by 33%? Really? That alone makes me very suspicious of their figures.
I am a helmet wearer, btw.
I believe they’ve made
I believe they’ve made hitting people over the head with a plant illegal in holland, that’s why they don’t need helmets, there an inlighted lot those Dutch.
It took a while to get going,
It took a while to get going, but there’s some ripe old shit get shovelled here now.
I note that its not actually
I note that its not actually new research – its an aggregation of the results of all sorts of previous research. So if any of that older research is a bit iffy (and I heard that some of it is) then it affects the resolutions of this. I think its called “meta research”.
The Aussies live in a strange
The Aussies live in a strange parallel world where cycling is so incredibly dangerous that you have to be fined squillions of AUD just for breaking the rules on hats and bells. Frankly I don’t trust them or their stats. Also, their competitive cyclists.. aren’t.
I’m old and jaded and
I’m old and jaded and debating being arsed to google the paper myself.
I mean, would it be that hard to put a link to the paper in question, so we can see its methods ourselves? I can’t see one.
Honestly as I bit of a skeptic I suspect they’re right, but just agreeing without any review is Bad Science.
If you don’t like helmets – you should hate claims uttered with insufficient proof.
If you like them – you should want the claims to stand up to scrutiny, which I suspect they do. The interesting research should probably be more around “how hard do you have to hit before you’re dead either way, how soft do you have to hit before you’re fine either way”?
Oh, whatever. I barely cycle anymore and helmets have been a big part of that – they do not make me feel safer, I will never be grateful for being hit by a twat in a car and maybe left alive by a piece of plastic I may be legally forced to wear. Enjoy paying for my various obesity-related NHS costs, evangelists.
Car crashes cause the
.
No matter what, helmet
No matter what, helmet debates are a red herring. Motoring industry and the mainstream media and politicians love it. Any time they need a diversionary tactic, mention helmets or high-vis and everyone loses focus of what’s genuinely important – congestion, pollution, dangerous driving, energy, unsustainability, infrastructure, healthly living, etc.
Massive issues all of those, but no, lets argue endlessly about 200 grams of foam on cyclists’ heads.
Skaters fall daily, really harshly off rails, steps, acid drops, really horrible. No-one gives a toss because they’re not part of a wider debate on transportation. This isn’t about a love of your fellow citizen’s welfare, it’s an insidious distraction.
Don’t get caught up in it.
Almost everyone seems to be
Almost everyone seems to be missing the important point. If you should happen to have an accident and come off you bike which is admittedly is quite unlikely, then a helment may well save your life.
It’s up to you if you want to wear one, but it keeps sun off head in summer and head warm in winter, so no downside for me.
Now despite the low odds of an accident per miles/km travelled. amongst all the riders here, I wonder how many can say they never, ever fallen off a bike?
Anecdotally – I’ve broken two helmets whilst wearing them. Once mountain biking when a rear shock failed and bike ground on rocks at high speed stopping rather suddenly, rocks which I then tumbled along with just a scratch and a graze, plus a cracked helmet and intact skull. Another time was after being attacked by idiot car drivers, again preventing serious injury.
I know numerous people who have escaped serious head injury due to helmet wearing and a death and permanent brain injury through not wearing one. Last two on road, the others off road.
imajez wrote:
I have a cap, does just the same.
I have fallen off four times (twice on black ice, once on oil on the road, once hitting a dropped kerb which wasn’t as dropped as I would have liked). Have also come off when I was doored by a car passenger.
It has never been my head which has hit anything. I’ve had cuts and scrapes and a possible broken rib, but my head has never even got mud on it.
Remind me why I *must* wear a helmet but shin pads, knee pads, armour, and gloves are all optional?
2p > talking about distance
2p > talking about distance per accident is irrelevant, all of you are not having an accident right now. Talking about body trauma is irrelevant. Helmets have a very specific role; they mitigate injury, that is all, mitigate not prevent. Risk is a spectum, cycling is a mode of transport and a sport. Go slow, you should be fine, go faster and there is more risk, start thinking about protecting yourself. Get yourself stuck in the middle with delusions that your own skill will protect you and you are likely to run out of luck.
I’ve been hit by a car and my
I’ve been hit by a car and my head bounced off the road… I’m glad I had a helmet on because that took the force of that impact, dissipated it and shattered as it was supposed to do. I’ve got some nice pictures somewhere…
I can’t believe that nobody has mentioned how much football costs the NHS. I bet there’s more football injuries in A&E then there are cyclists.
newtonuk wrote:
I’m not sure how many times this information has been repeated, but the message doesn’t seem to be getting through: a helmet which has shattered has failed catastrophically and has provided next to no protection.
Cycle helmets are designed to work by crushing, which absorbs a relatively large amount of energy, not by shattering, which absorbs very little. Take a ceiling tile or some expanded polystyrene packaging and try to crush it between your finger and thumb, then try snapping it. Which is the more difficult, and which takes the most energy?
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html
Don’t leave home without one.
Don’t leave home without one. I smacked my head on the garage door this am (as I was adjusting my Garmin settings) and if I hadn’t been wearing a helmet I’m sure it would have fecking hurt. Will now make sure I wear it when accessing the car and the lawnmower as well as my bike – it would be foolhardy to do otherwise even if I had private health cover.
Meanwhile my gransdons in Oz aren’t allowed on their bikes or even their scooters without a helmet but its fine for them to climb up the 25 foot climbing frame in Freemantle without one. They’ve also got a garage door that doesn’t fully open as well – can’t believe they ignore these risks.
Summary: lumping together
Summary: lumping together studies accumulated over the years which were published to demonstrate that helmets have some protective effect results in a meta-study which reflects these individual findings. coming up later… Dog Bites Man.
The original research article
The original research article was also discussed on a road.cc blog. Its methodological flaws are sufficiently serious enough to throw its validity into doubt. These I detail in the comments.