- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
White cycle helmetHelmets reduce head injury odds by 69 per cent
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.
Latest Comments
- Ride On 21 sec ago
One bad review is worth 50 good ones. Thanks for the tip I will avoid.
- chrisonabike 30 min 15 sec ago
A delightfully tactful description of being arrested for vagrancy and loitering?
- chrisonabike 31 min 59 sec ago
You mean like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkCpA91NqBw
- chrisonabike 36 min 6 sec ago
Thanks to locals for reviews. And obviously the people who got this through!...
- Mr Hoopdriver 1 hour 1 min ago
OT & Just for you https://www.popsci.com/animals/squirrel-leap-skills/
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 28 min ago
We're so many different towns in one city - large portions of what are effectively the Home Counties forming the outskirt boroughs. They are where...
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 43 min ago
Welcome, hope it works!
- ROOTminus1 3 hours 22 min ago
And if I tried to inspire you that critical thinking isn't just about finding problems with someone else's logic?...
- jonah1961 3 hours 38 min ago
Same here Luca, I subscibed this morning but wonder whether the creaky website takes a while to update?
- David9694 3 hours 54 min ago
Castle Fields car park extension in Tonbridge abandoned but charges remain on Sundays and Martin Square in Larkfield and Bailey Bridge in Aylesford...
Add new comment
56 comments
Australia? Seems legit.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Who says it's unecessary, and I'm not trying to ban anything...
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?
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?
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?
Duplicate Post. Apologies.
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 ?
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.
When alcohol and smoking ate illegal then we can discuss the risks of cycling without a helmet.
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)
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.
I think I've got a shit to give round here somewhere...
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?
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
Lordy, I knew I was behind with things but apparently I should have fallen off 3 times already this year!
No interest here. Anybody got an opinion they'd care to share?
More like:
Anybody got an opinion they'd dare to share?
Gets the popcorn out!
Lets do this
Oh, blimey. Strap yourself in.
Pages