- 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 helmetCanadian research claims cyclists with helmets three times less likely to die from head injury
New research published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal claims that cyclists wearing a helmet are three times less likely to die from head injuries than those who are not.
The researchers say that their study supports calls for the introduction of compulsory helmet laws across Canada for all age groups.
However, concerns have been raised locally regarding the validity of the methodology employed, based on an adjusted odds ratio, which does not take account of relative risk, and which it is said may significantly exaggerate the effect of the claimed findings.
The team studied Ontario Chief Coroner’s records relating to 129 people who died in bicycle-related incidents in the province from 2006 to 2010, three in four of whom had been involved in a collision with a motor vehicle.
The other fatalities resulted from an incident involving another cyclist, a pedestrian or other object and, in 10 per cent of cases, a fall. Males accounted for 86 per cent of the victims, with ages ranging from 10 to 83.
“Helmets save lives,” insists Dr. Nav Persaud of St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, who led the research.
“There are about 70 cycling deaths in Canada every year, and based on our study, we estimate we could prevent about 20 of them with helmets.
“We found that 88 per cent of people who died were 18 years of age or older, which is important because the helmet legislation in Ontario currently only applies to those younger than 18 years,” he added.
While Alberta also requires only under-18s to wear a helmet, in the provinces of British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, all cyclists must wear one, irrespective of age.
He acknowledged, however, that making road conditions safer for cyclists in the first place would also lead help reduce casualties.
“Helmets only prevent injuries after a collision takes place,” he explained. “It would be better to prevent the collision from taking place at all. And infrastructure changes like building separated cycle lanes prevent collisions from taking place.
“That being said, even if we had a perfect cycle infrastructure, cyclists would still interact with cars at intersections, for example, so helmets would still be important.”
Opponents of compulsory helmet legislation, including organisations in the UK such as Sustrans and the CTC, believe it should be left to the individual to choose, pointing out that in places where they have been made mandatory, the number of cyclists has reduced, and that the general health benefits of regular cycling mean it is preferable to encourage more people to ride bikes rather than enacting laws that may deter them.
The CTC also cites several research papers published that found no link between the proportion of cyclists wearing helmets and any the safety of cyclists.
In a description of the background to the research in the Canadian article’s abstract, it was claimed: “Cycling fatalities [are] a leading cause of death among young adults worldwide.”
According to a report published earlier this year in partnership with The Lancet, Unicef said that “in middle- and high-income countries, cars are the biggest killers” among young people aged 10-19.
In Great Britain, an average of 10 children under 16 years have been killed while cycling during each of the past five years.
There’s no way of knowing how many of those fatalities involved head injuries, nor how many of the children were wearing a helmet and if they weren't, whether one may have possibly helped prevent the fatality.
During the same period, four times as many child pedestrians – 42 in an average year – were killed in Britain in road traffic collisions, according to Department for Transport figures.
While Unicef cites injury as the leading cause of death for adolescents worldwide, it’s a broad category that includes “road traffic injuries; injuries such as falls, burns, poisoning and drowning; and injuries from violence, including armed violence.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Daveyraveygravey 1 sec ago
The driver is saying he moved over to the right, to give the cyclists as much room as possible, but the victim still managed to get in front of him...
- brooksby 2 min 20 sec ago
And of course, it was a "tragic accident" rather than a rather significant failing by a so-called professional driver.
- Owd Big 'Ead 3 min 18 sec ago
Who? They won't be missed. Bet the cultural experience will be tawdry in your new home. Make sure the door doesn't hit you on the arse on the way out.
- brooksby 11 min 52 sec ago
Dear "member of the road.cc staff" - is there any chance you could publish a transcript of this episode? - thanks!
- Freddy56 22 min 58 sec ago
I am a bianchi owner, A lovely Sprint with 105 hydraulic but this has concealed cables on a bike that isn't build for speed?
- Freddy56 25 min 22 sec ago
I think the reviewer hasn't understood the spirit of the jersey, if the sale cost is being giving to the Masaka (team/club?) you can't really judge...
- Secret_squirrel 26 min 13 sec ago
Parcel Force via Parcel Monkey are usualy as cheap and more trustworthy than most of the rest. Never had a problem with them.
- Steve K 48 min 11 sec ago
Right - I've now worn them in the rain. Just for a short walk and a short ride. But they performed well - initially the rain was just beading off...
- Secret_squirrel 1 hour 1 min ago
Why the fudge would you employ a CEO who's previous exeperience was in selling a purely digital product, when your business model is selling an...
- mark1a 1 hour 57 min ago
A bit more about it here https://road.cc/content/feature/cycling-tech-innovations-never-took-off-...
Add new comment
85 comments
The Helmet Debate enters it's 5th year... I'm not getting involved this time.
I thought the same then bingo a dozen entries later
I have only banged my head once in over 200,000 miles - on a jay-walking pedestrian in Battersea High Street. I bought a helmet recently though (Giro Savant, very comfy) just because of the ignorant pronouncements of coroners. I want maximum compensation for my children when I'm killed.
Interesting comment above "rock climbing is dangerous, cycling isn't". When you are riding uphill in the Pyrenees you will discover that they are eroding and that large chunks regularly fall onto the road. Personally I wouldn't be a pedestrian high up there without a helmet. Something to think about during your next Etape or Marmotte when you feel like taking your helmet off on the hills. It may indeed be a rare occurence for a rock to hit you, but in the words of Dirty Harry "do you feel lucky, punk?"
(the rate of erosion of the Pyrenees flies in the face of a theory of an old earth - but that's a story for another time).
Do tell me you're joking. And by the way, the valleys into the Vercors are more prone to rockfalls than those in the Pyrenees, to the extent that my favourite routes are closed for road works every summer in alternate years; and I don't wear a helmet when riding uphill in heat.
YOU WILL SURELY DIE!!!
@hairyairey - do people driving open-top cars in the Pyrenees wear a helmet? And what about the vast majority of us who aren't in the Pyrenees? Should we fear rockfalls too?
In the UK, smoking kills literally thousands of people a year, obesity and lack of exercise again probably thousands and alcohol again thousands. Last year cycling deaths were 116. We don't know the injuries or helmet situation in these fatalities so lets pretend that none of the cyclists were wearing helmets. According to the Canadian study, about 30% would be saved by wearing a hat. So that's 30 - 35 people a year. Sorry guys, any government that fails to address smoking, drinking and obesity but concentrates on a few (albeit tragic) cycling fatalities is deliberately missing the big picture. Cyclists are an easy target for well meaning do gooders who think victim blaming is the way to promote a healthy activity.
The issue here is not whether helmets make you safer but one of being compelled to wear one. I should have the right to choose to take the risk not to wear one, in the same way I can choose to take the risk of crossing a road at a non-designated crossing point. It is highly unlikely that I will damage anyone other than myself by not wearing a helmet, there is the issue of potentially costing more to fix/look after me in terms of medical costs if I suffer a head injury whilst cycling without one but that argument can be endlessly extended to include people who drink too much, eat too much, drive to fast etc. By all means lets have more studies into the risks so that we can all make more informed decisions about when we choose to wear or not wear a helmet but if the study recommends compulsory helmet wearing it should be clear who they think needs protecting or what money they are trying to save for whom.
Trackal: Do you believe that you should also have the right not to wear a helmet whilst riding a motorbike or a seatbelt whilst driving or riding in a car?
I'm all for wearing a helmet but even i have to admit its nothing compared to the wearing of a lid for a motorbike or a seat belt in a car.
Yes. There is a junction on my regular commute where it is dangerous to wear a seatbelt because it prevents my leaning forward and craning to see round/over a wall and tell if someone is coming before I pull out. (The belt always locks solid as I brake before the Give Way sign.) So I take the belt off. By doing so I am endangering no-one other than myself; if I fail to, I potentially put others at greater risk too.
Being permitted to drive half a ton of potentially lethal metal around in public places carries with it an awesome responsibility, which I always take seriously. As the 'captain' of my vessel, the safety of others rests in my hands, not the government's, I and resent that I might be fined for putting others before myself. (Though in this case, mine and others' interests coincide because it is better to avoid a collision in the first place.) But I wear a belt at other times and refasten it as soon as it is safe to.
I don't ride a motorbike so am not really qualified to answer, but I would wear a helmet if I did.
Whether that lot adds up to an argument for compulsion is another matter.
After reading some of the comments placed on the forum on this discussion and other helmet discussions i think i might change my stance towards the wearing of a helmet. I've said, even on this current discussion, it's the individuals choice.
However i now think it should be made law. Not because there is all of a sudden some magical evidence to say its right, just so that all the plonkers who come on here and belittle those who do think its a good idea without offering any other form of discussion, will have to wear one. God that would be a good sight
Mind you there are those on the site who give very good and well thought out arguements against wearing them and i do not mean to say you are a plonker, far from it, but i guess everyone knows who i mean
Ok, here's a good reasoned argument against compulsory wearing of helmets by cyclists. The vast majority of cycle helmets offer so little impact protection as to be next to useless. They offer such low levels of protection and are tested to such laughably low standards as to be an utter waste of time. That's why I made the sarcastic comment about the paper plate. Many people seem to think they're protecting themselves with a cycle helmet when they're riding, but they're not because it doesn't.
Yes, we've seen a few stories about how people fell off their bikes, slid down the road and the cycle helmets prevented head injury. But to be really scientific, each person would have to repeat the incident exactly as before but without a helmet.
I wear a motorbike helmet when I'm riding my motorbike because it's the law. But it also makes sense as the motorbike helmet does offer impact protection and as my motorbike travels faster than a bicycle. Car seatbelts are required by law and also offer protection.
The health benefits of cycling outweight the risks by a factor of 20:1. And as another post made quite clear, the government would do a lot better if it addressed the completely preventable damage caused by smoking and obesity on which the country wastes fantastically large amounts of money every year.
And in any case, it would be far far more effective to reduce the danger at source and tackle what causes most cycle accidents, bad driving on behalf of other road users. I've cycled in London and Amsterdam a lot over the years and I know which is safer and where very few people bother with helmets.
Mate, i wasn't having a pop at you, far from it, you always put reasoned points over whatever subject we talk about. Its the ones who make snide comments but cant offer anything in reply that annoy me
Well put Paul.
Obviously it would be better if we based our scientific knowledge on 'anecdotal evidence', then we could enjoy reading medical journals that started their studies by saying "I met a bloke down the pub and he told me that wearing a wet fish on his head saved his life..."
The Canadian Medical Association Journal is currently ranked 11th amongst medical journals. I doubt any other journal would publish this because of it's flawed methodology. Maybe they should have employed a statistician to look at their findings before Dr. Nav Persaud started pontificating, what's referred to in medical terms as, bollocks.
Alex: I like their limitations section. The only limitations they consider are those they think might cause the "helmets associated with fewer head deaths" risk to be under-estimated. No consideration at all of any factors that might cause their study to over-state the association - such as their very narrow data-set, focused on the worst accidents, such as other factors that might correlate with fatalities and helmet use (people who are naturally inclined to take more risks, intoxication, etc).
Being very focused and selective with data is a classic way to introduce bias into statistical results (unwittingly or through deliberate manipulation).
Addendum: the authors of the study appear to be medical doctors, a sociologist, and one other person with a BA in something I havn't uncovered - but their professional background doesn't suggest it was in anything math or stats related. The statistical analysis in this study is extremely basic - simple stuff taught in A-levels / undergrad introductory statistics classes. That's not to say it's invalid, but I wonder if part of the reason they didn't do a more sophisticated, multi-variate analysis (e.g. pathology records they used would surely have toxicology details) is simply that none of the authors had the required skills in statistics.
The advantage of the paper plate protective headgear also is that it is biodegradable, unlike the shell type helmet which requires expanded polystyrene and is not nonly non-biodegrable, but also results in the release of atmosphere damaging gases.
My grey matter, matters! I agree with Gasman Jim - Your brain floats inside a bone skull at the end of the day. Head trauma or Fatality should be enough to make you protect.
I've slung my bike down the road a few times and each time my lid has taken the road rash and [thankfully] what little impact my bonce received.
Ultimately though, you pay your money and take your choice I suppose.
Every time someone presents a topic about helmet use it ends up with numerous comments neither proving or disproving the benefit of helmet use, and in the end i dont think there ever will be conclusive proof either way.
Personally if a helmet stops me from hurting my head i will wear one. They dont look cool and some are not cheap if you want the lighter versions. I wear a Giro Atmos cos i do a lot of cycling and the weight is important to me after seperating 3 vertabrae in my neck through rugby
As for people stating the obvious "my helmet didnt stop me from breaking my leg" can i just say (IMHO) you sound very silly, of course it didnt, just like my helmet didnt stop me from cutting my finger when i peeled some spuds.
In the end it should remain as a PERSONAL CHOICE and if you do land on your head without a lid on (i do like the word lid) tough and i hope it bloody hurts.
And what if you are wearing a helmet and it causes you to break your neck? I wouldn't wish that on you or anyone and I wouldn't wish you to suffer any pain. i.e. it may save you from injury; it may cause you injury; it will probably make no difference at all.
You see this is what i mean. The "what if" terminollogy should not come into a reasoned discussion. We cant live our lives with the "what if" question.
It should remain as personal choice and not forced onto us without extensive and thorough independant examination of all the facts. I will continue to wear one regardless as i personally believe it will prevent certain injuries.
Frankly I think people choosing not to wear a helmet is up there with smoking as a brilliant example of Darwinism. You pays your money and you makes your choice, ultimately. Who am I to argue?
How so Darwinism? Isn't there irrefutable evidence that smoking is harmful? Where is the irrefutable evidence about wearing a helmet? Isn't this comparing the proverbial apples with pears?
I worked for the Royal Mail for a while. They told me I had to wear a helmet. When I asked about the downsides they were unable to respond. This is my point; there is a default position that helmets will 'save your life' or 'will save you from serious (head) injury'. This is patently not true.
Trust me. I'm genuinely interested and would welcome someone pointing me to the evidence while also pointing me to the evidence of the potential dangers.
Wear helmet => less sexy => less sex => fewer children => less DNA passed on => Darwinian loser
The core objective should remain to increase cycling as a form of transportation across the board. Helmet laws do not help towards that objective.
Spot on. This is just the latest distraction from what really should be being debated/ funded/ implemented.
Totally agree there. Unfortunately we, as cyclists, offer very little to the purses of Govt. Until that changes, which i have no doubt the current govt will try, and we have to pay to use the roads we have little say, or should i say, have very little amount people willing to listen to our concerns
If we believe the 'Wiggo effect' then most people who have taken up cycling recently will have done so after seeing riders in the TdF and Olympics all of whom wore helmets.
People copy the leading figures in their sport, so it's unlikely that wearing a helmet will be a deterrent.
Pages