From Dr Richard Keatinge, Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation.
NO doubt Deputy Andrew Green’s intentions are excellent, but he proposes a cycle helmet law that is known to have failed elsewhere.
It is a law that deters a healthy mass activity and addresses a risk far lower than I infer from his presentation.
Cycling is good for our health. We should promote cycling, not scare people away from it.
I can only sympathise with his son, who suffered a serious head injury after falling off his bicycle. Fortunately, such problems are rare.
Cycling is not unusually dangerous. Cycling, walking and driving have about the same injury rate per hour. Most head injuries to cyclists are fine in a day or two at most, and most of the head injuries that are presented to specialists have nothing to do with bicycles.
Deputy Green assures us that he does not want to ‘criminalise’ young people. Criminalising people is the direct effect of his proposal. A healthy and low-risk activity is to be made a crime.
The Deputy has selected a large number of quotations to support his view that helmet laws are effective. It is easy to find quotations to support good intentions.
Unfortunately, this has required him to list the studies with the worst scientific quality, and he has left out Robinson, whose work defines good scientific method in this area, using all available control groups, data on helmet use, and so on.
Helmet laws have failed to have any noticeable impact on head injury rates and they deter people from cycling. There is plenty of work which suggests dramatic drops in cycling due to helmet laws, but only Robinson’s work includes good control groups, comparing cycling between the Australian states that were early in passing helmet laws and those that did so later. For detailed criticism of the comments on which Mr Green relies, see www.cyclehelmets.org.
He quotes anecdotes on accidents where he thinks helmets might have helped. In some of his cases, helmets have broken. He quotes no examples where helmets have performed as designed – that is, where the foam has crushed. In fact, they very seldom seem to work as designed.
The Australian Federal Office of Road Safety pointed out that helmets are designed to crush without breaking. Expanded polystyrene absorbs little energy in brittle failure and once it fails, no further energy is absorbed. Cracks developing through the thickness of the foam-slab render it useless in absorbing impact forces. They found that in real accidents, ‘very little crushing of the liner foam was usually evident’.
The senior engineer of Bell Sports, the market leader in cycle helmets, writes: ‘Another source of field experience are damaged helmets returned to customer service. I collected damaged infant/toddler helmets for several months in 1995. Not only did I not see bottomed out helmets, I didn’t see any helmet showing signs of crushing on the inside.’
If anyone would like the references to back up what I say in this letter they are welcome to contact me.
Bicycle helmet laws have nothing to offer. There are many good ways to promote health, and encouraging cycling must be among the most effective. I hope to see Deputy Green turning his efforts in this direction.
Article posted on 2nd March, 2010 - 2.58pm
34 Article Comments
Thanks for sending this letter I hope you have forwarded the information to our ministers so they can make an informed decission.
To me personally this is nothing that I was not already aware of and I find the introduction of such a law to be another case of nanny state dictatorship. I will be more surprised if this law does not get passed as I doubt many of our ministers will be bothered to do their own research however I di hope they at least take the time to read the information you provide. Thats assuming you have forwarded it to them.
Report abuse
As an avide cyclist both on and off road here in New Zealand, which does require cyclists to wear helmets, that the use of safety equipment is being questioned by the author of this letter.
The thinking behind such use od safety equipment is to a leat sensible try and reduce the injury sustained. This could be measured along side seat belts in cars and helmets on motorcycles, they may not full prevent injury, but may reduce the severity of them.
The reduction in the severity injuries sustained would reduce the effect on the person and the effect on the Government (you the tax payer) in subsidising medical care for others.
Report abuse
The introduction of a cycle helmet law will almost certainly lower the accident rate for cyclists – by simpley reducing the number of cyclists.
As Dr Keatinge points out many people will choose not to cycle if they are forced to wear a helmet.
I would be surprised if this law was not passed however as I would expect our States members will be looking at this for the cash cow it is, with on the spot fines for cyclists without the legally required garb!
Report abuse
Before becoming law, the function standard of seat belts and motorcycle helmets were generally very poor and not really fit for purpose. Introducing the law set minimum standards for both items of safety equipment and there is absolutely no doubt today that both reduce the risks of serious injury and fatality.
The same is sure to happen with cycle helmets. Once more and more countries make cycle helmets a mandatory by law, legislators and manufacturers will be able to come to agreement on the minimum standard acceptable, improving both the design and consistency and therefore reducing the risk. To do this some countries need to take the first step. It is unfortunate that Australia and New Zealand have come under criticism when they have made a difficult decision to get the ball rolling and encourage other jurisdictions to make manufacturers design helmets so they are more than just a fashion statement.
Admittedly Jersey would have very little impact on this process as no one would notice internationally, but may be more so nationally (remember we brought the smoking ban in first and the UK followed albeit they had plans to do so already) and if the UK came on board things would change given the fascination the British have for stringent health and safety standards and we need to start somewhere. Europe would surely follow like they did with seatbelts and motorcycle helmets and then we’d have cycle helmets fit for purpose.
In the meantime, I would be interested to know if Dr Keatinge would choose to wear a cycle helmet if he knew he was to be dropped onto concrete head first from 2 metres. He’d need strong conviction not to!
Report abuse
Joker, I’m sure he would choose the helmet. But then if I was told I was going to be run over by a car when crossing the road I would choose an inflatable air-bag suit to walk to work in every day. I don’t, though, I wear normal clothes because I trust my own ability to cross a road – the same as I trust my own ability when riding a bike. I don’t need someone telling me what I should or should not do on a machine that will only go as fast as I can manually make it. It is not the same as seat belts as a car is a 1 ton piece of machinery capable of over 100 mp/h by simply putting your foot down heavier, whereas a bicycle can only go at the speed you can make it go – and the faster you go the harder work it is.
Before you start stating that it is not the cyclist that needs to be aware but drivers of cars that can do the damage, why not instead of making a cyclist wear a hemet make all cars drive around with 4 feet of cotton wool wrapped around them?
Report abuse
There are several areas of concern that those proposing this law have chose to ignore.
Firstly the criminality aspect, people seem to imagine police checks along main roads and cycle ways stopping and charging those travelling some distance and speed. In reality those caught will be youngsters playing outside their homes or play areas where this will also be an offence. These youngsters, or as they will now become, criminals, will be charged and fined alongside and in the same manner as other criminal being charged with vandalism or public disorder offences. I would imagine like a parking offence the fine levied to the little kid or their family will be many time greater than had they committed a real crime. Hardly a good introduction or likely to gain respect for the criminal justice system that we are told can only function with the consent of the majority of the public.
Secondly the increase in accidents caused through the feel safe factor. It is human nature that the safer you feel the greater the risk you are prepared to take and the greater risk you need to take to get the same adrenalin rush. Seatbelts have been great for protecting car drivers but a disaster for pedestrian safety now that young drivers, safe in their secure “cockpit” now have to accelerate and drive faster to get the same buzz.
Thirdly this will just add to the Americanised mindset that has already crossed the Atlantic where if it is not prohibited it must be safe, if you get injured it is somebody else’s fault for not legislating, no allowance for common sense or any awareness of danger or personal safety and the horrendous accident and injuries that result..
There in an old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and this is a perfect example of such. It is NOT illegal to wear a helmet and it is common sense to do so but it is wrong to make a person a criminal where for whatever reason they are caught not wearing a correctly fitted helmet with the correct security code and all the rest of the legal small print which will sooner or later bring the most law abiding citizen to “justice”.
And all this at a time when our Police are so over stretched that you are [it would be interesting to have the true statistics] far more likely to be injured as a result of disorderly behaviour by others than you are to fall off your bike and hurt your head with or without helmet.
Report abuse
Michael #5
You comparisons are ludicrous because:-
A) they don’t make suits with airbags and if they did they would probably be highly impractical, unlike simply placing a helmet on ones head;
B) You have the potential to travel at ten times the normal walking speed which reduces the effect of your defensive reaction and you carry ample inertia to smash your skull to a pulp on a machine that offers no protection whatsoever unlike your 100mph car; and
C) Your pre-emptive and ridiculous argument that cars should drive around with 4 feet of cotton wool is again no way as practical as a cyclist simply placing a helmet on their head. However cars are more pedestrian and cyclist friendly than they were 10 years ago and regulations are getting more stringent in this area of car design so may be you have something to patent there.
Sanity #6
I accept your concerns regarding enforcement but surely the problem is the same for people riding on pavements or without lights after dusk or riding drunken in charge? These are all illegal and enforced by police if you are caught in the act. Sometimes you may receive a stern word, sometimes prosecution. I trust the police to use the same discretion with the helmet law when dealing with youngsters playing outside their house. Also what happened when the seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws were introduced? Surely there was the same problem? Both are now accepted in society by the majority as will cycle helmets be after a time.
I also agree with your concern regarding the negative correlation between wearing protective clothing and risk adverseness. I know there is evidence to suggest motorcyclists are prepared to take more risks when wearing full protective clothing rather than the minimum helmet. Unfortunately following this logic through to its conclusion would mean we should remove the mandatory law of wearing a helmet altogether, yet there is proven evidence that motorcycle helmets reduce serious injuries and fatalities, a bit of a paradox there. The studies also show that it was the feeling of being protected by proper clothing (all in one leather suits and protective boots) affecting the motorcyclist’s inherent attitude to risk. Don’t know about you but I still feel pretty exposed and psychologically no safer whether I’m wearing a cycle helmet or not. In summary if there were a law that cyclists had to wear full head to toe protective clothing your point might be valid but in my opinion donning a helmet isn’t really going to make you feel safe enough to affect your inherent attitude to risk.
Report abuse
My greatest concern from reading some of these comments, is the paranoia that seems to exist regarding the introduction of a law aligned with safety. The negativity being expressed about the “free” feeling of riding a bicycle, the professional cyclists around the World, such as the Tour de France and members of the Jersey Cycle Club, wear helmets. These are people who spend hours and hours a week and sometimes a day riding and are very familiar with their own cycling capabilities and the results should one fall from or be knocked from a bicycle.
THis is not a law set to “infringe on civil rights” leading to a crack down on little Johnny and his friends riding along the Esplanade, but could reduce the social impacts but reducing the serious injury rate.
Wearing a helmet does not reduce the enjoyment of cycling and the weights of helmets are certainly less than they were.
Report abuse
Joker,
I think you missed the point of the original letter. Cycle helmets are largely not up to the job they are supposed to do and so the first step would be to define a standard that does work.
Your comments to Michael were not well thought through.
A) um,yes they do actually but for motorcyclists.
B)Not many people can hit 40 mph on a bike.
C)Well that was a joke…
I cycled for many years in Jersey, crashed a quite a few times but never injured my head. Here in the US now they force children to wear helmetson cycles by threatening the parents with child endangerment, whilst adults on motorbikes can chose not to wear a helmet.
Jersey does not need more legislation, but better government and budget management, that way in the rare case of someone getting seriously injured, then there is money to cover it.
Report abuse
Daren #9
“I think you missed the point of the original letter.”
I didn’t but I think you missed the point of my original post. I didn’t disagree that helmets are not fit for purpose. I said legislation across many countries should improve helmet design so that they are fit for purpose as legislators will work along side helmet manufacturers to reach an agreed minimum standard as proven through testing. Much the same as motorcycle helmets and seat belts have improved since they became law and require the ‘kitemark’ to be legal. At present I’m not aware there are any enforced minimum standards to meet so I quite agree we do not know what we are buying and it is a lottery as to whether it will work as intended.
“A) um,yes they do actually but for motorcyclists”
Actually they don’t, they are still in development and are several years off.
“Not many people can hit 40 mph on a bike”
I’ve hit 40mph many times going down hill and I’m just and A to B cyclist. Yes my speedo is calibrated properly.
Report abuse
From d.wimberley@gov.je who has lodged an amendment to the helmet law proposal and my report covers all that I say here and backs it up. Glad to provide more info.
#2 There may be a protective effect for the individual, although even that is in doubt. There is some evidence that rotational forces are enhanced by helmet wearing, and these cause more serious brain injuries. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory report on this done for the UK government said that no proper research had been done to clear up this (rather important) point. Also that they could not say whether or not helmets worked!
#3 is correct; a helmet law will reduce the number of cyclists. This will increase the risk for each cyclist. Both these statements have substantial research behind them.
However, no way could it be a cash cow, quite the reverse. It will be a drain on police resources. #6 asks if more people are injured as a result of disorderly behaviour by others than by cycling. I suspect the answer is yes, and may I use this point in my speech?
#6 “Seatbelts have been great for protecting car drivers but a disaster for pedestrian safety” absolutely. The seatbelt law came in in the UK in 1983 and cycling (and pedestrian I think also) casualties went up for a number of years.
#7 wrote “Your pre-emptive and ridiculous argument that cars should drive around with 4 feet of cotton wool” Others have suggested a metal spike coming upwards from the steering wheel. This would cut motor vehicle accidents by an estimated 100%.
#7 on risk compensation. This is one of the reasons which accounts for the fact that helmet laws do not produce the savings in casualties that are “predicted”.
#8 writes “Wearing a helmet does not reduce the enjoyment of cycling”. Maybe not but it sure does reduce the numbers cycling. Funny that.
Report abuse
If this law does get passed it will be interesting to see how breakers are caught. Will the police give chase? If not surely to enable the law to be enforced reg plates will required for all bikes
Report abuse
I would have assumed that anyone adopting the soubriquet “Joker” would have at least an embrionic sense of humour. Apparently not.
Report abuse
I for one WILL NOT be wearing a cycle helmet even it becomes law…I would like to see the boys in blue arrest me and many other on a Sunday afternoon when I am cycling around the island working off my weekly sunday breakie, the parish halls will be in indated with us rebels.
I pay my tax and Social security and if I do have an accident its up to the States to provide the care I HAVE already paid for.
I agree children should wear helmets but us adults can make our own mind up and if I want to risk getting brain damage that’s my choice not these amateur states members……
if it becomes law the look out the boys in blue for I will be riding without one !!!!
Report abuse
Well said Deputy Wimberly and others. I am lucky enough to have a 500cc motorbike and a scooter both dangerous to ride without a helmet. I drive a car also and in summer with my girlfriend go for a ride on our bikes using pedal power. We also have a couple of older bikes in the shed for when friends visit.
Forget the bikes, if this stupid law is brought in for adults. I accept the risk is low. As a child and after I have had the odd spill but no serious damage.
The Research shows clearly that a thin piece of plastic and a sliver of foam to be ineffective in a serious incident. So whats the point. The States just voted £500,000 to improve the St Aubins cycle track. It is clear that more people of all ages are enjoying cycling judging by the increase in cyclists over the last few years. Are the States now going to reverse the trent?
Two (one male one female)adult bikes, plus two older mountain bikes needing good homes for sale. All reasonable offers accepted.
Report abuse
I like the way that Le Gallais describes the Wimberly opposition as a “wrecking” amendment.
Is he {Le Gallais) not aware of the democratic principle of a motion being debated and other views put forward? If his view regarding opposition is the correct one, then I fear that we are heading for a very immature parliament!
Report abuse
Well all of you that say they won’t wear a helmet when cycling obviuosly have nothing inside their heads to protect! I have had a few bad falls off my bike which have resulted in me hitting my head. If it hadn’t have been for my helmet than I would have definately split my head open- thankfully the helmet cracked instead and I just had a very sore head for a few days after!
Whilst I believe the World is becoming too wrapped in cotton wool with ridiculous laws, unfortunately there are still some irresponsible people that need to be governed in such a way. Maybe the money that would go into this new law should be spent on giving some islanders lessons in ‘common sense’!
@14 you could do with being first in line for my suggested lessons- it maybe your choice to risk getting brain damage, but what about everyone around you that has to suffer as well?
Report abuse
This proposed law is a disgrace. There is no evidence to support eh claims made in support of the proposition.
Report abuse
..to LM – i do not wear a cycle helmet, and never will again. i do not consider that i have nothing of note between my ears. i find helmets to be uncomfortable, make my head sweat, and i can tell you that when the sweat drips in my eyes, and stings, i certainly do not feel that being temporarily blinded with a helmet on my head makes me safer than bare head & clear sight.
perhaps the knocks to your head have had more consequences than you realised. i for one can still
a. manage to ride a bicycle without falling off
b. remember to put my hands out to protect myself when heading towards the ground unexpectedly
c. spell AND use a spell-checker
to all other fans of the nanny-state; do you not care for research and facts?
cycle helmets ARE NOT EFFECTIVE and are, from an absolute public health perspective, COUNTER-
PRODUCTIVE
for the record, although cycle helmets are compulsory in competition, many riders would still opt to not wear them if they were given the choice.
this is prime in the whole argument – that the wearing of helmets should be a matter of CHOICE not compulsion.
Report abuse
Jersey Aussie
C’mon get with it! As the Kiwi correspondent says . . .’they have been compulsory there and here for years, just like we have had seatbelts and head-rests in cars well before you pace-setters’!
We have up to 9,000 cyclists on our Beach Road on weekends — all with helmets and I suspect that they would probably feel ‘naked’ without them!
I noticed the lack of sensible helmets on some cyclists when I last visited Jersey, but with all your narrow walled lanes etc surely they might save a few heads??
Report abuse
Big Horse #13
What about irony?
Report abuse
I for one didn’t realise that if you dont wear a helmet whilst cycling and there is an accident i might get brain damage.
I also didnt realise that my chances of snapping my neck ending in paralasis due to wearing a helmet in an accident!
great choices here i might go for not wearing one. I would prefer to have some life to live rather than being stuck in a chair looking out. Answer to this is DONT CYCLE! Its dangerous and causes excess green house gasses, this is due to getting stuck behind someone doing 5 miles an hour and having to crawl with 20 other cars until the oportunity arises to over take the cyclist. Drive down St Johns main road or St Peters valley just after 5pm.
Report abuse
How do these helmet fascists propose to catch people breaking the law when we can’t even catch anyone cycling through the Square or the precincts? Without a licence number to note down, there’s no chance of catching them.
Jersey would be the only place in the world with bicycle registration numbers if these right-wing wannabe dictators have their way. That alone should tell us all we need to know. There was a good reason why bike numbers were scrapped, perhaps these people should study history a bit more.
Report abuse
Personally, I thank my lucky stars that I was wearing a helmet when I had a very nasty backwards fall while in-line skating (same principle as a biking fall). The helmet worked as designed (it was crushed and broke into three pieces). While I suffered a broken collar bone and was somewhat concussed, I think matters would have been much worse without a helmet. The manufacturer of the helment even sent me a new one when I thanked them for saving my head.
If those who don’t choose to wear helmets can assure me that I won’t have to pay for their medical treatments if they are ever injured, then I’m all for pro-choice. I know my choice.
Report abuse
@17
yes it is my gamble and why do you think I produced 3 children for,,,TO LOOK AFTER ME IN SICKNESS AND OLD AGE!!!!!!!!! after all I looked after them when they were
ill …………………………… “TIC”
Report abuse
funny how i have to wear one on my, motorbike.
and also on the building site?
yet if i fall of my bicycle , i am free to smash my skull on the kerbstone.
Report abuse
“While I suffered a broken collar bone and was somewhat concussed, I think matters would have been much worse without a helmet”
Yes, and I have a grandfather who smoked all his life and died when he was 127, so that proves smoking was alright, doesn’t it?
The facts are clear: there is no scientific evidence that helmets reduce serious injury. They may reduce the risk of brain injury and increase the risk of paralysis.
So are you saying people paralysed as a result of spinal injuries exacerbated by wearing a hemlet should be denied medical treatment?
Report abuse
Brian Scholfield #24
If people who participate in the dangerous pastime of “in line skating”
“can assure me that I won’t have to pay for their medical treatments if they are ever injured, then I’m all for pro-choice” as well
As I have said before It has not been proven either way, cycle helmets may save lives they may also be responsible for causing deaths.
But one thing for sure people sure look nerds wearing them.
Report abuse
Brian Scholfield – to take your argument to its logical conclusion as you were participating in a dangerous sport I hope that you stood by your principles and paid for your medical care in full as your argument would seem to apply to any type of risk.
I understand that there have been only 7 head injuries caused through cycling accidents – all of them off road and all were wearing helmets. That more people suffer head injuries falling downstairs should we make stairs illegal?
Such laws devalue the legal system and are one of the principle reasons for the lack of confidence and respect shown to it and the resulting injuries and sufferings caused as a direct result.
As cycle helmets have also been proved to cause injuries in some instances and it would be interesting to hear from the “helmet lobby” their reactions if it was proposed that helmets be made illegal.
Report abuse
Lets face it, this law will be passed because it just will. Then our government can worry about life’s other dangers ! I have some power tools which could do some serious harm. Also a ladder which I could fall off, a trolley jack for working on the car and a gas torch for reparing the flat roof. Of course, no one has ever been injured by using any of this stuff, have they ?
Report abuse
How much time have our “Government” wasted on this issue. What about important issues such as crime – If one discounts mountain biking and racing [which helmets are always warn] then a lot more innocent people suffer head injuries through crime yet most drunk and disorderly cases seem to get a stern warning – compared with a £60 fix penalty fine for the old lady riding her bike to church for “failing to wear a helmet”. Sorry but the loonies seem to be running the asylum. PS If you want to save a life donate £30 to Africa.
Report abuse
Well done to the States for a commonsense victory, even if it was by the smallest margin of 1 vote.
But now we face the absurd situation of helmet-less teenagers being asked their age and having to provide proof of being over 18!
And don’t forget that the States recently decided that 16 and 17 year olds are mature enough to vote – but apparently not wise enough to decide whether to wear a helmet or not!
Report abuse
At 16 one can vote, work and pay taxes, smoke, get married and be a parent.
But they are not able to make a decision whether to wear a bicycle helmet or not.
I’m also wondering how on earth this is going to be policed. Also, who will be fined or prosecuted. The helmetless child, or the parent.
Report abuse
In a two day sitting of the States there were 45 minutes spent talking about the £60M deficit facing the island
and a day and a half spent on cycle helmets.
Last one out, please turn out the lights!
Report abuse