Public Safety v. Personal Freedom: Should all Cyclists wear Helmets?

This 'At your Leisure' takes a look at a very popular leisure pursuit, one that almost everyone does at some stage in their life - cycling. Work through this resource and you'll investigate just how popular cycling is in Britain compared to some other key European states. You'll focus particularly on the safety aspects of cycling, especially the question of whether cycling helmets are effective in preventing serious injury. The main activity here is to take part in a class or group debate on whether wearing cycling helmets should be made compulsory.

Part 1: How popular is cycling in the UK?

The following figures were compiled by bikebiz.com(http://www.bikebiz.co.uk) and were originally sourced by the Bicycle Association. Sales of bikes in key years over the past four decades are given.

Bike sales in the UK 1960s - 2000

Clearly, there are several influences at work in these data. The notes in the right hand column of the table identify some of these influences: the energy (oil) crisis of the early to mid-1970s may have had some impact on sales of bicycles, as people began to look for alternative forms of transport to their cars. The table also indicates key years when sales of bikes may have been boosted by the appearance of new forms of bicycle, such as the BMX and the mountain bike.

Part 2: Do we all own bikes?

As affluence levels have risen, the number of UK households that own a bike has risen. The figures below were produced once again by the Bicycle Association and sourced from bikebiz.com(http://www.bikebiz.co.uk).

But while bike ownership in the UK has risen, cycling as a form of transport has declined. So why do people continue to buy bikes? The answer lies in the expansion of leisure opportunities for cycling.

The above list contains information about cycling for leisure in some areas of the UK. Have a look at one of these Web sites and try to work out if there is a consistent policy on wearing cycling helmets.

Part 3: Different countries, different cycling environments

A study in the early 1990s compared cycling safety in the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany. The following data were found:

Source of data: Mynors and Savell 1992, cited in Bicycle Helmets: Review of Effectiveness, Department for Transport (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_507998.hcsp)

Image: A bicycle park in Amsterdam - the Dutch make over 13 times more trips by bike than the British. Copyright: Arnau Galofré, stock.xchng

We can see how people in the UK cycle far less than those in these selected EU states. Due to the size of the UK's population, our fatality rate measured on a per capita basis is very low. But if you analyse the same fatality data according to the number of deaths per km cycled, the UK's results were worst. UK fatalities on this measure were five times those in the Netherlands and ten times those in Denmark. The UK's performance was also slightly worse on this score than in Germany.

Part 4: Why is there a focus on helmet compulsion?

The BMA's policy change is interesting. This is the organisation whose earlier report in 1999 had been latched onto by those opposed to legislation on cycle helmets. The move by the BMA to endorse helmet compulsion was announced by its Board of Science and Education in November 2004. This is likely to provide ammunition for any future government campaign on cycling helmet compulsion.

Part 5: What is the statistical evidence of the dangers of cycling?

Let's examine the extent of the problem of head and face injuries caused by cycling accidents, compared to other emergency hospital admissions. The following statistics were gathered for the period of 1991-1995:

Total number of emergency hospital admissions = 12.6 million
Of these,
Number of cycling injuries = 35,056
Number of cyclists admitted with head injuries = 11,985
Number of child cyclists admitted with head injuries = 7,531
Number of cyclists with head injuries who died from their injuries = 121

Source of data: Cook and Sheikh 2000, cited in Bicycle Helmets: Review of Effectiveness, Department for Transport (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_507998.hcsp)

Part 6: The arguments for and against compulsion

In a Department for Transport (DfT) review of the effectiveness of bicycle helmets in 2002(http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_507998.hcsp), a total of 67 reports on the issue were analysed, with the following results:

For:
31 reports were in favour of cycling helmets, 20 of these supported legal compulsion. The arguments in favour are summarised below.

Scientific studies prove that helmets reduce head injuries
Helmet legislation can be just one part of improved cycling safety measures.
Children cycle in different ways and in different places to adults.
There is no evidence to support the theory of risk compensation, where helmet wearers take greater risks than non-helmet wearers.
Long-term consequences of head injuries are often overlooked.
The costs of health care for those injured can be high.
There is no real loss of freedom resulting from making helmet wearing compulsory.

Against:
32 reports were against cycle helmets and legislation to force compulsion. The arguments against are as follows:

Compulsion leads to reduced levels of cycling.
Risk compensation is a strong factor.
Scientific studies used to suppport compulsion are flawed.
The road environment must be improved.
Helmets do not prevent injury to other parts of the body.
If cyclists are compelled to wear helmets so too should other road users.
Compulsory helmet use is a real loss of personal freedom.
Few cyclists in the Netherlands and Denmark wear helmets.
In effect compulsion blames the victims of road accidents.
The law would be hard to enforce.
Helmets are expensive.
Numbers of injuries to cyclists are small.
Helmets look unattractive.
Some studies appear to show a link between helmet use and injury.
Helmets may increase head injuries.

It is important to recognise that not all of the papers included in the review used all of the arguments listed here. The lists cover the whole range of points used to support the points raised. Most frequently used arguments appear at the top of each list.

The report also analysed the numbers of cycling injuries in Britain in recent years. Here's a summary of what they found:

Children cyclists 0 to 14 years
Deaths = 28
Serious injuries = 740
Slight injuries = 5,296

Note that boys were far more likely to be injured than girls. Children aged between 10 and 14 accounted for 74% of fatalities. Younger children were more likely to be injured in an accident where no other vehicle was involved.

Adult cyclists 15 years and over
Deaths = 123
Serious injuries = 2140
Slight injuries = 13,092

Again, boys were far more likely to be killed or injured in cycling accidents than girls. About 30% of casualties were less than 25 years old, 60% were aged 15 to 34.

Source of data: Police STATS 19 reports from accident scenes 1998-2000 (Average annual figures) cited in Bicycle Helmets: Review of Effectiveness, Department for Transport (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_507998.hcsp)

Part 7: The debate

Divide your class/group into two sides; one will argue in favour of compulsory wearing of cycling helmets, the other against. Here's some further evidence that you should use in preparing your side's arguments:

For the compulsory wearing of cycling helmets:

Legislation for the compulsory wearing of cycle helmets - the BMA's report into this subject and their change of heart on the question of compulsion (http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/cyclehelmetslegis)
Wearing of helmets - situation two months after introduction of new rule - the adoption of compulsory wearing of helmets in professional road cycling (http://www.vic.cycling.org.au/Rules%20and%20Officials/ucihelmets.htm)
Riders' deaths makes the sport of cycling consider its policy on compulsory wearing of helmets - UCI to make helmets compulsory(http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/cycling/news/2003/04/05/cycling_uci/) (SportsIllustrated.com) CPSC urges all Bike Riders to wear Helmets following Tour de France Death(http://www.bhsi.org/cpsctour.htm) (Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute)
Go to the National Statistics Web site and locate the spreadsheet of UK passenger death rates according to mode of transport 1981-1999(http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=3680&Pos=4&ColRank=2&Rank=224). We know that cycle helmet use in the UK has grown in the past twenty years. What evidence can you find that their use has reduced death rates for cyclists?

Against the compulsory wearing of cycling helmets:

The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends that people take at least 30 minutes of exercise every day. One of the best ways of exercising is to cycle. The WHO publishes a great deal of information on the benefits of cycling as well as other forms of exercise.(http://www.euro.who.int/transport/modes/20021009_1)

Opponents of the compulsory wearing of cycle helmets point to evidence that seems to show that where helmet wearing is obligatory, cycling levels fall.
Helmets for cycling? What about helmets for driving? An alternative view(http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=5002) from bikebiz.com.
Go back to the statistical evidence quoted in Part 5. From the data given calculate the following figures to back up your argument:
- Cycling injuries in the UK as a percentage of total emergency hospital admissions
- Cycling-related head injuries as a percentage of total cycling injuries
- Cycling-related head injury deaths as a percentage of cycling-related head injuries
If cycling helmets were to be made compulsory, would all cyclists have to wear them? If so, would this be justified? If any one group of cyclists should be encouraged to wear helmets, which should it be?
How effective are cycling helmets? Shouldn't the decision of whether or not to wear one be up to the individual? See advice on cycling helmets(http://www.whycycle.co.uk/safety-helmets.htm) from Why Cycle?

Summary:

One final thought - the DfT review assessed the quality of the debate over cycling helmets and found that in general the tone of the argument was 'sour and tetchy'. They noted that it seemed to be routine behaviour for contributors to question the validity of data, scientific methods and conclusions of their opponents.

The DfT also commented on the selective interpretation of material as evidence. One example they cited concerned the 1999 report by the BMA. This report expressed its opposition to the compulsory wearing of cycling helmets, but strongly recommended the wearing of proper fitted helmets by all cyclists, especially children. The DfT found that this 1999 report was used by those opposed to helmets to suggest that the BMA supported this stance.

Use these comments to guide the way you should conduct your debate. Argue your points using the evidence you can obtain from the information provided. Avoid getting too heated, as this is likely to detract from the quality of the debate.

If you are studying for a qualification that requires you to show evidence of Key Skills, this debate should provide opportunities for you to show your ability to work with others and summarise information from numerous sources about a complex subject.

	You are here: Home > Current Topics > At your Leisure > 17 January 2005

At your Leisure - 17 January 2005