cyclehelmets.org |
||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Almost everywhere that cycle helmets have been promoted, cycle use has fallen. Where promotion has been strong, or the use of helmets made mandatory and the law enforced, falls in cycle use have often been substantial. Taking account of the wider health benefits of cycling, the consequences of deterring people from cycling are far-reaching in a climate where most people lead sedentary lifestyles and illnesses such as obesity are reaching epidemic levels. The people who are likely to suffer most are young people. Teenagers are most easily dissuaded from cycling by cycle helmet promotion.
In several cases falls in cycle use have been greater, in terms of absolute numbers of cyclists, than the increase in helmet use brought about by laws or promotion.
Australia
Helmet laws in Australia have resulted in large
reductions in the number of people who cycle:
| State/Territory | Falls in cycle use | |
| Australian Capital Territory | 33% to 50% | |
| New South Wales | 44% to 90% for children | Fall in cycle use 5 times that of increase in helmet use. |
| Northern Territory | 50% commuters 17% to 39% schoolchildren |
Cycling levels recovered after the law in this territory was effectively revoked. |
| Queensland | 22% to 30% children | |
| South Australia | 38% schoolchildren | |
| Victoria | 36% to 46% children | |
| Western Australia | 26% to 38% overall More than 50% children |
In some localities overall cycling levels recovered after 10 - 12 years, but the profile of cyclists was very different with a greater proportion cycling less regularly, for recreation only. Cycling by children has generally not revived.
Canada
Helmet laws in Canada have also led to many people
cycling less or no longer at all:
| Province | Falls in cycle use |
| Alberta | 41% to 59% children and teenagers |
| British Columbia | 28% |
| Nova Scotia | 40% to 60%, greatest reduction among teenagers. Fall in cycle use more than twice increase in helmet use. |
In Ontario it was reported [2] that cycle use did not fall, based on a study of children in a single community in the City of Toronto. It is not clear that the children in the community studied were typical of all cyclists elsewhere in Ontario. However, the Ontario helmet law was never enforced. Whilst this law appears not to have led to a reduction in cycling in this particular community, nor did it lead to an increase in helmet wearing [3].
Denmark
From 1993 to 2000 the number of children cycling to school fell by 30% while the number taken by car doubled. Older children also reduced their level of cycling by 30% on journeys for leisure. Most of this change has been attributed to changed perceptions and attitudes. In particular, there evolved a much less positive attitude towards cycling amongst parents and children. Parents have limited their children's independent mobility in response to increased traffic, road safety campaigns and media influence. The promotion of cycle helmets during the 1990s is thought to have been influential and to have contributed to the shift from cycling to other modes. [6]
Great Britain
There are no helmet laws in Great Britain but
helmets have been promoted strongly in some areas. A study [4] found that local
authorities that had strongly promoted helmets suffered an average 2.8% decrease
in cycle use at a time when other authorities, that did not strongly promote
helmets, experienced an average increase of 4.9% in cycle use.
Details.
Since 1991, the fall in cycle use in Great
Britain has been almost twice the increase in helmet use.
Helmet promotion has adversely affected the promotion of cycling in many places by creating the perception that it is unsafe to cycle without a helmet. The strong stand of Government in promoting helmet use, including a statement in the Highway Code that cyclists 'should' wear helmets and the banning of photos of unhelmeted cyclists in official literature, has played a key part in creating uncertainty about encouraging cycling. As a result some employers and institutions have declined to encourage cycling for fear of liability if people who are encouraged to cycle do not wear helmets; and schools and youth groups have banned cycling without helmets, resulting in reductions in cycling among the young.
Research for Cycling England has shown that 27% of women do not cycle in part because of 'helmet hair' – the effect on the appearance of their hair if they were to wear a helmet. [7]
New Zealand
The New Zealand Travel Survey [5] suggests that cycle
use fell by approximately 22% as a result of the country's helmet
law. Cycle use by children has especially suffered.
Sweden
Non-head injuries to cyclists fell by 48% in helmet
promotion areas compared with 32% elsewhere. The most plausible explanation is a
substantial fall in cycle use. [1]
| See also: | |
References
[1] Ekman R, Schelp L, Welander G, Svanstrom L. Can a combination of local, regional and national information substantially increase bicycle-helmet wearing and reduce injuries? Experiences from Sweden. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 1997 May;29(3):321-8. 
[2] Macpherson AK, To TM, Macarthur C, Chipman ML, Wright JG, Parkin PC. Impact of mandatory helmet legislation on bicycle-related head injuries in children: a population-based study. Pediatrics, 2002; 110(5):e60. 
[3] see: Macpherson AK, Parkin PC, To TM. Commentary: Mandatory helmet legislation and children's exposure to cycling. Injury Prevention 2001;7:228-230
[4] Bryan-Brown K, Taylor S. Cycle helmet wearing in 1996. TRL, Report 286. ISSN 0968-4107, 1997.
[5] Land Transport Safety Authority.
[6] Jensen SU, Hummer CH. Sikre skoleveje: En undersøgelse af børns trafiksikkerhed og transportvaner. Danmarks Transport Forskning, Rapport 3, 2002.
[7] Research for Cycling England by YouGov, 2008.
Page last updated 4 October 2008
|
|
||