Symptom - cyclists get head injuries.
What to do?
a) mandatory helmet use - problem solved!
OR
b) ask why cyclists are getting head injuries
If you follow line b), possible answers could be
(in no particular order):
1) poor road design
2) inexperienced cyclists losing control and falling off
3) inexperienced other road users colliding with cyclists
4) fooling about by cyclists
5) fooling about by motorists
6) distracted cyclists (headphones, phones etc, etc,
7) distracted drivers (phones, TVs, eating, music too loud)
8) drunk/drugged up cyclists
9) drunk/drugged up motorists
10) poor bicycle design
11) poor vehicle design
and no doubt folks can think of more to go on the list than that!
But the next step would depend of how many of the above questions are answered "yes".
a) Is the answer more training (for cyclists/motorists)
b) Is it a different road design (see the Dutch experience, for example)
c) Is more law enforcement and/or are legal changes required (fooling about/distraction/drunk)
d)
Do manufacturers need to make safer bikes/vehicles in the first place -
and by safer, I am talking about the effect on others as well as for
the users.
- A lot of work has been done in Europe on reducing the risk to
a pedestrian/cyclist hit by a car or light truck - bonnet shapes have
been smoothed, so the pedestrian/cyclist is more like to roll across the
bonnet, rather than be roll under
- There are the "under-running" bars
fitted to almost all larger trucks (that I mentioned earlier) etc, etc,
- Cars sold
in Europe have safety rating not only for protection for the occupants,
but also for the amount of damage caused to folks they hit. Most folks
are "decent" folks, so when buying a "family" car, would they buy one
with a 4-star (good) rating for "pedestrian damage", or one with 1-star
(not so good) that is likely to cause more injury to pedestrains in case
of an accident.
All small steps
Many lead to a further set of
questions, rather than nice easy answers that politicians can stand
up and claim as a "victory" in a speech.
So easy answers, or the "long road ".
As for helmets, they MAY give a MARGINAL protective value for SOME incidents.
Helmets
don't appear to have any negative impacts, except deterring some folks
from cycling, and in some cases that increases their risk of "sedentary
diseases" (heart attack, stroke, obesity problems, depression, etc. etc.)
However, a helmet wearer should always remember the
well-described phenomenon of "risk compensation" - some folks ride in
what they know are more dangerous ways or in what they know are more
dangerous places, because the feel that a helmet makes them "safer" -
the result is that they have more accidents, not less.
Remember that a helmet never stopped an accident - only (hopefully) reduced ONE of the possible outcomes of the accident - a helmet won't help with a broken arm for example.
So
by all means wear a helmet, but always ride AS IF YOU ARE NOT wearing one, and
concentrate on the big picture (the reasons why accidents happen) and
not the small one (the "magic hat").
Tell you what, though - a helmet is a very good way of stopping your cycling cap blowing off on a windy day!
On a more general note, and that brings us to the point.
Society "normalises" certain behaviours, that folks accept without thinking.
Folks
think cycling is more dangerous than walking, so folks think it is
"safe" to wear a helmet while cycling, but "crazy" to wear a helmet
while walking.
Yet, in Britain at least, the data suggests the risks are similar
The
logical stance to take would be to wear a helmet for neither (if you
think the risks really aren't that high, and, statistically, they are
not!), or to wear a helmet for both.
Do you know anyone who wears a helmet for walking city streets?
And guess what else.
Folks talk about risk, and never think about "exposure".
Lets
just say that riding a motorcycle, for example, is 22 times as
dangerous in terms of deaths per mile than driving an automobile.
If I do both, which I am more likely to die doing?
Easy answer is the motorcycle.
Yet,
what if I drive 25 times as far as I use a motorcycle for? What if I
commute to work every day by automobile, and just use the motorcycle for
a nice Sunday ride on a nice dry day in the Summer?
Even for me, as
someone who cycles just about every day of the week, I am more likely to
die in a an accident when I am driving a motor vehicle than I am on a
bike.
Why?
Because, after I cycle to work, I collect a "company" motor vehicle to do my job.
Guess what else.
Cyclists
tend to do all their longer journeys by motor vehicle. My father lives
about 300 miles away. I'm not going to cycle there for a visit, am I. In
just one trip to see my father I cover more miles by automobile than I
do in one-to-three months (depends on time of year!) of cycling.
So, understand that for many adult cyclists, they are more likely to die driving a motor vehicle than they are on a bicycle.
You
can google "deaths per million miles" for further information, but this
is a good place to start (it doesn't have a full breakdown, but it
gives a "taste" of the sort of data you need to thimk about):
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview
So
to anyone that does more than just scratch the surface of "safety",
when both relative risk and risk exposure duration are taken into
account it becomes clear that automobile usage is more dangerous than
"typical folks" realise, and cycling is safer than "typical folks"
think.
Like I said, even though I cycle almost every day, I am
statistically more likely to die driving a motor vehicle, simply because
I do far more mileage in a motor vehicle!
And THAT is the difference between "facts" and perceptions.
Of
course, there are other good reasons for following certain behaviours -
like if your Mom tells you to do it. As for me, like a lot of folks in
my age group, that is sadly no longer an issue.
And next time you
drive, buckle up AND put your helmet on (there is a scarily high rate
of head injuries in motor vehicle occupants as well)!
Update:I was asked the "classic" question of
what would I make my own daughter do.
Of course, it is a "lawyer's" question - when the facts don't add up, resort to emotion instead.
So I tried to answe the question as honestly as I could, remembering how my mother worried about me when she was still alive, but she let me do stuff anyway, because she knew that folks ahve to develop, and we can't "cotton wool" our children forever - it doesn't do the children any favours by restricting their personal development, either.
Anyway, here is what I answered:
It is a legal requirement in the UK for kids to wear helmets on bikes.
I am a good, generally law-abiding citizen.
Like
the "Mom asked you to" question, respect is a good motive, even if
safety isn't. One should generally respect the laws of the land one
chooses to live in.
If you followed the British press, you may be
aware that several successful British cyclists (as in Olympics, Tour de
France, World Hour Record) have spoken in the last few years on these
issues. And there is nothing much for me to add.
I might also say
that my daughter did a "cycle training course" at school when she was
about 9, as I did 40-odd years ago, when I was about the same sort of
age.
A fairer question might have been:
Do you (did you) let your kid(s) play outside, and at what age?
At what age did you let them go visit their friends in other streets (where they have to cross a busy road) on their own?
At
what age did you let them go to school on their own, and come home on
their own (assuming they don't live right next to a school, of course).
As
sentimental and overprotective as parents naturally are, one simply has
to train kids for life as an adult. If they never learn to handle
modest risks, how will they learn to live as an adult?
We could drive
our daughter to school everyday - we don't, and she gets the bus - 6
miles each way. She has been doing that since she started at that school
when she was 11.
Kids have to be allowed to make mistakes, because that is how we learnt as kids.
Kids must be allowed to self-develop.
When
my daughter exceeds the legal age for helmet use, then it is up to her,
but until then, it is me that has to pay the fines, so it has nothing
to do with safety, more a case or respect for the law and my bank
manager!
But of course, i guess when you set your "lawyer's question" you didn't allow for the jurisdiction in which I lived.
But
to answer your question in the hypothetical (as in if there was no law
covering it) - if I thought she was experienced enough at good route
selection and safe operation on a bike, I would let her ride how she
wanted.
If I thought she was likely to fall off due to poor cycling
handling skills, then I would try to make her wear a helmet, as helmets
ARE effective for "falling over" rather than "falling off" injuries -
but I would also be getting her to wear kneepads and gloves, too, until
she was more competent at basic cycle-riding and operation skills. And I would get her to do a cycle training course as soon as possible.
Indeed,
when she first did start to ride a two-wheeler with stabilisers, (and
fell off a few times), it was the full gloves, knee-pads and helmet,
even though only one was compulsory.
As my daughter is only 13, the
period when she no longer legally has to wear a helmet is also
theoretical, but I am confident in her as a well-rounded person that she
will be OK to make that choice on her own, and I will support her in
that choice.
You have to let kids develop their own identities and
personalities, and the best we as parents can do is to give her some
signposts along the way (and be there for her if thinks don't go quite
as well as she planned).
But hey, she is pestering me for a new bike,
as she has rather outgrown her previous bike, so I assume that she will
be continuing her cycling!
After all, my mum let me have a
motorcycle when I was old enough to legally have one, and I fell off it a
LOT, even though my father's cousin died on a motorcycle in his early
twenties ...
My mum let me cycle to school when I was 13 on a VERY
busy road, even though another boy had been killed cycling a few years
earlier on the same route going to the same school
My mum always worried about me, but she knew you have to develop the person, not just wrap them in cotton wool.
You have to let kids grow up.
Do you want them to grow up as teens, or when they are fifty?
So,
I hope that is an answer - if there was no law, and I thought she could
handle the bike properly, and I thought she was sensible enough to
choose a decent route, then NO I wouldn't make her wear a helmet, and I
would support her decision - although I might suggest she chose certain
times and routes for certain journeys.
