A Compulsory Helmet Law Won’t Make NYC Cyclists Safer

The great thing about arguments favoring compulsory bike helmet laws is that they tend to stay on topic instead of degenerating into fruitless bickering over cyclists’ interactions with pedestrians, bike riders’ claim to the streets, and other tired subjects.

In Berlin, ##http://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/10/13/berlins-striking-cycling-renaissance/##cycling rates have skyrocketed## while ##http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/drop-speeds-ditch-helmets-cycling-experts-say-20120529-1zg64.html##injury rates have plummeted##, all without a helmet law. Photo: ##http://www.flickr.com/photos/uberselektor/4072021608/sizes/z/in/photostream/##Überselektor/Flickr##

The bad things about such arguments are many. Here are three:

  1. They ignore the possibility that some non-helmet wearers will cycle less or will refrain from taking up cycling in the first place rather than use a helmet or risk being cited for riding bareheaded.
  2. They ignore safety-in-numbers, or, in this case, its inverse, by which having fewer cyclists on the road tends to raise per-cyclist crash rates with motor vehicles, as cyclists’ diminished presence on the road leads drivers to treat them as aberrations rather than as part of traffic.
  3. They overstate helmets’ protective value in reducing injury severity in the event of crashes.

Pro-helmet-law arguments are problematic beyond these three points, too. Arguments favoring helmet laws tend to reinforce cycling’s marginal status by isolating cyclists as a special case and passing over holistic approaches that could improve road safety for all. And of course helmet law promoters like Brooklyn Council Member David Greenfield rarely bother to note the vast health dividends that cycling confers by integrating physical activity into daily life.

Still, points 1-3 above do have a silver lining: their effects can be quantified — or at least varied over reasonable ranges — allowing us to find the conditions under which prohibiting helmet-less cycling might reduce cyclists’ injury rates… or not. This simple spreadsheet model [XLS] does that:

Each percentage in the box denotes the change in the likelihood that an individual cyclist will suffer a serious-injury crash some day because helmet-wearing has been made a condition for riding a bike. Positive percentages, denoted by red, indicate increased rates of serious-injury crashing, while negative percentages, denoted by green, indicate lower rates. The factors that the model varies are (i) the extent to which un-helmeted cyclists will cut back on riding — the steepest curtailments are arranged to the left — and (ii) the extent to which current cycling is done by helmeted riders.

A good place to enter the matrix is at the far right, which corresponds to zero drop-off in cycling despite the helmet law. This column is a helmet-law advocate’s dream, with the law merely making helmet holdouts do what they should have done all along, sans unintended consequences like less cycling. In this scenario, and for the adjacent column which assumes a modest 10 percent drop in cycling among the unhelmeted, the decline in cycling is so slight that the safety-in-numbers curve has little bite. Under these conditions, a helmet law will deliver on its promise of reduced per-cyclist rates of serious injury.

As the assumed rate of attrition among non-helmet wearers moves into the 20 percent range, however, shown in the middle columns, the mathematical signs turn positive, indicating increased risk. This is ominous in light of 20-40 percent reductions in the total amount of cycling reported in cities and states in Australia, the only country with widespread compulsory helmet legislation in which changes in bicycle use have been carefully scrutinized.

Turning to New York City: If we assume that cycling here is now split equally between helmeted and unhelmeted riders, and if we posit that a compulsory helmet law would cause half of the latter group to stop cycling, the table indicates that cyclists’ serious-injury rates would rise by 13 percent. Numerically, that’s because the withdrawal of safety-in-numbers overwhelms the benefit from converting bareheaded cyclists to helmet use. And while a 50 percent shrinkage in cycling by the bareheaded group may be an extreme assumption, the prevalence of yellow and red in the matrix indicates that under most combinations of assumptions, a helmet law will subject cyclists to greater levels of danger, not less.

Why wouldn’t the post-legislation uptake of helmets trump safety-in-numbers? Mostly because helmets simply aren’t very effective in reducing injury damage to cyclists who are struck by cars. The most authoritative epidemiological analysis of helmet efficacy to date, a study of 3,390 cyclist injuries reported from seven Seattle-area hospital emergency departments and two county medical examiners’ offices, summarized in Injury Prevention in 1997, found that helmet-wearing conferred only a 10 percent reduction in severe injury rates; and even this small differential fell below the threshold of statistical significance. What makes this analysis especially noteworthy is that it effectively invalidated the authors’ premature and incomplete conclusion in their decade-earlier study that helmets were spectacularly effective in reducing the chances of head and brain injuries; it was that “finding,” which has reverberated around the medical echo chamber ever since, that catapulted helmet promotion to the fore of bicycle “safety.”

The matrix shown here assumes the 10 percent reduction in severe-injury frequencies reported in the 1997 Injury Prevention paper. (You can test other reduction rate assumptions by downloading the spreadsheet and running it with your own figures.) Yet you’ll miss helmet laws’ other “whammy”: the loss to health among those who quit cycling or never take it up. Nor does the model capture the myriad of opportunities for improving traffic safety for all participants by addressing operators of motor vehicles, who bring nearly all of the danger to the road environment while violating vehicle codes repeatedly and with impunity.

I deliberately framed this analysis narrowly to demonstrate that, under most plausible sets of assumptions, compulsory helmet laws fail on their own terms, by raising, not reducing, the likelihood that cyclists will suffer serious-injury accidents. Let’s use this finding to help bury helmet legislation once and for all, and encourage public officials and health professionals to join livable streets advocates in programs that will increase active transportation and decrease injury risks at the same time.

  • Anonymous

    I think it also ignores the bare-headed cyclists that walked away.

  • DANL

    @249d4fb434953bcacd1af0143d9fc887:disqus

    Here are some more detailed info from the study to give the reader some context.

    1) This study was conducted in 1997 in Seattle from seven local hospitals….which is not representative or valid to generalized onto the general population

    2) “Helmets had no apparent effect on the risk of severe injury, probably because head injuries accounted for fewer than one in six of all injuries and the majority of head injuries were not severe.”

    3) “Children under 12 years and cyclists 40 and older had the highest risk of severe injury, while teens and young adults had the lowest. More commonly, the rider lost control and hit the ground (50.0%) or an obstacle (29.0%).”

    4) “Collision with a motor vehicle increased the risk of severe injury more than fourfold; crashes occurring at speeds estimated at >15 mph increased the risk by 20%”

    4) More than 2/3 of the study were male and 43% of them were under the age of 13. (aka mom/dad took them to the hospital and thus were disproportionately over represented in the study.I doubt this group had the comprehensive knowledge of cycling safely or were using bicycle for commute purpose, especially in 1997.(

    “CONCLUSIONS: Prevention of serious bicycle injuries cannot be accomplished through helmet use alone, and may require separation of cyclists from motor vehicles, and delaying cycling until children are developmentally ready.”

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

NYPD Recommended a Mandatory Helmet Law in 2011

|
Three years ago, NYPD recommended a mandatory helmet law for all cyclists. While the proposal gained traction among some elected officials, it did not receive support from the Bloomberg administration. The de Blasio administration said yesterday that it won’t back a mandatory helmet law, either. While a helmet law isn’t on the agenda now, it’s a […]

Statistics and Helmets

|
There’s an old saying: "There’s lies, damn lies and then there’s statistics". But it’s not the data that lie, if properly collected, it’s how you interpret the data that matters. Overall, the report issued by the city on cycling deaths and injuries is a pretty good piece of research and epidemiology. But make no mistakes […]
STREETSBLOG USA

More Evidence That Helmet Laws Don’t Work

|
If you want to increase cycling safety in your city, drop the helmet law and focus on getting more people– particularly women — on bikes, with street designs that offer separation from vehicle traffic. That’s the finding of a new study by researchers at the University of British Columbia [PDF] evaluating safety outcomes for cyclists across Canadian […]

Wolfson: Sponsor of Mandatory Helmet Bill Is No Friend of Cyclists

|
In case you missed it yesterday, City Council Member David Greenfield was bombarded in the Twitterverse after the Wall Street Journal reported that he plans to introduce a mandatory bike helmet law. (Streetsblog joined the fray with enthusiasm.) City Hall is also having none of it. Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson shot down the helmet law […]

Is There Such a Thing as Too Much Emphasis on Safety?

|
There’s a lot of focus this month on getting more people out and about on their bikes. We posted last week about the effort to normalize bike commuting, a topic that as usual sparked a lot of discussion about sweat, appropriate clothing, secure bike parking and, of course, safety. How they promote cycling in Holland. […]

Of Red Lights, Helmets, and Bike Lanes

|
From Streetsblog San Francisco contributor Chris Carlsson:  The Oregon Legislature has flushed an effort to bring the Idaho rolling stop law to that state. It’s a bit of a surprise, given both the simple and proven efficacy of allowing cyclists to make rolling stops, as well as Oregon’s big reputation as a bastion of cycling […]