Cycling is healthy

Cycling regularly gives you a level of fitness equivalent to being 10 years younger and a life expectancy 2 years above the average. In terms of life-years gained and lost, the Government acknowledges that the health benefits of cycling far outweigh any risks involved – by a factor of 20:1 according to one estimate.

Fig 1: Causes of death in 2003

Fig 2: Cycle use and child obesity levels: EU countries

Cycling gets safer the more people do it

Evidence from Britain and elsewhere shows that cyclists really do benefit from 'safety in numbers'. The more people who cycle, the safer it becomes. By contrast, helmet wearing rates are, if anything, inversely related to cyclists' safety.

Fig 3: Cycle use, fatality rates and helmet-wearing rates: international comparison

Imposing helmet-wearing stops people cycling

International evidence also shows that making cyclists wear helmets leads to reduced cycle use - particularly among teenagers - thereby undermining efforts to maximise its health and other benefits.

The risks of cycling do not warrant special protective equipment

You are in fact more likely to be killed in a mile of walking than a mile of cycling. Nor is cycling injuries particularly likely to be head injuries: a child injured while walking is more likely to suffer a head injury than a child injured while cycling. Pedestrians and car occupants suffer far more injuries which might be preventable through helmet-wearing than cyclists do.

The safety case for helmet-wearing is far from clear

Cycle helmets are only designed to withstand impact speeds of around 13mph (equivalent to falling from a stationary riding position), and not for collisions with moving traffic. 93% of the serious and fatal injuries which cyclists suffer on our roads are due to collisions with motor vehicles, and 22% of cyclist fatalities result from collisions with HGVs.

Compulsory helmet-wearing in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere has not led to any detectable safety gains for cyclists compared with other road users. A series of recent reports (including four papers in peer-reviewed medical journals) have found no evidence of a link between cycle helmet wearing rates and cyclists' safety.

Fig 4: Cycle casualties compared with all casualties (New Zealand) and pedestrian casualties (Australia)

Lack of evidence does not prove the lack of an effect, however it is by no means unreasonable to question the overall benefits of helmet-wearing. There are many related factors which could make it self-defeating or even counter-productive to promote or enforce helmet wearing, and these merit further investigation.

One is that the resulting fall in cycle use could undermine the 'safety in numbers' effect (see above) for those cyclists remaining. Another is the possibility that some cyclists (particularly teenagers) ride less cautiously when wearing helmets (this is known as 'risk compensation'). These and other factors may increase the likelihood of cyclists hitting their heads in the first place, possibly eroding or outweighing such limited protection as helmets may provide in the event of an impact.

We need to find out why increased helmet use seems never to have produced detectable benefits for cyclists’ safety (and in some cases why it even appears to have worsened), before assuming that helmet-wearing is self-evidently beneficial. This is particularly important given the weight of evidence that making cyclists wear helmets is strongly linked to reduced cycling activity.

Moreover, if “risk compensation” is a significant factor, overstating the case for helmet-wearing could increase the likelihood of cyclists endangering themselves due to misplaced faith in the protective value of their helmets.

Laws must be reasonable

Contrary to the impressions of many non-cyclists, cycling is not an especially 'dangerous' activity, nor is it particularly prone to result in head injuries. Around 38% of child cyclists’ hospital admissions are for head injuries. This figure is only marginally higher than the figure for all child injuries (34%) and lower than the figure for child pedestrian injuries (44% - these are also a great deal more numerous).

One study suggests that compulsory helmets for pedestrians, drivers and passengers could save 12 times as many lives.

Fig 5: Child injury hospitalisations in England, by activity: all injuries and head injuries

Enforcement should not detract from other priorities

When Victoria, Australia introduced a helmet law, 19,229 penalty notices were issued in the first 12 months. A “pro-rata” equivalent for the UK population would be approximately 240,000 penalty notices in a year. This level of enforcement would inevitably distract from other policing priorities, notably other road traffic offences such as speeding and drink-driving, which have far greater road safety impacts.

Further information

For further information, including international evidence and references to key research papers on all aspects of the helmet debate, see the website of the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation.