BICYCLE HELMET
RESEARCH
FOUNDATION
cyclehelmets.org
Home page
Main topics
News Headlines
Frequently asked Questions
For Policy Makers
Research evidence
Misleading claims
Helmet laws
Analysis
Search Engine
Australia
Canada
New Zealand
UK
USA
Other countries
Full index
Links
BHRF
Policy statement
Register as a supporter
Feedback
Helmet laws discourage the safest cyclists
Researchers in Norway have looked into possible reasons why there is no good evide
read more ...
Australian cycling boom a myth
According to the University of Sydney, claims that cycle use in Australia has rec
read more ...
Town drops helmet law to reduce its risks
For 15 years, until June 1, Milton, population 7,000, 45 minutes south of Seattle
read more ...
Vancouver acknowledges that helmet law could scupper bike-share
Responding to comments from the European Cyclists' Federation that the province's
read more ...
Switzerland rejects child helmet law
The Swiss Government has decisively thrown out a proposal to make it mandatory fo
read more ...
Campaign group stops publicising events that require helmet use
Scottish cycling campaign group Spokes, which has an extensive membership among c
read more ...
Perth mayor backs calls for law relaxation
The Lord Mayor of Perth has now joined Sydney, Adelaide and Fremantle in Australi
read more ...
Men cycle faster with helmets?
According to research undertaken in Bordeaux, France, men who used a helmet for t
read more ...
Researchers in Norway have looked into possible reasons why there is no good evidence of reduced injury benefit in countries that have enacted cycle helmet legislation despite studies showing that helmets have the potential to reduce injuries.
It was found that the cyclist population can be divided into two sub-populations: one speed-happy group that cycle fast and have lots of cycle equipment including helmets, and one traditional kind of cyclist without much equipment, cycling slowly.
With all the limitations that have to be placed on a cross sectional study such as this, the results indicate that at least part of the reason why helmet laws do not appear to be beneficial is that they disproportionately discourage the safest cyclists. Discouraging cyclists with the lowest accident risk increases the overall average risk per cyclist and thus any potential safety intervention, such as a helmet, has no (or possibly even a negative) net benefit.
The researchers conclude that this shift in the cycling population caused by helmet laws is a more likely explanation of why laws do not work than risk compensation (whereby cyclists take more risks because they feel better protected).
Evidence from both Australia and New Zealand has shown that a long-term outcome of the laws in those countries has been to suppress cycle use as an everyday means of transport and to increase more risky types of cycling, such as riding off-road.
Mon 6 Aug 2012
