SAFETY FIRST: Wearing a helmet may improve your chances of contact with a car, research reveals.
Image: © ISTOCKPHOTO.COM/TIMOTHY LARGE
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Spring is in full swing now, and a number of the straphangers (read: subway riders) in New York City, as well as citizens in other locales, are getting new tubes and tires and dragging their bikes out of storage. Bicycle riding is the skill you reportedly never forget, but there's a raging debate about whether or not you should forget your helmet when you hop on your two-wheeler.
Last September a plucky psychologist at the University of Bath in England announced the results of a study in which he played both researcher and guinea pig. An avid cyclist, Ian Walker had heard several complaints from fellow riders that wearing a helmet seemed to result in bike riders receiving far less room to maneuver—effectively increasing the chances of an accident. So, Walker attached ultrasonic sensors to his bike and rode around Bath, allowing 2,300 vehicles to overtake him while he was either helmeted or naked-headed. In the process, he was actually contacted by a truck and a bus, both while helmeted—though, miraculously, he did not fall off his bike either time.
His findings, published in the March 2007 issue of Accident Analysis & Prevention, state that when Walker wore a helmet drivers typically drove an average of 3.35 inches closer to his bike than when his noggin wasn't covered. But, if he wore a wig of long, brown locks—appearing to be a woman from behind—he was granted 2.2 inches more room to ride.
"The implication," Walker says, "is that any protection helmets give is canceled out by other mechanisms, such as riders possibly taking more risks and/or changes in how other road users behave towards cyclists." The extra leeway granted to him when he pretended to be a woman, he explains, could result from several factors, including drivers' perceptions that members of the fairer sex are less capable riders, more frail or just less frequent bikers than men.
Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (BHSI), says that studies such as Walker's run the risk of misleading cyclists as to the effectiveness of helmets. "The cars were giving him, on average, a very wide passing clearance already," he explains, noting that most vehicles typically stayed well over three feet from the bikes, rendering the 3.35-inch discrepancy to be insignificant. "If you really want the greatest passing distance, you should wobble down the road," looking as inept as possible, he adds.
Walker actually reanalyzed his data recently to counter this line of reasoning. "I assessed the number of vehicles coming within one meter [roughly 3.3 feet] of the rider, on the principle that these are the ones that pose a risk," he says. "There were 23 percent more vehicles within this one-meter danger zone when a helmet was worn, suggesting a real risk."
Dorothy Robinson, a patron of the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation and a senior statistician at the University of New England in Armidale, Australia, published a 2006 review article in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) about regions in Australia, New Zealand and Canada that introduced legislation that spurred an over 40 percent increase in bicycle helmet use among their populaces. The newly instituted laws, she found, did not have a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries, the primary purpose of the gear. Her conclusion was "helmets are not designed for forces often encountered in collisions with motor vehicles" as well as that they "may encourage cyclists to take more risks or motorists to take less care when they encounter cyclists."
Coincidentally, around the same time as Walker announced his results, New York City released a report on bicycle deaths and injuries: 225 cyclists died between 1996 and 2005 on New York streets; 97 percent of them were not wearing helmets. Of these deaths, 58 percent are known to involve head injury, but the actual number could be as high as 80 percent. Comparing the helmet to a seat belt in a car, Swart of the BHSI says, "When you do have that crash, you better have it on."
See what we're tweeting about
7 Comments
Add CommentBeing a long time commuting cyclist myself I would like to say that I agree with the finding of Mr. Walker 100% and would like to add a couple of caveats to the data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(1) When riding bicycles in the rain the drivers of motor vehicles are less likely to provide restraint at stop signs and intersections and less likely to yield to riders crossing intersections even though it is the cyclist turn to cross.
(2) Putting a baby carrier on the back of your bicycle results in vehicles being much more courteous and allows more space.
(3) Bicyclist wearing a helmet on days when the temperature is above 70°F the cyclist tends to make more judgment errors. I have repeatedly seen cyclist who have not properly conditioned themselves over heat even during moderate temperatures and make errors in judgment. I believe that physiologically many people cool during exercise differently. Some people like myself tend to give off more heat through their heads (hot heads) and others tend to perspire more through their torso, chest and back. People like myself (hot heads) cycle safer when not wearing a helmet while those who perspire more through their torso tolerate helmets better. While hot heads like myself may cycle safer with out helmets they cant make the vehicle drivers behave more responsible.
I noticed that, while riding my motorcycle in both New Jersey (helmet law state) and Illinois (no helmet law) that I was given a noticeably larger space in traffic. People I've told this to thought I was imagining things. Think again. Helmets are only safe from the "bump your head" kind of accidents, but riders tend to think they're safer, as do car drivers, when they're wearing them, like some osmotic absorption of years of skill. It's just easier to pass a law for helmets, wipe off your hands, then give it a "job well done", than to fix the problem, which is that car drivers don't have enough education and have no follow up skill evaluation. The burden is placed on the shoulders of the cyclists and bikers to stay safe in an environment that is anything but. The wonder is that they do take on the added burden and seem to be doing a much better job at it. Go figure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not questioning the statistics, just their interpretation. Q: How come police cars parked by the side of the road at night with their lights flashing are more likely to be run into than when their lights are off? Because people drive towards what they are looking at! So, does the helmet make the bike more obvious, like the flashing lights?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWalker's findings are ambiguous (atleast from this article) because it does not state the average distance cars maintained from him, only the 3.35 inch differnce of the helmeted and unhelmeted averages. This information should have been included.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've long been suspicious of "approved" helmets. They're very meager compared to true motorcycle crash helmets - why? For that matter, why aren't all car passengers and drivers obligated to wear good crash helmets - that's where they would do the most good. Oh, no one wants helmet hair, and what would happen to the hair styling industry. A certain level of death and incapacitation must be good for the economy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe study uses a 3 foot clearance as the desired clearance. I don't think this study means anything. It is obvious that when 97% of fatal injuries to cyclists are in non-helmet wearing cyclists, that the helmet is a good idea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore than that, it is obvious that most cyclist accidents where a helmet protects a person are not reported. This introduces a severe reverse survivor bias into any statistical analysis. Just off the top, I can count 12 different incidents where people hit their head while wearing a helmet and the helmet did its job. It is very common.
Interesting. I agree with the study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough I'd still opt for a helmet: hitting the ground head first is what results in the majority of bicycle fatalities, not the amount of leeway that motorists provide cyclists.
What would you rather have, a cracked helmet or a cracked skull?