The only proven effect of helmet laws elsewhere has been to discourage significant numbers of people from cycling, writes Shane Foran
Last month the National Safety Council called for a compulsory cycle-helmet law in Ireland. This provoked a furious reaction among Irish cycling activists, culminating in a protest outside the Department of Transport and calls for the dismissal of those involved.
But this proposal seems eminently reasonable. Motorists have seatbelts, and motorcyclists have helmets, so why not cyclists, too?
Well, for a start, taken in the public health context cycling is demonstrably the safest form of transport. According to the British Medical Association, the health benefits of regular cycling significantly outweigh any disbenefits through injury. In Denmark, adult cycle commuters show a 40 per cent lower mortality than their non-cycling peers.
Ireland has among the highest levels of heart disease and obesity in the EU. The Minister for Health is so concerned that he has set up a high-powered task force to address the problem. According to his Department, obesity is implicated in 2,500 deaths a year (as against roughly 15-20 cyclist fatalities).
The matter is most pressing with teenagers, particularly girls. According to a recent report, 70 per cent of Irish teenage girls are not physically active, and 58 per cent of teenage boys do not take any exercise.
More teenage schoolgirls now drive to school in cars than use bicycles.
Cycling is a key target activity for teenage girls and young women who tend to shy away from formal "sport" activities. However, if it gains currency that, while cycling, fashion-conscious teenage girls are expected to wear silly-looking plastic hats, then a key activity target will never happen.
Australia, New Zealand and Canada have all tried helmet laws. The only proven effect has been to discourage significant numbers of people from cycling.
In Sydney cycling by secondary school children was almost destroyed, falling by 91 per cent. Overall, child cycling dropped by 30-50 per cent.
Nor is there any real world evidence that encouraging or compelling cycle-helmet use has had any serious injury-prevention effect for cyclists. In fact the reverse is the case. The Australian data in particular indicate that the helmet law resulted in increased risk of accident and injury. Similar indications are available for New Zealand and some Canadian provinces.
This effect has been attributed to various factors, but the key issue is that both cycle-helmet compulsion and promotion are proven failures as means of promoting cyclist safety. For Ireland, imposing a cycle-helmet law, whose only proven effect is to cut cyclist numbers, would be public health folly.
But isn't there still merit in promoting helmets? Well, designing a cycle helmet is a non-trivial technical challenge. A cyclist's safety in traffic relies on unobstructed vision and hearing. Any helmet must not hamper these senses or hinder the free movement of the head. Therefore there can be no equivalence between motorcycle and cycling helmets.
The resulting device looks like a polystyrene mushroom and is not designed to provide protection in impacts with moving motor vehicles, the cause of most cyclist fatalities and serious injuries. Cycle helmets are only intended to prevent soft tissue injury in simple vertical falls at low speeds.
Shane Foran is chairman of the Galway Cycling Campaign galwaycyclist@yahoo.co.uk