August 2, 2012

expert reaction to Bradley Wiggins’ comments on bicycle helmets

Following a cyclists’ death from being struck by an official Olympics bus, gold medallist Bradley Wiggins was reported to have said he thought it should be compulsory under the law to wear a cycling helmet.

Dr Trevor Powell, CPsychol (Clinical Neuropsychologist) of Berkshire Healthcare Trust, said:

“Wearing a helmet is a sensible precaution that reduces the risk of head injury. Wearing cycle helmets should be made compulsory. Having a head injury has a devastating effect on the trajectory of a person’s life, and effects all areas of their life, work and relationships. People with head injuries can have memory problems, low tolerance issues, and executive skills problems. These are all hidden, under the lid, which makes matters worse.”

Dr Victor Thompson, CPsychol, Clinical Sports Psychologist, said:

“There is no doubt that wearing a cycle helmet will give you more protection against severe head injury in the event of an accident. However, wearing a cycle helmet may give some cyclists a false sense of security and therefore they take more risks in their cycling – putting themselves in more dangerous situations.”

Dr Ian Walker, Department of Psychology, University of Bath, said:

“It’s a ridiculously complex issue.

“The Health and Safety Exec make it clear that, to improve people’s safety, protective equipment should be the absolute last resort, used only when attempts to remove the source of the danger have been tried. In this case, the source of the danger is often motor vehicles. As such, keeping bicycles and motor vehicles separate would be a much preferred route to safety. cf. the Netherlands.

“Pushing for helmets for cyclists and nobody else is basically really weird and illogical. For every cyclist killed in the UK, there are 7 or 8 pedestrians, and they are killed the same way: being hit by cars. Even when you correct for the fact there is more walking than cycling, walking is no safer than bicycle. There is no way one can buy the idea that helmets would protect cyclists without also concluding they would help pedestrians. Therefore, there is no case for making them compulsory for cyclists without also making them compulsory for pedestrians. It’s interesting how people suddenly see the problem with compulsion when I point this out…

“Dorothy Robinson in Australia published a cost-benefit analysis that made it clear that everybody in a car should also be wearing a helmet. Indeed, the argument for this was so strong that she showed it would be cheaper if the government bought everybody a driving helmet, rather than treat all the car occupants’ head injuries. You’ll note that professional drivers, such as Lewis Hamilton and Colin McRae, wear helmets. The parallel with cycling – and pros such as Wiggins – should be pretty clear!

“In summary: 1. If the answer is a bicycle helmet, we’ve not understood the problem. 2. There is no case at all for making cyclists wear helmets ahead of pedestrians and car occupants.”