Focusing on easy way-out; Helmet Laws for Cyclists

Should we discuss mandatory helmets laws instead of discussing how to improve our cities for the safety of pedestrians and cyclists

By Lucila Spotorno

@lucilaspotorno

This particular issue has been discussed for many years by a wide range of experts. As you can imagine, there are two opposite strands, those who are in favor of mandatory helmets laws, and in the flip side of the coin, those who are against. To be honest, I am not trying to do research about the effectiveness of these laws, first because I consider that there are many reasonable documents which explain both documents very well and secondly because I consider that it should not be the central discussion.

So, what I would like to show you is that the debate about mandatory helmet laws does not have any sense. Furthermore it is a waste of time that makes us not to think in long-term solutions. If governments want to reduce injuries, I am pretty convinced that the main solution is improving and planning cities for the safety of pedestrian and cyclists, we need to increase the number of cyclists. If we are becoming more and more, the debate about wearing helmets is secondary.

If we consider the case of Australia and New Zealand, two vehement countries that have introduced compulsory helmets laws to reduce head injuries, we realize that since the implementation of these laws, the number of cycling casualties has decreased, but it has also been accompanied by a significant reduction of cyclists.

I wonder what would happen if we had compulsory laws concerning the use of helmets and meanwhile government does not pay any attention to the safe accessibility and mobility of cyclists.

On the other hand, well recognized experts in traffic, mobility and cycling recommend not voting for bicycle helmets. Indeed, many European countries have already rejected bicycle helmet law proposals. Among them are the UK, France, Italy, Poland, Switzerland and Norway. 

A clear example illustrates this is the case of Denmark, along with the Netherlands, the world's safest bicycle nations. The number of head injuries keeps falling in Denmark and has been so since the 1960s. This is due to better infrastructure, traffic safety initiatives, the "safety in numbers" principle and people paying better attention. However, few people wear helmet. In fact, when I was in Copenhage I only saw children with helmet, and almost no adult. 

The emphasis is not on the use of helmet, but on the safety and on habitual cycling, and also on speed limits, borderlines, exclusive lines, education for cyclists, pedestrian and cars for their better cohabitation.

This does not mean I think that no one should wear helmets; I believe the choice of whether to wear a helmet or not or what kind of helmet to wear should be up to the cyclist. From my own experience in some circumstances I put on the helmet when I feel a bit unsafe on the streets, generally when I am not riding on an exclusive lane. On the contrary, when I feel confident and safe I do not feel the need o wear it and I ride without it. 

What we should do?

When we are dealing with something as important as public health and sustainable transport forms, the documentation has to be watertight. We need to increase number of cyclists and we can't do it with helmet legislation, but by creating better and safer conditions for the nation's cyclists.

We should, instead, discuss what kind of cities we wish to live in. If we wish to do something positive for safety, health and the environment we should arrange our cities so that they are safe for pedestrians and cyclists and we should give these groups priority in our planning.