Congratulations to Raphael Vassallo, James Debono and Harry Vassallo and thank you to MaltaToday for the excellent coverage of the question of bicycles on our roads in your 2 September issue.
One point deserves further comment: The report includes a box “The Road Ahead – Cyclists’ proposal to increase road safety” (page 7) in which there are five recommendations. One of these recommendations is the compulsory wearing of safety helmets by cyclists; this raises many important issues which demand very careful consideration.
First of all, the wearing of a cycle helmet does not “increase road safety”. A bicycle helmet is only a means of secondary (or ‘passive’) safety, which does not address by far the greatest threat to cyclists which comes from motor traffic. The compulsory use of helmets also shifts responsibility back on to the cyclist when the cause of accidents is almost invariably a motor vehicle.
Secondly, this sweeping recommendation does not distinguish between the competitive or sports cyclist, the leisure or commuting cyclist and children. What follows applies mostly or even exclusively to the average commuting or leisure cyclist.
The European Cyclists’ Federation (ECF) is against mandatory helmet laws on the basis that, overall, compulsory helmet use by cyclists will exert a negative health impact because it will discourage people from taking up cycling which is inherently an activity beneficial to health. The UK cyclists’ club (CTC) also opposes compulsory helmet wearing.
Australia, Canada, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand and some states in the USA made cycle helmets compulsory. Published studies showed that these laws have failed to yield measurable reductions in head injuries. A major documented effect of such helmet laws was to reduce cycle use so that the net health effect was negative. A study which included the largest number of cases of injury or death to cyclists (8 million in the USA over 15 years) found, paradoxically, that helmeted riders were more likely to be killed than those who do not.
Death or injury in adult cyclists almost invariably results from being hit by a motor vehicle and the evidence for protection in car accidents from helmets in this situation is still in doubt. Deterring people from taking up cycling through making cycle helmets obligatory should therefore be carefully weighed against the meaningful benefits of encouraging cycling in terms of improved general health from increased physical exercise and decreased traffic pollution consequent on increased bicycle use.
Statistics show that the most efficient way to increase cycling safety is to promote cycling itself. This is based on the “safety in numbers” principle, namely, if more cyclists are on the road, then cycling becomes correspondingly safer. Cycle helmets are not compulsory in cycle friendly countries such as Holland and Denmark. Yet, in spite of having the lowest levels of helmet use, these countries have the best cycle safety records. This is attributed to the ‘safety in numbers’ principle, public awareness, understanding and respect of cyclists’ needs by motorists, education and, to some extent, availability of cycle lanes and paths, etc., but not helmets.
Helmets also discourage cycling through creating the image that daily cycling in an urban environment is a dangerous activity whereas it is clearly not – provided that motorist behaviour toward cyclists is as it should be.
The case with motorcyclists and professional or competitive racing cyclists is different; they travel at higher speeds and the causes and nature of injury and death differs because these are uncommonly hit by cars. The case of children is also different; it is generally agreed that children should wear a helmet even when riding on pavements since, unlike adults, they often crash into obstacles or come off their bicycles. Some countries have made helmets mandatory in children up to the age of 16 years. This makes sense but it has to be weighed against the possibility of deterring youngsters from taking up cycling.
Though universal helmet use would be ideal, the ECF, does not advocate obligatory wearing of a helmet because the introduction of mandatory helmet use has been shown to decrease the popularity of bicycles in those countries where this was done. It would therefore be a sad mistake for our traffic authority to take the easy option of making helmet use mandatory because this will distract from the more important issue of modification of driver behaviour and it will be counter-productive at this sensitive point in a situation where cycling has yet to be taken up.
The consensus is that the voluntary wearing of helmets by all cyclists should be strongly encouraged but left as a matter of personal choice for adults. On the other hand, safety-campaigns should be directed towards primary safety - reducing the number of accidents through education of cyclists themselves and motorists and by measures of infrastructure and equipment - rather than secondary safety as, for example, promoting use of helmets.
The bottom line is this: Introducing compulsory wearing of helmets could be a self-defeating measure. This will not make cycling safer because fewer people will be inclined to take up cycling so that motor vehicles do not become conditioned to sharing the road with cyclists. It would therefore be a grave mistake to make the wearing of helmets compulsory at this sensitive point - when an attempt is being made to popularize cycling and other healthy activities. In any event, wearing a helmet does not protect a cyclist against motorist abuse.
The pivotal first step to making cycling safer is to modify motorist behaviour so that people are encouraged to take up cycling by being reassured that it is safe to do so and, where indicated or necessary, provide safe, properly designed road amenities such as cycle lanes or tracks for cyclists.
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Download front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
