Controversy: Letters in BMJ Question Bicycle Helmet Effectiveness

The British Medical Journal (BMJ) issue of 8 April 2006 published three letters critical of laws requiring mandatory use of bicycle helmets. The arguments in these articles are presented below.

Riley Geary, with the Institute for Traffic Safety Analysis questioned whether the real benefits from such helmet laws could be effectively measured. “Helmet proponents are often quick to claim any reduction in cycling fatalities as being primarily due to increased helmet use,” he wrote. “However, they have been unable to demonstrate that these reductions are not better explained by reduced cycling, due at least partly to the imposition of helmet laws or other more general traffic safety measures or both – for example, enforcement of lower speed limits, drink driving crackdowns, red-light cameras.”

Tony Raven, a cyclist from Hertfordshire, north of London, suggested that several of the helmet studies recently discussed in the BMJ “omit any reference to the many studies that don’t support their views.” “Whatever the truth about helmets,” Raven continued, “cycling is an extremely safe activity with a lower head injury per km than walking.”

And Peter J. Clinch, a clinical scientist with Ninewells Hospital and Medical School in Dundee, Scotland, noted that the subject of bicycle helmet research is polarized. “Much controversy still exists about the effectiveness of cycle helmets,” he said, “and it shows no sign of abating.” But he said that before any further calls for mandatory helmet legislation are made, “we must take a much more informed grasp of the true degree of the dangers of cycling.” Clinch asks why the UK public, including its government officials, journalists and doctors, has lost confidence in the safety of cycling. “A highly plausible answer,” he says, “is the extraordinary amount of time, money and effort spent telling us that cyclists are in terrible danger so they should wear a helmet.”

Reference: Letters by R. Geary, T. Raven, P.J. Clinch, BMJ 2006; 332;852-doi

back to Headlines