United Kingdom - Helmet Wearing and Behavioral Attitudes

The public health literature is filled with reports on the effectiveness of bicycle helmet wearing laws; when laws are passed, helmet wearing increases. Laws are especially effective when trying to increase helmet wearing in children.

But what factors influence helmet wearing in children when there is no helmet wearing legislation? Several studies have shown that demographic factors (like age and degree of urbanization) and socioeconomic level (defined as family income, parents’ occupation, and parents’ education) are directly associated with helmet wearing, i.e., in higher the socioeconomic groups, helmet wearing is more likely. Attitudes – either peer, parental-, or the child herself directly influence helmet wearing too.

Ian Lang, from the Peninsula Medical School, analyzed data from the Health Survey for England for an eight-year period, 1997-2004. By examining questions about helmet wearing and comparing them to responses to questions about attitude towards helmets, and social and demographic factors, Lang was able to calculate the relative strengths of demographic, socioeconomic and attitudinal factors influencing helmet wearing using a statistical method called logistical regression analysis. He found that attitudinal factors – like feelings about helmet effectiveness, cost, fit and style - accounted for the largest proportion of the differences in helmet use, larger than either socioeconomic or demographic factors.

This is an interesting finding and one that may be useful in promoting helmet use. Since socioeconomic and demographic factors cannot, for the most part, directly be modified by public policy changes. Attitudes can. The implication is that promotion efforts to increase helmet wearing should include consideration of how to bring about a change in children’s attitudes to cycle helmets and helmet wearing.

Lang IA. Demographic, socioeconomic, and attitudinal associations with children’s cycle-helmet use in the absence of legislation. Injury prevention 2007;13:355-358.

back to Headlines