The Helmet Update
Volume 19, #3 - July 30, 2001
All issues index
The New York Times Boots One
The Sunday New York Times of July 29 had an article on its front page by Julian E.
Barnes on helmets. We will be dealing with its myths for years.
The article is headlined "A Bicycling Mystery: Head Injuries Piling Up." Its theme is that head injuries per active
cyclist have increased 51 per cent in the US despite increased helmet use and less bicycle use. The tone is that helmets
should have prevented this if they were as effective as advocates claim they are. If you are willing to sign up for their
website access you can read it on the
Times web page.
They will not permit us to reproduce it.
The article may be designed as what Internet flamers would call "a troll" - - something to stir up reaction and provoke
readers to reply. Juicy for a newspaper, but a headache for helmet promoters if readers don't take the time to analyze
the content.
For starters, we as helmet advocates would indeed like to see bicycling head injuries go away with helmet use. We are
concerned that they have not been lowered more. But the article's tone is that helmets are widely used and have failed to
reduce the rate of head injuries, dismissing the other factors involved with a light touch. This is not a balanced
article. But then it is not unusual to find that in a newspaper article when you are familiar with the subject
matter.
The reporter accepted without question the CPSC contention that half of US bicycle riders wear helmets. He also focused
on injuries rather than deaths. Anyone familiar with both sets of statistics should realize that CPSC's numbers are
wishful thinking, and that injury stats have always been much less reliable than death counts. A lot less than 50 per
cent of US cyclists are using helmets. (North Carolina's actual head count showed 17 per cent state wide.) The Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety reports that 98 per cent of the cyclists killed in 1999 were not wearing helmets! There were
746 bicyclists killed in crashes with motor vehicles in 1999. This is 1 percent fewer than in 1998 and down 26 percent
since 1975. (CPSC still cites 900 as the annual toll.) But to judge the effectiveness of helmets based on numbers like
these -- negative or positive -- is to ignore a hundred other factors that affect the safety of cyclists on the
roads.
Any trend in the rate of head injuries reported should be matched with accurate exposure data on how many miles are being
cycled, a key statistic we have never had. The author concludes somehow that the increase in off-road riding is not
likely to be adding to the head injury numbers, even though most cyclists who do both know that per mile there are more
crashes and more injuries of all kinds in off-road cycling than road cycling. Again, we lack the exposure data we need.
The article brushes lightly by the fact that traffic has made US roads more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. That
is a fact of life for every cyclist who uses roads. Did anyone expect helmets to compensate for that? Statistics are
dependent on those who gather them, and the recognition of mild traumatic brain injury has advanced considerably in the
last ten years, probably affecting the number of head injuries reported.
The article also attempts with examples and quotes from experts to convince the reader that helmeted cyclists take more
risks because they think they are protected. While there may be some riders like that, we believe that most riders
understand that their arms, legs, faces, torsos and other body parts not covered by a helmet are not protected from
anything by the helmet on their heads. If we were talking about full body armor there might be some additional risk
taking, but helmets obviously do not keep your most tender parts intact. The riders quoted had injured necks, legs or
knees, and were quoted as blaming their helmets for making them feel safe and by implication causing the injury. We do
not know what kind of people were quoted, or in what context they made their remarks, but they just do not ring true to
us as a representation of general attitudes among cyclists. We do not believe that helmets give a false sense of
security, any more than seat belts, air bags, smoke detectors, steel-toed boots or parachutes do. Anti lock brakes on
cars are cited as a parallel by one of the experts, even though crashes related to them are generally due to drivers not
realizing that they require a very different braking action in a panic stop. From the quote it appears that this expert
thinks people drive faster because of their anti lock brakes, and would be driving slower and having fewer crashes if
they did not have them. In another example the article describes a rider hit by a pickup truck on a highway. His helmet
was knocked off his head by the force of the impact and did not prevent his death.
Helmet promotion at the current level has not reached the majority of US riders. For that reason alone it will not cause
head injuries to go away. And it should be evident that bicycle helmets will not prevent injuries to other body parts, or
prevent death when hit by a truck at highway speeds. Those are straw men. But helmets do protect their wearers in an
amazing number of crashes. (We have posted some crash stories illustrating that.) They reduce deaths and injuries case by
case, no matter how a given set of poorly-defined statistics may appear. They do not erase the effects of vastly
increased traffic. We have always supported the full-environment approach to bicycle safety, with helmets as one useful
tool, but this article attempts to turn that approach into evidence that helmets are not working. The lack of balance and
perspective should be evident here.
In short, this article may be a troll, lacks balance, plays on the fact that cyclists' head injuries have not disappeared
from our helmet promotion efforts so far, and will be quoted in internet helmet wars for the next decade. It was not an
admirable piece of journalism, and the Times should know better. Maybe they do.
To understand how we fit helmets as a tool into the broader context of promoting bicycle safety, please see this page on
the
National Strategies for Advancing Bicycle Safety. We are members of the Steering Committee
that produced the final strategies document.
The Helmet Update - Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute
Randy Swart, Editor
4611 Seventh Street South
Arlington, VA 22204-1419 USA
(703) 486-0100 (voice)
(703) 486-0576 (fax)
www.helmets.org