The Helmet Update
Volume 24, #5 - September 13, 2006
All issues index
British Study on Passing Clearance and Helmets
Summary: Dr Ian Walker's measurements show that in some cases
British drivers leave 3.3 inches more passing distance if the cyclist is not wearing a helmet, and another 2.2 inches if
the cyclist is wearing a wig. The average passing clearance for all three cases was more than four feet. The cyclist's
position on the road changed everything, canceling the difference at times.
The BBC reported on September 11, 2006, that a study conducted in Salisbury and Bristol, UK
showed with very precise measurements of 2,500 passing cars that the test cyclists were given 8.5cm (3.3 inches) more
clearance by cars if they were not wearing helmets.
When the researchers donned female wigs they got more clearance, 14cm (5.5 inches) more than males in helmets. The author
was hit by a bus and a truck during the experiment, and was wearing a helmet both times.
The
BBC article on the study speculates on
the psychology involved. The researchers think that cyclists in helmets are perceived as experienced cyclists who merit
less passing clearance. Dr. Walker, a traffic psychologist from the Bath University's Department of Psychology, and
author of a book on vulnerable road users, is quoted: "This study shows that when drivers overtake a cyclist, the margin
for error they leave is affected by the cyclist's appearance."
No argument there, since an erratic child would get more clearance than any other rider, helmet or no. But here are some
more quotes the BBC attributes to Dr. Walker:
"We know helmets are useful in low-speed falls, and so definitely good for children, but whether they offer any real
protection to somebody struck by a car is very controversial.
"Either way, this study suggests wearing a helmet might make a collision more likely in the first place," he added.
Dr Walker thinks the reason drivers give less room to cyclists wearing helmets is because they see them as "Lycra-clad
street warriors" and believe they are more predictable than those without.
The BBC report on the study is interesting, although we have not seen the full study yet. It measures something that
might not be readily apparent to most cyclists--an average of 3.3 inches more clearance. The extra distance would make
quite a difference if the average passing distance were 1.5 feet and a lot less if the full recommended 3 feet were the
rule. In another web paper discussing his findings, Dr. Walker notes that the average passing distance was 4.5 feet for
black cars and 4.1 feet for white trade vans. The difference of 3.3 inches fades to insignificance with passing
clearances that good. With lanes of 8.5 feet, the motorists were giving him a half-lane of clearance whether or not he
had a helmet or a wig on. Cyclists in the US would be very pleased with that much consideration by motorists.
Other findings from the study make it plain that the cyclist's position on the roadway
(distance from the edge) made more difference than the wearing of a helmet or a wig. When the cyclist is 1.25 meters (4.1
feet) out--the center of the lane--there was a substantial difference in motorist behavior attributed to the helmet. But
with the cyclist riding one meter (3.3 feet) from the side of the road--just 10 inches toward the curb--there was
virtually no difference. Both findings are certainly food for thought, as is the information that the roads in question
were two lane with 8.5 foot lanes. In the US our lanes are generally wider than 10 feet and often 12 or more. But our
vehicles are typically wider as well.
It seems curious that the BBC report on the study focused just on helmet wearing as the main factor affecting drivers'
responses. The position on the roadway variable was ignored. We note that in the BBC photo, the test cyclist is riding a
bicycle with an upright position and large black panniers. That would probably have an effect on car drivers, since the
panniers add extra width and very likely increased passing distances. Users of side-mounted flags report the same effect.
And an upright cyclist might indeed be perceived as more likely to be unsteady, helmet or no. We speculate that perhaps
the clearance would be even less for a rider who appeared to be a racer and seemed more likely to be holding a steady
road position. But that might have nothing at all to do with whether or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet. Children
weaving along the road here get more clearance than other riders, whether or not they wear a helmet. So the study is
interesting, but the reporting on it would be a lot more useful if it included the findings on some of the other factors
instead of trying to marginalize the helmet as "good for kids" and useful only in "low speed falls." We have enough
experience here with helmets and car crashes to have convinced the cycling community that the protection offered even in
a car crash is real and not controversial. And we disagree with the author's conclusion that anything he measured
indicates that the helmeted cyclist is more likely to be sideswiped.
We hope that somebody will replicate this work in the US to see if our driver psychology matches, and that they will test
for some of the other variables in addition to helmets. Research on driver psychology could help us understand what is
needed to encourage drivers to give all cyclists adequate passing clearance. We would be really happy with the four feet
the British cyclists were getting. We don't think it is likely to be as simple as who wears a helmet, and given the
safety tradeoffs we don't think that taking your helmet off is the best way to get you 3.3 inches more clearance from
passing motorists who are already giving you more than four feet of space. It would appear that at least in the UK cities
of Salisbury and Bristol, riding exactly 3.3 feet from the edge of the road has more effect.
Response from Dr. Ian Walker:
Thanks for getting in touch. The full study had a lot of detail which obviously
couldn't be included in a press release, and several other factors as well as helmets were considered. Your point about
absolute distances is a good one, so you might be interested in one analysis in particular. I compared the group of
overtakers who came closest with the group who left the most room, and you can see their data in Figure 2 in
the attached document (you can also see exactly how close drivers came from Figure 1 too). What
figure 2 shows is the ratio of particularly close overtakers to generous overtakers in each category - a score over 1
means there are more people passing close than leaving plenty of room. Note that the helmet effect varies with riding
position, but leads to almost twice as many people getting particularly close in the 1.25m condition when the helmet was
on, which is pretty interesting I think. Feel free to mention this on your page.
The study is due to appear soon in Accident Analysis and Prevention.
One thing I should add (as it has come up in a discussion elsewhere) is that our roads here in the UK are quite narrow. A
typical urban road is about 5.2m across, so each lane is about 2.6m. This means that the 1.25m position was about the
centre of the lane.
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