News

by Aretha Munro

February 2, 2011

ECF Ask me why I cycle without a helmet Lead

ecf.com

ECF button campaign.

By Aretha Munro

Helmets. A single word that motivates all-night debates, spurs online forum wars and unfortunately divides the worldwide cycling community. We can all add our two-cents from our own cycling experiences, analyze the statistics, and try and evaluate regional factors, but the mandatory helmet law is a multifaceted issue. One group who is definitely concerned with this issue is the European Cyclists’ Federation (ECF).

The ECF declares that it is not against helmets, but against “mandatory helmet laws and shock-horror helmet promotions.” In their opinion, the promotion of cycling as a healthy and safe way to travel is being overcast by the promotion of “helmet propaganda.” This claim may sound far-fetched to some, but the ECF disagrees with the portrayal of cycling being far more dangerous than it is, and the portrayal of bicycle helmets offering far more protection than they do. Taken directly from the ECF website, their opposition to a mandatory helmet law is because of the following:

  • They discourage cycling by portraying it as abnormally dangerous - you are less likely to be killed in a mile of cycling than a mile of walking. (Wardlaw 2002)
  •  Injured cyclists are less likely to have head injuries than injured pedestrians or car occupants (ONISR 2005).
  • They portray bicycle helmets as offering far more protection than they do-bicycle helmets are only designed to withstand minor knocks and bumps, not being hit by motor vehicles.
  •  Countries that have penalised people for normal cycling (without helmets), have failed to reduce head injury rates despite increased helmet wearing rates.
  • The health benefits of cycling far outweigh the injury risks.
  • Reduced cycling reduces health and environmental benefits.
  • Reduced cycling reduces Safety in Numbers, thus increasing the risk of injury to remaining cyclists.

http://www.ecf.com/3500_1

Part of this ECF campaign has been the "Ask me why I cycle without a helmet" button. 500 of these buttons were distributed at Velo-City 2009 in Brussels. Similarly, an extension of this campaign has sprouted from other troubled cyclists in anticipation of Velo-City 2012, to be hosted in Vancouver, British Cloumbia. The province of British Columbia enforces a bicycle helmet law, and concerned cyclists have made a Facebook page called, “No mandatory bike helmets at Velo-City Global 2012 in Vancouver” to raise awareness about their worries.

Obviously, it is hard to compare the infrastructure and the culture of European cycling countries to those here in North America, but it seems to be unanimous that we all want to promote cycling and not discourage it. Is the ECE’s pro-choice helmet stance the best way to promote cycling? Or is taking the safety precaution with a mandatory helmet law the sound solution for your city? The debate continues.

, , ,

by Aretha Munro

February 2, 2011

Latest Comments

  • perception

    I think the ECF stance is beneficial.

    Helmet promotion relies on the perception that cycling is dangerous, and while there are risks that come with riding a bike, when those risks are placed in proper context, and benefits of riding are factored in, it is obvious riding a bike without a helmet is no more dangerous than most other activities we engage in on a regular basis, and should be encouraged in order to improve society on many levels.

    Being against "shock and horror" helmet campaigns advocates for cycling and exposes discriminatory and unrealistic perceptions that cycling is dangerous and not worth the risks of riding.

    Posted by Brad March 01, 2011 09:20:25

  • Helmet usage

    Im a bike messenger in chicago and wear a helmet every single time I am at work. I understand that a helmet will not save me if I get hit by a vehicle and have a high velocity head impact with something hard. That being said, some of my closest calls have come at relatively lower speeds. Taxi's doing unexpected u turns or reversing, cars pulling out of alley ways into the street. Drunk people obliviously crossing the street. I have a higher exposure time than most other people on bikes and if i'm involved in a low speed accident, I think my family would be pretty upset with me for not taking my safety as seriously as I could have. How about this scenario: Im late for a delivery, it's 1 am because its my friday late shift, and raining, So Im hauling as fast as I can when a car overtaking me doesn't leave quite enough room, maybe they're drunk, maybe not, but they clip me and I go over the handle bars, hit the street, and lets say initially my head is spared as I slide along the pavement progressively losing speed. Then I impact the rim of a parked car. I was going slow. But not quite slow enough to avoid traumatic, or even minor brain damage. Now I understand this a completely fabricated scenario, and I hate fear mongering as much as anyone, but the reality is that there are a million different scenarios we could encounter every time we saddle up. Im gonna keep my helmet on.

    Posted by Luke February 26, 2011 11:15:57

  • Risk

    I ride both helmeted and bare headed, and I hope that if I crash, I'm wearing my helmet. But the phenomenon of "risk compensation" is real, and I think people wearing helmets (myself included) tend to engage in riskier behavior. I think it's instructive that sports that have incorporated increasingly sophisticated protective gear have actually become more violent, and more dangerous,cf. hockey, football, field hockey,etc....

    Posted by Jimmy February 25, 2011 20:45:45

  • Karen...

    Are you simply pro-helmet or pro-helmet law? I have no issue if you *choose* to wear a helmet, but forcing me to do so is ridiculous. I see zero benefit in helmets and will continue to ride helmet-free.

    Posted by Ryan February 25, 2011 06:15:46

Add your thoughts