Quality letter in the FT, beware hxxxxt content

number9

From Mr Malcolm Wardlaw.

Sir, There has been debate about helmets and cyclists' safety ("Some
healthy advice, Boris: please put a lid on it", July 1, and Letters,
July 3 and 4). As author of a number of papers on the topic, I may be
able to inform the discussion.

Driving helmet use is zero. Walking helmet use is zero. None of this
is controversial. The cycle helmet debate must stem from a belief that
cycling is much more dangerous than walking or driving. Serious
analysis of risk has been lacking. In the late 1980s, the Transport
and Road Research Laboratory produced a report called Risk in Cycling
. It was never published. I obtained a copy from a private library.
Disturbed by the ill-informed basis of debate, I expanded on the TRRL
work and published Assessing the Actual Risks Faced by Cyclists in 2002.

The main conclusions were:

* On-road cycling is a low-risk form of travel in all the countries
assessed, including the UK. Cyclists face risks similar to drivers or
pedestrians. For instance, even an active British cyclist faces lower
lifetime risks than the average French or Belgian driver.

* If there is more cycling, it gets safer; if there is a drop in
cycling, the risk per cyclist increases.

These findings have been repeated by a later study for the European
Cycling Federation. Wearing a helmet for daily cycling is only
"important" if such travel is actually dangerous. Since it is not
actually dangerous, it cannot be important to wear a helmet. Boris
Johnson ought to have made this clear in his article in a national
newspaper a few weeks ago.

Be wary of gruesome anecdotes about smashed helmets. Helmet laws have
been in force in Australia and New Zealand for more than 15 years.
Although initial studies claimed modest improvements from these laws,
the issue was largely settled in 2006 in a paper in the British
Medical Journal. This showed that no discernible reduction in serious
head injuries could be seen in the hospital admission data from those
countries with sharply rising helmet use, although there was some
reduction in scalp lacerations. Note that three published studies have
observed an excess of deaths with rising helmet use (in the US, UK and
Australia). Personally, I cannot understand why the issue is still
debated at all.

The health benefits of cycling vastly exceed the risks of being killed
in a crash, being comparable to giving up cigarette smoking. It is the
sedentary lifestyle of car-dependency that is truly dangerous. Cycling
to work dodges the jams and a gives you a workout all in one shot.
Countries with cycle helmet laws, or strong helmet policies, have the
highest levels of obesity. These countries also have the poorest
safety records, due to the low level of cycle use.

In London, half of road deaths are pedestrians, just 6 per cent are
cyclists. I cannot understand anyone involved in casualty treatment
who insists cyclists should wear helmets, when they themselves do not
wear a walking helmet.

Malcolm Wardlaw,

dang65

It is a quality letter, though I'm personally happy to carry on wearing a helmet due to the "reduction in scalp lacerations". I'd never vote for compulsory helmet use though.

dirk_van_gently

good to see something positive and sensible relating to cycling rather than all the BS that seems to around.

saveswalking

8) in a nut shell

better than reading page after page of posts with folks knocking statistics and anecdotes back and forth eh ?

" Personally, I cannot understand why the issue is still
debated at all. "


sw

jedster

It is a quality letter, though I'm personally happy to carry on wearing a helmet due to the "reduction in scalp lacerations". I'd never vote for compulsory helmet use though

exactly my feelings.

always_tyred

saveswalking wrote:

8) in a nut shell

better than reading page after page of posts with folks knocking statistics and anecdotes back and forth eh ?

" Personally, I cannot understand why the issue is still
debated at all. "


sw

I don't see any difference between this guy's opinion and any post on a forum such as this. Boris says X, Mr. W says Y. Just takes longer to build up 18 pages' worth.

At least the guy is relatively moderate and they haven't printed anything written by Steve :roll: Berry

Parkey

I'm always amazed how much controversy the helmet debate generates on this forum.

I wear a helmet, but if someone else decides not to wear one it's frankly none of my business. It's not like, for example, stopping at red lights where failure to do so could cause a serious accident that could seriously hurt or kill other people.

I've suffered the horror of seeing my girlfriend come off her bike on a wet road and land on her head. She was incredibly shaken up by it all, but there were no serious injuries. She's a doctor and she's convinced that if she'd not been wearing her helmet she'd have been put in hospital. As witness to what happened I heartily agree, and if there's a chance of that happening to my head I'll happily suffer the almost non-existent inconvenience of a helmet.

BUT

If you choose not to wear one it's absolutely none of my business.

Massimo

Well written, intelligent article. Summed up the argument perfectly. I'm forever harping on about cyclists not wearing helmets. From now on I'll keep my gob firmly shut

karl j

Parkey wrote:

I'm always amazed how much controversy the helmet debate generates on this forum.

I wear a helmet, but if someone else decides not to wear one it's frankly none of my business.

exactly my feelings. (well, sometimes i wear one)

Good letter.

whome

Agreed - a very good article.

idaviesmoore

Massimo wrote:

Well written, intelligent article. Summed up the argument perfectly. I'm forever harping on about cyclists not wearing helmets. From now on I'll keep my gob firmly shut

Your opinion's as valid as anyone's

whome

the original article is

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9b9fa954-4c87 ... 07658.html

and some debate (mostly missing the point) at

http://blogs.ft.com/undercover/2008/07/ ... r-helmets/

whome

Oh, also a simlar piece in -

http://living.scotsman.com/features/Med ... 4268320.jp

cakewalk

saveswalking wrote:

8) in a nut shell

better than reading page after page of posts with folks knocking statistics and anecdotes back and forth eh ?

" Personally, I cannot understand why the issue is still
debated at all. "


sw

Every one has an agenda - so what's Mr Wardlaw's? Is he qualified to talk about this issue? Is anything he states true? Who know's?

Clever Pun

I wear a helmet as a cap decreases my FCN

idaviesmoore

:? Do any studies mention how many people are left with long term compliactions after falling from a bike without wearing a helmet?

Massimo

I happened to mention this article to my wife who asked

"What about motorcyclists? Or more importantly the fact that on your commute you're probably traveling quicker than most motorcycles because the traffic is so tightly packed together. If they're forced to wear helmets, so should you....and don't get me started on the speeds you and your mates get up to on Sunday mornings..."

She makes a valid point - you rarely see pedestrians hitting 40mph on the A456 and car drivers have seat belts - perhaps cyclists should all be wearing helmets...

whome

You (and your wife) are missing the point - despite those apparent differences the data shows that cycling has very similar safety record to walking. i.e. they are both very safe - So why would you bother with a helmet for the statistically safe activity of cycling when you don't for the similarly safe activity of walking.

cyrus

cakewalk wrote:

Is he qualified to talk about this issue? Is anything he states true? Who know's?

Always Tyred wrote:

I don't see any difference between this guy's opinion and any post on a forum such as this.

Well, he's had quite a few articles and letters accepted by peer-reviewed medical journals, and transport and road safety journals, as well as an official study for the Scottish Executive (some listed at end to save you googling). He's on the editorial board of cyclehelmets.org http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1121

Wardlaw is currently fighting the British Medical Association's move to support an enforced all-ages helmet law, a decision which he argues was based on bad data.
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ (May 2008 entries)
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/wardlaw.html

He's obvously a cyclist, which already qualifies him ahead of a lot of people who lecture cyclists on 'safety'.

Some of Wardlaw's record:

---

British Medical Journal 2000;321:1581-5 Three lessons for a better cycling future.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582
British Medical Journal 2001;322:1063-5 Subsequences and consequences must be distinguished.
Canadian Medical Association Journal 2002;167:337-8 Better peer review is needed.
Traffic Engineering & Control Feb 2002, How should cyclists best be served?
Traffic Engineering & Control Dec 2002, What are the actual risks faced by cyclists?
Archives of Disease in Childhood 2004;89:692-3 Only wholeness leads to clarity.
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2004;97:409-10 Effectiveness of cycle helmets and ethics of legislation.
Inroads (Journal of the Institute of RSOs) Dec 2005 pp 12-13. Cycling Research.
Significance 2006;3(2):92-93.Helmet laws and cyclists' safety.
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine2007;100:8 Cycling is not more dangerous than walking.
Monitoring the National Cycling Strategy in Scotland 2001. A national study for the Scottish Executive published by HMSO, http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/kd01/blue/mncs-00.asp

---

Downwardi

How many pedestrians Injured though are the very young or very old ?

dondare

Downwardi wrote:

How many pedestrians Injured though are the very young or very old ?

Far too many. The largest group, I believe is 10 - 11 year olds, which is when children who have been driven to primary school up till then start walking to secondary school.

sc999cs

This Wikipedia article is quite interesting.

Steve C