New market research has revealed that cycling helmets reduce head injury by 48% and serious head injury by 60%.
The research, published in the academic journal Accident Analysis & Prevention, makes it clear that wearing a helmet while cycling is highly recommended, particularly on slippery or icy roads.
At present, wearing a helmet while cycling is not compulsory by law, but it is recommended in Section 59 of the Highway Code.
There has been much debate around the pros and cons of cycling helmets. Tour De France winner and Olympic champion, Sir Bradley Wiggins has said that all cyclists should be forced by law to wear helmets on the road while fellow Olympian James Cracknall, who suffered a brain injury when a truck hit him at 65 mph while cycling in the United States, says wearing a helmet saved his life.
Others disagree claiming that the increase in the use of helmets has done nothing to reduce cycling-related injuries and death. Cycling UK says ‘helmets are, and can only be, designed to withstand minor knocks and falls, not serious traffic collisions’. They believe that it is more important to encourage people of all ages to cycle rather than to make an issue of whether they use a helmet when doing so while also pointing out that ‘enforced helmet laws have consistently caused substantial reductions in cycle use’.
As serious injury solicitors, we have acted for a number of people who have suffered life-changing injuries in cycling accidents. Based on our experience, we believe cyclists should wear helmets – as long as they have passed either the US Snell B90 / B95 standard or European standard CE market test. Children are more susceptible to brain injury than adults so it is particularly important for helmets to be made compulsory for our younger cyclists.
There is also a strong legal argument in favour of helmets. If a cyclist, who isn’t wearing a helmet, is injured in an accident then the other side will almost certainly attempt to claim contributory negligence which operates as a partial defence whereby the courts can apportion loss between the parties.
There is a parallel here with seat belts in cars and an important case from over forty years ago. In 1976, wearing seat belts in cars was not compulsory but in Froom v Butcher the late Lord Denning deducted 25% of the claimant’s damages saying ‘Everyone knows, or ought to know, that when he goes out in a car he should fasten the seat belt.’
Today, the same argument is made in relation to cyclists not wearing helmets and it is another reason why cycling without a helmet just isn’t worth the risk.
In the words of brain injury charity, Headway: ‘Use your head – use a helmet’.