Study reveals 29% decline in bicycle-related head injuries after mandatory helmet laws

NewsGuard 100/100 Score

Bicycle-related head injuries fell significantly in the months after mandatory helmet legislation came into effect in NSW, and recent calls for a repeal of the laws should be rejected, new research based on hospital admissions data shows.

The injuries fell by up to 29% after the laws were introduced in 1991, according to the study by researchers at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) and the Sax Institute, published in the high impact journal Accident Analysis and Prevention.

"We set out to perform the most comprehensive analysis possible on the subject while addressing any data limitations and possible confounding factors," said study author Dr Jake Olivier.

"What we found provides compelling evidence that the legislation has served its purpose in reducing bike-related head injuries and any repeal of the laws would only put lives at risk," he said.

UNSW's Chair of Road Safety and study co-author Professor Raphael Grzebieta said the study backs up overwhelming evidence from biomechanical experiments and in-depth accident case analyses that helmets prevent head injury. "It shows what we've suspected for a long time - that you would be unwise to 'hit the road' without a helmet," he said.

Australia was the first country to introduce mandatory helmet legislation in 1991, but 20 years later public debate about the legislation's effectiveness in preventing head injuries continues.

Last year, a Sydney University study found the laws had failed and should be repealed because compulsory helmet wearing could be a disincentive to cycling. The academic paper was later retracted due to serious data and arithmetic errors.

In the new UNSW study, researchers from the Injury Risk Management Research Centre and the Sax Institute examined trends in NSW hospital admissions for cyclists and pedestrians, comparing the rate of head injury relative to arm injury, and separately for head injury relative to leg injury, in the months before and after the legislation was introduced.

They found the decrease in head injury rates was significantly greater for cyclists compared to pedestrians, and cyclist head injuries decreased more than limb injuries, pointing to the positive effect of mandatory helmet wearing at the population level.

"We endeavoured to identify the effect of the legislation on head injury rates as distinct from other road safety interventions and we've shown that the improvements could only have come from the helmet legislation," Dr Olivier said.

However, while the findings support the maintenance of mandatory helmet laws, the paper's authors caution against seeing helmets as a panacea for bike safety.

"Cyclist safety is a complex issue driven by a range of factors. Cycling in Australia has changed with a considerable increase in recreational road cycling and mountain biking in recent years. Additional research into the diverse and changing risk profiles among these cycling subgroups could facilitate further safety improvements," Dr Olivier said.

Comments

  1. cyclist cyclist Australia says:

    Caution should be used when using the results of the study in the debate about the mandatory helmet laws. According to the news article the study shows that using a helmet decreases the chance of head injury in a bicycle accident. However the study does not talk about the negative effect of the MHL on the popularity of cycling, which has been shown to cause damage to the society (through a decrease in recreational activity) far outweighing the positive effects of the decrease in head injuries caused by the MHL.

The opinions expressed here are the views of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of News Medical.
Post a new comment
Post

While we only use edited and approved content for Azthena answers, it may on occasions provide incorrect responses. Please confirm any data provided with the related suppliers or authors. We do not provide medical advice, if you search for medical information you must always consult a medical professional before acting on any information provided.

Your questions, but not your email details will be shared with OpenAI and retained for 30 days in accordance with their privacy principles.

Please do not ask questions that use sensitive or confidential information.

Read the full Terms & Conditions.

You might also like...
Research explores the health benefits of resistant starch in plant-based diets