Rebecca pointed me to this interesting article by Ben Hoyle in the London Times, “Helmeted cyclists in more peril on the road.” Hoyle writes:
Cyclists who wear helmets are more likely to be knocked off their bicycles than those who do not, according to research. Other sources including auto accident lawyer Visalia firms amongst others have concurred with this fact. For cycling related cases, many of those that they brought to court were for cyclists who had worn their helmet. One would think it would be the other way around, so what is happening exactly?
Motorists give helmeted cyclists less leeway than bare-headed riders because they assume that they are more proficient. They give a wider berth to those they think do not look like “proper” cyclists, including women, than to kitted-out “lycra-clad warriors”. As a result, more of these so-called “proper” cyclists are involved in accidents which is rather ironic. Of course, many will want to seek legal advice after being involved in a car accident, possibly from the likes of the Hanna Law Firm if they’re in West Texas.
Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist, was hit by a bus and a truck while recording 2,500 overtaking maneuvers. On both occasions, he was wearing a helmet. Whilst most would be only thinking about reaching out to a Kentucky truck accident attorney to sort these cases, he had other thoughts on his mind.
During his research he measured the exact distance of passing traffic using a computer and sensor fitted to his bicycle.Half the time Dr Walker, of the University of Bath, was bare-headed. For the other half he wore a helmet and has the bruises to prove it.
He even wore a wig on some of his trips to see if drivers gave him more room if they thought he was a woman. They did.
He was unsure whether the protection of a helmet justified the higher risk of having a collision. “We know helmets are useful in low-speed falls, and so are definitely good for children.”
On average, drivers steered an extra 3.3 in away from those without helmets to those wearing the safety hats. Motorists were twice as likely to pass “very close” to the cyclist if he was wearing a helmet.
Not just risk compensation
This is interesting: I was aware of the “risk compensation” idea, that helmeted riders will ride less safely, thus increasing the risk of accident (although the accident itself may be less likely to cause serious injury), as has been claimed with seat belts, antilock brakes, and airbags for cars. (If it were up to me, I would make car bumpers illegal, since they certainly seem to introduce a “moral hazard” or incentive to drive less carefully.)
But I hadn’t thought of the idea that the helmet could be providing a signal to the driver. From the article, it appears that the optimal solution might be a helmet, covered by a wig . . .
The distinction between risk compensation altering one’s own behavior, and perceptions altering others’ behavior, is important in making my own decision. On the other hand, my small experience is that I have a friend who was seriously injured after crashing at low speed with no helmet. He was able to get some help with the costs thanks to Noll Law Firm, but it was still a harrowing experience. So it’s tricky for me to put all the information together in making a decision.
Attitudes
The news article concludes with,
He [Walker] said: “When drivers overtake a cyclist, the margin for error they leave is affected by the cyclist’s appearance. Many see cyclists as a separate subculture.
“They hold stereotyped ideas about cyclists. There is no real reason to believe someone with a helmet is any more experienced than someone without.”
I don’t know the statistics on that, but I do think there’s something to this “subculture” business. People on the road definitely seem to have strong “attitudes” to each other based on minimal information.
Self-experimentation
Finally, Rebecca pointed out that this is another example of self-experimentation. As with Seth’s research, the self-experimenter here appears to have a lot of expert knowledge to guide his theories and data collection. Also amusing, of course, is that his name is Walker.
I wonder if he measured the distance between himself and the curb? Could it be that drivers stay in the same absolute position but his increased comfort with the helmet caused him to ride slightly farther from the curb? I also wonder if he tried different types of bikes.
There is a real double-blind issue here which I can't see how you'd solve though. It might be the case that Walker's own behaviour changed when he put the helmet on; that he gave fewer cues to the drivers behind.
In my limited cycle commuting experience, what you need to do is to make eye contact with the drivers, and I would guess that most currently available designs of helmet make this more difficult.
Odds of cyclists being injured in collisions were high in comparison to other modes of transport long before helmets were commonly worn. Given the odds, and the consequences (ie brain injury or death by brain bleed), I'll stick with a helmet when riding in traffic.
On the moral hazard of car bumpers: this is a moot point, IMO, due to the fact that bumpers on most cars built in the past 15 years are covered by a composite shell that is relatively fragile and very expensive to replace. I wonder if Walker was hit by high-end cars ;I
Tucker,
In NYC, many of the taxis have big metal bumper extenders whose function, as far as I can tell, is entirely to allow the drivers to drive more recklessly without worrying about damage to themselves.
In many years of bicycling in cities, I've found that if a car seems to be trying to edge up behind me and overtake me in a lane that is too narrow, glancing back a few times seems to very effectively keep it away. I'm truly fortunate to have never been knocked off my bike, but the many times that a car has passed way too close have all been when I did not glance around. So now, on crowded roads, I glance around as a protective measure and generally attempt to make myself appear a lot more nervous than I actually am — which may have a similar signaling function as not wearing a helmet. (Of course, one can also use also lane position as a defensive technique, but that gets into different kind of psychological battle with automobile drivers, so I only recommend that when it's possible to keep up with the traffic.)
I wonder if painting a face on the back of one's helmet might keep cars at a safer distance?
Interesting. I wonder if the extra caution could be explained by the tendency of kids and older riders *not* to wear helmets, and drivers associating non-helmeted riders with more vulnerable types of people?
Also, I wonder if variables unique to the region where these tests were conducted have an influence — width of streets, rush hour times relative to sunrise and sunset, average wind speed, etc. In my home state (Northeastern U.S.) I've worn helmets while commuting for years, and never have been hit, or even come close to being hit while riding on main roads.
Imagine you are an awkward, quiet, somewhat introverted, perhaps slightly eccentric human being who tends to move and act awkwardly in everything you do, and this despite all your attempts at improvement. You would be more likely to wear a helmet the next time you got on your bike than if you were a sexy mofo like me. A sexy mofo like me would never be caught dead (har, har) wearing one of those ridiculous things.
There is something to be said about the subculture of cyclicts. (I hate 'em.) But before looking at 'risk compensation' you should think about self-selection playing a role here. :)
Good point about taxis in NYC – though the rams they have mounted don't usually extend to the outer bumper, where a cyclist would likely be clipped. Unless of course they were going for a direct hit, which is entirely possible.
This made me wonder: do food delivery guys, who never wear helmets and ride like maniacs, get hit more often than the average NYC bicyclist?
Did I misread, or was the average difference in distance less than four inches? At an uneducated guess, I'd wager that having a helmet on is worth 3.3 inches. The biggest problem with that study (from the summary in the newspaper) is that there was no estimate of the probability of getting hit, which is the real outcome. Knowing that cars pass 3.3 inches closer is not very useful information; knowing the probabilities of an accident is the real outcome.
Someone just suggested I look at this, as it's my research being discussed.
The person who suggested I might have influenced the results has a valid concern, but I'm pretty satisfied this didn't happen: many of the findings from the study were the opposite to what I suspected I might find a priori, which certainly helps argue against the idea I found what I was expecting to find!
The last point is also an important one, and I was reluctant to supply an absolute distance as I didn't think it was too helpful (but the press office insisted). Much more important, I think, is that wearing a helmet was associated with substantial increases in the proportions of motorists in the subset getting particularly close as they passed. So the helmet (and riding position) were significantly affecting the probability of drivers cutting it particularly fine, which I think is a better way of understanding the results.