In December 2012, Dr. Fred Rivara gave an alarming TED Talk about the spread of bikeshare programs across the nation. This was a big problem, he argued, because bikeshare riders generally do not wear helmets. He predicted mass carnage as a result, and published a paper that purported to show a 14% increased risk of head injuries as a result of bikeshare.
But when the data in the paper was examined, it was clear that bikeshare had the opposite effect. Cities with bikeshare programs saw a substantial reduction in head injuries.
It is not the first time Dr. Rivara has cried wolf.
Beginning in 1989, he published a series of papers claiming that bike helmets reduce the risk of head injury by a whopping 85%. He is the original bike helmet alarmist. And while his papers were heavily criticized for their methods and conclusions, that did not prevent legislators from passing mandatory helmet laws.
But following passage of the helmet laws, a funny thing happened: There was no change in the rate of bicyclist injuries or fatalities. For example, a study of Canadian helmet legislation in the BMJ states: “we were unable to detect an independent effect of legislation on the rate of hospital admissions for cycling related head injuries.” A study of Australia helmet legislation (“No clear evidence from countries that have enforced the wearing of helmets”) made the same conclusion. Australia, by the way, is the most perfect laboratory for bike helmet effectiveness, because the entire country overnight instituted strict helmet laws. The fact that no effect was detected is astonishing, given Rivara’s claim that helmets are 65% effective against motor vehicle collisions.
When real world experimental data fails to validate a theoretical model, it means the model is wrong. Twice now, Dr. Rivara’s theory has failed in dramatic fashion. The fact that he refuses to give up his theory means he is nothing more than a crackpot.
Actually crackpot is a poor choice for something that appears to be a delibrate attempt to have his data show the opposite of what is really happening.
[…] Wisconsin inexplicably continues to push for a double-decker highway in slow-growing Milwaukee. And Systemic Failure digs into the professional background of the academic who co-authored the study that led to […]
Worse than a crackpot. An active enemy of public health and active transport. Thanks for the post. If you want to register your opposition to Australia’s mandatory helmet laws (still in place almost twenty years after the “experiment” was found to be a big failure by Dorothy Robinson’s research in 1996) go to http://www.freestylecyclists.org/
New Zealand is also the other perfect laboratory for the bike helmet and has seen similarly little effect on head injuries.
Also look at the overwhelmingly negative effect the helmts laws have had on the bike share programmes in Brisbane and Sydney. The least successful in the world. Here in Auckland it is not even worth considering until the law is repealed.
It has however had a huge effect on the number of people cycling – downwards. My home city of Christchurch used to be the 2nd biggest cycle city in the world. Now it struggles at maybe a 3-4% modal share. It is flat, has a dry climate, has wide roads and is a small city to get around – so still perfect for cycling.
The thing it is missing is infrastructure. Following the terrible earthquakes in 2011 it is being slowly put in place but the helmet law will always be a barrier – if only in making everyone feel cycling is unsafe.
The Police have pretty much given up enforcing the cycle law here in NZ though they were big on it in the ’90s. They now just tend to yell at you out the window of their car (I refuse to wear a helmet – never been fined the NZ$55).
a crackpot? most likely.
but a crackpot funded by a helmet industry that made huge profits from the bicycle helmet scaremongering.
http://crag.asn.au/1121
The US government has now dropped its claim that bicycle helmets protect against 85%. Rivara continues to peddle helmets regardless …
Oops. I meant:
The US government has now dropped its claim that bicycle helmets protect against 85% of head injuries.
http://www.waba.org/blog/2013/06/feds-withdraw-claim-that-bike-helmets-are-85-percent-effective/
Ironic you don’t need a helmet on a Motorcycle here, sounds like what some of our Nanny state detractors would call too much Government. Complete and total disregard to the facts. Sounds like the Government.
[…] safer to go helmetless because drivers give you more space and a host of other reasons. Some recent hysteria around bike-share and head injuries fueled this fire. I’m not sure Jeff and I put […]
Reblogged this on cherokeeschill and commented:
Vote No on HB 176 Kentucky
If I remember correctly, the raw data on that “85%” study also showed a 77% reduction in leg injuries. In order for that to be true there must have been a corresponding reduction in bike crashes. Since more recent UK studies have shown a negative effect on reduction of bike/car wrecks with helmet use, the only mechanism that would explain both facts would be a reduction in bicycle riders.
[…] bike share programs, when in fact bike share had the opposite effect of making streets overall safer for […]