The Effect of an All-Ages Bicycle Helmet Law on Bicycle-Related Trauma
In 2003, Seattle implemented an all-ages bicycle helmet law; King County outside of Seattle had implemented a similar law since 1994. For the period 2000–2010, the effect of the helmet legislation on helmet use, helmet-preventable injuries, and bicycle-related fatalities was examined, comparing Seattle to the rest of King County. Data was retrieved from the Washington State Trauma Registry and the King County Medical Examiner. Results comparing the proportions of bicycle related head injuries before (2000–2002) and after (2004–2010) the law show no significant change in the proportion of bicyclists admitted to the hospital and treated for head injuries in either Seattle (37.9 vs 40.2 % p = 0.75) nor in the rest of King County (30.7 vs 31.4 %, p = 0.84) with the extension of the helmet law to Seattle in 2003. However, bicycle-related major head trauma as a proportion of all bicycle-related head trauma did decrease significantly in Seattle (83.9 vs 64.9 %, p = 0.04), while there was no significant change in King County (64.4 vs 57.6 %, p = 0.41). While the results do not show an overall decrease in head injuries, they do reveal a decrease in the severity of head injuries, as well as bicycle-related fatalities, suggesting that the helmet legislation was effective in reducing severe disability and death, contributing to injury prevention in Seattle and King County. The promotion of helmet use through an all ages helmet law is a vital preventative strategy for reducing major bicycle-related head trauma.
KeywordsBicycle injury Head injury Major head injury Helmet Legislation
- 3.Health USDo, & Human, S. (1999). Physical activity and health: A report of the surgeon general. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.Google Scholar
- 6.National Highway Traffic Safety A. (2008). Traffic safety facts, laws: Bicycle helmet use laws. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.Google Scholar
- 7.Henderson, M. (1995). The effectiveness of bicycle helmets—A review (Revised Edition). New South Wales: Motor Accidents Authority.Google Scholar
- 8.Thompson, D. C., Rivara, F. P., & Thompson, R. (2000). Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2, CD001855.Google Scholar
- 11.Attewell, R., Glase, K., & McFadden, M. (2000). Bicycle helmets and injury prevention: A formal review (2000). Australia: Australian Capital Territory, Australian Transport Safety Bureau.Google Scholar
- 14.Macpherson, A., & Spinks, A. (2008). Bicycle helmet legislation for the uptake of helmet use and prevention of head injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 3, CD005401.Google Scholar
- 21.OHSU. (2011). Group maintenance in community development. http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/l702.html. Accessed April 17, 2012.
- 23.Messiah, A., Constant, A., Contrand, B., Felonneau, M. L., & Lagarde, E. (2012). Risk compensation: A male phenomenon? Results from a controlled intervention trial promoting helmet use among cyclists. American Journal of Public Health, 102(Suppl 2), S204–S206.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 24.Amoros, E., Chiron, M., Martin, J. L., Thelot, B., & Laumon, B. (2012). Bicycle helmet wearing and the risk of head, face, and neck injury: A French case–control study based on a road trauma registry. Injury Prevention: Journal of the International Society for Child and Adolescent Injury Prevention, 18(1), 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Seattle Municipal Court Research PaEG. (2012). Bike-related ticket and fines written 2003–2011. City of Seattle: Seattle.Google Scholar