Photo: zaphodsotherheadIn a new working paper called “The Intended and Unintended Effects of Youth Bicycle Helmet Laws” (abstract here; pdf here), Christopher S. Carpenter and Mark Stehr offer a surprising conclusion: while mandatory helmet laws have led to increased helmet use, and while helmet use has been shown to reduce bicycle fatalities, such laws also seem to lead to a decrease in actual bike riding.
Why?
Carpenter and Stehr lay out their case compellingly. They exploit a convenient variable: the fact that helmet laws exist in only 21 states, pictured here:
While conceding that these are primarily “coastal” states, the authors note that they cover more than 50 percent of the U.S. youth population.
Their research first confirms earlier research that “helmet laws significantly reduced bicycling fatalities among youths age 0-15 (i.e., youths who were directly treated by most states’ age-16 helmet laws) by about 19 percent.”
Their research further suggests “that helmet laws significantly increased youth helmet use by 29-35 percent.”
But: “There is also robust evidence for an unintended and previously undocumented mechanism: helmet laws produced modest but statistically significant reductions in youth bicycling participation of 4-5 percent.”
The authors offer three explanations for why this may be true:
1. The cost of helmets, both monetary and social — i.e., Helmets are uncool, so if I’ve got to wear a helmet to ride my bike, I’ll find something else to do.
2. “There is evidence that youths have suboptimally high discount rates (Gruber 2001), such that some youths might place too little weight on the expected gain in future utility from the prevention of injury or death relative to the costs of wearing helmets today.”
3. Bike-helmet laws lower the price of activities similar to biking — skateboarding, rollerblading, etc. — that do not require a helmet.
These seem perfectly sensible to me, but I might add a couple other possible explanations:
1. Helmets are a hassle.
2. Helmet laws make cycling seem more dangerous than we used to think it was. Therefore, a certain kind of parent develops a bias against it, and no longer encourages his or her kids to ride a bike — or, perhaps, never even bothers to buy the kid a bike.
Whatever the case, a downturn in bike ridership may strike some people as a grievous strike against the American character. On the other hand, it’s great news for the likes of Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
The coastal states highlighted are more urban, and city kids are less likely to bike for myriad reasons (convenience, safety, etc.).
A terrible photo to accompany the article, because the kid’s helmet is not properly adjusted to actually increase safety! With the chinstrap that loose, it would go flying off in any collision. Perhaps fittingly, though, it looks “cooler” loose and dangerous than snug and safe.
Many of those states are more densely populated than the non-coastal states. The bulk of the population might live in big cities in those more densely populated states
If I lived in a big city…
* I probably wouldn’t let my kid ride his bike around since there are more cars on the road.
* I would be more worried about someone stealing my kids bike
* I might be more likely to live in an apartment without a place to put a bike.
I must be missing something. The “Discussion and Conclusion” of the study asks “Why do helmet laws lead to reduced cycling?” What precedes the Conclusion, however, only presents an association between helmet laws and bicycle usage, and not a causation. As the article suggests, there might well be other factors that actually cause a decrease in bicycling, such as increased attraction of electronic games; ever-increasing motorized traffic leading to the (warranted or unwarranted) perception that bicycling is unsafe; deteriorating road surfaces caused by decreasing funds available to improve them; and so on.
The only way to determine a *causal* relation between helmets and bicycle usage is to actually query the parents/users themselves and find out *why* they ride less frequently or not at all. Note that the survey doesn’t do this. It follows the question posed at the beginning of the Conclusion with several “possibilities” — none of which the authors bothered to confirm with their sample.
But maybe I’m biased. One of my sons is alive today because he crashed wearing a bike helmet. Or so that’s what his pediatrician says….
While I have been a cyclist for many years and been wearing a helmet from the time they were less than comfortable (remember the old Bell helmets), the photo shows a child who is not wearing a helmet properly with the strap dangling below his chin. What is the result of a child or adult wearing a helmet improperly in the event of an accident? Also, what is the rationale of many parents who ensure that their children wear a helmet but when riding with them go without? We should be advocating for more helmet usage and cycling in general as I have with my own children.
You say the downturn is bike ridership is great news for sellers of electronic games. One might go further and suggest that the games themselves are in competition with biking and all sorts of outdoor physical, leisure activities; they’re not just a beneficiary of the downturn, but a cause as well.
Leaving aside the human/emotional arguments. What is conspicuously left out of consideration is cost of healthcare for those who are injured or killed – how many like accidents result in a rider pronounced at scene and taken straight to morgue? Since we all pay for that care, the more serious the accidents, the higher the insurance rates. Therefore, the “greivous strike against American spirit” is idiotic. Since the capitalist system means we all pay for others stupidity, choosing not to wear a helmet isn’t “going rogue” it’s more of what Amreica has become: getting responsible poeple to pay for your irresponsibility using the false argument that you are expressing your freedom. If you refuse to wear a helmet and agree to finance your care or allow yourself to go untreated, that would be a valid argument. As for uncool, take a look around. Very few people don’t wear helmets and professional bikers do all the time. As for diggiti (#5) teach your kid to headbutt any bullies with the helmet on. A win-win for all.
Okay, here’s another subject of research. Are Wii’s, Nintendo’s, Ipods. Guitar Hero etc decreasing kids wants for a bicycle?
Even in the absense of laws, how sure are you that the numbers of people are going to just magically fly sky high in its absense?
Look, the research is not conclusive. You can’t just pinpoint at helmet laws and say that it is the only factor causing bicycling to reduce. Parents have a legit case for stopping their kids from cycling if they feel doing so in the neighborhood is asking for a deathwish. Make cycling safer and we’ll see the benefits. Complain about cycling laws and do all the research you want, cycling is not going to increase on unsafe roads. Its more practical to wear the lid.