Legislators who have noticed that the accident rate among bicyclists is going up are concerned for the safety of the cycling community. To lower the death rate, they intend to pass legislation to force bicyclists to wear helmets. I ride my bicycle to work every day, and I normally wear a helmet. Since this policy aims to protect the safety of riders, I should be all in favor of it. However, as I see it, forcing people to wear a helmet is a different matter.
If bicycle safety focuses on the helmet issue, we could easily come to ignore other issues that are more important, such as teaching cyclists to avoid being hit by cars and other necessary measures.
Based on my several decades of cycling experience, inappropriate driving by car and motor scooter drivers is the main killer of cyclists, and helmets are of no use when it comes to reducing such accidents.
Unfortunately, people mistakenly assume that wearing a helmet equals safe cycling, or even that wearing a helmet is the only safety measure to take.
Bicycle helmets do not necessarily bring about safe cycling, and they might have the opposite effect. In the US prior to the 1990s, almost no one riding a bicycle wore a helmet, but beginning in the 1990s, wearing helmets became popular. This could have been expected to lead to a drop in the number of head injuries among cyclists, but in fact the opposite occurred.
A report in the New York Times several years ago said that the big increase in bicycle helmet use in the 1990s led to a 51 percent increase of head injuries among cyclists.
I have often heard it said that a research report found that wearing a helmet when biking diminishes the risk of sustaining a head injury by 85 percent. This statistic is frequently quoted in many countries when people are pushing for the use of bicycle helmets. However, a more careful analysis of this report reveals several flaws.
For example, not one single example used in the report includes cyclists hit by cars or scooters. If the government continues to push for the forced used of helmets, it would be well worth further investigating the assumptions and limitations behind the data used in the government’s proposals.
The government should pay special attention to another piece of information if it is to push for forced helmet use. In some countries where bicycles are most common, such as the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Finland, France and the UK, the countries where helmet use is the highest are also the countries that rank the highest in cyclist head injuries. In the countries where helmet use is the lowest, the number of head injuries is also the lowest. In addition, a study from the University of Bath in the UK shows that car drivers tend to drive closer to cyclists wearing bicycle helmets.
Data from other countries show that most cyclists who have sustained serious injuries have done so after violating traffic regulations. These accidents could easily have been avoided.
For example, a study by Riley Geary of the Institute for Traffic Safety Analysis in the US shows that nighttime cycling is the main cause of bicycle fatalities among adults.
In Taiwan, very few people have the right lights on their bicycles. Someone who really cares about the safety of cyclists would do more by requiring the use of appropriate lighting before focusing on the helmet issue.
Furthermore, the helmets on the market at present are designed to handle only the lightest impact under some ideal conditions — they are not designed to cope with a car slamming into a cyclist, although that is the most common cause of biking fatalities.
The biggest problem with a bicycle helmet law is that it ignores some unexpected consequences. For example, if such a law were passed and enforced, many people could be expected to lose interest in cycling.
A report by the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation in the US found that the cycling population fell between 31 percent and 50 percent in countries such as Australia and Canada after the passage of bicycle helmet legislation. As a consequence, there will be fewer bicycles on the streets, making it more likely that car and scooter drivers will ignore cyclists more than they already do, so the danger to cyclists will increase. This is also reflected in studies showing that the countries with the highest number of cyclists also have the lowest number of injuries.
Whether we look at relieving traffic pressure or take an environmental and energy saving perspective, Taiwan would do well to promote cycling. The things that those who really care about the safety of cyclists should give priority to include offering bicycle safety classes to students and others, passing regulations stipulating safe distances when overtaking bicycles on the road, providing a minimum amount of road space for cyclists and implementing traffic regulations suitable to bicycles.
Hua Jian is a professor at National Taiwan Ocean University.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations