Means of Stimulating the Voluntary Use of Bicycle Helmets
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Research OCTOBER 1994 Means of stimulating the voluntary use of bicycle helmets The Ministry of Transport has asked SWOV to gather knowledge about the possibilities of promoting voluntary use of bicycle helmets in the Netherlands. SWOV carried out three stud fes: a literature study of the developments abroad, a study of the potential contribution of various parties and organisations towards promoting the use of helmets and an interview study held amongst some potentia I cyclist target groups. According to the records of the principal diagno!>'is for - a~'ide frolll attention giv en to h etmet hospital admission following a traffic accident each year use in the mass media, much over 2300 cyclists in the Netherlands suffer head or brain allention !ras also been devoted to injury. Every year, about 1000 young cycli sts (0 -19 years of t!re cycle he 1111 et in local projectf, age) sustain a head or brain injury during a traffic accident. in which government and p,,'vate For cycle victims aged 0-19, the proportion with head or organiHltiolH tended to col/aborate; brain injury represents about 50°.6 of all hospitali Sed road - funding s chemes where helmeu' are accident victims. Head or brain offered at reduced pric e~;' injuries sustained b y cyclists a re - a bTOad range of attractive, Means 01 stimulating the voluntary use 01 considerably more often th e result colowf ul and sport)' cycle h elmet bicycle helmets of unilateral accidents, rather than designs; The Influence 01 risk 01 de lectlon and 1I nes the result of a collision with a motor - claJ ity abolllthe fafety standard~ ' on traffic offenses 3 vehicle. According to Thompson et al IVhich {/ bicyc.te helmet should meet· Workshop lor Russian specialists organlsed (1989) . cyclists who do not wear a by SWOV 4 helmet have a 6.6 times greater The results of the study Differences and similarities between European dr"ers in oplOl'ons abouttralllc probability of sustaining a head injury into contributing factors measures and are 8.3 times more likely to By means of individual interviews Reglonale UnterSQfede und Ahnl ichkel 't~ suffer brain injury than cyclists who and a group discussion, it was in Meinungen Ober den Verkehr 10 der Schweiz do wear a helmet. According to thest..' attempted to gain an insight into the ACCidents '1OIA:>IIIing mopeds and low -Speed data, therefore a reduction by a activities which various organisation s mopeds 9 factor of 8 in the annual number of are prepared or able to undertake to ACCidents wth passenger cars 10 cyclist victims with brain injury could promote the use of bicycle helmets. The effectiveness 0 I alrbags in the be achieved if all cyclists were to The principles adopted by the Netherlands 10 wear a helmet! government organisations are as Proposallor a p ant demerit system in follows . Helmet use for bicyclists is 2 '"\Jngary Experiences with not compUlsory. The voluntary Y'oung driver accidents In Europe stimulating the use of choice to wear a helmet should not Salety effects 01 road deSign standards 14 helmets overseas be obstructed by the lack of Social 'load hazard associated w t h rldlOg m otQ The experiences gained overseas in acceptance of helmet use · lberefore, :ycles stimulating cycle helmet use indicate it is advisable to consider how to )ralt design requirements lor a sustain ably lale road network 15 the important role played by the stimulate helmet use amongst cycl ists 'edestrian opinion on the alternative following factors: in the Neth erlands. In addition . Maastricht' crossing •~ - the spontaneous aCII'vill',,, an" t!fforH it was stat Cd that the stimulation :;WOV-reports In briel 17 of Cl' v,., a C/l 'vis t~ and volllll/{:en; of helmet use should b e made ~ 2 - - dependent on knowledge yet to be acquired about risky cycling conditions. The private (public interest) organisations presently do not wish to stimulate the use of cycle helmets through controlling policy. They make the following critical comments: Stimulating the use of the cycle helmet: - could have a negative side effect in that an unjustified link may be established between cycling and danger; - could have a negative side effeL1 in that cycle IIse may drop; - does not fit well into cllrrent govemmem policy, which pnillarily focllses on the prevention of accidents and on promotion of bicycle IIse. In addition, there is still insufficient wearing the helmet with ordinary - local proj<!( ts whcrc thc t.ydc clarity about the requirements that a clothes and they are not intere!>led Illlmut is promotcd a.l· l/ mel/Il.I' of good cycle helmet should satisfy and in trying out the helmet. For !>'porty, intc "I(mtiol/ (splcial priL ' ~ offen ; the degree of protection expected or adventurous cycling purpo~es, c yc{t promotiol/ tcam.l; loat! .I(,kt}' demanded from the helmet. the helmet could be considered as a projects),' Those organisations who are standard and u!>"eful part of the total traffic cducatiol/ whcn' special concerned with the safety of specific cycling equipment, the helmet l/ttlllfiol/ is dc votud to tltc cycle cyclist groups do have a positive repre!>'ents an outward expression hc Imu t; attitude towards the use of helmet ' of skill, rather than ineptitude, - ell velopmlllt l/ special fi, ~ i1itie:, ' to (touring cyclists and racing cyclists) the helmet fits into the image that cl/ablc sto ragu of thc helmet. and also offer information and one wants to present to others, in the short term, it would Seem advice on this subject. The organisa people feel 'tough' or 'sensible' that in particular special price offerS, tions involved in general safety and wearing the helmet, rather than perhaps in combination with health differ in the attention they 'stupid', and persons who have nt.'vcr education campaign~, offer the he!>'t wish to devote to the cycle helm et. worn a helmet feel some inclination means of promoting helmet use. towards trying the helmet during In the longer term, the promotion The results of the inte "'lew holiday trips or rough terrain cyclIng . of helmet use would certainly he study ConclUSIon: adults and children !>erved hy product assessment and In the cycling experience of adults have no, or hardly any, intention improvement (hy mean~ of rel>carch) and youthful cyclists two types of to voluntarily wear a helmet during and by the development of !.'pecial cycling are clearly distinguished: everyday cycling. With mort.' faCIlities. everyday cycling, which is only adventurous forms of cycling, thcy intended to achieve the practical are more inclined to wear th helmet, purpose of transport and recreational provided they are riding a speci,\l cycling . which places great emphasis cycle and also wearing !>'pecial, mat on the elements of sportiness, ching clothes. adventure and physical relaxation. Mogeli/kheden van- het stimuleren In regard to everyday cycling, people Potentia I for the gOY er nment van vrijwillig gebruik van fiels believe that the he lmet represents an To promote helmet use in the helmen outward symbol of ineptitu'de, Netherhnds, the governm<..'nt could (Means o( stimu lating the voluntar Y use o( bicycle helmet s) weakness or exaggerated fearfulness. offe r support to the following they suspect the helmet will be actiVities: Dr· Ch. Goldenbeld & drs · R ·D · Wit/ink uncomfortable . the y say they feel ,·tlel/rch (aL c·,·dL'1I t nw/l: "ul/ket · R-93 -53 . 48 pp - 'stupid' if they stand out in a crowd oriellfcd .11//(ly, product .H 1Il11 'I; (only available in Dutch) 3 The influence of risk of detection and fines - - on traffic offenses What theoretical model can be formulated which represents as effective Iy Seat belts as possible what is presently understood about the influence of the seve IIty After introduction of new legislation of punishment and likelihood of detection on the degree to which road users wh ich made the wearing of seat commit traffic offenses. By carrying out a literature study SWOV tried to belts compulsory, use of the seat belt answer the above question . increased markedly. When the I egal obligation was subsequently r Cinforced by making non-wearing Firstly the deterrence theory was necessary publicity and that the of ~a t belts puni!.'hable by law and considered. The deterrence theory detection methods made possible through enforcement of complianc , offers a theoretical framework for through legislation and the judicial seat belt use increased further. understanding the influence of penalties are also consistently applied. reaching wearing percentages of punishment and risk of detection on In particular, the enhanced subjective 60 to 80o~ . Study has shown that seat traffic offenses. Deterrence in a rigid, risk of detection is considered belt use not only results from a restricted sense inc\ude<; only one responsible for the effectivity of positive attitude with regard to the underlying, explanatory process, legislation and police enforcement; wearing of a seat belt, but also from namely deterrence through fear for to a lesser degree or not at all, the a positive attitude with regard to legal consequences. In addition, other change in the severity of punishment. legislation and social standards psychological and social processes Overseas study has shown that stable concerning ~ e at belt use. There are can exert a deterrent effect .such as forms of deterrent are possible. also strong indications that the initial the fear of social stigma associated In Sweden and Norway, stable seat belt use reali<;ed under the minor with punishment. deterrence seems to have resulted threat of legislation (and possible In addition a theory on planned from a combination of legislation enforcement) rapidly leads to habitual behaviour as applicable to traffic and social standards with respect behaviour and therefore become~' offenses was described.