Helmet or no helmet, that is the question here. A question that responsible mountain bikers should not really ask themselves. In fact, there is no sensible reason not to wear a helmet. Nevertheless, the German Cyclists' Association (ADFC), the German Mountain Bike Initiative (DIMB) and the manufacturer Uvex are reluctant to push for the introduction of a general helmet requirement. Only the doctors of the German Society for Neurosurgery (DGNC) are consistently in favour of making helmets compulsory.
Why aren't the ADFC, DIMB and Uvex jumping on this bandwagon? Instead of putting up a broad front in favour of compulsory helmets, everyone seems to be going their own way. What do you think? Does Germany need a general helmet requirement for cyclists? Read the experts' statements and discuss with us.
Bettina Cibulski (ADFC press officer)
The ADFC is against making helmets compulsory for cyclists. In
agreement with the legislator, who has also rejected such a regulation
rejected such a regulation several times, we are focussing exclusively on the voluntary
voluntariness. We are of the opinion that a general reduction in the risk of
risk of accidents for cyclists should primarily be achieved through cyclist-friendly
traffic planning. Enforcing a 30 km/h speed limit in populated areas
areas can also significantly reduce the severity of accidents.
of accidents. In our opinion, restrictive measures towards cyclists should not be
not be a means of increasing road safety.
road safety. A helmet can also never provide one hundred per cent protection against
the consequences of an accident: The rest of the body remains unprotected in any case, and
and even the helmet only protects part of the head. Falls often result in
injuries, e.g. to the face.
In our opinion, the positive health effects of cycling, even without a helmet, outweigh
in our opinion, far outweigh the health risks from injuries.
injuries by far. One of the great advantages of the bicycle is its
uncomplicated use and its easy availability. Through a
by making helmets compulsory, but also by campaigns that exert excessive moral pressure
or play on fears of the potential risks of cycling,
unnecessary and ultimately harmful barriers to the use of bicycles.
against the use of bicycles. In the (incidentally only
countries that have a legal obligation for cyclists to wear helmets,
the corresponding regulations have regularly led to a significant
a significant drop in bicycle use.
Thomas Kleinjohann (2nd Chairman DIMB)
We do not believe that making helmets compulsory for cyclists only would be effective. We rely on the role model function of cycling organisations and the media to turn cyclists into "persuaders". The ADFC has shown how to do this with its HELMut campaign for children and the "bike" magazine with its "Save your Ass" campaign. Both have achieved a lot. Fortunately, the majority of mountain bikers are "naturally" sensible and voluntarily wear a helmet, which can save lives and is therefore a good role model for children and young people.
Stefan Weiler (Sales Manager Cycling Uvex)
Uvex is of the opinion that a legal regulation for adults is not necessary.
necessary
consumers are responsible citizens and in a position to decide for themselves.
decide for themselves. Our incentive is to increase wearer acceptance through innovative and
comfortable products.
Uvex is of the opinion that a helmet requirement for children under the age of 14
would be sensible. Recognising danger in road traffic is more difficult for children in
more difficult for children than for adults in many situations. Children should be given
receive the best possible protection in road traffic.
Prof Dr Andreas Unterberg (1st Chairman DGNC)
BIKE: Prof Unterberg, what do you think of the introduction of a general helmet requirement?
As with motorcyclists, this is a preventive measure to prevent serious head/brain injuries among cyclists or to reduce the number and severity of such injuries. It is undisputed that wearing a helmet when cycling is a sensible measure. Making it compulsory to wear a helmet would of course underpin and support this. I know that there are always people who prioritise their personal freedom. However, if these people then want medical treatment after, say, an accident that they personally had, let's assume they fell off their bike and hit their head, they suddenly want tens of thousands of euros for their medical treatment, and the question is whether the general public ultimately wants to afford this in the long term.
In principle, it was the same with motorcyclists, and it was the same with car drivers when seat belts were made compulsory in cars.
BIKE: What do you think of the argument that it is the personal responsibility of every cyclist to wear a helmet or not?
At the end of the day, life is your own responsibility, of course. But the moment people have to be treated for the consequences of an illness or an accident, which is ultimately the responsibility of the general public, that's when the fun stops. Because you, and all of us, are helping to finance these people with our health insurance contributions.
I can only say that a helmet for cyclists is an absolutely sensible measure and prevents serious craniocerebral trauma and, if trauma does occur, minimises its severity, and in this respect I would like to see it made compulsory to wear a helmet.
