Here’s a head-scratcher: should drivers, like cyclists, wear helmets? Some believe they should

Among those who are bound and determined to never, ever wear a bike helmet, even if it kills them — or what the law has to say about the matter — there are some interesting arguments given to back up the position. Some of them you may have heard, assuming you’ve had the discussion yourself.

One of them is simple: between motorists, who aren’t legally required to wear a helmet, and cyclists, who definitely are in many jurisdictions, shouldn’t the law’s focus be on drivers, too? After all, they argue, cycling carries less risk of head injury than driving.

@elandfried @PedestrianError You've heard driving carries a higher risk of head injury than cycling, right? So, should drivers wear helmets?

— Brian Davis (@briandavispdx) August 28, 2015

About a week ago, Motoring.co.uk published an article in which this very question was raised, with a uniquely authoritative source weighing in on the matter. That source was Richard Davies, the managing director of Davies Craig, a company that manufactures car parts in Australia. “Motoring is a dangerous activity,” he said. “If a motorist is not killed in a crash, one of the most common injuries is a head injury and they can produce permanent and long-term damage.”

It’s an argument that downplays the risk to one’s own head involved in, say, riding alongside traffic at 40 kph, unprotected by a steel chassis, but it’s nonetheless an interesting place to start a discussion.

The article goes on to say that even with most cars on the road in 2015 being equipped with safety features like air bags, drivers, when involved in accidents, still succumb to head injuries more than any other. Further, these injuries could have prevented if motorists were wearing dedicated head protection, not just relying on the safety features of their cars themselves. That, of course, presumably implies helmets. Davies Craig, along with electric water pumps, fan clutches, and other globally-distributed car parts, even made a helmet for drivers called the Motoring Helmet. Between 1985 and 1987, the article details, roughly 500 of these helmets were among the products the company shipped overseas — and in places like the United Kingdom, there was actually a market for them, however moderate.

@LachlanForsyth @TheStoryNZ should it be compulsory for all drivers and passengers of motor vehicles to wear helmets?

— Jayson Hoogeveen (@JAYSONHOOGY) August 12, 2015

“Commonly,” the Motoring.co.uk author writes, “a head injury arises when the head strikes the A or B pillar, windscreen, or the head of another occupant.” Davies, the article said, believes that such injuries — injuries he says can be prevented — present a “drain on society” in terms of the cost of care, and as such, motoring helmets have a broader benefit. In 1988, Davies called them “sensible” in that light.

Such helmets, of course — or any helmet like them — haven’t exactly caught on. They’re common to see behind the wheels of NASCAR vehicles, for example, but those driving across Edmonton or Victoria on a given afternoon, off to pick up groceries, aren’t likely to earn the double-take of cyclists by having their heads adorned with protective gear. Significantly, it’s because motorists place a lot of trust in that steel cage built into their vehicles, believing that it will protect them in a scrape. Bikes, meanwhile, have the effect of making a rider feel much, much more exposed. But as Davies says, a car doesn’t necessarily need to roll in order for an occupant to be killed or severely injured. All that needs to happen is for skull to meet vehicle interior, and meet it hard.

Davies’ helmet may never become a hot-ticket item in Canadian stores, but it’s interesting to hear such a question come from a motoring authority, not a cycling advocate. Again: if cyclists are required by law in some Canadian municipalities to wear helmets, should drivers, for reasons similar to that raised in the Motoring.co.uk article, be subject to the same?

Discuss.