Bikes, Helmets and Public Safety

Concerns

by Dr. Dilshani Sarathchandra

- on 03/30/2015

The official government news portal of Sri Lanka recently reported that a
ban on full-face helmets will be re-imposed starting April 02. The report
argues that the face of the motorcyclist should remain open for easy
identification. The ban, which was initially set to be imposed on March 21,
is expected to counter the presumed increase in the number
of crimescommitted by those wearing full-face helmets. On March 29th, Sri
Lankan motorists protested in Colombo against the governments decision
to reinstate the full-face helmet ban. On surface, this issue seems to
concern public safety, although one does not have to look too far to
recognize the undergirding partisan politics that has fueled this debate.
In low and middle-income countries such as Sri Lanka, motorcyclists

comprise a majority of road-traffic victims, and consequently, the majority

of global road-traffic victims. Health and medical professionals view traffic
injury control as a public health concern. As a result, they tend to advocate
for increased public safety awareness and behavioral changes to create
safer public transportation systems. A plethora of research also supports
rather simple behavioral measures that can reduce road-traffic fatalities,
including seatbelts and helmet usage. In developing countries such as
India,enforcement of mandatory motorcycle helmet laws is seen as one of
the most cost effective interventions available to increase public safety.
The burning question for us today in Sri Lanka isnt whether motorcyclists
should or should not wear helmets (we are lucky to have moved past that
hurdle, for the most part!), but rather, what types of helmets give riders the
most protection while minimizing the associated risks.
Motorcycle helmet designs have been changing over the past several years.
Today there are at least two basic types of helmets in popular use: fullface and jet helmets. Both helmet types give good protection to the
brain, but researchers argue that they provide different degrees of facial
protection. Several recent studies published in medical journals (e.g.,
Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery, The Medical Journal of Australia)
have indicated that full-face helmets provide significantly greater
protection against facial injury than do jet helmets.
Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that wearers of fullface helmets face higher risks of involvement in road traffic accidents. In
fact, one study provided statistically significant evidence to the contrary
that wearers of full-face helmets have no greater risks of involvement in
road traffic crashes than do the wearers of jet helmets. In fact, an
overwhelmingly number of medical and health professionals have shown
that the use of full-face helmets should be encouraged and consideration
should be given to the revision of helmet standards to require the provision

of facial protection.
If the banning of full-face helmets cannot be justified using health/medical
frameworksin fact, the evidence suggests that full-face helmets are far
better!how can one rationalize this impending ban? In the context of Sri
Lanka, the ban seems to be rooted in the idea that the number of crimes
committed by full-face helmet users has increased over the past year. In
March, the Police media person at the time reported that 127 crimes were
committed by those wearing full-face helmets in the past year [2014] and
124 of these were related to robberies.
The raw number of crimes says little to suggest a direct correlation between
those who wear full-face helmets and those who have committed crimes
wearing such head devices. Numerous other factors needs to be taken into
consideration to justify the claim that perpetrators of crime are more likely
to use a full-face helmet to aid their criminal activities. Also relevant are
questions such as; Has the general crime rate gone up in Sri Lanka? What
proportion of those crimes was committed by those wearing full-face
helmets? How has that proportion changed over time? Is there a correlation
between the type of crime, rate of crime, and crimes committed while
wearing full-face helmets? Isnt it also possible that 2014 was just an
anomaly? What does the overall pattern of crime in Sri Lanka imply?
Furthermore, is there enough evidence to suggest that a ban on full-face
helmets would effectively reduce the crime rate? The critical need is for
crime reduction strategies that do not compromise the health and safety of
a large proportion of law-abiding Sri Lankan motorcyclists.
Based on how officials have rationalized the decision to ban full-face
helmets (at least in public media and other public forums), this decision
seems to be hasty, drawing a causal conclusion where there may be none.

If there is data to show that such a relationship actually exists, then, at the
minimum, citizens should be invited into this debate and allowed to voice
their opinionsbefore turning this into a law.
In the broader scheme of things, the full-face helmet ban in Sri Lanka
resonates with several worldwide debates on banning of various other face
coverings; for instance, the full-veil ban imposed on Muslim women in
France. At first, this might seem unrelated. However, the ways in which the
French government rationalized this decisionas a potential security threat
is similar to the predominant official discourse in Sri Lanka at the
moment. Interestingly though, the French did make exemptions where
public health and wellbeing was at risk, including allowing people to wear
full-face motorcycle helmets.
Posted by Thavam