In its latest press release, the Swiss Federal Roads Office, ASTRA, once again castigates e-bike riders as the cause of accidents with the highest growth rates of serious injuries. It ignores the fact that during the corona lockdown, twice as many people were e-biked and also rode much further. In addition, according to initial projections, the number of e-bikes will have increased by a further 165,000 by 2020. In terms of passenger-kilometres, e-biking has therefore by no means become less safe. According to ASTRA, the number of people tragically killed in accidents has even fallen from 7 to 6.
According to ASTRA, the number of seriously injured e-bike riders rose from 148 to 207 in the first half of 2020. The question is: What is a "seriously injured" person anyway? The Federal Statistical Office defines it as follows: Since 2015, "seriously injured" has been defined as persons who have severe, visible impairments requiring inpatient medical care. Until 2014, people were still considered "seriously injured" if they had severe impairments that prevented normal activities at home for at least 24 hours (e.g. unconsciousness or broken bones [without a broken finger] or another impairment requiring a hospital stay of more than one day). This is a rather elastic term. There is a strong suspicion that ASTRA is trying to pave the way for the introduction of compulsory helmets for slow e-bikes up to 25 km/h and other safety measures (daytime running, speedometer light for fast e-bikes), which the Federal Council recently sent to the consultation process with alarming accident figures that are not very meaningful.
In particular, the obligation to wear a helmet is highly controversial. In 1990 a helmet obligation for moped drivers was introduced in Switzerland, which led to a complete collapse of the market for motorbikes within two years. Studies from abroad (Canada, New Zealand, Australia) have shown that after the introduction of compulsory helmets for cyclists, bicycle use has fallen significantly. Researchers have also found that cyclists wearing helmets are more likely to be overtaken by cars than those without helmets.
Compulsory use of a helmet is not only a deterrent signal: Cycling is dangerous! The government is thus deliberately accepting that the boom towards light, space-saving and environmentally friendly e-bikes will come to an end. In times of climate demonstrations, rising health costs and the risk of infection by Covid-19, this is a highly negligent approach. It's not as if the Swiss are not fond of helmets. Even now, about two thirds of slow e-bikers wearing helmets have accidents. So the helmet is by no means a panacea for serious injuries.
There is only one way to make cycling and e-biking safer: Cyclists must also be provided with an adequate transport infrastructure with sufficient road space. Overtaking motor vehicles must (as in Germany) allow two-wheel drivers a precisely defined safety distance.
Instead of focusing one-sidedly on accident figures and constantly pillorying e-bikers, a reverse conclusion should be allowed, especially in corona times: How many lives have been preserved and extended by cycling and e-biking in recent times? How much added health value, quality of life and pleasure could be generated by cycling? How much frustration and stress is avoided by cycling in the city, because you are less forced to stand in traffic jams or to look for a parking space?
References:
Link to the ASTRA report: https://www.astra.admin.ch/astra/de/home/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen/anzeige-meldungen.msg-id-80502.html
Link to the ETH traffic study: https://ivtmobis.ethz. ch/mobis/covid19/reports/latest_de
Effects of helmet regulations: http://www.cycle-helmets.com/cycling-1985-2011.html
Behaviour of overtaking motorists wearing a bicycle helmet: http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html