Cycle helmets - to wear or not to wear?

There is a big debate raging in the local London press at the moment about the wisdom of wearing cycle helmets (for push bikes, mind, not motor bikes) and whether it should be made compulsory.

This has been triggered by yet another accident between a cyclist and an HGV, in which naturally the cyclist came off worst.

Opinion seems to be split between the do-gooder brigade, who would like to see the wearing of a certain standard of helmet be compulsory even when cycling through the parks or in your own garden, and the to-hell-with-it brigade who think no one should wear them at all and if you do you are a namby-pamby. At least, those are the people that seem to be writing in to the press. The reality of course has to be rather different and somewhere in the middle ground.

There is no question that in certain circumstances, wearing a helmet can probably save lives. If you regularly use busy roads full of fast moving traffic it makes sense to protect yourself and there will always be some drivers who do not look carefully enough or who think they have enough time to take the risk and can beat the cyclist to the junction. And there will always be some cyclists who think they are fast enough to beat the car/lorry and are immune from danger and so take unacceptable levels of risk with their own safety. I see it time and again, working in central London, and often the vehicle is not at fault, but the cyclist is. In the vast majority of those circumstances, wearing a helmet wouldn't have saved them - they weren't that sort of accident. 

But forcing us to do something where there is no conclusive proof of the outcome (which there isn't - some of the countries where there are the highest incidences of cyclist deaths are those which have compulsory helmets, such as Australia, and some of the safest are those where it isn't compulsory but there are equally as many if not more accidents) is moving another step towards a nanny state we can do without. Much better to make sure that all the facts unadulterated by bias and political slant are put before people and allow them to make up their own mind.

We all have different tolerances of risk and we should be allowed to exercise them. Forcing this on cyclists would be to take away a significant element of personal choice and probably enjoyment; I remember cycling when I was a child (albeit many years ago in a less busy time and environment) and one of the things I really enjoyed was cycling fast with the wind blowing through my hair and the sense of freedom it gave me. Wearing a helmet wouldn't have done that.

I do get a little tired of the state telling me how to live every aspect of my life  and whilst this wouldn't affect me because I don't ride a bike any more (can you imagine it?!) it is another example of interference where it isn't needed. What ever happened to assuming personal responsibility? Bring it back!

Using London's Roads

I am forever amazed at the way people behave in the street with regard to their personal safety and that of others. I have today witnessed various acts of stupidity, carelessness and recklessness by drivers, cyclists and pedestrians alike.

There has been a great deal of publicity recently about the sad deaths of a number of cyclists in central London. In almost every case, these had been cyclists that were riding along the left hand side of large lorries which then subsequently turned left and crushed them. Inevitably, in a contest between a 10 stone cyclist and 10 ton lorry, the cyclist comes off worst.

Now I don’t know whose fault these accidents were (was the lorry indicating, was it stationary and suddenly moved, did the driver not see the cyclist because they were too close to him etc), but if you listen to the cycling lobby it is always the demon lorry driver and never their fault. But I have seen cyclists do some absurdly careless things; crossing red lights (including pedestrian lights when people have started to cross), weaving between stationery traffic likely to move at any moment, sneaking down the left when vehicles are indicating left and so on. All these things are much more dangerous than not wearing a helmet, which is all they tend to get told off for by the press. And don't even get me started on motorcyclists, who are the most reckless of the lot.

Today, I have also seen pedestrians who are clearly not keen to live much longer be absurdly reckless – running over a pedestrian crossing when the lights are green and fast moving traffic is approaching them, darting in between slow moving buses, stepping into the road because the pavement is crowded without looking and so on.

Of course cars and other vehicles have by far the greatest potential to cause harm and some drivers are more than cavalier about safety even in the city when traffic moves relatively slowly. But I am getting a little tired (as a driver –although not often in London) of being blamed all the time. Personally I (and most other people I know) drive considerately and carefully with full awareness of pedestrians, other vehicles and road users.

I think it’s time for a little balance in what we hear about this and also for all the user groups to stand up and take their share of both the blame and the responsibility. If you are in the wrong place or doing the wrong thing and you get hurt, well then it’s very sad but it’s your own fault. Don’t seek to push the blame onto others; think how those lorry drivers must have felt when it may not have been their fault in the first place – after all they’re not all the typical cartoon-ish ‘White Van Man’. Most of them drive for their livelihood and take good care not to do anything which will endanger that. Those that are pictured on ‘Police, Camera, Action’ (my step children have low taste in telly, which is how I have watched that programme) are not typical.

So if you are a pedestrian or cyclist in London remember that you have as much responsibility for using the road network safely as drivers do. Or you may one day regret not taking more care.