Morning:
8°c
There's no getting round it - bike helmets are universally unflattering. Even David Cameron bemoans the perils of "helmet hair". But vanity aside, isn't it obvious that it's better to wear one?
Not according to our cycling Mayor, Boris Johnson, who this week wrote in defence of his right to go bareheaded. He set up the great cycling-helmet debate as a dilemma between "safety and liberty" but concluded that "we should be able, in our muddled way, to make up our own minds". So liberty beats safety.
I'm not so sure it should. Boris is keen to quadruple the number of bicycles on London's roads. Yet ask a refusenik why they won't cycle and they'll usually cite safety worries as their biggest obstacle.
They're quite right to worry because riding in London takes nerves of steel and we need trustworthy advice on how to stay in one piece. But many bike enthusiasts are still prone to raise studies that show protective headgear is futile.
I have a problem with these findings - they don't pass the commonsense test. How can it be better to hit the road without the protection of a helmet? To paraphrase a surgeon friend who works in A&E - you show me a cyclist with the wind in his hair and I'll show you a grieving mother.
The BMA is so convinced of the benefits that it's calling for helmetwearing to be compulsory.
My own experience tells me it's safer to buckle up. When one stressed commuter strode in front of me on a Bloomsbury cycle lane I slammed on the brakes too late and butted him squarely in the head. He walked off with a visible bump growing but I got away with a grazed knuckle. Another time, a gaggle of drunk girls zigzagged across a Soho street, causing me to swerve and smash my head on the kerb. The helmet was all that stood between me and concussion - or worse.
So why the reluctance to lay down the law on helmets? Perhaps it's because cycling still occupies a legal grey area where proper laws are resisted and debated. It's illegal to go through a red light but we cyclists often do. Bikes can't be sold without a bell, but who uses it? Lights are mandatory, yet I often see unlit riders darting past in the gloom.
The resistance of cyclists to regulation reminds me of the huge public opposition to seatbelt-wearing in the Seventies. Now we buckle up without a second thought, and of course it's safer.
I do struggle to don my helmet every day, especially when I want to keep my hair nice. But in the three years since I started cycling in London, it's obvious that the majority of us have overcome our reluctance to them.
Boris should get over his helmet hang-up. He's no longer just a guy who cycles to work in London, he's a bicycling ambassador. I hope he gets as many Londoners on their bikes as he wants to. But do it safely, Boris - or more cyclists will translate into higher accident statistics. It's high time we tightened our chinstraps.
Reader views (4)
Charlotte Ross clearly rides in a way that is dangerous to pedestrians. I would suggest that she gets some elite cyclist instruction to National Standards. She would find that riding in London does not take "nerves of steel" but careful observation and consideration for other road users. Her experience shows that relying on a helmet for 'safety' has failed. Perhaps that is why in areas where helmet wearing is made compulsory there is no measurable improvement in injury rates.
- IA, Hackney, 18/07/2008 09:33
Report abuse
Is not the mayor saying people have a choice. The taking of individual responsibility is and always will be corner stone of liberty. Too much is passed to other people whilst the individual blames everyone but themselves.
- Simon, Bucharest, Romania, 23/06/2008 13:55
Report abuse
Hmmm...a column from a cyclist about liberty vs. safety. The day that passes when I don't see a cyclist riding the wrong way up a one way street, mounting the pavement or running a red light it the day that I'll take your concerns about safety seriously.
- Bob, London, UK, 19/06/2008 15:24
Report abuse
In over ten years of cycling around London I've seen several cyclists killed - literally in front of me. In both cases, a helmet was of little use. One girl was crushed by a lorry on Pentonville Road. It flattened her bike first then drove over her upper body. The other person, after being knocked off his bike, had a car run over his neck on the Euston Road. People may not like such graphic descriptions but this is the reality. It would make more sense to create greater bike awareness among drivers, for example, by making them cycle around London for an hour or two before being allowed to drive in the capital. Impractical? Almost certainly. But I bet it would act as brake on the selfish impulses that seem to coarse through many motorists. For example, a white van (funny that) knocked me off my bike on Tottenham Court Road, a few weeks back. The driver blithely carried on down the road.
Many cyclists could then temper their urge to ride manically. I've done it myself but it's usually a defensive mechanism. That is, when a large lorry is bearing down on you, engine growling aggressively and loudly, and driver frothing at the mouth, yes, it has happened, you need to get out of the way. But helmets, do they make any real difference? Not in my experience. But greater awareness and consideration on the part of all road users might.
- Morley, London, 19/06/2008 14:04
Report abuse
