Tonight:
9°c
Some of my greatest fears can be traced back to old Doctor Who episodes. Do you remember the one when the Daleks invaded London and turned the population into robots by clamping metal helmets on their heads?
I thought about that last week when I read of plans by the people in charge of our new Paris-style cycle-hire scheme to make users wear helmets.
That particular line had disappeared by later editions of the newspaper, so maybe it has been denied; I hope so, for I can think of few things more likely to strangle the scheme at birth.
Cycle helmets stir strong emotions. I cycle daily and never use one; when I mentioned this last year, I got several emails scolding my irresponsibility.
Typically my correspondents would describe how they or friends had suffered accidents and "would not be alive today" without their helmets. As one put it: "Surely, common sense would tell you that if you are not wearing a helmet ... you are more likely to suffer a serious injury."
Common sense certainly would tell us this, but it also tells us that the world is flat; and alas, there simply is not, as far as I can trace, any good statistical evidence to back up the widely held common-sense belief about bike helmets.
There are, for sure, some small-sample studies (of, for instance, admissions to particular casualty wards) which show minor safety benefits. But the tiny sizes of these samples produce inevitable distortions. No large-sample study helps helmet-wearing's case.
The clearest large-sample evidence is from before-and-after studies of places, such as Australia, which made helmets compulsory.
These show that for some Australian states and cities the injury rate - for all injuries and for head injuries, minor and more serious - actually rose after helmets became universal. In other states, there was no significant change.
One indisputable effect of Aussie helmet laws, however, was to deter cycling. Like me, many Australians dislike wearing a helmet, and cannot be bothered to carry one.
They have stopped cycling as a result. That is why you sometimes hear that Aussie helmets reduced accidents. They did, but only because the number of cyclists fell. The number of accidents did not fall in proportion, which is why the injury rate went up.
Surely "common sense", that infallible guide, tells us that it at least cannot be more dangerous to wear a helmet? Well, there is something called "risk compensation" - the human tendency, conscious or subconscious, to take more risks when we feel better protected.
There's also some evidence that helmets can increase what are called "rotational" head injuries, increasing the head's impact with the ground; and that motorists give non-helmeted cyclists a wider berth.
Helmets are, at best, a distraction, of only minor relevance to safety. At worst, they're a disaster. They contribute to British cycling's biggest turn-off: its image as a dangerous pastime, suitable only for macho young people in armour.
In places where cycling is normal, like Germany and the Netherlands, families and pensioners ride without fear in ordinary clothes, and helmets are rarer than a Gordon Brown apology.
My Doctor Who analogy is not completely far-fetched. Our fetish for helmets shows how our bossy, meddling, save-us-from-ourselves society is robotising our brains just a bit.
Since I cannot possibly harm anyone other than myself by not sporting a helmet, whether I wear one or not must be nobody else's business. I reject this silly combination of nanny state and urban myth - and on my own head be it.
Has the swooning stopped?
Less than a month since the world swooned over Barack Obama, we learn with startling speed how much easier it is to campaign than to govern.
The "vagueness" of The One's stimulus plan has unsettled some; its sales pitch was mismanaged; and many of its provisions look neither stimulating nor especially wise.
As cabinet nominee after nominee has had to withdraw, a faint whiff of Early Clinton has taken hold.
Yet this is mainly no more than US politics as usual. The fault is probably as much ours, for the almost insupportable burden of our expectations.
If rail hits the buffers, too bad
The moment of truth is near for some of Britain's worst, greediest and most hated companies. Not the banks: the major train operators.
When life was good, they promised to pay the Treasury large sums for their franchises, financed by systematically mugging their passengers. Now rail use is falling, they're squealing for easier terms, perhaps even bank-style bailouts.
Don't you dare, Gordon. If we can nationalise the banks, we can definitely renationalise the railways.
Letting these leeches default and go under will get us back their franchises for nothing and restore some measure of integration, unity and sanity to the rail network. But bailing out the likes of First Group with (even more) taxpayers' money really would be a political train-crash.
• On his magnificently beyond-parody blog, Alastair Campbell attacks Boris Johnson for using the F-word.
It is, we're told, a symptom of Boris's "inability to take criticism or pressure. When the going gets tough, he lashes out. Not a good sign in a leader".
Alastair, readers may recall, is a person who used the F-word 135 times in his own memoirs.
As an old boss of mine used to say, faced with a particularly absurd memo: "This one I frame."
Reader views (21)
Adam from London's comment seems a telling coincidence. Three comments earlier, I said that if I'd been wearing a helmet, I could have broken my neck. My accident was indeed similar to Adam's friend: we both went over the bars of a mountain bike (in my case, the bar sheared right off without warning as I crossed a deep rut in the trail, and took what should've been a perfectly normal impact as the front wheel hit the far side).
But a broken neck isn't a head injury, so it's excluded from the helmet campaigning statistics.
- Nick, West Devon
I cycle as much as possible; and have since childhood; but recently I bought a 50cc moped; and with those, you have to wear a helmet etc; well I personally think helmets are more of a danger, than not using one; the first thing that grabs you is; once the helmet is on your head; you are almost deaf, and cannot hear cars coming up on you from the rear etc; this is more noticeable because I never use a helmet on my bicycle etc.
It is wise to use a helmet on powerful motor cycles; purely from the speed point of view; and impact on the body in a crash etc.
But for Bicycles and small very low speed mopeds; the need for a helmet is of limited use; especially from the hearing point of view; on crowded city streets etc.
That is just my opinion; others have theirs.
- Mickyinlondon, london
A friend of my father had a mountain biking accident last year, when his front wheel became stuck in a hole and he went over the handle bars. Tragically he broke his neck and was killed instantly. He was wearing a helmet. The point here is that there will always be situations in which a helmet could help, hinder or make no difference at all to the outcome. It should, therefore, be a matter of personal choice.
- Adam, London, UK
I also agree with Andrew and don't like wearing a helmet. I have fallen off 3 times in about 40 years. The first time swerving to avoid an obstacle - unhurt. The second time sheer carelessness on my part; I caught the front wheel and went over sideways very fast breaking my elbow. Luckily I made a complete recovery. The third time very recently was caused by black ice - unhurt. On none of these occasions did my head touch the ground. If I was unlucky enough to have an encounter with a car and went over the handlebars or my head hit ground at 30mph I don't think a helmet would be much use.
Do you know that cyclists seem to be invisible to motorists? Twice I've been going along a main road in broad daylight and had to take evasive action to avoid drivers (one coming out of a side road, the other turning off) who then said sorry I didn't see you. If they, or I, had been going faster it could have been very nasty and I don't think a helmet would have helped. I now have flashing lights and cycle as much as possible on quiet side roads and pathways, where I hope an accident is less likely.
- Margaret, Glasgow, UK
DC said "I have...several other acquaintances who were saved by crash helmets when their head hit kerbs/cars pulling out."
I take it that they were able to prove their assertions, by repeating the impacts without the helmet, and not being saved?
Otherwise, it's pure conjecture.
OTOH, you could look at countries like Denmark & the NL, where there is almost no helmet use, and their casualty rate is far lower than ours.
- Phil Lee, Cambridge, England
Last time I came off my bike, I was able to control my fall and escaped significant injury (as one generally can when not hit by a fast-moving vehicle).
Had I been wearing a helmet, then quite apart from the impairment to my senses and reaction time, I'd have had no chance of *not* hitting the rocks with my helmeted and enlarged head. Almost certain injury, up to a possible broken neck if it twisted my head around.
Next time someone says "helmet saved life", point them to the opposite scenario.
- Nick, West
I am with Andrew 100%. I'm heartily sick of 'helmet saved my life' arguments. You can't possibly know that unless you repeat the impact without one, and die. What we do know is that increased helmet-wearing does not reduce cyclist casualty rates. We also know that a life-threatening head hit is 20mph+ - but cycle helmets are only tested up to 12mph. What they do in harder impacts could be good, bad, or indifferent. The evidence is that most just break. To absorb energy they have to crush.
- Colin Mckenzie, London UK
My reason for not wearing one is simple: without it, I feel exposed and ride defensively and carefully, anticipating the worst. For the same reason I don’t wear reflective jackets, etc. No matter what people might say, there has to be some part of your sub-conciousness which makes you take more risks when you feel protected, ie when you are wearing a helmet.
- St, London
It's a personal choice and whilst I wear a helmet in Central London (and as far as I can see the vast majority do) I would not want to see it made compulsory. I well understand that in many possible accidents a helmet will nto help - but I have heard of several people whose head has hit the kerb when knocked of a bike - if that ever happens to me I hope to goodness I'll have my helmet on.
The biggest flaw with Gilligan's argument is that if he comes off his bike and is unlucky enough to be brain damaged for want of a helmet we will most probably pick up the financial tab or at least part of it. As others have pointed out, in our crowded welfare society it is increasingly difficult to claim that our personal choices don't affect others. However, I don't suggest that the answer is more legislation, merely greater rigour in debate. The other thing is that if I said "on my head be it" about falling off a bike in a newspaper it would feel like tempting fate.
- Michael, london
If rail hits the buffers............
Whatever the faults of the curent rail service re-nationalising them will not improve matters. Off hand I can think of 4 lines where the frequency has doubled since privatisation:-
Hayse(Kent) - London Bridge
Orpington - Victoria
Tattenham Corner - Victoria
West Drayton - Paddington
Why would anyone want to reduce capacity?
- W R Stevenson, London SE26
It shouldn't be compulsory but wearing one did save my life last year.
Like Gilligan says, it's down to common sense. If you're commuting on a racer in London then it'd be a good idea to wear one. If you're pootling in the countryside on a 'sit-up-and-beg' cycle, then what's the point.
- Bryce B, Battersea, London, UK
Reg - my point about riding without lights etc is drawing the comparison that a sensible person wouldn't needlessly place yourself at risk (legally or illegally)whilst riding a bike
Charlie - most commuters you refer to are likely to have had little interraction with other cyclists the same way they would if they were club cyclists or competitive cyclists, they are also unlikely to follow news stories in the cycling press etc. For that reason they may never have spoken to someone who can testify to the benefits of wearing a helmet. I have one friend who died from head injuries in a collision at Cheyne Walk and several other acquaintances who were saved by crash helmets when their head hit kerbs/cars pulling out. That should be proof enough for anyone that wearing a helmet improves your chances of surviving an accident.
ps has anyone seen these 'air bag jackets' for motorcyclists?...
- Dc, London
Marcus - why should the taxpayer pick this up? If a motorist crashes into a cyclist, his insurance should pick it up, and his premium should be exhorbitant to incentivise better driving. Unfortunately, no matter how many are killed in an accident, the driver tends to be on the road again in a matter of months, if he faces any ban at all.
Ah - you are talking about hit and runs. But that is why we need cameras everywhere on the roads, and Islington-style "civil liberties" be damned.
DC - riding in the dark without lights is illegal and reckless. It increases the probability of a crash. Not wearing a helmet is none of these things, indeed not wearing one could save you a broken neck in some circumstances. I do not understand how anyone can pontificate about helmets without simultaneously making the point about appalling driving standards, a far easier target for reducing casualties.
- Reg, London
This might explain a lot. Has Andrew Gilligan come off his bike before?
- Bobby Dazzler, Australia
If making helmet-wearing compulsory for cyclists results in fewer people cycling, I'm all for making it mandatory.
- Warren Alexander, London, UK
"Dc" is wrong to say that most experienced cyclists wear a helmet. The latest government survey found that 27% of cyclists outside central London wear helmets and 60% of those on 3 main commuter routes in central London wear them. It makes some sense that people wear helmets on the roads where they feel most vulnerable, even though as Andrew points out helmets may not offer much protection. Rather than relying on cyclists' anecdotes about lucky escapes and wishful thinking about the magic protection given by a helmet it is better to examine the data which shows a disappointing failure to improve casualty rates by insisting on helmets for all.
- Charlie, London
A former colleague of mine (a keen and expert cyclist) came off his bike and hit his head on a kerb. He suffered a serious brain injury which effectively ended his career as a photographer. He needs living assistance, has brain damage and cognitive problems which prevent him from working. A helmet would have made all the difference to him, no matter what your quoted statistics say.
- Sallyr, London, UK
I have been on the receiving end in Australia having my collar felt by the police and receiving a fine for not wearing a helmet. I have been mountain biking for 20 years and have never had an accident and refuse to accept there is any benefit for leisure cycling. If you are a commuter and sharing the bus lane then you need more than a helmet to save you from the probability of being killed.
- Stuz Graz, Wimbledon, England
Your choice Andrew. But if you do have crash and suffer a serious head injury then don't expect the taxpayer to pick up the cost of your immediate and long term care. Being a libertarian means accepting sole responsibility for your actions.
- Marcus, London
Andrew,
I think you will find that most experienced cylists will wear a helmet as they will have seen evidence from others in the cycling fraternity where a helmet spared them from serious head injuries (or worse). That's good enough reason for me....and most other experienced cyclists too. Riding in the dark without lights increases your risk of injury as does riding without a helmet and riding through red lights etc...why take any unnecessary risk with your health?
- Dc, London
Well said.
Helmets mark you out as a freak. As you say, in cycling countries such as Denmark, nobody wears them because cycling is seen as normal as walking.
For those who still advocate helmets, perhaps they should be made compulsory for pedestrians as well (together with elbow and knee protection) in case of slips and falls. After all, one can never be TOO careful....
- George, London
