BRADLEY WIGGINS ON
CYCLE HELMETS
Bradley
Wiggins urges that cycle helmets should be made compulsory, to reduce the risk
of injury. Here are 4 reasons why they should not:
1. There is
no clear evidence that helmet use reduces the incidence of head injury, except
perhaps in low speed falls / impacts. Cycle helmets are currently
required to survive a freefall drop of 1.5 metres onto a flat surface and a
kerb shaped anvil at an impact speed of 5.42m/s (12.1mph). They are not
designed to protect the cyclist from impact with a moving motor vehicle.
Reports commissioned for the Dept of Transport in 2002 and 2009 could not
provide conclusive evidence of their effectiveness from population studies.
2. The
public interest lies in promoting cycling, not helmets. Evidence from
Australia, (one of only two countries in the world with national all-age
mandatory bicycle helmet laws), Canada and Denmark demonstrates that promotion
of cycle helmets reduces levels of cycling. Cycling increases fitness,
longevity, reduces obesity and associated healthcare costs. It also diminishes
traffic congestion and fossil fuel pollution. The Government wishes to
promote cycling; the culture of cycling helmets becoming compulsory would
discourage people from cycling. (What TfL posters show cyclists wearing
helmets?)
3. There is
evidence that motorists drive more carefully around helmetless drivers, perhaps
regarding them as more vulnerable. This is the phenomenon known as “risk
compensation”.
4. Only in
one reported case Reynolds v Strutt & Parker LLP [2011] EWHC 2263,
did the court find both that a cyclist was at fault in not wearing a helmet and
that this fault made a difference. The emphasis on cycle helmets can be seen as
a distraction from making the roads a safer environment for cyclists.
It is upto
the motorist to prove that the lack of a helmet has caused or contributed to
the cyclist’s injuries. I would not comment on the sad case in East London which
prompted Bradley’s remarks, because I do not know the facts. He offers
very sensible advice to make sure cyclists look after themselves, carry lights
and avoid the distraction of headphones and ipods. As he says, road users all
have to co-exist. But I think he is wrong to assume that the cyclist is to
blame for their own injuries because of the absence of a helmet “…if you
get knocked off and you ain’t got a helmet on, then how can you kind of argue?”
The answer is it all depends on whether a helmet would have made any difference
to your injury.
Helmet
wearing should be a matter of choice for the individual. As a cyclist commuting across north London for over 35
years, I always wear one, but I would not condemn my fellow cyclists who don’t.
Myles Hickey
