The
|
|
| Mike Knee | |
 |
Home |
 |
Time and Date Sundial |
 |
Church resources |
 |
Cycling |
 |
Astronomy |
 |
Maths fun |
 |
Music |
 |
About this site |
Contact:
mike@trikeshed.com
Mike Knee's cycling and transport page
For most of my life I have believed that cycling is the best way of getting around, at least in the compact villages and towns of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, many forces conspire to put people off cycling. Some of these are not surprising; nobody would expect the motoring lobby with its love of speed to accept the right of cyclists to use the roads. But some of the factors that discourage cycling are found, sadly, within the cycling community itself or among those who pretend to support cycling.
On this page, I give my honest views on some of these matters. Some of these views may seem surprising, even quirky, but in many areas I am gratified to see that some of this thinking is at last beginning to enter mainstream consciousness.
Cycle helmets – the (head?) case against
September 2006: UK cyclists' organization CTC reports that helmets can actually be bad for cyclists' saftey, according to a recent study. See the CTC position on cycle helmets at www.ctc.org.uk
See also www.cyclehelmets.org for a good discussion of the arguments.
This is my own contribution, written in 2001:
- Helmets don’t work
- Helmets are expensive
- Helmets are uncomfortable
- Helmets send the wrong message about safety
- Helmet promotion puts people off cycling
- Pushing helmets is unfair on cyclists
- Helmets lead to risk compensation
- Helmets divert attention from more important cycling safety issues
- Helmets can actually be dangerous
- Helmets contribute to the victim-blaming culture
- Helmets don’t work
- Helmets are expensive
- Helmets are uncomfortable
- Helmets send the wrong message about safety
- Helmet promotion puts people off cycling
- Pushing helmets is unfair on cyclists
- Helmets lead to risk compensation
- Helmets divert attention from more important cycling safety issues
- Helmets can actually be dangerous
- Helmets contribute to the victim-blaming culture
The big claim made for cycling helmets is that they improve the safety of cyclists. It seems obvious, and of course there are published studies to back up the claims. But many of the original studies (e.g. Thompson, 1989.) claiming great safety benefits for cycle helmets have now been widely discredited (e.g. by McDermott, 1993). This follows several years during which helmets have been made compulsory in many countries. More recent independent studies following the experience of compulsion (e.g. Robinson, 1996) are inconclusive or negative on the benefits of helmets. In many cases, cyclist deaths have gone down after helmet laws were introduced, but cycling has gone down even more, so that the risk per cyclist has actually increased. According to the reasoning of the earlier studies, cycle helmets have had the magical effect of reducing head injuries among pedestrians and motorists. No wonder these lumps of polystyrene are worshipped so fervently by the "road safety" lobby!
A typical price in the UK for a cycle helmet is £30. This represents at least 10% of a typical total outlay on cycling. Imagine asking a motorist to spend over £1,000 on a single safety measure of uncertain worth! Bear in mind also that helmet manufacturers are out to make money and therefore have a strong vested interest in promoting the things.
For many people, helmets are at best an encumbrance, while at worst they can be uncomfortable to the point of being distracting, adding to danger.
Unfortunately, helmets have helped to promote the view that cycling is a fundamentally dangerous activity, rather than a desirable activity with obvious environmental and health benefits.
This is indisputable, and not surprising given the above four points. The Australian experience shows that helmet compulsion reduced cycling by 30-45%. Nova Scotia has just reported a 40% reduction. Fewer cyclists means that motorists are less used to seeing those that remain, which is possibly one reason why cycling has actually become more hazardous where helmet laws have been introduced. A further study in the UK has shown that even campaigns to promote helmet-wearing tend to discourage people from cycling. (Bryan-Brown, 1997). In the light of strong evidence on the health benefits of cycling, there is a strong possibility that helmet compulsion and campaigns could cost lives rather than save them. They also make any government targets to increase cycling much more difficult to achieve.
If the evidence in favour of helmets has any credence at all, then it would make just as much sense to make helmets compulsory for pedestrians and for car occupants. Singling out cyclists for compulsion or pressure is unfair.
Experience from seat belt legislation and other "safety" measures indicates that widespread use of cycle hemets can lead to the well-documented phenomenon of "risk compensation" where a perceived increase in safety is offset, both by cyclists and other road users, by a corresponding reduction in safe behaviour. This is well described by Prof. John Adams in his book "Risk"
Of course, not all responsibility for safety lies with those most likely to harm cyclists. Cyclists have a responsibility to maintain their machines in good working order and to cycle courteously and safely. Unfortunately, many parents will insist that their children wear helmets but won’t check their brakes or go cycling with them to teach good roadcraft.
Six children have died in Scandinavia alone of asphyxiation by helmet straps when trapped in playground equipment. This danger is now recognized by the pro-helmet lobby but is not yet appreciated by all those who consider helmets to be a panacea.
Helmet-worship is not surprising in a culture where rape victims, pedestrians crossing the road, refugees, battered wives, AIDS sufferers and the poor have been blamed for their afflictions. Insurance companies have sometimes tried to accuse road crash victims of contributory negligence through not wearing a helmet. Perversely, this practice is possibly the strongest reason in favour of helmet-wearing, but thankfully these attempts at bullying have failed so far and it would be defeatist to give in to them.
And finally – yes, I know the UK’s Highway Code advises the use of cycle helmets. In the light of all the above, I believe that to be unsound advice and should be removed from the Code.
2005: In the UK, there is now a ban on postal delivery workers cycling without a helmet. This ill-advised move must be reversed because it is likely to increase pressure for general compulsion.
Further reading
In addition to the cited references, I strongly recommend the work of John Franklin, the Ontario Coalition for Better Cycling, and the very amusing but serious article by Malcolm Wardlaw
(As the Cabinet donned walking helmets, the prime minister urged the
nation to "go forward together into a new era of walking safety")
In 2003, there has been a very welcome development in the form of a new, well-informed website www.cyclehelmets.org. Do take a look at this excellent site. See also the CTC position on cycle helmets at www.ctc.org.uk
Bryan-Brown, Taylor. Cycle helmet wearing in 1996. Transport Research Laboratory Report 286, 1997.
Are speeding fines a "stealth tax"?
The pro-motoring lobby likes to criticise the Government for turning speed camera fines into a "tax by stealth". The Government, and those who support the rights of pedestrians and cyclists, tend to react to this view by saying, "no, it's a safety measure". A clampdown on speeding would certainly improve road safety, but I think we're missing a trick by trying to claim it's not a tax. Why don't we admit that it is a tax, but a very fair and equitable one because, uniquely among taxes, there is a built-in and perfectly legal way to evade the tax without giving anything up? All you have to do is keep to the speed limit, and you won't have to pay a penny! As a motorist (yes, I am a motorist too) I have followed this approach and found the "tax" to be non-existent! What a brilliant wheeze!
Page last updated 2009 April 22 by Mike Knee