A law on helmets is not the answer to bike safety

If helmets were made compulsory, then the huge and entirely welcome take-up in cycling that Britain has seen in the past few years would come to an instant halt

Editorial
Friday 30 August 2013 14:20 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

All calls for it to be compulsory for cyclists to wear a helmet carry certain assumptions: that cycling is inherently dangerous, which it isn’t; that cyclists carry the burden of responsibility for their safety, when actually motorists and road planners should be playing a far bigger part; that helmets decrease the likelihood of a cyclist being knocked off their bike, when there is evidence that the opposite is the case; that head injuries are what cyclists in accidents primarily suffer, when in fact they are much more likely to suffer injuries to their limbs and bodies.

Of two other things we can be certain: that if helmets were to be made compulsory, then the huge and entirely welcome take-up in cycling that Britain has seen in the past few years would come to an instant halt; and that if the police were expected to book every cyclist who rode helmet-less, then the legal system would likely collapse under the strain.

The latest high-profile figure to call for compulsory helmet use is the Olympic cycling champion Laura Trott, whose criticisms of cyclists – “they weave in and out of buses and wonder why they get hit” – will go down well in certain quarters, especially among motorists. Many cyclists do conduct themselves appallingly, jumping red lights and riding on the pavement. And if you ride like a maniac then, yes, you are almost certainly better off wearing a helmet (and you should be punished for your transgressions). But that must remain a free choice.

Every cycling death is a tragedy that could have been avoided, and the pro-helmet lobby will point to statistics such as the 107 cycling fatalities in 2011. But how many pedestrians were killed during the same period? The answer is 423. Should we therefore legally oblige people to don protective clothing every time they cross the road on foot?

There is risk in everything. And there is also such a thing as personal responsibility. These are self-evident truths that simply can’t be legislated out of existence.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in