I find this enormously cheering. Only when the debate matures from the irrelevant (and inherently unwinnable) "does it hurt more to hit your head with or without a helmet" will we stand a chance of moving on towards a culture where cycling is normal, and (percieved to be) safe.
As one half of the debate, cycling organisations have a major role to play in reshaping the argument in a meaningful way, to deny easy wins to the "commonsense brigade" and force people to think about the real issues.
Dear Sir or Madam,
The letter below is for publication, in response to your recent article about MP Norman Baker's decision to ride a bicycle without a helmet as published at:
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/860718-tran ... en-cycling
The Minister for cycling, Norman Baker, shouldn’t need to defend his decision to cycle without a helmet. In countries like Holland, helmet use is almost unheard of, yet cyclists there have an excellent safety record.
Cycle helmets are (and can only be) designed for minor knocks and bumps, not being hit by fast or heavy traffic. What’s more, any limited protection they may provide in a collision could well be outweighed by the increased risks of having a collision in the first place. Cyclists who wear helmets are 14% more likely to have a collision per mile cycled than those without. Maybe this is because they ride less cautiously, maybe it’s because drivers are known to leave less space when overtaking them. There are several other possible explanations.
All we know is that increases in helmet use have never been linked with lower cycle casualty rates. And that the one proven effect of telling people to wear helmets is to put people off cycling. This is not only bad for our health and the environment, it may be bad for cyclists’ safety too. Cycling gets safer the more cyclists there are: cyclists really do gain from 'safety in numbers'. So, if you deter cyclists, you may worsen the risks for those who remain. And by adding to our obesity epidemic, you would also shorten far more lives than could possibly be saved by helmets, however effective (or ineffective) they might be.
Cycling is not a particularly high-risk activity – you are less likely to be killed in a mile of cycling than a mile of walking. For the sake of our health, and that of our streets, communities and the environment, it is far more important for politicians to demonstrate leadership by showing cycling as something everyone can do, in whatever clothes you would normally be wearing. Whether or not you wear a helmet is irrelevant.
Yours sincerely,
Roger Geffen
Campaigns & Policy Director
CTC, The UK's National Cyclists' Organisation
(my emphasis added)
Three cheers for the CTC, in this case.
