Worrying news has come from Northern Ireland about a proposed law for compulsory helmet wearing for cyclists under 16. This is being drawn up by SDLP MP for Foyle, Pat Ramsey, who in turn is being pushed by lobbyists Headway. An article in the Belfast Telegraph seems to agree with the idea, with nary a single suggestion that anyone might disagree. Some do: the Cyclist Touring Club. Cycle safety expert John Franklin. The magazine Cycling Weekly.
Behind the proposal, there is a very clear strategy at play: Take a devolved regional government, like Jersey or now Northern Ireland. Take an MP looking for a crusade. Take an emotive cause. Take an activity that is fairly widespread but generally perceived to be dangerous. Push through your legislation and then move on to another part of the country. On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be a problem. Who wouldn’t want to stop children getting head injuries? It is, if you’ll excuse the pun, a no-brainer.
Or it is at least until you start bringing a little common sense into the matter. Common sense is, after all, the enemy of political crusades and, against the highly emotive imagery of broken children, we can counter with hard evidence. Or rather the lack of it.
The story that ‘the helmet saved my life’ is largely a myth. It is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy: If the helmet is worn then it saved a life, if a helmet is not worn then that is the reason for a fatality. Statistics don’t really back up the argument either, as, while the wearing or not wearing of a helmet is recorded at an accident scene, there is little other detail. If a rider is squashed by a truck turning left at a junction, whether or not the rider was wearing a helmet is largely irrelevant but will still count in the statistics.
Meanwhile, in countries like Holland, where everybody cycles, where you will likely see whole families piled onto a bicycle, every one of them bareheaded, the population thrives. The Dutch population has not been decimated by fatal head injuries, in fact accident rates per km ridden are far lower than in the UK.
None of this is to say that helmets don’t work. They do to an extent, when worn correctly. They work fine in preventing cuts and bruising and, as such, we are not going to suggest that anyone shouldn’t wear them, it’s just that why is it purely cycling as an activity that is picked on? Imagine for a moment Junior riding to the park with Mum and Dad, sitting on their bike, head three feet from the ground and riding at a steady 5-10mph. Then, on getting to the park, the helmet comes off, Junior rises to his full four feet and proceeds to charge up and down, play on the swings, get into a fight with is brother etc etc. Imagine Junior riding home from school, taking off his helmet and then thundering up stairs to get on the Wii. Why, out of all these activities, is cycling singled out as the dangerous one? If Pat Ramsey and Headway are so concerned about saving children from head injuries then why not insist on wearing a helmet when charging up stair cases? The number of injuries sustained doing the latter dwarf those of cycle accidents.
The obvious answer is that it is unworkable but, if so, then how is cycle helmet compulsion workable? Do the PSNI not already have enough to do without issuing £50 fines to previously law abiding parents? Maybe these same law abiding parents will just not bother with a bike and drive their kids to school which will, in turn, increase the number of cars on the road and therefore number of road accidents and will also contribute to the already sedentary life style of the average child. In the broad sense, is it actually healthier for a kid to go to school sat in Mum’s Volvo eating a packet of crisps than to ride there bare headed?
This misses the point, though. To some of a particularly narrow mind, fewer children cycling equals fewer children injured while cycling, although there is evidence to suggest that the opposite is actually true. And to insist on the wearing of a helmet is the ultimate in shifting the blame from the perpetrator of the crime to its victim. ‘Remember it’s dangerous out there.’ The law effectively says. ‘You’re on your own, now. Bye bye’.
Perhaps the children of Northern Ireland deserve a little better than that.