I find it peculiar that this is the case here, as a country that is the home of extreme sports (mountain biking, quad biking, skiing, snow boarding, windsurfing... to name a few) that the only sport that it is law to wear a helmet for is cycling.
Part of me agrees with this law - children should certainly wear helmets as should professional cyclists (travelling of speeds of 50kph +!! at times).
There are high risk places to be as a urban cyclist, this being almost always around heavy goods vehicles. In London around 20% of cyclist fatalities involve HGV, particularly when the HGV is turning left at a junction (A).
This graph shows the trend of head injuries amongst cyclists at the time of the introduction of the compulsory law. There is no significant decrease in the incidence of head injuries at the time of the introduction of the law - the incidence gradually decreases as it was already doing prior to the laws introduction.
My own personal experience of head injuries is somewhat limited.
Having grown up in Northern Ireland (a country where helmets were not a legal requirement), I wore a helmet as a young child, but as I got older I would not wear one, as my friends didn't. The streets I cycled my bike around at that age were urban cul-de-sacs and quite safe! My parents respected my right to choose to not wear a helmet... as they never wore one at my age either.
Once I met my husband and his road bike obsession I insisted that he wore a helmet, because he was riding in fast country traffic (60mph) and traffic can be aggressive! The other half agreed and in 2013 he did have an accident where he fell off his bike onto his face/head - ripping up his lip and wrote off his helmet. Looking at the high spec helmet and it's huge crack, I had new found respect for Styrofoam in protecting my husbands head.
There is the argument that the law reduces the amounts of cyclists on the road - due to aesthetic issues. I can understand this being an issue, and the Netherlands which has the most cyclists per capita in the world, helmet wearing is not a requirement. The majority of people never wear helmets there. Why should they?? They are protected.
Protected by the infrastructure built to facilitate cyclists and separate them from the biggest danger - vehicles.
Research has proven that infrastructure is the best way to protect the cyclist and given the rebuild of Christchurch - the government is in a unique position to future proof it's cycling population. By creating better infrastructure, getting more people out on their bikes - helping to improve the health of the cities people, limiting it's carbon footprint and inspiring a new generation.
What about the law? I believe that we should be able to make our own decisions about wearing a helmet, and not have the government as a helicopter-esque parent. Will I wear a helmet on a roadbike? Yes. On my dutch bike going at 15kph in Hagley park? No, I would like to not.
References;
(A) Road Safety Information, 2014, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.
No comments:
Post a Comment