West Midlands Police’s WMPTraffic cused a bit of a stir last week on twatter and in the blog world, with this piece on helmets, speeding, and cake. Quite a good piece , in many ways, and a bit lacking in others. First of all, I have no argument with the cake bit.
Moving on to the others:
The helmet discussion. Should cyclists wear helmets, and should they be required to wear helmets?
I’ll come right out and say it: If you want to wear one, do so. I don’t. I suppose, should it become law, that I will, because I follow the rules of the road when cycling.
The article predictably, comes from the viewpoint that you should, and it may save your life, but then relies on anecdote to back it up. I won’t go into detail on this, as others have done it better in the comments, but it has been shown driver behaviour near a helmeted cyclist can be worse, and helmet legislation discourages cycling- there’s real data to show this.
I’d suggest anyone who wants to wear a helmet should, having assessed the risks and benefits themselves.
When we got to the speed bit, I commented, and got a good answer. What does concern me is the simplistic approach; it’s almost as iif we’ve given up on hazard perception and avoidance, and just moved to reducing the impact. Speed kills. Take that to it’s logical conclusion we end up back in 1865.
At this point, I need to stop, as I’m repeating myself, but I’d just like to reinforce the idea that we should seek to avoid collisions, not merely reduce the speed they happen at. We should target people on the phone, messing with their satnav, or just plain not paying attention. Target the tailgaters, the lane-hoggers, and the 40mph everywhere brigade.