The text for anyone who doesn't want to increase the hit count on my site ([censored]):
As a cyclist with a keen interest in safety issues I read the Department for Transport's Road Safety
Research Report No 30, 2002
(roads.dft.gov.ukindex.htmOpen ↗) with some dismay.
My unhappiness stems not from the accuracy or otherwise of the report itself, although its
acceptance without comment of figures which have since been publicly corrected is not a good sign,
but from the fact that its stated limitations have clearly not been taken into account in the use of
its conclusions.
This report focuses quite deliberately on the effect of cycle helmets once a crash has happened. It
excludes, equally deliberately, time-series and whole-population studies which indicate the overall
effect of helmet promotion and compulsion. The report is therefore quite clearly of no value at all
in setting public policy which, by definition, affects whole populations. It excludes the
considerations which might make it useful in that context, so it may at best be viewed as an
interesting sideline to the real debate: how to reduce casualty levels among cyclists.
One could take a cynical view and conclude that the report was commissioned deliberately to include
only that data which is supportive of helmet promotion, and exclude that which casts doubt on such a
policy. Certainly that would appear at face value to be the underlying agenda of the authors of the
report, who are declared helmet advocates. Having read that there are those in the DfT who have it
in mind to bring forward helmet compulsion legislation as soon as wearing levels are high enough to
justify it, the cynical view looks even more attractive. John Franklin's thorough and credible
rebuttal of the report is available here: cyclenetwork.org.ukbroader.pdfOpen ↗
There are three factors which affect, above all other considerations, the safety of cyclists on the
roads. They are, in no particular order, driver behaviour, rider skills and the number of cyclists
using the roads.
The new policy, allowing only helmeted cyclists to be shown in official publications, will
inevitably reinforce the inaccurate public perception of road cycling as a dangerous activity.
Interestingly it will also make it impossible to show cycle supremo Steve Norris on his bike, since
he is an avowed non helmet wearer.
Helmet promotion of any kind, however well-meaning, has two direct effects: it deters people from
cycling on the roads, and it by extension it encourages the use of more dangerous alternative
provision such as shared-use cycle paths. It should be unnecessary to point out that the safety of
cyclists on the road improves as the number of cyclists on the road increases, but this kind of data
(widely available in credible peer-reviewed research) has clearly been excluded from consideration
while drafting this policy. It should equally be unnecessary to remind you that shared-use provision
is associated with greater risk of injury for the cyclists, greater risk of conflict with
pedestrians, and undermines the legal position with respect to cycling on footways - a practice
which is undesirable for many reasons.
Helmet promotion has an insidious effect on motorist behaviour. It portrays the cyclist as one who
is knowingly engaging in a dangerous activity, rather than one who is engaging in a safe and legal
activity which the behaviour of drivers may make dangerous. It is well known that the largest cause
of car vs. bicycle crashes is error by the driver of the car, and the most likely outcome is injury
or worse to the cyclist. It should therefore be a matter of pressing concern to redress this balance
by a mix of stronger penalties and better public information aimed at careless drivers. Instead we
have the recent Think! campaign proposing defensive riding by users of powered two wheelers as a
solution for inattentive car drivers. Helmet promotion comes out of the same bag: an unwillingness
to deal with the problem at source, so shift the focus onto the victim. It is not hard to see why
Governments are unwilling to deal with the issue of careless drivers; the way that motoring
organisations throw their collective toys out of the pram when speed enforcement is increased is
sufficient proof that they believe motorists' "right" to drive badly overrides the rights of other
road users - after all, the motorist is nice and safe in his steel cage, so anybody venturing onto
the roads without such protection is asking for trouble.
Nor is it surprising that drivers fail to make the connection between everyday acts of aggression
and discourtesy, and the risks these present to users of benign modes. There have been numerous
incidents where drivers have caused the death of cyclists through bad driving and have attracted
penalties so light as to amount to an endorsement of such behaviour. A driver who kills a cyclist
and is allowed to retain their driving licence, despite a history of driving offences, can hardly
fail to conclude that cyclists rate alongside dogs, badgers and foxes as road-kill: regrettable but
not something over which one should lose sleep.
Cyclist behaviour, too, is subtly influenced by helmet wearing. One of the reasons why time-series
and whole-population data are so important in assessing the effects of helmet promotion is that data
based solely on injury rates after crashes fails to take into account the question of whether the
wearing of helmets makes the crash more likely. There is no doubt that the most survivable crash is
the one which doesn't happen in the first place. The mechanisms for increased accident rates among
populations with high helmet-wearing rates are imperfectly understood, although there is strong
evidence to support risk compensation. The majority of helmet promotion material focuses on the
danger from cars, but cycle helmets are of very limited benefit in car v bike crashes, which almost
invariably exceed their design parameters. Helmets give protection primarily in single vehicle
accidents at speeds up to 12mph. This covers many of the situations where bikes are in use, but
absolutely not the one which is purported to be the greatest concern. A cyclist hit by a car at
speed is likely to suffer injuries to many parts of the body, and the impact speed is unlikely to be
within the ability of the helmet to give meaningful protection. The solution to this kind of injury
is to stop the car hitting the cyclist in the first place.
The most compelling data, that from Australia pre- and post-compulsion, demonstrates quite clearly
that not only has cycling declined significantly since compulsion was introduced, but accident and
injury rates have increased. This may well be due to reduced numbers of cyclists on the roads, but
until the reasons are fully understood any form of aggressive helmet promotion remains risky.
Government attitude to cycling appears almost schizophrenic at present. The talk is about promoting
cycle use, migrating journeys to benign modes and making the roads safe for all users. The practice
shows reasonable understanding of the bicycle as a leisure item, includes some promotion of cycling
as an alternative to the school run, and leaves the bulk of the dangers and inconveniences suffered
by transportational cyclists either untouched or worsened. It is as though the objectives are set by
cyclists and the policies by drivers frustrated by school traffic and having to wait a few seconds
before overtaking the occasional bike.
In short, then, the DfT appears to have taken a research report whose conclusions are readily
identified as flawed, extended it into an area which is beyond the scope of the report, and as a
result introduced a policy which is likely to increase cycle crashes in order to promote something
which is not proven to reduce injury when such crashes occur.
If the DfT is serious about cyclist safety and promoting cycle use they should do as Steven Norris
suggests and show ordinary cyclists going about their ordinary lives wearing ordinary clothes. A
publication which shows in the background a City gent on his Brompton, suited, with his briefcase on
the carrier and his hair unperturbed by his stately progress, will have more positive effects than
any unrealistic photo shoot with smiling happy helmeted families riding mountain bikes on
well-graded paths.
In the mean time I suggest that whenever any member of the Department's staff is considering the
issue of cycle helmets, they adopt instead a term which is gaining in currency among those who have
a more realistic impression of the science which underlies their design and use. The term is
"polystyrene foam deflector beanie."
As a year-round transportational cyclist (who wears a helmet, by the way) I also offer below some of
the things which would make my life safer - and which would address the concerns of those cyclists I
know who are hovering on the brink of using their bikes for daily transportation:
- An effective campaign against competitive and aggressive driving. The thing which is most
likely to lead to my death on the road is not the wearing or otherwise of a helmet but the
driver whose journey is so urgent that they cannot bring themselves to wait for a safe place
to overtake. For the most part, of course, their destination is the back of the traffic queue
ahead, but this does not deter them from taking my life in their hands and overtaking
dangerously. I encourage you to observe the behaviour of drivers towards cyclists at a
typical traffic calming pinch point. These pinch points are almost invariably not narrow
enough to actually reduce speed (this requires them to be too narrow for LGVs and buses), so
drivers are accustomed to negotiating them without slowing. When they see a cyclist on
approach to such an obstruction their reaction is quite often to try to pass before the
obstacle. Since very few drivers realise that cyclists can easily be travelling at speeds of
25mph and more on a flat road this judgement is often flawed. The result is that the car gets
halfway past and cuts in to avoid the bollards. Perversely, those who have actually given the
cycle sufficient space when passing cause more danger as they must cut in more sharply, and
usually overshoot often into the path of the bike. All of this, and the classic "left hook"
where the driver overtakes the cyclist and immediately turns left, would be reduced if people
drove more calmly -if the driver's first thought were not "how can I pass this slow-moving
object" (bikes are rarely seen as vehicles) but "what is the safe way of negotiating this
situation." Perversely, the focus on speeding as pretty much the only aspect of driver
behaviour challenged by Government campaigns has resulted on an even greater determination to
maintain the illusion of progress, at whatever cost to other road users. Campaigners against
speed enforcement have validated the view that the driver's transient personal convenience is
the overriding priority, and the driver may safely be left to judge the extent of his impact
on other road users. Since few drivers even consider cyclists when making these judgements,
the danger of this viewpoint is evident.
- A proper public information campaign on overtaking techniques, and including overtaking in the
Driving Test. Overtaking is a most dangerous manoeuvre and is routinely handled extremely
badly. The principle is simple: drop back, wait until there is a clear space ahead, check
mirrors, accelerate and pass, and when well past pull in. The reality is that drivers
overtaking cyclists will do one or more of the following: sit within a few inches of the
cyclist's back wheel, look at the cyclist not the road ahead, pull out without signalling or
checking mirrors, start to pass and only then look ahead to see that there's a car coming the
other way, move left to avoid the oncoming vehicle (squeezing the cyclist) and pull in when
the cyclist is out of their peripheral vision (typically when the car is about 1/3 of the way
past). And of course the four drivers are following on the bumper of the overtaking vehicle
will follow through despite the fact that by now they are on a blind bend with more traffic
coming the other way, each one moving out a few inches less than the one in front. Rules
138-143 and 188 of the Highway Code appear on the face of it to be Terra Incognita to the
average motorist. This must be remedied if transportational cycling is to become a more
pleasant activity.
- Widely available expert training for adult cyclists. I know the CTC are working to promote
adult cycle training, but we have been trying for over a year now to find any group locally
who will run an open cycle training course which my wife, a relatively new cyclist, can
attend. She rides to school with the children several times per week and would value some
expert tuition. One would imagine that this is precisely the kind of thing which the
Government would wish to support, but there is a near-complete absence of training. I would be
prepared to run a course myself if there were a nationally accredited instructors' training
system. There isn't. From this year I will be running National Cycling Proficiency training at
the school where I am a governor - there is not training available for me in advance; it's a
matter of "sitting with Nellie" and hoping that "Nellie," in this case fortunately a well
respected local cyclist, is suitably expert.
Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
