- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Cyclists at traffic lights, London © Simon MacMichaelConservative MP cites "safety" and attempts to reignite cyclist helmet debate
Despite repeated opposition to the idea of mandatory helmet laws for cyclists from his own party's government, one Conservative MP has penned an opinion piece explaining why he believes such legislation should be introduced.
Just last December the Department for Transport insisted that the government has "no intention" to make wearing a helmet while cycling a legal requirement, however Mark Pawsey, MP for Rugby in the West Midlands, has said he will "continue to call for change" having first raised the issue in Parliament in June.
The MP who has held his seat since 2010 expanded on the argument outlined during his initial call for legislation earlier this summer, telling the story of a constituent, then-teenage Oliver Dibsdale who suffered a serious brain injury in a cycling crash when he was not wearing a helmet.
"Before I met Oliver, I took the view that a helmet was a matter of personal choice, and that any legal requirement to wear a helmet would be difficult to enforce," Pawsey wrote in a piece published on Road Safety GB, a road safety organisation last month accused of "victim-blaming" over its promotion of a cycling helmet campaign by another regional group.
"Oliver told me that he usually wore a helmet when cycling and that he bitterly regrets his decision on that occasion to ride without one. He spoke to me in a very moving way about the impact his injury has had on his family and the guilt he feels for the amount of time they have had to spend caring for him. He very much wants to help other families to avoid this fate."
Pawsey recalls how he and Oliver met Trudy Harrison, the head of the Department for Transport at the time, who engaged in an "excellent discussion" but insisted helmets "should be a matter of choice, not compulsory", the view still held by the government.
> Government shuts down mandatory cycling helmets question from Conservative MP
"Oliver continued to disagree," he explained. "And drew my attention to a number of arguments which I have found persuasive. Oliver points out that it is illegal to drive a car without a seatbelt and that it is compulsory to wear a helmet on a motorcycle.
"To this, those who oppose mandatory wearing of cycle helmets respond that there is a health benefit from using a bicycle, and that there should not be any discouragement of cycling. Oliver replies to this that, if people wish to exercise, there are many ways of doing so that present less risk; he points out that people can walk, run, take up a sport or go to the gym.
"Another argument cited by opponents to mandatory wearing of cycle helmets is that legislation would be difficult to enforce. While it would certainly create an additional burden on the police, it does not strike me as particularly difficult to enforce compared with other offences: it is easier to spot a cyclist without a helmet than to spot a driver using a mobile phone, or a car passenger without a seatbelt.
"No one now suggests that wearing seatbelts should be a matter of individual choice on the basis of difficulty in enforcing the relevant legislation."
Pawsey raised the issue during a 'Ten Minute Rule Bill' earlier this summer, asking for the government to "require a person riding a bicycle on the public highway to wear a safety helmet".
"I continue to believe that helmets should be mandatory, particularly for children," he concluded. "Following my Ten Minute Rule Bill, Headway, who are supportive of my call for mandatory helmets for cyclists, have asked me to become a 'Headway Parliamentary Champion'.
> Why is Dan Walker's claim that a bike helmet saved his life so controversial?
"I will continue to call for a change in the law, and I would encourage all readers who share my view to make the case to their own Member of Parliament."
Such change seems unlikely, in December the government responding to a written question from fellow Tory MP Mark Pritchard asking for a mandatory helmet law by saying the matter had been considered "at length" during the cycling and walking safety review in 2018, with the Department for Transport holding "no intention" to make it mandatory.
"The Department considered this matter at length in a comprehensive cycling and walking safety review in 2018 and held discussions with a wide range of stakeholders as part of that review," the DfT said.
"The safety benefits of mandating cycle helmets for cyclists are likely to be outweighed by the fact that this would put some people off cycling, thereby reducing the wider health and environmental benefits. The Department recommends that cyclists should wear helmets, as set out in the Highway Code, but has no intention to make this a legal requirement."
Research published from Australia in the same week as Pawsey's 'Ten Minute Bill' proposal found that cyclists wearing helmets were seen as "less human" than those without.
The research by Mark Limb of Queensland University of Technology and Sarah Collyer of Flinders University found that 30 per cent considered cyclists less than fully human, and that cyclists with helmets were perceived as less human compared to those without, while cyclists with safety vests and no helmets were perceived as least human.
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- kingleo 3 sec ago
I built up an old classic type general purpose bike so I could leave it outside the shops and nobody would steal it - so what happened? lots of...
- Mrazi 10 min 16 sec ago
Rijfussell! As in my coutry used to say: you hit the nail on the head!
- hawkinspeter 10 min 11 sec ago
I prefer to not outright call them "Christian" as their politics are almost completely opposite to the teachings of Christ (e.g. love your...
- Bill H 30 min 50 sec ago
Hackney council has seemingly always hated its residents, especially those who are not dependent on the council for their living, accommodation or...
- quiff 27 min 45 sec ago
I believe the CHPT3 name was intended to acknowledge, albeit indirectly, the cheating. As in, it was the third chapter of his life after the...
- bikeman01 37 min 12 sec ago
3rd party liability is easily ticked off by joining Cycling UK or British Cycling....
- ubercurmudgeon 59 min 30 sec ago
So it's called the Ace and it has a Hole in the front.
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 5 min ago
If there's Nazis on the platform and they're not being removed, then it's a Nazi platform....
- hawkinspeter 1 hour 9 min ago
"who hasn’t keenly fingered a jar of peanut butter at the end of a hard ride?"
- Kapelmuur 1 hour 42 min ago
So the Dutch reach doesn't apply to a country adjacent to Holland and in a region that speaks a Dutch dialect?
Add new comment
127 comments
Anecdote about a pedestrian, really I thought it was about a cyclist. Still as I've said, each to their own. And as for editing no, you simply misread or misunderstood what I wrote. These things happen, it's no big deal. However
please don't accuse me of doing a Nigel, that really is a sleight too far.
Never trust an ignorant Tory
Ignorant and Tory being synonymous...
Is there any other kind?
Ken Clarke genuinely knows quite a bit about jazz, and...no, that's all I've got.
Ignorance is a requirement of membership of the tory party.
Their two requirements are ignorance and selfishness...and cruelty. Their *three* requirements are ignorance, selfishness and cruelty...and an almost fanatical devotion to the machinery of capitalism. Their *four* ...no... *amongst* their requirements are such elements as ignorance, selfishness...
I'll come in again.
"Cardinal Biggles, bring in the comfy chair."
Why do they always go for PPE as the first thing ?
If it saves one life is a bit of a tenuous argument - ban cars in a lot of urban environments, stop people walking on pavements as people are killed each year when on the pavement.
Because that involves absolutely no effort to be made by drivers, despite some of them being the direct cause of the danger. It's also nicely victim blaming, so non-cyclists can smugly throw abuse at any cyclist they seen who's not wearing a helmet.
I'll just throw in this factoid - you're slightly more likely to get into a traffic collision walking one kilometre than cycling one kilometre. So, if it saves one life, let's get mandatory pedestrian helmets for everyone. Just think how much money that Big Helmet will make...
Fnaaar
Cousin to Lord Dark Helmet.
And walking has the same death rate per mile as cycling, so why isn't Pawsey campaigning for walking helmets? He couldn't possibly be so ignorant as to know absolutely nothing about something he wants to pass a law about could he? Even for a tory, that's pretty ignorant.
The last stats that I saw put walking at a slightly higher death rate per mile than cycling.
Just popping round to the corner shop for fig rolls...anyone need anything?
Yes please: freshly half-baked tory opinion.
Toryspiv opinions are not baked at all but still a gooey clag (complete with many adulterants) in the bottom of a broken bowl with a picture of Queen Victoria on it.
they even admit it by moving to the term "oven ready"
do they sell fig rolls in croydon?
I want to make fig rolls.
I have a recipe, I've made chocolate digestives a few times and they are so much better than any shop brought packet.
Perhaps we could pre-emptively close comments on this one? That would allow everyone to quietly sympathise with someone who has suffered serious injury in a crash on the road (however it occured).
.
And possibly try to consider the idea an MP is doing something they genuinely believe to be an effective measure to help people, having been given some expert guidance. Noting that expert in one field does not expert in another make.
.
Secure in the knowledge that it's a certainty that no legal changes will occur as a result of this effort.
.
(Sorry Flintshire - I just felt this one somehow needed some of your bollards.)
Just because someone genuinely believes something doesn't make it true, and his failure to do the most basic research shows that he really doesn't care, he just wants a photo-op. His "expert guidance" comes from a single, biased, source and he isn't intelligent enough to ask the people who know more about it than they do.
Sure, as long as 5 point harnesses, full face helmets and neck restraints are mandatory in cars as that would clearly make drivers safer.
Also, there is no truly safe way to carry a child in a car so children should not be allowed in cars until they are large enough to be protected by the mandatory safety equipment.
Its not about safety, otherwise this clown would be arguing for banning cars from all town centres, 20mph speed limits nationwide, a crackdown on dangerous drivers and massive investment in safe infrastructure. Its about controlling the others so the drivers don't have to be inconvenienced.
Hmm, how many accidents would be avoided if cars were limited to 5mph, and were required to have 2 flag men accompany it front and rear to alert others and the driver to any hazards?
If it saves one life - and it would surely save thousands - who could possibly have any reasonable grounds to object?
Ah, but that would clearly cause otherwise-law-abiding citizens to lose their minds with frustration and rage. Not to mention fear if they saw scary types on cycles gaining on them. So that would likely increase casualties.
Have you considered how many
crashesaccidents would occur when people had to overtake pedestrians but couldn't do so quickly - and that put them in the path of oncoming vehicles (at a closing speed of 10mph!)?And there's the health and safety aspect of forcing the flag people to walk amongst road vehicles. (Your average pedestrians won't get far trying to sue you on similar grounds - they've chosen to walk.)
Never mind the pollution...
You can't just look at the downside like that without providing a balanced view of the upside:-
Full employment due to the millions of flag bearers required
Reduced pressure on the NHS due to the exercise the flag bearers get
The explosion of Jeremy Clarkson's head in disbelief!
Well I wish Mr. Clarkson no ill although I grew tired of the character he created a while back. Presumably that would lower lots of other people's blood pressure though?
It seems the flag folk are a key community in this discussion. Yes, walking may be good for them - assuming we've transitioned to emit elsewhere electric vehicles so they only have to worry about particulates. But what about the battering their mental health will take from the outrageous language they'll have to listen to (never mind the grammar, the usage...) from a certain segment of the driving community?
Its an ill wind that blows no good.
Since people are so into PPE I suggest ear defenders for those who don't find it amusing.
In other good news, under this system motorways would be abandoned by motor vehicles due to the real risk of starving to death before the next exit so would be available for use as cycle superhighways
Ah, cycle superhypeways. Wait - you mean actual highways for cycling?? That you don't have to stop or dodge an obstacle on every 20 metres because some planner was startled by a sudden driveway, or a motorist had to pull over due to an unforseeable emergency planned delivery they're paid to make?
Pages