Rational choice for cyclists

Wednesday 14th October 2009, 3:00PM BST.

NOT so very many years ago it was not unusual to see Islanders riding motorcycles without any protective headgear.

Even more recently, the use of seat-belts in cars was optional rather than compulsory. Now, however, the law quite rightly demands that both categories of safety device are used.

Moreover, since the use of motorcycle helmets and seat-belts became mandatory, attitudes towards both have changed. Most motorcyclists would now feel horribly vulnerable without a helmet and most motorists and passengers instinctively belt up as soon as they get into a vehicle.

Nowadays only a small minority insist that compulsion in the matter of safety gear is an infringement of their right to choose. In those cases, no logical argument or appeal to common sense is likely to alter entrenched but highly suspect and fundamentally stupid attitudes.

But if the major battles over motorcycle helmets and car seat-belts have been won, much remains to be done to convince cyclists that they, too, should wear helmets. Both science and, in too many instances, bitter personal testimonies really ought to convince those who cycle that protecting the most vulnerable part of the body is a necessary precaution.

Accident and emergency specialist Nick Payne has just made a fresh appeal for sense to rule where cycling safety is concerned. Naturally enough, this has been backed by Headway, the head injury charity. Mr Payne and those who work for the charity are all too familiar with the damage – not to mention the suffering and heartache – that can be caused by cycling accidents.

The young appear to be particularly vulnerable to accidents and injury, no doubt through inexperience and a measure of recklessness. Indeed, statistics show that those in the 15 to 29 age group are most likely to suffer head injuries and, alas, brain damage in cycling accidents.

Those in the upper part of that group should be able to make the rational choice and wear a helmet, but the situation is different with children. Parents should clearly take the lead and insist that their offspring are properly kitted out whenever they use their cycles, no matter how short the journey. They also have a vital role to play by setting the right example and making sure that they always observe the helmet rule whenever they cycle.


  1. 1
    Paul

    Not a fully rational choice as wearing a helmet increases the chance of being involved in an accident. From the London Cycle Campaign:

    Some researchers claim that helmet wearing gives cyclists a false sense of security and so they tend to take less care than otherwise. Seeing helmeted cyclists may also lead to car drivers taking less care.

    Wearing a helmet does not prevent cars and lorries hitting cyclists and so can never be a truly effective safety measure.

    So the likes of Headway may support wearing helmets whilst the The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents would probably prefer cyclists not wearing helmets.

    Report abuse

  2. 2
    Warren J

    I was interested to note from the Looking Back notes in a recent JEP that it is 50 years since the ‘all ialsnd’ 40 speed limit was introduced, there having been 13 fatalities on Jersey’s roads in the summer of 1959.

    For thouse who maintain that the islands roads are now so dangerous, this is an interesting statistic, bearing in mind that there were less cars on the road, and a significant proportion of the population either walked, cycled or used motorcycles.

    Report abuse