There are two ways of responding to tragedy: you can help, or you can use it to further your agenda. Compare and contrast the following:
Child A
Child A was riding along the pavement on a bike with defective brakes. He came to a corner notorious locally for cyclists riding out, and rode straight into the road into the path of an oncoming car. The child died of head injuries (whether, as is usual in such cases, he also had other mortal injuries, is not recorded). The coroner said:
“The law is very strict when it comes to cars but there are no laws when it comes to bikes. It is up to owners to ensure bikes are safe. The consequences at not getting round to routine maintenance can, and in this case were, tragic and fatal.”
This is not entirely accurate: the pedal cycles construction and use regulations do require that every bicycle used on the road has two independent working braking mechanisms. Also, the Highways Act says that you must not ride on the pavement. But coroners are just civil servants, they are not experts in road safety or cycle safety. Although coroners are all are doubtless sincere and well-meaning, they are lay people and regularly make ill-informed or speculative comments; these have no formal legal force.
But that is an aside. As was the coroner’s remark that a helmet might have saved this child’s life.
No prizes for guessing what happened next. The boy’s mother is wheeled out and they march on London to demand a helmet law. Would a helmet have saved this child’s life? Who knows. Would working brakes have prevented the collision? Quite likely. Would the collision have happened had the child been riding on the road? Almost certainly not. This working backwards from the solution characterises much helmet law lobbying.
Child B
Child B was hit by a speeding driver and grievously injured while riding in a residential neighbourhood. The driver’s insurers lodged a counter-suit against the child’s parents alleging negligence on their part for allowing the child to ride unaccompanied, and for failing to make him wear a helmet.
CTC, the national cyclists’ organisation, supported the parents. One member donated ten thousand pounds to start a legal defence fund. A barrister volunteered his services free of charge. Members lobbied the insurers, and eventually pressured them into dropping the suit.
No court in Britain is known to have upheld a claim of contributory negligence against a cyclist who was not wearing a helmet. Despite this, and despite the documented fact that helmets are absolutely not designed to protect against motor vehicle impacts, insurers still routinely try to claim that unhelmeted cyclists are the authors of their own misfortune when hit by negligent drivers. The Cyclists’ Defence Fund was set up as a charitable trust by CTC, the UK’s national cyclists organisation, in response to this case and the generous donations offered by members and supporters. The fund is available to help cyclists facing similarly unjust legal cases.
Who would you rather trust?
CTC, a group with 125 years of experience working for cycling, or a group which exists solely to promote something which has never been shown to reduce injuries in any real population? A group which supports parents, or one which exploits them? A group which works proactively for safety and considers all the evidence, or a group which starts from the conclusion and works back? A group whose cycle safety strategy has included development of the Bikeability standards for cycle training or a group that gives “cycle safety presentations” which focus entirely on helmets?
BeHIT, through their “Parents for Helmets” astroturf site, are now actively soliciting additional parents whose children have been injured while cycling, to use in their upcoming drive for a helmet law amendment in the Road safety Bill. If you think this is distasteful you can email them and let them know: BHIT@dial.pipex.com.
