Around Town

I agree that cycling in the UK is perceived by most to be a very dangerous pastime. At best, it is several times more dangerous to be commuting by bicycle than by car. However, it is also true to say that regardless of the likelihood of being mown down during one's journey to work, regular cyclists live longer than non-cyclists.
This makes me assume two things:
1. The likelihood of being killed or seriously injured while cycling is still extremely low.
2. The benefits gained through improved fitness levels far outweigh the dangers of getting on your bike.
Despite this, the majority of people have no concept of the damage they are stacking up due to a sedentary lifestyle, bad diet, and even smoking. They only see the danger in the here and now.
The stats do show that the more people who cycle, the safer it becomes.
Of course, campaigns to encourage cycling which also encourage buying a helmet, hi-vis clothing, lights, and reflectors only go to reinforce cycling's reputation as dangerous.
However, under any circumstances, I would much rather be wearing a good quality helmet, and if at night wear hi-vis and be using a good set of lights, as this will definitely mean motorists are more likely to see me, and if they don't, my head is reasonably well protected. Even if everyone in the country rode a bike, this would still be the case.

Dr Carnall how does a blind person make eye to eye contact with drivers? "Naked Streets" discriminate against the visually impaired.

UK (London at any rate) is BY FAR the most intolerant city I've ever cyled in, as a resident communter cyclist from DC in US, NZ, Amsterdam to Brazil. This intolerance escalates anger and in some cases considerably adds to danger (esp fm car drivers). In Amsterdam cyclists are omnipresent, sail through red lights, go on pavements yet there is almost nothing of the aggression levels in London. I conclude that London intolerance is a horrible side of 'british culture', which seems to be based around this idea of 'moral superiority'. All of pedestrians, motorists and cyclists break rules, so what is it that makes people so 'justifiably' angry - the moral high ground part? Its not safety - in most, but not all, accidents cyclists will come off worst. I think it's that the person who ISN'T breaking the rule FEELS that YOU are going to think yourself morally superior - ha ha one over etc. However, this is imputing a motive that isn't there most probably - if I go through a red light as a cyclist I'm doing it usually to get ahead of traffic throng, safety, avoid pollution, or simply that there's no one crossing eg not because I want to feel superior. Its the perception that is the problem. I do see this as a uniquely British phenomenon. Go to Amsterdam for a week and then come back and have an adult debate about cycling, its really pretty depressing and childish otherwise. Intolerance does breed intolerance as there is no net benefit for being a 'good' cyclist if everyone just vents at 'all cyclists' when they have this debate, in this way. Peace and goodwill boys and girls.

Pedestrians are far more likely to be killed or seriously injured per km than cyclists. So why make helmets compulsory for cyclists but allow the more vulnerable pedestrian to walk without a helmet? Logical?

matthew makes a good point. i always jump red lights. do you know what this means to me? at least 100 metres with no cars trying to knock me over!!! cyclist are the most aware of all traffic; they have to watch out for cars, taxis, buses, pedestrians, and other cyclists...the cyclist who have no road sense..god knows i have come across my fair share.

To Lyndon Wade: Possibly they started out wearing the helmet but it became hot and uncomfortable so they sensibly removed it. Possibly part of their journey will be off-road where the chances of a fall are greater and there is at least some evidence that a helmet can do some good. Possibly they are on their way to an organised event where a helmet will be mandatory but do not wish to wear it on the road. When I used to race in evening events at Hillingdon I would always carry my helmet strapped to my back pack when I rode to and from the event. I would have raced without it if I had been allowed to.
Cycling is no more dangerous than walking and is not particularly productive of head injuries so the people who choose to wear helmets while cycling on the road are not in very great danger. But the most reliable evidence is that they are marginally more likely to sustain a serious or fatal injury than those who do not.

I concur with previous comments that wearing a helmet is up to the individual, however, nothing irritates me more than cyclists that choose to ride with their helmet hanging around their handle bars...why? To put on when a cop comes into view? It is perfectly legal to ride without one. To put it on at the anticipation of an accident? Yeah, right. If you don't want to mess up your hair, leave your helmet at home. If you want to give your skull a bit of extra protection, put it on your head.

why would you encourage people to not wear helmets? i have undertaken no research into whether helmets are beneficial and i have not seen any, but i always wear a helmet. why wouldnt i, i can be 100% sure that wearing a helmet is not doing me any harm, and could feasibly save my life. Im completely baffled by that article.

I've cycled to work almost daily for 4 years during which I've been hit twice. Although bruised and very much shaken up, I was not seriously injured primarily because I wore a helmet. In one instance, I landed on my head so hard that the helmet cracked. The consequences of following the advice of this Dr. is at best a cracked head and a visit to A&E. The only downside - another £20 for a new helmet although I view this as one of the best purchases in my life. I won't sit here and lecture others to wear helmets - in this country it is a personal choice. However, I believe it is irresponsible for a doctor to actively encourage people not take easy and inexpensive measures to protect themselves from serious head injury.

I second Bruce Whitehead's comments re the Aussie approach (also used for motorists in the US). If if is safe to do so, cyclists should be allowed to both turn left on red, and straight ahead on red if there is no actual left turn.
Of course, such a move should be done cautiously, and with respect for everyone else concerned -- esp. including pedestrians.
So how about a change in the law?

Cyclists are 'wheeled pedestrians' who aren't allowed on pavements. Jumping a red light is akin to jaywalking by a pedestrian. At every junction with or without lights, cyclists check the movement of cars and pedestrians. In any crash with a car or even a pedestrian cyclists will almost always come off worse; so jumping a red light poses no danger to anyone but the cyclist. For the cyclist the most dangerous moment on any journey is a green light both from non indicating left turners; and the typical crush of 2 lanes going in to one. Self preservation is the self regulation of cyclists!

Franca Tranza refers to a 30-month study of 3,854 cyclists in the USA showing that helmet usage decreased the risk of brain injury by 65 per cent and severe brain injury by 74 per cent in all age groups. He does not point out that this study comes from the Snell Memorial Foundation, which has a vested interest in helmet promotion.
If the beneficial effects of cycle helmets are so dramatic then surely they would be evident in population studies. How is it then that whole population studies in countries where helmet use has grown enormously have never managed to show any benefit whatsoever? If anything the reverse is actually the case.
The BMA's previous position against compulsion was adopted following extensive consultation with its members. The dramatic reversal was taken in a short time-limited debate at a general meeting in which much of the evidence presented was misleading to say the least.

As someone who cycles 15 miles into the City to work every day I would never dream of riding without a helmet. I was involved in an accident last year with a car and was thrown into the road and if I'd not had a helmet on my injuries would have been a lot worse. Wearing a helmet is easy. They are light and unintrusive. Once you get into the habit of putting it on you don't even know that you are wearing it, and in fact feel strange when you get on your bike without it. Whether they should be compulsary or not, I think it should be left down to the individual, but would you really want to take the risk? How much do you value your head? Accidents happen whether you are an experienced cyclist or not, and are probably more likely to occur as your experience will make you more blase and unaware of your surroundings because you've got into a set routine. I've asked people why they don't wear a helmet and the excuses are ridiculous, mostly along the lines of "I can't be bothered" or "It messes my hair". You shouldn't let laziness or vanity get in the way of this small step that you can take towards ensuring your own safety. WIth regard to the red light jumping; if you have wheels and are on the road you are a vehicle and therefore subject to the same laws as every one else, which for cyclists means stopping at red lights, using arm signals (which is a rarity nowadays) and not jumping on and off the pavement when it suits you just to get one link up in traffic. The biggest danger to cyclist are their own reckless behaviour and wing mirrors(!). Motorists are aggressive to cyclists, probably because they can't move through the traffic as fast and sit there stuck in a jam while we fly by in the cycle lane. The only thing they do that I find annoying is when they move over too far towards the pavement thereby blocking the cycling lane. I've seen many drivers do this deliberately because they've seen a cyclist coming up behind them. There is no need for it. Its just petty and jealous. If we all followed the rules and gave each other the room that we need travelling would be faster, easier and safer for everyone.

I think this is a great article. I got a ticket today for rolling a light. I was furious. I cycle 15 ks each way to work, if i stopped at every light the delay would cost me approximatly 50 minutes plus the cylce time. What a crock! The police officer concerned even said that i should be fine jumping lights further out from the city. Mixed message or what? OR just ridiculous stealth tax?

How about a compromise on the Australian model, which allows left turns on red if safe to do so; ie, cyclists alone could pass through traffic lights or pelican crossings if safe to do so, but giving way to pedestrians. But aggressive cyclists should be prosecuted along with bolshie motorists.