A few weeks ago I wrote a piece in which I wondered
whether cyclists ought to be compelled by law to wear helmets. Its prompt was a
conversation with Peter McCabe, the CEO of the brain injury association and
charity Headway, whose aim is to increase awareness of brain injury and its
consequences. Peter made a strong case for legislation to make cyclists have to
wear helmets, something that the Post Office made compulsory for its 37,000
cycling postmen in 2003.
By the time I’d written my piece, I was erring strongly
on Peter’s side. However, I recently attended a presentation by Martin Potter
QC to the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers Transport Group, and
found the biblical proverb true: ‘The
first to present his case seems right, until another comes forward and
questions him’.
No legal duty to wear a helmet
Martin is a barrister at 2 Temple Gardens. He specialises
in personal injury and clinical negligence cases, and has amassed plenty of
experience in sports-related litigation, especially involving cycling. His
presentation was entitled ‘Cycle Helmets: A Duty to Wear?’ and it ably set out
both the law and the arguments for and against wearing helmets.
At present, of course, there is no legal duty for a
cyclist to wear a helmet. There may be circumstances when not wearing a helmet
could produce a finding of contributory negligence, but they are surprisingly
rare. Moreover, Martin’s presentation revealed that only last February a
parliamentary debate suggested that change was not in the offing, with MPs
apparently convinced that there should be virtually no barriers to cycling,
precisely because it is perceived as ‘a good thing’.
Cycling increases levels of fitness and longevity
As Martin put it: “The public policy interest in
encouraging and promoting cycling is widely recognised and the subject of much
public expenditure. Cycling increases levels of fitness and longevity and
decreases obesity, healthcare costs, traffic congestion, pollution and the
burning of fossil fuels.”
Thereafter, Martin skilfully examined the evidence as to
the efficacy of cycle helmets in reducing brain injuries (inconclusive),
assessed the risks in cycling per se (greater in terms of perception than
fact), and adduced research which suggested that promoting the use of helmets
actually reduced the levels of cycling – something we don’t want, given all the
perceived benefits of cycling. In summary, Martin suggested that “it is neither
right nor wrong for a cyclist to wear or not wear a helmet. It should be a
matter of personal choice leaving the blame to lie with the person or persons
responsible for the collision.”
I am not so sure, but, in truth, I can see both sides of the
argument. Both Peter McCabe and Martin Potter QC are persuasive, articulate and
convincing men. Martin posited the contrary case extremely well, but is it
really the case that if we insist that all cyclists wear a helmet, we drive
down the numbers of people riding bikes? By extension, if we legislate to
compel a cyclist to do the opposite of David Cameron and Boris Johnson – both
of whom seem to frequently eschew a
helmet even on the busy streets of London – can we really be said to be
encouraging sloth?
Of course not. And yet ... Martin put his case so well
that I have paused for further thought and reflection. What is certain is that
this issue requires research, analysis and debate. Meanwhile, I’d favour erring on the side of caution, particularly
when it comes to children. The prospect of even one child needlessly suffering
brain injury is too horrific to contemplate. Cycle helmets may not be the last
word in fashion but they might just make a difference when it’s needed. Better
to wear one than worry about being cool.
No comments:
Post a Comment