When I prepare for a bike ride in the city, I remind myself of a medieval knight preparing for battle.
- Batteries charged? Check
- All six lights working? Check
- High visibility vest? Check
- Reflective stripes on jacket and pants? Check
- Protective goggles? Check
- And of course … helmet securely bucked? Check
In fact, it takes me almost as long to prepare for my commute, as it takes me to actually commute.
I have taken this for granted for a long time. It’s just the way things are for urban bicycle commuters. Just like knights had to defend themselves from men on horses with pointy sticks, we have to protect ourselves from hurtling 5 ton vehicles driven by people who may be distracted by coffee, cell phones, breakfast, or all of the above. Or who may just be speeding madly in order to blow off some excess testosterone (much like the knights).
Recently I have started to question all this. If I prepare for cycling like a knight preparing for mortal combat, what kind of message am I sending? Obviously, I am sending the message that urban cycling is a very dangerous, life-threatening activity – an extreme sport, like solo rock climbing without ropes.
And if I am sending such a message, what does that mean? Well, for one thing, it means that other people aren’t likely to follow my example. After all, it’s tough enough having to go to work every day, without having to risk your life to get there.
I mean, if getting to work involved climbing bare-handed up a cliff (and coming back down the same way at the end of the day), I’m pretty sure most people would opt for welfare.
Sending this kind of message is contrary to my mission of encouraging average people to embrace cycling as a viable means of urban transportation.
On the other hand, cycling in dark clothing without a helmet on the dangerous “cycling routes” of Burnaby is contrary to my mission of staying alive.
It was in this context that I found Mikael Colville-Andersen’s argument against wearing helmets while cycling very interesting.
Mikael argues that modern humans live in a culture of fear – now that we don’t have to worry about being killed by bears at any moment, we spend our energies worrying that we will get sick and die from touching the door handles in public washrooms. Because of this, we have developed what he calls an almost pornographic obsession with safety equipment. And as with all things in modern society it all leads back to big business. As he says, “Fear is lucrative. Fear is big business.” If businesses can get people to be afraid, then we will scurry off in our thousands to stores where we can buy things that we think will protect us from the perceived danger. (Imagine how many millions of dollars are currently being spent on the smelly bottles of hand sanitizers that have suddenly become ubiquitous.)
For example, there’s a company called Thudguard that wants parents to buy infant safety headgear so that children don’t hurt themselves in the course of their normal activities (such as crawling, playing or learning to walk).
Thudguard infant helmets are marketed as devices to protect the delicate brains of crawling and toddling children. Makes you wonder how the human race has survived this far...
Yes, really. I’m not making it up. Google it if you don’t believe me.
Having raised three children, I am 100% certain that infant helmets are an insane idea (and as an ex-philosophy student, I am very seldom 100% certain about anything, so this is saying a lot). Kids fall and hurt themselves, and it’s all part of the normal process of growing and learning.
On the other hand, there are things that we do that really are dangerous. For example, 1.2 million people a year are killed driving their cars. However, we don’t acknowledge that driving cars is dangerous, and so it doesn’t even cross our minds to dress in safety gear to drive our cars. Even though motorist helmets have been invented.
Motoring Headband – its promoters claim it will protect you against most of the damaging and fatal impacts associated with car crashes. And of course, as it’s in a neutral colour, it goes with anything.
However, as Mikael points out, motorist helmets are not promoted (let alone mandated by legislation). For example, they are not given out free with cars. That’s scarcely surprising – giving out these head bands would mean acknowledging that driving cars is extremely dangerous, and that would undermine the enormously successful job car manufacturers have done of convincing people that driving cars is a safe activity. Even though, based on the stats, driving a car is an incredibly dangerous activity.
In fact, if I was sensible, I would prepare for one of my rare car-driving-forays just as carefully as I do for a bike ride.
- All lights working? Check
- Bumpers in good shape? Check
- Neck brace on to protect against whiplash in the event of being rear-ended? Check
- Knee guards on to protect against broken knee caps in the event of a head-on collision? Check
- Bullet proof vest on to protect against having chest crushed in the event of most kinds of high-impact accidents? Check
- Car painted in a bright colour (preferably very bright yellow) with reflective stripes? Check
- And of course … motorist helmet securely bucked? Check
The point is that car manufacturers don’t promote helmets because they don’t want to put people off buying cars by portraying driving as a dangerous activity. And they’re right to be afraid – the stats show unequivocally that the emphasis on bike helmets does in fact put people off cycling.
The more we promote helmets, the less people cycle.
Thus, the main problem with promoting bike helmets is that people stop cycling. Especially if you legislate it. So people are being scared away from a life-sustaining, environmentally friendly mode of transport. To make things worse, as Mikael points out, the research on whether helmets help in accidents is ambivalent. And, if you are scared off cycling by the emphasis on helmets, you may be setting yourself up for lifestyle diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and stroke.
On the other hand, there is a vast body of anecdotal evidence on the protective effects of helmets in bike accidents – see for example some of the more impassioned comments on this video.
Bottom line for me: I agree that by dressing up as if I am quaking in fear of imminent death at any second, I increase the perception that cycling is an extreme sport in which participants might die at any moment – and thus I risk scaring other people away from cycling. However, until such time as I can cycle to most places on separated bike lanes, I am going to keep preparing for cycling like a knight setting out for dangerous battle fields where heavily armed enemies will do their level best to kill him. Because even though most motorists emphatically do not want to kill me, the reality is that they could, very easily, kill me accidentally (much like we sometimes step on ants while walking, even though we really have no intent to kill ants). And if the time ever comes that I am hit by a car and go flying through the air and hit the sidewalk head first, I would very much like my helmet to take the brunt of it, not my comparatively very vulnerable head.
See what you think: http://video.tedxcopenhagen.dk/video/911034/mikael-colville-andersen-why. Not only an interesting video to watch, but a fascinating debate to read in the comments. This is not an easy issue – check it out and make up your own mind. I’d love to hear your opinions!
What's Related