Keep an Eye on this: Call to ban bikes from South Bank

At the moment, you can cycle along the side of the Thames for its most picture-postcard stretch, past its most iconic sights and bridges: from Vauxhall, past the Houses of Parliament, right underneath the Eye, under the Jubilee Bridge, past the Royal Festival Hall, under Waterloo Bridge with its bookstalls, by the National Theatre with the free summer Watch This Space events, and along the grand spacious riverside boulevard to the Oxo Tower.

You're not really supposed to, but in practice you're allowed, as Kennington People on Bikes entertainingly reported yesterday with comprehensive illustrations.

It's one of the world's great big-city cycling trundles, and ideal on the new Hire Bikes. It's that riverside bit in the picture here.

But the debate over whether it should be allowed it all (and it seems 'tolerated' at the moment rather than being 'legal') has been grumbling along for years. And as SE1 reports, the latest draft strategy to 'develop' cycling suggests it should be forbidden between the Eye and the Oxo. Both support and opposition is vehement and about 50-50.


Opponents say the alternative inland route along Belvedere Road (right) is much safer and more convenient.

Many people (including lots on Lambeth council, who control the Vauxhall-Westminster stretch) want to allow cycling, but have it lightly policed on a 'reasonable behaviour' basis. That seems the most sensible solution to us, preserving comfort for pedestrians but also access for sensible cyclists.

Or we could cordon off territories either side of a Peace Wall like they did in Belfast, one side for pedestrians and the other for terr- er, cyclists, and put up loads of bold murals. That could become a tourist attraction in its own right.


Anyway, today's picture of a cycle hire docking station is the one on Belvedere Road, where you'll have to cycle if the ban eventually goes ahead. The ones round here are usually full in the evening - not ideal if you're looking to dock your hire bike and you're late for your event.

The law is a harass

I'm not a fan of legislation, over-regulation, warning signs and threats; I'd much rather live in a society where commonsense, a timely quiet word, and shared social discipline prevent bad behaviour before it happens. (If you know of one anywhere, please tell me.)

So I don't quite know what to make of today's story in the US paper The Missourian. Columbia City Council reaffirmed an Ordinance passed in June making it an offense, possibly even an offence, to "harass bicyclists". It is a "Class A misdemeanor", which is clearly a bad thing, to "throw anything at bicyclists, to threaten or knowingly endanger them or to deliberately frighten or disturb them. Violators can be fined $1,000 and/or be sentenced to a year in jail."

On the one hand, it's great to envisage revenge. In the last ten years in London I've had maybe five or six incidents of genuine, unprovoked harassment - a driver spitting at me, a hoodie throwing a stone, a motorcyclist rather bizarrely riding up by my side and leaning firmly on me while in motion, that sort of thing.

But would such a law have made any difference? We know that reporting incidents to the police, even in traceable circumstances such as taxis knocking you off under a CCTV camera, is a waste of time unless someone is killed or, even worse, damage is done to a car.

And there'd have to be a tit-for-tat law to satisfy the car lobby against cyclists shaking their fist or shouting at a driver. And you can bet the press would love the first conviction against that one. Look, for example, at the prominence given to the recent jailing of a pavement cyclist who ran into and killed an old man, compared to the routine ignoring of (a) pavement drivers who kill pedestrians and (b) road drivers who kill cyclists.

To paraphrase the old saw: man kills cyclist - not news; cyclist kills man - news. And we can't legislate against that.

Taking the ow out of Iowa

A so-called 'cyclists' Bill of Rights' has been approved by the senate in Iowa.

The bill would require motorists to maintain a five-foot distance when passing cyclists, and would give right of way to cyclists where a bike path intersects a street, among other things.

It seems unlikely to become law, as it won't be allowed through the House, rather like my bike after a muddy towpath ride. But even if not, hooray for Senator Matt McCoy, the man behind the bill, whoever he is.

Helmet ruling hurts my head

Cyclists not wearing a helmet could be guilty of contributory negligence, according to BikeRadar's news item the other day on a recent court ruling (Smith v Finch, 2009). The case dealt with a cyclist who had sustained head injuries after being hit by a motorcyclist. He got the full damages he was seeking, but Justice Griffith Williams ruled that he could have been found partly liable if wearing a helmet would have prevented or reduced his or her injuries.

In some ways this doesn't tell us anything new. The Highway Code says you 'should' wear a helmet, so the possibility of a lawyer arguing this contributory-negligence thing was there before the ruling. (it also says you 'should' wear reflective clothing in the dark – anyone know if this has been the subject of a contributory negligence claim?)

But the ruling nevertheless makes my head hurt. There should not be an ounce of compulsion on people to wear helmets, and there should be no shifting of blame from the person who caused the accident.

My stance on helmets is simple. Wearing one is quite legal, and I suppose it should stay that way. According to the law, you can put one on your head and ride out in public and nobody can stop you. You are also entitled to wear a kilt or a Manchester United shirt or a schoolgirl outfit if it makes you feel better.

Many (usually the ones who didn't get the previous paragraph) would put it differently. They'd say helmets offer protection in case of an accident, therefore you should wear one. Well, the first half of that is debatable, and the second doesn't follow at all.

The first half is at least based in fact. Under certain restricted circumstances, helmets may offer some protection. They are designed to cope with impacts of 12mph or less on a smooth flat surface – essentially, falling off a stationary bike and bumping your head on the road surface. But no more than that. And in my experience, accidents tend not to happen when I'm stationary.

Something you often see on messageboards is along these lines:

"I had a accident and hit my head, the helmet was TOTALLY WRECKED, phew that could of been my HEAD"

But this is less convincing than it sounds (and actually, it's often hearsay – the experience of a friend or a relative). The helmet probably crumpled because it's a flimsy shell not designed to cope with that situation. If you'd been wearing polystyrene cup on your head that would have crumpled too.

So I don't wear a helmet. I never have on a British road. It simply doesn't make me feel safer. I did when I was cycling in Australia and New Zealand, where they are compulsory, and it was irritating and cumbersome and offered me no safety benefit. If you feel safer, then fine, that's up to you.

However, it's the link to compulsion that is the big problem. Simply because something may offer some safety benefit in some circumstances is not a reason to enforce it. Stab jackets may offer some protection, but nobody, surely not even Jacqui Smith, would think they ought to be compulsory. In fact, when Harriet Harman donned one last year on a police walkabout, she was attacked in the press. Yet Boris Johnson, by nature a non-helmet wearer, openly moans that he has to wear one because his advisors say it would be political suicide not to.

So try this: any assertion you'd make about a helmet and cycling, make it about stab jackets and walking, and see if it sounds defensible. If it isn't, then I suggest you haven't thought through the helmet argument.

Take, for example, this typical pro-helmet messageboard assertion:

"If you dont ware a helmet your stupid, its better than risking your head smashing open, ha ha see you in the darwin awards"

This becomes:

"If you don't wear a stab jacket you're stupid. Better than risking your chest being ripped open."

The riposte to this is easy. We don't enforce stab-jacket wearing for obvious reasons. Despite what alarmist press says, your chance of being stabbed is very, very, very small. Even then they'd only offer very limited protection, and be no help if you were stabbed in the thigh, punched in the face or hit with a baseball bat. They'd be cumbersome, expensive and deter people from making simple trips. They would create a climate of fear on our streets. They would, in fact, only encourage gangs, by removing decent citizens from the streets and creating no-go areas.

And the notion that you were partly to blame for being stabbed because you weren't wearing a stab jacket would be outrageous.

Some cyclists seem to regard helmets as a magic spell. They give no signals, they cycle unpredictably, they don't have lights at night, they squeeze up the inside of HGVs at lights. These are things that cause accidents, not the presence or absence of a plastic melon on your head.

There's a culture of lazy, automatic pro-helmet thinking which I despise. These people writing the council leaflets, the junior hacks writing a 'get into cycling' feature for the local newspaper, those odious advisors to Boris and Dave, that all take it as read you should wear a helmet – what's their evidence? What do they actually know about the subject? Very little, I suspect.

And I suspect that many cyclists wear helmets without thinking. They see other cyclists wearing them, they think they're being good and responsible by doing the same. Well, I disagree.

You can't put my non-helmet wearing down to ignorance (I've read the lot: case studies, magazines, messageboard rants, even Wikipedia).

You can't put it down to laziness (in darkness I have enough lighting and reflective gear to illuminate a small rock concert, which takes time to put on and take off and is cumbersome to cart around, but I happen to think it makes me safer. A lot safer).

You can't put it down to inexperience. I have been cycling virtually every day of my life: 40 fantastic, helmet-free years. Experience shows that I fall off about five times a decade. It's not your head that takes the damage: it's your knees, elbows and wrists. If you really want to protect yourself, wear those robot-like extremity guards that inline skaters use. Ah, but that's too cumbersome, isn't it? That's like wearing a stab jacket.

Yes, I did hit my head once. I required stitches, spending two nights in a hospital in Oxford in May 1984. (Most of that time was taken up patching holes in my legs. I was unable to play football very well afterwards. But then I was unable to play football very well before.)

Would a helmet have made any difference? No. A more effective way of preventing injury would have been if I'd had lights on my bike and if I hadn't had half a bottle of vodka shortly beforehand. I was probably too pissed to put a helmet on anyway.

And don't worry, I learned my lesson. I stick to beer and wine now.

But you get the point. People (usually, but not always, drivers) cause accidents. Head injuries are rare. Helmets make little difference. They're a distraction, diverting attention from the real issue. Forget them.

Because evidence overwhelmingly shows that the way to make cycling is safer is not to legislate on helmets (Australia has famously become a more dangerous place to bike since making them compulsory).

It's not even to make snazzy cycle paths.

It's getting more cyclists on the roads. The more people cycle, the fewer accidents there are - not relatively, absolutely. Look at the Netherlands, the developed world's best cycling culture: you'll see about as many people wearing helmets as stab jackets.

Well, time to go to work. I hope I don't slip while walking on the pavement. It'll be my fault for not wearing cross-country skis. Contributory negligence.