Helmet Free: Local Transport Minister in Britain Won’t Play it Safe

Play
Download

Reporter Laura Lynch (left) riding bicycles with Norman Baker

Before we hop on the bikes, a bit of background: Norman Baker has been a bareheaded bike rider for many years. But it only became an issue two weeks ago, when helmet advocates like Julie Townsend spoke out.

“We think it’s very disappointing that the minister is choosing to ignore the very extensive evidence we have that helmets are effective in reducing the risk of serious head injury,” Townsend said. “And he’s not taking the very, very simple step of wearing a helmet. As you say this isn’t only a public figure we’re talking about this is the minister responsible for cycling.”

So here I am, just outside the minister’s office in downtown London, heading out for a ride with Norman Baker.

“I think we make a fine pair on our bikes. Have you ever been in a scrape or an accident?”

“No.”

“Then you’re doing better than me. I had a very bad one once.”

“That’s probably because you were wearing a helmet you see,” Mr. Baker said.

I’m no fanatic advocate of helmets but I do like to be safe. So our formal interview took place on the sidewalk, not while we were cycling. I asked him why he doesn’t wear a helmet.

“Well the first reason is I don’t want to and I don’t want to be told by government what I should and shouldn’t do unless there’s a very good reason to have that sort of restriction placed on me. Secondly, I think it can actually be less safe wearing a helmet because drivers actually drive closer to people wearing helmets on than without. And thirdly, I want to, as a minister, stress the freedom that comes with cycling not the restrictions that are associated with it,” Baker said.

The libertarian argument is one he’s made before. But the minister has more reasons for baring his balding head aboard his bike.

“You’ve got more contact with the world around you. You get the wind blowing through your hair – what’s left of it. All those sorts of things are sorts of attractions for cycling. And it’s one of the reasons why people like cycling.”

Mr. Baker regularly bikes from his office to the House of Commons in time for parliamentary votes. He boasts he can make the trip in three minutes.

“Now aside from the wind going through your hair – such as it is – how does the helmet interfere with that?” I ask him.

“Making people wear cycling helmets, dressing up in fluorescent costumes may in fact give the impression that cycling is somehow a risky activity. It isn’t. Cycling is by and large, statistically quite a safe activity. And by making it look risky, people are getting a wrong impression of cycling and that will also put them off,” Baker said.

Now I’m trying not to take this personally, but it’s hard. Not only am I wearing a helmet, I am also decked out in a garish fluorescent vest, cycle gloves, tights and running shoes.

He couldn’t look more – well as he puts it – more English: Dark suit, yellow tie, he tucks his pants inside his socks. Now that’s what I call risky – particularly for one’s wardrobe.

The ride, brief as it is, has gone smoothly, though I notice he doesn’t use hand signals.


Even though helmets aren’t mandatory, his own department’s policy encourages people to use them. But Baker said even that isn’t enough reason for him to change gears.

“Most people and certainly most cycling groups and a few health professionals surprisingly have been very supportive of the stance I’ve taken,” Baker said. “The tide of comment is very much in my direction from people who have contacted me.”

And so Norman Baker won’t be changing his unhelmeted mind anytime soon – ignoring the advice of the department he runs.

A renegade on a bike, following his own path down London’s crowded streets.

*UPDATED* A previous headline for this post incorrectly suggested that Norman Baker was a road safety minister. Mr. Baker is a local transport minister.

Discussion

19 comments for “Helmet Free: Local Transport Minister in Britain Won’t Play it Safe”

  • http://profiles.google.com/mnmdad David Clark

    Even in the UK with their more enlightened health care system, if Mr. Baker suffers head trauma in an accident, it will be a drain on their system, even if it does not increase costs, at least short term, to anyone else. In the US, however, these actions will add to the upward pressure for cost increases. I am all for freedom from helmets (bikes, motorcycles, etc.) if the wind in their hair types are euthanized at the ER – unless they can pay for treatment out of pocket.

    • http://profiles.google.com/christopher.thomas.peck Christopher Peck

      The drain on the National Health Service from physical inactivity is vast: billions every year. If helmets deter people from cycling (evidence from where they have been made compulsory suggests yes) then a key means of reducing the cost of physical inactivity is lost.

      • http://profiles.google.com/mywoisme Wo King

        I agree. We measure health benefits of the society as a whole not just for cyclists. More cyclists, healthier populace.

      • http://profiles.google.com/mywoisme Wo King

        I agree. We measure health benefits of the society as a whole not just for cyclists. More cyclists, healthier populace.

    • Anonymous

      What a silly and ignorant post…

  • Anonymous

    For the sake of your loved ones, Mr. Baker, I hope even an oppositional/defiant type like you can become enlightened on the wisdom of protecting your vulnerable brain. Recommended reading: Over My Head, by Claudia Osborn.

  • http://www.jt10000.com John Forrest Tomlinson

    It’s simply not true that helmets are an important part of cycling safety. Cycling is about as deadly as walking outside or traveling in cars, and we don’t wear helmets doing either one. I have to ask David Clark if he suffers a head trauma in a car accident, will that be a drain on the system?

  • Anonymous

    Mr Baker said “I think it can actually be less safe wearing a helmet because drivers actually drive closer to people wearing helmets on than without.” Dr Ian Walker, who measured the amount of room left by passing drivers, what hit twice when carrying out this research, both times when wearing a helmet.

    Surely msj_GoHawks, not the minister needs to be enlightened? Many helmeted cyclists die of head injury after being hit by motor vehicles. Helmets afford very limited protection. If, as the research suggests, wearing a helmet increases your risk of being hit by vehicles, it will also increase the risk of head injury.

    Mr Baker is reducing his risk of strokes, heart disease and brain damage by cycling without a helmet, for his own sake, and the sake of his loved ones.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rob-Becker/734913953 Rob Becker

    As an avid cyclist who wears a helmet almost always, I defend Mr. Baker’s position. The risk taken is only to one’s self, it does not endanger others as so should not be judged or regulated. Unlike wearing a seatbelt (which prevents a jettisoned driver) and drunk driving (which clearly endangers others) which we as a society are justified incentivizing, the choice of wearing a helmet while cycling should be left an individual decision. For those who care to judge, why? Your risk / benefit calculation may not be the same as your peers.

  • Anonymous

    “…become enlightened on the wisdom…”
    Suggesting that ones own view is “enlightened” is amazingly arrogant.

  • http://profiles.google.com/bridiekemp Brigid Kemp

    To hear Mr. Baker say he doesn’t want the government to tell him what he should do, I wonder why he doesn’t ride on the other side of the road, which is determined by the government. Sounds like selective reasoning. Also, his comment that he only has himself to consider, who’d take care of him should he get a brain injury? Accidents are not always caused by our own carelessness, but sometimes because of someone else. Here in British Columbia, we take it for granted that smoking causes cancers and riding helmet-less could cause brain trauma. My helmet has saved me from such several times.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AMQCDWI4UF2ZHCUHJA77XU3H7A Joseph

    The unencumbered feeling is a big plus for riding as well as the simplicity of cycling. Adding requirements discourages participation. I’m glad that Mr. Baker has spoken out.

  • http://twitter.com/davidmam David Martin

    So what is more sensible? To wear a helmet, or to look over your shoulder to check for traffic before pulling out of the cycle lane? Norman did, Laura didn’t. She’d fail bikeability level 1.
    Safety starts with how you act, not with what you wear. It is better to ride properly and avoid accidents than take a not particularly effective panacea to ameliorate the effects of one.

  • The Scarlet Pimpernel

    It’s highly entertaining to watch the reporter failing to follow the most basic rule of the road (shoulder check) while the “dangerous” politician manages it textbook perfect. (Ps. I don’t think signalling right, moving straight ahead is strictly correct, surely?)

    I hate to say it but I agree with Mr. Baker on this one. We love to make out that cyclists have a 20-minute life expectancy but when I was persuaded to look at the stats the other day I discovered that the risk of head injury is basically the same as walking. How many squillion of those rediculous Boris Bike journeys have been made without anybody dying?

    Makes you wonder what on Earth all the fuss is about, and why road safety campaigners haven’t got more important things to meddle with!

  • Anonymous

    Everyone, please wear your helmet. I ride my bike to work. It’s a 5 mile trip through center city Philadelphia.

    Years ago I had an accident and dislocated my elbow. Now I know you’re saying, “Well, how would a helmet have helped you not dislocate your elbow?” Good question. My theory is that when you wear a helmet your body knows that your head is protected. I believe that when we fall off of a bike the first thing our nervous system tells us to do is protect our face and head. In my accident I was not wearing a helmet and so my body knew that I needed to protect my head from the pavement. And so I extended my right arm to stop my fall. But the force of the fall was enough to dislocate my elbow and leave me lying on the pavement, in tears with a mangled looking arm. It was disgusting.

    Since then I have always worn a helmet. I have had similar accidents but this time when I was falling I knew to tuck and roll, which is not so hard to do when your nervous system already knows your head is protected. Helmets look dorky but get over yourself and be safe.

  • Anonymous

    First intelligent thing I’ve ever heard a MP say on this topic. 10/10 for common sense, Mr Baker. The manufacturers and the safety lobby have been flogging helmets for about 20 years – a result of the popularity of off-road biking, where a helmet is a pretty sensible idea; people have been cycling on the roads for more than 100 years – we got by perfectly well without helmets for all that time and the roads haven’t got any harder. Helmets are a solution to a marketing-inspired problem.

  • Anonymous

    I notice that a couple of people have expressed their supoort for helmets with the assertion that they have ‘saved their lives’ on a number of occcasions. Just a thought, but if these people keep falling off, perhaps they should address their riding skills rather than their magic hat or rabbit’s foot. The interviewer’s riding was atrocious and unsafe, and the Minister’s remark about vehicles passing closer was ignored.
    Australia made helmets compulsory. The number of cyclists bombed, but injury rates exploded. It became far riskier to ride wearing the magic hat than without it. The figures are accessible and simple. Perhaps the lesson here is that ‘common sense’ is not always so sensible.
    Finally, looking at the actual as opposed to imaginary risks, why no outcries for helmets to be compulsory for pedestrians and car passengers?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_D6AAJC7KNQWJS24RIP4AN2XBIE hiromi64

    From Canada:

    Baker is right. Lynch is Wrong. Laura is a well known wack-job, but that probably was obvious from the interview.  The following link oulines the probability statistics of actually having an accident while cycling. 
     
    http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Bike+safety+advocates+spinning+their+wheels/4897937/story.html The chances of your cracking your coconut while cycling is remote, to the point of having to calculate distance travelled in the billions of kilometres. What you must know about people like Miss Lynch is that if the government decreed that everyone must leave their house with a bicycle helmet and life-jacket on because it is safer, then she would be championing that cause too. Nutters like the Lynch woman have no “off” button when it comes to the prohibitionist mind-set. These are the same tools who 80 years ago worked their bothered-heads off to remove the demon rum from store shelves. Good Luck and happy cycling,

     The chances of your cracking your coconut while cycling is remote, to the point of having to calculate distance travelled in the billions of kilometres. What you must know about people like Miss Lynch is that if the government decreed that everyone must leave their house with a bicycle helmet and life-jacket on because it is safer, then she would be championing that cause too. Nutters like the Lynch woman have no “off” button when it comes to the prohibitionist mind-set. These are the same tools who 80 years ago worked their bothered-heads off to remove the demon rum from store shelves. Good Luck and happy cycling,

  • bgrggfe

    The City Council is examining a request to open a Louis Vuitton Handbags and retail shop at 11502 Middlebelt in the Livonia Crossroads shopping center on the southeast corner of Plymouth and Middlebelt roads.The council heard at a study session on Monday from Taylor Bond, president of Children’s Orchard, who wants to open a 7,500-square-foot Louis Vuitton Handbags Sale store at the site of the former Family Buggy restaurant, which was closed several years ago.