CentreForum’s ‘Liberal Hero of the Week’ #9 – Norman Baker: a guest post by Tom Papworth
Welcome to the ninth in our series — Liberal Hero of the Week — as chosen by Stephen Tall, Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and Research Associate at CentreForum.
The aim is simple enough: to showcase public figures who help promote the four liberal tenets identified in The Orange Book: economic, personal, political and social liberalism. We will be highlighting individuals regardless of their party affiliation, and indeed from beyond Westminster. If they stick up for liberalism then they’re in contention. Nominations are welcome via email or Twitter.
And as a special Olympic treat for you, here’s a bonus ‘Liberal Hero of the Week’. Yes, I’m tearing up the rule-books — my official weekly choice is published here — to bring you this guest post from Tom Papworth, leader of the Lib Dem group on Bromley Council and contributor to the Liberal Vision blog, who explains his reasons here for nominating Norman Baker… All I will add, as a non-helmet-wearing cyclist both in London and Oxford, is: I agree with Norman (and Tom)
Norman Baker
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport.
Reason: for defending the freedom of cyclists to ride without a helmet if they choose.
I think anybody who rides a bike without wearing a helmet is taking an enormous risk. I’ve fallen off my bike in the past and had my helmet (rather than my head) bounce off the tarmac. I also know that cycling can be very dangerous; the chair of one the neighbouring constituency party was killed a few years back while cycling when he was hit by a car. So I am under no illusions about the importance of wearing a cycling helmet for road safety.
But a cycling helmet only protects the cyclist themself. There is no danger posed to other road users if a cyclist chooses not to wear a helmet. And liberalism is all about preventing people causing direct harm to third parties. As John Stewart Mill pointed out:
… the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right…. The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is of right, absolute, over himself. Over his own body-mind, the individual is sovereign.
And, one might add, over his own head.
So (ahem!) hats off to Norman Baker, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport with responsibility for cycling, who described as his “libertarian right” to cycle without a helmet on. As Norman explained:
“I don’t wear a helmet when I cycle. The first reason is that I don’t want to. I don’t want to wear something on my head. For me the joy of cycling is to have the wind in your hair, such as I have left. It’s free, it’s unencumbered; I don’t want to be loaded down. It is a libertarian argument. The responsibility is only towards myself. It’s not like drinking and driving where you can damage other people. You do no harm. I’m not encouraging people not to do this, I’m just saying I make a decision not to.”
And if I were to point to a Liberal Villain of the Week, I might point to his counterpart, Joel Hickman of Brake, who argued that:
“Last year, over 17,000 cyclists were injured on UK roads with over 2,500 killed or seriously injured. The vast majority of these deaths and serious injuries were the result of a head injury. This is precisely why many of our international and European partners have already introduced compulsory helmet wearing”.
That is paternalism, and of a particularly patronising kind. Does Mr Hickman not think that 17,00 injuries including 2,500 KSIs is enough information of which mature citizens can make their own decisions?
I way well done Norman. You cycle helmetless – and on your own head be it. Or not.
* You can view our list of ‘Liberal Heroes of the Week’ (and occasional ‘Liberal Villains’) here.
Julian Huppert gave some excellent arguments against – http://t.co/qA1WJx5Z – with evidence that cycling is comparatively very safe, and that such laws noticeably put people off cycling.
By the same anti-paternalism arguments you made, Tom, do you oppose compulsory helmets for motorcyclists, and compulsory seat-belt wearing? Or does the difference in safety, or in inconvenience have a bearing? The danger is far greater for motorcyclists, and I’ve heard it argued that we should protect the other parties who might be involved in accidents from the devastating effect of having caused a death. And we are talking about public roads, after all. Would love to hear your thoughts.
Good question Adam. When, aged 12, I retired from motorcycling, I’d always worn a helmet. It helped protect my hair from the flames when jumping through fire. In 5 years from age 8 onwards, I fell off my motorbike only a handful of times. The most notable being a public display where I clipped the back wheel of another bike in mid-air.
Yet, to this day, I’ve only ever worn a cycle helmet when mountain biking. I fell off my bike as a kid plenty of times. The worst head injury I had was not falling off a bike but from a projectile thrown by another kid – nothing to do with bikes.
Nowadays when I take my daughter out on the back of my bike, she wears a helmet and I don’t. I tend to only take her out when I can guarantee quiet roads or cycleways.
Perhaps there is an answer in here somewhere.
Cycling deaths count for roughly 1% of road deaths (despite seatbelts, airbags and other safety features in cars).
Taking Norman Bakers argument a bit further, I’d say that cyclists do have an impact on others, which is that failing to wear a helmet could cause greater hospital costs to the NHS.
There seems to be evidence to suggest that the saving from forcing helmet wearing would be reduced if not eliminated by the cost of increased congestion, and health impacts of less cycling.
In contrast, the case for seatbelts in cars and helmets for motorcyclists is far clearer. No one has suggested that there are health or economic costs to enforcing seatbelts and helmets to be worn, only the saving in medical costs borne by the taxpayer.
Having not thought about this before, I certainly would say that it’s an infringement of my freedoms to be expected to pay for avoidable NHS costs incurred through people not wearing a seatbelt of helmet.
The liberal answer may be to say that if people want to be able to ride a motorcycle without a helmet (and eat flies at 70mph), then they should have health insurance to cover the consequences…
So much misinformation and inaccuracy it’s hard to know where to start, but let’s start with the statement “I think anybody who rides a bike without wearing a helmet is taking an enormous risk.” The risks of cycling are about the same as walking, much less than using stairs or a ladder, so the “enormous risk” is in fact vanishingly small. Are pedestrians taking an enormous risk every time they walk?
Regular cyclists live longer and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than the general population, so it’s more dangerous not to ride a bike than to ride one. You are many, many times more likely to die from failing to exercise than as a result of a cycling collision.
Cycle helmets have never been shown to improve the safety of cyclists, and helmet laws and propaganda campaigns have only two demonstrable effects: a reduction in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for the helmet manufacturers, there is no safety benefit. Because cycle helmets reduce participation in a health enhancing activity, the overall effect is large and negative, and it is unlikely to be coincidence that the most obese nations on earth are those with helmet laws. In countries where the safety of cyclists is taken seriously, Denmark and Holland, no-one wears a helmet but cycling is much safer than here and places with helmet laws.
In the middle of an obesity epidemic and reports that failing to exercise will kill millions, calls for helmet laws and propaganda campaigns promoting them are literally insane. One researcher has said that if the benefits of cycling could be bottled, it would be the most popular medicine in the world. Rather than promoting helmets,anyone interested in the public health would be promoting cycling.
The spokesman for BRAKE, Joel Hickman, is just wrong when he says that “The vast majority of these deaths and serious injuries were the result of a head injury. This is precisely why many of our international and European partners have already introduced compulsory helmet wearing”. Head injury is not a major cause of death or serious injury to cyclists, and very few nations have introduced a cycle helmet law. BRAKE is obsessed by the risks of cycling and promoting helmets as the answer to that risk, but are merely sprouting propaganda while they refuse to examine the evidence.
Check out cyclehelmets.org for a few facts rather than the propaganda.
So much misinformation and inaccuracy it’s hard to know where to start, but let’s start with the statement “I think anybody who rides a bike without wearing a helmet is taking an enormous risk.”
A non-sequitur, I think, Richard. It is certainly not misinformation and inaccuracy to say that “I think anybody who rides a bike without wearing a helmet is taking an enormous risk.” I may be inflating the risk, of course, and I’m happy to see evidence, but so far, I still think they’re taking an enormous risk.
Which is no reason why they should be forced to wear a helmet, of course, which was rather the point of the article.
Oh dear pedants central, I think.
If only you’d read the rest of my post, you would have discovered that the risk is about the same as walking, so I repeat the question: are pedestrians taking an enormous risk? or are you just totally misinformed and influenced by the thirty year propaganda campaign to make cycling seem dangerous to sell helmets?
I repeat: check out cyclehelmets.org for a few facts.
I have never quite lost my sense of outrage over the imposition of the Crash Helmet law of 1972.
I always wore a crash helmet, but that’s not the point, it is MY head, not the government’s, how dare they threaten to fine me for not wearing a helmet.
Of course, when the government of the day claimed ownership of my head without any noticeable objection from the general public, they learned that they could claim ownership of everyone’s head at anytime on the pretext of health and safety.
I am still surprised how very few people then and now, realised that at that time a precedent had been set.
It always happens to someone else doesn’t it?
Quite right Rose, it was a disturbing precedent, and one taken without any idea of whether it would work or not, and there still isn’t such evidence. Just goes to show that laws based on common sense should never be enacted, and if the law’s proposers can’t demonstrate any benefit with solid evidence, they should go away until they can.
Unfortunately, the true helmet believers know that they are right, and no amount of contrary evidence will sway their fanatical belief.