CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: 'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: 'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets' http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: 'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets' en Wed, 13 May 2026 17:11:50 +0000 chdot on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=8#post-74726 Fri, 15 Jun 2012 21:38:10 +0000 chdot 74726@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Spokes publishes new post on reaction + factsheet - <a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119" rel="nofollow">http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7119</a> chdot on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=8#post-74109 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:53:09 +0000 chdot 74109@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ " I expect most people worked out their position on Spokes' decision within the first couple of pages of this thread. The rest is an unframed debate on helmets. As the people this most affects we deserve better than to do this to ourselves. If we really want a helmet debate, let's break it down into the various issues - the research, the physics, the social pressures, the law, the threat of legislation etc. etc. and deal with them separately. " Well that seems like a reasoned argument. <a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7063">Here's one I started earlier</a> which takes things in a slightly different direction. chdot on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=8#post-74108 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:49:04 +0000 chdot 74108@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ "CHdot can you please put a lid on this string" Lid? string?? gembo on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=8#post-74107 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:44:59 +0000 gembo 74107@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Dave - I would have imagined an event which promoted helmet compulsion would be some sort of competition where you put on different kinds of helmet and ran at pace at a brick wall it is amazing that we can fill such a long string with all this debate given the shortage of definitive data CHdot can you please put a lid on this string Smudge on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=8#post-74090 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:20:15 +0000 Smudge 74090@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ "Now that's a contentions statement! :D" Only if you believe that the firearms licensing system is inadequate and the lenient sentencing of people who kill using firearms is directly encouraging a devil may care attitude towards the safety of the general public amongst other firearms users.... ah... no... that's cars again isn't it... ;-)) steveo on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=8#post-74083 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:35:59 +0000 steveo 74083@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Now that's a contentions statement! :D <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Single_Action_Army" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Single_Action_Army</a> Instography on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=8#post-74080 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:31:29 +0000 Instography 74080@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Tom's a cheese maker? stiltskin on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=8#post-74079 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:27:16 +0000 stiltskin 74079@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Blessed are the peacemakers :) Tom on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=8#post-74073 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:07:36 +0000 Tom 74073@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ @amir: "Helmet compulsion can be quarrelled over elsewhere." I expect most people worked out their position on Spokes' decision within the first couple of pages of this thread. The rest is an unframed debate on helmets. As the people this most affects we deserve better than to do this to ourselves. If we really want a helmet debate, let's break it down into the various issues - the research, the physics, the social pressures, the law, the threat of legislation etc. etc. and deal with them separately. I think the end result might be that we realise that there are no sides to the debate at all. amir on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=7#post-74068 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:23:22 +0000 amir 74068@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ "I don't see how you can take a value-free position on promoting helmet compulsion events. Either you promote them or you don't promote them, after all. " I disagree, in the sense that I think that there are far more important things. Let's have events promoted - get more people on bikes, support charities etc. Helmet compulsion can be quarrelled over elsewhere. Tom on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=7#post-74066 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:14:58 +0000 Tom 74066@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ @Baldcyclist, Dave summed it up for me a while back when he said "</stir>". Baldcyclist on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=7#post-74061 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:05:23 +0000 Baldcyclist 74061@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ I've had second thoughts on this issue. Actually, all Spokes are really doing is airing the views (of most) of their membership. Mr average Joe Bloggs cyclist, most of whom are helmet wearing have most likely never even heard of Spokes. So in reality, Spokes members (and advocates) happy, average event rider none the wiser, win win. Dave on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=7#post-74051 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:46:24 +0000 Dave 74051@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ "supporting events with helmet compulsions would be taking a side too" +1 - I don't see how you can take a value-free position on promoting helmet compulsion events. Either you promote them or you don't promote them, after all. Smudge on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=7#post-74043 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:23:37 +0000 Smudge 74043@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ As far as I can see Spokes are supporting choice and rejecting a form of compulsion. For that I support them. Instography on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=7#post-74040 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:17:43 +0000 Instography 74040@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ There's very little point taking sides in any other kind of subject. Contentious subjects are precisely the kind where representative and campaigning bodies should take a position. My concern is that bodies like Spokes might duck contentious questions for fear of alienating potential soft allies and 'stakeholders' like, as was suggested way upthread, the Evening News and some councillors or MSPs. wee folding bike on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=7#post-74039 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:13:26 +0000 wee folding bike 74039@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ stilts, But then supporting events with helmet compulsions would be taking a side too. crowriver on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=7#post-74037 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:08:27 +0000 crowriver 74037@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Spokes were wrong to take sides in what is known to be a contentious subject. A subject such as....promoting the rights of cyclists and the cause of cycling as transport (as opposed to sport)? Pretty contentious to many non-cyclists. It gains my wholehearted support though. Sometimes you have to take sides: sitting on fences is painful, just ask the Lib Dems. stiltskin on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=7#post-74031 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:51:59 +0000 stiltskin 74031@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ So, far more lives could have been saved from getting everyone who uses a car to obey the existing seatbelt laws than could possibly be saved from banning all cycling without a helmet. I agree entirely. But then I'm not arguing for compulsion... & to dramatically return the thread to the subject, what I am arguing is that Spokes were wrong to take sides in what is known to be a contentious subject. (& by their selection of links they are most definitely taking sides) Dave on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=7#post-74030 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:51:47 +0000 Dave 74030@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ I'm not suggesting that gloves don't have that effect, but what you have just posted doesn't suggest that you are really that concerned with risk compensation and helmets: You've cited what concerns you about helmets. In general I'm convinced by risk compensation as a phenomenon. Personally, I don't feel there's enough data to determine why mass helmet-wearing by a population doesn't cause big drops in the head injury rate, so my opposition mainly comes from the observation that no other country has achieved big reductions without feeling the need to champion one of the possible causes over any of the others. In the meantime, there are no countries with a cycling culture which have a cycle safety culture too, and no countries with a cycle safety culture where the victim of dangerous driving isn't pummelled (bareheaded or not) figuratively when they come up against the perpetrator in either type of court - and I guess that summarises my own stance. slowcoach on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=7#post-74027 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:44:41 +0000 slowcoach 74027@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Stiltskin "we have largely come to accept the downsides of seatbelts and just put them on without thinking". Maybe for most people but <a href="http://www.road-safety.org.uk/driving/in-car-safety/seatbelts/">RoadSafetyScotland</a> says "...it’s estimated that 14% of adults don’t wear their seatbelts every time. ...It is estimated that 1 in 3 people who are killed in vehicles are not wearing seatbelts, and half of them could have been saved had they worn them." So, far more lives could have been saved from getting everyone who uses a car to obey the existing seatbelt laws than could possibly be saved from banning all cycling without a helmet. stiltskin on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=7#post-74025 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:40:06 +0000 stiltskin 74025@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ I'm not suggesting that gloves don't have that effect, but what you have just posted doesn't suggest that you are really that concerned with risk compensation and helmets: You've cited what concerns you about helmets. I'm genuinely not trying to accuse you of arguing in bad faith as I have a lot of respect for the way you conduct yourself in these discussions (in various forums), but it often seems to me that in general people are utilising any argument that falls to hand as long as they don't have to wear a helmet. Smudge on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=7#post-74024 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:35:02 +0000 Smudge 74024@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ "...that would <strike>give the impression</strike> mean admitting that driving <strike>was</strike> is dangerous..." Fixed that for you ;-) Yes I know you had the sarcasm markers on that, but just too tempting! (esp having had to do first aid at serious/fatal vehicle crash(es) ) :-( crowriver on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=7#post-74021 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:30:49 +0000 crowriver 74021@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ @Smudge, yeah but then that would give the impression that driving was dangerous. Everybody knows driving is perfectly safe, or would be if it wasn't for irresponsible cyclists and pedestrians recklessly getting the way. It's the cyclists who are dangerous to themselves and others, as anyone with any common sense knows. Dave on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=7#post-74020 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:26:12 +0000 Dave 74020@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ I don't see people going online to suggest that wearing gloves potentially has negative effects in terms of risk compensation. The reason being, I suggest, is that people don't feel that strong negativity about wearing them. I suggest alternative reasons: - there's no suggestion that you'll one day be chased down and fined by the police for not wearing gloves - you don't, at present, have to wear gloves to be treated equally in certain events or even to enter them at all - if a drunk motorist hits you and damages your hand, they won't be let off lightly if you were barehanded and you certainly won't struggle to get compensation for the damage they caused you. Of course gloves cause risk compensation, it seems strange to me to suggest they don't (how much is another question!). Literally everything fits into a matrix that, as a whole, strongly influences behaviour. IMO. Instography on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=7#post-74019 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:24:33 +0000 Instography 74019@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ @stiltskin That would only be fair if you discount the role of the other people who co-wrote the report. Fairer: a leading anti-helmet campaigner writing in collaboration with ... (actually I have no idea who). And it still doesn't accord any validity to the point the authors are making, which is more important to me. I would have agreed with the basic point if it had come from a leading campaigner for helmet compulsion. It's a basic point of critical thinking. Smudge on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=7#post-74018 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:16:59 +0000 Smudge 74018@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Of course if we *really* wanted to make the roads safer, we'd insist all new cars have a proper rollcage fitted (not some indefinite "safety cell" which is conveniently vague and will deform in relatively minor impacts, a proper FIA spec one), fixed non-reclining seats, proper (minimum) four point seatblets, proper firewalls and a plumbed in extinguisher system as well as an external electrical cut out switch. Oh and all drivers would be obliged to wear crash helmets. Excessive? Well it's the absolute minimum required before you race a car in a roadgoing class, and that is one of the reasons why motor racing is generally safer than driving on the road. This would increase safety for the majority of the population and greatly reduce the burden on the emergency services/NHS. Unfortunately, it would be classed as "inconvenient" or "off putting" or "too expensive", all of which are thin excuses when they are actually inspected closely. The basic truth is that the authorities and manufacturers are prepared to accept a high level of casualties as long as it doesn't become a political hot potato, when we talk about institutional support for helmet use/compulsion it has a lot less to do with safety and a lot more to do with politics and greed imho. stiltskin on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=7#post-74017 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:10:24 +0000 stiltskin 74017@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Chdot: I think the crux of the matter is not that: It just seems strange that 'cycling' has become the focus of 'it's irresponsible not to take all necessary precautions' more than most other activities/parts of life. But what we are discussing is 'reasonable precautions' which in this context means whether the benefits to be gained outweigh the disadvantages of wearing a helmet. What skews the helmet debate is that a significant number of people don't like wearing them for whatever reason. If you think back to the introduction of seatbelt laws there was an awful lot of grumbling about the inconvenience, discomfort etc (as well as a few stories of people being trapped in their cars and being burned to death.) The point is, we have largely come to accept the downsides of seatbelts and just put them on without thinking.. it is all part of driving a car and is seen as a reasonable precaution to take. You could argue 'why not wear a five point harness, neck brace and a crash helmet when driving' & the answer is because that, given the risks that is seen as an excessive inconvenience. The point I'm trying to make is that cycling isn't being singled out, merely what some people see as a reasonable non-onerous precaution comes up against what other people have strong objections to. You could make a lot of the same arguments about track mitts in terms of why don't peds wear them etc, but I don't see people going online to suggest that wearing gloves potentially has negative effects in terms of risk compensation. The reason being, I suggest, is that people don't feel that strong negativity about wearing them. stiltskin on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=7#post-74015 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:49:53 +0000 stiltskin 74015@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ Insto, it isn't that I necessarily discount what they say, it is more that when something is introduced as: If we're quoting public health people, I think it might be equally fair to say: " Here is what a leading anti-helmet campaigner has to say." chdot on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=7#post-74009 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:20:42 +0000 chdot 74009@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ "Only slightly" Thanks. You're probably right... crowriver on "'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'" http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916&page=7#post-74006 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:11:40 +0000 crowriver 74006@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ The thing that bothers me is that there seems to a 'road safety' (or perhaps Road Safety) view that helmets make people "safe" and if everyone wore one all problems would go away - I exaggerate. Only slightly. I'm afraid this comes down to a motor vehicle centred society ignoring the elephant in the room: that motor vehicles are still killing thousands a year, and injuring or crippling many more. Naturally, that's inconvenient: everyone 'has' to drive, right? So blame the victims instead: the pedestrians that "don't look where they're going" rather than the driver that was going too fast for the conditions; the cyclist who was "irresponsible" not wearing a helmet, hi-viz and body armour rather than the driver who "didn't see" them; etc, etc, ad nauseam. Is it any coincidence that helmet proliferation and creeping (or actual) compulsion occurs in the most motorised, least cycling and pedestrian friendly countries? Australia, USA, Canada, UK: all places where cyclists are a tiny out group and where even pedestrian travel is often discouraged (eg. there are many parts of the US where sidewalks/pavements do not exist, making walking dangerous). I honestly cannot even imagine this debate taking place in other northern European countries. Their version of "common sense" must be very different from the Anglo-Saxon version.* * with apologies to the Celtic nations, but culturally and linguistically we are, for better or worse, hitched to the Anglo-Saxon sphere of influence.