Based on Spokes leaflet declaration.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
'Cycling body withdraws support for events that encourage the use of helmets'
(219 posts)- Started 11 years ago by chdot
- Latest reply from chdot
- This topic is
closed
-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
The arguments for and against helmet use are well documentated, but for an organisation to not support events because of the 'helmet' seems counter productive to me.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I'm torn between saying 'good for Spokes' in that they're taking a stand about something they believe in and being really rather appalled.
I agree that the imagery of cycling with everyone wearing a helmet is unhelpful, and I would rather not see it. Also that the 12mph safety issue ought to be more clearly highlighted in helmet advertising. But I am not sure that requiring helmet wear for under 18s is worth the fight (ironically, isn't this the event that showed a bloke with a helmet dangling from his handlebars?).
And, I guess, a further question for me is that when I signed up to Spokes membership, was it clear to me that this was their policy? perhaps I need to read the website more carefully. If the membership supports this policy, then let them go for it, but I'd rather see a campaign about advertising and sales, than an issue made about a clueless charity with a 'policy' and contradictory advertising. [I presume spokes (which is good at this sort of thing) contacted the charity and discussed with them?]
Posted 11 years ago # -
I support the stance. There is a air of creeping compulsion in the form of disapproval if one does not wear a helmet. Personally I wear a helmet sometimes, eg. in winter when road conditions are poor, and on longer/faster rides. The rest of the time I don't. I wouldn't want it to be illegal not to wear one.
The culture of disapproval could lead to pressure for compulsory helemet wearing, especially if noises are being made about cycling safety: blaming the victims so much easier than controlling recklessness amongst the majority group, after all.
If only people were similarly disapproving of 'creeping over' the speed limit in motor vehicles, illegal parking, etc.
Posted 11 years ago # -
If it was only creeping over the speed limit, more like blatantly ignoring them in many cases. I had two cars pass me yesterday on the A7 in a 40 mph section who were probably exceeding 60 mph.
I also find that the assumption is that not wearing a helmet is actually already illegal already by a great many people. I have also found that a great many cyclists seem to expect everyone to wear one and that it is in your interests to do so because anecdotally they tell you of how they have been saved or their friend has been saved by their helmet. I for one have never as yet come off my bike where I have ever had the need for a helmet and that is for more years than I care to remember. I also had one person say to me that they would not speak to me again until I wore a helmet (I am sure I have said this before) and quite frankly was I worried...no, and did think at the time that will be a very long time then, if not ever again!!
I am with Spokes on this one. It is time someone stood up to be counted with a counter argument to this.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Made it to comment 3 before someone mentioned tests, licences, registration and insurance.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I support the Spokes position. Whatever your personal opinion and choice about wearing a helmet, the important point is that there is irrefutable evidence that (a) cycling isn't dangerous and (b) it's good for you.
I get depressed by the creeping compulsion that crowriver refers to. I also get depressed by people who don't fit their (and, more importantly, their children's) helmets properly. I passed a kid last week riding with an adult, and the child was wearing the helmet like a necklace: off their head, and hanging round their neck with the strap done up. All it was doing was creating a risk of strangulation and neck damage.
I support people's right to make an informed choice to wear one (or not), and I just wish I could see more evidence that many people wearing them had made an informed choice and were therefore wearing the thing properly, rather than a woolly "if I slap one of these on my head any old how I'll be 'safe'".
Posted 11 years ago # -
A spokes member told me the position on helmets has been similar for a while. The bits I read in the newsletter were reasonable.my view on helmets being non compulsory has been shaped by this forum. I asked on a previous sting whether events now need helmets for their insurance? I will continue to wear a helmet but it is a personal choice and not much protection from some of the drivers out there.
Posted 11 years ago # -
In my experience, living between two main Edinburgh University campuses, it's fairly common in the more wintry seasons to come across people cycling in darkness with no lights and wearing entirely dark clothing, but with a helmet on.
Posted 11 years ago # -
We are all only as interesting as our contradictions but why bother with the helmet if you aren't going for lights? We have said this before, the car driver complains you don't have lights but they can see you. I go for lights myself are they compulsory?
Posted 11 years ago # -
AFAIK the only safety fittings which are compulsory on a bicycle are brakes; white front reflector; red rear reflector; yellow reflectors on pedals, front and rear. How many of us have all of these on our bikes I wonder?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Errrr… me.
But only on four of them. Are you sure about the front reflector?
Two of the four have built in lights too.
Racing bikes are tricky for some of these things but my cycling shoes for that one have reflectors on the back.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Details of cycle reflector/light law (possibly England & Wales)
Apparently the items need to be present after sunset:
White (or yellow) front and red rear British Standard marked lights, red rear reflector, amber pedal reflectors (front & rear facing on each pedal, if made after 1st October 1985).
So, no requirement for a front (white) reflector.
Riding at night without lights is very dim...
Robert
Posted 11 years ago # -
I can see where Spokes is coming from on this. However I am not sure whether this action would make much difference (on its own). Perhaps it would take the might of national organisations like CTC or BC to make a real difference. Also I am not sure to what extent the insurers insist on such rules. Finally I would be even more reticent about withdrawing support for events run for charity.
Posted 11 years ago # -
It might make charity rides consider why they require these items.
I've asked many times and never got an answer outwith fluffy arm waving things like safety or common sense. They never know details but then I doubt they give it much thought. Everybody knows we should be wearing them, don't they?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Like others, my views on helmets have changed but while I am quite convinced by the evidence that helmets do less good than often assumed, I am somewhat less convinced about the claims that they do actual harm (but lets not debate that again please).
As a result, I would quite like to see a concerted effort from cycling and/or safety groups challenging claims made about helmets, advertising etc. But refusing to support rides which require helmets, especially for under-18s doesn't seem a good start to this.
Anyway, as I've said if Spokes' feels strongly enough about this to pursue it and has enough backing from their members, then good for them. Maybe they'll be trend-setters, and we'll see a real roll-back of helmet use/advertising and imagery, leading to more informed choice.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I am somewhat less convinced about the claims that they do actual harm (but lets not debate that again please).
That's a bit naughty. It lets you get in a free hit then run away.
Even without the physical damage caused by hats my boys get told off in school for not wearing them. Hats got a mention in the school news letter written by the HT who turns up in a Mercedes Benz. I suspect she knows as much a hats as she does about the history of her car.
My boys were as concerned about the news letter as I would expect them to be.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Wee foldie -- yes, naughty, but I was trying to explain the 'logic' of my position (which some of you doubtless consider entirely illogical anyway). And to keep the debate from being totally derailed.
I deal with enough guilt/grief for taking my kids on the road. couldn't deal with the flak of doing it without helmets.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Whereas I have no such guilt. I'm quite happy to take on all comers should they be rash enough to criticise my head gear. Even the memsahib has not prevailed on the Lowe Alpine Trail Cap question. She doesn't seem to mind the Tilley but that might be because it's relatively normal looking.
Boys are not made of sugar and you can't child proof the world. I do notice that my boys are better on the road than the secondary school kids down the street (who do wear hats). My boys check for traffic whereas the older kids ride on the wrong side of the road, on the pavement and don't check before starting off or going through junctions.
Number 4 could be more of a challenge but that's for reasons not related to cycling and not addressed by a hat.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"Boys are not made of sugar and you can't child proof the world." Nor girls. Mine very aware of traffic. Does all my signals for me :)
Couldn't agree more. In fact, I think it would be bad if you could childproof the world.
Met a colleague the other day whose 15 year old daughter insists on going everywhere by bike. was very impressed. except she phones home for route advice. so I send them cyclestreets link - very happy with app.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"15 year old daughter insists on going everywhere by bike"
At 15 mine didn't much - most of her friends didn't have bikes.
Now cycles to work in London and as part/all of most holidays.
"insists" is right though...
Posted 11 years ago # -
this was/is being on Call Kaye I gather.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"Also I am not sure to what extent the insurers insist on such rules."
I don't think that they do, I have never been asked as a CTC member to wear a helmet so that I am insured in the event of anything untoward happening to me. In fact I am sure that with the price of some helmets the insurance companies would be quite happy if they did not have to fork out on claims for damaged ones. I recently also registered with a company that deals specifically with bike riders and claims in the event of an accident and they have not indicated to me in any way that this would be invalid if I were not wearing a helmet.
Lets face it you are not going to make a claim if you die as a result of an accident in any case, with or without a helmet.
As for charity rides that insist on helmet wearing...perhaps they may get more cyclists taking part if they did not although I cannot say I know this for sure. There are other very good reasons for not taking part in such events, as far as I am concerned, without them trying to impose a non-compulsory regulation on me, and just give me another good reason for not participating frankly.
Posted 11 years ago # -
That smacks to me more than a little of "throwing the dummy oot the pram, with the toys and the blankets"
Pretty soon they'll be complaining of being cold, bored and that they have nothing to suck on.The (sorry) BS of the "over 12mph" nonsense is just... well... nonsense. I know too many colleagues who are only here today after a 30mph+more crash with car, most involving windscreen then road head impact.
I think if a charity ride needs to tick the box that says "we asked everyone to wear a helmet" to get insurance and/or legal go ahead then don't bitch at them, they are after all a charity and bound by all manner of silly laws and hoops they have to jump through already - Spokes are just making their life more difficult and/or making themselves less relevant as an output for cycling news/events.
I've said my piece - I await the flamage of this (mostly it seems) anti-helmet forum
Posted 11 years ago # -
There are other very good reasons for not taking part in such events
Indeed, I believe we had a discussion on here some time ago about the merits/demerits of 'charidee' rides.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I would agree with Spitfyre on this one. We live in a compensation culture unfortunately and I suspect many charities are asking it because they're scared that if it came out that they hadn't required people to wear a lid and someone got hurt - that they might then be sued.
I'm happy being a spokes member but I do not think this was a sensible move.Posted 11 years ago # -
Spyt,
The 12 mph thing is in the design specs.
"The impactor shall be dropped onto the MEP at an impact velocity of 5.44 m/s ± 2%."
OK, it's actually 12.1 mph.You can find it here if you like:
http://www.cpsc.gov/businfo/frnotices/fr98/10mr98r.pdf
And I think you might have missed a bit:
I know too many colleagues who are only here today after a 30mph+more crash with car, most involving windscreen then road head impact.
I know lots of people who are here today but not after a 30 mph impact.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I think this was a mis-step by SPOKES. The story has now become "cyclists argue among themselves about helmets" rather than "cyclists promote the benefits of cycling".
I'm also intrigued by the claims of creeping compulsion. No-one has ever asked me to wear a helmet. I never see pictures of helmets as I don't read the cycling press. I see plenty of people cycling without helmets. I've never been accused of following fashion (lets face it - at present almost all cyclists are going against the mainstream) - if there is a fashion for wearing helmets. I'm not saying it is nonsense - just that I am not aware of compulsion as an issue.
I think kids wearing helmets is probably a good idea, as they are probably more likely to be involved in the low speed spills that helmets help protect against.
Posted 11 years ago # -
The story has now become "cyclists argue among themselves about helmets"
Interestingly, on twitter, John Lauder (Sustrans) & Chis Oliver (CTC-Scotland) were agreeing with Spokes.
Posted 11 years ago # -
The story has now become "cyclists argue among themselves about helmets"
The media often misrepresent things for their own reasons, and that article in particular misinterprets (perhaps deliberately, for dramatic effect) the Spokes statement.
Posted 11 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
posts
