Feedback on Spokes' stance on helmet compulsion in events

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News

Feedback on Spokes' stance on helmet compulsion in events

(49 posts)

Started 11 years ago by chdot
Latest reply from chdot
This topic is closed

No tags yet.

12 Next »

chdot
Admin

"

Spokes CycleCampaign (@SpokesLothian)

15/06/2012 20:31

@SpokesLothian #helmet feedback+F'SH'T spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2012… @CyclingEdin #PoP28 @CyclenationUK @CyclingScotland @CTC_Cyclists @copenhagenize

"
"
Spokes does not have the time or resources to mount a major campaign on this – that is up to national cycling organisations – but, in view of the interest, we have published a factsheet [pdf 390k] summarising our concerns and the arguments

http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2012/06/helmets-factsheet

"
City Cycling Edinburgh Forum An extensive discussion of the Spokes decision took place. http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6916

Member Feedback
Interestingly, we only had email or twitter feedback from 4 Spokes members, 3 in support, 1 against. Since one might expect those not supporting the new policy to get in touch, this is an encouraging ratio.

"
http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2012/06/helmets-factsheet/#1

Posted 11 years ago #
wingpig
Member

"Since one might expect those not supporting the new policy to get in touch, this is an encouraging ratio."

What sort of electronic response-volumes have they had on other topics, given their tendency to publish things as PDFs or paper leaflets?

Posted 11 years ago #
chdot
Admin

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/News/Campaigners-eye-boycott-in-safety-dispute-31102012.htm

Posted 11 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"
The Scottish cycling organisation Spokes has decided not to advertise cycling events where helmets are compulsory. Spokes says these helmet policies deter participation in cycling and give a false sense of security to those wearing helmets.

"

http://bit.ly/11C8te3

Posted 10 years ago #
allebong
Member

I wasn't signed up here when the original thread discussion took place so I might as well get the ball-bearings rolling again with my two cents.

To be honest, I was quite surprised at the announcement, I mean it's one thing to say you don't approve of the 'helmet culture' but it's another to actively not support cycling events that conflict with that stance. I do absolutely appreciate though that they're caught in an unenviable position. If you don't support helmet compulsion at these events (I don't) then it is difficult to give publicity to these things if you believe it's doing more harm than good. At the same time the sight of a cycling group like spokes starting to pick and choose who they support does seem quite at odds with their message - to me it's like 'we fully support cycling so long as you don't disagree with us'. Cycling doesn't have many allies, I don't want to see us torn apart by infighting.

Whatever my views though I have the utmost respect for their decision and I really admire them making a deal out of this rather than letting it slide. The fact that all this controversy happened is (probably!) for the best since the issue is getting properly discussed. For the record I am generally a helmet person but I absolutely oppose any form of compulsion or expectation that cyclists 'should' be wearing the things.

Posted 10 years ago #
wee folding bike
Member

I like the idea of actively not doing something.

I'm going to try that the next time the management wants something done in the garden.

Posted 10 years ago #
gembo
Member

I asked my staff to actively not do something recently and they all complied.

I mostly wear a helmet, but not at PoP, on closed road tweed bunnet was ideal. Am also against compulsion. I think insurance at events might be harder if helmets not required?

I think if That is correct then there should be a way of campaigning against it but I don't know if the Spokes approach of not advertising events where helmets are required will have the necessary impact?

Posted 10 years ago #
Instography
Member

It seemed like a straightforward position to me: if you're against compulsory helmeting then you don't endorse things that compel people to wear a helmet.

Posted 10 years ago #
amir
Member

It is a difficult balance. From my perspective, it is better support things that promote cycling. However I certainly don't support helmet compulsion.

"I mostly wear a helmet, but not at PoP, on closed road tweed bunnet was ideal."

Strangely enough, I think that wearing a helmet was more justifiable (personally) at POP due to the low speeds and lots of cyclists.

Posted 10 years ago #
Dave
Member

It's the Dutch conundrum. We tell ourselves that the Dutch don't wear helmets because they don't get run over by trucks like we do.

Alas, helmets do nothing for you when you've been crushed by a truck.

Having largely eliminated that type of collision, the Dutch have most to gain from helmets, and we the least.

The enthusiasm with which we proselytize helmets as a culture is inversely proportional to our success at having a cycling culture, and forever will be.

I admire Spokes for making a stand.

Audax UK has absolutely no trouble with event insurance and they don't require helmets, for starters...

Posted 10 years ago #
DdF
Member

Interesting NZ helmet paper currently doing the rounds on twitter...
http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/125-1349/5046/

Includes further evidence that helmet-users are more likely to have a crash. Obviously there could be many reasons for this, but surely those who sell or promote helmets should have a responsibility to explain the main cons as well as the main pros, so that people can make an informed choice rather than a potentially misleading 'common sense' choice.

Of course, there are loads more papers. e.g. links here...

http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/documents/advice/helmets/

Finally...
@allebong "the sight of a cycling group like spokes starting to pick and choose who they support"

The picking and choosing starts with the organisers of those events which ban any member of the public who does not wish to use a helmet. Do you really think we should encourage such discrimination, particularly when it is based on highly disputed evidence?

And ... we have persuaded at least one organisation to get event insurance which now allows people who feel safer or happier unhelmeted to take part. In this respect we are widening access to cycling events, not restricting it!!

Posted 10 years ago #
allebong
Member

@ DfF and others

At no point did I say I disagreed with the decision, nor did I suggest that spokes should go against their beliefs by supporting events that contradict their stance. I was merely offering my opinion on what I thought of the announcement upon first hearing it. That opinion was simply that it seemed strange for a cycling group to not support cycling events. This says nothing about my own beliefs in the matter, or my overall opinion of spokes, both of which I hope I made clear in my post.

Posted 10 years ago #
Two Tired
Member

Correlation does not imply causation.

Posted 10 years ago #
DdF
Member

@two tired Absolutely right - hence the phrase "Obviously there could be many reasons for this" [e.g. it could be that those who choose helmets tend to be risk-takers, though I doubt it].

Nonetheless, when we are presented with the pros by the manufacturers and promoters we should also be given the cons.

Posted 10 years ago #
Dave
Member

Haven't read the linked paper, but it could be one of those things like white motorcycle helmets?

Cautious motorcyclists are more likely to buy a white helmet, hence there is correlation (but not causation) between white helmets and reduced mortality.

As you say, it could be that there is something about helmet-wearing riders that means as a group they are more likely to suffer injury or death without implying that any individual will change their own outcomes based on their choice.

Posted 10 years ago #
Two Tired
Member

But what exactly are the main cons of wearing a helmet? Other than correlations...

Christ I could draw up some statistics that stated that because I skipped breakfast this morning I am more likely to die from an avalanche.

Posted 10 years ago #
steveo
Member

ruh roh...

Posted 10 years ago #
Two Tired
Member

< puts giant spoon away

Posted 10 years ago #
Baldcyclist
Member

But what exactly are the main cons of wearing a helmet?

They can ruffle your hair apparently, although not in my case clearly.

Because one's hair is ruffled, apparently you are 72% more likely to cycle more quickly and/or erratically than is safe in search of a brush (again this is anecdotal, I have never found myself in such a position.)

Posted 10 years ago #
Instography
Member

I bet you couldn't draw up some statistics that showed any plausible relationship between breakfast skipping and death by avalanche.

People say you can prove anything with statistics. Quite the opposite, you can prove almost nothing with statistics but you can often show a relationship and often suggest a plausible path of possible causation.

For me, the main con is that I don't want to wear one.

Posted 10 years ago #
Two Tired
Member

I bet you couldn't draw up some statistics that showed any plausible relationship between breakfast skipping and death by avalanche.

This is actually my point, key word being plausible.

Posted 10 years ago #
Uberuce
Member

Almost OT: SRD kindly loaned me three Tour de France books recently, and in one of them (Ned Boulter's How I Won the Yellow Jumper) there's mention of the fact the motorbike camera units can't film the riders from the front on descents because they can't go as fast.

This is in the same chapter as an account of a rider who died after losing the road on a descent, which Ned attributed to his lack of helmet. I thought: hrmm must remember to post that next time there's an hasteriskasteriskasteriskasteriskasterisk thread.

Posted 10 years ago #
Two Tired
Member

For me, the main con is that I don't want to wear one.

And this is fair enough :-)

Posted 10 years ago #
Morningsider
Member

I have read the NZ report. It's, how can I put this, of questionable value. It makes some fairly heroic assumptions and unusual comparisons between pedestrian and cyclist safety.

I should say that I am completely opposed to compulsory helmet wearing, but agree with allebong's view that far too much useful cycle campaign time is spent on a side issue of no importance to anyone but cycle obsessives.

Two Tired - I never skip breakfast, you can't be too careful!

Posted 10 years ago #
Kenny
Member

I too don't understand why people refuse to wear helmets. I don't think there should be a law making people do it though, much in the same way that I don't think there should be a seatbelt law - if people are stupid enough to cycle in an environment where a helmet could help them and they fail to wear them, then that's their problem, not mine. The whole "it won't save you from a truck" example is irrelevant, since the helmet is not intended to save you from that. It will save you when you come off your bike taking a corner too aggressively though, I can guarantee you that.

I will always recommend to my brood of daughters that they wear a helmet when cycling anywhere but in our garden. I do the same, and I'm quite particular about how awesome my hair looks, so they can too.

Posted 10 years ago #
Dave
Member

Plausibility is in the eye of the beholder, but I can give you two possibilities for starters:

- cyclists who wear a helmet subconsciously take greater risks with traffic, outweighing any advantage bestowed by the wearing of a helmet. The Munich taxi experiment may be an eye-opener?

- drivers take less care around helmeted cyclists, either because their assessment of the helmeted rider's competence is higher or because the perceived outcome of any collision is less severe. See here - a limited study but one which showed a 30% increase in vehicles overtaking with < 1m clearance when a helmet was worn.

While it's true that nobody has pinpointed a cause(s), we do know that when helmet wearing rates rapidly increase, head injury rates don't decline, thanks to our antipodean friends and other former colonies who have put it to the test. There are lots of possible causes though.

Posted 10 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

"This is actually my point, key word being plausible."

Which does, of course, work both ways.

The fact of the matter is there is so much in the way of statistics and quasi-medical 'facts' bandied about both for and against the wearing of helmets that each individual is left to weigh up their own risks, and to consider what they actually believe (given we will all have a different idea of what is plausible).

Of course as soon as you say that you don't wear a helmet because you personally feel that it doesn't benefit you, you are immediately branded as 'anti' helmet, which is, the majority of the time, not the case. I don't like the taste of raw tomatoes, that doesn't mean I'm anti-tomato, nor do I want every other person to stop eating tomatoes just because I don't like them.

I say this primarily because so often the 'debate' goes into black-and-white mode, when there are so many greys in there they would make John Major explode in pleasure.

My usual line is thus: I don't wear one to commute; I do to mountain bike or if the event mandates it and I really want to ride the event; what other people want to do is entirely up to them. It's kinda like religion, do what you want, just don't try to convert me [EDIT] or suggest that my 'informed choice' makes me 'stupid'.

Posted 10 years ago #
rust
Member

Not to fuel this, but...

if people are stupid enough to cycle in an environment where a helmet could help them and they fail to wear them, then that's their problem, not mine

Do I need to go in to the reductio ad absurdum argument for this? Wearing helmets while walking? While driving (ok, maybe statistically not that absurd, but culturally at least)?

It will save you when you come off your bike taking a corner too aggressively though, I can guarantee you that

It might do. But it depends on so many other things. Speed and what else I hit as I come off. A sharp railing or fence post through my chest won't be prevented by a helmet.

Posted 10 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

"if people are stupid enough to cycle in an environment where a helmet could help them and they fail to wear them, then that's their problem, not mine"

Thanks for that. Adds to the debate nicely.

Posted 10 years ago #
Morningsider
Member

NooOOOOooooo...it's started again!

Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12 Next »

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.

// CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

About This Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News

Feedback on Spokes' stance on helmet compulsion in events

Topic Closed

RSS Feeds

Links