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

No tags yet.


123…8

  1. Morningsider
    Member

    crowriver - you are, of course, correct about the misrepresentation. However, I think it is obvious that this would be one of the results of this decision. My main concern is that when someone MSP or Councillor who doesn't regularly deal with cycling issues hears of SPOKES the thing they will remember is "don't like helmets" rather than "solid track record in evidence based campaigning".

    SRD - in my experience, the story is what the media chooses to report, rather than what people have actually said. In this instance, most cyclists seem to agree - but the media have chosen to report on a "split", always good news as far as reporters are concerned.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  2. remberbuck
    Member

    There are times when nuance and sophistication about argument are just wrong. This is not really about helmet wearing or otherwise.

    It is just about Spokes being stupid.

    End of.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  3. lionfish
    Member

    Woah. Things are getting a bit tense on here.

    I'm a member of spokes and help out quite a bit. I'm on the fence on this issue though (think helmets help, but don't want enforcement as it puts people off cycling, but not sure it's worth the stress SPOKES has just unleashed, worried this is a distraction)...

    Anyway, I'm still very happy to continue supporting SPOKES. I think Edinburgh would be quite a different place for cyclists if spokes hadn't been campaigning for so many years.

    This reminds me of campaigning with Amnesty International: Not all the members will completely agree with all the stances Amnesty takes on all issues, but, on the whole, we agree with most stuff, and it's worth supporting as it's broadly in the right direction. Does that make sense?

    btw: Let's keep insults off the forum.

    Thanks.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  4. cc
    Member

    It's not as if Spokes has just gone anti-h*lm*t. It's just refusing to take part in compulsion. I think it's being very sensible and fair.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  5. Smudge
    Member

    +1 for the last two posters, well said chaps.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  6. remberbuck
    Member

    But CTC have no problem with being anti compulsion, yet happy enough to allow coverage in their publications for such events. Which begs the question why have Spokes chosen to withdraw from sensible self choice and stand on one side of the fence - and semantics apart, this is what they have done.

    Before replying I took the chance to reread my renewal letter. I fail to see where this sits in the aims and purposes set out in the first few paragraphs. My conclusion is that this can only originate in gesture politicing.

    My consolation is realising that in the real world, the effect of this "stance" will be small to non existent - other than allow the "Scotsman" a shot at an open goal. And, Morningsider is right on the bigger and longer picture.

    Lionfish you are quite correct, this is not a forum for insults, but sometimes the descriptor is correct.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  7. Dave
    Member

    An excellent step, and all the more surprising for it.

    There's little point re-hashing the same arguments again and again - although if anyone wants a pocket summary, I quite like http://wrongheaded.org.uk/ for a snap summary.

    The wife is currently hobbling on crutches after an off last week on gravel. Her helmet is cracked in two places (although the foam doesn't appear at all compressed when compared with the 'good' side), and naturally she's convinced that she'd be dead without it.

    I remain sceptical. Since the unprotected parts of her body that hit the ground didn't shatter like raw egg, is it likely that her head, which is better protected than everything else, would have exploded as she imagines?

    More to the point though, if she'd forgotten her helmet there's absolutely no way she'd have been doing 30mph around a blind bend on a singletrack road in the first place. Stuff like that is pretty hard to capture in statistics though, and there's so much "commonsense"/dogma in the prevailing wind that everyone who hits their head with a helmet on was clearly saved by it, while everyone who survives without is a walking miracle ;-)

    Well done Spokes!

    Posted 11 years ago #

  8. Kenny
    Member

    Although helmets are only tested up to 12mph, that doesn't mean they are necessarily useless above 12mph, right? If I came off my bike doing a leisurely 15mph, I'd be hoping my helmet would be of some use in protecting my head.

    I have learnt from this thread, though, that I shouldn't have taken my rear reflector off. Oops. I'll go put it back on again.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  9. cc
    Member

    @mkns Yes, reflectors are definitely a good idea - they can be far more visible than most bike lights since they can shine for a driver with something proportional to the full force of a car's headlights (unless you point them at the ground or the sky as some folk do). Likely to be a lot brighter than your average wimpy bike light anyway.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  10. Dave
    Member

    It's not even that simple really because 12mph is just how fast your head would be going if you tombstoned the ground from standing height - how fast you're going forwards doesn't matter too much unless you hit something solid.

    Interestingly and unfortunately, most people who come off badly have a "diffuse" brain injury caused by rotation as opposed to a physical smashed skull. It's not clear that making your head bigger and swapping a wet scalp for polystyrene helps with rotational injuries, and that may be part of the reason why all things being equal, populations of cyclists who wear helmets don't have a lower injury rate than the ones who do it bareheaded (even though the Dutch ride upright town bikes so their heads are higher off the ground)

    </stirs>

    Posted 11 years ago #

  11. Kenny
    Member

    In my defence, I do have a back light for use when it's dark. I'd assumed (incorrectly) that this meant I didn't need a reflector. You live and learn.

    As for the reasons why under 18s need to wear a helmet, I just read this while entering an event, which seems to concur with poster's suggestions as to why they are compulsory:

    For participants under the age of 18 wearing a cycling helmet is compulsory. This is a condition of our 2012 insurance

    Posted 11 years ago #

  12. Smudge
    Member

    "your average wimpy bike light " how about my cherry bomb and 5 led flashing cateye? and red retro-reflectives of course ;-)

    Posted 11 years ago #

  13. Tom
    Member

    @Dave - it's not even that simple. If your bike's wheels are brought to a sudden stop, for example by a skid or tree root, your head is subject to force amplification.

    The kinetic energy stored in your head is equal to the length D of your body times the force f produced by Newton's first law which states that an object (your head) will continue to move unless an opposite force is applied to it (and to which you can add gravity).

    When your head hits the ground it gets stopped by a force equal and opposite to the force acting on it. Your head can travel only a very short distance d before stopping. Since the stopping force F times that distance must be equal to your head's kinetic energy, it follows that F will be much greater than the original driving force f — roughly, by a factor D/d. So not a lot of energy is required initially to produce a huge force of impact on your head. That force of impact is equivalent to one half the mass of your head times the square of your head's speed at the time of impact (E={mv^2 \over 2}). While the energy of impact increases linearly with mass, it increases geometrically with the speed (which is also one of the the reasons 20mph is considerably more than one third safer than 30mph).

    So a 12mph crash will be a significantly faster impact by the time your head hits the ground. We use this effect to hit nails into pieces of wood.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  14. fimm
    Member

    I used to be very pro-helmet. I'm now much more ambivalent. However I wear one. One reason is to keep the criticism off, and another is that I'm concerned that if I am unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident that my lack of helmet would be taken into account, regardless of whether it had any influence on the accident or not.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  15. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    The one and only thing I'm going to contribute here is this.

    Not everyone who is pro-helmet is pro-compulsion
    Not everyone who is pro-choice is anti-helmet

    I don't wear a helmet to commute, it doesn't mean I hate everyone who does or think they're killing cycling.
    I wear a helmet to off-road (usually), it doesn't mean I think it will save my life.

    And, "even though the Dutch ride upright town bikes so their heads are higher off the ground" was explained/demonstrated to me by Marc van Woudenberg (Amsterdamize) with a nifty video of kids riding to school in either Amsterdam or Copenhagen and hitting a patch of ice. All bar one didn't actually fall, because the upright riding position actually makes it easier to get a foot down and retain balance - you're already in almost a standing position.

    One of the main problems with comparing helmet/head injury/accident statistics from varying different countries is the old apples and pears issue.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  16. spytfyre
    Member

    "I don't wear a helmet to commute, it doesn't mean I hate everyone who does or think they're killing cycling."

    I think this hits the nail on the head
    SPOKES has come across as hating those who do wear

    @wfb - goo.gl/ZDcL1
    all about perspective - yes there are people who didn't survive such an impact but we're not about to re-enact same impact with my living colleagues minus helmet to prove that it was the save - but I would strongly say it wasn't doing nothing, the specs are set out to stop helmet manufacturers getting sued

    Why hasn't someone fired a frozen chicken at a jet engine wearing one and another not wearing one to test the theory yet is beyond me

    Posted 11 years ago #

  17. crowriver
    Member

    SPOKES has come across as hating those who do wear

    That's simply not true. Your remark reminds me of the knee jerk reaction that many drivers have when they assume that people who are pro-cycling therefore 'hate' drivers (ie. them personally).

    To all the pro-h****t folks, 'we' don't hate you, 'we' just disagree. Okay?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  18. spytfyre
    Member

    ok - let me rephrase...
    "SPOKES has come across to me as hating those who do wear"

    Since I obviously can't speak for everyone right? I would have thought that part was obvious.
    You can't tell me what my percetion of the matter is.

    However if they come across this way to me then it is quite possible that they have come across this way to some others. How many is anyone's guess.

    Oh look - remberbuck said: "It is just about Spokes being stupid." seems I am not alone.

    And it's not knee-jerk I have taken plenty time to think about it. I didn't just come up with my opinion (which I'm entitled to last time I checked) in the time it takes to make a knee jerk.

    Also I'm not "pro helmet" (note no *'s) and I don't go telling people who're not wearing them to start.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  19. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    And so the argument goes no further - absolutely, tis down to personal perception, some think that it is SPOKES saying they dislike 'events' that require helmets; others extend that to SPOKES hating the actual 'cyclists' who wear helmets.

    Have to say that remberbuck saying SPOKES are being 'stupid' isn't exactly the same as saying that they 'hate cyclists whoo wear helmets' but maybe rememberbuck can clear up that particular ambiguity. I called a driver stupid this morning, I'm not sure he'll have taken that as me thinking he hates cyclists who wear helmets... ;)

    Oh, and the asterisked 'helmets' thing, like putting asterisks in 'puncture'... Just don't do. Byut then that's my personal preference... :P (the helmet asterisks do give the impression of helmet being a swearword, which is an immediate negative connotation, whereas I think it's more to do with their mention always bringing out arguments.

    Wear a helmet. Don't wear a helmet. Couldn't care less either way. Just don't evangelise my ass either way.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  20. Uberuce
    Member

    Since I've got a dent in my skull from a helmet-less off, I hereby claim to have more authority than anyone else in this thread, and I declare:

    I'm just not sure, either way.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  21. remberbuck
    Member

    Well, I don't know if I'm right or not, but I'll guess that Spokes don't hate cyclists that wear helmets. But I think they have gone further than disliking events that require helmets: they have adopted a policy that means they will refuse to promote or assist cycling events, invariably among the most popular in the calendar, and for an organisation whose purpose is to encourage cycling, that is perverse.

    To quote a Borders colleague: That kind of pettiness will do nothing but harm to cycling and just promotes the Jeremy Clarkson view of us all.

    Now that result is pretty dumb.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  22. Dave
    Member

    It seems weird to me that "Spokes withdrawing support for compulsory helmet events" is being spun into an attack on people who want to wear helmets.

    Surely for that to be the case, it would need to be "Spokes withdrawing support for events where helmets are allowed"?

    Suppose they declined to support events that were for white skinned people only - is that an attack on white people? Come on!

    Seems to me a straightforward case of Spokes defending the right to choose by declining to support events where choice is not given.

    Personally, that's a choice I also make - I wouldn't ride an event where helmets or hi viz suits were mandatory, so a big thumbs up from this quarter.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  23. Dave
    Member

    "...they have adopted a policy that means they will refuse to promote or assist cycling events, invariably among the most popular in the calendar, and for an organisation whose purpoae is to encourage cycklingm, that is perverse."

    Maybe it would help to think of it like this: currently a significant number of cyclists (including many on this forum) that want to choose how they dress who are being excluded from popular cycling events.

    By adopting a policy that they will only support inclusive cycling events, Spokes are sending a powerful message.

    If other cycling groups followed suit, these events might choose insurance cover that allows for bareheadedness - even audax events costing < £5 to enter are fully insured for cyclists without regulating how they dress.

    To quote a Borders colleague: That kind of pettiness will do nothing but harm to cycling and just promotes the Jeremy Clarkson view of us all.

    I don't understand this idea at all. Clarkson and his ilk love to hate lycra louts who inevitably wear helmets.

    How on earth can encouraging participation amongst people who don't fit the stereotype (people who look like normal folk, non-cyclists like Clarkson in fact) do harm to cycling?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  24. stiltskin
    Member

    I'm afraid the way I see it is that Spokes have taken sides. (Especially as they promote cycle hemets.org as a neutral website). They could have avoided alienating part of their membership by not taking sides & not saying anything. It would have been sensible not to drag themselves into the argument.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  25. wingpig
    Member

    "...is being spun into an attack on people who want to wear helmets."

    The distasteful moment for me, on reading the Spokes bulletin, was seeing to what/whom they'd linked for further reading. Spokes themselves aren't making any snarky comments about people who choose to wear helmets but there are people out there who do so fairly regularly.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  26. SRD
    Moderator

    @wingpig yes, that link was one of the things that made me feel uneasy about it too.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  27. remberbuck
    Member

    It is not for me to defend Scott's comment but Jeremy Clarkson is equally "sardonic" to bare headed wicker basket Pashley riders .... We are all Spartacus perhaps.

    The point is simple. Ammunition was given to the enemy. Crass.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  28. spytfyre
    Member

    @wingpig - good point I had almost given up reading before i got to that bit.
    @Dave - "Personally, that's a choice I also make - I wouldn't ride an event where helmets or hi viz suits were mandatory, so a big thumbs up from this quarter."
    Yes and fair enough - if an event says "no-one without a helmet can ride" you wouldn't go, I probably wouldn't even go as they were being stupid BUT what SPOKES have done is say "we'll make the decision for you"
    They should have remained neutral and let people make up their own minds and vote with their feet, mandatory helmets for charity rides - I fail to see the issue of they have some mental formd to fill in I find it unlikely they would be able to stop people from joining in or following at even a minimum distance I think the fact they have ticked the box that shows they asked everyone to wear them but they are not able to enforce it as it's not a law then why fuss?
    Event organisers may see a drop in numbers and go back when they learn what this does but they will definitely see a drop in numbers now as SPOKES won't be telling people about the event in the first place.

    I haven't yet got round to my rant about this so-called "creeping mandatory" thing. I see dozens of cyclists out in the sunshine not wearing, nobody telling them and hey if someone does tell them they can be an adult, grow a pair and stand up for themselves reminding the teller "it's my choice"

    I feel there can never be a mandatory law, the politicians have too many environment targets to hit without alienating or putting people off cycling.
    They'd also have to employ a large number of cycle cops to catch anyone flouting said law as we all know one way streets and dead ends with bollards we could easily slip away from a police car, this would be a huge waste of cash too - catching us.

    Another thing they have done is spoil our run of not talking about this subject. I feel like we need a counter on the front page "There have been x days since we last argued about helmets" where x = 0 today

    Posted 11 years ago #

  29. Instography
    Member

    Perhaps it's a mistake to call it 'creeping compulsion' although if events are starting to make participation dependent on wearing a helmet then that seems like the start of something. But there is certainly strong social pressure for cyclists to wear helmets. It is evident in almost all of the promotional materials about cycling advising helmets and in all the imagery of cycling having people wearing helmets. It is in all the materials that my kids are given at school and the hyperbolic lies my son brings home from cubs (that, for example, someone was only saved from a lorry driving over their head by the fact that they were wearing a helmet). I don't mind people being left to make their own choices but these are not properly informed choices. And what Spokes seems to be asking for is that people be properly informed about the advantages and disadvantages.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  30. stiltskin
    Member

    [quote]And what Spokes seems to be asking for is that people be properly informed about the advantages and disadvantages.
    [/quote]

    The problem is that Spokes appear to be only highlighting the disadvantages.....

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

123…8

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin