Cycling UK Forum

pjclinch wrote:The continued promotion of helmets in training is, I think, a cock-up on multiple fronts more than a conspiracy.

Pete.

A conspiracy does not need to be conscious and explicit to be effective. When interests and world views coincide it is easy to accede to this sort of nonsense.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.".

A.Einstein.

Mike Sales wrote:

pedals2slowly wrote:Absolutely agreed, anyone in industrial H&S knows that PPE is bottom of the list in 'Hierarchy of controls', if ONLY we could get the general public, politicians, safety 'campaigners' and other cyclists to understand that there are many many things to tackle before helmet wearing it would be a tremendous step in tackling the real problems of safety when cycling on the road.

I suspect that controls higher up the hierarchy might involve changes or restrictions which impinge on other groups of road users (or road builders) and that is precisely why there is so much helmet propaganda. If helmets are the solution, then it is up to cyclists to make themselves safe, and nobody else need do anything.
These people do not want to understand.
Helmets are a diversion and an alibi.

To put it another way, if helmets are the answer then what is the question?

pete75 wrote:To put it another way, if helmets are the answer then what is the question?

As Peter Walker's chapter heading in the excellent Bike Nation states, “If Bike Helmets are the Answer, you're Asking the Wrong Question”

pedals2slowly wrote:Anyone else wondering if written risk assessments are fit for purpose?

Of course the major issue is where written assessments are not communicated to all the relevant people, which will include at least the trainees and any assistant trainers. For clarity, I'm not involved in cycle training, but certainly I've seen this elsewhere - the RA does the box-ticking and covering against later challenge, but doesn't actually reduce risk much because no-one (else) who matters knows about it!

Whereas a group of three or four leaders who had had a proper discussion of the risks in an activity could certainly testify, if needed, that this had taken place - and would be more likely to continue with a dynamic assessment during the activity itself.

If I were investigating an incident, and were presented with a written RA, I'd still want evidence from participants as to whether they'd seen the document, so a written one doesn't even create that much more certainty. This is not to say that a written one is not valuable for other reasons.