Big Bike revival ... yet more helmet normalising!

[gaz]

The vast majority of us over the age of 40 would have cycled sans helmet for a good long while, who shifted the thinking aside from BC?

BBC, I'm particularly thinkng of the way That's Life derided CTC over their position, the marketing departments of helmet manufacturers who are only concerned with p̶r̶o̶f̶i̶t̶ our safety, various "cycle" chainstores who decided that polystyrene hats would be promoted as an a̶d̶d̶i̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶ ̶s̶a̶l̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶o̶o̶s̶t̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶f̶i̶t̶ essential life-saving accessory, press articles where reporting the story of "my helmet saved my life" is a matter of s̶e̶n̶s̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶i̶s̶m̶ ̶s̶e̶l̶l̶s̶ ̶c̶o̶p̶y̶/̶c̶l̶i̶c̶k̶s̶ public interest. I'm sure there are more, that'll do for starters.

[horizon]

I think that CUK is caught between a rock and a hard place on this. They'll be pilloried by the media for not supporting helmet wear and criticised by us if they do.

[Psamathe]

I think that CUK is caught between a rock and a hard place on this. They'll be pilloried by the media for not supporting helmet wear and criticised by us if they do.

I understood they [CTC] had discussed and debated the issue and their decided stance/position. I would not be impressed if they are diluting their own stance just in case some press reporter disagrees with them. Similarly if they are changing their agreed position on a casual informal basis to try and balance differing (and in some cases, uninformed (Press)) opinions.

Ian

[PH]

criticised by us if they do.

Who's this us? The criticism is coming from a few individuals, if they believe they're commenting on behalf of a group they should say who that group is, we could then look at whether their views were representative.

[Lance Dopestrong]

Perhaps, and this is just an idea, CUK could present the information and let us adults make up our own minds? I don't see why they have to take a stance on something that isn't obligatory, and which has no immediate prospect of becoming so.

[pjclinch]

Stuff as we see on CUK website and the magazine is why in part people start wearing helmets in the first instance, they see it and think oh that's what I need because others like me are wearing them.

I agree that the people around are influencers, but why a few pictures in Cycle every couple of months is held to be the root of the problem... Well, no. It is a critical mass of cyclists on the ground.

Aside from the sports side of cycling who else is telling people they need to wear helmets, who introduced these people to cycling and said, right, you need to wear a plastic hat (well we know cycle trainers via local gov force kids to wear for a start off).
The vast majority of us over the age of 40 would have cycled sans helmet for a good long while, who shifted the thinking aside from BC?

Look at the comments after anything in the news where helmets might be brought up and it's pretty clear that cyclists are reinforcing the message that other cyclists should be wearing helmets. CUK have long had a very good set of resources on the actualities of cycle helmets, and it's quite obvious that very few people bother to seek them out because they start off "knowing' the Right Answer. If you think you know something because the local culture reinforces it you're not going to go looking for proof that you're wrong, having other things to do.

Who shifted the thinking? The Highway Code, and the line of evidence it was (short-sightedly) based on, widely promoted by well meaning media and politicians. Certainly not BC, who through the 90s when helmets because established had little influence outside of racing circles. I started wearing a helmet in '89, buying one with my first "proper" tourer because they were just coming out and it seemed like a good idea back then. It was a sign that, along with my Proper Touring Bike, I was a Proper Cyclist that took it seriously. I wasn't really aware that the BCF existed and certainly didn't have any knowledge about their opinions on helmets (did they have such a thing in '89?).

What you see in Cycle is a reflection of the reality of many groups of Cyclists. Last local CTC chapter ride I went on there were about a dozen of us. It was a little under 40 miles, nice day. I was the only person not wearing... a helmet, padded shorts, track mitts, "proper" cycle jersey. These folk are Enthusiasts and they like getting out in All The Gear.

Delivering training without a helmet is very hard. I've actually given up teaching kids because no local authorities in Scotland will let me run classes without a helmet (either children, or for adults training to be trainers). Before I gave up, the school where I'd delivered it for several years received complaints from parents that I was setting a bad example and shouldn't be allowed to carry on. Sustrans break their own helmet policy by insisting instructors wear helmets, and speaking to their head of public engagement this is nothing to do with safety, it is about preventing the complaints they previously had from Joe and Jane public that they were irresponsible.

We are in Furious Agreement that it's a problem, but CUK are not the villains of the piece as their stated policies on helmets and e.g. the need to remove their recommendation from the Highway Code quite clearly attest. Your big problems are far more at the local authority level because they are responsible (i.e., where the buck stops) for cycle training, and with the DfT still insisting on giving them the benefit of the doubt. That provides a helmet-centric environment that Sustrans, CUK etc. have to work in, and as I know from personal experience, if you don't conform to the required culture you are shut out. And if you're shut out you have no influence at all.

[pjclinch]

Perhaps, and this is just an idea, CUK could present the information and let us adults make up our own minds? I don't see why they have to take a stance on something that isn't obligatory, and which has no immediate prospect of becoming so.

That would be what the CUK Helmet Briefing is for. And whether you read it or not CUK appear to be quite on board with you making up your own mind.

I think they are right to take a stance because the general public's assumed knowledge of the matter is out of step with the evidence. Cycle helmets are peripheral to cycle safety, but on the ground you could be forgiven that "cycle safety" and "helmet wearing" are practically interchangeable.

[The utility cyclist]

What you see in Cycle is a reflection of the reality of many groups of Cyclists. Last local CTC chapter ride I went on there were about a dozen of us. It was a little under 40 miles, nice day. I was the only person not wearing... a helmet, padded shorts, track mitts, "proper" cycle jersey. These folk are Enthusiasts and they like getting out in All The Gear.

Delivering training without a helmet is very hard. I've actually given up teaching kids because no local authorities in Scotland will let me run classes without a helmet (either children, or for adults training to be trainers). Before I gave up, the school where I'd delivered it for several years received complaints from parents that I was setting a bad example and shouldn't be allowed to carry on. Sustrans break their own helmet policy by insisting instructors wear helmets, and speaking to their head of public engagement this is nothing to do with safety, it is about preventing the complaints they previously had from Joe and Jane public that they were irresponsible.

We are in Furious Agreement that it's a problem, but CUK are not the villains of the piece as their stated policies on helmets and e.g. the need to remove their recommendation from the Highway Code quite clearly attest. Your big problems are far more at the local authority level because they are responsible (i.e., where the buck stops) for cycle training, and with the DfT still insisting on giving them the benefit of the doubt. That provides a helmet-centric environment that Sustrans, CUK etc. have to work in, and as I know from personal experience, if you don't conform to the required culture you are shut out. And if you're shut out you have no influence at all.

it's not just cycle magazine as I've highlighted, it's the very thing that is trying to get more people cycling, that is widely put out amongst public domain via Facebook, twitter etc
Re insistance of LA for helmets, why aren't CUK/Sustrans putting pressure on LAs to not enforce these matters and make sure that the reality of the failures/weakneses of helmets be put out as a matter of course.
It seems to me that the cycle training for kids has zero impact on increasing cycling, but forcing those that do will ensure they're moe likely to continue to wear and continue themselves as parents to force their kids to wear and thus we have more issues than problems solved, in fact helmets don't solve any problems whatsoever, not for kids and not for adults, they are the worst thing to happen to cycling since the motor car was allowed to exceed 10mph IMHO

Also IMO a lot of the cycle training is such that kids are indoctrinated in how to get out the way of motorists and be good little soldiers in their plastic hats and hi-vis, it's a training regime to try to keep safe, that it's your responsibility to do so *and hence why so many parents won't let their kids ride to school anyways). The onus has been completely pushed onto the vulnerable to do so and yet this fails time and time and time again in almost every aspect of life and as a society we are worse for it, badly so. The training as is, is part of the problem, it's legitimising the victim blaming that ends up in the long run protecting those that kill and maim and thus the cycle is complete, more danger, fewer cyclists and those that remain must armour up or die/be blamed for their demise ...

[gaz]

Re insistance of LA for helmets, why aren't CUK/Sustrans putting pressure on LAs to not enforce these matters and make sure that the reality of the failures/weakneses of helmets be put out as a matter of course.

I've posted twice on these boards where I have heard direct from the mouths of LA officers that Cycling UK have objected to their helmet policies and not allowed them to continue with them.

The first were local authority "health promotion" rides, part funded by CTC. The LA officer in charge was a helmet evangelist and explained that the only reason helmets were not compulsory was CTC insistence as a condition of funding. I never got to the bottom of the funding arrangement, although I dug no further than looking for a record in the annual accounts. Helmets became compulsory on these LA rides about 12 months ago, I presume the funding had ended.

The other related to Kent County Council's "Kent Rider" scheme, an in-house cycle proficiency for primary school kids. It included a video, best referred to simply as "wear a helmet or die". Speaking to a local cycle forum in 2018 KCC's head of road safety mentioned his despair that Cycling UK had banned the video. The reason, KCC last ran "Kent Rider" in 2011, switching to Bikeability in 2012. Cycling UK would not allow it to be shown as it is not part of the Bikeability standard.

Sustrans, I've definitely seen some very dodgy stuff one of their "Bike It" officers promoted in Scotland, I hope that was down to a loose cannon.

Unfortunately the voices of Cycling UK and Sustrans aren't the only ones out there. Central government policy and that of the whole "road safety" industry remains the encouragement of hi-vis and helmets.

[pjclinch]

Sustrans, I've definitely seen some very dodgy stuff one of their "Bike It" officers promoted in Scotland, I hope that was down to a loose cannon.

If this is the "water melon incident" with I Bike Perth, that was indeed a loose canon. When I had a fairly detailed moan at them about it I got a pretty quick (and good) response from them that it wouldn't happen again and was not something coming from Sustrans themselves.

[pjclinch]

it's not just cycle magazine as I've highlighted, it's the very thing that is trying to get more people cycling, that is widely put out amongst public domain via Facebook, twitter etc
Re insistance of LA for helmets, why aren't CUK/Sustrans putting pressure on LAs to not enforce these matters and make sure that the reality of the failures/weakneses of helmets be put out as a matter of course.

I suspect you don't have much experience of the realities on the ground. I further suspect that the people I complain to think the same of me...

After a revision of Cycling Scotland training materials a few years ago I put in a fairly detailed Moan about various aspects, one of which was implicit promotion of helmets. Christopher Johnson (who runs Bikeability Scotland, and very much one of the Good Guys) took a fair bit of time talking me through things. His remit is to create a programme that will be voluntarily adopted by LAs across Scotland. Since the reorganisation of regional police forces in to Police Scotland, various spare Road Safety Officers (who have a basic attitude that the problem with cycle safety is people riding bikes and discouraging them is a great way of preventing accidents) have ended up responsible for LA training. And if you try and sell them a scheme that doesn't at least passively encourage helmets they're going to say "no", and that's the end of the story. And this is Cycling Scotland, not CUK, and they have a government remit for this.

It seems to me that the cycle training for kids has zero impact on increasing cycling, but forcing those that do will ensure they're moe likely to continue to wear and continue themselves as parents to force their kids to wear and thus we have more issues than problems solved

Research has shown that training, in itself, doesn't boost numbers, and the effective pushing from clueless drones that everyone has to wear useless PPE is part of why I gave up (but that's easy for me, I did it as a volunteer so I'm better off if I don't do it, but what about people that deliver training as a career?)

Also IMO a lot of the cycle training is such that kids are indoctrinated in how to get out the way of motorists

This is, quite simply, wrong. The National Standards for Cycle Training are pretty much taken straight out of Cyclecraft, which is about sharing on an equal basis. That people fundamentally don't want to do that beyond the current level is a lot of why training doesn't have much effect on share by itself, but your impression of what is delivered is wrong.
The Level 2 "Safe Cycling Strategy" in Bikeability Scotland runs (in order of importance) along the acronym COPS. Control, Observation, Positioning, Signalling (last one is more "communication" but we have a C and COPC isn't a very good acronym). No mention of helmets or hi-viz in there, any pressure on those is completely external to the programme.

So what use is training? On its own, it gives a leg up to the people who'll be cycling anyway, but it makes them better and gets them there sooner. This is a Good Thing, but not a Great Thing. In the bigger picture, in NL training is a basic life skill taught much as swimming is, completely standard for school children. It's part of an overall working system.

In the meantime, if you go off on one saying how CUK are evil helmet promoters with no conscience any time they publish a picture of someone wearing one, you're just going to give folk an excuse to turn off. Cassandra may have been right, but it was never much use to her.

Pete.

[Lance Dopestrong]

It depends on the level of training.

The training I deliver, no rider is ever going to get to that level simply by riding a lot and gaining experience. You either know of the existence of the techniques - everything from positioning, right through to defensive tactics - or you don't, and if you don't you'll never figure it out on your own no matter how many miles you do a year.

However, a conscientious, perhaps intuitive rider, may naturally develop some of the skills delivered in Bikeability or described in Cyclecraft out of or sheer hard won experience.

So it depends on the level of training one is considering when applying it to this particular problem. A new rider delivered to me for 3 days training is going to be far safer, more effective, and thus more likely to get out there and ride that the same rider who gets put through Bikeability.

For wonderful insurance purposes I and my students have to be lidded up while training, so that is out of both my hands and those of the training body who's syllabus I deliver. The syllabus does discuss 'safety' gear, what to look for when buying, how to inspect it for wear, damage, useful lifespan, etc, but we emphasise that none of it makes you invulnerable to injury - the most effective means of avoiding death or injury is the diligent application of the awesome skills and drills they're about to learn, not a yellow tabard that relies on someone else's visual acuity and observation skills for its effectiveness, etc.

[Cyril Haearn]

Lance accepts wearing a helmut while pjc refuses, two different attitudes, care to explain briefly?

[pjclinch]

Lance accepts wearing a helmut while pjc refuses, two different attitudes, care to explain briefly?

He Who Pays The Piper Calls The Tune.

I do cycle training on a voluntary basis, so that means I'm effectively paying and call the tune. NHS Tayside Healthy Working Lives are happy for me to do staff training in normal clothes, and I still do that. Dundee, Angus and Perth & Kinross councils aren't happy, and it turns out I lose a lot of motivation if that's being forced upon me.

The local JCC I'm doing the basis of competitive MTB, and I don't mind helmets for that because if you enter a MTB race you're going to have to wear one. Different context (plus zooming about on MTBs is actually a lot more fun in its own right than teaching people how to negotiate junctions and traffic filtering etc.)

I can't see how you'd succeed in a business sense if you tried to provide cycle training in the UK but were only willing to work without helmets.

Pete.

[Psamathe]

Perhaps, and this is just an idea, CUK could present the information and let us adults make up our own minds? I don't see why they have to take a stance on something that isn't obligatory, and which has no immediate prospect of becoming so.

That would be what the CUK Helmet Briefing is for. And whether you read it or not CUK appear to be quite on board with you making up your own mind.

I think they are right to take a stance because the general public's assumed knowledge of the matter is out of step with the evidence. Cycle helmets are peripheral to cycle safety, but on the ground you could be forgiven that "cycle safety" and "helmet wearing" are practically interchangeable.

I would agree they should take a stance but I think they should pursue their stance more than I believe they do. I appreciate "limited resources", etc. but it is becoming more pernicious, more and more schools introducing "policies" and nobody contesting the basis for those decisions.

To just put some info on a web site and that is the organisation's "stance" and that is it will allow compulsory helmets to spread gradually through society. I think they should pursue their stance and this need not be a massive drain on resources. e.g. where a school introduces some daft headwear compulsion policy, they send them a standard open letter (10 mins and a postage stamp, published on their web site) and with no response after 3 weeks, they send the 2nd standard letter. Make sure critical comments are added to the school's Wikipedia page (I've done a few and it only takes 5 mins). Not suggesting they launch into judicial reviews or anything major, just quick cheap stuff.

It does not have to be a major campaign and that is probably where the problem lies as I have the impression they are more about high profile big stuff with mega press releases, etc. (nature of the current Toowey guy). I think a lot of issues can be more about slow ongoing background activity (a bit like the way headgear compulsion seems to be pervading everywhere).

Ian