helmets from Why wear black?

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14995
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby mjr » 20 Feb 2020, 12:49pm

mikeymo wrote:One particular poster seems to think:

The utility cyclist wrote:... and as CUK normalises the wearing of helmets and hi-vis with their continual displaying of helmets in their photos and events and by not condemning helmet wearing are also socially irresponsible and complicit.


Whereas actually:

https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycle-helmets

Image

This is the second time I've pointed that out. Strange that he hasn't deigned to reply.

Whereas actually, if you look outside the helmet ghetto, where normal people will look first, there's one photo of a rider without a helmet and eight with. Even most of the non riders are wearing helmets! And it seems incredible that they couldn't have chosen even free non hard hat images of the stock shots like touring, or ones from past issues of Cycle.
Image Attachments
Screenshot_2020-02-20-12-45-05-992_com.stoutner.privacybrowser.standard.jpg
Last homepage image
Screenshot_2020-02-20-12-43-58-640_com.stoutner.privacybrowser.standard.jpg
Second homepage image
Screenshot_2020-02-20-12-43-52-630_com.stoutner.privacybrowser.standard.jpg
First cycling UK homepage image
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

mikeymo
Posts: 548
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby mikeymo » 20 Feb 2020, 3:41pm

mjr wrote:
mikeymo wrote:One particular poster seems to think:

The utility cyclist wrote:... and as CUK normalises the wearing of helmets and hi-vis with their continual displaying of helmets in their photos and events and by not condemning helmet wearing are also socially irresponsible and complicit.


Whereas actually:

https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycle-helmets

Image

This is the second time I've pointed that out. Strange that he hasn't deigned to reply.

Whereas actually, if you look outside the helmet ghetto, where normal people will look first, there's one photo of a rider without a helmet and eight with. Even most of the non riders are wearing helmets! And it seems incredible that they couldn't have chosen even free non hard hat images of the stock shots like touring, or ones from past issues of Cycle.


Well, this "abnormal" person googled "Cycling UK helmets" and that was the first page that came up.

Yes, I see what you mean. That Cycling UK often have pictures of cyclists wearing helmets on their website and in their social media. Even though their declared policy is to oppose mandatory cycle helmet laws and helmet promotion campaigns.

Not that it bothers me, as I wear a helmet. And I'm a casual recreational cyclist who does a few hundred miles a year (at most). So if there was a law imposing helmet wearing, I'd carry on cycling.

On the other hand if there was a law actually banning helmets I would stop cycling.

You talk about "ghettos". This place feels like a ghetto to me, with a small number (a very small number) of people with some rather strange views. I cycled as a kid, then not for 30 years, then started again recently, recreationally.

If people, like me, who aren't deeply engaged in the world of this particular ghetto, the cyclinguk forum ghetto, were to happen across it, by accident, heaven knows what they would think.

I was thinking about buying a new helmet. And maybe asking for opinions about which to buy. Having seen the sort of stuff that gets posted here, the sometimes bizarre views, the rape comparisons (for god's sake), the stridently expressed opinions, the "it's all been talked about before - just search the forums", all adding up to, pretty much, "you must be an idiot to wear a helmet", I won't bother.

The atmosphere here is actually putting me off cycling now. I'm perfectly well aware that a helmet won't save me if I get run down by a truck. And maybe I'm a naive fool to wear one. But the effect of the constant anti-motorist tone of some of the more strident posters is just to make me think me that I am surrounded by murderers in cars (despite the fact that the vast majority of them give me plenty of space and seem to drive carefully around me).

I've bookmarked most of the links that people have supplied to the various studies, thanks to those who supplied them. I've enough to go on and to do more research. Pretty soon the helmet sub-forum will just be an echo chamber of anti-helmeters agreeing with each other, which I'm sure will be better for all of us. I won't be here again.

Last night I was wondering how much I could get for my bike, as I thought about how sad my wife and kids would be at my funeral. I never thought like that when I started cycling again.

mattheus
Posts: 1542
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby mattheus » 20 Feb 2020, 4:03pm

I for one am distraught, and thoroughly ashamed of myself.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14995
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby mjr » 20 Feb 2020, 4:18pm

mikeymo wrote:I was thinking about buying a new helmet. And maybe asking for opinions about which to buy. Having seen the sort of stuff that gets posted here, the sometimes bizarre views, the rape comparisons (for god's sake), the stridently expressed opinions, the "it's all been talked about before - just search the forums", all adding up to, pretty much, "you must be an idiot to wear a helmet", I won't bother.

I agree with some of what you write, but I think it is pretty awful of you to invent quotations. I feel you are misreading what is posted here and finding insults where none are intended. There are some people who have difficulty expressing themselves in writing and there are some whose writing bears the scars of what they've done in the past - I'm definitely one of the second, having been a card-carrying journalist and a lecturer in the past, and maybe I'm one of the first too.

The rape comparison is emotive and probably shouldn't be used for that reason alone, but there is a nugget of truth in that victim-blaming is seen in that topic for the crap tactic that it is.

mikeymo wrote:The atmosphere here is actually putting me off cycling now. I'm perfectly well aware that a helmet won't save me if I get run down by a truck. And maybe I'm a naive fool to wear one. But the effect of the constant anti-motorist tone of some of the more strident posters is just to make me think me that I am surrounded by murderers in cars (despite the fact that the vast majority of them give me plenty of space and seem to drive carefully around me).

"surrounded by"? No. But they are out there, sadly, and there seems to be too little done yet to detect and remove them from the roads. I feel that it's better not to stop cycling, but to push government to do more to enable policing motorists and to close more roads or parts of roads to motorists - and, yes, to vehemently reject all the various attempts at blaming cyclists as if we're killing ourselves out there - including promoting helmets as some sort of solution to cycling casualties.

I wouldn't call you a naïve fool to use a helmet, partly because I did myself. I think it's very easy to get mislead by the con artists, well-meaning sadists and yes, plain and simple bike-haters, into believing that they work when they're unproven and even that's at best and if we're very very generous in interpreting the persistent lack of evidence of anything other than straightforward impact protection for the top of the head.

mikeymo wrote:Last night I was wondering how much I could get for my bike, as I thought about how sad my wife and kids would be at my funeral. I never thought like that when I started cycling again.

That's no way to know whether that day will come sooner whether or not you wear a helmet, though it'll probably be sooner if you don't get enough exercise. Sorry if this is blunt, but we're all going to go one day and isn't facing up to that part of growing up/old?
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

Mike Sales
Posts: 4427
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Mike Sales » 20 Feb 2020, 4:21pm

Cycling is likely to add more healthy years to your life than kill you, with or without helmet. If you enjoy it and find it good it would be a pity to allow what you read to deprive you of such a pleasure.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2919
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby The utility cyclist » 20 Feb 2020, 6:59pm

Smudgerii wrote:
Smudgerii wrote:
The utility cyclist wrote:My stance has a massively positive effect on individuals and populations, communities, health, economy, pretty much everything, those pushing for helmets and hi-vis has the complete opposite effect. Misery, pollution, death, land rape, ill health, declining economy, to not ban helmets and hi-vis and focus the attention onto motoring is frankly bizarre in the extreme, illogical and hangs a noose around our necks.

You on the other hand have ZERO argument and cannot disprove what I've said and yet we know that helmets/hi-vis does exactly what I' ve said it does and the results of that are having a huge negative effect. To go in the opposite direction can only be beneficial, if you can't see the argument for that then that's your failing not mine.


My stance on the other hand, is about freedoms. Freedom to choose not to wear a helmet, not to wear hi-vis. And for those that want to wear them, the respect to accept they are responsible for their own actions.

Who are you to take away those freedoms? Are you elected? Or just a self appointed champion of a cause you want to force on others?

Maybe I could pick one of your arguments on the positives and you can enlighten me, and the World? Try “economy”.

And the same for a negative... lets go with “ill health”


Are you going to enlighten me TUC? Or are the arguments just false?

I proposed action by government to take away freedom of choice because that choice is killing us, actions have been taken by government to remove freedom of choice of the general public over far less robust evidence for saving lives. Not only is allowing freedom of choice to wear helmets and hi-vis it negatively effects the economy globally, it allows major companies to profit more, it means less money for the sick and disabled in hospitals and health centres, it makes people's lives more miserable and less happy. Helmets and hi-vis directly and indirectly contribute to all that and more.
That you can't see it or don't want to accept it and your aggressive badgering just outs you as the type that frequents the internet these days that simply can't accept facts and clear points.
Keep sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the damage that helmets and hi-vis does!

Smudgerii
Posts: 94
Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 8:41pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Smudgerii » 20 Feb 2020, 7:34pm

The utility cyclist wrote:
Smudgerii wrote:
Smudgerii wrote:
My stance on the other hand, is about freedoms. Freedom to choose not to wear a helmet, not to wear hi-vis. And for those that want to wear them, the respect to accept they are responsible for their own actions.

Who are you to take away those freedoms? Are you elected? Or just a self appointed champion of a cause you want to force on others?

Maybe I could pick one of your arguments on the positives and you can enlighten me, and the World? Try “economy”.

And the same for a negative... lets go with “ill health”


Are you going to enlighten me TUC? Or are the arguments just false?

I proposed action by government to take away freedom of choice because that choice is killing us, actions have been taken by government to remove freedom of choice of the general public over far less robust evidence for saving lives. Not only is allowing freedom of choice to wear helmets and hi-vis it negatively effects the economy globally, it allows major companies to profit more, it means less money for the sick and disabled in hospitals and health centres, it makes people's lives more miserable and less happy. Helmets and hi-vis directly and indirectly contribute to all that and more.
That you can't see it or don't want to accept it and your aggressive badgering just outs you as the type that frequents the internet these days that simply can't accept facts and clear points.
Keep sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the damage that helmets and hi-vis does!



So thats a no... you trot out the same old lines but provide nothing but ^.

So freedom of choice is “killing us”, who is “us”? How are they being killed? Banning helmets and hi-vis will save the NHS will it? In what way does hi-vis effect the global economy? “Profit more”, so is your beef with capitalism rather than the freedoms of others? What damage does hi-vis do?

Just for clarity, my head up and making it’s own choices. It will continue to do so because the world does not listen to delusional mutterings.

Still happy to take on board any data to support your arguments, that is if you have any.

User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 556
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Wanlock Dod » 20 Feb 2020, 8:37pm

Is enforcement the only possible solution though? Separation of cyclists from motorised traffic on fast or busy routes would remove the need to increase enforcement levels just to make people on bikes safer. It might well be less expensive as it doesn’t need a continuous input of manpower, and would probably increase levels of cycling resulting in motorists becoming more likely to expect to see cyclists, and more likely to be cyclists themselves. This would likely result in many of the benefits noted above by Utility Cyclist.

User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 556
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Wanlock Dod » 20 Feb 2020, 8:57pm


Smudgerii
Posts: 94
Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 8:41pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Smudgerii » 20 Feb 2020, 9:05pm

Wanlock Dod wrote:Is enforcement the only possible solution though? Separation of cyclists from motorised traffic on fast or busy routes would remove the need to increase enforcement levels just to make people on bikes safer. It might well be less expensive as it doesn’t need a continuous input of manpower, and would probably increase levels of cycling resulting in motorists becoming more likely to expect to see cyclists, and more likely to be cyclists themselves. This would likely result in many of the benefits noted above by Utility Cyclist.


Safer cycling routes would be the greatest aid to increasing cycling participation. Enforcement of hi-vis/helmets will never be the answer, but neither will an outright ban of hi-vis/helmets..

TUC is stating a ban would bring the benefits he mentions, he is not linking those benefits to an uptake in cycling participation ( well not in any post I’ve seen ). Still unsure if he is limiting the bans to just cycling, would be interesting to know.

The thread is full of links to studies, claims and counterclaims, personal opinions, campaigns and crusades, but only one fact remains. We have choice, wear or don’t wear. Long may that option be open to all of us, I for one will fight to keep my choice.

Smudgerii
Posts: 94
Joined: 10 Jul 2016, 8:41pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Smudgerii » 20 Feb 2020, 9:06pm



I will, but TUC is saying a ban on hi-vis and helmets brings the benefits, not cycling.

reohn2
Posts: 37822
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby reohn2 » 20 Feb 2020, 9:10pm

Smudgerii wrote:........ We have choice, wear or don’t wear. Long may that option be open to all of us, I for one will fight to keep my choice.

And me
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

reohn2
Posts: 37822
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby reohn2 » 20 Feb 2020, 9:17pm

Smudgerii wrote:.....I will, but TUC is saying a ban on hi-vis and helmets brings the benefits, not cycling.

TUC appears to be making the bizarre claim that a ban on helmets and hi viz clothing will in itself increase cycling uptake along with all the other far reaching benefits that such an uptake brings.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

Mike Sales
Posts: 4427
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Mike Sales » 20 Feb 2020, 9:22pm

Smudgerii wrote:
I will, but TUC is saying a ban on hi-vis and helmets brings the benefits, not cycling.


If you examine different countries and their cycling culture, there is a very strong correlation between helmets, hiviz, low cycling rates and high cycling casualty rates, and between cycling in ordinary clothes, and whatever headgear takes your fancy and high rates of cycling and low casualty rates. This is well known.
It is quite a jump though to suggesting that a ban on helmets and hiviz would convert GB to NL. Things are rather more complex than that, and much more difficult.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

User avatar
Wanlock Dod
Posts: 556
Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 5:48pm

Re: helmets from Why wear black?

Postby Wanlock Dod » 20 Feb 2020, 9:37pm

Smudgerii wrote:...a ban on hi-vis and helmets brings the benefits...

Given that the promotion of hi-viz and helmets has certainly not increased uptake of cycling is it that extreme a view to suppose that the opposite might be true? What effect does the use of these “safety aids” by cyclists have on the opinions of those that don’t cycle about how safe cycling is as a means of transport for short journeys? Does it make them think that cycling is the kind of safe and normal activity that they could do themselves, or is it more likely to make them think that cycling is dangerous and dissuade them from participating in it?

If cyclists did not use these “safety aids” and rode about in ordinary attire might people think that cycling was a safe and normal activity and consider giving it a go themselves? Furthermore, given that the safety in numbers effect does correlate with cyclist safety that could mean even safer cycling, and even greater public health benefits as a result.