Something which draws attention from what one's real focus should be.
Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
-
- Posts: 11011
- Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
- Location: Near Bicester Oxon
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
In which case, yes, though really it's the whole "road safety industry" and associated culture that's the problem. The underlying cause of most road danger is fast, heavy metal boxes zooming about with relatively few constraints, and that is what needs to be addressed. Telling us we should wear dayglo and lightweight helmets is not addressing it, of course.Bonefishblues wrote: ↑8 Dec 2021, 2:18pmSomething which draws attention from what one's real focus should be.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
-
- Posts: 604
- Joined: 11 Aug 2018, 9:30am
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
So why are you fighting so strongly for helmets instead of those other things?
[/quote]
Thanks mjr. I’m not going to labour on much. I feel I’ve said all I need to to a large degree.
The steel toe caps bit was me showing my ignorance of current safety footwear but the point remains the same. Just because a piece of protection doesn’t protect you from everything isn’t really an argument not to use it.
I’m still unsure why you feel your head was over insulated. From what? As long as your sensory organs were clear, I can’t see what a helmet would insulate you from.
And to your last point. Commenting on one thing does not mean I am not involved in others. Yes I am in favour of helmets but I don’t necessarily advocate a change in the law. What worries me is that some of the arguments used against it do not seem that sound, are picky in their use of evidence (aren’t we all) and may ignore some of the benefits to avoid being told what to do.
Anyway, I’m done. I shall try really hard to comment no more. Can someone start up the lockdown quiz again as I won’t be seeing my bike for another week yet.
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
+1Vorpal wrote: ↑8 Dec 2021, 9:55amActually, I think helmets are a ridiculous red herring. In car-centric countries, both 'safety' organisations and authorities promote helmets in lieu of managing road danger and traffic violence. And we get all distracted with fighting the, 'wear a helmet - it's common sense'Jdsk wrote: ↑8 Dec 2021, 9:43am
There is no question from that SR that can answer a question about drivers using airbags because they are not within the scope of the SR.
That's why it's so important to:
1 Have well-defined questions and discuss them separately.
2 Separate questions of knowledge from questions of policy.
That SR can provide knowledge about injuries that are relevant to "Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances".
Jonathan
There are no questions to answer with regard to helmets, and attempting to do so is a waste of resources.
It's like advising someone in an abusive relationship to wear a bulletproof vest.
:like:
... etc ...
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
Indeed, but my rebuttal remains the same: if the protection seems to be harmful in the situation, we should not use it while we investigate and understand it. More relevantly, if we do not understand why protection seems to be negated in reality, we should not recommend that equipment.Thehairs1970 wrote: ↑8 Dec 2021, 2:56pm The steel toe caps bit was me showing my ignorance of current safety footwear but the point remains the same. Just because a piece of protection doesn’t protect you from everything isn’t really an argument not to use it.
I'm sure I've read that cycle helmets aren't considered protective equipment but I don't recall the specifics of that.
Heat loss. We know that people's reasoning worsens as their brains overheat. It's been studied quite a bit among cricketers and rugby and American/Canadian footballers.I’m still unsure why you feel your head was over insulated. From what?
That reminds me: my sensory organs weren't clear because those bleeding straps in front of the ears introduced a lot of extra wind noise. That's such a widespread problem that there are several secondary products that try to mitigate it, including Cat Ears and Helmet Angels.As long as your sensory organs were clear, I can’t see what a helmet would insulate you from.
Well, I can understand that because similar problems worry me about helmet promotion: the arguments for it are not sound at all (the CTT justify forcing helmets as protecting the welfare of time trial organisers!), are picky in their use of evidence (this Highway Code inclusion being just the latest example) and ignore the drawbacks in order to tell others what to do.And to your last point. Commenting on one thing does not mean I am not involved in others. Yes I am in favour of helmets but I don’t necessarily advocate a change in the law. What worries me is that some of the arguments used against it do not seem that sound, are picky in their use of evidence (aren’t we all) and may ignore some of the benefits to avoid being told what to do.
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.
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
-
- Posts: 36776
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
SMIDSYP (Sorry mate, I didn't see your post.)
I think it's fair to say I've been posting for years that this is the point that needs to be made to those in authority in respect of all aspects of "road safety". I think it's also fair to say that it's not only a matter of strong lobbying, but it's going to be more powerful if it's supported with sound evidence.
If we accept that arguing on a cycling forum, what's the way forward?
It's probably unrealistic to expect cycling organisations based on competitive cycling like British Cycling to take this on (although there's nothing to stop BC members campaigning to have UCI policy changed.) The CTC was constrained by a large part of the membership being pro-helmet which, AIUI lead to the Club advocating choice, but as a charity concentrated on the promotion of cycling and whose policies are no longer dependant on the views of the membership, Cycling UK ought to be able, perhaps even feel compelled to campaign for this barrier to increased cycling to be removed.
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
No, but nor is it a positive argument to always use it.Thehairs1970 wrote: ↑8 Dec 2021, 2:56pm
The steel toe caps bit was me showing my ignorance of current safety footwear but the point remains the same. Just because a piece of protection doesn’t protect you from everything isn’t really an argument not to use it.
Generally PPE use is about context and choice.
So I have a bike helmet, and technical MTB and sports coaching I wear it, riding to do the shopping I don't.
So I have a paddling helmet, and white water and surf I wear it, on lakes and sea touring I don't.
So I have a climbing helmet, and exposed mountain routes with loose rock I'll wear it but at the climbing wall I don't.
If I was a motorsport participant I'd wear one at the track but not to drive to the track.
And so on.
Treating cycling as a single context where it's always best to wear a lid because... just in case, benefit of the doubt and all, is an entirely valid personal choice (one I made for over a decade), but it's a ridiculous policy choice with the state of the evidence as it is.
Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
Consensus statements are a useful building block.thirdcrank wrote: ↑8 Dec 2021, 3:48pmI think it's fair to say I've been posting for years that this is the point that needs to be made to those in authority in respect of all aspects of "road safety". I think it's also fair to say that it's not only a matter of strong lobbying, but it's going to be more powerful if it's supported with sound evidence.
If we accept that arguing on a cycling forum, what's the way forward?
Jonathan
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
What that means is cycle helmets used on the public highway are specifically excluded from the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) at work regulations, so it's a semantic legal technicality for people doing their work rather than an official statement that they're not PPE.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
People - including cyclists - can be self-centred cockwombles.
At the CTT National Council last week, they voted in mandatory helmets - see TrevA's thread for more details - by 42 votes to 20.
PLENTY of racers use helmets but are vocally anti-compulsion. Yet enough selfish whoppers want to enforce their way on everyone else, to achieve the 2/3rds majority.
It is "regular cyclists" that run these organisations (or rather, they hold a stranglehold). The casual commuter/shopper, or the teenager thinking of cycling to school, does not attend AGMs or National Council Meetings.
It's <i>[rude word removed]</i> <i>[inappropriate word removed]</i> and I'm fed up of these [rude word removed].
At the CTT National Council last week, they voted in mandatory helmets - see TrevA's thread for more details - by 42 votes to 20.
PLENTY of racers use helmets but are vocally anti-compulsion. Yet enough selfish whoppers want to enforce their way on everyone else, to achieve the 2/3rds majority.
It is "regular cyclists" that run these organisations (or rather, they hold a stranglehold). The casual commuter/shopper, or the teenager thinking of cycling to school, does not attend AGMs or National Council Meetings.
It's <i>[rude word removed]</i> <i>[inappropriate word removed]</i> and I'm fed up of these [rude word removed].
-
- Posts: 36776
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
What I was trying to say is that a charity is governed by its trustees in the pursuit of its charitable purposes, not its wider membership. Now, if that purpose is the promotion of cycling and if helmet wearing (compulsory/quasi compulsory/ assumed to be compulsory) and indeed ditto other things like hi-viz togs are barriers to cycling, then that charity is able, perhaps bound to try to have those barriers removed. Put another way, the charity has a duty to the "casual commuter/shopper, or the teenager thinking of cycling to school" and "regular cyclists" are not in the equation.
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
Agreed.thirdcrank wrote: ↑8 Dec 2021, 4:57pm What I was trying to say is that a charity is governed by its trustees in the pursuit of its charitable purposes, not its wider membership. Now, if that purpose is the promotion of cycling and if helmet wearing (compulsory/quasi compulsory/ assumed to be compulsory) and indeed ditto other things like hi-viz togs are barriers to cycling, then that charity is able, perhaps bound to try to have those barriers removed. Put another way, the charity has a duty to the "casual commuter/shopper, or the teenager thinking of cycling to school" and "regular cyclists" are not in the equation.
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
To be fair, whilst it's not their policy, their policy advisor has been pretty vocal.thirdcrank wrote: ↑8 Dec 2021, 3:48pmIt's probably unrealistic to expect cycling organisations based on competitive cycling like British Cycling to take this on ...
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
While I agree with a lot of that I think it's more nuanced than they're just selfish. Cycle training in particular sees a similar problem, but there we have genuinely well meaning people giving up their time to support grass-roots active travel cycling... but they haven't realised the ground has moved on a lot since the Towner report and they cannot let go of the formerly received (and taught) wisdom that Everyone Is Surely Better Off Dressing To Rule 59.mattheus wrote: ↑8 Dec 2021, 4:10pm People - including cyclists - can be self-centred cockwombles.
At the CTT National Council last week, they voted in mandatory helmets - see TrevA's thread for more details - by 42 votes to 20.
PLENTY of racers use helmets but are vocally anti-compulsion. Yet enough selfish whoppers want to enforce their way on everyone else, to achieve the 2/3rds majority.
It is "regular cyclists" that run these organisations (or rather, they hold a stranglehold). The casual commuter/shopper, or the teenager thinking of cycling to school, does not attend AGMs or National Council Meetings.
It's <i>[rude word removed]</i> <i>[inappropriate word removed]</i> and I'm fed up of these [rude word removed].
Illustrating this was reaction to Patrick Harvie (Scotland's active travel minister) showing up recently at a primary school Bikeability session in normal clothes - no hi-viz and no crash helmet. Predictably, there was much outrage, and follow-up on twitter, including this from an apparent cycling instructor. And these people will treat me as Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know because I'm a heretic that doesn't push helmets and hi-viz, and it was turning up like the, errrr, actual government minister (a long time cyclist) that got me pushed out of training at schools by Local Authorities who are a long way behind the current state of evidence.
Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion
One of the problems with helmet discussions is there is a *tiny* minority of people who read and understand all of the evidence about helmets. The vast majority of folks who have opinions, determine policy & vote within organisations like CTT either just think it is common sense, or don't really bother to think about it, let alone consider all of the evidence.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom