Mandatory Helmets and hi-vis to be considered in government eview

[thirdcrank]

... So the pair of Nottingham Uni studies finding no protective effect (the first was http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/12855/ which is available in full - the second requires a sciencedirect login) and the Bath/Brunel Uni research ( http://opus.bath.ac.uk/37890/ ) are not evidence? ...

On the contrary, that's just the type of thing a campaign should be based on, particularly the Nottingham study. I can only refer to a forum version of SMIDSY for not having spotted it before. FWIW, I've done a quick search on "Nottingham" to see how much it's been mentioned before. When another poster quoted a Danish study which apparently supported a different conclusion, you rubbished it, partly on the valid grounds that it involved self-reporting. Had I not seen that, I would have bitten my tongue over the self-reporting in the Nottingham study. If I've understood it correctly, in the majority of cases the authors relied on people's own assessment of their "conspicuity aids." ie an element of countering SMIDSY with "You need a white stick." Nevertheless, this has fundamental importance for the whole Health and Safety policy in relation to hi-viz and is surely worth further, better financed research where for example, more verification would be possible.

I've no doubt you have brought this evidence to the notice of the likes of politicians more than it seems to have been mentioned on here. (I'm surprised it dates from as long ago as 2012.)

And I think it's fair to demand evidence from those promoting costly safety interventions to show that they're worthwhile,

Unfortunately, I don't think fairness comes into it. Convincing the people responsible needs a clear message, with nothing to blunt it.

[Psamathe]

Re: Government Consultation
I would guess many here would be keen to contribute input to the consultation. It can be difficult knowing when a Government consultation starts. I've been wanting to comment on one (non-cycling) consultation announced but announcement to start date can be very variable often with no real "announcement". And sometimes the consultation is open for a short time (limits responses you don't want!). I ended-up having to e-mail the Home Office and fortunately caught it in time (with a few days to get my response in).

So, with this helmet/cycling consultation might I suggest that if anybody finds the consultation started the announce it on the forum and in a new thread as many (e.g. myself) often stop following threads if the go off in certain directions after several pages.

Ian

[thirdcrank]

... So, with this helmet/cycling consultation might I suggest that if anybody finds the consultation started the announce it on the forum and in a new thread as many (e.g. myself) often stop following threads if the go off in certain directions after several pages...

Look no further than the OP. Go through the links within links and you will find the report of the initial announcement here.

http://road.cc/content/news/229572-gove ... iston-case

NB No mention of helmets or hi-viz, but a pretty clear hint that new offences such as causing death by dangerous cycling would be on the agenda.

There's more detail about what the minister Jesse Norman actually said here:

http://road.cc/content/news/232665-mand ... nt-1638069

(I'm unclear whether the initial announcement reported on 20 September was followed by another which led to the report of 22 November, or whether somebody had decided to , er, highlight the hi-viz to attract some attention. Either way, the focus seems to have been switched.)

“That could be infrastructure, education, signage and other things which could contribute to a successful and effective transition to a world in which walking and cycling are enormous. It’s not going to be based on any knee jerk reaction; it will be based on solid evidence.”

Asked whether measures up for consideration might include mandatory hi-vis or helmets, Norman replied that he didn’t have a personal position on those issues, but that they would be up for debate.

“That is something in relation to the cycle safety review where we will see what the evidence and the submissions say,” he said.

“If you want to have a society where a 12-year-old can get on a bicycle it’s a serious issue as to whether you’re going to mandate hi-vis or helmets and there will be many arguments about whether the safety benefits outweigh or do not outweigh the deterrent effect that might have on people cycling. So we’re going to leave that to the review.”

It seems to me that one way or another, we've concentrated on hi-viz and helmets to the exclusion of some other significant subjects which are definitely on the agenda rather than "up for debate," which I interpret as a stock reply. Whatever, he claims it will be based on "solid evidence" so it might be worth letting him have some.

[Psamathe]

... So, with this helmet/cycling consultation might I suggest that if anybody finds the consultation started the announce it on the forum and in a new thread as many (e.g. myself) often stop following threads if the go off in certain directions after several pages...

Look no further than the OP. Go through the links within links and you will find the report of the initial announcement here.

http://road.cc/content/news/229572-gove ... iston-case
.....

But no announcement of the start of the consultation (that I can see). In fact the article states "Further details of the review will be announced shortly." Gives no details as to when and how to submit responses to the consultation and that is the crucial thing.

As in the (non-cycling) consultation I mentioned, we all knew they were going to have a consultation (announced months and months ago) but it's announced long before consultations start and that is the bit that if you miss it you have no input. Normally when the consultation starts they also provide details on how to submit input, often with a online way to respond. Hence my asking that when that stage starts if anybody spots it to let us all know.

Government review wont read through this thread - people have to submit input "through the proper channels at the correct time".

I'd guess that initially the Gov will carry out a review (maybe approaching some organisations for input) but I'd expect that following that they will publish their proposals in a consultation everybody can then have input to.

Ian

[pjclinch]

It seems to me that one way or another, we've concentrated on hi-viz and helmets to the exclusion of some other significant subjects which are definitely on the agenda rather than "up for debate," which I interpret as a stock reply. Whatever, he claims it will be based on "solid evidence" so it might be worth letting him have some.

The "one way or another" would be the mainstream media doing what they always do, which is asking questions specifically about helmets and hi-viz as soon as cycle safety comes up, and not asking about much else. That's part of a circular argument; helmets and hi viz are seen as important because so many people go on about them. So many people go on about them because they're seen to be important.

As I wrote in a letter published in the BMJ over a decade ago:
When asking why the UK public (including its legislators, civil servants, journalists, and doctors) has lost its confidence in the safety of cycling, a highly plausible answer is the extraordinary amount of time, money, and effort spent telling us that cyclists are in terrible danger so they should wear a helmet.

This problem is typically well illustrated by Chris Boardman doing a piece on a mainstream media show. CB presents a characteristically well researched piece on something that could make a genuine useful difference, after which the presenter ignores everything he's said and strikes out with, "But you weren't wearing a helmet!" or similar. And CB proves himself to be an amazing guy by not crying, shouting or killing the presenter.

Pete.

[thirdcrank]

I do get the general picture.

What I've been trying to say in an obviously unsuccessful way, is that the media sensationalism has succeeded in not only dominating the discussion on here, but determining the attitude to the review. There are really big questions about the collapse in enforcement and the consequent acceptance of examples of killer driving at the investigation stage. There are others a bit harder to define about the overlap between rotten but careless driving and using a vehicle as a weapon, which is potentially easy to dress up as accidental.

[ChrisButch]

The media sensationalism, and the response to it here and elsewhere, has been a consequence of Jesse Norman's response to the direct question about helmets/high viz put to him at the BikeBiz conference. Up to that time the discussion of the prospective review had been rather more open - and indeed the focus of the media sensationalism had been not helmets and highviz, but slavering over the prospect of a punitive post-Alliston crackdown on cycling generally. I think the prominence of the narrower (or, if you prefer, irrelevant) issue over the last month or so was more or less inevitable after what Norman said: but you're right to insist that we have somehow to escape from that narrow focus in getting our act together in readiness for the review.

[Bonefishblues]

We could argue cause and effect v-a-v the media, I'm sure, but my view is Hi-viz in particular passes the man in the street's "stands to reason because it makes you more visible", test.

Politicians, by and large aren't in the business of educating the populace, even if evidence strongly shows something, they are interested in pleasing the electorate, and there's the danger.

[thirdcrank]

Watch any politician being interviewed and no matter what the question, they have some form of words such as "Ye, but the important question is...."

That can be infuriating but it's about discussing your own agenda, rather than somebody else's.

eg Sooner or later the Offences Against the Person Act will be fundamentally changed and causing injury by furious driving won't be in the new version. What will replace it? On the subject of personal violence, the sentencing guidelines include the aggravating factors such as using the shod foot AKA putting the boot in, but there's no mention of using a vehicle as a weapon.

[De Sisti]

If the idea was incorporated into law (the hi-vis bit) I wonder if it would apply to professional cycling teams based in the UK?

[pjclinch]

We could argue cause and effect v-a-v the media, I'm sure, but my view is Hi-viz in particular passes the man in the street's "stands to reason because it makes you more visible", test.

Politicians, by and large aren't in the business of educating the populace, even if evidence strongly shows something, they are interested in pleasing the electorate, and there's the danger.

Politicians, by and large, are part of the populace and are not necessarily more educated than anyone else.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/chris-boardman-mps-should-be-embarrassed-after-hearing-on-london-cycle-safety-8982082.html

You're right about the man in the street, but just like the Earth going around the sun, sometimes enough evidence does eventually make the difference.

Pete.

[Bonefishblues]

We could argue cause and effect v-a-v the media, I'm sure, but my view is Hi-viz in particular passes the man in the street's "stands to reason because it makes you more visible", test.

Politicians, by and large aren't in the business of educating the populace, even if evidence strongly shows something, they are interested in pleasing the electorate, and there's the danger.

Politicians, by and large, are part of the populace and are not necessarily more educated than anyone else.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/chris-boardman-mps-should-be-embarrassed-after-hearing-on-london-cycle-safety-8982082.html

You're right about the man in the street, but just like the Earth going around the sun, sometimes enough evidence does eventually make the difference.

Pete.

Yes but I think with, for example, proposals to actively remove reference to HV in the HC are like actively trying to reverse the Earth's spin.

I also think that politicians should have access to better data/information than the average person*, should they wish to avail themselves of it, but I understand your point.

*or at least more resources to get hold of it and educate themselves.

[pjclinch]

I also think that politicians should have access to better data/information than the average person*, should they wish to avail themselves of it, but I understand your point.

*or at least more resources to get hold of it and educate themselves.

They have access, but typically don't wish to avail themselves. After all, as a serving Secretary of Stat in the cabinet pointed out, we've had enough of experts.

There are, thankfully, exceptions. The Get Britain Cycling enquiry is good evidence of that being the case, quite pertinent here.

Pete,

[Bonefishblues]

I also think that politicians should have access to better data/information than the average person*, should they wish to avail themselves of it, but I understand your point.

*or at least more resources to get hold of it and educate themselves.

They have access, but typically don't wish to avail themselves. After all, as a serving Secretary of Stat in the cabinet pointed out, we've had enough of experts.

There are, thankfully, exceptions. The Get Britain Cycling enquiry is good evidence of that being the case, quite pertinent here.

Pete,

That's where interested, and insistent constituents come in

[Stevek76]

NB No mention of helmets or hi-viz, but a pretty clear hint that new offences such as causing death by dangerous cycling would be on the agenda.

It seems to me that one way or another, we've concentrated on hi-viz and helmets to the exclusion of some other significant subjects which are definitely on the agenda rather than "up for debate," which I interpret as a stock reply. Whatever, he claims it will be based on "solid evidence" so it might be worth letting him have some.

The 'review' is two parts. The first is a look specifically at the hole in offences and if/how this should be plugged.

The second part is pretty much a blank canvas on cyclist safety in general. There is nothing specific on the agenda for this section but it will be informed by submissions from groups and individuals.

Given it's a guarantee that the loons at Headway etc will be straight in there with the helmet/high vis compulsion line it is critical that this is headed off with the relevant evidence. But certainly there should be plenty of submissions on the need for proper infrastructure (and mandatory standards for it) and poor enforcement of shoddy driving standards.