Use of helmets promoted by local authorities

[FionaH]

In the current news magazine from Oxfordshire County Council, sent free to households:

p7, Stay Safe

"4. WEAR A CYCLE HELMET!
Most cycle accidents are caused by the other vehicle involved and it's usually bigger than you are - so protect yourself."

On one level - fair enough, and thank you OCC for the acknowlegement that other vehicles cause problems, and the realistic implication that cyclists can sometimes be the authors of their own misfortune.

But...

were the extract above to be re-written like this...

p7 Stay Safe
4.
Most rapes are caused by the other person involved and he's usually bigger than you are - so protect yourself.

....there would be an outcry that all women, all girls, & all weaker males were required to protect themselves from the anti-social behaviour of a few male aggressors.

Such a message would re-inforce the message that the streets are not safe for women, girls and weaker males.

Doesn't OCC's exhortion to wear a helmet give out the same sort of message, that cycling is dangerous?

Should we as cyclists be campaigning in favour of reduced speed limits with the aim that it becomes massively not worth driving in town? The knock-on effect (if you'll pardon the expression) being that helmet wearing for utility cycling becomes less of a necessity?

In other words, curb the minority of aggressors, rather than impose on ordinary decent people.

helmet-wearing, cycle-commuting & cycle-touring female, cycling in Oxford since 1977.

[pwward]

You can challenge OCC to justify themselves on 2 levels:

1. That cycling is dangerous enough to justify the exhortation to wear a helmet.

2. That a helmet will be of use in the event a car hits you.


The promotion of cycle helmets rests on 1. being a given. But is it not the case (http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2014.pdf). Cycling is about as risky to ones own personal safety as walking or being in a car. If cycle helmets 'should be worn' then logically helmets for walking and driving should be too. Or maybe we should just slap them all on at birth? "Congratulations Mrs Jones, it's a girl, the midwife is just fitting the helmet now".

A cochrane Collaboration (evidence based medicine organisation) has published a systematic review of cycle helmets which it claims demonstrates about a 60% effectiveness for helmets in the event of a crash. This was after looking at 6 studies done mostly a long time ago when helmets offered better protection than those you can buy today. The authors of the review were also the authors of 4 of the papers reviewed. This finding is contradicted by other research looking at real life figures from NZ, Australia, USA, UK and Canada which has shown no protective effect from mass use of cycle helmets. (http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1146). Helmets are designed to offer some protection to a blow equivalent to about 12-13mph, the same forces involved in a fall from a height of 1m. Claims that they help protect in car crashes would leave them liable to be sued in some circumstances. No court has ever accepted the argument that they offer significant protection in a collision with a vehicle.

OCC's claims are unscientific and I hope you will challenge them. Ask them to justify themselves.

[reohn2]

Fiona
I don't see anything wrong with a council exhorting you to protect yourself from mad people in cars.I think we're in a transition period which in the next few years will think of other means of transport,currently(certainly here in the northwest where I live ) there are too many cars on the roads and not enough police to enforce the law simply because the police force is overwhelmed.So yes the council is giving good advice.
There will be an amount of posts that will question whether helmets are safe at all but that is something up for debate and which I don't wish to get involved in as I have made my decision and 90% of the time whilst cycling wear a helmet.
As for the rape issue I don't think a council telling the female population that there are men out there who will rape women given the right circumstances and that women alone,drunk,wearing very little(i was going to say provocatively dressed but don't think that is acceptable these days)are vulnerable to predatory men so should take precautions.So yes i think women should protect themselves against rapists by not doing certain things and by doing other things.Again a lack of police presence and a lack of punishment when caught means more people at risk.
Some may say that a cyclist should be able to ride their bike without fear of being knocked off therefore shouldn't need a helmet,and some may say a woman(as woman friend once said to me)should be able to walk along a street naked without fear of attack, in an ideal world I would agree,but this is the real world and unfortunately it is here we have to live.
Also you ask does the OCC try to make it sound as if cycling is dangerous.I'm afraid there are no guarentees in this world,life is dangerous.The OCC are, in their view trying to warn of that danger and offering a strategy to make it less so.

[Zanda]

I agree Fiona and that's an interesting analogy.

[Tallis the Tortoise]

I assume that they had a fair and balanced review of the pors AND CONS opf helmets as well, rather than just only mentioning the pors (which are of disputed significance) and not mentioning issues of risk compensation, rotation, loss of concentration due to discomfort, and drivers passing closer

Andy

[reohn2]

I assume that they had a fair and balanced review of the pors AND CONS opf helmets as well, rather than just only mentioning the pors (which are of disputed significance) and not mentioning issues of risk compensation, rotation, loss of concentration due to discomfort, and drivers passing closer

Andy

You don't really think any council would look that deeply into such trivia as cycling do you Andy

[FatBat]

Over here in Yorkshire, Calderdale council used to be very keen on promoting how dangerous cycling is and how helmets are essential. I was going to post up some of their past gibberish on this forum, but when I went to their site, an outbreak of common sense seems to have occured;

http://www.calderdale.gov.uk/transport/cycling/guidance.html

Cycle helmets have been around since the late 1970s.

There has been considerable research into their effectiveness but it remains a highly controversial subject. There are no un-contested studies showing they work as well as is often claimed. In countries where helmets have been made compulsory there has been little long-term improvement in the rate of serious injury to cyclists while many people have been put off cycling altogether. Some researchers claim that helmet wearing gives cyclists a false sense of security and so they tend to take less care than otherwise. Seeing helmeted cyclists may also lead to car drivers taking less care. Wearing a helmet does not prevent cars and lorries hitting cyclists and so can never be a truly effective safety measure.

To offer any protection a helmet must be worn correctly; close fitting and not pushed to the back of the head. A damaged or old helmet offers very little protection and should not be used.

[montmorency]

At one time, someone in Oxfordshire County Council put out some leaflets which said something like:

".....wear a helment, _all_ the time...".


I am quoting out of context, but even in context, it did read rather oddly.

I was always tempted to write and and ask him to confirm that this meant, e.g. while in the bath, on the toilet, making love, mowing the lawn, etc, etc. (Mind you, if making love on a bike (tandem?), wearing protection might be a good idea...).


Talking about helmets giving a false sense of security, there is a whole body of research devoted to this kind of thing, known as "Risk Compensation".