Cycle mag, CTC finally caved in re helmets & sold us out?

[The utility cyclist]

There's far too much weight on 'should' rules in the HC when they are rubbish/dangerous and barely any when it comes to massively important 'shoulds for motorists. Drive at a speed you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear is ignored by police all the time.Lack of hi vis, helmets have been used by police as victim blaming tools when cyclists are killed or injured.
EU road safety commission policy and the programme of pushing helmet wearing is massive and has a very influential bearing on helmet wearing rates, catching them whilst they are young so they are either put off cycling or forced/indoctrinated into the noddy hat world of cycling.
This second image is the opening page on the EU road safety site, the first screen grab is atypical of the way that countries are being led to push children to wear helmets and hi-vis. Even the Danes and Dutch have had significant rises in helmet wearing, and what happened in NL, death and injury rates went up
Note the lies re hi-vis and the stats being used are deliberately misleading, incomplete and when compared to motoring and walking head injuries are minuscule. According to the EU road safety commission, UK is safer than NL and DK for cycling because we wear more helmets, they even made a massive point about the then circa 185 deaths in NL being more than that in the Uk and then basically made out it was due to helmet wearing rates in their report of 2016 It's an utter disgrace!

[Wanlock Dod]

...no-one has come up with a response against the wearing of cycle helmets that will convince those who believe in them...

Perhaps in much the same way as nobody has come up with a convincing argument against the existence of God that will convince those who believe in them...

[The utility cyclist]

Its own interpretation of research on the effects of helmet wearing show it to deter cycling.

Point of order, the briefing note clearly discusses the deterrent effect of enforced cycle helmet legislation, no suggestion of a deterrent effect from either wearing, promotion, nudge policies, normalisation or simply 'showing' people in helmets rather than bareheaded.

But we know that these things DO have a very real effect and are detrimental to cycling at all levels from children to adults, from pottering around to racing and including mountain biking/extreme sports should mean CUK should not be promoting or normalising helmet wearing at all, full stop.
People can ignore how the promotion and as you describe it 'nudge policies' (HC using should for instance) but it has had a real and significant cdetrimental effect on cycling and cycling safety, not to mention increase in victim blaming and in worst case legal cases that have actually had a negative effect on victims of criminal actions.
CUK should move to making that helmet wearing and promotion of such as they do, either through their literature or in any other form, should be removed as far as is practical.They are not representing all cyclists, this is not in this instance the correct and right thing to do, what is best for cycling/cycling safety/clists rights or indeed the 'membership' in normalising cycling without a helmet is the only way to stop normalising helmets and the damage that that does.
That the helmet debate keeps on going, with MPs and other groups (and individuals) continually trying to make helmets compulsory not just for children but for all, just shows you how much weight that has being thrown towards it over the years.
The charity needs to take change because currently their laissez faire attitude to helmets is damaging for us all.

[Phil Fouracre]

+1

[Cyril Haearn]

Years ago people used to smoke a lot in films, I wonder why Used to look 'dead cool'

[Wanlock Dod]

Committed cyclists don't have any objections to helmets, if nothing else they offer a means by which one can demonstrate their commitment to cycling, thus they find it difficult to grasp that anybody else might view things differently.

People that don't cycle tend to perceive cycling as dangerous, and tend to view the wearing of helmets (it's definately always called a helmet, there is no noncing around with namby pamby terms like skull cap or riding hat here, these things are for serious protection) as confirmation of that view. Thus the wearing of helmets by cyclists makes recruitment/conversion/radicalisation of non-cyclists into cyclists extremely difficult.

[Cyril Haearn]

Where might one get an invisible (transparent?) h****t?

[Labrat]

People that don't cycle tend to perceive cycling as dangerous, and tend to view the wearing of helmets as confirmation of that view. Thus the wearing of helmets by cyclists makes recruitment/conversion/radicalisation of non-cyclists into cyclists extremely difficult.

Eh, surely if the uninitiated already view cycling as dangerous (& therefore undesirable) then to them the helmet will make it magically safer, so therefore become more likely to take it up?

[Cyril Haearn]

Who else wears h****s and why?

Building workers, rock climbers, motorcyclists, window cleaners on high buildings, fighter pilots, divers, who else?

Bungee-jumpers, zip-wirers?

Do tilers working on rooves wear h*****s?

Who does not wear h****s?

[mjr]

People that don't cycle tend to perceive cycling as dangerous, and tend to view the wearing of helmets as confirmation of that view. Thus the wearing of helmets by cyclists makes recruitment/conversion/radicalisation of non-cyclists into cyclists extremely difficult.

Eh, surely if the uninitiated already view cycling as dangerous (& therefore undesirable) then to them the helmet will make it magically safer, so therefore become more likely to take it up?

I think the argument is that if cycling looks less like

(Oliver Dixon / Cyclists at Low Brunton / CC BY-SA 2.0)
and more like

(Orrling / Een Echte Antwerpse straat / CC BY-SA 3.0)
then people will see it as less dangerous and be more willing to try cycling.

After all, say it wasn't about cycling but some other activity where helmets are worn - does the availability of helmets really make you feel keener to try it? Or do you feel more like they're a last-ditch mitigation measure?

[Labrat]

After all, say it wasn't about cycling but some other activity where helmets are worn - does the availability of helmets really make you feel keener to try it? Or do you feel more like they're a last-ditch mitigation measure?

You mean like how the introduction of seat belts and air bags has put people off driving cars?

You can see how manufacturers cover up safety features like this, and totally avoid using them as sales features for fear their customers will be put off driving one of their cars by connecting it with these last-ditch reminders of how unsafe driving is?

[The utility cyclist]

Committed cyclists don't have any objections to helmets, if nothing else they offer a means by which one can demonstrate their commitment to cycling, thus they find it difficult to grasp that anybody else might view things differently.

People that don't cycle tend to perceive cycling as dangerous, and tend to view the wearing of helmets (it's definately always called a helmet, there is no noncing around with namby pamby terms like skull cap or riding hat here, these things are for serious protection) as confirmation of that view. Thus the wearing of helmets by cyclists makes recruitment/conversion/radicalisation of non-cyclists into cyclists extremely difficult.

What utter hogwash! people cycle with helmets because the alternate is hefty penalty, harassment, victim blaming by authorities, exclusion from all forms of cycling! Your comment is crass at best!
It also ignores that it's the next generation that is put off from cycling as we see in all countries including the UK. Maybe you aren't aware but teenage girls in one Australian state pretty much gave up cycling altogether, 90% drop in numbers, clearly these kids weren't committed cyclists but Australia lost vast swathes of peope riding bikes, turned the nation into a bogan riddled backwater for cycling and remains so to this day with unlawful punishments and harassment of people wishing to go about their lawful business.

[Wanlock Dod]

Eh, surely if the uninitiated already view cycling as dangerous (& therefore undesirable) then to them the helmet will make it magically safer, so therefore become more likely to take it up?

Are you suggesting that there has been a massive increase in the uptake of cycling as a result of widespread helmet use?

[Wanlock Dod]

After all, say it wasn't about cycling but some other activity where helmets are worn - does the availability of helmets really make you feel keener to try it? Or do you feel more like they're a last-ditch mitigation measure?

Are rugby players not going to be wearing some form of headgear in the future? I have a feeling that it is called a skull cap, perhaps so as not to impart it with too many magical protective properties. Helmets for footballers have also been raised, but that was swiftly kicked into the long grass once people realised the impact that it could have on a big participation sport in a country with a health crisis due to inactivity.

[mjr]

You mean like how the introduction of seat belts and air bags has put people off driving cars?

You can see how manufacturers cover up safety features like this, and totally avoid using them as sales features for fear their customers will be put off driving one of their cars by connecting it with these last-ditch reminders of how unsafe driving is?

I am going to ignore the false equivalence of cycle helmets with more effective measures like car seat belts and air bags.

Do car makers still use seat belts and air bags as sales features as often as they obliquely mention something like a "five star Euro NCAP safety rating"? I think they've stopped mentioning them directly so often because they found it hurt sales. Now car adverts tend to sell a myth of driving effortlessly around deserted streetscapes.

I don't remember the last time I saw a TV advert for a car showing a seat belt or air bag being used. Do you? It's certainly nothing like as common as cycling adverts showing helmets being used.