helmets from Why wear black?

[Smudgerii]

...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.

Please quote the statement in full, you give a false impression of my post.

Promotion has not increased uptake, but whoever thought it would? So why would a ban Suddenly reverse that trend?

We currently have choice, if we restrict choice then we risk placing yet another obstacle in the path of increasing the uptake.

So far we’ve had everything from the masses are not fit to decide for themselves, to saving the global economy through his ban on helmets and hi-vis. Well the masses have faired well enough on their own wit so far, and the global economy is not run by guys in hi-vis.

Don’t think I’ve ever seen any other group actively promote the restriction of choice in their own sport/pastime/hobby/commute. Baffling beyond reasoning, we should be fighting for choice not restriction.

[Mike Sales]

we should be fighting for choice not restriction.

I am all for informed choice, and would oppose a ban as well as compulsion.
We do not need to fight for choice: it is what we have got, but compulsion exists in other countries, and is what some are lobbying for here. I do not think TUC's campaign will gain any adherents, so you can relax. He is a lone voice.
On the other hand, there is a risk that we might be forced into plastic hats, so, if you want to maintain choice, you should stay alert.

[reohn2]

Wanlock Dod
That sounds at face value like a reasonable argument,the flaw in it is taking away people's freedom of choice to wear whatever they like in public.
The second is the belief that such a measure will actually increase cycling.

I'd bet most people who don't cycle but would like to is because they don't like the idea of being in close proximity of large and potentially dangerous vehicles some of which,by their experience driving,are driven by idiots.
No amount of banning helmets and hi viz clothing will change their minds on that,a safe environment however,perceived or actual would though and is one reason cycling in NL is so popular because cycling there is safe due to the infrastructure.

[Wanlock Dod]

... informed choice ...

Perhaps we ought to be asking whether the existing situation of ill informed helmet and hi-viz promotion is any worse than the ban that the utilitarian proposes. Personally I know of many many more cyclists whose “lives have been saved by helmets” that I do cyclists who have suffered broken wrists or collarbones. The evidence that forms the basis of a great deal of helmet promotion seems to be the observation that cycle helmets break fairly easily in crash situations. I am inclined to believe that the current levels of promotion of cycle safety aids probably results in more negative effects than a ban on them would. However, probably the biggest benefit of such a ban would be to refocus the discussion on cyclist safety towards approaches that are genuinely likely to improve safety in a real and meaningful way.

I'd bet most people who don't cycle but would like to is because they don't like the idea of being in close proximity of large and potentially dangerous vehicles some of which,by their experience driving,are driven by idiots. ...

These people probably have a rather better grasp of whether the risks posed to cyclists can be mitigated by typically cycle safety aids.

[Oldjohnw]

The problem with things like bans on the one hand or compulsion on the other is, as with all laws, that to be effective they must have consensus. Without that they are unworkable since excessive enforcement is required and appropriate sanction developed.

Given today's manifest limitation in the area of enforcement, no matter how much we might want either a ban or compulsion, as some here appear to want, it is unworkable, and ultimately, therefore, pointless.

In addition, of course, there is the reasonable argument of individual freedom.

[mattheus]

Don’t think I’ve ever seen any other group actively promote the restriction of choice in their own sport/pastime/hobby/commute. Baffling beyond reasoning, we should be fighting for choice not restriction.

Are you referring to the many regular cyclists who try to enforce helmets/hv on their fellow riders?


If so, I'm with you brother!

[Smudgerii]

Don’t think I’ve ever seen any other group actively promote the restriction of choice in their own sport/pastime/hobby/commute. Baffling beyond reasoning, we should be fighting for choice not restriction.

Are you referring to the many regular cyclists who try to enforce helmets/hv on their fellow riders?


If so, I'm with you brother!

Yes, with the addition of those who would ban helmets/hv.

[Oldjohnw]

Don’t think I’ve ever seen any other group actively promote the restriction of choice in their own sport/pastime/hobby/commute. Baffling beyond reasoning, we should be fighting for choice not restriction.

Are you referring to the many regular cyclists who try to enforce helmets/hv on their fellow riders?


If so, I'm with you brother!

Am interesting comment. Freedom of choice means just that: freedom of choice. Not freedom as long is goes my way.

[Mike Sales]

Yes, with the addition of those who would ban helmets/hv.

I don't notice that the ban proposed by TUC has attracted much backing, even in this "echo chamber".

[reohn2]

... informed choice ...

Perhaps we ought to be asking whether the existing situation of ill informed helmet and hi-viz promotion is any worse than the ban that the utilitarian proposes. Personally I know of many many more cyclists whose “lives have been saved by helmets” that I do cyclists who have suffered broken wrists or collarbones. The evidence that forms the basis of a great deal of helmet promotion seems to be the observation that cycle helmets break fairly easily in crash situations. I am inclined to believe that the current levels of promotion of cycle safety aids probably results in more negative effects than a ban on them would. However, probably the biggest benefit of such a ban would be to refocus the discussion on cyclist safety towards approaches that are genuinely likely to improve safety in a real and meaningful way.

I'd bet most people who don't cycle but would like to is because they don't like the idea of being in close proximity of large and potentially dangerous vehicles some of which,by their experience driving,are driven by idiots. ...

These people probably have a rather better grasp of whether the risks posed to cyclists can be mitigated by typically cycle safety aids.

I'm not pro helmet/Hi viz,I don't wear a helmet but do sometimes wear Hi viz,I want the choice however ineffective they may be,that's my stance on the issue.
I firmly believe that a ban on helmets/Hi viz would have a detremental effect on cycling numbers as would a law compelling the wearing of the same.

I've stated up thread that the problem of cycling safety lies with the lack of respect for vulnerable road users by an element of motor vehicle users and lack of decent quality cycling infrastructure where needed most ie; town and city centres and fast A and B roads.Not with some hair brained scheme to ban the wearing of any kind of safety equipement under the impression it will make cycling safer!

EDIT,perhaps we should look at TUC's other prejudices such a limiting e-bikes to 12 mph because of safety issues with speed whilst none motor powered bikes easily exceed 12mph even with old crocks like me powering them,or his other brain child that good consistent braking in all weathers is somehow worse than inconsistent poorer brakes.

[mattheus]

Yes, with the addition of those who would ban helmets/hv.

I don't notice that the ban proposed by TUC has attracted much backing, even in this "echo chamber".

Indeed, but by golly it's stirred up a lot of reaction, hasn't it?

IFF the ban proposal had been pure trolling, then you'd have to say it was one of the most succesful ever seen!!!


n.b. I was one of the first to point out that it's never going to happen, even though it's an interesting idea ...

[reohn2]

n.b. I was one of the first to point out that it's never going to happen, even though it's an interesting idea ...

In what way interesting?

[mattheus]

n.b. I was one of the first to point out that it's never going to happen, even though it's an interesting idea ...

In what way interesting?

Because it might work, for the reasons the Proposer has put forward. And because it challenges a lot of preconceptions (which are very evident here, as well as in larger society.)

What do you think?

[reohn2]

n.b. I was one of the first to point out that it's never going to happen, even though it's an interesting idea ...

In what way interesting?

Because it might work, for the reasons the Proposer has put forward. And because it challenges a lot of preconceptions (which are very evident here, as well as in larger society.)

I agree there are preconceptions as to how 'safe' bicycle safety equipment is but though I don't believe in it's safety in totality there are situations where such equipement can help eg; If I'm riding an MTB on tricky singletrack in a wooded area with lots of overhanging branches I may want to wear a helmet to protect my bonce,in TUC world I wouldn't be allowed to.

What do you think?

I think the whole idea of a ban on H/Hv to be barmy for the reasons given up thread,I think that if I wear a bright coloured top I'm more likely to be noticed particularly if I ride in the traffic flow.
On my travels I see a lot of 'safety conscious' helmet/hi viz wearing cyclists hugging the kerb as if it in itself were a safety feature.

[mattheus]

In what way interesting?

Because it might work, for the reasons the Proposer has put forward. And because it challenges a lot of preconceptions (which are very evident here, as well as in larger society.)

I agree there are preconceptions as to how 'safe' bicycle safety equipment is but though I don't believe in it's safety in totality there are situations where such equipement can help eg; If I'm riding an MTB on tricky singletrack in a wooded area with lots of overhanging branches I may want to wear a helmet to protect my bonce,in TUC world I wouldn't be allowed to.

That's a good point, i'm surprised no-one has posted it already.

So I guess this could work like motor-racing helmets; you only wear them in known "dangerous" areas. Would it be ok to prevent people wearing helmets in cars on the road? (I think this may already be illegal, but I'm not sure... )