Stop Headway

[Phil_Lee]

If Headway are using incorrect statements to raise funding, that is fraud.
This would be an offence if perpetrated by anyone, and a charity, far from being exempt, would be more likely to be held to a higher standard than a lower one, particularly when the false claims are likely to actively obstruct their stated aims.

By discouraging exercise, helmet promotion leads to increased risks of stroke, which is a FAR greater cause of brain injury.

[Steady rider]

by irc » Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:03 pm wrote

Headway take the line that helmet laws don't reduce cycling-

"Headway is disappointed the Government has decided against pursuing a law change on the grounds that it could lead to a decline in the number of children cycling. Cycle helmet laws have been introduced in a number of states across the USA and no trend has ever been recorded showing a reduction in the number of cyclists on the roads."

Headway are referring specifically to the USA, sometimes laws without enforcement. Can you provide a referrence to the statement?

[irc]

by irc » Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:03 pm wrote

Headway take the line that helmet laws don't reduce cycling-

"Headway is disappointed the Government has decided against pursuing a law change on the grounds that it could lead to a decline in the number of children cycling. Cycle helmet laws have been introduced in a number of states across the USA and no trend has ever been recorded showing a reduction in the number of cyclists on the roads."

Headway are referring specifically to the USA, sometimes laws without enforcement. Can you provide a referrence to the statement?

The paragraph headlined Headway Comment on this page.

http://www.headway.org.uk/government-re ... ition.aspx

[snibgo]

... the Government must introduce a law change in order to demonstrate its unambiguous support of the use of cycle helmets.

We might point out that the government supports eating 5 fruit or veg a day, but doesn't make it a legal requirement. (Yes, I know, it's another weak argument.)

[downfader]

... the Government must introduce a law change in order to demonstrate its unambiguous support of the use of cycle helmets.

We might point out that the government supports eating 5 fruit or veg a day, but doesn't make it a legal requirement. (Yes, I know, it's another weak argument.)

Knowing a couple of proper lazy lardies I think it would be very, VERY funny if this was a law. I might wind him up and say its a new EU law that his has to eat a banana with his lunch.

[Steady rider]

Thanks irc for the reference.
The paragraph headlined Headway Comment on this page.
http://www.headway.org.uk/government-re ... ition.aspx


29 Aug 2009 Headway say
"Headway is disappointed the Government has decided against pursuing a law change on the grounds that it could lead to a decline in the number of children cycling. Cycle helmet laws have been introduced in a number of states across the USA and no trend has ever been recorded showing a reduction in the number of cyclists on the roads."

From page 4
http://www.ctcyorkshirehumber.org.uk/US ... t_laws.pdf
Health and safety assessment of state bicycle helmets laws in the USA
----------------
(In 2004 date not provided in report) Grant and Rutner assessment of helmet legislation mentions fatalities reduce by 15% in the long term, less in the short term, but they commented “there must be other time-varying factors that influence juvenile bicycling fatalities more than helmet laws do.” It referred to a 21% reduction in bicycle use associated with a 12% reduction in fatalities. (page 7 of report by Grant and Rutner)
---------------------------------------

The National Sporting Goods Association published the following data (date of publication required)
http://www.nsga.org/files/public/2006Yo ... risons.pdf
..........................................Change.....Total.....Change....Total.....Change
.................. YEAR...TOTAL .....vs 1998.....7-11......vs.1998...12-17....vs 1998
Bicycle Riding...1998 ...43,535..................10,055.................7,844
Bicycle Riding...2007....37,405.......-14.1%.....7,046.....-29.9%....6,518.....-16.9%

--------------------------------------------------------
Carpenter and Stehr (May 2009) found a reduction in cycling of 4% -5% occurred due to legislation from 1991 to 2005 and also reported helmet laws reduce fatalities by 19%, however they mention ”Although we estimate that bicycling participation fell by about 5 percent, it is likely that overall bicycling miles traveled fell even more”.

---------------------
The data shows a drop of 6.13 million cyclists and a significant reduction in cycling for the age group 7-17 years occurred between 1998 and 2007, (24.2% -13564/17899)
--------------------

Headway appears to dismiss or counter the "Government has decided against pursuing a law change on the grounds that it could lead to a decline in the number of children cycling" and in place provide incorrect information to the public. They also raise funds based on incorrect statements. It appears that Headway may indeed be bordering on fraud.

by Phil_Lee » Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:02 am

If Headway are using incorrect statements to raise funding, that is fraud.

[ergle]

A few thoughts...

I'm firmly on the side of individual choice

I rarely wear a helmet as I like the feel of the wind in my hair, and I worry about rotational injury, which I understand is increased by the use of a helmet. I also disagree with the accepted wisdom that cycling is a dangerous activity requiring protective equipment. I'm more of a "bloke on a bike" than a cyclist.

On a social ride last week, among 16 cyclists only two of us did not wear helmets. Sometimes friends chide me for not wearing a helmet and express fear for my safety.

I believe that eventually there will be compulsion. Most cyclists, being helmet wearers, would not have an objection to a helmet law.

Such a law, if introduced, would be rigorously enforced, as it would be an easy way for the police to improve their targets.

Maybe the Coalition Government, with their rights of the individual agenda will result in a delay.

[nickp]

Most cyclists, being helmet wearers, would not have an objection to a helmet law.

Really? Just because I wear a helmet (most of the time) doesn't mean I support compulsion!

[pwward]

From ergle: Most cyclists, being helmet wearers, would not have an objection to a helmet law.

I just wanted to correct this point. Surveys of helmet wearing over the years show a mixed picture for helmet wearing, with teenagers having a particularly low rate. Overall only 1:3 cyclists wear helmets. though helmet use among adults has increased recently. Most cyclists are not helmet wearers.

At present I do not think helmet compulsion is at all inevitable. The last few years have seen several important papers published contradicting earlier ones showing helmets confer benefits. The rise in helmet use now seems driven by official promotion. The evidence base for their use has collapsed. Laws in general have not taken off worldwide and remain restricted to countries dominated by car use with low cycle useage (NZ, Australia, N America) and have been repealed or partially so in Israel and Mexico City. Attempts to bring them in have also been defeated in Italy, France and Norway recently. The Spanish law is non enforceable, as is the Swedish U15's law.

As long as cyclists remain well informed about the issues and the CTC remains anti compulsion, groups like Headway can be countered.

[George Riches]

My argument is that a helmet may be of use for off-road cycling; the rough terrain means that falls are not unlikely and reducing minor head injuries resulting from a low speed fall are the only thing a helmet might be useful for. But anyone who falls from a bicycle on the road (exception racing cyclists) needs to improve their cycling skills (get up to Bikeability level 1) not guard against the results of such poor skills. The biggest issue for road cycling is the interaction with other road users; a plastic hat is no use when a skip lorry cuts you up!

Most cyclists who aren't in lycra or baggies don't wear helmets.

[Steady rider]

by George Riches » Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:55 am

My argument is that a helmet may be of use for off-road cycling

Cyclists may assume this is about right but is it?

I did some cyclo-cross back in the 1960's and off road riding over the years. I never suffered a serious injury or head impact due to off road cycling, possibly just good luck, skill or did I take more care with not wearing a helmet?

Roughly 10% of injuries may be to the head part covered by an helmet and 90% to other parts, see appendix 7 page 16, at http://www.ctcyorkshirehumber.org.uk/US ... t_laws.pdf
Health and safety assessment of state bicycle helmets laws in the USA

One report states the accident rate is 14% higher per km cycled wearing a helmet.
Appendix 4 , page 12 of the above mentioned report compares impacts for bare head to helmeted. Clearly extra impacts may occur when wearing a helmet , 18 compared to 8. Would the 14% figure change for off road cycling, it could be higher due to risk taking for example.

In brief then it could require lots of data and comparisons to try and determine if helmets provide a net benefit or if head injuries reduce and other injuries increase. Not a lot of point to arguing about it without more data. Off road to some may mean quiet bridleways and for others down the side of a near like cliff.

[George Riches]

My argument is that a helmet may be of use for off-road cycling

Cyclists may assume this is about right but is it?

Never hear of the rhetorical trick of damning with faint praise

[[XAP]Bob]

I'd be happy to host/manage such a site.

I agree that we'd need to be positive, with a small(ish) section of anti headway-propganda

[cjchambers]

Oh dear oh dear oh dear . . . .

http://www.headway.org.uk/news/charitys ... nched.aspx

"The new London Cycle Hire scheme could be putting the lives of its users at risk, according to the national charity that helps people rebuild their lives following brain injury

. . .

When you log on to the scheme's website, you are immediately faced with an image of a cyclist, bearing an uncanny resemblance to the London Mayor, who is not wearing a helmet. Indeed, you have to look very hard before finding any advice on wearing helmets.

. . .

The current, very minimal advice given by TfL to 'consider wearing a helmet' is woefully inadequate and may indirectly lead to more people being killed or seriously injured on London's roads and it will be Headway that will be left to pick up the pieces."

Actually, the TfL website does provide a fair bit of advice on how to stay safe - I mean proper safety, like stopping at red lights, staying out of the door zone, signalling and considering cycle training. Much more important, IMHO.

[snibgo]

The web site has many broken internal links and terrible formatting, but I quickly found this page http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/14798.aspx which currently says:

Be safe, get seen

* Wear a properly-fitting helmet and replace it if it gets a knock
* Wear bright or reflective clothing
* Put reflective strips on your rucksack, panniers, jacket or wrist bands
* Use lights after dark - it's the law

Of course, I also expect TfL to recommend that pedestrians should also wear helmets.