Helmets Anyone?

[kwackers]

This morning, on the radio (XFM), I heard an ad full of random safety messages, such as don't cross at pedestrian crossings until the green man appears (not the pagan one! the one on the signal).

One of them was don't ride a bicycle without a helmet. No more information or justification, just that message. Sorry for no more details but I had just woken up! But then I listened more intently to see who the message was from, but nothing was said. Just a twenty second stream of random safety messages. LOL.

To me it just smacked of brain-washing the population. I've only just recently started cycling, and at first I didn't wear a helmet. I had one all the time, I just didn't wear it. Purchased it because I just assumed you wore one when on a bike. Then I read some articles on possible reasons for not using a helmet. But after around five weeks I've chosen, rightly or wrongly, that I want to wear it. But that's the thing, I've CHOSEN.

So I'm against compulsion and random and unaccountable media telling us to wear helmets.

Some time ago I was temporarily living in Japan. The Japanese are big on waiting for the green man. I tried it for a while and decided it wasn't for me (life's too short and sometimes there just isn't anything coming!)

One evening I was in a bit of a rush and reached a ped crossing, red guy was showing and the timer (they have cute little count down timers so you know how long you have to wait) showed I'd got a while to wait.
The road was empty apart from one car that was far enough away that I could run across and the crossing was populated by people waiting to cross.
Not being prepared to wait I made a dash across, unfortunately so conditioned are the Japanese they assumed that since I'd made a start then the green man must be showing and all followed me.
The scene was chaos, the guy in the car almost didn't know what to do, the peds just stood there like rabbits caught in his headlights unable to comprehend what had gone wrong in their world...
Fortunately he stopped in time and I made good my escape...

One of three possible morals.

Don't cross on the red guy.
When in Rome.
Don't be sheep.

Take your pick.

[bovlomov]

This morning, on the radio (XFM), I heard an ad full of random safety messages, such as don't cross at pedestrian crossings until the green man appears (not the pagan one! the one on the signal)....

Was this part of the THINK! 'copycat' campaign?

I heard a similar one. The theme being that, whatever dangerous thing you do in front of a child, they will copy you. Very good advice, I think. I won't stick my hand into the moving blades of the lawnmower if I know children are watching.

But what the hell has wearing a helmet got to do with it?

I've written to the Department for Transport, asking them what research has informed this campaign, and telling them that every penny spent lecturing us about cycle helmets is a penny not spent on cycle education, cycle awareness or cycle facilities - and that the hospitals are not full of cyclists, but full of people who are there as a consequence of inactivity .

If I ever get a reply, I'll let you know.

[drossall]

It struck me this week that the Olympic sprinters will be beating 10 sec for 100m or 600 metres/minute or 36km/hour or 23mph. Their heads will be at roughly the same height and speed as those of cyclists.

Why don't they wear helmets?

[Tony]

Put that thought away, D!

I have just finished re-reading yesterday's Grauniad article on helmets, and the brainwashing is clear to see. Though the article does give decent coverage to the anti stance, there is an underlying and obvious assumption: "Of COURSE they save lives"
A lot of the argument is done in a single chunk, where an anti argument is countered with a pro. The problem with that sort of debate is that it all adds up to "well, the antis say this, but as BHIT says THIS the antis can't be right"
It is effectively a dismissal of the argument without a proper examination, and the way it treated the recent experiment on how closely cars pass a woman as opposed to a man cycling, or helmeted as opposed to bareheaded, was simply derision. Not helpful.
The whole article made many references to collisions (the fashionable word) with motor vehicles, while ignoring the fact that in such cases a helmet, even one of motorcycle racing quality, is of no possible help whatsoever. As your spine is smashed through your internal organs by the BMW's bonnet, a little piece of plastic is as irrelevant as the colour of your underwear.

[Tony]

It should absolutely be made illegal to cycle without a helmet, and should be more stringently enforced than driving without a seatbelt on. If you die through poor or dangerous cycling, then your life is yours to lose - your choice, fair enough. Think, however, of the guilt that the innocent driver whose wheels you cycle under will feel

I've been away touring, and thought someone had hacked your account...till I saw the green ink. I am an old and frail man, don't do that to me again!

[Cunobelin]

Unfortunately there was a lobby group called theBHIT who were launched in a blaze of glory, until most of their sponsors saw throughthem and left.... however athey are still widely quoted despite the absurd claims they made...

The BHIT is the organisation that claimed in 2001 that one child per week dies from a cycling head injury..... The total of ALL child road deaths that year were 19 from ALL causes, and that includes pedestrians, car occupants and helmet wearers. Only ten were head injuries - so Helmets were going to save more lives than were actually at risk...... Hardly good mathematics!

The classic though was claiming that 20,000 children per year would be save the trauma of a head injury each year if helmets were compulsory.

Again as only some 2,500 injuries occuring, this is a massive achievement - preventing more head injuries than actually occur, but o prevent ten times as many?

The BHIT is notorious for it's exaggerated, unsubstantiated and outrageous claims.

[Phil_Lee]

It struck me this week that the Olympic sprinters will be beating 10 sec for 100m or 600 metres/minute or 36km/hour or 23mph. Their heads will be at roughly the same height and speed as those of cyclists.

Why don't they wear helmets?

That's only the average.
Remember that they're accelerating all the way to the line, starting from 0mph.

Peak speed is probably higher than a moped can legally be designed to go, and helmets are mandatory on them!

Has anybody warned the H&SE to be on guard for breaches of the PPE legislation in 2012?
Has a full risk assessment been carried out?
Bear in mind that there's people chucking spears and cannonballs in the same area, so it's not that far removed from road style hazards

I wonder if they'll require the removal of all trip hazards before the hurdles and steeplechase events??

[nortones2]

Actually in the 100m, peak speed is reached at about 60m. Then they slow down a little, or they used to:) Max speed recorded was 27mph, IIRC. As for HSE, as athletics is not a work activity, the risk is extremely low and already well regulated, they've got better things to do. LA's and insurers especially may not take a risk-based view, and tend to be random.

[Wynstow]

I also remember reading in a bike mag that there had been a great natural experiment because for 100 years (or so) GPO postmen on bikes had never worn helmets, yet they had no higher incidence of head injuries. Is this folk myth? Does anyone know the facts, (i.e incidence of head injuries in postmen on the job, by year) because it would be an important addition to the debate on cycle helmets.

[james01]

I also remember reading in a bike mag that there had been a great natural experiment because for 100 years (or so) GPO postmen on bikes had never worn helmets, yet they had no higher incidence of head injuries. Is this folk myth? Does anyone know the facts, (i.e incidence of head injuries in postmen on the job, by year) because it would be an important addition to the debate on cycle helmets.

Argument based on statistics :
Many postmen get bitten by dogs every year
Postmen don't wear helmets.
So wear your helmet & you won't get bitten

[pwward]

I also remember reading in a bike mag that there had been a great natural experiment because for 100 years (or so) GPO postmen on bikes had never worn helmets, yet they had no higher incidence of head injuries. Is this folk myth? Does anyone know the facts, (i.e incidence of head injuries in postmen on the job, by year) because it would be an important addition to the debate on cycle helmets.

A similar natural experiment has occured in Australia and NZ which saw large increases in helmet wearing in the early 90's, after bringing in laws banning helmetless cycling. Head injury rates have not changed (Robinson BMJ 2006). Another is Hewsons research in 2006 (Traffic Injury Reports) which looked at head injury rates between boy and girls as girls started to wear helmets more than boys in the 90's and 00's. Again head injury rates unaffected by cycle helmet wearing.

This implies if cycle helmets occassionally save lives (as some would have us believe) they must also be causing lives to be lost!

[Cunobelin]

Has anybody warned the H&SE to be on guard for breaches of the PPE legislation in 2012?
Has a full risk assessment been carried out?

HSE have stated that cycle helmets are NOT PPE!

[MartinC]

What's PPE?

[stoobs]

Personal Protective Equipment

[Dean]

In the barber's the other day I saw a free sheet, and one of the stories was about a school which was participating in a cycle-to-school scheme. Marvellous, I thought.

Unfortunately, as part of the scheme, they were trying to raise money for "essential safety equipment such as helmets and high-vis clothing" Bah.