Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

[Psamathe]

Interesting bit in new Rule 59

You should wear a cycle helmet that conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened.
Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain
circumstances

Are they publishing the evidence? anybody found this evidence?

Ian

[drossall]

To be fair, there is evidence that could be offered, such as the Cochrane Review, as well as counter-evidence. It reads to me as though they are knowingly hedging their bets, however. "In certain circumstances" is pretty weak, and leaves open the obvious question of, "In what circumstances, because I really need to know whether those are relevant to me?" I don't think I've ever seen a "should" undermined by the text of the same rule in quite that way before. And yet the "should" will trump that, I suspect, and be what stands out in actual use of the new HC.

[Hellhound]

Interesting bit in new Rule 59

You should wear a cycle helmet that conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened.
Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain
circumstances

Are they publishing the evidence? anybody found this evidence?
Ian

There is plenty of evidence for and plenty of evidence against.
As with any 'evidence' you choose which to believe and act upon.
I personally don't believe there is any conclusive evidence from either side as there are too many variables.

[Steady rider]

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... 553abdffc6
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... assessment details added in 2022.
Provides some information. It is discussed in the helmet section,
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=148909

[drossall]

At risk of going round in circles, I had some concerns that thirdcrank's link is to a publication by Colin Clarke, which is a commentary on the Government-commissioned report by a known helmet sceptic (at least in my understanding). Even as a sceptic myself, I felt it better to read the original report first. However, that worried me because of its apparent overriding of the scientific process. That is one of publishing research openly to the research community for comment and feedback.

The report just takes all relevant reports and assesses them, without evidently taking account of any later responses. That gap is somewhat filled by Colin Clarke's commentary, which does do that, although I'm left wondering about other responses to the same papers, which may have been more or less positive.

Of course, there's a quality test first in getting published at all, but that's only the first gate. The second and essential gate is that others look at your research, comment on the methodology, and try to do other tests that support or contradict your conclusions. So reading any published paper in isolation from subsequent responses is dangerous. Broadly, anything that gets no responses is not being seen as important, whilst anything heavily cited later is being accepted (or undermined, depending on what is said about it!) by the research community. Indeed, the level of citations is therefore itself used as an assessment criterion for research grants.

All of which is why of course the picture is confusing - there doesn't appear to be much consensus, and governments (and the media) are leaping on reports the moment they are published, without allowing the community review process to take place.

[pjclinch]

Interesting bit in new Rule 59

You should wear a cycle helmet that conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened.
Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain
circumstances

Are they publishing the evidence? anybody found this evidence?

Read it again: it is entirely correct but says pretty much nothing. All you need is any imaginable situation where a helmet will help and you have met the "in certain circumstances" caveat, so even the old "bang your head against a wall with and without a helmet" chestnut passes here.

It's of no use to a random rider starting some notional cycling journey, but it does let the DfT rationalise their inability to let go of traditional "cycle safety" dogma.

Pete.

[drossall]

This strand of the debate is confusing me. Surely Steady Rider's argument about use of the Code turns not on anything stated so much as on what the Code itself says about the meaning of Should, under the Wording section? I'm not really commenting on the desirability or practicability of getting a review at this stage, however.

[Steady rider]

There are a few basic issues. The Code using 'should' introduces legal implications that discriminates against cyclists when trying to obtain full and fair compensation. The Code could say we 'advise' wearing helmets and thus avoid the the legal implications. The actual evidence for telling people they 'should' wear a cycle helmet is open to debate with some evidence finding they increase the accident rate.

Cycling UK has concerns with the wording ‘should wear’’ in the Highway Code, stating,

This wording has made it routine for insurers representing drivers involved in collisions where a cyclist has suffered a head injury to counter the cyclist's claims for injury damages by mounting a 'contributory negligence' counter-claim - see www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-he ... cent-cases. In the most serious cases (i.e. those involving death or permanent disablement), this can cause a traumatised cyclist, or their family (who may have suffered bereavement or become life-long carers) to have to spend years of their lives, and tens of thousands of pounds in legal costs, countering these unjust 'contributory negligence' claims. Changing the wording to "Consider wearing a helmet" could avert the huge, and wholly unjust, financial cost and emotional trauma which is so often borne by the victims of cycling injuries.

The Code is aiding discrimination in accident compensation cases, it does not provide any suitable warning, strangulation, increased accident risk or informs the public that "the case has not yet been convincingly made for the compulsory use or promotion of cycle helmets". From 1993 to 2022 it is being used to reduce fair compensation, that Cycling UK details in their submission. Any member of Parliament could put forward an early day motion EDM asking for the cycle helmet advice to be changed and calling for a delay in approving the Highway Code. An EDM has to be one sentence. The precise wording Cycling UK may be able to provide.

https://guidetoprocedure.parliament.uk/ ... n-on-paper

“That this House changes the wording in the Highway Code with regards to cycle helmets to avoiding using ‘should’ wear because this wording has made it routine for insurers representing drivers involved in collisions where a cyclist has suffered a head injury to counter the cyclist's claims for injury damages by mounting a 'contributory negligence' counter-claim - see www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-he ... cent-cases and in the most serious cases (i.e. those involving death or permanent disablement), this can cause a traumatised cyclist, or their family (who may have suffered bereavement or become life-long carers) to have to spend years of their lives, and tens of thousands of pounds in legal costs, countering these unjust 'contributory negligence' claims, and the Code is aiding discrimination in accident compensation cases, it does not provide any suitable warning, strangulation, increased accident risk or informs the public that "the case has not yet been convincingly made for the compulsory use or promotion of cycle helmets, and changing the wording to "Consider wearing a helmet" could avert the huge, and wholly unjust, financial cost and emotional trauma which is so often borne by the victims of cycling injuries – see https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... assessment for further information and consider how best to address this issue.

[Bonefishblues]

There are a few basic issues. The Code using 'should' introduces legal implications that discriminates against cyclists when trying to obtain full and fair compensation. The Code could say we 'advise' wearing helmets and thus avoid the the legal implications. The actual evidence for telling people they 'should' wear a cycle helmet is open to debate with some evidence finding they increase the accident rate.

Cycling UK has concerns with the wording ‘should wear’’ in the Highway Code, stating,

This wording has made it routine for insurers representing drivers involved in collisions where a cyclist has suffered a head injury to counter the cyclist's claims for injury damages by mounting a 'contributory negligence' counter-claim - see www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-he ... cent-cases. In the most serious cases (i.e. those involving death or permanent disablement), this can cause a traumatised cyclist, or their family (who may have suffered bereavement or become life-long carers) to have to spend years of their lives, and tens of thousands of pounds in legal costs, countering these unjust 'contributory negligence' claims. Changing the wording to "Consider wearing a helmet" could avert the huge, and wholly unjust, financial cost and emotional trauma which is so often borne by the victims of cycling injuries.

The Code is aiding discrimination in accident compensation cases, it does not provide any suitable warning, strangulation, increased accident risk or informs the public that "the case has not yet been convincingly made for the compulsory use or promotion of cycle helmets". From 1993 to 2022 it is being used to reduce fair compensation, that Cycling UK details in their submission. Any member of Parliament could put forward an early day motion EDM asking for the cycle helmet advice to be changed and calling for a delay in approving the Highway Code. An EDM has to be one sentence. The precise wording Cycling UK may be able to provide.

https://guidetoprocedure.parliament.uk/ ... n-on-paper

“That this House changes the wording in the Highway Code with regards to cycle helmets to avoiding using ‘should’ wear because this wording has made it routine for insurers representing drivers involved in collisions where a cyclist has suffered a head injury to counter the cyclist's claims for injury damages by mounting a 'contributory negligence' counter-claim - see www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-he ... cent-cases and in the most serious cases (i.e. those involving death or permanent disablement), this can cause a traumatised cyclist, or their family (who may have suffered bereavement or become life-long carers) to have to spend years of their lives, and tens of thousands of pounds in legal costs, countering these unjust 'contributory negligence' claims, and the Code is aiding discrimination in accident compensation cases, it does not provide any suitable warning, strangulation, increased accident risk or informs the public that "the case has not yet been convincingly made for the compulsory use or promotion of cycle helmets, and changing the wording to "Consider wearing a helmet" could avert the huge, and wholly unjust, financial cost and emotional trauma which is so often borne by the victims of cycling injuries – see https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... assessment for further information and consider how best to address this issue.

You provided it before, why would it prevail now, given that consultation was opened, closed, and considered prior to final drafting?

BTW discrimination's probably an incorrect term to use, carrying different and unhelpful connotations - why not use the word 'disadvantages', which is closer to what I think you mean.

[pjclinch]

The problem is neatly explained by Cyclecraft:

The Highway Code is a generalist guide, dominated by consideration of motor traffic, and it doesn't always reflect a good understanding of cycling. As a result its advice for cyclists is sometimes simplistic, impractical or controversial. You should bear this in mind and not regard it as a definitive summary of best practice

[Steady rider]

A change could include, ' the Code is aiding discrimination in accident compensation cases compared to pedestrians or indeed motor vehicle occupants who sustain head injuries' is probably more meaningful than 'disadvantages'.

[Bonefishblues]

Fair enough, I gave my feedback based on my reading. I think the contrary.

Why do you think that this will gain traction now?

[Stevek76]

Interesting bit in new Rule 59

You should wear a cycle helmet that conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened.
Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain
circumstances

Are they publishing the evidence? anybody found this evidence?

Read it again: it is entirely correct but says pretty much nothing. All you need is any imaginable situation where a helmet will help and you have met the "in certain circumstances" caveat, so even the old "bang your head against a wall with and without a helmet" chestnut passes here.

It's of no use to a random rider starting some notional cycling journey, but it does let the DfT rationalise their inability to let go of traditional "cycle safety" dogma.

Pete.

Plus the risk of dying from a head injury is about the same for a pedestrian as a cyclist and travel in a car isn't exactly much safer. It's not just whether helmets are effective but also whether they're a proportionate response to the risk and why that advice to wear protective clothing is not consistent across modes.

There's of course the wider policy aspect. Supposedly the government wishes people to drive less and walk and cycle more. Putting up barriers in the form of clothing requirements is not consistent with that strategic aim.

[thirdcrank]

There's of course the wider policy aspect. Supposedly the government wishes people to drive less and walk and cycle more. Putting up barriers in the form of clothing requirements is not consistent with that strategic aim.

There's also the duty of charity trustees to act in the best interests of their charity's charitable purposes, which in the case of Cycling UK are to promote cycling so it seems to follow that they should pursue a policy of trying to remove "barriers to cycling."

There's unfortunately wiggle room in saying that the barrier in this case is helmet compulsion rather than "common sense" advice but that's sophistry. The HC advice amounts to quasi compulsion.

What about a Cycling UK member + seconder with as many supporters as possible submitting a motion to the next AGM?

[pjclinch]

There's also the duty of charity trustees to act in the best interests of their charity's charitable purposes, which in the case of Cycling UK are to promote cycling so it seems to follow that they should pursue a policy of trying to remove "barriers to cycling."

There's unfortunately wiggle room in saying that the barrier in this case is helmet compulsion rather than "common sense" advice but that's sophistry. The HC advice amounts to quasi compulsion.

What about a Cycling UK member + seconder with as many supporters as possible submitting a motion to the next AGM?

AIUI CUK are already campaigning against the recommendation in the Highway Code. Their helmet policy is a good, well researched piece and is very clear that the organisation is helmet-neutral and wants it left entirely to personal choice.

Or is the Campaigns department at odds with other parts of the organisation? (I don't think they are, but over at BC towers it's only the Campaigns team that seem to get it, probably thanks to a certain C. Boardman...)

Pete