Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

For all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmet usage will be moved here.
drossall
Posts: 6115
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by drossall »

In fairness, the other thing that the DfT might cite is TRL PPR446 (2009). That's a bit older, but still comes out somewhat in favour. It looks more thorough than the rapid review.
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by mattheus »

pjclinch wrote: 3 Jan 2022, 9:02am
thirdcrank wrote: 3 Jan 2022, 8:15am ...
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
Agreed.

(I think without Sir Chris, BC would be largely a pro-helmet body, and their (general) campaigning would amount to roughly sod-all.

Those involved in racing are almost entirely behind mandatory helmets, not just for racers :rollseyes: )
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by thirdcrank »

I'm referring to "barriers to cycling" which really have nothing to do with the efficacy of helmets. "Freedom of choice" can mean just about anything but in this context it has meant keeping a low profile.

It's twelve or thirteen years since the last HC revision and this discussion is about how to influence the next, which might easily be in 2035. It's important to recognise that Cycling UK seems only to be what might be termed a secondary consultee ie when the proposed changes are ready, (based on consultation with the likes of the car industry, AA and RAC) Cycling UK gets a chance to comment when it's much too late to introduce any significant amendment. FWIW, the next HC revision will probably be all about how human beings behave in the presence of autonomous vehicles. I'll predict a lot more pressure to make the use of farcilities compulsory, but I'll leave it at that to avoid accusation of hijacking a helmet thread.

(Re the consultation timescales, I've posted before that I submitted my own response to the 1988 consultation and I received a letter of thanks before I had submitted it. One of my points was that although cyclists were advised to avoid being doored, drivers overtaking cyclists were not advised to anticipate and make allowance for that. I think it's in the new version of the HC for which I claim no credit, but it does show that the wheels grind slow and fine.)
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by Steady rider »

The problem with AGM motions is that there is room to classify them as out of order, for example, they could say the CTC has recently made its opinions known and will address this issue when the Code is next revised - long grass.

I will ask my MP to lodge the following early day motion, hopefully if a few MPs lodged the same motion it could gain more support. it needs cyclists to ask their own MP to gain support.

“That this House requires changes to 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 compared to pedestrians or indeed motor vehicle occupants who sustain head injuries, 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.

Thank you to anyone who asks their MP.
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 5470
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by pjclinch »

thirdcrank wrote: 3 Jan 2022, 10:05am I'm referring to "barriers to cycling" which really have nothing to do with the efficacy of helmets. "Freedom of choice" can mean just about anything but in this context it has meant keeping a low profile.
Maybe it's just a difference in reading, but I don't see https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/v ... le-helmets as CUK just keeping their head down

Pete
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by thirdcrank »

pjclinch wrote: 3 Jan 2022, 12:03pm (...)
Maybe it's just a difference in reading, but I don't see https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/v ... le-helmets as CUK just keeping their head down

Pete
Great stuff but who is paying attention? I'm talking about effective lobbying. I'll give an example involving violence against women. Following the murder of Sarah Everard a police "chief" in the form of the police and crime commissioner for North Yorkshire indulged himself with a bit of good old-fashioned "common sense" victim blaming and he was an ex-chief within days.

Sarah Everard: Commissioner Philip Allott resigns
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-y ... e-58915325
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 5470
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by pjclinch »

thirdcrank wrote: 3 Jan 2022, 12:19pm
pjclinch wrote: 3 Jan 2022, 12:03pm (...)
Maybe it's just a difference in reading, but I don't see https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/v ... le-helmets as CUK just keeping their head down
Great stuff but who is paying attention? I'm talking about effective lobbying. I'll give an example involving violence against women. Following the murder of Sarah Everard a police "chief" in the form of the police and crime commissioner for North Yorkshire indulged himself with a bit of good old-fashioned "common sense" victim blaming and he was an ex-chief within days.

Sarah Everard: Commissioner Philip Allott resigns
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-y ... e-58915325
I think the difference here is the difference between the widespread perception that murdering women is a Bad Thing and the widespread perception that crash helmets on bikes are a Good Thing.

It is incredibly difficult to lobby against cultural Givens, and helmets = good is a cultural Given. For example, Sustrans require their instructors to wear helmets, not for H&S or insurance but to minimise complaints from the public (I was told this directly in a phone call with a senior official after following up on the policy that had caused me to reject an invitation to teach sessions for them).

If you can come up with an effective lobbying technique that isn't already being tried I, and I imagine CUK, will be all ears.

An interesting case in point is Cycling Scotland. I've been on at them for years and a lot has changed with unhelmeted imagery now common and even sneaking in to children's training resources. Because I put a lot of useful effort in to non-helmet aspects they take me seriously and treat me with respect, so after one long response to new Bikeability Scotland resources that was all helmets and hi-viz the head of the programme made a point of discussing it personally. And pointed out that his brief was to deliver a programme that would be implemented as widely as possible across Scotland, and while on the one hand he had a lot of sympathy for what I'd said, he was fairly sure (and I agreed) that if he presented Bikeability Scotland the way I wanted it then it would be rejected out of hand by many, maybe even most, local authorities across Scotland. So given his job to roll out a national training programme, back then it very much had to be with all the kids in pictures wearing helmets (latest feedback is asking for pics of kids without them, so that's certainly progress, but that's taken 10 years with lots of the main players on board).

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11010
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by Bonefishblues »

pjclinch wrote: 3 Jan 2022, 12:03pm
thirdcrank wrote: 3 Jan 2022, 10:05am I'm referring to "barriers to cycling" which really have nothing to do with the efficacy of helmets. "Freedom of choice" can mean just about anything but in this context it has meant keeping a low profile.
Maybe it's just a difference in reading, but I don't see https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/v ... le-helmets as CUK just keeping their head down

Pete
It's pretty equivocal though:

There is no justification for making helmet-wearing compulsory: it could undermine levels of cycle use and, in any case, the effectiveness of helmets is far from clear.

Isn't the evidence for its reducing the level of cycling one of the most well-proven parts of what's a difficult debate?
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by thirdcrank »

I think the difference here is the difference between the widespread perception that murdering women is a Bad Thing and the widespread perception that crash helmets on bikes are a Good Thing.
That is all true. My point is that it wasn't always so. There has been a huge change in public attitudes in quite recent times and the example of Philip Allott shows that that process is incomplete: a work in progress in the lingo. Now, the changes were not part of some natural process of evolution, but rather the result of persistent and sometimes ferocious campaigning.

Years ago, when I was conned into believing that the authorities were sincere about policies to promote cycling, I made the point that cyclists are members of a minority but unlike other minorities, membership of this minority is voluntary. That depends on a definition of a minority as a group in a non-dominant position. ("Subordinate" seems less clumsy.) Using that approach, cyclists are just about the only minority in this country who can be attacked with virtual impunity. IMO, effective promotion of cycling is going to take a lot of persistent and ferocious campaigning because it's not going to come about on its own.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Minorit ... allaw.aspx
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 5470
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by pjclinch »

drossall wrote: 3 Jan 2022, 9:41am In fairness, the other thing that the DfT might cite is TRL PPR446 (2009). That's a bit older, but still comes out somewhat in favour. It looks more thorough than the rapid review.
Nobody much bothers with PPR 446 because everyone who looked in to it knows it's ~120 pages that boil down to "if we assume helmets are effective, we can go on to prove that they are effective".

Policy based evidence making.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
drossall
Posts: 6115
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by drossall »

I'll make a note to read it more thoroughly, thanks.
Stevek76
Posts: 2086
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by Stevek76 »

Steady rider wrote: 3 Jan 2022, 10:34am "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
Not really sure why it needs to make any mention of them or high vis at all?
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by Steady rider »

"Consider wearing a helmet" came from the CTC submission,
and changing the wording to "If wearing a cycle helmet ensure it conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened." Warnings could be added, for children ensure the helmet is removed when not cycling or similar.

The public would most likely expect some mention.
PPR446
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1230.html
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 5470
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by pjclinch »

Steady rider wrote: 3 Jan 2022, 4:49pm "Consider wearing a helmet" came from the CTC submission...
The public would most likely expect some mention.
I think the "consider" was a mis-step, but an understandable one. My guess is the thinking was "DfT won't drop these so let's try and tone it down", but DfT have proved that not only won't they drop them, they'll also double down on their poor-to-no evidence rationalisations. So rather than pander to that I think we just need to (as thirdcrank suggested a few posts back) be rather more bullish about just telling them what they need to do (remove all mention of them).

That the public would likely expect some mention is part of the problem, and mentioning them makes that worse. Helmets are considered important because folk go on about them; they go on about them because they think they're important. Any message to the public on helmets needs to be "we've been over-selling these things for years, sorry, they're not actually a significant public health measure after all". Anything else just digs us deeper in to the existing hole where they get talked about because people talk about them.

The public expecting them was why I stopped teaching Bikeability Scotland at the primary school my kids went to. After several years of a successful, popular class I ended up not getting thanks but complaints from parents that I set a bad example. What the public expects is not necessarily what the public is best off getting.

Pete.
Last edited by pjclinch on 4 Jan 2022, 12:26pm, edited 1 time in total.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 5470
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by pjclinch »

thirdcrank wrote: 3 Jan 2022, 1:21pm
I think the difference here is the difference between the widespread perception that murdering women is a Bad Thing and the widespread perception that crash helmets on bikes are a Good Thing.
That is all true. My point is that it wasn't always so. There has been a huge change in public attitudes in quite recent times and the example of Philip Allott shows that that process is incomplete: a work in progress in the lingo. Now, the changes were not part of some natural process of evolution, but rather the result of persistent and sometimes ferocious campaigning.

Years ago, when I was conned into believing that the authorities were sincere about policies to promote cycling, I made the point that cyclists are members of a minority but unlike other minorities, membership of this minority is voluntary. That depends on a definition of a minority as a group in a non-dominant position. ("Subordinate" seems less clumsy.) Using that approach, cyclists are just about the only minority in this country who can be attacked with virtual impunity. IMO, effective promotion of cycling is going to take a lot of persistent and ferocious campaigning because it's not going to come about on its own.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Minorit ... allaw.aspx
All fair points. What makes this even harder is that a significant chunk of CUK's membership and cyclists in general are completely on board with the pro-helmet message (even to the point of compulsory use), and it's hard to square that with "ferocious" campaigning... but lack of ferocity does have a track record of not getting anywhere fast.
And no, of course I don't have the answers :(

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
Post Reply