Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Sussex Police tell us we should be wearing helmets - shouldn't they be staying out of this?

https://www.facebook.com/sussexpoliceforce/posts/1776482492397300

“Wearing a helmet saved my son’s life” – these are the words of a mother who's backing our summer cycle safety message.

It follows the deaths of two cyclists in Sussex already this month. That’s two too many in our opinion.

In light of this, we’re urging all road users to ‘think bike’

As some of the commenters below have said already, there seems to be plenty of evidence to suggest compulsory helmet wearing does naff all to increase safety... also what have the two deaths got to do with the photo in question? Might have helped in that instance, but I doubt would have prevented the deaths! Seems a bit of a muddled message from the coppers.  

 

 

 

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

64 comments

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 5 years ago
1 like

Given the 160,000 hospital admissions every year for serious head injuries (so more actual serious head injuries as not all will be admitted) from the 1.3million reported, the number of cycling related serious head injuries is minute (roughly 800) BUT with helmet wearing increases since circa 2005 has gone up not down. The vast majority of those serious head injuries will be at speed and/or involving an at fault motorist. None of which a helmet is designed to protect much against.

I'd suggest people deciding to wear a helmet at all or for so called 'risky' cycling have a good hard think about the relative risks given the numbers, people everywhere are seemingly incapable of assessing actual risk even when presented with hard facts.

Again, more children die in motorvehicles solely of a head injury in England and wales alone than the total number of child cyclists by all types of injuries in the whole of the UK. More children die of head injuries in many other activities in life solely of head injury in the UK, such as playgrounds.

When are we going to protect our children in these scenarios, when are we going to get the police to start telling parents to put a helmet on their childs head for the school car run and/or for walking/playing in the playground. After all not just one life saved but many according to the statistics.

Surely it is socially irresponsible of the police and auhtorities to not force helmet wearing for all these children and indeed adults given the number of serious head injuries suffered that far, far exceed those of people on bikes DESPITE the piss poor driving that the police allow to happen and the massive weapon used by motorists.

Avatar
alansmurphy | 5 years ago
0 likes

My Ventoux crash destroyed one side of my helmet and also my shoulder - it's fair to say I wouldn't have liked the marks and damage seen to the helmet on the side of my head (force looked around the temple). The shoulder was also smashed to a degree that suggests bone wouldn't have fared well.

 

We can argue that the helmet was wider than my head, but i was flying towards a metal post in mid air and had no control, reflexes etc. 

 

On the other hand, don't wear one on the town centre commute and i enjoyed my Wednesday tootle wearing a cap instead - though the gang of us did pass comment...

Avatar
Kendalred | 5 years ago
5 likes

Let's face it, when plod keep banging on about helmets in the context of road safety, isn't this really an admission they can't keep us safe from bad drivers? Given the laughable treatment of cyclists who are killed/maimed/injured/close-passed, then this is simply shifting the onus onto the victim yet again.

What a sad yet entirely predictable state of affairs. I bet the residents of places such as The Netherlands and Denmark look on us with pity.

Having said that, given a helmet will give SOME protection in SOME circumstances, then I'll usually wear one, but would fight tooth and nail against making it compulsary, which is the real issue. We can argue about the science all day long, but you can't argue with the figures of the decrease in cycling in places that make it compulsary (Oz etc).

Avatar
Yorkshire wallet | 5 years ago
2 likes

Still in two minds about helmet use. Been using a cotton cap all week as I just sort of felt like it but this weekend I'm off on a climbing route and I'll probably hit 50 on the downhills so I guess I'll put the helmet on. 

My mate has spent two weeks in a coma after a helmetless accident but he still won't wear one so I guess once you've really made your mind up there's no changing. 

Avatar
brooksby replied to Yorkshire wallet | 5 years ago
1 like

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Still in two minds about helmet use. Been using a cotton cap all week as I just sort of felt like it but this weekend I'm off on a climbing route and I'll probably hit 50 on the downhills so I guess I'll put the helmet on. 

Isn't that the very point?  If its a glorious sunny day with dry ground, or you're just pootling around (or whatever counts as pootling for you) then you wear a cap.  If you open the door and there's snow and ice (hence a greater chance of falling off?) or you are planning on some downhill MTBing, then maybe you decide to wear a helmet.   If  Its all down to your assessment of the likely conditions/risks that you'll encounter, isn't it?

(I wish I could explain it like that to my wife, who went ballistic when she discovered I'd not been wearing a helmet for my commute, not even on "busy city streets".)

Avatar
Simon E replied to brooksby | 5 years ago
2 likes

brooksby wrote:

(I wish I could explain it like that to my wife, who went ballistic when she discovered I'd not been wearing a helmet for my commute, not even on "busy city streets".)

It's sad that your wife doesn't trust your ability to research a topic, assess risk and come to your own conclusions.

Fear is a powerful emotion and the scaremongering, victim-blaming crap put out by government, industry bodies, some of the police and naturally by the people selling the stuff can be so persuasive, causing otherwise sensible people to swallow it without a second thought.  2

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Simon E | 5 years ago
5 likes

Simon E wrote:

brooksby wrote:

(I wish I could explain it like that to my wife, who went ballistic when she discovered I'd not been wearing a helmet for my commute, not even on "busy city streets".)

It's sad that your wife doesn't trust your ability to research a topic, assess risk and come to your own conclusions.

I'm guessing that you're not married.

Avatar
Simon E replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
2 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'm guessing that you're not married.

Nearly 18 years.

My wife knows that I am far better versed on this topic than she is and that it is a waste of time arguing with me about it; though I always acknowledge her and others' concern. She respects that it is my considered choice and not merely a stubborn refusal to bow to convention or pressure. I would take offence at being told what to do in the manner described by brooksby, however well intentioned.

In the wider context I find that the people with the most firmly held beliefs are invariably the least informed, whether it is about helmets, chain lube, pedals, immigration, politics, religion etc etc. As time goes by I am less and less willing to engage with narrow-minded people that refuse to acknowledge another point of view. My time is better spent doing something else.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Simon E | 5 years ago
1 like

Simon E wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'm guessing that you're not married.

Nearly 18 years.

My wife knows that I am far better versed on this topic than she is and that it is a waste of time arguing with me about it; though I always acknowledge her and others' concern. She respects that it is my considered choice and not merely a stubborn refusal to bow to convention or pressure. I would take offence at being told what to do in the manner described by brooksby, however well intentioned.

In the wider context I find that the people with the most firmly held beliefs are invariably the least informed, whether it is about helmets, chain lube, pedals, immigration, politics, religion etc etc. As time goes by I am less and less willing to engage with narrow-minded people that refuse to acknowledge another point of view. My time is better spent doing something else.

Fancy doing a trade?

Avatar
brooksby replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
2 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

Simon E wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'm guessing that you're not married.

Nearly 18 years.

My wife knows that I am far better versed on this topic than she is and that it is a waste of time arguing with me about it; though I always acknowledge her and others' concern. She respects that it is my considered choice and not merely a stubborn refusal to bow to convention or pressure. I would take offence at being told what to do in the manner described by brooksby, however well intentioned.

In the wider context I find that the people with the most firmly held beliefs are invariably the least informed, whether it is about helmets, chain lube, pedals, immigration, politics, religion etc etc. As time goes by I am less and less willing to engage with narrow-minded people that refuse to acknowledge another point of view. My time is better spent doing something else.

Fancy doing a trade?

Hey, that's not fair! I wanted to!! (I've known my wife for 25 years, been married for 15, and in all that time I have never ever managed to win an argument, never made her change her mind on something she already thought... EVER.)

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to brooksby | 5 years ago
0 likes

brooksby wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Simon E wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'm guessing that you're not married.

Nearly 18 years.

My wife knows that I am far better versed on this topic than she is and that it is a waste of time arguing with me about it; though I always acknowledge her and others' concern. She respects that it is my considered choice and not merely a stubborn refusal to bow to convention or pressure. I would take offence at being told what to do in the manner described by brooksby, however well intentioned.

In the wider context I find that the people with the most firmly held beliefs are invariably the least informed, whether it is about helmets, chain lube, pedals, immigration, politics, religion etc etc. As time goes by I am less and less willing to engage with narrow-minded people that refuse to acknowledge another point of view. My time is better spent doing something else.

Fancy doing a trade?

Hey, that's not fair! I wanted to!! (I've known my wife for 25 years, been married for 15, and in all that time I have never ever managed to win an argument, never made her change her mind on something she already thought... EVER.)

Been going out with my wife for 23 years, married for 16. She does a bit of cycling and often cycles to work, but I suspect it's mainly out of her hatred of driving through Bristol traffic. She will not be convinced about bike helmets, so I wear one to keep her happy/quiet.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Simon E | 5 years ago
1 like

Simon E wrote:

brooksby wrote:

(I wish I could explain it like that to my wife, who went ballistic when she discovered I'd not been wearing a helmet for my commute, not even on "busy city streets".)

It's sad that your wife doesn't trust your ability to research a topic, assess risk and come to your own conclusions.

Fear is a powerful emotion and the scaremongering, victim-blaming crap put out by government, industry bodies, some of the police and naturally by the people selling the stuff can be so persuasive, causing otherwise sensible people to swallow it without a second thought.  2

The irony is that she doesn't actually ride, herself.  She used to ride when she was a kid, up until she went to university; she bought a bike a few years ago but I can count on one hand the number of times she's ridden it (and, she didn't wear a helmet but that was just riding around the village so "it's different!" ​).

Avatar
Daveyraveygravey replied to Yorkshire wallet | 5 years ago
2 likes

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Still in two minds about helmet use. Been using a cotton cap all week as I just sort of felt like it but this weekend I'm off on a climbing route and I'll probably hit 50 on the downhills so I guess I'll put the helmet on. 

My mate has spent two weeks in a coma after a helmetless accident but he still won't wear one so I guess once you've really made your mind up there's no changing. 

 

I was in two minds, but have had four accidents, all my own fault, all involving the front wheel going from under me when there was either ice mud or wet/frozen white lines on the ground.  Every time I banged my head, on top of the excuriating road rash and in one case broken wrist, so for me, it's a case of that would have been a lot worse.  I guess in these cases, it happens so fast you can't stop yourself from hitting the ground once the front wheel slips out, so not sure what else I could have done. 

This is in a four year period, all on the road bike.  I ride 5,000 miles a year, probably 65/35 road v off road.  From my own personal experience, the chances of banging your head are much worse on a road bike than an mtb, although I can't count the low branches I have scraped under or bits of stone that could have pinged off the helmet.

I'm passionately against compulsory helmet use, but still wear one on every ride I do.  The non-cycling public just don't get it though, they think anyone without a helmet is a fool waiting to be crushed to death.  

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds replied to Yorkshire wallet | 5 years ago
2 likes

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Still in two minds about helmet use. Been using a cotton cap all week as I just sort of felt like it but this weekend I'm off on a climbing route and I'll probably hit 50 on the downhills so I guess I'll put the helmet on. 

My mate has spent two weeks in a coma after a helmetless accident but he still won't wear one so I guess once you've really made your mind up there's no changing. 

At 50mph a helmet aint goig to do dick if your head hits a solid object, this is a plain and simple fact, what it will do is lure some into doing higher speeds when it isn't safe to do so/take more risks on descents etc and thus why helmet wearers crash more often and have more injuries and from that why increases in helmet wearing do not equate to lowered injury/death rates. 

The logic of I'll wear a helmet for higher risk cycling is bonkers, it simply does not add up, not when the helmet itself is incapable of preventing hardly any of the forces involved when doing those riskier/higher speed types of riding.

I've been hitting 40+mph almost every weekend since the late 80s, I don't see how wearing a helmet is going to make me safer when in the professional (and indeed amateur) ranks all it has done is increase crashes, injuries and deaths. 

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
4 likes

@madcarew - your point about helmet testing should be valid, but for one thing. Helmets are tested for hits against flat surfaces and not for irregular shaped objects. This means that a much weaker hit by an edge can cause a helmet to break in two and not provide any significant protection.

There is also an important point about the nature of the expanded polystyrene used in bike helmets - it is used for its ability to be compressed when hit and thus provide some protection. When you see a helmet split apart, that means that the polystyrene has failed in its tensile strength which is not a selling point of EPS (e.g. it's easy to break apart polystyrene packaging, but difficult to compress).

Also, I'm not convinced by your figures on brain deceleration as I think you're underestimating the size of forces involved when hitting another object at speed (AFAIK helmets are typically tested at up to 12mph). However, it is reasonable to assume that helmets would provide good head/brain protection for children due to their slower speeds and reduced height, although this could be offset by their increased risk taking if they believe that helmets are effective.

The big problem with talking about helmets as PPE is that it's completely missing the point. We need to be looking towards the European countries that have much smaller cyclist KSIs; they have good cycle infrastructure and tend to not wear cycle helmets.

Avatar
don simon fbpe | 5 years ago
0 likes

A couple of plod were seen riding around that there Liverpool (0-3 Real Madrid) today without helmets and conspicuously all in black with no hi-viz. You'd think that they'd take note of their own advice.

Avatar
madcarew replied to don simon fbpe | 5 years ago
1 like

don simon wrote:

A couple of plod were seen riding around that there Liverpool (0-3 Real Madrid) today without helmets and conspicuously all in black with no hi-viz. You'd think that they'd take note of their own advice.

Probably incognito, hadn't filled out their whereabouts forms for UCI (a la Chicken Rasmussen)

Avatar
Deeferdonk | 5 years ago
3 likes

An extract from the Sussex Police article:

“Cyclists are obviously more vulnerable, and for this reason we advise you are fully prepared to take to the road. Make sure you are visible, use lights if you are riding after dark, and most importantly wear a helmet – it could be the difference between life and death.”

Apparently riding with lights after dark is less important than wearing a helmet! Who knew?!

Avatar
srchar | 5 years ago
2 likes

burtthebike wrote:

I always used to think that the police investigated things and made decisions based on the evidence

No, they are here to police YouTube and protect the fragile feelings of thin-skinned Twitter users who have piles of chips on their shoulders.

A driver tried to deliberately knock me off my bike this evening, as I wasn't cycling in the (obstructed) cycle lane and didn't respond to his stream of expletives. I reported it to the Met as an assault, but they've told me it's a "traffic incident" and pointed me in the direction of an online form.

I used to be a huge supporter of the police, but I've absolutely no idea what they are for these days. Fuck 'em.

Avatar
Hirsute | 5 years ago
1 like

Serious leg and arm injuries but could have been worse.

Maybe he should have been wearing body armour or an inflatable cocoon.

Avatar
burtthebike | 5 years ago
3 likes

I always used to think that the police investigated things and made decisions based on the evidence, but I can see that I was sadly mistaken.  Is it any wonder there are so many wrongful convictions?

Avatar
grumpyoldcyclist | 5 years ago
7 likes

I wear a helmet when I ride my bike, in case I fall off, it may help. If I'm hit by a driver / vehicle it will potentially have negligible benefits.

One issue Sussex police fail to address is that for the occupants of vehicles involved in a crash, the biggest cause of fatalities is head injuries. A lot more drivers than cyclists die on the roads every day and I don't see the police 'suggesting' that drivers wear helmets.

Avatar
madcarew replied to grumpyoldcyclist | 5 years ago
1 like

grumpyoldcyclist wrote:

I wear a helmet when I ride my bike, in case I fall off, it may help. If I'm hit by a driver / vehicle it will potentially have negligible benefits.

One issue Sussex police fail to address is that for the occupants of vehicles involved in a crash, the biggest cause of fatalities is head injuries. A lot more drivers than cyclists die on the roads every day and I don't see the police 'suggesting' that drivers wear helmets.

Really that's kind of silly. They may not insist on helmets for drivers, but they do insist on a large raft of safety implements in modern cars before they can be used on the roads. Head injuries may well be the major killer because we've managed to seriously reduce most of the other ways of dying in a vehicle via compulsory safety aids.  All activities carry risk, some of which we simply accept because of social norms and the nature of the activity. Thus we don't insist on all swimmers wearing oxygen tanks. 

I do not support compulsory helmet wearing because on balance I think it is probably detrimental to the safety of the cycling population. However, there are very real individual safety benefits from wearing a helmet. 

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to madcarew | 5 years ago
2 likes

madcarew wrote:

grumpyoldcyclist wrote:

I wear a helmet when I ride my bike, in case I fall off, it may help. If I'm hit by a driver / vehicle it will potentially have negligible benefits.

One issue Sussex police fail to address is that for the occupants of vehicles involved in a crash, the biggest cause of fatalities is head injuries. A lot more drivers than cyclists die on the roads every day and I don't see the police 'suggesting' that drivers wear helmets.

Really that's kind of silly. They may not insist on helmets for drivers, but they do insist on a large raft of safety implements in modern cars before they can be used on the roads. Head injuries may well be the major killer because we've managed to seriously reduce most of the other ways of dying in a vehicle via compulsory safety aids.  All activities carry risk, some of which we simply accept because of social norms and the nature of the activity. Thus we don't insist on all swimmers wearing oxygen tanks. 

I do not support compulsory helmet wearing because on balance I think it is probably detrimental to the safety of the cycling population. However, there are very real individual safety benefits from wearing a helmet. 

Really, I was not aware that Sussex Police insisted on "a large raft of safety implements in modern cars before they can be used on the roads".

Avatar
madcarew replied to ClubSmed | 5 years ago
1 like

ClubSmed wrote:

madcarew wrote:

grumpyoldcyclist wrote:

I wear a helmet when I ride my bike, in case I fall off, it may help. If I'm hit by a driver / vehicle it will potentially have negligible benefits.

One issue Sussex police fail to address is that for the occupants of vehicles involved in a crash, the biggest cause of fatalities is head injuries. A lot more drivers than cyclists die on the roads every day and I don't see the police 'suggesting' that drivers wear helmets.

Really that's kind of silly. They may not insist on helmets for drivers, but they do insist on a large raft of safety implements in modern cars before they can be used on the roads. Head injuries may well be the major killer because we've managed to seriously reduce most of the other ways of dying in a vehicle via compulsory safety aids.  All activities carry risk, some of which we simply accept because of social norms and the nature of the activity. Thus we don't insist on all swimmers wearing oxygen tanks. 

I do not support compulsory helmet wearing because on balance I think it is probably detrimental to the safety of the cycling population. However, there are very real individual safety benefits from wearing a helmet. 

Really, I was not aware that Sussex Police insisted on "a large raft of safety implements in modern cars before they can be used on the roads".

Ok, fair call on my wording, in a way.

See what the Sussex police insist on if you try driving down the road in a car without brakes, or a seat belt, or collapsing steering column (unless you have a special derogation), or selling a new car with out ABS, EBD, airbag etc etc. Lots of cars get pink stickered all the time, which is effectively the police insisting on a large raft of safety implements / accessories / features before it can be driven.

Avatar
wknight | 5 years ago
1 like

The one key statistic we are missing is how many people saved a trip to The hospital or even calling an ambulance because the helmet saved them. 

 

I witnessed two crashes very recently where the person walked away, but their helmet was a complete shattered mess. That would have been their head and yes it is personal choice, but no one complains about wearing a seat belt. Please don’t say there is data, because the data we need re Helmets has not been gathered. Go visit a&e and see head injuries. 

If the police get involved why not, remember it’s them who have all the paperwork, investigation and having to give the family the bad news

Avatar
don simon fbpe replied to wknight | 5 years ago
13 likes

wknight wrote:

The one key statistic we are missing is how many people saved a trip to The hospital or even calling an ambulance because the helmet saved them. 

 

I witnessed two crashes very recently where the person walked away, but their helmet was a complete shattered mess. That would have been their head and yes it is personal choice, but no one complains about wearing a seat belt. Please don’t say there is data, because the data we need re Helmets has not been gathered. Go visit a&e and see head injuries. 

If the police get involved why not, remember it’s them who have all the paperwork, investigation and having to give the family the bad news

New here, aren't you?

Avatar
srchar replied to wknight | 5 years ago
5 likes

wknight wrote:

I witnessed two crashes very recently where the person walked away, but their helmet was a complete shattered mess. That would have been their head

Do you really think a (cheap? old? crap?) piece of polystyrene is stronger than the human skull?  I think you'd be surprised.  I've had two massive crashes when not wearing a helmet, but wish I'd been wearing wrist guards, then my left one might actually still work as a wrist. So that's two all on anecdotes.

The thing I don't understand is, why aren't helmet advocates all wearing full-face downhill lids? Ones that might actually do something to protect their beautiful faces and massive brains if they have a high-impact off.

Avatar
daturaman replied to srchar | 5 years ago
1 like

srchar wrote:

The thing I don't understand is, why aren't helmet advocates all wearing full-face downhill lids? Ones that might actually do something to protect their beautiful faces and massive brains if they have a high-impact off.

I certainly advocate wearing a full-face downhill "lid" for downhill mtb.

Avatar
brooksby replied to daturaman | 5 years ago
1 like

daturaman wrote:

srchar wrote:

The thing I don't understand is, why aren't helmet advocates all wearing full-face downhill lids? Ones that might actually do something to protect their beautiful faces and massive brains if they have a high-impact off.

I certainly advocate wearing a full-face downhill "lid" for downhill mtb.

I'd think most people would.  But its a question of risk assessment - downhill mtb at speed is *way* different to riding in town to go to the shops or a recreational path along a riverside, isn't it?

Pages

Latest Comments