AA to hand out 5,000 free cycle helmets in London today

Maybe the AA president is a keen cyclist and the AA is guardedly pro cycling but it hasn't trickled down to their van drivers.

I don't see the sinister motives others have attributed.

I do see a missed opportunity to point out where the danger comes from and address that. As I know myself, from bitter experience, being done up like a radioactive banana that's been dragged through a pound shop at Christmas time is no guarantee that motorists will see you. And anyone who thinks the modern h*lm*t is much protection against motor vehicle impacts is a bit daft. (I do wear one myself, but am sceptical about the benefits - it's more a handy place to put lights).

A real improvement in road safety would come from drivers taking more care around cyclists. A motoring organisation armouring cyclists with h*lm*ts & hi-vis does nothing to address that.

What a patronising and cynical gesture on the AA's part. I will not be renewing my membership with them.

I see this as very sinister. As a motoring and insurance organisation, helmets have three advantages to the AA;

1) Helmets overstate the risks involved in cycling (which are very low) and play to people's fear of road traffic, whilst providing a net zero benefit to their wearers. Anything which is bad for cycling is surely good for the motoring lobby, no?

2) Insurance companies are big on pushing the idea that not wearing a helmet is "contributory negligence" when a cyclist becomes a victim of motorist negligence. This is always dropped before the case goes to court, and is mainly used in negotiations. Promoting helmets strengthens this position.

3) Helmets help to place the burden of responsibility for safety on those who are most often the victims (cyclists) rather than those who are the source of danger (motorists, whom the AA represents).

As a motoring organisation, surely the AA should be handing out helmets for motorists, and high-vis paint for cars to make sure they can be seen by other road users instead.

Hi Vis might come in handy if you plan to tour France, mind, now a requirement in law for cyclists at night, or in poor visibility.

Best way to promote the use of cycling helmets?

Make them illegal, put a tax on them or plaster them with pictures of how wearing them makes you an organ donor in waiting.

Maybe road.cc should begin a survey:

I do/do not wear a cycling helmet because...

Even before the 'wind thought my hair (sic)' comment by that suit full of bugger-all made helmet wearing more of a political band-wagon, the debate has raged (or caused rage) and I'm done with it. Let people make up their own minds - if you're convinced that "it'll never happen to me" then some karmic PMA might save you from injury for the rest of your life - good for you.

I don't live in a Final Destination film but I'm aware (for my sake, and that of those around me) that accidents can happen and IF they do, I'd like to be as protected as possible.

A hard hat on a building site won't save you if you have a skip load of bricks dropped on your head, but it will stop you gashing your head open on that stray scaffold pole

@joemmo

Cynical: believing the worst of human nature and motives; having a sneering disbelief in e.g. selflessness of others

Had on that describes what you wrote perfectly ;x

@mr_colostomy

Who says I don't already?

@andylul

As long as you're consistent

It must be a bit awkward showering with a helmet, knee pads and safety goggles though....

Riiiight. I know what a cycle helmet is. I have two of them. Neither a piece o' shit hot, uncomfortable and gonky £27.99 effort.

And I know what a cycle helmet is for.

So if I'm not wearing one (it happens) it's for a reason, to do with not going fast today, not jumping, not racing, not going offroad, not riding in a tight bunch, don't want to mess my hair up, this hat looks pretty good. That kind of thing. Deal with it. Preferably by looking where you're going with that 1-tonne metal thing.

@BigDummy

It's true man, sometimes you just gotta look cool

@mr_colostomy

that's just plain silly

I'm OK so long as I've made a full H&S risk assessment for everything I do.

@Sammy - I guess we'll have to differ on what constitutes cycnicism and what constitutes reasonably questioning the motives behind a publicity stunt organised by a large pro-motoring organistion.

Anyway, enjoy your free stuff.

Not much hair left, and I hate rubbing suntan lotion on my head, a helmet makes sense. Every body has their own reasons for wearing or not wearing one. I just hope this isn't the beggining of a push by the insurance companies to make them mandatory. (AA is about insurance as much as its about repairs).

Fair point Joe, I have'nt had any problems with any AA vehicles as yet though, so I'm not sure if portraying them as the is good crack.

But anyway free stuff is always a winner, or am I just a cheapskate?

It is always a case of how you spin the news.
I see this as the AA admitting that the bad driving of some of its members put cyclist at risk (otherwise way would they need helmets) of serious injury and therefore I applaud their move to offer 5,000 free helmets to London cyclist; probably the cyclist at greatest risk. It is a shame that the helmets are unlikely to offer any real protection in a collision with a moving vehicle, a fact I'm sure the AA is aware of.
If however it helps removes the shaky defense of "they were not wearing a helmet" (contributory negligence) it may just moderate the unwarranted accusatory behavior of insurance companies as well as encourage some drivers to be more aware of and considerate towards other road users.
But as I said at the beginning there is always spin.

It's like if the NRA handed out bullet-proof vests. Someone should go and collect a hundred of those free helmets, then pick up a car from a scrap yard, glue the helmets to the car, and create an ironic art installation.

Call me a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but is the AA's action in any way connected to or coordinated with the Independent's front page today?

When did Mikael Colville-Andersen become an expert on UK cycling anyway? Bikehub could have asked any one of the 20,000 members of UK cycle campaign groups for their opinion.

The cynical comments about the AA are well founded. there's been no overall helmet related casualty rate reduction in the real world. Fully controlled studies are difficult, but it seems this is due to risk compensation, physical limitations of helmets, conversion of minor impacts into brain wrenching rotations; diversion of effort from really effective measures (e.g. lower speeds, National Standard Cycle training / awareness) etc.

In any event health benefits outweigh risks 20 fold and cycling is safer than most other regular activities and pastimes, including walking which has around 50% more casualties per mile. Why not walking or driving helmets? Maybe because it's all part of the demonisation of cycling (an 'in group' / 'out group' syndrome).

All of this is explored by Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation www.cyclehelmets.org including showing the bad science of many 'studies' (especially the one which says 85% of casualties would be avoided).

Boris Bikes have a fantastic safety record, re inforcing these points. Why is the AA interfering? And beware of letting highly emotive 'reasoning' based on personal tragedies dominate the argument, much as the media loves doing so. (Tragedies occur in lots of life's situations: try demanding life jackets for riverside walks).

For anyone now disillusioned with being a 'member' of the AA, try the ETA. (I have no financial interest in them BTW)

John Mallows, Policy Director, cyclenation the federation of cycling campaign groups

I lived in the Netherlands for two years. It was only club riders that I ever saw wearing helmets.

Most Dutch people find wearing a helmet amusing, and I once had a bike full of kids from a playgroup laughing at the man wearing a helmet

I'm sure in a nation of cyclists, if there were major health benefits to wearing a helmet, more people would be wearing them.