Day 3 of The Times newspaper’s Cities Fit For Cycling Campaign sees the paper publishing a 12-page ‘Guide To Safe Cycling' and encountering something of a backlash from some cyclists in the process. Parts of today's guide have not been universally well received, and while there is undoubtedly huge support for the campaign amongst cyclists, The Times is also finding out that they can also be an independent and prickly bunch, who don’t like being lectured or told what to do.
Among criticisms levelled at the paper on social networking sites such as Twitter are its decision to include an article from James Cracknell, now a strong supporter of helmet compulsion, who amongst other things likens those who cycle without a helmet to football hooligans, plus the newspaper’s own advice that cyclists should wear a helmet as well as high visibility clothing.
Cracknell, the Olympic rower turned TV personality, almost lost his life in 2009 after he was struck in the head by a truck’s wing mirror while filming in the United States. He believes the fact he was wearing a helmet saved his life.
However, with helmet compulsion being a subject guaranteed to incite heated debate, Cracknell has come under criticism from some quarters for the pro-helmet stance he has adopted in pieces written for The Daily Telegraph.
As one blogger points out, Cracknell appear on Alpina’s UK website as a “sponsored athlete" despite insisting, after mentioning his Alpina Pheos helmet in The Telegraph that, “I don’t have a commercial relationship with the manufacturer, by the way".
Cracknell's piece in today's Times is accompanied by a picture of him holding the helmet, still stained with blood, that he was wearing when he was struck by that lorry, although there is no mention of his apparent sponsorship by the manufacturer.
Cracknell also likens those who choose to cycle without a helmet to football hooligans.
“If you are cycling without a helmet, you are being selfish to your family and friends,” he asserts. "It is like with football in the Eighties, when a violent 1 per cent minority of football fans meant the other 99 per cent were tarred as hooligans."
The Times itself suggests, in a two-page spread under the heading ’12 ways to cycle safely’ – there’s an interactive graphic here, under the ‘Graphic: 12 safety tips’ tab – wearing a helmet and high-visibility clothing; it cites a statistic, unsourced, that “60 per cent of cyclist fatalities are head injuries,” but fails to acknowledge arguments against them often outlined by opponents of compulsion or that in the case of cycling fatalities involving motor vehicles – which make up the majority – the outcome is unlikely to have been altered by the wearing of a helmet.
On a day when coverage in the main newspaper focused on the success of the municipal authorities in Copenhagen of getting people cycling, the focus on helmets and hi-viz strikes a dissonant note for many – seeming to miss the point that when a city is fit for cycling there should be no need for helmets or high viz cycling gear. In Copenhagen and in other cities with high levels of cycling such as Amsterdam, such equipment is noticeable more for its absence than anything else. Cycling is an everyday activity, carried out in everyday clothes something that was achieved by getting more people on bikes and changing the attitudes of drivers in particular about interact with other road users.
Among those interviewed for the newspaper’s supplement today are Rebecca Romero and Chris Boardman, as well as several everyday cyclists who have no ambitions of following that pair to Olympic success, but simply want to get around on their bike, safely.
There is also an article penned by Jon Snow, the Channel 4 broadcaster and CTC President, although he is writing in a personal capacity. A couple of his comments do give food for thought.“The Times Cycling Manifesto is good as far as it goes, but there is a serious dimension missing: human rights,” he says.
“The dominant creature on the urban road is the single-occupancy car. One person in a motorised 60 sq ft metal box.
And what are we cyclists — one person on a thin strip of tubing with two wheels.
“One has the power, the presence and the rights; the other is deprived of all three. Is that equality under the law?
“I would willingly pay a licence fee for my bike if it meant that separated cycle ways were provided as my right,” continues Snow.
“My children were deprived of the right to cycle to school, even of the right to cycle safely at university — it was, and is, quite simply too dangerous.”
Even in a private capacity, that’s a startling point of view to be expressed by someone who is the figurehead of one of Britain’s leading organisations for cyclists.
Meanwhile, the urgency of the overriding goal of campaign by The Times – to make Britain’s streets safer for cyclists – was underlined yesterday by news of the deaths of two cyclists in incidents that took place in very different parts of the country just minutes apart yesterday afternoon.
A 77-year-old man died in the rural village of Whaplode Drove, Lincolnshire, in a collision with a car driven by an 80-year-old male; in London’s Bishopsgate, a male cyclist said by police to be aged in his sixties died following a collision with a coach.
Broad support for the campaign continues to be strong, with more than 100,000 people now signed up to it. But reaction to the comments by Cracknell and advice to wear a helmet and hi-viz gear do show that while in some cases it’s appropriate to generalise those who choose to ride bikes as ‘cyclists,’ it does need to be remembered that cyclists are individuals too, with views as diverse as the machines they ride.
























104 thoughts on “Day 3 of the Times Cities Fit for Cycling Campaign… a bit of a backlash”
I really don’t get road cc’s
I really don’t get road cc’s insistence on always speaking up for the right to go bare-headed. If you rather romantically consider yourselves as defendants of freedom and liberty I have to break it to you: you’re defending nothing. I’ve yet to hear anyone who’s had a crash involving impact to the head say “I wish I hadn’t been wearing that helmet, it made things worse” yet many people would state that their helmet saved their life.
I recall something similar with compulsory seatbelt wearing, how our right to choose was being eroded, how many accidents seatbelts would cause etc etc. hopefully now just about everyone with an ounce of common sense would sooner walk than have their children rattling about unrestrained in a car. In a few years maybe we’ll be able to look back on this issue and accept that a lot of time was spent speaking up for the indefensible too.
There’s so many more things that adversely affect us as cyclists, I wish all our efforts were directed against those.
Quite agree fred22 lets focus
Quite agree fred22 lets focus on what’s going to improve conditions for cycling, enforced helmet wearing isn’t one of them as is clearly explained in the article.
Fred22,
In 2006 I was hit by
Fred22,
In 2006 I was hit by a negligent motorist who overtook me and cut me up by turning left. I was thrown over the bonnet and landed on the road, injuring to my head. I’m glad I wasn’t wearing a helmet, the way I landed means it would have only made it worse. True story. Get over yourself.
The compulsory use of seat
The compulsory use of seat belts is also wrong.
Quit echoing Cracknell and practice what you preach.
mattsccm wrote:The compulsory
Indeed, making seatbelts compulsory resulted in an increase in cyclist and pedestrian injuries because seatbelts meant people were enabled to drive like tw@ts without getting killed.
First of all: CrackPOTnell
First of all: CrackPOTnell strikes again! And Jon “Dangerous” Snow reaffirms why I’ve joined a CCN group instead of CTC. Some of CTC’s grass-roots volunteers do a great job, but they need to get rid of Jon Snow.
Also, a surprising number of them do things like sitting on top of the seatbelts in order to stop the warning chimes, as I saw when doing an AA Streetwatch count near a school, which can’t be good for their driving position (the shoulder fixing leans them forwards a bit) and control of the car.
Helmets would save a minority of cyclists in fatal collisions. Compulsion would deter some cyclists, so increase fatalities according the CTC Safety In Numbers study findings, plus there’s the effect of some of the population getting less exercise. So I’m against compulsion, despite often wearing one.
The Times 12-point safety graphic is facile. Half the points are presented as a cyclist-only change and half of those are very debatable: 1. helmets/hi-vis/bike; 2. no-headphones; 4. use badly-maintained cycle tracks instead of roads; 7. don’t overtake stopped buses; 11. stopping distances; 12. training. It has nothing about campaigning for better road design, keeping to routes popular with cyclists or using specialist route planners like cyclestreets.net – makes you wonder if the author cycles or not.
I think there are two big measures not mentioned in The Times list:
1. Bikeability (not some new undefined “cycle safety” idea) as a prerequisite of the driving test (both first and retest) unless there’s a medical or similar reason to exempt someone;
2. More bobbies on bicycles, notifying nearby patrol cars of who’s driving dangerously, and with some of them filming and popping round for a word later, with a fixed penalty notice if it was obvious like stopping in a bike-only box at lights.
Unfortunately Mr Cracknell’s
Unfortunately Mr Cracknell’s opinion, notwithstanding the question of the nature of his relationship, is similar to that of the proselytizing former smoker espousing on the dangers of tobacco.
‘I really don’t get road cc’s
‘I really don’t get road cc’s insistence on always speaking up for the right to go bare-headed. If you rather romantically consider yourselves as defendants of freedom and liberty I have to break it to you: you’re defending nothing. I’ve yet to hear anyone who’s had a crash involving impact to the head say “I wish I hadn’t been wearing that helmet, it made things worse” yet many people would state that their helmet saved their life.’
Personally I’m glad that the chaps remain fairly logical rather than dealing in conjecture and spurious claims.
Quote:There’s so many more
Me too. but unfortunately we often find ourselves in the position of opposing people who seem to think that a bit of polystyrene and some yellow clothes will solve all cyclists’ problems, and that our safety issues are self-inflicted. the reality is that cars drive into us and lorries run us over. Another cyclist died in london yesterday, taken out by a coach. The excellent mr Paul Lew, he of Reynolds wheels, is currently learning to walk again after being taken out by a car travelling at 60mph. These are the incidents that do the damage, that’s what we need to concentrate on. The Times campaign today is a bit of a disappointment because until now they’d managed to concentrate on the things that matter. Helmets are a red herring.
dave_atkinson
to be frank Dave that’s a connection that you’re assuming the non-cycling public is making and I just don’t think its a correct one. But its not wrong to expect people to take the responsibility for their actions, possibly we’d all be better off if in general people balanced rights with responsibility.
A helmet won’t save your life in some/many situations but a helmet certainly saved the life of a number of cyclists. It never makes an accident worse and to not wear one can understandably be viewed as reckless or worse.
fred22 wrote:
A helmet won’t
in your opinion, of course. There’s no proof of that whatsoever.
andyp wrote:fred22 wrote:
A
Did you read my earlier comment about my friend headbutting a dry stone wall ?
Scroll back through, read my comment and then say a helmet never saved a life.
If your (stumps’) friend’s
If your (stumps’) friend’s helmet split into several pieces as you say then it’s unlikely that it worked as it is supposed to. Helmets are supposed to crush (below a certain force threshold) and absorb energy. Above that threshold they split and absorb much less energy.
The doctors that stated that his life was saved were speaking far outside of their professional expertise.
fred22 wrote:
to be frank
i disagree here. i’m all for everyone being responsible, but the focus on high viz and helmets attempts to shift the responsibility for avoiding accidents onto cyclists, as if the lack of them is what’s causing the deaths. it isn’t. But the response of non cycling folk is often along these lines:
http://road.cc/content/news/34847-cyclist-who-died-after-being-hit-three-cars-should-have-worn-helmet-says-coroner
collisions involving cyclists and motorists are predominantly caused by the actions of motorists. All the stats show that. people die on bikes in collisions with vehicles predominantly because other people drive those vehicles badly.
http://road.cc/content/news/12065-cyclists-not-blame-road-casualties-says-study-commissioned-dft
There’s any number of ways to mitigate that risk. The best one by far is to build well-designed and segregated facilities for cyclists in cities. Slower cars is another (http://road.cc/content/news/48413-slowing-motorists-down-best-way-increase-safety-cyclists-says-dft-report) Mutual respect in shared spaces is needed. education and proper enforcement can help. Helmets are a red herring. High viz too.
I wear a helmet. all the time. I wear a high viz jacket too, when it’s murky out. But these are not the things that will bring about big improvements in safer cycling.
Personally, I’m extremely
Personally, I’m extremely disappointed that what seemed to be a proper safety campaign, aimed at reducing the causes of danger, has been hijacked by the usual helmet promotion suspects. I feel as if I signed up under false pretences, as there was absolutely no mention of helmets for the first two days, and I was angry and surprised when I opened today’s paper. The first item listed on their how to be safe guide? a helmet, and the last is the most useful measure: training.
I’ve emailed the editor asking for similar coverage of the case against helmets, and if it is not forthcoming, I’ve made it clear that I will demand that my name be removed from their campaign. You might like to consider doing the same.
Burtthebike – you’re a genius
Burtthebike – you’re a genius – undermine the most significant, high-profile, national pro-cycling campaign we’ve ever seen, that could, just could, positively change the image of cyclists and the relationship with other road users for ever, because you and a few other morons can’t be arsed to wear a helmet.
Well done.
@Phazon
First, just because
@Phazon
First, just because something claims to be a pro-cyclist safety campaing doesn’t mean that its effects will actually be to increase safety or improve cyclists image.
Skimming some of the Times coverage I suspect that its effects may be negative. Most of the stories that I read were promoting a fearful, victim mentality about cycling. James Cracknell, Jon Snow and Rebecca Romero are all saying that cycling is so dangerous that they either stop their family members doing it, or often even choose to stay off the road, or else are the brain-damaged victims of unavoidable cycling accidents.
I don’t agree with their analysis of how dangerous it is to ride and I don’t see why you think that any of that is positive.
It comes across as dishonest scaremongering from people that want to install bike paths.
Finally, as to the insults, I’m sure you’re a nice enough person but you come across as someone with nothing but some ignorance and arrogance rattling around inside your polystyrene hat.
“I really don’t get road cc’s
“I really don’t get road cc’s insistence on always speaking up for the right to go bare-headed.”
I do and I support it.
But.. Let’s not all be distracted by the pro-anti helmet compulsion debate and focus on safer roads for all.
burtthebike, agreed, good point.
People are being run down and
People are being run down and killed by buses, concrete lorries, huge skip waggons and huge articulated trucks, yet some misguided people have the idea a flimsy helmet would have saved them. A pity the victims can’t explain that their helmets did nothing to help them.
When i was a young lad, about
When i was a young lad, about 16yrs old, a good friend of mine went to the Lakes mountain biking. He was probably one of the first i had seen wearing a helmet so he got quite a bit of stick from the rest of us, however, on a downhill section he took a flying lesson and proceeded to headbutt a well made dry stone wall.
His helmet split into various pieces, most of which was never found, but his head remained in one piece and basically the dr’s stated that if not for the sadly deceased helmet so would have been my friend.
Since that day i have worn a helmet. It wont stop you from getting run over nor side swiped or door swiped but it just might stop a serious head injury and that in itself is enough for me.
Stumps: When i was a young
Stumps: When i was a young lad, about 16yrs old, a good friend of mine went to the Lakes mountain biking. He was probably one of the first i had seen wearing a helmet so he got quite a bit of stick from the rest of us, however, on a downhill section he took a flying lesson and proceeded to headbutt a well made dry stone wall.
Can you really not tell the difference between riding off-road, on rough or non-existent tracks, as fast as possible, for fun, in the hunt for exhilarating experiences and riding to work along a smooth road?
Do you wear a hard hat when crossing the road or sitting in a bus or car?
I was waiting for The Times
I was waiting for The Times to bring up compulsory helmets and hi vis. They’re a nice little distraction from the real issue which is motorist speed and dangerous aggressive driving. Wearing a bright yellow top in good weather just so a speeding driver has a little more reaction time to cope with their excessive speed is not the way forward.
From personal experience I know the value of helmets but I’m pro choice. Road.CC seem pretty neutral to me on this.
The bottom line is that in the UK motor transport has ruled the road and government policy making since 1945. If Peter Hitchens and John Snow are agreeing that this needs to change then we could have a ‘cycling spring’ on our hands.
God I hope so. Cycling is one of the best experiences in life and I’m tired of fearing the petulance of my fellow countrymen and women everytime I go out in this country.
Come on, give them a break!
I
Come on, give them a break!
I think it’s great that a national, conservative newspaper is getting people talking and thinking about cycle safety. We should be encouraging them rather than writing letters complaining about the details 🙂
If we follow the hi-viz logic
If we follow the hi-viz logic to its conclusion then surely all other vehicles, pedestrians crossing the road and horses should be swathed in day-glo orange or yellow and all traffic accidents would be eliminated in one fell swoop. 😕
Yep. Hi viz for every
Yep. Hi viz for every activity outside the house will be compulsory. It already seems that way to an extent with more and more people adopting it for walking, jogging etc. on the other hand when everyone else is clad in luminous yellow I’ll stand out in my black jacket…
Chrisc wrote:Yep. Hi viz for
I’ll be sure to look out for you as I drive my polypropylene car on wheels of sponge… 😉
Sincerely hope this doesn’t
Sincerely hope this doesn’t end up hijacked by hi-viz and polystyrene. As has been said. With proper infrastructure it should be perfectly possible to cycle anywhere without protective gear. Jon Snow hit the nail on the head. I hope they listen to him.
I wear a helmet at the BMX
I wear a helmet at the BMX track and took a big spill recently when I made a bad landing, with the helmet undoubtedly being a help. But it was my knee protection that saved me from injury. Without those I’d have had a cracked or broken kneecap for sure. The thing is, as others in this thread point out, other parts of the anatomy tend to impact most often when a cyclist comes off. Knees and elbows are the most often injured. I’ve seen various statistics about injuries to cyclists, and head injuries aren’t high on the list with regard to risks.
I wear a helmet at the BMX track and a skate type lid when I’m riding my BMX at the skatepark but that’s because it’s concrete and I’m jumping my bike, while I rarely bother when I’m on the road. Even in the years when I was commuting 20 miles/day across central London, I rarely wore a helmet.
As for saying that wearing seatbelts shouldn’t be compulsory, to use a quote from a certain famous tennis player of yore, “You cannot be serious.”
Whilst I support the wearing
Whilst I support the wearing of helmets in cycle sports such as Mountain biking where spills are common place I would still take umbrage at being compelled to wear one every time I mount up.
Helmets and Hi-vis are poor cures for the real problem which is poor driving and inadequate cycling provision. I have been in three accidents on the way into work, none of which were my fault and in all of which I was wearing Hi-vis and a helmet. The Hi-vis seems to be pointless because all too often motorists just don’t look and the helmet is there to save you when one of these idiots hits you. A cyclist would NOT need to wear either of these things if proper provisions are in place for cycling, as cyclists in the Netherlands show.
“If you are cycling without a
“If you are cycling without a helmet, you are being selfish to your family and friends,”
That’s the voice of one individual. If he was your average Joe Public that would be fair enough, but when it’s a famous sportsman given a platform in a national newspaper, spouting opinion dressed up as fact, it really is annoying.
Regardless of the views of Alpina-sponsored James Cracknell, you or me the matter, helmet compulsion will NOT save lives on the roads. It’s a red herring, as is hi-viz clothing.
Anyone who blithely compares helmets with seat belts in cars has demonstrated a complete lack of comprehension. They should stay back after school and write out ‘I shall not make dumb comments on the internet’ 100 times (or, better still, try taking those blinkers off and learning something).
Would a helmet have saved the latest victim?
It would help if journalist
It would help if journalist at The Time had actually bother to spend some time researching How do you get more people to ride bicycles and less time re-hashing the same old rubbish about hi-viz and helmets which help to make our roads so dangerous for cycling in the first place.
2 points i would like to
2 points i would like to raise in relation to comments made about my earlier entry.
Firstly, Ush – the accident was 30 yrs ago and the standard of helmet was not as good as it is now, and more importantly you have no idea about where the accident happened, the speed or the point of impact to say the helmet wouldn’t split up and who the Dr was, their qualifications or whether they were a consultant, specialist in head injuries or anything so dont make random stupid comments till you know the full facts
Secondly, JohnS – I know exactly what the difference is but when was the last time you cycled a smooth road without any of the following, curbs, pot holes, lamposts, telephone boxes, post boxes, telegraph poles, metal railings, central refuge, traffic lights the list goes on and is a hell of a lot more extensive than off road obstacles.
Helmets do help prevent injuries and anyone who says they dont is talking complete crap BUT i would not make it compulsory as to regulate it would be ridiculous and it should be left to the conscience of the rider.
Rant over
stumps wrote:2 points i would
There’s the thing Stumpy, it’s all just speculation. Any doctor or specialist who said that a helmet saved a life is talking crap. It’s fine if they say that *in their opinion* it did – nobody could argue with that. But any man of science claiming something as fact without any proof to support it isn’t worth listening to. So it doesn’t matter how long ago it was, where it was, what qualification the doctor had – its all speculation. And *that* is fact. If you want to wear one – fine. If you want to *think* that it saved your friends life, fine. But don’t go making stupid claims and expecting people to accept them.
stumps wrote:
Firstly, Ush –
Which helmet standard? The nice thing about them is that there are so many to choose from 😀 … many of the earlier hard-shell helmets were actually more effective for the type of impact you describe and one complaint about current helmet pushing is that the move is towards lighter, cooler helmets which aren’t certified to Snell B-95.
If it split then it did not crush … a helmet working to the best of its capacity is crushing. I’m not saying it wouldn’t split up. I’m accepting your description of the accident and pointing out that according to your own testimony the helmet probably did not absorb much energy.
Medical doctors are not materials engineers, nor are they accident investigators, nor are they statisticians. Even specialists in head injuries and neurosurgeons would not necessarily have the expertise to make the ridiculously sweeping pronouncement that you blarted out in your original post.
As always, those accusing others of stupidity say more about themselves than anyone else. Keep it up.
stumps wrote:I know exactly
Funny, that, I’ve managed to avoid all of them in the past 100,000km on the road. They tend to be at the edge of the lane, while I’m nearer the middle (except for the potholes, and I only hit one of them when I forgot to avoid a puddle).
Glad you’re anti-compulsion, but what’s with the “conscience”? It’s a matter of informed choice and, sadly, the Times seems to think publishing Cracknell’s misinformation is helpful.
andyp – I completely agree
andyp – I completely agree it’s all speculation without facts to back it up but when a qualified Dr gives their opinion you cant just ignore it saying he’s making a stupid claim.
Based on my mates injuries, the point of impact and what remained of the helmet the Dr gave his qualified interpretation of the injuries and basically stated that the helmet stopped a large piece of stone crushing the front of his skull and in doing so pushed the skull fragments into his brain which in his qualified opinion and based on the facts he had at his disposal said would have killed him.
Sorry if you think it’s a stupid claim, i was just making a point based on personal experiences.
stumps wrote:andyp – I
I would refer doubting AndyP to my ultimate helmet argument settler. Run at a brick wall head down with a helmet on – then repeat the test with no helmet. Then tell us which one hurt more and did the most damage.. 😀
MercuryOne wrote:Run at a
(|:
Try telling someone who has been crushed by a lorry or flattened by a speeding, texting motorist.
Surely it should be better
Surely it should be better education all round? There are some atrocious drivers out there just as there are some cyclists who appear not only to have no idea (or care not) of the rules of the road but also total disregard for their own lives.
As for wearing a cycle helmet? Used to make the excuse of “don’t need a helmet, always land on my elbows!” Thankfully only the once, I was hit by a car which sent me spinning in the air and head glanced the pavement. Came to a rest on my knees watching blood dripping before my eyes. Worn a helmet ever since. My main injury was severe bruising to my lower back and right buttock. Helmet obviously would not have stopped this but it would have stopped the gash to the head. Although not wearing hi vis, I was still wearing brightly coloured clothing! Car didn’t come out of it unscathed: broke his windscreen 😀
One more thing! Come on guys
One more thing! Come on guys stop bickering. Make a comment on or disagree with what is in the main article by all means but surely there is no need to shoot down in flames another poster’s argument just because you don’t agree with it?
All these comments about
All these comments about helmets.
The other articles in the week had been on the whole positive. But this bit puts the blame on cyclists
Shockingly also, while asking cyclists to wear hi viz, helmets, and signal the guide misses out surely the most crucial part: of looking around – for instance at a junction. It’s far more important to look than signal
And then the back page which suggests that to rid a bike you need to wear £400 of specialist kit.
Lights after dark will do and can be had for a ouple of quid
They could also have mentioned the free or nearly free cycle training avilable to all adults in London
As always, those accusing
As always, those accusing others of stupidity say more about themselves than anyone else. Keep it up.
Ush – laugh, i nearly wet myself !
How about this I will Gladly
How about this I will Gladly wear a helmet and Hi Vis when I see every car painted some garish bright day-glow yellow all car drivers undertaking cycling awareness courses on a yearly basis and zero fatalities on OUR roads.
In future maybe the site
In future maybe the site could add a banner to articles such as this, for example “Warning: This Article Carries A High Risk Of Developing Into The Helmet Debate”
Below that a button: “Have you had The Helmet Debate before? If not click here ->” The user could then be redirected to a typical example of The Helmet Debate wherein could be found an aggregated sample of the full spectrum of opinions, anecdotal evidence and facts – such as there are – usually found there, and wonderfully represented above.
If this proved popular, similar shortcuts could be introduced for electronic gearing, german-car drivers and Rapha products, thus freeing up valuable arguing time for less well trodden topics.
joemmo wrote:In future maybe
i need to make some kind of ‘like’ button for times such as these 😀
After going over some of my
After going over some of my earlier comments i have to apologise if i was a bit rash with replies. The helmet situation / discussion is important to me. As a serving cop i see first hand the mess a car can make and even the wearing of a helmet, despite its drawbacks, is better than nothing at all.
Hopefully apology will be accepted. 🙂
stumps wrote:After going over
Apology accepted mate 🙂
The Times appears to have subtely switched its emphasis to “this is what cyclists need to do to protect themselves”. All well and good. Except it is the vunerable road user who is required to protect themselves. In reality compare the urban cycling cultures of the UK and the Netherlands. The commute here is a battle: hi viz, helmets, racing to get away from lights, glaring at drivers. Where, as in the Netherlands it appears to be more sedate. Granted there is an infrastructure there but where cyclist meets motorist there is a mutual respect and the cyclist is less likely to be forced off the road. There’s even plans to do away with ASL’s I heard.
The problem with the way the Times is now going, is that there is a danger of mandatory helmet, has to be flourescent yellow jacket and cycle in the gutter legislation as highlighted by Carlton. Your average Joe Bloggs really doesn’t want to go through all of that to take a 10 minute cycle to work!
We can argue from now till eternity about helmets and get nowhere. The reality is that if I fall off my bike at 8mph I’m going to break my arm if I come off my bike at 40mph or get hit by a ton of metal some form of protection is afforded. What needs to be addressed is the driving standards of many motorists out there and better regulation of driving instructors.
giff77 wrote:The Times
Let’s be clear: If you’re vulnerable you need to protect yourself.
Let’s also be clear: Protecting yourself is not about wearing things that may or may not help *when* you have an accident. Protecting youself is about *not having an accident*. (Sidenote: there is a small amount of real evidence to suggest that wearing a helmet can change the attitude of a passing driver, potentially making an accident more likely.)
Cyclists who think it’s ok to shuffle slowly and inexorably towards compulsory usage of helmets, high-vis and cycle lanes are missing a fundamental point that these are all just running away from a problem that is genuinely solvable by responsible road use.
The problem is that helmets, high-vis and cycle lanes are all material things which you can just plonk on your head or paint on the ground, which is *really easy to do*. All you have to do is spend money and point to some paint and you’ve demonstrated that you’ve done something.
Actually solving the problem of mutual respect — although it takes no money, no natural resource, no real estate — is *hard*. How can you demonstrate, truly, that someone’s attitude or ability has changed? Not easily.
Hard it may be, but the key step is for everyone involved to realise what irresponsible road use is — even if, *especially* if, they’re guilty of it — and build a culture of educating people out of that behaviour.
But the step that comes before that is for cyclists to be less upset by the idea that a lot of cyclists are, to a greater or lesser extent, less than perfect road users.
Agree with numerous other
Agree with numerous other posts – let’s not hijack the positives, in terms of bringing the cycling debate to the fore, with entrenched views on whether helmets are a force for good, or not.
Ultimately, whether cyclists like it or not size, mass and BHP determine our position in the tarmac food-chain, and therefore some protection has to be better than none, particularly in areas cerebral.
I also think that as wider members of the tax-paying community there is an obligation to take responsibility for minimizing our risk of harm and subseqeuent burden on the NHS (a la smoking, seat-belt wearing, eating Big Macs all day etc.), whilst appreciating that this may well be more about perception than reality.
I speak as a commuting and weekend cyclist who has had broken bones and numerous bruises/grazes from road-bike accidents…and the helmet would have made zero difference in each case.
tobyrowsell wrote:Agree with
A campaign about cycling safety has been hijacked by the usual helmet blather. Anyone serious about cycling safety would not be dragging the tired-old chestnut of helmet wearing out onto the stage.
Unfortunately, in matters cerebral helmets have been shown to make no difference. They may protect against cuts and tears to the scalp, but if you’re talking about getting hit by large motorvehicles then it’s magical thinking to imagine that a bicycle helmet will make any difference to “matters cerebral”.
I don’t know what the above means. It seems that you’re arguing that cyclists must don motley and play the fool for the pleasure of the overweight, unexercised motorists. I hope I’ve got you wrong. Meanwhile I’d like to see you drinking a homeopathic brain remedy that I’m selling — just to make sure that you give the right appearance of looking after your health.
Like you say, this campaign is well and truly hijacked.
Phazon:
“Burtthebike – you’re
Phazon:
“Burtthebike – you’re a genius – undermine the most significant, high-profile, national pro-cycling campaign we’ve ever seen, that could, just could, positively change the image of cyclists and the relationship with other road users for ever, because you and a few other morons can’t be arsed to wear a helmet.
Well done.”
Thanks for the compliment, not sure it’s completely deserved though.
It isn’t me that’s undermining the previously excellent campaign, it’s the helmet promoters. Nowhere with a helmet law or massive rise in helmet wearing due to propaganda campaigns can show any reduction in risk to cyclists, despite more than twenty years of hard evidence. All the predictions of huge reductions in the death rate of cyclists have been proved wrong, and the only demonatrable effect has been a reduction in the number of cyclists, not something I feel any responsible cyclist would be campaigning for.
Strangely enough, I was one of the first people where I live to use a helmet, but then I read the evidence, and I haven’t worn a helmet for ten years. There are two kinds of opinion about helmets: those who’ve read the evidence and who don’t believe they work, and those who refuse to read the evidence.
Check out cyclehelmets.org for a few facts rather than the Headway, BHIT and James Cracknell fairy tales.
I signed up to the cyclesafe
I signed up to the cyclesafe campaign but I fear the campaign won’t do much for our safety, especially with all the helmet and ‘cyclists should pay road tax’ stuff it’s distilling down to.
Many folks seem to think getting such a high profile campaign from a national newspaper will result in Dutch-style infrastructure. Maybe. But I doubt it.
Far easier for politicians to take the easy and cheap solutions.
Watch out for bicycle licensing, helmet compulsion & mandatory use of crap cycle lanes.
I believe the cyclesafe campaign was flawed from the start because it focussed on cyclists. It should have focussed on all soft and squishy road users, not just cyclists.
The new Roadpeace ‘see me, save me’ campaign is for pedestrians *and* cyclists. The Times should have aimed its ire at dangerous motoring alone.
Carlton Reid wrote:I believe
I don’t fully agree with this. Safe sharing of roads requires responsible conduct from all users, and there are a lot of cyclists out there who discredit all of us — and we all know how readily the media generalises the constant misdemeanors of London cyclists to evryone and everywhere else.
It is entirely fair that The Times should air constructive criticism of cyclists and make suggestions for better cycling.
The problem is that responsible and safe cycling is not a case of dressing up like a Christmas tree and wearing a polystyrene hat (although being visible is clearly a responsibility – but we must remember that SMIDSY is neither a defence nor a justification for vast quantities of reflective garb to try and shift the onus of responsibility away from the drivers of the vehicles which present the greatest physical danger).
It’s a case of having road sense and the ability and confidence to employ it. That means training, but more importantly a culture of responsibility.
The calls for more protective gear, more segregation and more defensive action by cyclists are antithetical to this.
Cycle safety could be
Cycle safety could be improved by better driving, the cause of over 80% of all accidents involving bicycles. The use of helmets would have little benefits for riders in most cycle accidents. Improving safety for cyclists will require improving driving standards. Any other measures to boost safety for vulnerable road users will have minimal effect.
The AA advice is far better
The AA advice is far better although could still be improved, as indeed today’s launch of the “see me save me” campaign – too one-sided – seeing is a 2-way thing far better to tell the cyclists that seeing back is as important as demanding that the drivers see them.
The H&S at Work Act worked wonders when factory and site owners realised that they were in serious trouble when injuries and deaths could be directly linked to a failure in their duty of care to eliminate the hazards, and HSE notes that the road is the only workplace where they are at present unable to apply the same rigour in promoting with the big stick of enforcement (jail and big fines) good practice in planning and execution of tasks like driving.
Good H&S practice also bears application to the road situation. There is a hierarchy of interventions and that hierarchy begins with managing the hazard, in other words reducing the potential of damage through high impact speeds, and road layouts that invite conflicting movements – especially where these are at right angles rather than a merging move , where a small change in direction can avoid or mitigate impact. As the very last resort in H&S terms you provide equipment to mitigate the damage from an event you have not been able to eliminate or control (ie helmest and other protective gear (PPE)).
Thus helmets, airbags, and seatbelts are all actually the results of failure in delivery of genuine road safety and should be clearly described as such.
It seems fairly obvious that;
It seems fairly obvious that; (a) helmets have the potential to reduce injury in some accidents and (b) wearing a fluorescent top makes you more visible in some circumstances.
Jumping from those conclusions to the statement that it is reckless to wear neither is just silly, and I shall persist in ignoring such ideas.
Chapeau Bez.
Chapeau Bez.
Seriously, I can’t believe
Seriously, I can’t believe this has descended into a helmet argument. In the Times 8 point manifesto it doesn’t mention helmet wearing or fluro jackets at all. When reading the paper I didn’t pick up on a helment/fluro agenda and wasn’t surprised that Cracknell wrote pro helmet wearing opinion piece after his experience.
We have an opportunity to get behind something that really can make a difference. They use the Dutch model as the ideal and if the Times Cycling Campaign can raise awareness and get us a step closer to that then I am 100% behind it.
So lets stop arguing between ourselves and start pulling in the same direction.
Manx Rider wrote:So lets stop
Surely it matters what direction you pull in?
I’m not going to argue to be swept into a crappy ghetto at the side of the road, legislated out of my ability to look after myself better than a strip of paint ever could and forced to wear umpteen different bits of apparatus that may well not actually benefit anyone much, just because that’s the direction a bunch of other people want to pull in.
Hell no. Raising awareness is, as you say, good. But that should bring on the debate, *not* kneejerk reactions or ill-considered legislation and regulation.
This is precisely the time we need to argue amongst ourselves.
Manx rider:
“Seriously, I
Manx rider:
“Seriously, I can’t believe this has descended into a helmet argument.” It hasn’t. The problem is that the Times promised one thing, and then on Saturday did something completely different. Not only different, but something at complete odds with reality.
“In the Times 8 point manifesto it doesn’t mention helmet wearing or fluro jackets at all.” You’re right it doesn’t, so why was almost the entire supplement about helmets and fluoro, with dire warnings that riding a bike was incredibly dangerous?
“When reading the paper I didn’t pick up on a helment/fluro agenda and wasn’t surprised that Cracknell wrote pro helmet wearing opinion piece after his experience.” Perhaps you haven’t seen Saturday’s paper. I was extremely surprised to read Cracknell’s piece, as its only effects will be to convince many people that cycling is too dangerous for them, and to sell lots of Alpina helmets. If the Times is interested in increasing cycling and making it safer, why are they doing the exact opposite. Why didn’t the article mention that Cracknell is sponsored by Alpina?
“We have an opportunity to get behind something that really can make a difference. They use the Dutch model as the ideal and if the Times Cycling Campaign can raise awareness and get us a step closer to that then I am 100% behind it.” We had the opportunity, we were 100% behind it, we signed up, and then they moved the goalposts several hundred miles. From being a danger reduction campaign, it turned into an “armour the victims” campaign, totally counterproductive.
“So lets stop arguing between ourselves and start pulling in the same direction.” We were. It isn’t us that’s changed their position. Have you written to the Times expressing your surprise at their change of attitude, and asked them to start pulling in the same direction they initially publicised?
And in an interesting update
And in an interesting update in today’s Times, the chair of the AA seems better informed that the president of CTC: “AA supports 20mph limit in boost for cycle safety ”
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3310313.ece
I think we will always
I think we will always struggle with irresponsible cyclists and motorists. I’m also opposed to a possible knee jerk legislation as a result of this campaign. Individuals will continue to cycle on footways, jump lights, have no lights in the hours of darkness regardless of legislation or not. Motorists will continue to only look for other vehicles and forget that a bike is also a vehicle.
The only way forward is better education for both motorists and cyclists. Motorists need to have cycle awareness lessons. Cyclists need to go to road awareness courses – though I definitely would not want to see cyclists being licensed as has been suggested by motorists.
I wasn’t allowed to bring my bike to school unless I had passed the cycling proficiency (still have my badge 🙂 ) when learning to drive, my instructor spent a good chunk of one lesson talking about cyclists, peds and horse riders (this must be about 25 years ago) I’ve commented before on the standards of driving instructors that would be a good place to start as well
In principle the Times
In principle the Times campaign is a good and noble cause and I can’t knock them on that.
It would be interesting to see some statistics on cycling fatalities in France where the attitude towards cyclists appears to be different and helmet use seems to be less frequent in cities.
To me helmet use personal choice and should stay that way.
As for excessive use of reflective clothing – I’ll start when it becomes compulsary for pedestrians who cross the road without looking out for bikes.
badback wrote:In principle
Gaz recently dug out a stat, that in Paris last year there were a big fat zero fatalities despite Paris’s population being much larger than London’s, and it not having many cycle lanes,very little hiviz worn and few people wearing helmets. London had 17 fatalities last year???
QED
Quite frankly , I get tired
Quite frankly , I get tired of the tyranny of common sense. How about a bit of evidence?
like this:
http://most.psych.udel.edu/MAPlab/Publications_files/MostAstur_2007.pdf
which, having read, and re-read it myself, suggests to me that being a 2% minority group on the road, that we will be filtered out and smidseyed (believe it or not!) if we wear weird and wonderful colours that make us stand out.
READ THIS RESEARCH AND FOLLOW SOME OF THE REFERENCES!!
motorists are looking for cars at junctions because that is the only thing that might cause them harm.
I do wear a helmet 90% of the
I do wear a helmet 90% of the time, but I resent people like Cracknell (who I still admire in many ways despite this) and fred22.
The difference with seatbelts is that we DO have conclusive evidence that they work for multiple occupants. However we also have statistical evidence that the few years after seatbelt compulsion that cyclist and pedestrian KSIs rose as the driver/passenger KSIs fell.
Cycling for me represents freedom. I’ve said before – if my right to choose is removed then I might not cycle as often or at all.
I do feel, too, that the helmet/hiviz thing is a major and calculated distraction from the real issues. Many cyclists are falling into this victim-blaming trap, just as with BBC Breakfast yesterday morning when the presenter said (paraphrased) “..you’re poor friend, maimed by a lorry… so what about those red light jumping cyclists!!”
He who shouts loudest seems to be listened to at the moment. 😕
Isn’t there a statistic which
Isn’t there a statistic which shows that
a). You’re more likely to be involved in a car crash than a bike crash
b). If involved in a car crash, you’re much more likely to have a head injury.
So, why not wear a helmet in a car?
I have been thinking down the
I have been thinking down the same lines on that one but i think the cops would think it a bit strange.I would say it would save more lives persay but women would not like the helmet hair. 😉 answer to @raleigh
Yeah, I agree, quoting
Yeah, I agree, quoting statistics won’t help you while you’re lying on the roadside, brains pouring out of your head, the smell of rubber in the air as a ‘hot hatchback’ speeds away.
In the end, it’s up to you, but do it anyway
@big mick – can you explain
@big mick – can you explain how the contributory negligence judgement was passed when there is no legal requirement to wear a helmet, nor could it be proved that a helmet would have prevented the injury?
its just the way it is
its just the way it is brother.I think the powers that be are mixing motor CYCLE and cycle law.Like i say you can jump up and down all day long but the world isnt perfect.Now i am 300.000 pound down.boo hoo.That is not a problem the fits are.I would give it all back to be unbrain damaged,which is something money cant buy
cycling helmets offer no
cycling helmets offer no protection in road accidents as claimed by the manufacturers 🙁
Tell the judge and the word
Tell the judge and the word twisting lawyers they will tear you apart and make you sound like a fool.
Wear a Helmet already.I had
Wear a Helmet already.I had an accident and i wished i had been wearing a helmet.I am now epileptic and also when my case went to court the judgment claimed contributory negligence which cost me 33% of my settlement.I have been riding for 25 years and thought it would never happen to me as i am sure you all think.thrust me it does.Now i can not work fit while out on the bike which has done more damage and hospital stays.So like i say WEAR A BLOODY HELMET!if only to stop lawyers using it againts you.No matter how much you complain about 20mph limits and driver ed you have to live in the real world which just is not perfect.Broken bones heal damaged brains dont.I always wear a helmet now but the horse has already bolted in my case.Dont make the same mistake PLEASE ,the lasts 10 years of my life has been shitty and its like playing Russian roulette every day.
I was cycling 600 yards when
I was cycling 600 yards when the chain fell off when I was stomping on the pedals out of the saddle. My head hit the road so hard that it bounced up and hit it again on the rebound. FORTUNATELY I was wearing a helmet. It split into two pieces (there’s a picture here somewhere http://everygramcounts.blogspot.com/). If I hadn’t been wearing a helmet my head would have split into two pieces.
No excuses – wear a helmet pleeeeease.
I also flipped myself off the
I also flipped myself off the bike on a slow right-hander at no more than 10 mph. On a greasy surface I touched the brakes, it was my fault I made a basic and stupid mistake.
My hip took the brunt of the fall and I have been off the bike for 10 days, my head took the rest and bounced like jdmotion’s; a really weird experience. The helmet I was wearing provided the necessary protection while suffering only scratches, I was slightly dazed for a few seconds and lay on the road to check there were no bone-breaks or bleeding.
20 Years ago I did the same thing, on that occasion I broke my collar bone and was concussed for an hour or so. The helmet was trashed and ended up being used for instructional talks at the local schools.
Please wear your helmets, they weigh nothing and these days are much improved. They will save you life.
Out cycling when I was 18 I
Out cycling when I was 18 I fell of my bike at speed riding down a hill and landed on my head.
Sadly I was not wearing a helmet as I could then have claimed it saved my life as no doubt it would have smashed into lots of pieces.
But as I was not wearing a helmet and still suffered no damage apart from ripping my knees to shreds (should knee protectors be made mandatory) I sadly cannot join the long list of people claiming a helmet saved my life.
I am not claiming it will
I am not claiming it will save your life but sure it will save legal problems in court
big mick wrote:I am not
How so? Since the only court case to find contributory negligence for not wearing a helmet was someone who inflicted the injuries on themselves by their reckless behaviour, not as the result of a road collision, your assumption is incorrect.
All other cases where the driver’s insurance have tried to claim contributory negligence for not wearing a helmet have either been thrown out, or much more frequently, been withdrawn at the doors of the court. There is no instance in this country, or anywhere else as far as I am aware, of a finding of contributory negligence for not wearing a cycle helmet. Since nowhere with a helmet law can show any reduction in risk to cyclists, despite more than twenty years of experience, it seems unlikely that any such claim would succeed.
Surely someone’s got their
Surely someone’s got their facts wrong here. Whilst big mick claims to have had his damages reduced by 33%, burtthebike states that there is only one case to have found contributory negligence – by which I assume he means the only one I’m aware of, the case of Simon Reynolds last year, where the negligence was not just choosing not to wear the offered protection but also causing the accident. It would be possible that big mick is Simon Reynolds, but the damages in that case were reduced by around two thirds, I believe, not a third.
What gives?
Is this argument still going?
Is this argument still going?
OldRidgeback wrote:Is this
this one’s set to run and run. maybe we should have a rule that we end the thread and post a nice picture of some kittens as soon as someone says ‘my helmet broke in two’ or ‘in australia and new zealand’. something like that?
like this:
like this:
Apparently so. And when it
Apparently so. And when it stops here it will continue elsewhere until the end of time or conclusive proof as to the efficacy of bike helmets, whichever comes sooner.
Yeah. There’s evidence both
Yeah. There’s evidence both ways, much of which has been referred to above, which I feel means it should be left to personal choice. The main undisputable fact is that the manufacturers do not claim any efficacy on vehicle-involved crashes, which are the main source of fatalities.
It’s also a complete distraction from “Cities Fit For Cycling” which should be about changing the cities more than the cyclists. I suspect the Times knew this when they invited Crackpotnell to write… now can we speculate on why they’d subvert/derail their own campaign after gathering so much support?
–
–
I hope nobody’s suggesting
I hope nobody’s suggesting those kittens should cross the road without any hi-viz. That’s why cats die, you know. We need a campaign.
SAVE THE KITTENS!
HI-VIZ FOR KITTENS NOW!
NEWSFLASH!
FAMOUS OLYMPIC BLOKE TELLS ANYONE WHO LISTENS THAT HIS KITTEN WOULD HAVE DIED WITHOUT ITS HI-VIZ AND HELMET. SAYS THAT KITTEN HELMETS SHOULD BE MADE COMPULSORY FOR ALL FELINES!
(the subliminal small print: his sponsor makes the best helmets for cats. Buy one today. You know it makes sense)
Denzilwood, did your round-the-clock carer that you’ve needed since your bike crash assist you with that post?
😉
Nice pix of
Nice pix of kittens.
Unfortunately, the discussion will continue while there are so many people who don’t appreciate the difference between anecdote and data.
It doesn’t matter that all the reliable data says one thing, an ex-olympian holding up his broken helmet which didn’t save him from brain damage is much more convincing.
In the absolutely dire The One Show helmet promotion article last year, the head of BHIT, Angie Lee said “just ignore all the research and go with common sense.” Now why would the head of an organisation promoting helmets want everyone to ignore the evidence? 😕
(No subject)
😕
^^ Those cats’ lives are at
^^ Those cats’ lives are at risk.
Ignore the research, it’s obviously rubbish, someone on the telly said so.
This is the essential accessory for your cat:
(No subject)
😐
i feel left out, in all the
i feel left out, in all the bicycle accidents i’ve had, be that wearing a helmet or not, i’ve never ever hit my head, although i did bang my head real bad on a kitchen cabinet yesterday
i think i’ll extrapolate that anecdotal evidence to suggesting that no-one needs to wear a helmet on a bike but EVERYONE needs to wear one in the kitchen, and i’ve just ordered this for the cat, just in case
VecchioJo wrote:i feel left
I’d love to see it try to lick it’s fur!
VecchioJo wrote:i feel left
I know what you mean. I sometimes wear one, sometimes not and I’ve had some quite SPECTACULAR crashes (although not recently because I’m a more careful rider), but I’ve never hit my head in one of them.
The only times I’ve hurt my head in a bicycle-related accident have been hitting it on the door frame of the bike shed. If I don’t wear a helmet, it hurts quite a bit. If I do wear a helmet, it hurts much less, but I’m slightly taller so I clonk it on the door frame far more often. So, here’s another helmet debate: is a 500% increase in the risk of an accident that’s 20% as bad worth wearing a helmet? As a tie-break, should I factor in the cost of replacing the helmet more often as a result of all the taps on the head? 😉
I jammed my index finger
I jammed my index finger between the front mech and chainring last year resulting in a crushed fingernail and stitches in my finger tip. It’s hard to point to whether a helmet would have helped prevent this, in fact it was quite hard to point to anything for a while.
Fools do not come crying to
Fools do not come crying to me saying you were not warned.I can recall saying the same crap before my accident.My line was i have raced moto x and never banged my head so i will not need no helmet on a push bike.What a fool i feel now.I suppose there is no helping some people so just get on with it.I will not trouble you no more with the hard facts of brain injury so keep posting pics of kittens etc because it will never happen to you (|:
sometimes i think the only
sometimes i think the only real reason i strap a helmet on is that if i’m crushed by a car it will instantly stop the “should have worn a helmet” (regardless of if i die of head injuries) lazy and yet sensationalist hand-wringing and people might be bothered to look beyond that into the true reason i’m smeared across the tarmac and do something about it
VecchioJo wrote:sometimes i
^^^ THIS.
Oh.
VecchioJo wrote:sometimes i
Thank F–k for that.Someone gets it.
I’m not seeing many kittens,
I’m not seeing many kittens, people
sorry
sorry
I’m considering riding with a
I’m considering riding with a kitten perched on my head for protection. Driver sees kitten and drives considerately
LID KITTEH GOT TEH WRONG IDEA
LID KITTEH GOT TEH WRONG IDEA WHEN HOOJ DAVE SUGGESTD PUTTIN TEH HELMET DEBATE 2 BED.
http://www.bikerumor.com/2010
http://www.bikerumor.com/2010/01/25/205-pound-bicycle-purrs-like-a-kitten/ ?