Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Day 3 of the Times Cities Fit for Cycling Campaign… a bit of a backlash

Hackles raised by focus on helmets & high viz + James Cracknell helmet article

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.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

104 comments

Avatar
dave atkinson replied to joemmo | 12 years ago
0 likes
joemmo wrote:

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.

i need to make some kind of 'like' button for times such as these  4

Avatar
Bob's Bikes | 12 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
Stumps | 12 years ago
0 likes

As always, those accusing others of stupidity say more about themselves than anyone else. Keep it up.

Ush - laugh, i nearly wet myself !

Avatar
pk | 12 years ago
0 likes

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

Avatar
pete666 | 12 years ago
0 likes

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?

Avatar
pete666 | 12 years ago
0 likes

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  4

Avatar
Stumps | 12 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
WolfieSmith replied to Stumps | 12 years ago
0 likes
stumps wrote:

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...

....Sorry if you think it's a stupid claim, i was just making a point based on personal experiences.

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..  4

Avatar
Simon E replied to WolfieSmith | 12 years ago
0 likes
MercuryOne wrote:

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..  4

 37

Try telling someone who has been crushed by a lorry or flattened by a speeding, texting motorist.

Avatar
Stumps | 12 years ago
0 likes

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

Avatar
andyp replied to Stumps | 12 years ago
0 likes
stumps wrote:

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

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.

Avatar
Ush replied to Stumps | 12 years ago
0 likes
stumps wrote:

Firstly, Ush - the accident was 30 yrs ago and the standard of helmet was not as good as it is now,

Which helmet standard? The nice thing about them is that there are so many to choose from  4 ... 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.

stumps wrote:

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

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.

stumps wrote:

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

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.

Avatar
JohnS replied to Stumps | 12 years ago
0 likes
stumps wrote:

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.

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).

stumps wrote:

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

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.

Avatar
Kim | 12 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
Simon E | 12 years ago
0 likes

“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?

Avatar
sam_smith | 12 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 12 years ago
0 likes

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."

Avatar
chrisc | 12 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
Bedfordshire Clanger | 12 years ago
0 likes

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.  39

Avatar
chrisc replied to Bedfordshire Clanger | 12 years ago
0 likes

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...

Avatar
Simon_MacMichael replied to chrisc | 12 years ago
0 likes
Chrisc wrote:

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...

I'll be sure to look out for you as I drive my polypropylene car on wheels of sponge...  3

Avatar
JonyEpsilon | 12 years ago
0 likes

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  1

Avatar
WolfieSmith | 12 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
Stumps | 12 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
JohnS replied to Stumps | 12 years ago
0 likes

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?

Avatar
antonio | 12 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
james-o | 12 years ago
0 likes

"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.

Avatar
burtthebike | 12 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
phazon replied to burtthebike | 12 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
Ush replied to phazon | 12 years ago
0 likes

@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.

Pages

Latest Comments