- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
White cycle helmetCycle campaign group Spokes stops publicising events requiring participants to wear helmets
Spokes, Scotland’s leading cycle campaign group which covers Edinburgh and the wider Lothian area, has announced that it is to stop publicising events that require participants to wear a helmet in the face of what it describes as “the creeping growth of semi-compulsion.” The group’s stance regarding making helmets mandatory is in line with that of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RosPA), which says it is impractical to make use of helmets compulsory.
According to Spokes, the increasing requirement of organisers of events such as sportives and other rides for participants to wear a helmet – in some cases applicable to all riders, in others only to those below a certain age – fails to take into account arguments against helmet compulsion.
It also believes that the requirement to use a helmet reinforces the perception that cycling is an inherently dangerous activity, and is calling upon government-funded bodies such as Cycling Scotland and other organisations to cease using images in promotional material that only show cyclists wearing helmets.
Spokes maintains that in some types of crashes, wearing a helmet can actually lead to an increased risk of injuries, and also points out that research has established that drivers give less space to cyclists wearing helmets than those without – as established, most famously in a study carried out by Dr Ian Walker of the University of Bath.
Instead of forcing cyclists to wear helmets, Spokes insists that the best way to improve the safety of cyclists would be to encourage more people to get riding, something that it claims is being undermined by there being too much emphasis on using a helmet.
Spokes’ position was outlined in the latest edition of the bulletin sent to its members, in which it said: “We are concerned at the creeping growth of semi-compulsion, for example charity bike rides insisting on helmets for young adults and government-funded websites picturing all or nearly all cyclists helmeted, thus creating a climate in which total compulsion could eventually happen.
“Helmet advertisers, promoters and government agencies bombard us with the benefits but, disgracefully, we are never told of the risks – although there is evidence on both sides, and crashes and injuries occur as a result of the risks of helmets.
“Compulsion, or one-sided promotion, is very wrong – even more so as they put people off the healthy choice of getting about by bike. Therefore, Spokes will not, after this [bulletin] issue, publicise charity rides or other events involving helmet compulsion. We call on all other organisations concerned about public health to do the same.
“Helmet manufacturers and sales outlets, in the interest of public safety, should have to make clear on boxes and in sales literature a helmet’s impact design speed (usually around 12mph) and the potential risks as well as benefits.”
In news report on Spokes’ move, The Scotsman pointed out that road safety charity Brake supports helmets being made compulsory, quoting senior campaigns officer Ellen Booth as saying: “We encourage cyclists to do everything they can to reduce risks, including wearing a helmet and high-visibility gear, and choosing the safest routes possible.”
However, Michael Corley, campaigns manager at RoSPA, argued against compulsion, saying “We do not believe it is practical to make the use of cycle helmets mandatory.”
In the section of its website devoted to the issue of helmets and the arguments for and against compulsion, national cyclists’ organisation CTC – itself strongly opposed to any such measures – points out that “several recent reports (including four papers in peer-reviewed medical journals) have found no link between changes in helmet wearing rates and cyclists' safety - and there are even cases where safety seems to have worsened as helmet-wearing increased.”
Helmets are mandatory for under-18s on all sportives registered with British Cycling, with the governing body’s guidelines adding that “senior riders are encouraged to wear helmets” and that “the organiser is at liberty to make it a requirement of the event that all participants wear helmets.”
The terms and conditions of Cycling Scotland’s own Pedal for Scotland ride say that “cycle safety helmets are recommended but not compulsory.”
It should be noted that in many instances the issue of whether helmets should be compulsory or not for all riders is out of organisers’ hands, with the requirement for participants to wear a helmet imposed by insurers.
Use of a helmet is recommended in the Highway Code, which says: "You should wear a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened."
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.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 1 sec ago
Of note - phone use while cycling is illegal in NL also and people have been fined. Not surprising people do - if people will use phones while...
- JOHN5880 31 min 51 sec ago
I'm all for the enforcement of laws, and see no reason why there can't be areas limited to pedestrians only. As long as there are legitimate...
- Velophaart_95 1 hour 25 min ago
Yeah; read Tom Allen's blog for his thoughts on the difference between Touring & Bikepacking......
- Oldfatgit 3 hours 15 min ago
Qidi ... was it just me, or did the guys with the system come over as right cocksockets?...
- teckert 10 hours 18 min ago
You can see the effect of a 'way too late' opening of this comp, with my dismal results! Wrecked a good start to my season.
- IanMunro 11 hours 16 min ago
It was off my list of helmets worth buying as soon as I saw someone had named it "Game Changer".
- mark1a 12 hours 44 min ago
Looks valid to me although on a black Mercedes C Class. Last V5 issued 25th April (2 days ago) so maybe plate was being transferred.
- Sam3 16 hours 7 min ago
Asked for comment, a representative of the biker community said: "We are realigning our expenditure better reflect our strategic priorities and...
- Sam3 16 hours 12 min ago
So highly overpriced items such as "premium bike clothing" and overpriced "premium" bikes that no one NEEDS....suffer a disproportionate...
Add new comment
61 comments
Well, why isn't it my problem? If I had kids I would understand that logic completely - but I don't. I have a wonderful girlfriend, who doesn't own a helmet because she doesn't want to - I would be devastated if she died, but I realise that protecting her for my happiness isn't love, it's possession - and that feeling is reciprocated when I'm lidless. Potentially you might argue I'm costing the NHS more - but if we're going to restrict freedom of choice to save the NHS money, frankly i'd rather they charged for operations. I mean that: a 'free' NHS is far more than simply one which does not charge at point of use.
Not to mention that if I (or gf) had to choose between using a helmet for every trip and taking the car... frankly, I'd probably take the car. Being left to my own business is one of the things that attracted me to cycling - take that away, and then make day-to-day trips more of a hassle (especially once you add compulsory hi-vis - and I just don't believe anyone who says campaigners would make helmets compulsory and then stop), and you can't be suprised when car use and attendant heart disease rockets. So we end up passing more badly thought-out laws to make up for the previous badly though-out laws - do the campaigners not ever think it would be simpler just to let people make their own mind up? Give the masses an ounce of respect and trust occassionally?
I'm also - like many others - annoyed by this 'I crashed whilst wearing a helmet and didn't die, therefore it must have saved me life'. Apart from the simple fact that, going by my anecdotal evidence and that logic, wearing a helmet will give you brain damage (seen several friends crash - only one brain-damaged was only one wearing helmet)... such poor logical thinking makes me not wear one, just to illustrate that poor arguments do not persuade me. That, and I don't want brain damage - or to become the sort of person who thinks that badly.
After eight years in australia, being forced to wear a helmet, i came home and while rejoicing in helmet freedom suffered a bizarre pedal failure/ foot into front wheel accident. I landed on the back of my head without a helmet, two months later i still have taste and smell problems, most things taste of nothing, just wrong or incredibly bitter, they say it may go back to normal, it may not. I was always against helmets, i wear one now (bit late), but the resentment of being forced to wear one is very detrimental on Australian cycling, we are all grown ups let us choose.
Quite true but cycling is cycling, just saying. =]
(BTW I'm neither in favour or against the helmet movement, I wear one when I feel like it's needed and don't on other occasions.)
P.S. the Limping whippet, awesome name for a pub.
Courtesy of Alan Plater's Beidebecke Affair/Tapes/Connection series.
The redundant planning officer who helps uncover the police corruption (after being knocked off his bike, while wearing a deerstalker, by Sergeant Hobson BSc) spends his redundancy money setting up a jazz club called The Village Vanguard in The Singing Room at The Limping Whippet. It lasts one night, but it's a good night.
Surrealism is all.
Sticking a lump of insulating polystyrene on your head, no matter how well it is designed for comfort is sometimes an unpleasant experience. Although I almost always wear one these days, in the recent hot spell, I had a couple of outings without the lid and remembered just how pleasant it can be to go cycling and feel the wind in (what is left of) my hair.
Responsible adults should have the choice of whether or not they wish to wear a helmet, hi-vis clothing or any of the other gear that cyclists are increasingly expected to wear. Knee and elbow pads anyone?
head + concrete = poorly head. head + helmet + concrete = no poorly head. it's not rocket science. and yes you should be allowed to choose what you want to do, but i can't see why taking a couple of seconds to stick a very light, comfortable, smart helmet on your nut is a big problem.
Some of the 'why' is contained in the main article above !!
Head (with or without helmet) without concrete is even better. Crashes are very rare and can be avoided (even if you're bring paid to ride like a nutter i.e are a professional racing cyclist).
BTW, Why do helmet evangelists insist on referring to the head in children's language, with words like "nut" or "bonce"?
so that childish morons who can't spell can understand what i've written.
I see you've also been influenced by ee cummings with regard to punctuation.
I wear a skate lid (and elbow and knee pads) when I'm at the skatepark on my BMX. Getting a bike airborne over concrete jumps does come with a risk of hard impacts if you mistime a landing and I've collected enough bruises over the years to know I'm right. I also wear an MX lid when I'm training or racing my BMX or my cruiser whether on the local track (which I know like the back of my hand) or others in the South Region, because hard landings on those surfaces can be damaging. If you're pushing a BMX to your own personal limits, then there's every chance you're going to come off at some point (if you don't, you're not trying hard enough) and head (and leg and elbow) protection is just common sense.
Pretty much the same goes for serious off-road mountainbike riding. The terrain can be challenging and if you're in a wood or a forest, there is that risk of headbutting a tree if you mess up. Clearly, a lid makes sense.
But one of the very few times I'll wear a lid when riding on the road is when I'm going to or from the skatepark. When I'm riding on the road, I don't see the risk of head injury as being that acute. I'm a grown up and I've been cycling seriously since the 1970s, long enough to know the risks. The health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by a factor of 20:1 and crash data shows that most injuries to cyclists are to the limbs rather than the skull. In the case of serious injuries that are crippling or fatal, the wearing of a helmet would be of no benefit in the vast majority of instances according to crash data.
OldRidgeback wrote:
I see you've also been influenced by ee cummings with regard to punctuation.
well spotted oldridgeback - he is a heavy influence on much of my work.
Crashes are very rare and can be avoided
Crashes may be rare but are often not avoidable, whether it be mechanical failure, loss of concentration, poor weather or road conditions etc. I've had a couple of falls where more serious injury was definitely prevented by my wearing a helmet. That doesn't mean I think helmets should be compulsory though.
However, race organisers can make rules as they see fit and the choice is left to riders whether or not they wish to enter. This 'action' by Spokes will have no effect whatsoever and just makes them look stupid.
The rides which Spokes are promoting are not races.
You're absolutely right, all crashes are avoidable. That's why I took so much time and effort planning each and every one of my spills over the years; would've been tragic if I'd missed a good opportunity for skin loss or concussion. That said, I'm getting on a bit now so reckon I'll take the easy option and just choose not to have any more accidents.
The majority of head injuries have nothing to do with cycling.
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Head-Injury.htm
Would you enforce helmet wearing on, say, pedestrians, people doing DIY or people who have been to the pub?
Absolutely agree. I crashed my bike at 28 mph, no one else involved, my slipped off the pedal, I went down, injured my shoulder and broke my "Catlike whisper plus" helmet. I hate to think what the result would have been without a helmet, a couple of seconds to fit on my head.
Absolutely agree. I crashed my bike at 28 mph, no one else involved, my slipped off the pedal, I went down, injured my shoulder and broke my "Catlike whisper plus" helmet. I hate to think what the result would have been without a helmet, a couple of seconds to fit on my head.
Wrong, because there is some science to it, the correction is:
Head + cycling accident = rotational brain injury, non-lethal.
Head + helmet + cycling accident = Worse rotational brain injury = fatal.
That is the whole point, rotational brain injuries are the most common fatal accidents for cyclists and wearing a helmet makes these injuries worse, the helmet adds surface area so when your head hits the ground spinning, it gets a worse rotating shock which can be deadly. At least that's my understanding of the situation.
Not so simple as just nutting the ground.
Another factor is that some drivers drive worse around cyclists that are wearing helmets, that alone makes wearing a helmet more dangerous. Approx 25% of cyclist deaths are caused by someone driving too close to the cyclist.
Good for Spokes! It's about time we saw some common-sense about helmet wearing in events. I don't object to wearing one in a race, but a requirement to wear one in anything else is a sure-fire way to lose my entry.
Sam
The Dartmoor Classic sportive website states that as a UCI event you must wear a helmet. Obviously creaping compulsion isn't a problem for the UCI.
The UCI is the world racing organisation. To win races, you may have to take risks.
Audaxes, club runs, randoneés, Sunday rides to a country pub for lunch, commutes and trips to the shops are not races. There are no prizes or jerseys at stake, so you do not need to take risks.
I am on the anti-helmet side of the debate, don't wear one when not racing and agree with your point that social rides don't require one.
However, while I've not done so so far, I am tempted to wear one when doing sportives. As generally you end up in a group with a couple of friends and a couple of randoms.
No idea who they are, how they ride, how they point out obstacles (if at all), their bike handling in groups etc.
It is an added element of risk to be considered when choosing when & where to wear a helmet.
The pre-entry bumf for the 2009 edition made no mention of helmets. Once we had paid and received our entry packs, suddenly there was a requirement to wear one. I considered refusing to ride but ended up riding without one. No-one said anything, which was fortunate, because the resulting argument would have been unpleasant.
Good for Spokes. Cycling isn't dangerous and events shouldn't be about promoting the sale of PPE with dubious benefits.
I think Andrei Kivilev would disagree with you there...
I think you'll find the late Andrei was engaged in a professional sport when he was killed, not riding down a country lane for a pint at the Limping Whippet or around town to the office.
My understanding is that helmets compulsion in racing came in at the behest of the manufactures, not the riders, the teams or the doctors.
I remember watching on TV the rider protests in the TdeF where some (/many ?) refused to wear them and got fined. Of course in the end the UCI won out !!
The helmet rule has not stopped head injuries in UCI events, or deaths. Wouter Weylandt died after suffering several injuries including a fractured skull, and he wore a helmet.
Of course, neither the Road.cc or Scotsman article mentioned what has happened in Australia. A cycle scheme like the London one is virtually unused because of the helmet law. if you search the web, the pictures of helmets attached to hire bikes have disclaimers inside. Plus several towns in Australia are passing by-laws allowing cyclists to ride without a helmet and there is a big passive resistance campaign. Mexico and Israel have repealed their legislation
This does not mean helmets do not save cyclists from severe injury, I also know several cyclists who have survived serious crashes because they were wearing a helmet, and I've seen the pictures to prove it.
I wear a helmet through choice. It needs to be left to the rider's choice. You don't get safer cycling by forcing cyclists to wear helmets.
No picture can prove such a thing. A picture of a broken helmet proves that the helmet broke. It doesn't prove that serious injury was prevented, because a helmet can be severely damaged without having done its job. The helmet may only have prevented superficial damage (often the case, since just like modern cars, helmets are designed to easily crumple) or the head might not even have hit something (head + helmet is substantially bigger than just a head). Furthermore, a helmetless head is better at preventing rotational injuries, so in some crashes, helmets are more dangerous.
If you look at actual research, there is very limited evidence of bicycle helmet effectiveness. Researchers have to work the statistics very hard and then some studies show no effect and some a very limited one, which shows that at best, the effect of helmets is fairly limited. It's certainly not in the same league as motorcycle helmets (which are designed way more effectively than bicycle helmets) or seat belts, where the proof of effectiveness is overwhelming.
Actually bicycle helmets are not designed to crumple. They would be much better if they did. They are made from expanded polystyrene foam, which is strong in compression. It fails by cracking open, which doesn't absorb much shock. I can't believe that bicycle helmet manufacturers haven't come up with better materials.
It's OK to say that you don't agree with making helmets compulsory (is anyone actually saying this?) but saying "a helmetless head is better at preventing rotational injuries, so in some crashes, helmets are more dangerous." and "there is very limited evidence of bicycle helmet effectiveness" weakens your argument and make you sound like a nutter. Deriding anecdotal evidence is also illogical. I went over the handlebars at speed and hit the back of my head and shoulder on the road. Compound fracture of collar bone requiring surgery and a titanium plate and a helmet that looked as it it had been hit with a sledgehammer. Medical team said my helmet saved my life. No doubt you will disagree. I didn't suffer any "rotational injuries" and I don't need any further "proof of effectiveness".
The logical argument against compulsory helmet use (which I don't think many propose or support) is personal choice not illogical arguments about helmets being ineffective or worse dangerous. My head, my helmet, my choice.
Pages