Members of Cambridge Cycling Campaign have overwhelmingly voted to withdraw support for events requiring cyclists to wear helmets or hi-viz clothing. The motion, which we reported on last week, was carried by 44 votes to 10 at the group’s Annual General Meeting yesterday, according to Cambridge News.
As a result, no events or other initiatives that necessitate helmets or hi-viz clothing, or imply that they should be worn, will be promoted through its website. The motion, which was inspired by a similar approach taken by Lothian cycle campaigners Spokes earlier this year.
A spokesman for the group told Cambridge News “The campaign has a position that we are neutral on helmets and hi-vis clothing – it is a personal choice.
“We have many people in the campaign who wear helmets and hi-vis clothing.
“Event organisers who wish to have Cambridge Cycling Campaign help to promote their event will have to think hard about their guidance to participants.”
Mary Goode, chief executive of brain injury charity Headway Cambridgeshire, told Cambridge News she failed to understand the reasons behind the decision, asking,
“Why would cyclists make themselves more vulnerable by not wearing protective clothing?
“Cyclists, as a matter of course, will be checking their bike to ensure it is fit-for-purpose and roadworthy, and we would hope everyone would encourage the young in particular, to have road sense and an understanding of the Highway Code, so why would the Cambridge Cycling Campaign not take the same care about protecting their brain?
The motion had been proposed by Simon Nuttall, a committee member and adult cycle trainer, and seconded by Heather Coleman, and read:
Cambridge Cycling Campaign supports all cyclists as they go about their lawful business on the public road. We note that the law does not require helmets or high visibility clothing. The image of cyclists presented to the public has become so strongly skewed towards riders wearing those items that the legitimacy and status of those who do not wear them is being undermined. In order to help restore the balance the campaign reserves the right to decline to promote events or activities where helmets or high visibility clothing are required or implied.
45 thoughts on “Cambridge Cycling Campaign motion on helmets and hi-viz overwhelmingly backed by members”
I whole-heartedly agree with
I whole-heartedly agree with the stance of both Spokes and CCC
Including a quote from a brain injury charity just once again highlights the culture of victim-blaming that goes on
Interestingly I note that loud-mouth Wiggins (cf. his ill-advised and insensitive comments after cyclist death during Olympic Games) wasn’t helped by his helmet when a 4 ton van tried to roll over him last night – funny that
mad_scot_rider
“But think of the children!”
Her quote is terrible. The efficacy of helmets to provide any kind of protection in non-linear impacts over 12mph is unproven so you have just as much protection wearing a towel wrapped around your head.
Considering that car drivers and passengers suffer also head injuries in accidents why isnt she decrying those people not wanting to protect their brains?
zanf wrote:… just as much
Sorry – I have to disagree – the towel would protect you from the gaze of the Ravenous Bug-blatter Beast of Trall – a creature so mind-bogglingly stupid that it assumes if you can’t see it, then it can’t see you
mad_scot_rider wrote:zanf
I think you might both be onto something… my gut instinct (backed by my poor result in an engineering degree) is that a towel would offer greater protection against head injury than the traditional lid. And with the added Bug-blatter Beast protection (and of course the many other uses), a towel-turban may become my headwear of choice.
The efficacy of helmets to
This stiff foam in helmets doesn’t look like it’d compress fast, I’d bet on the towel being far more effective.
The phrase ‘Anecdotal evidence’ is an oxymoron, anyone who thinks helmets are worthwhile should read up on the subject, this is a very good starting point:
http://beta.ctc.org.uk/files/cycle-helmets-evidencebrf_1.pdf
Main points against helmets:
1. Psychology: Drivers drive worse around cyclists wearing helmets.
2. Psychology: Cyclists cycle more dangerously when wearing a helmet.
3. The helmet debate makes people think cycling is far more dangerous than it actually is, this puts a lot of people off of cycling.
4. Walking is roughly as dangerous as cycling, no-one is advocating helmets for walking.
5. The benefits of cycling to peoples health far far outweigh the practically non-existent benefit of wearing a helmet.
6. With regards to head injuries, helmets can exacerbate rotational brain injuries – yes, helmets can make the most common kind of brain injury WORSE, in these situations, the helmet is not lessening the damage, it is making the brain injury worse. The reason for this is the larger surface area of the helmet catches the ground more easily.
7. Children have accidentally hung themselves from the helmet straps, This has been fixed with newer helmet designs AFAIK.
8. They make your head hotter during the hottest parts of summer, this can’t be a good thing.
9. They are ineffective over 12mph.
10. The time spent telling people to wear helmets would be far better spent warning them not to cycle down the left of HGVs, cycling in the door-zone and not shoulder-checking – I see helmet wearers make these mistakes on a daily basis.
Have I missed anything 🙂 ?
I’m all for bright coloured clothing though, too many cyclists cycling round at night dressed from head to foot in black and with puny barely visible lights or worse, no lights.
mad_scot_rider wrote:I
How do you know it didn’t help him? Surely the fact that he was in an accident and escape without a head injury is more of an argument for helmets than against them ? Don’t let the facts get in the way of your opinion though
colinth wrote:mad_scot_rider
How do you know it didn’t help him? Surely the fact that he was in an accident and escape without a head injury is more of an argument for helmets than against them ? Don’t let the facts get in the way of your opinion though— mad_scot_rider
He was in an incident. He had no head injury, whether a helmet was in use or not, it’s a bit silly to make a statement without knowing the facts of the incident, and indeed whether any head contact even happened!
It’s down to choice, and not being preached at by single issue “experts”. Which is exactly what the Cambridge motion is doing.
Everyone is entitled to their view, and to state it, but not to suggest spurious evidence without any base in knowledge of specifics.
colinth wrote:… he was in
I love how you engage in a wild and illogical hypothecation – then berate me for ignoring the facts
Truly superb logic
mad_scot_rider wrote:colinth
Whereas your point about his helmet not saving him from some broken ribs makes perfect sense.
colinth wrote:mad_scot_rider
Whereas your point about his helmet not saving him from some broken ribs makes perfect sense.— colinth
Of course it does – it goes to the heart of the argument against compulsion – that a piece of poly on your napper is no protection against the majority of injuries suffered in collision with vehicles
mad_scot_rider
That’s probably because he was wearing a helmet on his head and not his hand or his ribs.
Fortunately, cycling injuries involving the head are comparatively rare compared with that old favourite, the broken collarbone, which is just one reason why helmet compulsion is pointless.
I think Mary Goode has missed
I think Mary Goode has missed the point here:
The issue is being hit by cars- how does wearing a helmet make you less vulnerable to that?
The sort of bloody mindedness
The sort of bloody mindedness demonstrated by CCC, Spokes and most of the comments here nearly caused a fellow club member his life a few weeks ago when a midweek ride ended in a pile up (no cars involved). The rider without the helmet was the one airlifted to hospital with his skull clearly visible through the hole in the side of his head. The others (none of whom sustained serious injuries) had the (dis)pleasure of attending to him by the roadside
I don’t give a flying fixed wheel how effective or otherwise a lid can (or can’t) be, you owe it to the people who are potentially affected by your actions to be more responsible.
I wonder how many objectors, when they’re a passenger in the front seat of a car, choose to switch off the passenger airbag? Or perhaps encourage their kids to ride a bike without a lid?
Finally, I walked from Cambridge station to the town centre and back last Saturday and judging by the standard of the vast majority of the riding I saw CCC, would be better off throwing their efforts at improving riding standards in their city instead of trying to maintain a clearly flawed principle.
And you can come and have ago as much as you want – i’ll have my lid on!
jarderich wrote:The sort of
Eh? They’re not saying nobody should ever wear one. I don’t see how they’ve caused anything. And while wearing a lid is probably a good idea on a fast club ride with people in a close bunch it doesn’t at all follow that everyone should wear one whenever they get on a bike, especially if doing so takes the focus away from the elephant in the room.
jarderich wrote:I wonder how
Lets say that you have a car which doesn’t have a passenger airbag – many older cars don’t. You are hit by another vehicle as the driver was on the phone at the time and wasn’t looking where he was going. A family member in the passenger seat is killed. The police don’t prosecute the other driver as they say it was your fault for not having a car with a passenger air bag. Is that right? Lets say the press take up the story and run articles about air bags; completely ignoring the real issue.
How would that make you feel, if the public opinion blamed you for the death of, say, your wife or child. Would you start campaigning for air bags, or would you start campaigning for the prosecution of drivers on the phone.
jarderich wrote:Finally, I
Wow. Cambridge is the city with the highest % of cyclists in the whole of the UK, and your attitude to the Cambridge Cycling Campaign is not “well done” but “you would be better off improving riding standards”. Hey, maybe you could add something about jumping red lights and riding on the pavement too.
With friends like this…
For the record jarderich – I
For the record jarderich – I *wear* a lid
What I object to is laws/rules/regulations being created to force me to do so while ignoring the elephant in the room – drivers!
And by the way – as always – an anecdote, no matter how true, poignant and heart-breaking – is not a good basis for policy
Well done CCC.
Well done CCC.
Is that the heart of the
Is that the heart of the argument ? That the majority of injuries aren’t head related so why bother wearing one ? I’ve honestly never heard that before.
We don’t know what happened, but if we found out he did hit his head and escaped unscathed what would your opinion be then ?
colinth wrote:Is that the
Once again – that would be anecdotal – as in, yes in this case it helped, but that might not always be the case
However I hope everyone on this board is aware of the rating/testing of helmets and therefore exactly how much use they are in real-world collision situations
Also I concede it’s not the *whole* heart of the argument – but if it’s not *at* the heart or pretty close, then it should be
colinth wrote:Is that the
Then you are either dishonest (as people who say “I honestly” usually are) or you have lived a very sheltered life.
There is an Everest of fact and statistics which support the proposition that a cycle helmet is far less beneficial than most people think, and certainly should not be compulsory. See http://www.cyclehelmets.org for details.
Paul M wrote:colinth wrote:Is
Then you are either dishonest (as people who say “I honestly” usually are) or you have lived a very sheltered life.
There is an Everest of fact and statistics which support the proposition that a cycle helmet is far less beneficial than most people think, and certainly should not be compulsory. See http://www.cyclehelmets.org for details.— colinth
Paul
I’m not dishonest, and haven’t heard that put forward as the main point against helmets / compulsion before. For the record, the main arguments I’ve heard are compulsion reduces the number of cyclists, gives drivers a false sense of security, and that helmets are not that effective against head injuries over a certain speed.
The website that you kindly promoted has no mention anywhere on it’s main page that the “heart of the argument” is that most cyling injuries are not head related. Indeed, it makes more references to the points that I thought were the main arguments against.
If you believe not knowing the ins and outs of the arguments for or against helmets means you’ve lived “a sheltered life” (god knows why), then you clearly need to broaden your interests, and check your facts before being abusive
colinth wrote:For the record,
The main argument is that helmets are not a reliable safety measure in a collision or fall. Many people are ignorant of the limitations to a helmets protection but push helmets as the best solution to cyclists’ safety. I can’t speak for everyone but my opposition to mandatory helmets is that it does nothing at all for my safety as I always wear one. The best thing to improve my safety would be to do something about those people who drive around like fricking lunatics and run into things (i.e. me).
Helmets may help alleviate the effects of a collision but the best thing to do is prevent the collision in the first place. This is what people mean when they talk about the ‘elephant in the room’.
To quote Chris Boardman, who summed it up nicely on the BBC this summer:
The emphasis shouldn’t be just on the cyclist. We’re creating a symptom without looking at the cause. If someone gets shot on the street, the answer isn’t that everyone should wear body armour. You say – ‘hang on a minute, maybe we need to look at the reasons behind this?’.
I wear a lid. That is my
I wear a lid. That is my choice. I am not forced to wear one, and would object to that compulsion.
Whether I wear one or not, I would rather not be hit by a car. My safety would be greatly enhanced by drivers driving properly.
People in the Netherlands tend not to ride with hats on because they don’t expect to get hit by cars.
Just heard Shane Sutton was
Just heard Shane Sutton was hit this morning on the A6 and suffered severe bruising of the brain
colinth wrote:Just heard
Not a good 24 hours for high profile cyclists
To completely step aside from the lid argument for a moment I hope they both recover quickly and have no long-lasting effects
The point is the CCC are
The point is the CCC are saying that we have a choice whether we wish to wear a lid or not, I don’t always wear one it depends what ride im on, thats my choice and i’m aware of the risks.However if i choose to participate in an event i should not have to be dictated to whether i wear a helmet or hi-viz clothing. Just cause you have your hi-viz garb on it doesnt necessarily mean you will be seen as your surroundings have a part in it. Wiggins was tagged because a driver did not pay due care and attention when pulling out onto a road, no argument dangerous driving prosecute and as for drivers on phones don’t get me started. The real issue is the roads are busy and we all want to get to our destination lets do it safely within the law and the highway code. (oh Eutopia)
Sounds like they’re both
Sounds like they’re both going to be OK which is the main priority, feel bad for saying it but is there any hope that 2 such high profile collisions might just prompt some action from Government ? I know it’s unlikely seeing as people being actually killed barely raises an eyebrow in some circles when it’s a cyclist but in the age of celebrity, maybe, just maybe ?
Hi Paul M
While I don’t
Hi Paul M
While I don’t disagree with any of your points, I feel uncomfortable about starting down the road of ad hominem attacks
If we can all stick to tackling the ball and not the player it’ll be easier to have a civilised debate
Quote:… the main arguments
You’ve heard all that and still favour compulsion – hmmm
My term, not his – again, I strongly believe it is part and parcel of the key points made in many cases
Hardly. It wasn’t civil certainly, but bearing in mind the tone of some comments made earlier, it smacks of feigned indignation to call what Paul M said “abusive”
mad_scot_rider
You’ve heard all that and still favour compulsion – hmmm
My term, not his – again, I strongly believe it is part and parcel of the key points made in many cases
Hardly. It wasn’t civil certainly, but bearing in mind the tone of some comments made earlier, it smacks of feigned indignation to call what Paul M said “abusive”
1) where did I say I favour compulsion
2) your term which he used still not a main point according to the source he quoted as evidence
3) I personally think being called dishonest is offensive, most honest people would
colinth wrote:1) where did I
The fact that we were debating compulsion and you jumped in with …
… could reasonably allow us to infer your position. No?
Also I don’t recall getting all touchy about your attack at the end of that quote – other than to point out your logical fallacy – all I’m asking is if ALL of us can avoid personal remarks/attacks and stick to the issue
mad_scot_rider wrote:colinth
The fact that we were debating compulsion and you jumped in with …
… could reasonably allow us to infer your position. No?
Also I don’t recall getting all touchy about your attack at the end of that quote – other than to point out your logical fallacy – all I’m asking is if ALL of us can avoid personal remarks/attacks and stick to the issue— colinth
No, not really. I wear a helmet and favour promotion of wearing them, but not compulsion. I don’t really buy the argument that drivers take less care, if anything I think there’s an increasingly dangerous attitude of “not wearing a helmet so got what you deserve”. I also think there’s increasingly less relevance in helmet use meaning less people cycle, it might have been an issue 5 or 10 years ago, but now it’s probably more common than not to wear one so there’s less of an “I look like an idiot” syndrome.
Agreed on the personal stuff, apologies if I started it
‘And by the way – as always –
‘And by the way – as always – an anecdote, no matter how true, poignant and heart-breaking – is not a good basis for policy
‘
That is all that ever needs saying on this subject. Applause.
andyp wrote:’And by the way –
Yes, exactly. I stayed off this thread until now because I knew it would degenerate and I couldn’t be arsed.
I like my head, I like my
I like my head, I like my life. If you don’t like yours go ahead and don’t wear a helmet.
If we ever both fall off our bikes at least I have a slightly higher chance of surviving without major head injuries that will make me a potatoe.
CCC have it wrong in my opinion, they are basically saying they do not care about cycling safely.
We are all cyclists, we want
We are all cyclists, we want to promote cycling and it’s not in the interests of the cycling industry to deter cycling. So why not ask the helmet manufacturers to be explicit what their product is and is not designed to achieve.
it seems to me many of those proposing compulsory helmets are under the impression that helmets will save cyclists lives in collision with cars, allowing drivers to be irresponsible, blame the victim stuff.
I almost always wear a helmet but I’m under no illusion about what use it will be if I’m hit by a car. And the last time I fell off a bike was 1979 before helmets were around.
CCC have it right it’s about compulsion so I don’t understand how you come to your conclusion that they do not care about cycling safety.
Safety equipment at cycling
Safety equipment at cycling events is usually mandated by the insurers and not by the organisers, so the CCC’s position is unlikely to have any effect.
Worse, whilst I appreciate that they are opposing compulsion not safety equipment, that is not how some may see it.
Every cyclist injured whilst not wearing safety gear is more ammunition for legal compulsion, so why discourage others from wearing it?
ontheroad wrote:Safety
Spot on comments…
“and we would hope everyone
“and we would hope everyone would encourage the young in particular, to have road sense” (Mary Goode)
so the reason young people can’t ride to school or to their friend’s houses or local parks is that they need more road sense, helmets and reflective clothing?
yesterday as i cycled to meet my daughter from school a driver agressively forced another car directly at me (continously on horn and tailgating/revving a slowing car ) – when i caught up with the offending car and asked if they were trying to get me killed – the classic answer was “what do you mean” – you forced the other car to pull out into my path “i didn’t see you” – i was wearing a reflective top – i cycle home on the pavements with my daughter – why? – not because she lacks a protective helmet, reflective clothing or road sense – the focus on helmets/reflective clothing is like saying that you need to improve literacy so people can read the warnings on cigarette packets – ie pointless and not the issue
(incidentally in Oz(Victoria) so helmet compulsary – but at 35kmph my understanding of what was going to happen helped more than any protection)
I don’t get why this issue
I don’t get why this issue raises everyone’s hackles so much?
We’re all on this site slating disrespectful and/or dangerous drivers day in and day out. There are always calls for being able to share the roads and play well together.
So why do we all act like they just shot our puppy whenever suggestions are made to try to create a situation where we can ride on the road without the inconvenience of being run over?
Hi-vis clothing and a helmet seem like fairly reasonable (and common sense) suggestions. If we really want the government to commit funds to designing decent cycle routes and factoring us into their traffic plans, surely we can agree to protect our skulls and try to be more easily seen by other road users?
Hardly worth frothing at the mouth is it?
Lacticlegs wrote:
So why do
In what way does wearing a helmet stop you being run over? And why is hi-viz more visible than bright but more tasteful colours, lights or retroflectives, the Holy Grail of cyclist visibility.
Riding a bike is not
Riding a bike is not inherently dangerous. Cycling is a normal activity which ought to be able to be undertaken by normal people without any special equipment except a bicycle (and lights if riding in darkness or poor visibility).
All road users have a duty to look properly and adjust their speed and actions to suit the conditions (including road layouts, road condition, weather, other road users, volume of traffic and anything else that might be on the road). When they fail to do that people sometimes get hurt or killed (including motorists, pedestrians and cyclists).
Those responsible must be made to bear that responsibility – it really is as simple as that.
“I don’t get why this issue
“I don’t get why this issue raises everyone’s hackles so much?” posted above
its the implicit assertion that cyclists that don’t wear helmets AND high viz are a danger to themselves and surprisingly also a danger to other road users
here is how i see it:
if you want to possibly mitigate head injuries when cycling choose to wear a helmet
wear clothing appropriate to the conditions, use lights appropriate to the conditions. (full stop)
drive with care and consideration for more vulnerable road users, be prepared to slow down if unsure what a pedestrian or cyclist intends to do, be aware when your visibility of other roade users may be poor – maybe start your journey earlier and don’t try to drive to meet a deadline time.
the last point will reduce injuries and accidents to cyclists and peds more than the first two
The biggest loser here is
The biggest loser here is going to be charity’s who arrange cycle events. They are required by law to provide insurance for everyone taking part. The insurance companies are the ones who dictate what steps riders need to take to be covered, and wearing helmets is mandatory. Well done to CCC for NOT SUPPORTING CHARITY.
As for wearing hi viz and helmets, my safety while on my bike is MY responsability. Dont try and pan it off on drivers, complaining when they fail to see you, if you are not even willing to put on a hi viz. Do your bit first, then complain when others dont.