Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Cambridge Cycling Campaign motion on helmets and hi-viz overwhelmingly backed by members

Motion urging withdrawal of support for events requiring helmets and hi-viz passed by 44 votes to 10

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.

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

45 comments

Avatar
Chuck replied to jarderich | 11 years ago
0 likes
jarderich wrote:

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!

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.

Avatar
qwerky replied to jarderich | 11 years ago
0 likes
jarderich wrote:

I wonder how many objectors, when they're a passenger in the front seat of a car, choose to switch off the passenger airbag?

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.

Avatar
Doctor Fegg replied to jarderich | 11 years ago
0 likes
jarderich wrote:

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.

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...

Avatar
Chuck | 11 years ago
0 likes

I think Mary Goode has missed the point here:

Quote:

Why would cyclists make themselves more vulnerable by not wearing protective clothing?

The issue is being hit by cars- how does wearing a helmet make you less vulnerable to that?

Avatar
mad_scot_rider | 11 years ago
0 likes

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

Avatar
zanf replied to mad_scot_rider | 11 years ago
0 likes
mad_scot_rider wrote:

Including a quote from a brain injury charity just once again highlights the culture of victim-blaming that goes on

"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?

Avatar
mad_scot_rider replied to zanf | 11 years ago
0 likes
zanf wrote:

... just as much protection wearing a towel wrapped around your head...

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

Avatar
hoski replied to mad_scot_rider | 11 years ago
0 likes
mad_scot_rider wrote:
zanf wrote:

... just as much protection wearing a towel wrapped around your head...

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

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.

Avatar
kie7077 replied to zanf | 11 years ago
0 likes

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.

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  1 ?

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.

Avatar
colinth replied to mad_scot_rider | 11 years ago
0 likes
mad_scot_rider wrote:

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

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

Avatar
doc replied to colinth | 11 years ago
0 likes
colinth wrote:
mad_scot_rider wrote:

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

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

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.

Avatar
mad_scot_rider replied to colinth | 11 years ago
0 likes
colinth wrote:

... 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 ...

I love how you engage in a wild and illogical hypothecation - then berate me for ignoring the facts

Truly superb logic

Avatar
colinth replied to mad_scot_rider | 11 years ago
0 likes
mad_scot_rider wrote:
colinth wrote:

... 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 ...

I love how you engage in a wild and illogical hypothecation - then berate me for ignoring the facts

Truly superb logic

Whereas your point about his helmet not saving him from some broken ribs makes perfect sense.

Avatar
mad_scot_rider replied to colinth | 11 years ago
0 likes
colinth wrote:
mad_scot_rider wrote:
colinth wrote:

... 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 ...

I love how you engage in a wild and illogical hypothecation - then berate me for ignoring the facts

Truly superb logic

Whereas your point about his helmet not saving him from some broken ribs makes perfect sense.

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

Avatar
JohnS replied to mad_scot_rider | 11 years ago
0 likes
mad_scot_rider wrote:

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

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.

Pages

Latest Comments