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.
Add new comment
45 comments
'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.
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 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 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 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?
"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)
Spot on comments...
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?
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.
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 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.
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...
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.
"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 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.
Pages