The people behind a forthcoming crowdfunding campaign believe that everyone who rides a bicycle in London should wear a cycle helmet – and they want to raise money to produce a product “so cheap and so available that everyone chooses to wear them.”
Put a Lid on It, which launched on social media and put its website live last week, claim that 92 per cent of people who use the capital’s cycle hire scheme bikes don’t wear a helmet, and have made them the first target of their campaign.
While some people have tweeted messages of support to the campaign’s Twitter account, others have accused it of victim-blaming and ignoring issues that would improve conditions for cyclists such as safer lorries and separated infrastructure.
Launched last week, the putalidonit.co.uk website says: “We want to make helmets, so portable, so cheap and so available that everyone chooses to wear them,” which some might see as missing the point that there are other reasons people don’t cycle with one."
It adds: "Our primary goal is to make the helmets available through convenience stores by bike stands and bike shops. But there will be a limited edition version available to crowdfunding backers along with a range of other goodies."
The website outlines how Put a Lid on It came into being:
Sam Terry, a keen cyclist and Londoner, realised that the key is convenience. Cyclists need to be able to go to the corner shop next to the bike stand and buy a helmet. The helmet needs to be cheap enough to buy on an impulse and lose without irritation – a bit like a cheap umbrella!
The helmet also needs to be portable. Sam considered all the helmets currently available. Cheap helmets were bulky, collapsible helmets were pricey (and most just don’t collapse enough). The only option was design a new solution – LID was born!
LID is the only collapsible helmet that reduces to the size of a couple of books so it WILL fit in your bag. If we achieve our funding targets, we will sell it for the price of a budget umbrella. Most importantly it will protect the wearer. It will be thoroughly tested and certified to European safety standards. Let’s stop head injuries ruining everyone’s day!
While some tweets to the @putalidon account on Twitter back the initiative, others said they were distracting from other measures that would improve the safety of cyclists.
Clive Andrews wrote: “I know you mean well, but is your campaign based on any evidence? Helmet-fixation is demonstrably not helpful.
“If it's ‘about choice’, why does your campaign imagery clearly say there's ‘something wrong’ with a photo of a lidless rider?
Please don't be disingenuous enough to pretend posters like this are anything about promoting ‘choice’.”
Hackneycyclist asked: “Will you be asking pedestrians & drivers to #putalidonit as well? Many die from head injuries in collisions.”
Other messages were more supportive. Julian Swann wrote: “Hired my first boris bike today. So easy to do but no mention of helmets in the safety guidelines. #putalidonit”
Ken Livingstone, who as Mayor of London gave the go-ahead to the capital’s cycle hire scheme which would be launched under Boris Johnson, said in 2011 that he had planned to provide helmets for people hiring bikes.
He said: “It was always the plan that you should make certain that people who are cycling have got a helmet. You almost want to have a way where the helmet is actually chained to the bike, so people who don’t bring one can have one.”
In the Australia, where cycle helmets are compulsory, people hiring bikes from Melbourne’s cycle hire scheme can buy a helmet for A$5 from vending machines, as Terminator star and former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had to do last week when he was stopped by a police officer while riding a bike without one.
Critics of Australia’s compulsory helmet laws however have said that they have led to a lower uptake of cycle hire schemes there than have been seen elsewhere.
Of course, if you do choose to wear a helmet when hiring a bike in London, you could take your own helmet with you – as this pair of riders we spotted recently did.

























95 thoughts on “Crowdfunding campaign wants all London cyclists to wear a helmet”
The guy behind it seems to
The guy behind it seems to have been in an astonishingly high number of incidents.
BUY OUR HELMETS BUY OUR
BUY OUR HELMETS BUY OUR HELMETS.
Sam is ambitious. He hopes to
Sam is ambitious. He hopes to get “50 retail accounts” and 1000 backers of his Indiegogo campaign.
Now, Indiegogo is crowdfunding where the projects gets the cash even if it doesn’t hit target. This is not like Kickstarter where only successful projects get funded.
So, say Sam only gets 5 retail accounts and 100 backers? He’ll still get the cash from Indiegogo. Those wishing to back the campaign should bear this in mind.
Ken Livingstone … said:
Ken Livingstone … said: “You almost want to have a way where the helmet is actually chained to the bike, so people who don’t bring one can have one.”
No obvious hygiene issue there then?
So, a company wanting to sell
So, a company wanting to sell something are in favour of everyone buying one….
What’s the accident rate
What’s the accident rate among Boris Bikers? What’s the accident rate where the accident occurred due to the actions of the cyclist? Conversely, how many were caused by the motorists? How many accidents are of the kind where a helmet might have helped? Without this sort of information, the whole thing is pointless, as you’re really just appealing to “common sense, innit”.
Hmm, so if a helmet can be
Hmm, so if a helmet can be made collapsible to that size and pass standards testing… wouldn’t it already have been done?
I mean, a huge range of industrial designers should be able to solve this already. There are a few folding helmets on the market, but I suppose there’s a reason they don’t fold very small.
I.e. the chances of this passing testing as designed now… minimal.
Oh, and the entire campaign is just to sell helmets… in other news: Turkeys campaign against Christmas.
Put a lid on it indeed… the
Put a lid on it indeed… the campaign, that is. Or why not start off by getting pedestrians to wear plastic hats first (fluorescent ones, naturally), I dread to think of all those hidden hazards awaiting the unwary and unprotected pedestrian, especially in London. And what about pigeon poo, no-one ever thinks of that ever present danger that can fall from the sky at any second. We’re all doomed 8|
Helmets for all London car
Helmets for all London car users, why do they think only cyclists need helmets. It seems the cyclists who can’t stay upright back this idea, jeeze, here we go again.
London is welcome to this
London is welcome to this “initiative” and welcome to keep it all for itself.
“IT” put a lid on “IT”?
ffs
“IT” put a lid on “IT”?
ffs feeling dehumanised much?
“IT rubs the lotion on IT’s skin”
“Did you smash IT?”
very unhelpful campaign that
very unhelpful campaign that deserves to be ignored, unless they actually build a helmet to the specifications they have stated and get it safety-approved, in which case it should be treated as a badly marketed but potentially useful product.
Looks like a moneymaking scam
Looks like a moneymaking scam to me, reminds me of PPI sales cold calling tactics.
I wonder if they will try to get Chris “cycling is safer than gardening” Boardman to support their campaign.
http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-10-things-keep-cycling-safe
What is this obsession with
What is this obsession with helmets?
We have had all the arguments again and again but the only obsession should be with road safety for everyone
– rules don’t make things safe – people do
“these hard lessons have
“these hard lessons have served to make me hyper-vigilant and aware when riding to prevent accidents”
no, no they haven’t, that’s why you rode into a fluro orange bollard!
“What’s wrong with this
“What’s wrong with this picture?”
I think you’ll find that the lady needs to adjust the seat hight. Can’t see anything else wrong, can you?
How to transfer blame to the
How to transfer blame to the victim and not the offenders.
Cycling is as risky as being a pedestrian – we should all “put a lid on when walking down the street” – let’s see how far they get with THAT campaign . . .
The man’s a f**king idiot. I
The man’s a f**king idiot. I have plenty of money and and if I wanted to wear a helmet because I thought it would aid my personal safety I’d buy one and the best one I could afford and I’d happily afford the best. But since they don’t work I am not going to waste even a little bit of my money on a really cheap and crap one.
oozaveared wrote:The man’s a
If you had have dropped the 1st and 3rd sentences your point might have come across as more reasoned than raving.
RTB wrote:oozaveared
Thanks.
“what’s wrong with this
“what’s wrong with this picture”? Vulnerable road user forced to share road space with 18 tonne steel boxes
Ad campaign presented as a
Ad campaign presented as a safety awareness one, low blow.
Copenhagen is lovely at this

Copenhagen is lovely at this time of year.
Amsterdam too…

Amsterdam too…
crikey wrote:
Amsterdam
That’s one of the best bikes I’ve ever seen! 🙂
Videos of people falling off
Videos of people falling off and failing to even hit their heads:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH-tg8esBQM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFBK_wsXkCA
Ush wrote:Videos of people
LOL the people in the cars at 1:28 might have benefitted from helmets!
Nothing wrong with wearing a
Nothing wrong with wearing a helmet when you make a mistake after a few beers on a night out, and ride into the edge of the kerb, go over the bars, and smack your head on the sharp concrete kerb edge.
But its not going to make any real difference when a motor vehicle weighing 1930kg moving at 48 km/h runs into you whilst you wait at a traffic light (i.e. impact force of 51,453 N), because the driver is more interested in their facebook status on their smart phone, than what is going on in front of them on the road, is it?
hampstead_bandit
Cycle helmets are not designed to withstand hitting a sharp edge like a kerb, only blunt objects like hitting the road with the top of your head (a nice trick if you can manage it — don’t suppose it happens in accidents very much). The helmet will just split and offer no protection.
arowland wrote:Cycle helmets
US standard CPSC test includes: The hazard or curbstone anvil is rounded like the edge of a curb. It is a severe test, and the drop is 1.2 meters (11 mph). Although it is the top of your head again.
Mine has a CPSC sticker in it.
atgni wrote:
US standard CPSC
I’m taller than 1.2m. How about you?
a.jumper wrote:atgni
I’m taller than 1.2m. How about you?— atgni
It’s the 11mph that’s the important bit.
atgni wrote:
It’s the 11mph
Even with my mammoth frame and appalling fitness level I average 16mph – I can’t see me decelerating 5mph as I fall (more than 1.2m) from the bike to land on the crown of my head…
If I could do that I’d be a circus act.
Man of Lard wrote:atgni
Even with my mammoth frame and appalling fitness level I average 16mph – I can’t see me decelerating 5mph as I fall (more than 1.2m) from the bike to land on the crown of my head…
If I could do that I’d be a circus act.— atgni
Don’t wear one if you don’t want to. I don’t always, it’s a case of risk management.
From another website:
Bicycle helmets are designed as a compromise among impact management, cooling, weight, cost and many other factors….no helmet can protect you against all impacts….
Why so low, when bicyclists frequently exceed 14 mph in forward speed?
The typical road or trail bike crash involves a drop to pavement. The important energy in that crash is supplied by gravity, not by forward speed. Although forward speed can contribute some additional energy, the main force is the attraction of gravity, and the impact severity is determined by the height of your head above the pavement when the fall begins. It is gravity that determines how fast your helmet closes with the pavement. Some of the crash energy is often “scrubbed off” by hitting first with other body parts. The typical bicycle crash impact occurs at a force level equating to about 1 meter (3 feet) of drop, or a falling speed of 10 MPH. The rider’s forward speed before the crash may be considerably higher than that, but the speed of the head closing with the ground, plus a component of the forward speed, less any energy “scrubbed off” in other ways, normally average out at about 10 MPH.
atgni wrote:The typical
Prove it. What norm says that, except the cycle helmet ones? Adults fall off a saddle that puts their head at nearly 2m.
Not that it matters because if you hit a large pebble/small rock or impact anything other than squarely vertical, you’re entering untested territory. It’s amazing that they’re still allowed to sell these as protective for real world use.
a.jumper wrote:atgni
Prove it – no.
They are a risk management thing, don’t wear one if you don’t want to. My point is that they are not meant to prevent all injury and a campaign to remove choice simply to sell a product that doesn’t even exist is best avoided.
a.jumper wrote:atgni
I find this really a bit silly, if you don’t want to wear a helmet, fine but don’t spout rubish I came off on a club run at 23 mph head hit road HARD helmet knackered head intact. How anyone can argue helmet don’t work in some situations is absolutely daft
Yeah but when I’m pootling to
Yeah but when I’m pootling to work on a boris bike I’m doing about 8 mph, and I’m not going to fall off.
Beefy wrote:a.jumper
I find this really a bit silly, if you don’t want to wear a helmet, fine but don’t spout rubish I came off on a club run at 23 mph head hit road HARD helmet knackered head intact. How anyone can argue helmet don’t work in some situations is absolutely daft— atgni
There’s a bit of a difference in being out for a training run (or even competing) and riding to and from work.
I wear a lid for training and competition because it’s required and because it also makes sense. I don’t when I’m commuting because there’s no real need.
When training or racing you’re pushing the envelope and people do crash. If you don’t crash once in a while when you’re racing, you’re not trying hard enough to compete. But if you ride that way when you’re commuting, you’re doing it wrong. Riding on busy urban roads is about getting where you want to go safely and that involves riding defensively. Turning the commute into a race is foolish. If that’s the way you ride, you might as well buy a BMW and start cutting everyone up.
atgni wrote:arowland
The top of your head?
ConcordeCX wrote:
The top of
They test an impact on the crown of the helmet. No tests on sides, front or back.
If you want new rules so all
If you want new rules so all London cyclists must wear helmets, that fine.
If you want to develop and sell a new helmet, that’s fine too.
But it does seem rather disingenuous to combine the two into a single ad campaign.
I’ve written to Putalidonit, politely expressing my concern. If anyone feels like doing likewise they’re on: hello@putalidonit.co.uk
somebody who has been in as
somebody who has been in as many crashes as the individual behind this project is the last person to be lecturing others on road safety – does it ever occur to these ‘helmet saved my life’ people that some of us don’t share their own difficulty in staying upright on two wheels and wish that folks who seem to struggle with something most people mastered as a small child would stop telling us we’re doing it wrong because we don’t feel the need to dress up like an American football player just to go for a bike ride?
Northernbike wrote: … we
Some do.
http://s256.photobucket.com/user/edscoble/media/IMAG0332.jpg.html?t=1312326884
Not sure he’s still around, but used to be a regular sight on my commute from S London to the City back in the day.
Northernbike wrote: does it
Well it might not be your own mistake, but that of somebody else, which causes you to decide to wear a helmet, in the belief it might offer some protection. (and I’m not getting into the efficacy debate, it’s personal choice). Glad to hear you have never, and will never come off your bike, though!
However it’s a terrible idea and campaign, for most of the reasons already stated.
Well said hampstead …
Well said hampstead … exactly my thoughts.
Moving on from the helmet
Moving on from the helmet debate, let’s have a look at the business/investment angle.
Reproduced from the “Our Plan” frame of the website for purposes of comment. Right now, the majority of the work that’s been done is marketing and social media awareness. There is a bit on “Manufacture Costing” (based on, er, what exactly?), and the plan going forward is to get Retail and Individual Backers, THEN do Production Engineering, Prototype and Standards Testing. No details as to the timeline on the important stuff as well.
Okay. So Putalidonit haven’t got a working prototype, let alone one that comes in on budget and meets standards testing. Nor any evidence of a track record in actually making bike helmets. All the “friends who have helped us get started” are marketing, social media, and design people.
From what I can tell, no evidence so far of any manufacturing or product design/testing input. And the crowdfunded investment is nonrefundable, and if it doesn’t get off the ground, does all the money goes to the marketing, social media, and design costs?
Purely from an investment standpoint, this is a big plate of NoNopeNoway for me, with a bowl of RunTheHellAway for dessert. With a working, tested prototype with some idea of the profitability, then I’d look at the equity and safety efficacy angle.
DON’T put a lid on it – DO
DON’T put a lid on it – DO keep a clear head and enjoy the wind in your hair!
Better of changing road
Better of changing road behavior, lorry and bus safety and road layout than a cheap pointless helmet. if anything its saying don’t ride without a lid, you will die, what a way to encourage riding!
Who exactly are ‘The Team’
Who exactly are ‘The Team’ behind this and what are their motivations?
Is public safety the main motivation or is it to get into the bicycle helmet business?
If it is the former then perhaps they should be campaigning for better infrastructure. If its the latter are they cynically creating a climate of fear to increase sales of a product they are trying to promote?
Bunch of dicks whatever
Some Fella wrote: are they
That’s the bsais of all helmet campaigns. Always has been; always will be. Nothing new there.
Just sent them this
“”We are
Just sent them this
“”We are a multidisciplinary team who have been working together in the design & delivery of products for the last 15 years”
The above quote is from your website and may be true. Unfortunately it is also true that you are completely ignorant of the facts about cycle helmets, which is a bit of an error if you are seeking to promote them.
May I suggest that you might like to remedy that ignorance at cyclehelmets.org
Then putasockinit.”
Nothing new here. Plenty of
Nothing new here. Plenty of folding helmets have been marketed. Don’t think any have been successful..
The most likely place to die
The most likely place to die from a head injury is the hospital (from a head injury sustained IN the hospital); the second is the home. Perhaps they should have these helmets at hospital reception or at the corner store so people can use them in the most hazardous places…
I think that they should be
I think that they should be able to achieve their goal without designing anything. The cheapest one at Halfords is £15UKP -bit small for me – but there are helmets for £10 including shipping from China retail (aliexpress) and from less than £1 (they claim) @2000 pieces, wholesale (alibaba). I used one from DX for £16 for a couple of years. My review. No affiliation.
http://club.dx.com/reviews/134225/324786
I’ve got one thing to say to
I’ve got one thing to say to Putalidonit.
Putasockinit.
I always wear a helmet, for a
I always wear a helmet, for a number of reasons eg:
– three young kids still at the occasionally falling over stage, and for those low speed impacts a helmet might do some good; a bit hard to encourage them to put on helmets if Daddy doesn’t.
– it’s not that uncomfortable and probably can’t do any harm and might do a bit of good.
– it’s less bad than explaining to mother/ mother-in-law etc on a continual basis why I am not wearing one. (Weak, or wisely choosing the path of least resistance- make your mind up)
BUT the one thing that really would make me take a principled stand and not wear one is the utterly inane arguments of the pro-helmet (and particularly pro-compulsory helmet) brigade.
http://putalidonit.co.uk/more-news/why-i-never-ride-without-one/
??? because you hurt your leg and arm???!!! How does a helmet help there?
“From that moment onwards I have never ridden without a helmet. I never had another accident riding in Belfast.”
Oh, the magical accident avoiding aura of the helmet!!!
“These are rare incidents during a lifetime of cycling but these hard lessons have served to make me hyper-vigilant and aware when riding to prevent accidents. ”
??? So hypervigilant that notwithstanding three previous serious accidents you don’t look where you are going, careen though traffic cones and hit a road sign???
FFS.
Wish I had been wearing one
Wish I had been wearing one when I fell.
Most of the impact was taken by my broken ribs and vertebrae (all now healed) but I still more than a year on am recovering from hitting head, plus have tinnitus now.
Cycling helmet may have saved me from this, I have promised my mate I will always wear one in future when I go up a ladder!
It’s not will it save you just it may and it probably will reduce your injuries if you are unfortunate enough to come off. Still a personal choice cos you do look a bit daft, especially when used for ladder work!!!
FatBoyW wrote:It’s not will
There is no good real-world evidence to support “it probably will reduce your injuries if you are unfortunate enough to come off” – if helmet-wearing goes up, injuries don’t necessarily go down. Wearing a helmet is not a rational act.
Sadly, helmet-wearing is not a personal choice. Any rider choosing to wear one harms everyone. It harms people who ride bikes because if enough people wear them, we will all be forced to, carrying an annoying useless hat around. This is explicit in various government reports which use the current low adoption rate as an argument against forcing us because it would be a huge waste of resources policing the likely mass non-compliance. It harms people who don’t ride bikes in a double-whammy of making them less likely to start riding and stopping some current riders or reducing how often they ride, with the consequent health disbenefits and costs to the NHS.
OK, if you’re doing high speeds on a club run, often in tight formation, that’s completely outside my experience. For all I know, maybe you should wear protective gear, but I suspect you’d need more protective kit than a basic EuroNorm helmet if you want it to do much good. A split/failed helmet tells you nothing unless you’re willing to repeat the crash without one – there’s a near-total absence of crash-test-dummy experiments doing that, which seems rather odd, doesn’t it? And cycle-sport head injuries haven’t reduced since helmet compulsion in its regulations, which is also rather odd, isn’t it? Anyway, sport should be a tiny fraction of atypical cycling, so please don’t generalise it to everyday riding.
a.jumper wrote:
There is no
Try here: http://www.bhsi.org/index.htm#standards
LOL really!
atgni wrote:a.jumper
That’s a list of helmet standards, which unsurprisingly have a vested interest in selling contrived laboratory helmet tests and sometimes standards documents. Real-world monitoring of the effects is conspicuously absent from them. You may as well have written “try here: http://www.google.com ”
Why did you decide to do that, does it happen often enough to be worth a helmet and why the hell are angular metal bollards near a cycleway anyway?
fully concur with the latter
fully concur with the latter bit, they are lethal, I was trying to avoid a road bump, clipped it with my pedal and started flying sideways!! I am clearly not to be trusted.
a.jumper wrote:
Any rider
Love it.
You realise that’s just as ridiculous a position to take as the pro compulsion brigade..?
No, in your world, people would not be able to make a choice about wearing protective gear, it’d all be banned!
700c wrote:a.jumper
Yes, it would! As well as not wanting to be forced to wear a limited-life relatively-heavy hat, if you want to ride deliberately in such a reckless manner that you need body armour, then you are a danger to yourself and others that should be removed from the cycleways and public roads and limited to controlled events! Why is it ridiculous that I don’t want foolishly reckless riders around me?
a.jumper wrote:700c
Yes, it would! As well as not wanting to be forced to wear a limited-life relatively-heavy hat, if you want to ride deliberately in such a reckless manner that you need body armour, then you are a danger to yourself and others that should be removed from the cycleways and public roads and limited to controlled events! Why is it ridiculous that I don’t want foolishly reckless riders around me?— a.jumper
So ban shoes and padded shorts too. If you can’t handle bare feet and a hard saddle don’t ride. In fact, ban saddles too; if people can’t stand on the pedals all the way they shouldn’t cycle either.
atgni wrote:So ban shoes and
That’s silly — you wouldn’t need to ban those things, once bikes are banned. And running needs banning too. If you can’t simply walk somewhere, then you don’t deserve the gift of mobility.
atgni wrote:a.jumper
I suspect you’re being silly. Is there any evidence that shoes or padded shorts (and I usually ride without padded shorts, including 50+ mile rides – easy on a sensible bike) or saddles lead to greater risk-taking?
It’s pretty obvious that people who dress as road warriors behave more like them, plus motorists take more risks with them too, according to that overtaking distance study reported on road.cc a few years back.
a.jumper wrote:
I suspect
Well spotted. As is your assertion that my helmet wearing ‘harms everybody’.
I am not sure what harm I am
I am not sure what harm I am doing to you by wearing a helmet beyond of course the aesthetic issue. What struck me about my crash was that it occurred during a normal commute and a combination of road bump and street furniture made a simple tumble (something I have avoided for many years as I don’t bounce), into a potentially life changing injury.
As I said I am certainly not keen on compulsion but at the same time I have made the decision to wear a helmet at all times. By so doing I am having no adverse impact on your desire not to do so.
The road warrior ideal of positively not wearing helmet is beyond me, I didn’t wear one previously through lack of organisation or forgetfulness. I am predominantly a non lycra cyclist (unless very warm in the summer or doing the sunday run) and simply look to get from A to B safely on my bike.
As a 50/50 wearer of helmets
As a 50/50 wearer of helmets I was very lucky that I happened to be wearing my lid when I decided to fall into an angular metal bollard and headbutted another. 6 days in hospital with badly mashed up arms (Thank you UCLH) and 4 months not cycling. Without the helmet it would have been a lot worse, I have a lovely dent in the old helmet I was wearing which would otherwise have been my forehead and considerable bruising on my forehead from the helmet impacting on it at speed.
I now wear mine at all times but I would not push it on others. I feel that compulsion and the whole helmet debate is just a distraction. Most of you are not as stupid as I and don’t need to be protected from yourselves I would hope
A spokesperson for government
A spokesperson for government said a few years ago that although the number of cyclists wearing helmets was too low to make it easy to introduce compulsion, that they were monitoring the situation and would review the idea if a high enough proportion of cyclists wore them. I’m afraid I have lost the reference for this.
So I think it is fair to say that helmet wearing is an (inadvertent) vote for compulsion.
felixcat wrote:A spokesperson
That doesn’t equate to ‘harm’.
Compulsion either way should be avoided for a number of reasons.
atgni wrote:
That doesn’t
I do not think compulsion to not wear a helmet is a possibilty, to say the least, so I am puzzled by your “compulsion either way”.
Compulsion has demonstrably resulted in sizeable reductions in numbers cycling in Australia and New Zealand, and anywhere else it has been enacted. This is a clear harm to public health.
I would regard my being forced to buy and wear what I regard as an absurd foam hat as harm, though a rather minor one. You could say that the legal penalties I would suffer for refusing to wear one would be my own fault, but they would seem to me to be harm.
felixcat wrote:atgni
I do not think compulsion to not wear a helmet is a possibilty, to say the least, so I am puzzled by your “compulsion either way”.— atgni
a.jumper wrote above:
“Any rider choosing to wear one (a helmet) harms everyone.”
And subsequently went on to agree: ‘people should not be able to make a choice about wearing protective gear, it should all be banned.’
atgni wrote:felixcat
I do not think compulsion to not wear a helmet is a possibilty, to say the least, so I am puzzled by your “compulsion either way”.— felixcat
a.jumper wrote above:
“Any rider choosing to wear one (a helmet) harms everyone.”
And subsequently went on to agree: ‘people should not be able to make a choice about wearing protective gear, it should all be banned.’— atgni
I see. I didn’t read that. Have you ever heard of any serious campaign to ban foam? This seems to be Mr. Jumper’s wild fantasy, and not a possibilty, as I said.
Do you have any comment on my point that wearing may well encourage compulsion, and that compulsion is certainly harmful?
felixcat wrote:atgni
I see. I didn’t read that.— atgni
That’s OK. I didn’t write that second quote, although I broadly agree with it as far as riding on open public roads goes (what people do on closed roads is up to them).
Oh I need to have these dreams to counteract putalidonit’s nightmare of helmet compulsion!
Come on, you can’t expect helmet wearers to have a clear view of how their irrational headgear selection affects us all: their chinstraps are probably too lose, so the helmet falls forward and obscures their view. It’s the blind leading the sighted, the dangerous dictating to the safer riders…
a.jumper wrote:felixcat
I see. I didn’t read that.— felixcat
That’s OK. I didn’t write that second quote, although I broadly agree with it….— atgni
You said “Yes, it would!” That’s quite broad on a scale of broadness.
felixcat wrote:
Do you have
1st part – the purported theoretical link, if any, is so insignificant that it would be fallacy to consider it. Laws aren’t made just because ‘most people do it’ or speed limits would be higher on Motorways. Are you seriously suggesting no one should wear a helmet in case, sometime in the future, that might be used as a reason to make all cyclists wear a helmet?
2nd part – harmful no not by any definition of harmful. Un-reasonable, not beneficial, un-helpful yes.
atgni wrote:felixcat
I did not suggest that a compulsion law would be made “just because” many people wear helmets. You quote above my words that “wearing may well encourage compulsion”. There is a difference. You should not try to distort my meaning.
Your example of speed limits is quite telling, but not in the way you think. Limits ARE set with reference to the 85th percentile (or some such) of actual speeds.
If you are determined not to see the obvious truth that if helmet wearing is more prevalent then it is politically easier to mandate it there is little I can do, except hope that other readers are not so purblind.
At least you only ask whether I am “seriously suggesting no one should wear a helmet” for that reason. I was pointing out that helmet wearing has a downside for others, as this was the point under discussion. What you make of that is up to you.
I would seriously suggest no one wear a helmet for other reasons, but again, it is up to them.
You do not address what you call the 2nd. part. Helmet compulsion has always reduced cycling wherever it has been imposed, and I hope you see this as bad thing quite apart from the effect on public health. More drivers to make your rides less pleasant and more dangerous is one harm
felixcat wrote:I would
I’m slightly intrigued by this – personal choice is one part of this clearly, but you seem to have reasons to actively encourage not to wear one (apart from the previous point mentioned). Could you expand on those reasons please ?
A.jumper, there’s no
A.jumper, there’s no conspiracy! Nobody’s dictating anything to you! (you, on the other hand..)
700c wrote:A.jumper, there’s
This is the reverse of reality. There is a large and vociferous lobby for helmet compulsion. There is no one who wants to ban them.
felixcat wrote:700c
Apart from the very person I was referring to in my post!
Anyway, to address the more serious point of lobbyists supporting helmet law, I think you’ve over stated their influence and risk they present. It’s the kind of thing that would probably go to a free vote anyway, rather than supported ad policy by a serious party, but by all means campaign against it if and when the time comes, just don’t hold me responsible for such idiocy.
some people will always read the daily mail, some will support the EDL, hold racist views, others will hate cyclists, whatever. More reasonable people can stand up against them, but they shouldn’t hold their peers responsible for the misguided or bigoted views of others.
If a government really wanted
If a government really wanted to make a stupid decision such as mandating helmets but would only do so once enough people wore them voluntarily (!), then I can see how wearing helmets might increase the likelihood of such a law coming in.
I don’t know of any such official policy, but if you want to hold me, a helmet wearer, responsible for lunatic policy in a parallel universe, then I will also hold non-helmet wearers responsible for some kind of presumed liability law where you’re responsible for a car hitting you when riding helmet-less.
Because that’s just as bonkers and just as outside of my control as introducing compulsion!
700c wrote:If a government
No parallel universe required, sadly! I can’t find the original source that @felixcat mentined but the official attitude shows through in spokesperson comments like http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/48526 which (despite the best efforts of helmet-pushers TRL to show any real-world benefit) says “Regular Department for Transport surveys have shown that the wearing rate for children has remained at around 18% i.e. the majority of children cyclists do not wear helmets. Compulsory laws would therefore cause significant enforcement difficulties and without greater public acceptance could have a negative effect on levels of cycling with direct disadvantages and costs in terms of health. For these reasons, the Government has no plans to introduce compulsory cycle helmet laws.” (emphasis added)
It’s not quite out of your control: both electing less stupid governments and refusing to wear their head-potties voluntarily reduce the probability of legal compulsion. If you either vote for helmet-pushers or voluntarily obey them, then you are surely responsible and effectively acting against everyone else’s freedom to choose to ride hatless.
a.jumper wrote:700c wrote:If
No parallel universe required, sadly! I can’t find the original source that @felixcat mentined but the official attitude shows through in spokesperson comments like http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/48526 which (despite the best efforts of helmet-pushers TRL to show any real-world benefit) says “Regular Department for Transport surveys have shown that the wearing rate for children has remained at around 18% i.e. the majority of children cyclists do not wear helmets. Compulsory laws would therefore cause significant enforcement difficulties and without greater public acceptance could have a negative effect on levels of cycling with direct disadvantages and costs in terms of health. For these reasons, the Government has no plans to introduce compulsory cycle helmet laws.” (emphasis added)
It’s not quite out of your control: both electing less stupid governments and refusing to wear their head-potties voluntarily reduce the probability of legal compulsion. If you either vote for helmet-pushers or [b] voluntarily obey them, then you are surely responsible and effectively acting against everyone else’s freedom to choose to ride hatless.[b]— 700c
Well done, you’ve just discovered freedom of choice is an illusion. You’ve still got to make a compelling reason as to why we’ve all got to agree with you, rather than risk theoretically creating the dynamics where its theoretically possible to force people to wear a helmet though.
700c wrote:If a government
Other governments have made the stupid decision to mandate helmets and you must know there is a vocal lobby for such a law. The motives of a part of the lobby are at least well meant. I referrered above to the civil servant who explicitly said that wearing rates becoming high would facilitate a compulsion law. It is fairly obvious that it would make it easier. I do not know that it is policy, and did not claim so, but I assure you that it was said. I will try to find a reference
I was careful to use the word “inadvertently” in order to clear you wearers of any responsibilty. So there is no need to call me bonkers.
I am unsure of the relevance of your presumed liabilty fantasy.
Funny how
Funny how vehemently-anti-helmet people rely on the prospect of compulsion to try and make their point. No matter what you say, it’s a personal choice and I’ll continue to take it, whilst you continue to believe my choice is somehow affecting your life (and that everyone is out to get you!)
If some government wanted to make a stupid decision to impose a law, there’s nothing you or I could do about it, apart from voting accordingly if it was in a manifesto or official policy. It isn’t. Anywhere. In fact, if a helmet law came in, I’d be inclined to wear mine less in protest, simply because I wouldn’t agree with it – now that’s cause and effect the vehemently-anti-helmet people probably didn’t expect, not least because they like to charactise the arguments of anyone who disagrees with them and polarize the debate accordingly. But then that’s nothing new on this forum I suppose.
700c wrote:Funny how
Oh no, I’m not anti-helmet because of compulsion. Now who’s deliberately trying to polarise the debate? Is it fun to make up weak arguments and misattribute them to those who disagree with you?
I’m anti-helmet because I was injured by one (fortunately only mildly) and when I looked into it, helmet wearing trades a lot of increased risks for an insignificant reduction in basically one specific risk – and that’s assuming that you wear the helmet properly, that it’s not defective (which you can’t easily test without destroying it) and many other things which often aren’t true.
I mention the compulsion threat that hangs over us only to contradict the lie often repeated by helmet wearers that their personal choice doesn’t carry any danger for others. We know the current government attitude towards compulsion – they’ve expressed it often enough – when enough people wear helmets voluntarily, they will try to stop the rest of us riding.
a.jumper wrote:700c
Interesting – might I ask how ?
Strangely enough I looked into this after an off and came to a completely different conclusion – and i’m not sure where you get ‘an insignificant reduction in basically one specific risk’ from. What are these ‘many other things which often aren’t true’ ?
Often repeated ? Really ? ‘danger’ for others – do you mean consequences ?
Who will stop the ‘rest of us’ riding and how ? Do you mean if compulsion came in, and I hope to hell it doesn’t, that you would choose to never ride rather than wear one ever ?
fukawitribe wrote:a.jumper
The specifics are not relevant to this discussion but I suffered cervical acceleration-deceleration that it is thought wouldn’t have happened without the added weight of a helmet.
Well how do you think their benefit is produced then?
Features of the injury incident, basically.
Most likely, there will be police issuing fines, Australian-style. I couldn’t afford that, so unless there’s some sort of solidarity fund to pay those fines, or I can obtain an exempt cycle, I don’t see how I could continue riding, which would upset me greatly.
a.jumper wrote:fukawitribe
The specifics are not relevant to this discussion but I suffered cervical acceleration-deceleration that it is thought wouldn’t have happened without the added weight of a helmet.— a.jumper
Hugely relevant to your comments about the efficacy (or lack) of helmets – but not to the OPs point granted. It it was the added weight of the helmet then i’m ‘surprised’ (to be generous). I won’t go into the obvious side-story about when the corresponding ‘helmet saved me from injury’ comment is made.
Sorry ? What do you mean ? There are two primary modes of protection I can think of with helmets – abrasion and deceleration – which cover a number of risks to a lesser or greater degree.
Eh ?
You could continue to ride if you wore a helmet – but I guess you’re saying that’s not an option. If you believe that will give you a net safety benefit, then fair enough. I just happen to think differently and so will behave correspondingly.
a.jumper wrote:700c
No misattribution by me, you started talking about compulsion with ‘your choice harms everyone’ etc, as part of your anti helmet argument, which I still believe is scaremongering. You went on to state quite reasonably and coherently why you oppose wearing a helmet, and that’s fine I respect your choice, if you could respect mine and we can agree to disagree, then great.
I think we are both against compulsion, just that only one of us is pro choice
Go to a head trauma unit at a
Go to a head trauma unit at a hospital and the probability of finding a cyclist is small. Partially because cyclists on average only makeup about 2% of road users, but mainly because head injuries happen for reasons other than cycling.
If you are going to suggest any activity merits head protection, you should at least be able to show that the activity is at a raised level of risk for head injury. According to Prof David Spiegelhalter (google him if you want to know who he is) the risk of cycling is about the same as walking: http://understandinguncertainty.org/micromorts
I tried to engage @putalidonit in a debate but they avoid, saying that it should be a matter of choice, which clearly contradicts the narrative of their their campaign website.
I would really like to know who these clowns are, and what their motive is, because I don’t think it has anything to do with safety.
Interesting comments by these
Interesting comments by these people. No evidence of course.
http://startacus.net/culture/put-a-lid-on-it#.VRlqfI7F9vC