Cycle campaigners petition Women's Institute to reject compulsory cycle helmet resolution

Thanks for posting this item and for clarifying your position.

It's an important debate and I hope it leads to rational and flexible solutions.

Cycle helmets are placebos? Rubbish. Hit yourself on the head with a hammer and then (if you are still able to) put on a cycle helmet and hit your self on the head with a hammer.

My neighbour ( a man) fell off his bike in the middle of the road as he turned right and broke his hip.. A neighbour commented, " it's a good job he was wearing his helmet!". Trouble is he wore it on his head, not his bum. Most cycle accidents involve injury to limbs, not the head.

Perhaps the WI could be persuaded to call for mandatory helmets for automobile drivers. At least in the US, auto accidents cause about half of serious head injuries (problem with that stat, is it does not say whether the injured are in the cars, or merely hit by the cars). Drivers don't need to worry about sweaty-head in the way that cyclists do, and there's no tension between crash deaths and public health -- if mandatory helmet use happens to discourage automobile use, that is good for health, not bad.

PaulM / townmouse - if you're so easily riled by some tongue in cheek comments on a website it doesn't bode well for any genuinely difficult discussions you might encounter in future.

As for the importance of well written communication, it's all about establishing credibility and influence. The WI has both of these because it is a long standing organisation but also because it has registered, subscribing members who it can genuinely claim to represent and who are answerable to it in some form at least (code of conduct, etc.).

Having a pretentious name, an ambiguous manifesto and free-to-join membership or a band of followers on twitter is not the same thing so it is even more important to get communiques like this right to gain credibility with the people you seek to influence and those who you claim to represent.

Finally for the record, my mum is in the WI and though I doubt she's ridden a bike in 25 years she does make bloody good marmalade.

I must confess I haven't read the whole thing (therefore am not commenting on the specific issue), but it did just cross my mind as to who the rather pompously self-titled 'Cycling Embassy of Great Britain' purport to represent, other than themselves. Who are they? What mandate do they possess? Or isn't this important? It strikes me that they may do more harm than good unless they become accountable to the greater mass of cyclists.

I hope they can get the WI on board and petition for safer roads. With 75% of UK cyclists being men getting more women on bikes is the answer - not just for recreational cycling but commuting and the school run. My kids can safely cycle around the block but no farther. At their age I was over the hills and far away.

Grammar corrections? Those that complained were absolutely right to complain. As an individual I would have had such an important letter proof read by at least one other person. Unprofessional.

@townmouse The point was about how to get the message across most effectively.

Given that the proposal is not going to be voted on until May, what exactly was the mad rush to get it out ?

Apart from the grammar it's just badly written and far too long and rambling.

Better to have a well-presented, clear and concise message in a week than rambling nonsense now.

@Paul M - I don't see there's any need to be so aggressive. This is nothing to do with educational standards in schools. I don't expect everyone to have perfect grammatical knowledge.

I do however expect an organisation which purports to speak on behalf of others to take a professional approach if it wants to be taken seriously. That means making sure their communications, particularly at an 'official' level are properly written and presented.

If they send something out which is clearly half-arsed and hasn't been given more than momentary attention, why should the recipient give it more than half-arsed, momentary consideration.

I didn't say the WI was a middle-class organisation, but I expect quite a few people reading it will have been wincing and grinding their teeth, cyclists and WI members alike.

So no, I haven't signed it. Maybe the Cycling Embassy should leave these things to more professional organisations like the CTC.

Or was it just that they actually don't care what the reaction is from the WI and this was more about getting a bit of publicity among cyclists at a quiet time of year, before someone else could do it.

Lovely. What's more important - grammar or preventing pressure building up for a disastrous piece of legislation? That letter was put together in a hurry at a very busy time of year in an attempt to get it out quickly - I hope the nit pickers have signed it as well as picking holes in it, or is it just too distressingly badly punctuated?

That aside, cycle safety is of course the WI's business as much as anyone's - and if they were really campaigning for safer streets rather than the placebo safety of cycle helmets, then they'd be an awesome force for good in the country. Older women actually make up a surprisingly large proportion of cyclists, possibly because they came from a generation that didn't learn to drive. If they're being forced off the roads due to fears for their safety they'll suffer far more than someone who's got an alternative means of transport

OK, abudhabichris, craigthebiker, joemmo (and I don't give a shit whether I've spelt your handles correctly) why don't YOU petition the WI to lobby for improved educational standards in our schools? God knows we need them - yer average politician is just as bad, even if we don't have the guy who insists it's spelt "p-o-t-a-t-o-E".

And in defence of the WI, it is definitely no longer an entirely middle-class organisation which is up its own rear end about spelling and grammar. And it cowed Tony Blair which not many organisations could achieve.

" neither factors which saved them when they got hit by an HGV "

one suspects some WI members might conclude cyclists deserve everything they receive for using such ghastly grammar.

Couldn't the Cycling Embassy have asked someone literate to check their letter ?

As a small taster from the first few paragraphs - I honestly couldn't read the whole thing:

"...and to increase cyclist's safety". Who is the lucky single cyclist that we are talking about here ?

"Aukland" . Is this is the place where auks come from, or did they mean the city in New Zealand ?

"With less people engaging in everyday exercise..." FEWER people.

"we believe that focusing on creating attractive and safe conditions for riding a bicycle have a much larger possibility... " HAS a much larger.

It's a serious point - given the well-educated middle class audience it is aimed at a lot of them will dismiss it as coming from a group that can't be taken seriously.

Not a great start when you are trying to convince someone you are right and they are wrong.

Looking through the briefing notes it is a poorly constructed argument. They state how many cyclists were killed in 2008 (is no more recent data available?), then state that the DfT found cycle helmets were effective at reducing injury in accidents that do not involve another vehicle. I would put a large amount of money on the great majority of the fatalities being accidents with another vehicle.

“compulsory helmet wearing may encourage more people to take up cycling.”

A truely bonkers statement from the WI proposal.

Just because it is not compulsory to do something, does not mean you can't voluntarily do it. You can wear a helmet or get training without being required to by the law

There could be many sensible proposals about road safety (more 20mph limts, stricter driving tests, better enforcement on the roads, etc), but they have chosen this half baked proposal.

@Ian, hope you'll also be wearing clean undies!

This one is an old chestnut which was probably debated on this site, what, a month ago?

All I would say is that if the WI want to take a stance on this, they should also be prepared to justify why they feel it appropriate to oblige other people to conform to the WI's wishes.

Its nothing to do with safety - I am intelligent enough to make that call for myself - its about some other ***** telling me what to do!

The fact is, helmet use is already criminalized in the UK, not by law but by the media. How often do we see news reports of cyclist deaths which state, in condemning tones: "The cyclist was not wearing a helmet"? Such articles seem to suggest that death or serious injury are appropriate penalties for such a 'crime'.

Since this is the case, any cyclist who refuses to wear a helmet should be aware that, no matter how innocent, competent and law-abiding he is on a bicycle, if he gets injured or killed in a collision on the road, he will be deemed guilty by the court of public opinion. It doesn't matter whether the driver who hit him was drunk, texting, using a phone, high on drugs, etc. Cyclists who don't wear a helmet deserve death.

That's the main reason I always wear a helmet. It has little to do with safety, and everything to do with PR. If I ever get killed on my bike, I do not want the newspapers to suggest that the death sentence was appropriate.

So I advise every cyclist to wear a helmet. Make sure it's comfortable, make sure it's cheap. Safety comes a distant third, because let's face it - the chances of sustaining a life-threatening head injury when you take your bike out for a ride are a couple of million to one against, and if you do happen to be in an accident, the jury is still out on whether a helmet even does much to help. It probably does, but it would for a car driver too, and how many of them wear helmets? Car accidents are more likely than cyclist accidents to involve head injuries, but how often do we see news reports of motorist deaths that say "The driver was not wearing a helmet"? Never.

So wear a helmet. It could save your reputation even though it might not save your life.

Good letter, but how is this the WI's business? Haven't they got jam to make or something?

I remain to be convinced that engaging with every group of basically anti busybodies who think more laws are needed is the way to go...