The social media team for the West Oxfordshire branch of Thames Valley Police are facing fierce criticism for their choice of wording on posts about a collision. The posts say that officers “attended a collision involving a cyclist and a car”, after which the cyclist was transported to hospital by helicopter, and end by reminding those out cycling to “please remember to wear a helmet!”
When people get stabbed, do you ask the general public to ‘remember to wear stab vests’?
— Freddie Jackson (@John_Clarke_79) July 9, 2022
I’m sure the tweeter meant well, but it was a misguided bit of advice. The only situation I can think of where it might be appropriate is if the car was stationary, so didn’t cause the collision, and would have had no driver.
— Simon Klist (@pedalsandgears) July 10, 2022
On Twitter particularly, over 200 people and counting have left comments under the post, with many criticising the lack of clarification over whether the car was being driven by a person or not at the time of the collision, and suggesting that the closing reminder about helmets could be irrelevant, considering that regular cycling helmets are not rated to protect against impacts from vehicles.
Despite all this, and most importantly, it appears the cyclist suffered no major injuries from the collision on the Burwell estate in Witney, Oxfordshire, with his mother saying: “This was my son. A HUGE thanks to all who stopped and helped him and called me, some truly lovely kind people in Witney, it’s very much appreciated. All the Emergency services and JR have been amazing. He’s now home, battered and bruised, and realises he’s a lucky lad, someone was looking down on him today.”
road.cc has contacted Thames Valley Police and asked for comment.
As has happened numerous times in the past when police decide to remind cyclists about wearing protective gear and/or don’t quite clarify whether the vehicle they are referring to had a person operating it, the debate over collision reporting seems to be rearing its head more and more regularly. The Road Collision Reporting Guidelines launched last year, that road.cc strives to adhere to, asks journalists to refer to ‘drivers of vehicles’ and not the vehicles themselves, and to consider “whether language used negatively generalises a person or their behaviour as part of a ‘group’.”
> “Language matters” – Road collision reporting guidelines launched
It could be argued that Thames Valley Police fell foul of both of those recommendations here; and while the guidelines are aimed at journalists, the media relies on police communications departments to generate a lot of its news.
Adoption of the guidelines has been far from universal so far, with one local news editor in Brighton going as far as to block anyone on her social media for “language policing” when it came to criticism of collision reporting on the Brighton & Hove News website.
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
64 thoughts on “Police social media team face backlash for “victim blaming” posts reminding cyclists to wear helmets”
I understand the sentiment
I understand the sentiment from cyclists but dear lord do people need to get off their high horses sometimes. You should be wearing a helmet and I assume the person involved wasn’t and has probably suffered as a result.
I should be able to ride without a helmet or lights and only ever be at risk from my own stupidity on the roads but I am not. Therefore I use lights and wear a helmet and assume everyone is trying to kill me in their cars.
The police are trying to remind people that helmets are vital. Please stop trying to making political points against well intentioned comments.
mctrials23 wrote:
Helmets may be helpful, but they are not vital and the evidence on how useful they are is mixed, with some reports showing that they provide protection to the entire body (extremely doubtful) and other reports showing that wearing helmets can lead to riskier riding by the wearer and closer passes by motorists.
What the police should have done was to remind drivers to look out for cyclists – that addresses the root cause of the majority of RTCs which is poor attention and observation by motorists.
So you’d say the same if
So you’d say the same if someone was stabbed and they said ‘wear a stab vest’?
Focusing on PPE is stupid and irresponsible in a tweet.
Someone in charge a police twiter account should be making relevant, accurate, pertinant comments not well intentioned ones.
Saw this quite a few times in
Saw this quite a few times in the comments and it makes zero sense. People don’t get stabbed regularly without malice. They don’t get stabbed from falling over and landing on knives. When you ride a bike on the road you should wear a helmet. I have seen a lot of of people who have come off their bike for whatever reason (not all car related) and credited their helmet for saving their brains. I have come off my bike a few times and without a helmet on one occasion I would have smacked my head very hard.
If you are doing something dangerous and you can do something simple to mitigate some of the risk then IMO its a no-brainer.
The language used to talk about when cars hit cyclists needs to be fixed but encoraging people to wear a helmet is never a bad idea.
If you think cycling is that
If you think cycling is that dangerous, then the remedy is not to cycle.
The tweet was
Cyclist carted off in Air Ambulance
Wear a helmet.
Since the cyclist needed an air ambulance, what exactly would a helmet do ? Was the cyclist wearing a helmet anyway?
Advising in a tweet to use PPE is just stupid. PPE is the last line of resort
“If you are out driving, please remember not to drive into cyclists.”
mctrials23 wrote:
Due to all the advertising that bike helmets get, I’m not surprised that people believe that they are incredibly effective, but when you actually try to study the effects of cyclists with and without helmets, the statistics become far less clear. I’ve read many reports of cyclists claiming that because a helmet split apart, that it saved their life, but that completely ignores how bike helmets are designed to work. A successful bike helmet would show compressed polystyrene where the impact acceleration forces were successfully reduced, but a split apart helmet is a sign that it did not work as designed – it does not take much force to split a bike helmet at all.
There’s a couple of fundamental issues with people promoting bike helmets. Firstly, it portrays cycling as a dangerous activity which acts as a major disincentive to get people out cycling. Secondly, it is used (as in this tweet) to blame the victims of poor driving standards which completely distracts from the actual issue – driver inattentiveness.
If you want people to be healthy, then it is always a good idea to persuade them to cycle as much as possible whether with or without a helmet/knee pads/protective glasses/gloves/shin pads/mouth guard etc.
Incidentally, I encourage you to wear a helmet whenever you shower, change a light-bulb or go down stairs – those activities are also associated with head injuries and so encouraging people to protect their head would make a lot of sense. Or is it only cyclists that should wear a helmet?
I don’t think people do think
I don’t think people do think they are brilliantly protective. If the standard road helmet was brilliant then downhill MTBers wouldn’t have full face and motorcyclists would wear them. Myself (and I assume many others) think that any increase in safety to the most vital part of our anatomy is worth considering. If you have a big off on your bike and your helmet got split in two, what do you think would likely have happened to your head without it?
As to the argument that helmets promote cycling as a dangerous activity, yes they do, because it is. Even ignoring drivers you could hit a patch of ice, an animal runs out in front of you, you hit a patch of dirt and loose debris, your tyre suffers catastrophic failure etc. Unfortunately there are cars and I will continue to wear bright clothing, use lights, a radar and wear a helmet until cars are no longer a massive danger to cyclists. I don’t protect myself against the ideal, I protect myself against the reality.
I wouldn’t wear a helmet if I was in Netherlands on one of their purpose built paths going at slow speeds but in the situations I face I will stack as many things in my favour until things change.
You’re last point is just ridiculous and I hope you realise that. I’m 35 and I have never fallen down stairs, slipped in a shower or fallen off a ladder and I do those things far more than I cycle and yet I have come off my bike a few times.
Its risk management and when I’m on my bike I don’t have complete control of things. If you don’t want to wear a helmet then go for it but it genuinely boggles my mind.
mctrials23 wrote:
I am surprised about your comparison of the safety of showering/changing lights/descending stairs with cycling as most cyclists spend vastly more time cycling than any of those other activities. I would suggest that you are just having an emotional reaction to the “danger” of different activities and not looking at the evidence.
Personally, I don’t believe bike helmets are particularly effective and certainly the ones that split apart have completely failed in their design, but nonetheless, I always wear one whilst cycling. I just do not believe that cyclists nor the police should be focussing on helmet wearing when they are not even in the top ten of things that increase cyclists’ safety.
I do, however, like to promote glove wearing as every time that I’ve come off my bike, I’ve instinctively used my hands to arrest my fall and have never hit my head. Gloves also have the benefit of being cheap and comfortable to wear and they are remarkably good at preventing abrasion.
mctrials23 wrote:
Well, downhillers wear full face to protect their teeth and jaw when/if they faceplant or hit a tree, AFAIK the bonce-protecting part isn’t any more effective than a road helmet; obviously motorcyclists are more likely to come off at far higher speeds than cyclists, cycle helmets are designed for impacts around the 12-15 mph range.
Helmets specifically project
Helmets specifically project against the acceleration from typical head height to the ground, forward speed is irrelevant to the impact against the ground.
A couple of years ago, we were on a steep descent when unexpectedly the road was covered in mud. It was impossible to stop or slow, and we had several serious injuries including someone who was fitting and unconscious from a hard bang through their helmet. Scary to see. I suspect they would have died without a helmet.
With vehicle impacts, all bets are off, if the vehicle is going at typical road speeds, but most likely you would die or be seriously injured from chest impacts or spinal injuries including broken neck rather than skull fracture.
That being said, having come off my bike on ice back in the 80s before helmets were a thing, I’d always wear one because what they do help with is turning a nasty fall into trivial fall if there is tarmac or kerb involved. In group riding, there is always the possibility of brain fade from another rider, and a heap of bikes is a most unpleasant thing to fall into.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Motorcycle helmets are rated to provide protection up to 16mph, and evidence of their efficacy is as robust as that for cycle helmets i.e. as robust as blancmange.
eburtthebike wrote:
You and I will never agree on helmets Burt, I know…when I crashed my motorcycle at 30mph (entirely my fault) my head slid along the ground for a good 30 metres and my helmet had severe striations all down the side, I’m very glad it wasn’t the side of my head and face that was rubbing along the tarmac. It didn’t save my life but it certainly saved me serious plastic surgery and probably a lifetime’s disfigurement, so I was quite pleased it was there.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I’ve been admiring your posts here, but I am utterly astonished and aghast that you use a personal example to prove your case, rather than reliable data. Your single anecdote is utterly irrelevant, just like all the cycle helmet anecdotes, and the reliable data for the efficacy of motorcycle helmets is extremely poor, just like cycle helmets.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
I’m not trying to prove a
I’m not trying to prove a case Burt, I literally am doing what you say, sharing an anecdote. The data may well show that overall helmets aren’t much good, I’m just saying I was very glad I had one on when my noggin went sliding down the road.
No, it’s not a dangerous
No, it’s not a dangerous activity. Stats show had injury deaths per km are higher for pedestrians than for cyclists.
If I walk to work my risk is higher, but the pearl clutchers are far less likely to be concerned I am taking my life in my hands.
Can you show me a singe instance of where there was an appeal for pedestrians to wear helmets following an injury?
wycombewheeler wrote:
The Charlie Alliston incident is a good example of where a helmet may well have prevented the death of pedestrian Kim Briggs. but there was little mention of that. Of course, that is also victim blaming to bring that up, but it’s notable how there seems remarkably different attitudes to collisions between cyclists and pedestrians and between drivers and cyclists.
mctrials23 wrote:
So there you have it people, the truth to overturn all the statistics, from a sample of one who cycles less than he climbs ladders!
How did anyone ever survive cycling for about 100 years before helmets were invented?
Backladder wrote:
Well, to be fair, anyone who was cycling for 100 years before helmets were invented is very likely dead now.
I hadn’t thought of that
I hadn’t thought of that 😉
hawkinspeter wrote:
Thankfully, correlation != causation…
mctrials23 wrote:
They do. My MSc dissertation examined how protective people thought cycle helmets were, and the majority thought that they were much more protective than they actually are, almost certainly due to the endless drip drip of “helmet saved my life” stories so beloved of lazy journalists.
If you’re suffering insomnia, here it is https://silo.tips/download/do-cyclists-have-an-exaggerated-view-of-the-risks-of-cycling-and-the-efficacy-of
eburtthebike wrote:
That is the most perfect burn I think I have ever seen. Beautiful!
hawkinspeter wrote:
It isn’t the advertising, which almost exclusively concentrates on style, airflow, speed, and rarely mentions safety. The “advertising” is carried out by the helmet zealots who tell us that helmets have saved thousands of lives and we will die without one.
eburtthebike wrote:
Yeah, I meant the unofficial advertising. It seems that the more car-oriented the society, the stronger the emphasis on cyclists wearing helmets and ridiculing those that don’t for being stupid.
mctrials23 wrote:
The cyclists was not doing anything dangerous.
Helmets don’t stand up to
Helmets don’t stand up to much against a car. Lights are a legal requirement at night anyway, other than that, great post.
I’m always intrigued when
I’m always intrigued when people say that helmets don’t do much vs cars. What do they mean by that? They aren’t going to stop a large enough impact or a car running over your head but surely hitting the floor is hitting the floor and the large determining factor in whether a helmet saves you is how hard you hit the deck.
Brain damage from a crash is one of the things that scares me the most. Most other things heal and even if you are disabled from a crash, the worst outcome IMO is a traumatic brain injury that would stop me from working or functioning.
mctrials23 wrote:
Bike helmets are tested to a safety standard that IIRC is a static drop from 1.2m onto a flat surface. The forces involved when colliding with a moving vehicle are drastically greater and completely over the design criteria of bike helmets. This is why it is foolish to expect a bike helmet to provide much protection when involved in a moving vehicle collision.
It is interesting that your main requirement of a bike helmet is to prevent/avoid a brain injury, but bike helmets are not particularly designed to prevent that. Brain injuries are most commonly caused by the brain “sloshing” in the skull and bike helmets do almost nothing to prevent that. What bike helmets are relatively good at is preventing skull fractures.
Of course, the best way of avoiding brain injury and skull fractures is to not be involved in a RTC. Luckily we have teams of dedicated police officers who are tasked with keeping dangerous drivers off the road although it appears that some of them would rather harp on about PPE which, as discussed, is ineffective.
mctrials23 wrote:
You’re riding rather a high horse yourself there. Wearing a helmet is a choice (I always do, incidentally) and the efficacy of helmets is highly disputed. Comparing wearing a helmet to having lights is nonsensical, firstly because lights are a legal requirement and helmets are not and secondly because lights help prevent incidents and helmets do not. The police should be focussing on asking drivers to be careful around cyclists and obey the law, not on telling cyclists that they must wear something that may offer them some protection if they’re not.
Lights at night are a
Lights at night are a requirement. I was more referring to to day running lights. I have certainly noticed that drivers behave differently since putting a front flashing light on my bike so I assume its making me more visible. I agree that they should be focussing on driver competence and safety towards cyclists but that doesn’t make the message of “wear a helmet” any less sensible in my view.
As to the efficacy of helmets I haven’t seen any compelling studies for the case against helmets.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29677686/
mctrials23 wrote:
As far I am aware, most of the studies throwing doubt on bike helmet effectiveness look at wider issues such as the uptake (or not) of cycling and the secondary effects of risk compensation (e.g. cyclists taking more risks as they feel safer and motorists passing closer as they believe the cyclist is protected). The studies showing a protective effect of bike helmets tend to use hospital admissions which is realtively easy to do, but could be misleading (e.g. are helmet wearers involved in more hospital admissions or conversely are non-helmet wearers not reaching hospital due to death).
I recommend having a read of Cycling UK’s page on helmet compulsion. I mainly agree with their views i.e. bike helmets probably do provide a small level of protection but that is massively out-weighed by the benefits of cycling: https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycle-helmets
mctrials23 wrote:
That’s a meta-study, so its reliability depends on what criteria were used to select the original studies, and it is therefore subject to bias. There are many such meta-studies, all liable to the same defects, and putting lots of bad research together doesn’t suddenly make them reliable.
All the long term, large scale, reliable studies show at best, no benefit from mass helmet wearing, and at worst a reduction in the safety of cyclists. As St Chris of Boardman puts it “Helmets aren’t even in the top ten of things that make cycling safer.”
From one of your previous posts “If you are doing something dangerous and you can do something simple to mitigate some of the risk then IMO its a no-brainer.” Your assumption that cycling is dangerous is incorrect; it’s driving that is dangerous, and the basis of H&S is to reduce the risk at source, and the last resort is PPE. Cycling has the same death rate for distance travelled as walking, so unless you consider walking to be dangerous, another of your arguments falls.
All your arguments and assumptions have been tested here and in many other places, and have been found wanting, by people much better informed than you.
You might like to check out cyclehelmets.org before posting again.
mctrials23 wrote:
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/8/4/317
Benefits (medical cost savings) of helmet compulsion are less than the cost of helmets, even at only $20 per helmets.
All of the costs imposed on the cyclists, for the rather negligible savings to the health system. Considering the costs of brain injury treatment are not cheap, the actual injury reduction must have been tiny.
Why? Because utility cycling is very safe. 11.2 head injury fatalities per billion km travelled.
So we can talk about how much benefit there might be in certain collisions, but that’s based on the assumption that the cousin is a certainty, when it is far from.
mctrials23 wrote:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
mctrials23 wrote:
Absolutely, everyone knows that strapping a piece of polystyrene foam to you head is the ideal protection against being hit by a car.
A telephone directory works as well, but you just don’t look as cool or make helmet manufacturers obscene amounts of profit for no proved benefit in vehicle collisions.
yupiteru wrote:
Exactly! Helmets are a gigantic scam on the public, a product that doesn’t work and can’t be taken back when it fails. The manufacturers not only make no claims for the efficacy of their product, apart from reaching some irrelevant standard, and even include a warning in the box saying that it won’t save you; they leave that to the bad scientists and helmet zealots.
Helmets are now a billion dollar industry and is probably more profitable than drugs but without the risks.
mctrials23 wrote:
I would but I’m worried my riding helmet won’t protect me from a broken neck while descending.
mctrials23 wrote:
Two assumptions.
Wear a lid should you feel like it. I sometimes do. Blows from branches have been softened for me etc. and I’ve possibly avoided gravel rash.
I think going for the low hanging fruit of “motoring helmets” for car occupants might do more good. I’m sure much of this is well intentioned. If people want to make a donation of concern or advice that’s their business. However – can you put any for me towards things which can be shown to make cycling for all easier and safer though? I appreciate that’s a bigger ask than “cyclists! Wear foam hats!” though.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Problem there is going up against Big Auto which is trying so very hard to pretend that motor vehicles are just an extension of their driver’s front room…
Yes. The industry having
Yes. The industry having identified that “want” should ensure take-up of (more or less) autonomous vehicles. For better or just differently worse.
While I dont agree with the
While I dont agree with the sentiment of the tweet, and agree that it is a misplaced reminder of our *choice* to wear a helmet …
I can safely say that the helmet I was wearing when I was hit by a poorly driven car stopped my face and head from being lacerated by the car windscreen, and although it did not *stop* the TBI, there is a very likely chance that the TBI would have been far more sever had I have not been wearing it.
And the helmet was left in place during my helicopter evac (and during the several bouts of CPR).
For some on this website, true life situations like mine and others that display even slightest evidence that a helmet does help prevent even more serious injury, do not seem relevant and are dismissed as mere ‘ anecdotes ‘.
I would suggest that if their belief that helmets offer little or no protection, that they fully replicate the collision that happened to me – twice.
Once wearing a helmet.
Once not wearing a helmet.
And then they can compare the effectiveness for themselves.
I’d do it helmet first … Just in case not wearing a helmet turns out to be more terminal or damaging.
Oldfatgit wrote:
In scientific terms it is irrelevant and only forms evidence in the loosest possible sense because it cannot be tested. That isn’t rude or dismissive, it is exactly why changing rules, regulations on things like helmets should be based on properly collected data and not anecdotes.
If 10000 riders headed out on an identical cycle journey, and one was seriously injured, that individual’s anecdote would be a powerful personal story, but utterly irrelevant in assessing the safety record of the ride as a whole, wihch would be based on the overall, properly collected statistics.
The statistics I have seen show a number of things, 2 important ones being: that helmet usage reduces serious head injuries by a tiny amount across cycling as a whole and compelling riders to wear helmets significantly reduces the number of people cycling (and statistics also show that the larger the proportion of journeys done by bicycle the fewer (relatively) incidents, KSI and deaths there are of cyclists).
That (current) understanding of the efficacy of helmets across a cycling population (not for an individual rider) is why it is still a personal choice to wear one.
No one, certainly not I, would seek to cheapen any rider’s personal experience of wearing/not wearing a helmet in an incident (and I personally choose to wear one the vast majority of the time) but it isn’t useful scientific data in assessing the benefits of them for everyone given that cycling is inherently (and statistically) pretty safe.
” cycling is inherently (and
” cycling is inherently (and statistically) pretty safe. ”
Yes it is.
Unfortunately, the ground – and the objects that either hit you or you hit – aren’t.
It is better to wear some PPE than none at all, and the land where we should not have to wear any is cloud locco land as there will always be something to hit your head off.
* Edited to rearrange some words in to a better order so they actually made sense.
Oldfatgit wrote:
Otherwise known as The Netherlands and/or Denmark.
Get the infrastructure correct, separate bicycles mostly from motor vehicles and the need for everyone to wear personal protective equipment vanishes.
That is basically the point of the whole discussion. Constant banging on about helmets is a way of distracting from the real problem, which is that the standard of driving is not high enough in this country for motor vehicles to safely mix with bicycles and just a way of making it the cyclists’ problem, not the drivers’. The police instintively responding to incidents by putting out that sort of reminder is just part of that.
As I said … on an individual level, the choice to wear a helmet does make sense (I never said otherwise). On a population level it makes no difference because the evidence shows it isn’t just ineffective it is couter-productive.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
Or any country. I think it’s extremely difficult to permit humans to drive en mass and at the same time reduce the rate of crashes below a certain minimum.
https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/16/higher-standards-of-driving-would-make-cycling-safe
https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/30/liability-laws-will-make-people-drive-safely
Cycling is a very safe activity but people in the UK don’t feel it is safe. Or pleasant or convenient. That’s not just the weather, or “because we have hills”…
Whilst the full circumstances
Whilst the full circumstances aren’t known a tweet focusing on helmets which are not compulsory rather than the importance of drivers looking out for vulnerable road users would appear misjudged.
Drivers, why not make use of
Drivers, why not make use of these windows to which your vehicles have been provided? If you have chosen to obscure your vision by darkening the side windows, why not open them? Relatively pleasant in this warm weather.
Can someone tell my ribs to
Can someone tell my ribs to wear a helmet? Luckily my noggin’ is just dandy (is the bike OK?).
A helmet didn’t stop 11 of
A helmet didn’t stop 11 of mine snapping like twigs … But it did help save my stunning good looks ?
https://road.cc/content/news
https://road.cc/content/news/only-1-5-aware-helmets-not-protect-concussion-293659
As a complete aside, is that
As a complete aside, is that Bojo the Clown’s escape helicopter?
He ain’t going nowhere.
He ain’t going nowhere.
They will have to drag him out, deep fingernail gouges on the door frames.
Kinda wonder who really cares
Kinda wonder who really cares about what any account on twitter says about anything tbh.
I have to wear an lid when I’m TTing, sometimes I do when I’m taking TT on a mess about sometimes I dont. If I’m on roadbike somewhere new I might wear one jus cos I have a tendancy to ride like I stole it, sometimes I don’t and wish I had somewhere to keep my glasses.
I do think young kids should wear one when playing on a bike, developing skulls and brains and shiz, maybe that should still be supervised though, pretty sure I’ve heard of them causing accidental deaths when used in other activities.
I was wondering when the
I was wondering when the helmet debate would return in full force, and pondering the role of cultural norms in the debate.
It seems to me that society tends to categorise things into “needs a helmet” and “doesn’t need a helmet” but with very little rhyme or reason.
Going for a walk? Don’t need a helmet. Driving/passenger in a car? Don’t need a helmet – unless of course racing then do need a helmet. Playing association football? Don’t need a helmet. Playing American football? Do need a helmet. Playing rugby football? Don’t need a helmet. Playing cricket? Batter and wicket keeper need a helmet. Playing field hockey? Don’t need a helmet. Playing ice hockey? Do need a helmet. Doing DIY? Don’t need a helmet. Working in construction? Do need a helmet.
Incidentally, google reveals people do receive head injuries whilst carrying out all of the above, regardless of whether or not a helmet was involved.
So when it comes to cycling, the question is whether cycling belongs in the “Need a helmet” or “Don’t a helmet activity”. Given that, as mentioned, the categories appear to be decided pretty arbitrarily, there is no objective test that could be applied. One thing I do notice is that most of the “Need a helmet” activities are sports/leisure activities, not “everyday” activities (presumably linked to the availability heuristic which makes mundane tasks seem safer than less common tasks – far more people are scared of flying than driving, despite the former being objectively safer).
The evidence appears to show that even in the UK today with the crappy infrastructure we have, cycling is objectively safe and indeed the health benefits outweight the risk of injury to the individual, and that’s before we start to consider the societal benefits of getting more people cycling.
Therefore, I think it behoves us to argue that cycling is a safe, everyday activity that Does Not Need a Helmet, as getting more people cycling will ultimately save more lives than helmets currently do.
Working in a Tradeteam
Working in a Tradeteam warehouse some years ago, they took the decision to abandon helmets as a barrel or a pallet falling from the top shelf would be totally indifferent to a helmet – you were better off having unimpaired visibility.
Someone must have done a
Someone must have done a pretty exhaustive Risk Assessment to allow that to happen and with the agreement of Tradeteam’s insurers.
If not, I feel really sorry for the Next of Kin and the legal battle they are going to face.
Regardless of what happened
Regardless of what happened and who is to “blame” in the incident, it’s a safety reminder for those that don’t. It might save you from being a bedridden vegetable. I’ll wear my helmet because I could lose the front end on a pinecone and fall temple first into the edge of a tall kerb at a whopping 2mph and still die.
And not one of us would ever
And not one of us would ever object to your choice or indeed your right to do this.
But you see you are not a social media poster representing one of her majesty’s police forces.
It does make somewhat of a difference.
I think the biggest
I think the biggest difference is being so reactive about a throwaway safety blurb on a twitter post and reading way too much into it.
It’s like reading the health warnings at the front of a product manual and screaming “victim blaming” at the “Do not eat” etc section
In the eye of the beholder.
In the eye of the beholder. That safety blurb is for / because lawyers and manufacturers trying to cover their ass. Any given instance of the helmet advice might be throwaway but this line appears so often. Depending on who says it and the context I feel it’s somewhere between “don’t leave your valubles in your car” and some line from the 80s about not “giving others a reason to do it”.
Aside – As others have done it feels oddly like I should declare my head-covering preferences. Is this the new cycling “listing your pronouns”? (Hair / Cap – but always a helmet when climbing, even trees)
Onomatotato wrote:
It’s really not (and just to declare an interest, I wear a helmet at all times and encourage my friends and family to do the same). The point here is that the police are responsible for maintaining safety on the roads and for investigating incidents and instigating prosecutions against wrongdoers. If their first reaction to an incident involving a cyclist and a car is to tell cyclists to remember to do something which is in no way a legal requirement, rather than telling everybody to be safe or telling drivers to watch out for cyclists, that is justifiably a matter for concern in terms of how it reflects the overall attitude they have towards cyclists and who they believe has the greatest responsibility for protecting their safety. We can argue the toss about helmets until the cows come home, but they could be absolutely everything their most fervent advocates claim in terms of protection and still be a very minor contributor to cyclist safety compared to drivers actually being aware of, and following, road safety regulations. Given that context it is perfectly legitimate to express concern about what the police statement reflects of their attitudes, beliefs and priorities.
If they wanted to pass
If they wanted to pass comment, the minimum would have been to ‘change the way people work’ part of the control hierarchy. But no, let’s go with ppe.
No wonder that woman who cycled off a cliff in Kent went with ‘I’ll wear a helmet next time’ and not ‘I will not cycle anywhere near a cliff edge’.
As you and Rendel say. The H
As you, Mungecrundle and Rendel say. The H&S viewpoint is useful as it takes the “personal” and “drama” out of it – and also shows what a low-level improvement is being suggested.
“Helmets” or other PPE are a popular call because the focus is on the personal. For cyclists this restores our agency – it’s something we can do / control in the present. For people giving advice to cyclists it fits “rights and responsibilities” e.g. cyclists *choose* to cycle (an unusual activity / “not what roads were made for”) so must bear some responsibility for what happens. If there are crashes we look for individual fault. If that’s on the driver’s side? That’s just a particular bad driver. So we don’t need to look at the whole system.
Because it is a pernicious
Because it is a pernicious trope that plays to a preconceived notion that cycling is dangerous and that cyclists are risk takers responsible for their own misfortune when in collision with other road users.