Cycling UK angered by Highway Code’s ‘victim blaming’ helmet advice

Dingaling wrote:

When people are told to wear hard hats and steel toe-capped boots on a building site or, say, protective glasses when using an angle grinder, do people start screaming “victim blaming” . 

Can’t say I understand the negative reaction to reasonable advice. I have never read anywhere claims that a cycle helmet will save your life in ALL accidents, it may reduce or eliminate injury in some cases. 

Once, when I hit a hump in the asphalt at speed, I flew over the handlbar, landed on my head and shoulder and broke the helmet.  That helmet prevented a serious injury.

That said though, I wouldn’t support a move to make helmets and hi viz gear a legal requirement.

Each can decide what’s best for his/herself.

 

 

Silly fucker, should have been looking where you were going in order to avoid said hump.

brooksby wrote:

muppetkeeper wrote:

I believe that each year more pedestrians are killed from head injuries than cyclists. Helmets for pedestrians?

Also, whilst “sports cyclists” probably should wear helmets, due to the high speeds they can get up to, urban “popping to the shops” cyclists rarely go really fast. The sad truth seems to be that cyclists mainly die due to collisions with vehicles, and rarely by just falling off.

 

“Collisions with vehicles “, eh? So that’d be the very thing that helmets are *not* designed to protect you from…?

Yes, I agree. I wear a helmet always, but mainly due to my most likely accident being falling over whilst clipped in and stopped. Cycle helmets don’t reallt help much over 15mph or when faced with a 2 tonne car doing 50mph.

Dingaling wrote:

When people are told to wear hard hats and steel toe-capped boots on a building site or, say, protective glasses when using an angle grinder, do people start screaming “victim blaming” . 

Can’t say I understand the negative reaction to reasonable advice. I have never read anywhere claims that a cycle helmet will save your life in ALL accidents, it may reduce or eliminate injury in some cases. 

Once, when I hit a hump in the asphalt at speed, I flew over the handlbar, landed on my head and shoulder and broke the helmet.  That helmet prevented a serious injury.

That said though, I wouldn’t support a move to make helmets and hi viz gear a legal requirement.

Each can decide what’s best for his/herself.

While I agree with your conclusion, the issue isn’t with ‘victim blaming’ it is with the HC’s apparent ‘solutions’ to the safety issue. People would certainly have an issue if those on work sites were told to wear cotton wool in their ears and balloons on their feet to prevent injury, as these are patently ineffective. There is no evidence (in fact the evidence is contrary) that hi viz ( and in fact helmets) do anything to improve cyclist safety, whereas those worksite items you have mentioned demonstrably reduce injuries. And the problem for cyclists is, when there is an accident, the non-use of these ‘safety’ items is seen as a contributory effect. 

I agree helmets prevent some injuries, but because the (implied) necessity  discourages people from cycling in general, recommending them actually has a significant health cost for the population, and due to ‘herd protection’ makes cycling more dangerous (Arguably)

When people are told to wear

When people are told to wear hard hats and steel toe-capped boots on a building site or, say, protective glasses when using an angle grinder, do people start screaming “victim blaming” . 

Can’t say I understand the negative reaction to reasonable advice. I have never read anywhere claims that a cycle helmet will save your life in ALL accidents, it may reduce or eliminate injury in some cases. 

Once, when I hit a hump in the asphalt at speed, I flew over the handlbar, landed on my head and shoulder and broke the helmet.  That helmet prevented a serious injury.

That said though, I wouldn’t support a move to make helmets and hi viz gear a legal requirement.

Each can decide what’s best for his/herself.