- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Twitter Joint Response Units.pngWar breaks out on Twitter after police and ambulance blame cyclist for #NoHelmet
The local police and ambulance services in Hackney, East London, one of the most successful boroughs in the capital in terms of cycling numbers, have come under fire for a series of bizarre tweets about not wearing a helmet being ‘risky’.
The Joint Response Units tweeted on February 18th that they were attending a “RTC- cyclist in collision with a van. Taken to a Major Trauma Centre as a priority @MPSHackney #NoHelmet #999family”
It was sent after a call out to Northchurch Road, De Beauvoir, where a man in his 70s had head injuries after colliding with a van.
The hashtag #NoHelmet brought about an instant angry reaction on the social media site.
Jono Kenyon of the Hackney Cycling Campaign tweeted back: “Hoping a speedy recovery. Not sure the #nohelmet hashtag is needed though. We don't do it for car drivers.”
But then Hackney Police weighed in, responding: “it's best to wear a helmet. Provides far more protection. We see injures from #Nohelmets”
Hackney Cyclist said: “do you recommend pedestrians wear helmets whilst walking round Hackney Central?”
But the police tweeter continued to argue in a string of tweets reading: “I would see it more as prevention than blaming. It's not necessarily the cyclists fault but you are more vulnerable.
“not wearing a helmet is still very risk [sic] in our opinion. That's what we were saying.”
Meanwhile the Joint Response Unit was back for more, saying: “A helmet would have prevented further injury to the head from the road. Tweet not about blame.”
Another member of the public said: “disgraceful victim-blaming. Helmets aren't the law. Pedestrians and drivers don't get criticism for not wearing.”
Back in 2015 we reported how Chris Boardman told road.cc that cycle helmets are “not even in the top 10 of things you need to do to keep cycling safe or more widely, save the most lives.
“We’ve gone away from the facts,” he said. “We’ve gone to anecdotes. It’s like shark attacks - more people are killed building sandcastles than are killed by sharks. It’s just ludicrous that the facts aren’t matching up with the actions because the press focus, naturally, on the news stories, and [the notion that cycling is dangerous] becomes the norm, and it isn’t the norm.
“You can ride a thousand times round the planet for each cycling death. You are safer than gardening.”
But in 2013 Sir Bradley Wiggins said they should be mandatory for all cyclists.
Speaking to BBC’s Newsround, he said: “I think certain laws for cyclists need to be passed to protect us more than anything.
“Making helmets compulsory on the roads, making it illegal to maybe have an iPod in while you’re riding a bike, just little things like that would make a huge difference.”
However he was seen riding a Boris Bike in London without a lid just this month.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 42 min 49 sec ago
As a professional writer and editor myself I'm more than happy for people to point out any errors I may have made in whatever way and on whatever...
- lesterama 1 hour 15 min ago
They showed Fouquenet's spill, but I don't remember seeing Ferguson's crash once (I was on Discovery+)....
- Daclu Trelub 4 hours 14 min ago
In a perfect world, we'd have a measure of how easily distracted someone is, as part of their driving test....
- Sredlums 4 hours 41 min ago
These products are nothing but ridiculously expensive and superfluous, and they bring nothing but bragging rights....
- Daclu Trelub 4 hours 56 min ago
How does Mr Lucy tell you he's a bit of an arsehole without telling you he's a bit of an arsehole?
- Daclu Trelub 5 hours 38 sec ago
Of course they are, and not so different. https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B09B662CDN?crid=34M42BETAMFT0&th=1 The bugger's got four versions up now!
- squidgy 5 hours 17 min ago
At least the van driver was nowhere near the stationary cyclist.
- OldRidgeback 5 hours 20 min ago
The BMX racers are also no longer being supported. Kye Whyte said he's lost his GT sponsorship. It also looks like GT will no longer make BMX bikes.
- hawkinspeter 6 hours 9 min ago
The people causing traffic jams complaining about the traffic jams
Add new comment
69 comments
Relative to the number of journeys and miles covered by motor vehicles, there are hardly any head injuries and even fewer brain injuries. Certainly compared to the biggest source of head injury, more specifically brain injury, which is stroke. The number of brain injuries from motor vehicle occupancy is vanishingly small.
I still wear a seatbelt and wouldn't dream of purchasing a car that doesn't come with multiple driver and passenger air bags, because you only need to be unlucky once ....
http://road.cc/content/news/129941-cyclist-dies-after-riding-chain-strun...
You seem to have utterly missed the point of the comment you are replying to. Driving doesn't reduce the risk of stroke, it actually increases it (both in the driver, via inactivity, and in the wider population via the enforced inactivity and the pollution effects), so your attempt at a parallel argument falls flat on its arse (fortunately not on its head).
I don't care whether you wear a seatbelt - well, no, I'd rather you didn't as then you'd probably drive more carefully.
Oh yeah, another reason why your argument fails completly is that there is no evidence that compulsory seat-belt laws deter driving (after all, the seat belt is just there, already in the car, you don't have to remember it and carry it about with you) whereas there is evidence that compulsory helmet laws deter cycling.
Really you seem to have entirely failed to grasp he points being made. This is why these arguments come back again and again - many of the pro-helmet-law people don't seem to be able to understand the argument.
I've been in extended contact with the professional body for emergency responders about the thousands of quotes from their members saying that a cycle helmet would have saved a life or serious injury, and eventually, they allowed me to submit an article. In it, I quoted some of the reliable, long term, large scale evidence, all of which showed that cycle helmets had, at best, no effect, and at worst increased risk.
At the same time, they published an article praising cycle helmets, which used as its basis the utterly discredited Thompson, Rivara and Thompson research, and it was quite obvious that the author didn't have the faintest idea what they were talking about. They would not allow any response from me.
It is depressing that they have not taken the information on board, and they remain wilfully ignorant.
Operation yewtree's findings in the Savile 'saga' ring true in this case #noshellsuits
I think you'll find most people, especially on here, dont give 2 toots what the Police etc do as, in their opinion, its nearly always wrong.
In the end an elderly male has gone to hospital with a head injury, regardless of the extent of the injury he'll automatically go to major trauma because of his age. Without the full facts you can't say that wearing a helmet would not have stopped the injury also that it would have.
Those paramedic crews on the ground and dealt with the male could have been in a position to say it would have hence the quote.
Well, maybe a tweet from the police suggesting people avoid driving unless they absolutely have to, and then drive slowly and carefully, would ACTUALLY reduce accidents. But no, blame the victim is easier.
Maybe the response should be #no bike in response to any reports of medical conditions related to being overweight. Since we all know life expectancy of cyclists (even without helmets) is better than non cyclists.
The problem is not #nohelmet it's lousy driving, it's people not taking care of everyone else, it's people forgetting that getting behind the wheel is a fucking serious business!!!
Roads are dangerous places and law/regulation has limited effect on bad driving, so wishing for all good vehicle driving is naive and stupid. If a cyclist is taking the risk of being on the road and not risk aware enough, skilled enough at avoiding risk or planning an escape route for a risky situation, or just plain unlucky, it is only a matter of time and chance before they get involved in an accident, so better to not be stupid and wear a helmet just-in-case.
I know from personal experience that a helmet between the head and a hard surface can prevent or reduce both abrasion and impact damage for off road crashes, so will reduce injuries for road crashes too, within the protection limits and the head coverage of the helmet. This can include preventing very expensive dental injuries if the helmet includes a chin guard too!
I sometimes don't wear a helmet, but only for short trips, when I think the risk of head injury is low, so I don't think it is sensible to make always wearing a helmet a legal requirement.
Oh wow, something is mentioned on twitter and all hell breaks loose. Who cares what someone puts on twitter and its quite sad that people have so little in their life to find this reproachable.
When it's a joint Ambulance/Police response, using a moronic hashtag, in an urban area with high levels of cyclists, quite a few people will care.
Plod or not, stumps, this tweeter was ill-informed and way out of their depth, which isn't the best position to be representing ambulance or police services from.
This from my local news site today - http://edp24.co.uk/1.4427083
No mention of #NoHelmet.
It's wonderful that these hard-working people have enough time to pursue independent studies into a complex topic and have been able to settle on a simplistic slogan which challenges the woolly thinking of Cambridge's Winton Professor for the Public Understanding of Risk: http://www.badscience.net/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2013-12-13-17.12...
I wonder what their thoughts are on SETI and which algorithms they'd like to see implemented on quantum computers?
Suggested tags: #knowall, #doyourjob, #nocars, #shutyerpiehole
People struggle with the concept of risk and a Twitter storm isn't going to change that.
Occasionally I get asked by colleagues about helmets (my firm's bike parking is adjacent to the smokers' preferred sheltered corner) and I learned to respond by simply saying that, excluding sport cycling, a helmet is about as effective as the filter on their cigarette.
I don't know if the numbers would back me up on that assertion, but it seems to satisfy the smokers.
Ha ha. I don't know if it bears up, but I like it anyway. First laugh I've got out of this topic for a while.
A pity the story doesn't offer a link to the ongoing fun at the joint thingy twit account.
It's fairly easy to find. And much harder to follow, given the nature of twitter.
"Brave" of LAS to continue to post when being called out. Lots of people in there supporting LAS who are alive today because of polystyrene use etc.
Nothing really all that new.
We won't conclude the infamous helmet debate on this comments thread but what needs to be railed against is the emergency services taking sides like this.
It is a slippery slope, and not too difficult to imagine a politician standing up demanding compulsory helmets because LAS are in favour of them.
It's also discrimination by the LAS. Car users have more head injuries than cycle users - do they campaign for car helments? Do they fcuk.
Drivers with seatbelts still get head injuries - as a passenger I got knocked out against the B-pillar (one between front and rear doors) in an accident. Its why many cars have side curtain and B-pillar airbags.
The argument about car drivers or pedestrians wearing helmets is nothing short of retarded. Car drivers have seat belts and air bags, pedestrians are incredibly slow. Cyclists without helmets are usually either ignorant or arrogant. It's blatantly obvious a helmet can save you from more serious head injuries so I completely agree with the emergency services making those comments!
Your argument seems beyond moronic to me. Who cares whether drivers have seat belts etc? They still suffer head injuries in large numbers. Clearly the seat belts etc don't provide enough protection.
And who cares whether pedestrians are slow? Its not the ped or cyclist's speed that causes the injuries for the most part, its the speed of the car that hits them. Learn some basic physics.
Above all, if its wrong to cycle without a helmet because it (in your view) marginally increases the chance of injury, its equally wrong to travel with a car, because that hugely increases the chances of injuries for everyone [edit - not to mention lung and heart diseases].
Come to think of it - does a paramedic attending a heart attack, tweet #notenoughactivetravel ?
There doesn't need to be a third party involved for a cyclist to sustain an injury so your physics argument is irrelevant. They could hit a pothole or slip on ice. A cyclist has further to fall and is going faster than a pedestrian so my point is still entirely true.
Yes the car drivers sustain head injuries, however they would be severely worse without the seat belts. I agree seat belts aren't enough but that is why curtain airbags are made.
I never said it is wrong to cycle without helmets, just pretty daft because they very clearly make a difference.
You're right they do make a difference, a negative difference.
The New Zealand helmet law came into effect from 1st January 1994. It applies to bicycle riders of all ages, but not to the riders of other types of cycle (unicycles, tricycles, quadricycles, etc). The NZ Government stated that the aim was to protect bicyclists from themselves, not from motor vehicle impacts.
So let's interpret the graph, well the black area shows the number of cyclists so making people wear helmets massively decreases participation, which is a bad thing. The red line shows the injuries per 100,000 cyclist which infers that there are fewer cyclists suffering far more injuries (unless those fewer cyclists have massively increased their mileage so the total cycled distance stays comparable).
So yeah the introduction of mandatory helmets makes a clear difference, fewer participants and more injury to those fewer cyclists who are left.
It is counter intuitive I grant you.
Just a wee point of order - the graph is injuries per number of cyclists, not mileage. Related to this , there are discussions online and elsewhere about the change in demographics after mandatory laws - such as helmets - and how they might change the statistics, and why it's important to consider that when debating consequences of those changes.
OTIO
Correct pedestrians are slower than cyclists, and the risk of accident not involving s motor vehicle is higher for cyclists. Helmets do protect cyclists from accidents of their own making. They do not protect cyclists who are hit at speed by two tonne metal boxes. Just as they would not protect pedestrians.
But as many pedestrians suffer head injuries as cyclists so an equal number of injuries could be avoided by mandatory helmets for both groups. In fact more for pedestrians because some cyclist head injuries occur despite the presance of a helmet while all pedestrian head injuries occur in the absence of a helmet.
Cycle helmets designed only for the impact from the head hitting the ground in a sideways fall. Any incident other than this does not warrant any suggestion that a magic helmet would have saved anyone.
[[[[[ VipersS15--- that would be as in "vindscreen vipers"?---you're not only missing the point, you're also missing the stats-list quoted by "Swidxer", old bean. (See above). Do have a look, and then see how you feel.....I say "feel" advisedly, rather than"think".....
I have to agree, if a motorist or pedestrain dies from a head Injury would they #hashtag the same?
We're in the midst of a cultural war, folks.
Keep calm and carry on (tweeting the berks in charge of police/ambulance twitter accounts to point out the many flaws in their 'logic').
I've got to laugh whenever a helmet debate raises its ugly head. I always wear a lid when riding, that's my choice. Some people choose not to, that's their choice. I'm not getting into the bear pit, as far as efficacy is concerned. It's a freedom of choice thing, from my point of view.
Pages