Cambridge Cycling Campaign motion on helmets and hi-viz overwhelmingly backed by members

The biggest loser here is going to be charity's who arrange cycle events. They are required by law to provide insurance for everyone taking part. The insurance companies are the ones who dictate what steps riders need to take to be covered, and wearing helmets is mandatory. Well done to CCC for NOT SUPPORTING CHARITY.

As for wearing hi viz and helmets, my safety while on my bike is MY responsability. Dont try and pan it off on drivers, complaining when they fail to see you, if you are not even willing to put on a hi viz. Do your bit first, then complain when others dont.

"I don't get why this issue raises everyone's hackles so much?" posted above

its the implicit assertion that cyclists that don't wear helmets AND high viz are a danger to themselves and surprisingly also a danger to other road users

here is how i see it:

if you want to possibly mitigate head injuries when cycling choose to wear a helmet

wear clothing appropriate to the conditions, use lights appropriate to the conditions. (full stop)

drive with care and consideration for more vulnerable road users, be prepared to slow down if unsure what a pedestrian or cyclist intends to do, be aware when your visibility of other roade users may be poor - maybe start your journey earlier and don't try to drive to meet a deadline time.

the last point will reduce injuries and accidents to cyclists and peds more than the first two

Riding a bike is not inherently dangerous. Cycling is a normal activity which ought to be able to be undertaken by normal people without any special equipment except a bicycle (and lights if riding in darkness or poor visibility).

All road users have a duty to look properly and adjust their speed and actions to suit the conditions (including road layouts, road condition, weather, other road users, volume of traffic and anything else that might be on the road). When they fail to do that people sometimes get hurt or killed (including motorists, pedestrians and cyclists).

Those responsible must be made to bear that responsibility - it really is as simple as that.

I don't get why this issue raises everyone's hackles so much?

We're all on this site slating disrespectful and/or dangerous drivers day in and day out. There are always calls for being able to share the roads and play well together.

So why do we all act like they just shot our puppy whenever suggestions are made to try to create a situation where we can ride on the road without the inconvenience of being run over?

Hi-vis clothing and a helmet seem like fairly reasonable (and common sense) suggestions. If we really want the government to commit funds to designing decent cycle routes and factoring us into their traffic plans, surely we can agree to protect our skulls and try to be more easily seen by other road users?

Hardly worth frothing at the mouth is it?

"and we would hope everyone would encourage the young in particular, to have road sense" (Mary Goode)

so the reason young people can't ride to school or to their friend's houses or local parks is that they need more road sense, helmets and reflective clothing?

yesterday as i cycled to meet my daughter from school a driver agressively forced another car directly at me (continously on horn and tailgating/revving a slowing car ) - when i caught up with the offending car and asked if they were trying to get me killed - the classic answer was "what do you mean" - you forced the other car to pull out into my path "i didn't see you" - i was wearing a reflective top - i cycle home on the pavements with my daughter - why? - not because she lacks a protective helmet, reflective clothing or road sense - the focus on helmets/reflective clothing is like saying that you need to improve literacy so people can read the warnings on cigarette packets - ie pointless and not the issue

(incidentally in Oz(Victoria) so helmet compulsary - but at 35kmph my understanding of what was going to happen helped more than any protection)

Safety equipment at cycling events is usually mandated by the insurers and not by the organisers, so the CCC's position is unlikely to have any effect.

Worse, whilst I appreciate that they are opposing compulsion not safety equipment, that is not how some may see it.

Every cyclist injured whilst not wearing safety gear is more ammunition for legal compulsion, so why discourage others from wearing it?

We are all cyclists, we want to promote cycling and it's not in the interests of the cycling industry to deter cycling. So why not ask the helmet manufacturers to be explicit what their product is and is not designed to achieve.
it seems to me many of those proposing compulsory helmets are under the impression that helmets will save cyclists lives in collision with cars, allowing drivers to be irresponsible, blame the victim stuff.
I almost always wear a helmet but I'm under no illusion about what use it will be if I'm hit by a car. And the last time I fell off a bike was 1979 before helmets were around.
CCC have it right it's about compulsion so I don't understand how you come to your conclusion that they do not care about cycling safety.

I like my head, I like my life. If you don't like yours go ahead and don't wear a helmet.

If we ever both fall off our bikes at least I have a slightly higher chance of surviving without major head injuries that will make me a potatoe.

CCC have it wrong in my opinion, they are basically saying they do not care about cycling safely.

'And by the way - as always - an anecdote, no matter how true, poignant and heart-breaking - is not a good basis for policy
'

That is all that ever needs saying on this subject. Applause.

Quote:

... the main arguments I've heard are compulsion reduces the number of cyclists, gives drivers a false sense of security, and that helmets are not that effective against head injuries over a certain speed ...

You've heard all that and still favour compulsion - hmmm

Quote:

... that the "heart of the argument" is ...

My term, not his - again, I strongly believe it is part and parcel of the key points made in many cases

Quote:

... before being abusive ...

Hardly. It wasn't civil certainly, but bearing in mind the tone of some comments made earlier, it smacks of feigned indignation to call what Paul M said "abusive"

Hi Paul M

While I don't disagree with any of your points, I feel uncomfortable about starting down the road of ad hominem attacks

If we can all stick to tackling the ball and not the player it'll be easier to have a civilised debate

Sounds like they're both going to be OK which is the main priority, feel bad for saying it but is there any hope that 2 such high profile collisions might just prompt some action from Government ? I know it's unlikely seeing as people being actually killed barely raises an eyebrow in some circles when it's a cyclist but in the age of celebrity, maybe, just maybe ?

The point is the CCC are saying that we have a choice whether we wish to wear a lid or not, I don't always wear one it depends what ride im on, thats my choice and i'm aware of the risks.However if i choose to participate in an event i should not have to be dictated to whether i wear a helmet or hi-viz clothing. Just cause you have your hi-viz garb on it doesnt necessarily mean you will be seen as your surroundings have a part in it. Wiggins was tagged because a driver did not pay due care and attention when pulling out onto a road, no argument dangerous driving prosecute and as for drivers on phones don't get me started. The real issue is the roads are busy and we all want to get to our destination lets do it safely within the law and the highway code. (oh Eutopia)

Just heard Shane Sutton was hit this morning on the A6 and suffered severe bruising of the brain

I wear a lid. That is my choice. I am not forced to wear one, and would object to that compulsion.

Whether I wear one or not, I would rather not be hit by a car. My safety would be greatly enhanced by drivers driving properly.

People in the Netherlands tend not to ride with hats on because they don't expect to get hit by cars.

Is that the heart of the argument ? That the majority of injuries aren't head related so why bother wearing one ? I've honestly never heard that before.

We don't know what happened, but if we found out he did hit his head and escaped unscathed what would your opinion be then ?

Well done CCC.

For the record jarderich - I *wear* a lid

What I object to is laws/rules/regulations being created to force me to do so while ignoring the elephant in the room - drivers!

And by the way - as always - an anecdote, no matter how true, poignant and heart-breaking - is not a good basis for policy

The sort of bloody mindedness demonstrated by CCC, Spokes and most of the comments here nearly caused a fellow club member his life a few weeks ago when a midweek ride ended in a pile up (no cars involved). The rider without the helmet was the one airlifted to hospital with his skull clearly visible through the hole in the side of his head. The others (none of whom sustained serious injuries) had the (dis)pleasure of attending to him by the roadside

I don't give a flying fixed wheel how effective or otherwise a lid can (or can't) be, you owe it to the people who are potentially affected by your actions to be more responsible.

I wonder how many objectors, when they're a passenger in the front seat of a car, choose to switch off the passenger airbag? Or perhaps encourage their kids to ride a bike without a lid?

Finally, I walked from Cambridge station to the town centre and back last Saturday and judging by the standard of the vast majority of the riding I saw CCC, would be better off throwing their efforts at improving riding standards in their city instead of trying to maintain a clearly flawed principle.

And you can come and have ago as much as you want - i'll have my lid on!