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

jarderich wrote:

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!

Eh? They're not saying nobody should ever wear one. I don't see how they've caused anything. And while wearing a lid is probably a good idea on a fast club ride with people in a close bunch it doesn't at all follow that everyone should wear one whenever they get on a bike, especially if doing so takes the focus away from the elephant in the room.

jarderich wrote:

I wonder how many objectors, when they're a passenger in the front seat of a car, choose to switch off the passenger airbag?

Lets say that you have a car which doesn't have a passenger airbag - many older cars don't. You are hit by another vehicle as the driver was on the phone at the time and wasn't looking where he was going. A family member in the passenger seat is killed. The police don't prosecute the other driver as they say it was your fault for not having a car with a passenger air bag. Is that right? Lets say the press take up the story and run articles about air bags; completely ignoring the real issue.

How would that make you feel, if the public opinion blamed you for the death of, say, your wife or child. Would you start campaigning for air bags, or would you start campaigning for the prosecution of drivers on the phone.

jarderich wrote:

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.

Wow. Cambridge is the city with the highest % of cyclists in the whole of the UK, and your attitude to the Cambridge Cycling Campaign is not "well done" but "you would be better off improving riding standards". Hey, maybe you could add something about jumping red lights and riding on the pavement too.

With friends like this...

mad_scot_rider wrote:

Including a quote from a brain injury charity just once again highlights the culture of victim-blaming that goes on

"But think of the children!"

Her quote is terrible. The efficacy of helmets to provide any kind of protection in non-linear impacts over 12mph is unproven so you have just as much protection wearing a towel wrapped around your head.

Considering that car drivers and passengers suffer also head injuries in accidents why isnt she decrying those people not wanting to protect their brains?

zanf wrote:

... just as much protection wearing a towel wrapped around your head...

Sorry - I have to disagree - the towel would protect you from the gaze of the Ravenous Bug-blatter Beast of Trall - a creature so mind-bogglingly stupid that it assumes if you can't see it, then it can't see you

mad_scot_rider wrote:

zanf wrote:

... just as much protection wearing a towel wrapped around your head...

Sorry - I have to disagree - the towel would protect you from the gaze of the Ravenous Bug-blatter Beast of Trall - a creature so mind-bogglingly stupid that it assumes if you can't see it, then it can't see you

I think you might both be onto something... my gut instinct (backed by my poor result in an engineering degree) is that a towel would offer greater protection against head injury than the traditional lid. And with the added Bug-blatter Beast protection (and of course the many other uses), a towel-turban may become my headwear of choice.

The efficacy of helmets to provide any kind of protection in non-linear impacts over 12mph is unproven so you have just as much protection wearing a towel wrapped around your head.

This stiff foam in helmets doesn't look like it'd compress fast, I'd bet on the towel being far more effective.

The phrase 'Anecdotal evidence' is an oxymoron, anyone who thinks helmets are worthwhile should read up on the subject, this is a very good starting point:
http://beta.ctc.org.uk/files/cycle-helmets-evidencebrf_1.pdf

Main points against helmets:
1. Psychology: Drivers drive worse around cyclists wearing helmets.
2. Psychology: Cyclists cycle more dangerously when wearing a helmet.
3. The helmet debate makes people think cycling is far more dangerous than it actually is, this puts a lot of people off of cycling.
4. Walking is roughly as dangerous as cycling, no-one is advocating helmets for walking.
5. The benefits of cycling to peoples health far far outweigh the practically non-existent benefit of wearing a helmet.
6. With regards to head injuries, helmets can exacerbate rotational brain injuries - yes, helmets can make the most common kind of brain injury WORSE, in these situations, the helmet is not lessening the damage, it is making the brain injury worse. The reason for this is the larger surface area of the helmet catches the ground more easily.
7. Children have accidentally hung themselves from the helmet straps, This has been fixed with newer helmet designs AFAIK.
8. They make your head hotter during the hottest parts of summer, this can't be a good thing.
9. They are ineffective over 12mph.
10. The time spent telling people to wear helmets would be far better spent warning them not to cycle down the left of HGVs, cycling in the door-zone and not shoulder-checking - I see helmet wearers make these mistakes on a daily basis.

Have I missed anything ?

I'm all for bright coloured clothing though, too many cyclists cycling round at night dressed from head to foot in black and with puny barely visible lights or worse, no lights.

mad_scot_rider wrote:

I whole-heartedly agree with the stance of both Spokes and CCC

Including a quote from a brain injury charity just once again highlights the culture of victim-blaming that goes on

Interestingly I note that loud-mouth Wiggins (cf. his ill-advised and insensitive comments after cyclist death during Olympic Games) wasn't helped by his helmet when a 4 ton van tried to roll over him last night - funny that

How do you know it didn't help him? Surely the fact that he was in an accident and escape without a head injury is more of an argument for helmets than against them ? Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion though

colinth wrote:

mad_scot_rider wrote:

I whole-heartedly agree with the stance of both Spokes and CCC

Including a quote from a brain injury charity just once again highlights the culture of victim-blaming that goes on

Interestingly I note that loud-mouth Wiggins (cf. his ill-advised and insensitive comments after cyclist death during Olympic Games) wasn't helped by his helmet when a 4 ton van tried to roll over him last night - funny that

How do you know it didn't help him? Surely the fact that he was in an accident and escape without a head injury is more of an argument for helmets than against them ? Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion though

He was in an incident. He had no head injury, whether a helmet was in use or not, it's a bit silly to make a statement without knowing the facts of the incident, and indeed whether any head contact even happened!
It's down to choice, and not being preached at by single issue "experts". Which is exactly what the Cambridge motion is doing.
Everyone is entitled to their view, and to state it, but not to suggest spurious evidence without any base in knowledge of specifics.

colinth wrote:

... he was in an accident and escape without a head injury is more of an argument for helmets than against them ? Don't let the facts ...

I love how you engage in a wild and illogical hypothecation - then berate me for ignoring the facts

Truly superb logic

mad_scot_rider wrote:

colinth wrote:

... he was in an accident and escape without a head injury is more of an argument for helmets than against them ? Don't let the facts ...

I love how you engage in a wild and illogical hypothecation - then berate me for ignoring the facts

Truly superb logic

Whereas your point about his helmet not saving him from some broken ribs makes perfect sense.

colinth wrote:

mad_scot_rider wrote:

colinth wrote:

... he was in an accident and escape without a head injury is more of an argument for helmets than against them ? Don't let the facts ...

I love how you engage in a wild and illogical hypothecation - then berate me for ignoring the facts

Truly superb logic

Whereas your point about his helmet not saving him from some broken ribs makes perfect sense.

Of course it does - it goes to the heart of the argument against compulsion - that a piece of poly on your napper is no protection against the majority of injuries suffered in collision with vehicles

mad_scot_rider wrote:

Interestingly I note that loud-mouth Wiggins (cf. his ill-advised and insensitive comments after cyclist death during Olympic Games) wasn't helped by his helmet when a 4 ton van tried to roll over him last night - funny that

That's probably because he was wearing a helmet on his head and not his hand or his ribs.

Fortunately, cycling injuries involving the head are comparatively rare compared with that old favourite, the broken collarbone, which is just one reason why helmet compulsion is pointless.