- 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
Patrick Harvie (picture via Transport Scotland)Scotland’s active travel minister criticised again for lack of helmet
Scotland’s active travel minister, Patrick Harvie, has once again come under criticism for not wearing a cycle helmet
Harvie was appointed the Scottish Government’s minister for zero carbon buildings, active travel and tenants’ rights after the Green Party, for which he is MSP for Glasgow, entered a shared agenda agreement with the Scottish National Party in August.
However, opponents have been quick to seize on the fact that he cycles in everyday clothes rather than hi-viz clothing, and without a helmet, to try and score political points against him.
Their latest opportunity came on Friday when he attended a Bikeability session in East Renfrewshire and posed for pictures with schoolchildren undertaking cycle training, with the photos posted to Twitter by Transport Scotland.
Minister for #ActiveTravel @patrickharvie joined @Mearns_Primary pupils to see @BikeabilityScot training in action.
Making sure all children leave school with the ability to ride a bike safely can help deliver an inclusive #ActiveNation.
➡️ https://t.co/cx8ShWaewN#Bikeability pic.twitter.com/XcyN4auOiU
— Transport Scotland (@transcotland) December 3, 2021
Graham Simpson, the Scottish Conservatives transport spokesman, quoted in the Scottish Sun said: “If Patrick Harvie is going to tag along with children for a quick photo while they are doing Bikeability training, the least he could do is to abide by the same rules as them.
“He doesn’t have to wear a helmet but, quite frankly it’s no big deal to put one on if he is going out with a group of youngsters.
“Patrick needs to know when to stop posturing and be responsible.”
He was also criticised by Neil Greig of the charity IAM RoadSmart, who said: “Yet again Mr Harvie has failed to set the right example as a Scottish Government minister.
“A helmet is a vital piece of safety kit, especially for children as their skulls are not yet fully formed. Encouraging people to consider active travel options requires positive role models who practice what they preach.”
In September, after he was pictured at Glasgow Pride riding his bike bare-headed, Harvie said that wearing a cycle helmet was “not my style” and made him feel as though he were participating in an extreme sport.
And in response to the latest furore, a spokesman for Transport Scotland insisted on whether or not to wear a cycle helmet “is a matter of personal choice, not a requirement.”
He added: “The Highway Code recommends wearing a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened, if cyclists choose to do so.”
Under EU and UK safety standards, cycle helmets are rated to protect against a head injury in a fall from a bike at a very low speed – and not to protect against injuries sustained in a collision with a motor vehicle.
Successive governments have rejected calls to make them compulsory, and campaigners say that the focus on the issue distracts from other ways in which the roads could be made safer for cyclists, with Chris Boardman, for example, telling road.cc in 2014: “I think the helmet issue is a massive red herring.
> Chris Boardman: “Helmets not even in top 10 of things that keep cycling safe”
“It’s not even in the top 10 of things you need to do to keep cycling safe or more widely, save the most lives,” he added.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- brooksby 2 sec ago
You mean that they are Otherwise Law-Abiding™ ?
- brooksby 7 min 53 sec ago
What fresh devilry is this??? - perhaps they had a design for some handlebars, and another design for some forks, and somewhere along the line the...
- brooksby 11 min 32 sec ago
And finally: I wonder how many of the "more than 3,000" signatures on that petition are actually locals, who live or work there (and are not just...
- Doug_D 1 hour 47 min ago
Another book suggestion - I can highly recommend "Lost Summers and Half-Forgotten Afternoons: A Mint Sauce collection" - a beautifully presented...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 5 sec ago
But... the last is only not the case with drivers on normal roads because driving on the cycle path / footway / rolling a vehicle up there is seen...
- mdavidford 3 hours 38 min ago
I think you're missing an opportunity to pack even more tech into it - add accelerometers that can detect whether they're pedalling or stepping....
- chrisonabike 4 hours 2 min ago
Thanks. I guess the question is "need". If the road is busy, it sounds like it is a desired route between places? In which case (given this an...
- mdavidford 4 hours 10 min ago
Don't know what you mean. I thought my suggestion was entirely practical.
- Rapha Nadal 4 hours 45 min ago
I'd buy a motorbike fo rthat kind of money!
Add new comment
33 comments
my view is that there is no need to wear helmets, however on the day in question brighter clothing would be more appropriate (doesn't have to go as far as hi vis, just strong colours)
Bike helmets is one of those issues where the wrong people get to speak. How many are cyclists themselves?
Some peoples pro helmet fervency raises suspicion. The bigger and more dangerous the vehicle they drive the more desperately they believe all cyclists should wear helmets. I wonder if it's a direct measurable correlation. Anecdotal evidence tells me I'm right. It needs a survey.
In my experience, it seems that the cyclist haters are the most concerned with cyclist "safety". Make them ride with no music or radios on, make them wear plastic hats on a hot summer's day and make them wear a yellow jacket with a unique number one - it's for their own good. Yet the same ones cheer at a cyclist who gets badly injured by a motor vehicle. Two faced gits.
Never felt the need to wear a magic plastic hat. Waste of time.
You get a like, not because I necessarily believe in what you say, but because it isn't about mirrors or licences.
Don't say Beetlejuice!
Meanwhile, in a much more advanced, safer, and egalitarian society...
https://youtu.be/OrQ-d2PBUto
We'll have none of your communism here thank you - we're a monarchy! No, none of that with their 100% tax rates, where owning cars is practically banned and it's a nightmare to drive even if you have one. Besides it'll just make things worse for normal people and anyway no-one uses these facilities.
Good for him.
It's about time we had some common sense politicians who actually understand the concept of active travel, rather than wannabe TdF participants.
Lycra and helmets have their place in the sport of cycling but for everyday riding especially on a 'sit up and beg' style of bike as ridden normal clothes without the health and safety bullshit should be encouraged, not demeaned.
As if a bit of polystyrene is going to be much use when being hit from behind by a 2 ton SUV!
Please stop reporting this nonsense. Helmets (may) work a little bit in preventing injuy. Infrastructure works massively in preventing injury. The issue is why are we not diverting the road budget towards cycle infrastructure, not whether one person is or isn't wearing a helmet.
Sorry, but this nonsense should and must be reported; if it is never challenged, it becomes truth, and then we'll have a helmet law.
Scottish Cycling require helmets to be worn at all their events - irrespective of age.
Leaving aside the whole argument about protection etc as this isn't about that.
It's an example of yet another government minister (this time from my side of the border) showing that there is one rule for them, and another for us.
He should have shown token complance with Scottish Cycling rules and worn the helmet for the duration of his presence at the session, with it not affecting his personal choice.
Scottish Cycling's rules for led rides and trainining is 'no helmet, no ride'.
Hmm... partly. I guess - haven't checked - that he'd remove his hat in church (or wear appropriate garb to the local temple) and on the principle of politeness I'd prefer to see politicians making a nod to the rules of the organisations they visit. "But Helments" though... Looks like the kids are required to wear hi-viz and people don't seem to be mentioning that. (That actually *might* have a preventative effect. Much better outcomes from preventing a crash than trying to reduce the consequences afterwards).
I'd also contrast what is seen as safe for kids here with elsewhere. How do we want childhood to look like?
Again I think much of the noise is either good ol' politicking or "selective concern". As far as I am aware Graham Simpson (Scottish conservative mentioned) hasn't been shouting for lots more cash for active transport, to come from the vehicle budget. Nor lower default speed limits, "school streets", filtered permeability etc. (He has made some positive noises but is quite happy with adding more lanes on roads for example). IAM Roadsmart are trainers for motor vehicle users. Helmets may be vital equipment for motorcyclists...
Yes, kids are required by SC on events to wear hi-viz.
Adults on led rides aren't (although it's recommended that the ride leader and the tail gunner wear them).
If this guy had been on a visit to a food factory, he'd have been in whites and a hair net.
If he had been on a visit to a building site, he'd have been (at minimum) in a hard hat.
If he had been on a visit to one of my work sites, he'd have been in hard hat, steel toes, hi-viz, glasses and gloves.
For me, it's not about the personal choice that is helmets; this is about respecting the rules of the group / establishment that is being visited ... And by not respecting those rules, a big 'fuck you' is being said to those with no choice.
The rules that you cite aren't used for group identity. They're outcomes of risk assessment.
Whites and nets are food safety rules
Hard hats and toetectors, gloves and glasses are required on site as it is a hazardous environment, and actually give some protection from identified risks. Often gloves are required due to risk from Weil's disease. In any case, building sites are incomparable as they are not the pubic space and I've never been on a site where gaggles of children are around - quite the opposite in fact, kids understandably are not allowed.
There is no FU here, the only thing he might be guilty of is not anticipating the pearl-clutching from various sectors of the press over his choice of attire.
I should have said that. Still possible he's making a point / being "provocative" too but the main point's as you said!
Yes, he may be bloody minded. It might be argued that on a political level his choice of attire distracted from the point of the story, that of normalising everyone's right (including children) to use the public space as they see fit. However if I had beef with him it would be on that basis and it would be a small portion, a minute steak rather than a 16oz sirloin.
Surely the blame for the distraction should be with people focussing on the lack of helmet and ignoring the larger message?
"Surely the blame for the distraction should be with people focussing on the lack of helmet and ignoring the larger message?"
Agreed.
How many of the comments on here (mine included) are regarding his choice not to wear a helmet and how many are in support / opposition of whatever he was supporting?
Well, I'd hazard a guess that most Road.cc readers are very much in favour of active travel, so that wouldn't make for much of a conversation
Yes, I agree - like I said if I had beef it would be minute steak. A skilled politician might either not court the controversy he'd already experienced, or make a clearer point. But it's not I hill I'd be bothered to fight over.
Is the point that cycling is in fact safe and does not require body armour to take part in?
It's difficult because the message he wants to get out is that cycling is safe and accesible to everyone, and it's hard to do that wearing PPE, meanwhile if you don't everything is drowned out by cries of "reckless cyclist doesn't look after his own safety, won't somebody think about the children?"
I am pretty sure that Patrick did anticipate the response he would get from the press and some other MSPs. He chose his approach regardless.
I am not really interested in whether he wears a helmet or not, but I do care if he can move the dial on Active Travel in Scotland now that he is in Government.
"Whites and nets are food safety rules
Hard hats and toetectors, gloves and glasses are required on site as it is a hazardous environment, and actually give some protection from identified risks. Often gloves are required due to risk from Weil's disease. In any case, building sites are incomparable as they are not the pubic space and I've never been on a site where gaggles of children are around - quite the opposite in fact, kids understandably are not allowed."
All of which are the results of risk assessments.
Thing is ... he's got the argument rolling about helemets (again), and not about what ever cause he was there to promote.
And I said that would be where a (small) argument might be had. It's certainly nothing about H&S, or a FU to identity groups.
The fact that a cycling organisation is misinformed about cycling, risk and helmets isn't a reason to wear a helmet; it's baffling and very sad.
I'm sure that if you contact Scottish Cycling directly they will be able to provide you with the information that they have, and you can take it up directly with them
Why would I bother doing that? I've been a student of helmets and road safety for 40+ years, and I'm pretty sure their arguments would be the same fact-free bolox as I've heard from every helmet zealot.
If you're so concerned, why don't you contact them and tell us?
Bikeability are not the same as scottish cycling.
Bikeability Scotland is run by Cycling Scotland. Though they have a bit of a dilemma as they they are opposed to mandatory helmet wearing and see it as a deterrent to cycling yet make people wear helmets at their events and in this instance the children having to wear helmets. Though that possibly may be more to do with the school. I rarely fell off my bike at primary age and if I did it was knees and palms that took the brunt of any damage.
Pages