Road safety organisation accused of "victim-blaming" over cycling helmet campaign

ooblyboo wrote:

... Campaigns to get people to wear seatbelts or to not drive while using a mobile phone didn't/don't either. They encourage or discourage certain behaviours with the aim of making incremental improvements in safety. Perhaps the simplest thing to do would actually be to make helmets mandatory. It robs anti-cyclists of an argument against us and we can fund a campaign to encourage more cycling to compensate for the supposed decline in participation and combat inactivity instead.

Speculation by me without numbers but I'd take a bet that both of those had a much greater potential for serious harm reduction overall, plus (according to the ads...) the first partially but certainly phone use is a threat to others...

Also I haven't checked for a while but how's mandatory helmets doing in making motorists more sympathetic toward cyclists in Australia? (I actually don't know ... eburtthebike probably does though... or grog).

Anyhoo I suspect the best point to go for that kind of suggestion would be perhaps where the Dutch are at now. Cycling is reasonably established as a normal transport mode, they're getting to the point where just falling off is the most frequent accident type (the event most current cycle helmets are designed for) AND they seem to have a more robust data-gathering and evaluating approach to road safety compared to the UK. Albeit apparently there's been a recent increase in bad outcomes from collisions with motor vehicles. (They've not declared a truce...)

ooblyboo wrote:

I don't think I am missing 'the point' at all. The point of this campaign is to get more cyclists to wear helmets to protect themselves against injury or death. No, it doesn't address all the other causes of accidents/collisions. So what? Campaigns to get people to wear seatbelts or to not drive while using a mobile phone didn't/don't either. They encourage or discourage certain behaviours with the aim of making incremental improvements in safety. Perhaps the simplest thing to do would actually be to make helmets mandatory. It robs anti-cyclists of an argument against us and we can fund a campaign to encourage more cycling to compensate for the supposed decline in participation and combat inactivity instead.

My point is that a road safety organisation should be focussing on road safety and bike helmets are way down the list of what actually works. They could be running a campaign to teach drivers about leaving enough space around vulnerable road users, or not using mobile phones, or not speeding. They could be campaigning for effective infrastructure or driver re-testing or law changes to allow cyclists to use traffic lights more flexibly. But no, it's just bike helmets.

Mandatory helmets have been shown to reduce the number of cyclists on the roads and thus tends to make cycling more dangerous!

I don't think you understand the basics of road safety.

JLasTSR wrote:

Without the helmet I would most likely be dead.

Quite a wild conclusion you have jumped to there. Will you admit that the driver caused the collision and that not wearing a helmet does not lead to having a collision?

JLasTSR wrote:

They are not known as purposes they are accidents.

Nope. They are known as Road Traffic Collisions. Have you ever seen Hot Fuzz?

They are still accidents whether you call them collisions incidents or anything else we don't mean to have them.
So what if it was the drivers fault. The helmet didn't make them do it. It merely helped me survive it, that is the very point.
You really are being willfully naughty about this. If you saw the collision and the helmet and how I ended up you would I guarantee say you are bloomin' lucky to be alive.
The helmet I was wearing allowed me to have this conversation. The consultant's observation was that I should thank the helmet for saving my life or my life as I know it.
You need to realize that at some point you will have an collision with something. Your fault their fault it doesn't matter. When it happens if you are better prepared and equipped you have a better chance of walking away.

JLasTSR wrote:

They are still accidents whether you call them collisions incidents or anything else we don't mean to have them.

No, they are collisions - that's the only description we can be certain about. A driver may not mean to hit you, but by not paying sufficient attention they did so nonetheless. That's a decision on their part, not an accident.

I'm not going to get into a debate about whether the helmet saved your life in this instance. I also wear a helmet when cycling, but I don't think that it should be front and centre of a road safety campaign, which is what is actually being debated here.

Campaigns for road safety should primarily focus on decreasing collisions, not mitigating their effects. By making cycling out to be inherently dangerous (nearly killed by a big stick? Seriously?) this campaign helps to put people off cycling. That does more harm to people's health, as the benefits of cycling greatly outweigh the risks.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't wear a helmet. I'm saying that campaigns should not be focused on helmet wearing as they are counter productive and take away space from more effective campaigns.

Duplicate post

Duplicate post

AidanR wrote:

[snip]

I also wear a helmet when cycling, but I don't think that it should be front and centre of a road safety campaign, which is what is actually being debated here. Campaigns for road safety should primarily focus on decreasing collisions, not mitigating their effects. By making cycling out to be inherently dangerous (nearly killed by a big stick? Seriously?) this campaign helps to put people off cycling. That does more harm to people's health, as the benefits of cycling greatly outweigh the risks. I'm not saying that you shouldn't wear a helmet. I'm saying that campaigns should not be focused on helmet wearing as they are counter productive and take away space from more effective campaigns.

Exactly this.

Imagine if your car flipped onto its roof every time you hit a stick. Seatbelts, airbags and SIPs wouldn't encourage you to drive!

Seriously who is put off from doing something by something that makes it less likely that you hurt yourself if you have an accident. If seatbelts airbags etc wouldn't encourage you to drive then companies would not promote them but Volvo virtually based their entire marketing campaign around safety for decades.

And yet Volvo was only popular amongst elderly drivers are safety conscious drivers. As I said to Holding On. All the modern features on today's vehicles encourage irresponsible driving. 

Ah - I think my comment has been taken to mean I believe helmets discourage people from cycling. Not my experience at all. I happily wear a helmet - it doesn't bother me and if there is a chance it will prevent some damage, why wouldn't I wear it? At the same time, if someone else chooses not to wear a helmet - I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

My comment was to point out that in a world where we are trying (supposedly) to encourage people to cycle, we are also in a world where we are telling people that a stick could put them in hospital.
If we reduce that to absurd levels and put it in the context of drivists, I was trying to point out that most drivers would be put off driving if they were told a stick would flip their car - even if they were also told a "helmet" (or in their case seatbelts, airbags and SIPs) would mean they didn't end up in hospital.

As for the safety features in cars - yes, I definitely agree. It is a cause of irresponsible driving. If you made cars so they exploded at the least touch, there would be a lot more cautious drivers out there!

HoldingOn wrote:

Ah - I think my comment has been taken to mean I believe helmets discourage people from cycling.

Well, quite. As if there wasn't already enough to think about. 

It's great, Steve, that you've decided to come for a bike ride. Now, have you got everything: gloves, toolbag, pump, gilet, money, charged your lights, charged your 'phone, hang on, mate you need your helmet, your helmet cam, is it charged up and got lots of mem - oh, he's buggered off, damn me he's backing his car out. 

Except none of that is compulsory...

It's great, Steve, that you've decided to come for a daytime* bike ride. Now, have you got your bike? Excellent - lets go.

I am against helmets being compulsory. I am against a campaign that makes cycling look like a stick could endanger your life. I would prefer time and money spent trying to push helmets on cyclists was spent trying to encourage drivists to see us as vulnerable humans.
I am a cyclist that chooses to wear a helmet because it might offer some protection in some situations and I don't believe people look at me and think "I'm not going to cycle because they are wearing a helmet"

*Obviously at night Steve will need to bring lights

JLasTSR wrote:

Seriously who is put off from doing something by something that makes it less likely that you hurt yourself if you have an accident. If seatbelts airbags etc wouldn't encourage you to drive then companies would not promote them but Volvo virtually based their entire marketing campaign around safety for decades.

Again, this needs to be separated into two strands:

1) The effect on people already doing the activity; and
2) The effect on people not currently doing the activity.

I'm not going to be put off by a campaign for helmet use in cycling, because I already cycle.

My wife, on the other hand, already fears cycling because of the perceived danger and campaigns which highlight that danger will only put her off more.

The Volvo example is not useful, because that was aimed at the former group. Their advertising campaign aimed to get existing drivers to switch to their cars.

I'm pretty convinced that many motorists drive more irresponsibly due to these features. I'm sure that they would be more cautious behind the wheel of a 1970's mini. 

I'm pretty convinced that many motorists drive more irresponsibly due to these features. I'm sure that they would be more cautious behind the wheel of a 1970's mini. 

JLasTSR wrote:

They are still accidents whether you call them collisions incidents or anything else we don't mean to have them.

Sorry. They are collisions or crashes. Investigations consistently identify speed and inattentiveness as the cause of them. I’ve been caught up in a number of crashes over the years. One of them was my fault. I was distracted by the radio and shunted the car in front when I panicked and braked harshly. Lesson learnt. Radio stays off. All the others were down to the other drivers not paying attention. The only incident that could be described as an accident was having a blowout on the motorway. Tyres were fine at start of journey and may have developed a slow puncture resulting in the crash.

An accident is a tree blowing over or a wall collapsing or something like that. Something that is totally out of your hands and control.

When I drive I’m observing a mile up the road on motorways and a good 100yards on urban roads as well as directly ahead of me. I’m watching pavements and extra cautious exiting junctions. Problematic junctions I often turn left and detour rather than right.

100% of crashes can be avoided through being more attentive.

Until you are not attentive or the other guy isn't. I am not saying they are without fault. They happen all the time, look around nobody means to have them. They happen precisely because of some of the reasons you say and others. You will never get everyone to be perfect. They may have all sorts of reasons why they are distracted. Doesn't make it right but neither is it their intention to crash. Neither is it a decision that they consciously make to take more risks because of visiting Mummy in the hospital who is dying and it is stressing them out. They are distracted.

JLasTSR wrote:

Until you are not attentive or the other guy isn't. I am not saying they are without fault. They happen all the time, look around nobody means to have them. They happen precisely because of some of the reasons you say and others. You will never get everyone to be perfect. They may have all sorts of reasons why they are distracted. Doesn't make it right but neither is it their intention to crash. Neither is it a decision that they consciously make to take more risks because of visiting Mummy in the hospital who is dying and it is stressing them out. They are distracted.

It's choices all the way up.  Your choice to make that journey when you've got the kids in the car, or are overwrought, or are tired, or it's night and the weather's awful.  Your choice to drive at that speed.  Your choice to buy the car in the first place.

Of course that choice is encouraged by the choices of our manufacturers, our road designers, our politicians local and national etc.  No one is fully culpable but everyone has made choices to facilitate mass motoring.  And we all help this being perceived as a very necessary, yet fairly trivial and mundate activity.  That we can (mostly) do in a way which perhaps we shouldn't, when we shouldn't, and that all of us do perhaps more than we should.

JLasTSR wrote:

Without the helmet I would most likely be dead.

A claim made thousands of times, but the death rate of cyclists doesn't fall as helmet wearing rates increase, so the likelihood of your "helmet saved my life" story being true is as close to zero as makes no difference.

You think a helmet makes no difference. Well you are entitled to your opinion. I will keep my fingers crossed that you never have the same collision. Personally I think suggesting people do not wear a helmet because it is not necessary, is a little crass.

JLasTSR wrote:

You think a helmet makes no difference. Well you are entitled to your opinion. I will keep my fingers crossed that you never have the same collision. Personally I think suggesting people do not wear a helmet because it is not necessary, is a little crass.

Nobody is suggesting that you do not wear a helmet if you want to but we question why you wouldn't want to wear one when partaking in equally risky activites. We just don't want you trying to force others to wear one when their effectiveness is unproven. Personally I find then hot, noisy and uncomfortable and feel that I am more aware of my surroundings without one.

Your anecdote about your own experience with a cycling collision is interesting because the eps is supposed to deform in order to cushion your head and reduce the forces on it. By breaking it was probably unable to do this effectively and may have been faulty, have you considered suing the manufacturer for their contribution to your injuries?

JLasTSR wrote:

.

My helmet had broken the eps in two places at the front from the initial impact and the second impact on the road had broken the back in three places.

So the helmet cracked instead of deforming and reducing the rate of deceleration of your head like it was supposed to...

JLasTSR wrote:

.

I also lost about 8 hours which I remember nothing about including the incident, the ambulance, the scans, and the first few hours in hospital.

 ...thereby failing to protect your brain (it might have helped with scrapes).

You need a physics lesson

himmelsturmer wrote:

This is not victim shaming it is trying to persuade cyclists to do something to protect themselves instead of expecting everybody else to do it for them

So, does this molly coddling of cyclists just mainly consist of not driving into us?

I dunno, that seems like a reasonable requirement to me.

himmelsturmer wrote:

This is not victim shaming it is trying to persuade cyclists to do something to protect themselves instead of expecting everybody else to do it for them

By driving safely around vulnerable road users?  Or is that too much to ask?

I completely agree regarding re-testing regularly. Having driven mobile plant, yes it's dangerous machinery but in an extremely controlled environment. We do one test in a 2T death machine, likely in our teens and go, "there we are, I don't doubt you'll be fine even with all the regulation changes and life circumstances that will influence how you fling this metal box about in the open"

I'm surprised the gov hasn't thought, "we'll see an increased income her with re-testing" 🤷‍♂️