[Closed] Compulsory Helmet Consultation

The cyclist, who was not wearing a helmet, died due to massive crushing injuries to his chest, having been run over by a lorry.

‘Serves him right for not wearing a helmet’ - drivers

Maybe ask David Nutt about how our governments (of any persuasion) interpret the words "evidence based". I think they believe that polling numbers are the highest available quality of evidence.

it's also looking into making high visiblity clothing compulsory too. The day the world turned dayglo!

I'm finding myself in the very unusual (probably unique for me) position of jumping to the defence of a Tory minister - when specifically asked he said he didn't have a view on helmets and hi viz but that the review, which he had already said would be evidence based and not "knee-jerk" could look at it.

As Chris Boardman has said, that's fine, that bit of the review should take under a minute.

Perhaps worth noting that Jesse Norman cycles and probably has a more reasonable view on the issues than the Daily Mail reading "road tax" frothers.

I think I get a harder time from car drivers wearing hiviz than not.

I think it gives then a bit longer to think "ooh, cyclist. what can I do to him?"

Wearing black I can slip past before they notice me.

Purely anecdotal of course.

Most cyclists die by being crushed not due to head injuries and its just fuel for the make them pay tax. have insurance etc brigade who just hate us

I'm finding myself in the very unusual (probably unique for me) position of jumping to the defence of a Tory minister - when specifically asked he said he didn't have a view on helmets and hi viz but that the review, which he had already said would be evidence based and not "knee-jerk" could look at it.

If that's what happens then there's no problem. I'm just not that confident.

 

I see this as deflection tactic by the Tories.

Perhaps worth noting that Jesse Norman cycles and probably has a more reasonable view on the issues than the Daily Mail reading "road tax" frothers.

The worst thing about this is that it's pushed me back onto Twitter.

I think they believe that polling numbers are the highest available quality of evidence.

The results you get from people are driven by the incentives available to them. Politicians are rewarded by votes and by money, and an MP's salary isn't in itself a particularly exciting source of the latter: there's far more potential offered by the connections that arise from being an MP. So any cynical or brutally capitalist appraisal of the situation implies that they're going to be influenced by anyone with a ballot paper or a wad of cash.

The Conservatives have for many years been advised (to understate things) by Crosby Textor, whose "quality of evidence" is absolutely and relentlessly based on polling data: they are renowned for Mark Textor's ability to analyse polling data and for Lynton Crosby's ability to turn that analysis into successful campaign strategies.

(For what it's worth, Crosby Textor also lobby extensively on behalf of fossil fuel companies and, tangentially, Mark Textor is the chairman of the Amy Gillett Foundation—supported by haulage and automotive companies as well as Crosby Textor itself—in Australia, which vigorously advocates helmets as well as vocally or tacitly supporting a number of other illiberal policies regarding cycling.)

So, although I'm not sure whether or not it was said in jest, you're probably bang on.

Perhaps worth noting that Jesse Norman cycles and probably has a more reasonable view on the issues than the Daily Mail reading "road tax" frothers.

Utterly meaningless. Jeremy Clarkson cycles.

Sadly Bez it wasn't said at all in jest - having worked in health policy I'm all too aware of how much impact actual evidence has on decision-making.

I'd perhaps take issue with the importance of Crosby Textor - their stock among Tories and in this country in general has fallen considerably in light of the far from spectacular success of more recent Conservative election strategies.

Not disputing the influence they have had in recent times, but questioning how significant they might be going forward.

It's certainly possible that he personally does, what bothers me is that this government is probably relying on the "frothers".

Jesse Norman has one vote. Daily Mail readers have about 1.4 million.

I'd perhaps take issue with the importance of Crosby Textor

Mainly just an example of the sort of links that exist and how policies are made, rather than any specific implication. In this case there happens to be fairly short links to illiberal cycling policies. It's not the only plausible connection to such things.

I'm not bothered about helmet compulsion but being made to wear hi viz - no ****ing way.

I have a daytime rear light and just can't imagine the kind of copper who would pull you for it.

I'm not bothered about helmet compulsion but being made to wear hi viz - no **** way.

Even if helmet compulsion wouldn't directly affect you or change your behaviour you should still oppose it. The impact of compulsion on cycling rates is pretty clear from the evidence, possibly because it helps portray everyday "utility" cycling as a dangerous activity. Reducing the numbers cycling is a terrible idea for public health, and probably unhelpful to us as cyclists.

the review, which he had already said would be evidence based and not "knee-jerk"

If it was evidence based in the sense that's implied, it wouldn't even happen before two other reviews had taken place: around 50% of all traumatic brain injury occurs inside motor vehicles, and you're more likely to suffer a fatal head injury in a road collision for every mile you walk than you are for every mile you cycle.

But the consultation is about illiberal cycling policies, because most people walk and drive. That's the evidence on which this consultation is based.

Reducing the numbers cycling is a terrible idea for public health, and probably unhelpful to us as cyclists.

No "probably" about it - if you're the only cyclist on the road you're in much more danger than if there are thousands of us - if only because drivers will be expecting to deal with cyclists in the latter situation (although that's not the only reason).

Perhaps worth noting that Jesse Norman cycles and probably has a more reasonable view on the issues than the Daily Mail reading "road tax" frothers.

Although that is partly encouraging (although so does/did Boris Johnson and he's a c**t) this sort of quote does grates a bit with me:

[i]I had the joy of leaping on to my bicycle when I biked in this morning - it was an enormous amount of fun run in. It was quick! I knew almost to the minute when I was going to arrive. It was fantastic exercise. I got here with an endorphin high.[/i]

This perpetual association of cycling = sport = exercise. That it needs special clothing and equipment, and you're going to be working so hard (from sprinting off the lights so you don't hold up the cars) you'll arrive sweaty. I know Government like the idea of lumping in the need for people to exercise so they don't die of obesity, but all that stuff is the antithesis of cycling for transport. It deters lots of people who don't think they're "serious" enough to get on a bike to ride a mile to the shops.

Go to Amsterdam or Copenhagen and it's all normal people wearing normal clothes riding practical bikes at speeds that are way quicker than walking but that aren't going to leave them puffed out. That's what should be encouraged, not using your commute as an alternative to a spin class at the gym.

Is this a br-x-t fallout?
The miserable minority have had their way with europe .
We are next on their hate list.
Basically if you don't play golf and have a moustache you are on the list.
**** em.

The beeb knows its customers “100 cyclist a year are killed on the roads so the goverment is considering mandatory helmets and hi viz”.
Its so nice of those moustachios to care!

The problem is reporters not goverments, they are all just clickbait trolls.

Chris Boardman has commented and it seems to sum things up neatly

The Minister’s clarification on this issue this morning has put this story in perspective. The Government is not seriously considering this issue: the Cycle Safety Review will be based on evidence, and evidence shows that helmets do not make a significant difference to people’s safety...

@simon_g

+1

Cycling needs to be seen as "normal" for everyday activities.

Chris Boardman has commented and it seems to sum things up neatly

The Minister’s clarification on this issue this morning has put this story in perspective. The Government is not seriously considering this issue: the Cycle Safety Review will be based on evidence, and evidence shows that helmets do not make a significant difference to people’s safety...

I hope he's right, but suspect he's being optimistic. To me Norman's position is that of a man preparing to tell us that he has been persuaded, reluctantly, to support compulsion by the evidence. The fact that the evidence completely fails to support him won't matter at all.

I know the David Nutt situation* doesn't bode well, but Boardman's not alone on this and it isn't as big an issue as narcotics. If they state "it will be evidence based" they will have a very hard time subsequently moving forward with proposals that aren't supported by evidence (which compulsory helmets certainly won't be).

*for anyone who doesn't know, he was on the panel of experts who advised government on drugs policy, based on evidence, science and fact. He resigned when the government went completely against the panel's evidence-based recommendations because, y'know, Daily Mail readers..

Also, a two-stage review process stinks a lot of "kicking it into the long grass" - I wouldn't be at all surprised if the sum total of sod all comes out of it. Which would be a shame because there's plenty that the government could and should be doing to improve safety for all road users, but since a lot of them will be unpopular with motorists they probably won't happen.

They just made it up on drugs, because, as you say, of the frothers. If they think the frothers care enough, or if they see other advantage, they'll make it up here as well.

Despite the noise in Daily Mail and local newspaper comments sections, I honestly don't think that many people really give a shit about cyclists either way.

That the "should pay road tax" lot shout loudly doesn't mean that there are that many of them.

I think a LOT more of the ignorant led-by-the-DM voters have strong opinions on drugs.

Is there any evidence of the situation at night? Scotchlite or similar really stands out to me whether I am riding or driving. I try to make sure I have some on my clothing or backpack. Not so much for the dark lanes, there the loom of a front light is effective. But in town, with lots of bright visual distractions along with some dark hollows, reflective stuff just seems to stand out and say "cyclist or cautious pedestrian" to me.

Well, in an offroad 'high beam' light reflective stuff on a jacket stands out, but if car headlights are really as well controlled as my stvzo light, I think the jacket would be essentially invisible. Presumably if you want to stand out you put the tape low down.

Despite the noise in Daily Mail and local newspaper comments sections, I honestly don't think that many people really give a shit about cyclists either way.

Which is perfect for those who do have an interest in it and who have access to policymakers, because it means they'll be able to achieve their goals with minimal resistance.

Don't take public apathy to mean a lack of support for change. It means a lack of opposition to it.

The Times headline & I suspect the Dm's + most others on the matter are BS clickbait:

[url= http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/the-times-leads-with-false-story-about-helmet-compulsion/022270 ]Bikebiz[/url]

The Times headline & I suspect the Dm's + most others on the matter are BS clickbait:

The problem is that the "fake news" (sorry for that term...) has already done the rounds before the truth can even get out of bed and counter it. This is how policy is made when you want to do something that's entirely against all the evidence. Leak it in the more vocal gutter press who will do your work for you and allow the evidence to be fitted around your pre-emptive news.

Classic case of that was the "45 minutes" claim around Iraq's WMD. Didn't matter that there actually weren't any weapons, never mind any that could be mobilised and launched in 45 minutes, The Sun did the Government's persuading work for them.

This will be the same. The review will reluctantly conclude that helmet compulsion is bad but by then the public mood will already be "oh but it was promised, The Daily Wail said so".

See MMR vaccine, £350m for NHS. It plants a seed which grows regardless whether it was a seed of truth or not.
Anyway, our new Sunday morning club kit will have a Castelli flouro stripe down the middle, hope that will do.

How Chris Boardman keeps going in the face of all this BS I do not know.

I'm not bothered about helmet compulsion but being made to wear hi viz - no **** way

I am the opposite. I don't wear a helmet and don't ever want to but I wear bright coloured jerseys and wind jackets (mainly so dog walkers and ramblers can't say they didn't see me but also to give cars less of an excuse)

Personally I wear tweed and brogues.

How would it be enforced if it came in? I wear a helmet through choice, but not hi-viz and don’t plan on ever wearing it.

Hmm let’s see. Latest budget, big deal over being leaders in automated vehicles. No money for cycling.

I’d assume that high viz makes cyclists easier to spot for automated vehicles. Compulsory helmets eases the introduction of some type of proximity detecting transponder.

It’ll be a sad day. I personally don’t want to have to dress up like i’m visiting a construction site if i’m just going half a mile to the shops on the bike 🙁

It will be enforced by the zombies in cars/trucks/buses who are presently not sure if its legal or not to run you over. (they're pretty certain theres no consequences)

Even if it doesn't become law the headlines are giving them encouraging signals anyway.

TBH Its small change in the grand scale of stupidity shown by this country in the last few years.

big deal over being leaders in automated vehicles

You can want whatever you want, doesn't make it so.

If you think that having a computer drive a car around downtown Mountain View is hard, wait till you try getting it around somewhere like Cambridge.

They'll never figure out how to get out of Lion Yard carpark and any further than King's Parade, and past the hordes of tourists milling around there.

And if they actually manage that, they will all end up in the Ouse river on the first frosty morning, drowning their hipster occupants, who will be frantically updating their Facebook status as they sink below the greasy cold waters.

I was at an insurance seminar on automated vehicles recently, thats how exciting my life is you know.

There was a lot of giddiness about self drive which I thought was Turkeys getting excited about Xmas.

Fortunately for them they wont be mass fully auto for 20yrs +.

Even if helmet compulsion wouldn't directly affect you or change your behaviour you should still oppose it. The impact of compulsion on cycling rates is pretty clear from the evidence, possibly because it helps portray everyday "utility" cycling as a dangerous activity. Reducing the numbers cycling is a terrible idea for public health, and probably unhelpful to us as cyclists.

Unfortunately my anecdotal experience is that by far my worst cycling injury came from everyday utility cycling, outcome would have been much worse without a helmet. I wasn't going to wear a helmet that day, but thought I should because I was riding to a school where I was governor and didnt want to set a 'bad' example.

I'm not going to tell other people they MUST wear a helmet, but my personal experience is that they are of benefit. Normalisation of their use is preferable to legislation - although tbh arent we there?

(I totally agree that the debate detracts from the more important issue of encouraging cycling as a means of transport)

If you want to be seen then proper lights are much more effective than hi viz in the day, and reflective is better at night. I feel there is more of a case here, I live out in the sticks and cyclists eg riding under tree cover in sunken lanes in dark clothing are hard to see. But in a city, what is most effective is probably different - so what do you do?

But mass civil disobedience will make it a waste of time. Coppers are too bust out here scraping mid life crisis motorcyclists off the tarmac to worry about cyclists who are wearing red instead of chartreuse, or if a cyclist in black with a 100 lumen rear light is more vivsible than in an orange gabba.

the country is heading down shit creek without a paddle and government resources need to be directed on to more important things than matters of personal liberty

How would it be enforced if it came in? I wear a helmet through choice, but not hi-viz and don’t plan on ever wearing it.

I doubt it will be enforced - this would be a change to make it easy for insurance companies to deny compensation when squashed under a lorry.

"I'm sorry, that's not an approved shade of Tangerine Orange. CLAIM DENIED."