BHIT & DfT

[Mark Thompson]

> I can't recall anyone standing up *against voluntary wearing of helmets* and google doesn't chuck
> anything up. Nothing that ZtU has posted here fits that description.

***
"Like I keep telling people: Every time you wear a helmet you are voting for compulsion. Don't
forgett thgat next time you unnecessarily don one for a trip to the shops."
***

But it's getting close...

> As the things are known not to work it has been easy for me to move from anti-compulsion to
> anti-helmet.

Arrgh. Helmets do work - they are excellent at saving your head from minor but unpleasant injuries.
At this they excel - HELMETS DO WORK! They do exactly what they're designed to do. Unfortunately
they don't do what most people think they do, which is the problem.

We're having something that is not capable of reducing KSIs promoted as the solution to the
'high'* proportion of cyclists being killed or seriously injured. But you shouldn't deny the fact
that they do work.

*A rate so high it's nearly but not quite as dangerous as walking!

> >>as well as making eventual compulsion an easier decision for the government - so you may be
> >>forcing us all to wear one in future.
> >
> >Don't blame *me* for the government. *Your* stance is just as bad

Wot she said.

> What has been done here that reduces your choice?

Nothing has been done here to reduce choice, but you have been pressuring someone to do something
she doesn't want to do, so you don't have to do something you don't want to do.

Sorry for jumping into your discussion but a small part of this is about being able to do what you
damn well like. If you don't want helmet use to go up, you merely need to let people find out how
poor they are at preventing people from being KSI. They can then decide for themselves whether to
wear them.

 

[Anonymous]

James Annan posted ...

>
>> I simply cannot see how wearing a helmet says they should be made compulsory. Everyone (mostly)
>> wears shoes, but they're not a compulsory item of clothing ..
>
> It's because the Govt has repeatedly indicated that it wants to make everyone wear a helmet, but
> realises that it has to wait until a larger proprtion of cyclists are already wearing them through
> choice or else

Fair point, now I understand the point a bit better.

> the law will get a hostile reception and be unenforceable. Once the proportion is high enough,
> they will try to make it compulsory.

Again, fair point.

I wear a helmet, though I don't believe it should be made compulsory.

I _do_ make my children (11 and 8 years old) wear helmets as I see them having benefits when riding
off-road through woods and over the hills etc, especially for young children who are much more
likely to have an 'off'. We don't ride roads much at all, generally only as a means to get to more
off-roading areas.

Thinking further, and being honest, apart from the freedom of choices that we can and can't make I
don't really see too much of a problem with cycle helmet compulsion. After all, the government do
appear to believe it's in cyclists best interests and I guess it's up to whichever cyclists want to
to try to make them see different. I'm too apathetic about it I guess. I don't think the government
simply want to force people into something that they don't see a real benefit of, whether the
benefit is derived from a flawed premise or research is not for me to worry about ..

Helmet compulsion is certainly something I've had to put up with when riding my cycles, motorbikes
and other vehicles in competition for long enough so it really wouldn't worry me too much having to
wear them for general cycling either ... I guess I would still prefer to keep being able to choose
for myself ...

--
Paul

 

[Tony Raven]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Tony, are you going to follow this up at all? I have some questions which this response does
> nothig to answer. Specifically,
>
> - what evidence do they have that BHIT's programme is reducing injuries (BHIT quote success
> criteria solely in terms of proportion of cyclists using helmets)
>
> - what evidence do they have for prioritising helmets above, say, roadcraft training
>
> - what level of funding is applied to organisations promoting cycle safety rather than injury
> mitigation (and does the DfT understand the difference)
>

I've drafted a reply and its in my standard 24 hr pause drawer before I send it (to allow me time to
reflect on the contents). Will think about raising your points in it.

Tony

 

[Helen Deborah V]

[email protected] (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers)typed

> >Like I keep telling people: Every time you wear a helmet you are voting for compulsion.

> Bollox.

> >Don't forgett thgat next time you unnecessarily don one for a trip to the shops.

> I won't even consider it as it's a load of tosh.

> By cycling I'm helping to promote cycling - period. And I choose to wear a helmet - and by doing
> so, I am *not* forcing you or anyone else to wear one.

> Perhaps by choosing to drive a Merc, I'm voting that everyone else should be driving a Merc...

Sorry, Helen, I disagree.

Several 'child safety' organisations are waiting for helmet wearing rates to increase to 'soften the
public' until compulsion is introduced. I have heard Sarah Levene of the Child Accident Prevention
Trust say _just_ that at a conference on children in A&E.

I confess to being a hypocrite on the issue. I wore a helmet until I gave up cycling (calling it my
Neurotrauma Condom[1]).

[1] Terngyl erqhprf cyrnfher naq cebivqrf bayl cnegvny cebgrpgvba...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected] Edgware.

 

[James Annan]

> Thinking further, and being honest, apart from the freedom of choices that we can and can't make I
> don't really see too much of a problem with cycle helmet compulsion.

Well, it wouldn't make a huge difference to 90% of my cycling - a regular commute where it is easy
to store the helmet safely at my destination. But sometimes I just want to pop into town for a few
errands, and carrying round a helmet is quite a hassle. It's even worse when raining and I want some
waterproof headgear. I don't think it is at all reasonable for me to be criminalised if I don't
always bother wearing a helmet, especially since it's probably safer than walking.

James

 

[Anonymous]

James Annan posted ...

>
>
>> Thinking further, and being honest, apart from the freedom of choices that we can and can't make
>> I don't really see too much of a problem with cycle helmet compulsion.
>
> Well, it wouldn't make a huge difference to 90% of my cycling - a regular commute where it is easy
> to store the helmet safely at my destination. But sometimes I just want to pop into town for a few
> errands, and carrying round a helmet is quite a hassle. It's even worse when raining and I want
> some waterproof headgear. I don't think it is at all reasonable for me to be criminalised if I
> don't always bother wearing a helmet, especially since it's probably safer than walking.

I must admit that even if it were made compulsory I guess it wouldn't be as universally taken up as
helmet wearing on motorbikes did. I mean .. how often would a copper stop, or even be able to stop,
and arrest someone on a cycle ?

I know I probably wouldn't wear a helmet _every_ time I went for a ride ..
--
Paul

 

[-Lsqnot Respond]

<[email protected]> wrote:

>I must admit that even if it were made compulsory I guess it wouldn't be as universally taken up as
>helmet wearing on motorbikes did. I mean .. how often would a copper stop, or even be able to stop,
>and arrest someone on a cycle ?
>
>I know I probably wouldn't wear a helmet _every_ time I went for a ride ..

Quite. Look at the level of enforcement of lights & pavement cycling - minimal to non-existant.

It'd just hand yet-another-grievance to the likes of the abd.

And, of course, failure to wear a hat would make certain that you could be run over with impunity
and without compensation for your injuries & losses.

 

[Patrick Herring]

"[Not Responding]" <[email protected]> wrote:

| On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 01:21:02 +0000, chris French
|
| snip
|
| >>Eric Martlew MP has introduced a Private Members Bill, the purpose of which is to make the
| >>wearing of helmets by children compulsory. That will be debated by Parliament in due course. Our
| >>position has been that compulsion at current wearing rates would cause enforcement difficulties
| >>and could have an effect on cycling levels. However we will wish to reflect on the balance of
| >>these arguments given Eric Martlew's Bill.
| >
| >I take that to imply that they are waiting for wearing rates to get high enough before they
| >consider trying compulsion.
|
| Like I keep telling people: Every time you wear a helmet you are voting for compulsion.

Me2.

--
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK http://www.anweald.co.uk

Eala Earendel engla beorhtast ofer middangeard monnum sended.

 

[Anonymous]

[Not Responding] posted ...

> And, of course, failure to wear a hat would make certain that you could be run over with impunity
> and without compensation for your injuries & losses.

A bit like (my job is a caretaker) having to use marker bollards to warn people that a designated
WET AREA in a classroom may be wet and slippery after cleaning ..

Doesn't matter if anyone actually falls so long as I put the cone or boards up so they can't sue
after falling ...

--
Paul

 

[Johnb]

"[Not Responding]" wrote:
>
> On 31 Jan 2004 08:01:09 GMT, [email protected] (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:
>
> >>Like I keep telling people: Every time you wear a helmet you are voting for compulsion.
> >
> >Bollox.
>
> No it isn't.

Agreed.

> As the letter quoted here from the dft shows it is only current low levels of use that prevent
> compulsion becoming policy. You will find this repeated in many documents.

Once the level of helmet wearing has reached a considerable majority level it will be made
compulsory for *all* to wear them.

It is naive of people to deny that by wearing helmets they are not part of this encouraged trend.

It is one hell of a difficult shout, but just one _small_ part of my choice on not wearing a helmet
is because if I do then it *is* moving towards compulsion for all - adults and children.

John B

 

[Tony Raven]

> A bit like (my job is a caretaker) having to use marker bollards to warn people that a designated
> WET AREA in a classroom may be wet and slippery after cleaning ..
>
> Doesn't matter if anyone actually falls so long as I put the cone or boards up so they can't sue
> after falling ...

And a bit like the argument I witnessed yesterday at the GP surgery where they would not let someone
shovel the ice off the pavement so his 90 year old mother could walk safely to the car because if he
touched it and she fell it would be there fault and not the Councils. The patient didn't seem to
figure anywhere in the thinking, just CMA.

Tony

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:57:04 -0000, "Tony Raven"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I've drafted a reply and its in my standard 24 hr pause drawer before I send it (to allow me time
>to reflect on the contents). Will think about raising your points in it.

OK, thanks. Another, which I'm sure has also occurred to you: what steps has BHIT taken to reassure
the DfT that its policy of systematically talking up the benefits of helmet use will not cause risk
compensatory behaviour? Thus far their only nod in that direction to my knowledge has been to deny
the existence of risk compensation and to rubbish the very idea that an adolescent male might take
more risks when he was wearing something he's been told will almost certainly protect him from death
or serious injury.

The Isles Report is interesting in context. Forgive me if you already know this: it was written in
1981 within the (then) DoT and was a report into compulsory seat belt use, comparing law and non-law
countries. It concluded that despite evidence that seat belts protect once a crash has occurred,
there was no evidence of benefit at the population level (sound familiar?). A key conclusion was: "A
simple model suggests no change in death rates, and an 11 percent (+/1 2%) increase in injuries for
all classes of road user, to have been the effect of the law." The increase in injuries in the law
group of countries was consistent. The chance of this being conicidence was
1/256.

Isles urged caution interpreting the increase in injuries as the data base was small - but it
included ten countries (including Britain), whereas the figures on which compulsion was predicated
were based solely on our old friend Victoria, Western Australia.

The report was never published by the DoT, who were at the time about to publish the seat belt law.
It became known only four years later, when a copy was shown to the New Scientist.

Sure enough, the seat belt law led to no measurable drop in driver fatalities (what reduction there
was was almost entirely during the drink-drive hours and is now officially attributed to the
coincident introduction of evidential breath testing) and increases of 14%, 40% and 27% respectively
in fatalities of pedestrians, cyclists and rear-seat passengers.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Just Zis Guy]

<[email protected]> wrote:

>I simply cannot see how wearing a helmet says they should be made compulsory.

Bizarre idea isn't it? Yet it is the long-time stated view of the DfT!

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Colin Blackburn]

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:57:40 -0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
quotes Jason Richardson:

> Our position has been that compulsion at current wearing rates would cause enforcement
> difficulties and could have an effect on cycling levels.

So that means that once everyone is wearing a helmet they will make it compulsory to wear a helmet?

Colin
--

 

[Colin Blackburn]

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:36:41 -0000, Colin Blackburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:57:40 -0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> quotes Jason Richardson:
>
>> Our position has been that compulsion at current wearing rates would cause enforcement
>> difficulties and could have an effect on cycling levels.
>
> So that means that once everyone is wearing a helmet they will make it compulsory to wear
> a helmet?

Bugger, must remember to read everything on a Monday morning before posting follow-ups.

I guess the question is at what level they would consider compulsion to be possible, 51%? 99%?

Colin
--

 

[-Lsqnot Respond]

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:43:58 -0000, Colin Blackburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:36:41 -0000, Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:57:40 -0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> quotes Jason Richardson:
>>
>>> Our position has been that compulsion at current wearing rates would cause enforcement
>>> difficulties and could have an effect on cycling levels.
>>
>> So that means that once everyone is wearing a helmet they will make it compulsory to wear a
>> helmet?
>
>Bugger, must remember to read everything on a Monday morning before posting follow-ups.
>
>I guess the question is at what level they would consider compulsion to be possible, 51%? 99%?

If the overseas examples are anything to go by, a lot lower than those numbers.

 

[Helen Deborah V]

Colin Blackburn <[email protected]>typed

> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:57:40 -0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> quotes Jason Richardson:

> > Our position has been that compulsion at current wearing rates would cause enforcement
> > difficulties and could have an effect on cycling levels.

> So that means that once everyone is wearing a helmet they will make it compulsory to wear
> a helmet?

> Colin

Yup :-(

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected] Edgware.

 

[Johnb]

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>
> Colin Blackburn <[email protected]>typed
>
> > On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:57:40 -0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> quotes Jason Richardson:
>
> > > Our position has been that compulsion at current wearing rates would cause enforcement
> > > difficulties and could have an effect on cycling levels.
>
> > So that means that once everyone is wearing a helmet they will make it compulsory to wear a
> > helmet?
>
> > Colin
>
> Yup :-(

So if anyone is anti-compulsion, please realise that when wearing a helmet you are helping move
towards that result. So please do not be surprised if some who promote freedom of choice see you as
being 'on the opposite side'.

John B

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Colin Blackburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...

> I guess the question is at what level they would consider compulsion to be possible, 51%? 99%?

"X", where X is defined by the chances of getting away with it multiplied by the chances of the
Daily Mail supporting the idea divided by the chances that someone will leak to the Guardian the
fact that they know perfectly well it won't work.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

 

[Johnb]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>
> "dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:20040202091728.11514.00001298@mb-
> m12.aol.com...
>
> > >So if anyone is anti-compulsion, please realise that when wearing a helmet you are helping move
> > >towards that result.
>
> > So that puts Guy on said opposite side then. As well as putting me - what
> a
> > load of tosh.
>
> Not entirely, there's a grain of truth in it - but as and when legislation is proposed we have far
> better arguments to rely on than low wearing rates.

Quite. I just hope that they are accepted when the response will be nearly everyone wears one
anyway. I have fears they won't which is why pressure must be maintained *now*. Already my MP has
said that as posties wear them others should too (and he's a cyclist)

John B