Halfords partial U-turn on helmets



T

Tony Raven

Guest
http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/26861/Halfords-back-pedals-over-helmet-law

Interesting that they virtually admit their position on helmet
compulsion was driven by sales not safety.

Halfords back-pedals over helmet law
13:00, May 2nd 2007 by Carlton Reid
The market-dominating retailer says it now prefers "customer education"
over forcing people to wear head protection when cycling. ALSO: Listen
to a market-stats-and-helmet-law podcast of Halfords’ Louise Bennett.
In 2005, Eric Martlew, the MP who has long campaigned for a cycle helmet
compulsion law for under-16 year olds, said Halfords wanted to see the
introduction of cycle helmet compulsion for children. Barbara Cadd, head
of corporate and brand management at Halfords, told BikeBiz at the time
that the decision to support helmet compulsion for children was made at
board level in February 2005.

The policy was to push for compulsion for young children only, not
teenagers.

"Helmets are not seen as cool by older children, you can't force them to
wear helmets," said Cadd.

The enforced wearing of helmets is a disincentive to cycling, a point
acknowledged by Martlew. In a parliamentary debate in 2005 he said:
"Youngsters are saying, "Look at mushroom-head over there". They do not
think that it is cool to wear a helmet, even though some of them are
extremely well designed. They are pressured into thinking that if they
wear one they are a coward."

Martlew believed modern youth is law-abiding to a degree hitherto
unknown: "[Children] would like legislation to be passed, because then
they could say, "I have to wear a helmet, because it is the law.'"

However, Martlew can no longer rely on the support of Halfords. The
retailer has reversed its policy on helmet compulsion. In a presentation
given to Asian suppliers at the Taipei trade show, Louise Bennett,
product manager for cycle accessories at Halfords, said the retail chain
was to use its "social responsibility" to educate customers about using
cycle helmets but would no longer push for compulsion.

"We've debated this long and hard in the office. I'm not sure a law
would make a massive amount of difference. We need to educate customers.
For their own safety, they should be wearing helmets. 60 percent of our
customers are 'mainstream', [they] don't get on a bike very often. Their
memory of a helmet would be something that is big, bulbous, horrid
colours, makes their head sweat. What we need to do is educate customers
[that] new helmets are lightweight and have vents to allow your head to
breath. What we don't want to do is scare customers."

Bennett said that presenting cycling as an inherently risk activity was
"a real danger" in itself even though a helmet compulsion law would lead
to a big increase in helmet sales for Halfords.

"Some in the office think [compulsion] would lead to sales very quickly
but take child seats as an example. There are still people not using a
child seat in the UK, some people flout the laws. A [helmet law] would
be difficult to enforce."
Bennett also said there needs to be more education on how to wear cycle
helmets correctly:
"We have a lot of injuries from customers who buy a helmet but wear it
on the back of their head. A helmet that's not on the forehead offers no
protection anyway."
Halfords is to produce new PoS showing customers how to wear cycle
helmets correctly. "We have a social responsibility to inform," said
Bennett.


--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
 
On Wed, 02 May 2007 17:49:02 +0100, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote:

>http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/26861/Halfords-back-pedals-over-helmet-law


Not wanting to be too cynical, but they've certainly got it right from
*their* POV.

A mandatory law would cut cycling so they would sell less stuff and this
would be A BAD THING.

But they're still going to 'educate' customers otherwise they might not
buy helmets which would be A BAD THING.

This seems the most pragmatic respose to enable them to sell as much
stuff as possible.

And it has sweeth FA to do with the benefits or otherwise of wearing a
helmet.
 
in message <[email protected]>, Tony Raven
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Bennett said that presenting cycling as an inherently risk activity was
> "a real danger" in itself even though a helmet compulsion law would lead
> to a big increase in helmet sales for Halfords.


It would also lead to a large fall in cycle sales, and I expect there's
more profit in cycles.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn.
;; Jim Morrison
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/26861/Halfords-back-pedals-over-helmet-law
>
> Interesting that they virtually admit their position on helmet
> compulsion was driven by sales not safety.


I hope they will now stop putting those stickers on their 'bikes' which say
"Be Safe, Wear a Helmet".

....and put the forks in the right way round;

....and tighten the handlebars;

....and make sure the brake pads meet the rims;

....and adjusting the gears to work.


John B
 
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/26861/Halfords-back-pedals-over-helmet-law
>
> Halfords is to produce new PoS showing customers how to wear cycle
> helmets correctly. "We have a social responsibility to inform," said
> Bennett.
>

Being agnostic on helmet wearing (but rabidly anti-compulsion) I get
*really* grumpy about helmets worn incorrectly. Education as to how to wear
the things is sorely needed - but not just at the point of sale.
 
On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:32:52 +0100, John B <[email protected]>
wrote:

>...and put the forks in the right way round;


Recently I've twice encountered 'forks the wrong way round'.

I couldn't work it out at first, but the solution was trvial. Turn
the handlebars through 180 degrees, then turn the wheel, forks and
handlebars through 180 degrees. Or just turn the forks and wheel
through 180 degrees, though the former may be easier.
 
Tom Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, 02 May 2007 19:32:52 +0100, John B <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >...and put the forks in the right way round;

>
> Recently I've twice encountered 'forks the wrong way round'.
>
> I couldn't work it out at first, but the solution was trvial. Turn
> the handlebars through 180 degrees, then turn the wheel, forks and
> handlebars through 180 degrees. Or just turn the forks and wheel
> through 180 degrees, though the former may be easier.


Two so far this year also :-(

Its easily fixed but potentially lethal if not.

John B
 
John B wrote on 02/05/2007 20:52 +0100:
>
> Two so far this year also :-(
>
> Its easily fixed but potentially lethal if not.
>
> John B
>


Call in Trading Standards. Selling dangerous goods is slap bang in
their territory.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
 
Mike the unimaginative wrote:
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
>>http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/news/26861/Halfords-back-pedals-over-helmet-law
>>
>>Halfords is to produce new PoS showing customers how to wear cycle
>>helmets correctly. "We have a social responsibility to inform," said
>>Bennett.
>>

>
> Being agnostic on helmet wearing (but rabidly anti-compulsion) I get
> *really* grumpy about helmets worn incorrectly. Education as to how to wear
> the things is sorely needed - but not just at the point of sale.


That was my view whem I particpated in the new highway code "consulation
exercise". I proposed rewording whichever rule it is with:

"If you chhose to wear a helmet, ensure it is the right size and
correctly adjusted according to the manufacture's instructions".

Of course no change in the final wording resulted.

Peter

--
www.amey.org.uk
 
On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:52:55 +0100,
John B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> Recently I've twice encountered 'forks the wrong way round'.
>>

>
> Two so far this year also :-(
>
> Its easily fixed but potentially lethal if not.
>
>

I've never seen it but what exactly is the problem? If it's just the
trail then I thought that only affected the ability to ride no handed.

If it's toe overlap then one of my bikes does that anyway. I've never
had a problem except for very slow manoeuvring. Or is it something else
completely?


Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> John B wrote on 02/05/2007 20:52 +0100:
> >
> > Two so far this year also :-(
> >
> > Its easily fixed but potentially lethal if not.
> >
> > John B
> >

>
> Call in Trading Standards. Selling dangerous goods is slap bang in
> their territory.


This has been done.
I was informed that any complaint really needs to come from the 'aggrieved'
party but that they were very sympathetic and would perhaps 'have quiet
words' with a number of local outlets.

John B
 
Tim Woodall wrote:

> On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:52:55 +0100,
> John B <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Recently I've twice encountered 'forks the wrong way round'.
> >>

> >
> > Two so far this year also :-(
> >
> > Its easily fixed but potentially lethal if not.
> >
> >

> I've never seen it but what exactly is the problem? If it's just the
> trail then I thought that only affected the ability to ride no handed.
>


And one-handed.
For new riders learning to take their hands off in order to be able to
signal confidently this causes great difficulty, just at teh time when most
contrl is needed.

> If it's toe overlap then one of my bikes does that anyway. I've never
> had a problem except for very slow manoeuvring. Or is it something else
> completely?


Toe overlap is OK if you are an experienced rider.
However, for novices who use bikes it can prove to be very dangerous. One of
the bikes with the reversed forks had an overlap of about 3 inches and the
front wheel was nearly brushing the down tube :-(

John B
 
John B wrote on 02/05/2007 22:26 +0100:
>
> Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>> Call in Trading Standards. Selling dangerous goods is slap bang in
>> their territory.

>
> This has been done.
> I was informed that any complaint really needs to come from the 'aggrieved'
> party but that they were very sympathetic and would perhaps 'have quiet
> words' with a number of local outlets.
>


Ask them if they would take the same attitude to e.g. an electric kettle
with a serious wiring fault that could injure/kill someone.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> John B wrote on 02/05/2007 22:26 +0100:
> >
> > Tony Raven wrote:
> >>
> >> Call in Trading Standards. Selling dangerous goods is slap bang in
> >> their territory.

> >
> > This has been done.
> > I was informed that any complaint really needs to come from the 'aggrieved'
> > party but that they were very sympathetic and would perhaps 'have quiet
> > words' with a number of local outlets.
> >

>
> Ask them if they would take the same attitude to e.g. an electric kettle
> with a serious wiring fault that could injure/kill someone.


I think the answer might be the same if it came from a third-party.

John B
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> Halfords is to produce new PoS showing customers how to wear cycle
> helmets correctly.


I'm guessing that they don't intend "PoS" to mean quite the same as it
means to me.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down. Daddy, put that down.
Daddy, why did you put that down?" - Charlie Colyer, age 2
 
On Wed, 02 May 2007 21:05:36 +0100, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote:

>John B wrote on 02/05/2007 20:52 +0100:
>>
>> Two so far this year also :-(
>>
>> Its easily fixed but potentially lethal if not.
>>
>> John B
>>

>
>Call in Trading Standards. Selling dangerous goods is slap bang in
>their territory.


In the two cases I encountered it was not the fault of the retailer. I
find it hard to believe that even Halfords could be that ignorant.

I reckon it's caused by a parent or child adjusting the handlebars, or
trying to adjust the handlebars.
 
John B wrote on 02/05/2007 23:25 +0100:
>
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> John B wrote on 02/05/2007 22:26 +0100:
>>> Tony Raven wrote:
>>>> Call in Trading Standards. Selling dangerous goods is slap bang in
>>>> their territory.
>>> This has been done.
>>> I was informed that any complaint really needs to come from the 'aggrieved'
>>> party but that they were very sympathetic and would perhaps 'have quiet
>>> words' with a number of local outlets.
>>>

>> Ask them if they would take the same attitude to e.g. an electric kettle
>> with a serious wiring fault that could injure/kill someone.

>
> I think the answer might be the same if it came from a third-party.
>


I think if a kettle repair shop owner came in and said "I'm seeing a lot
of kettles coming in for repair sold by X that have some very dangerous
wiring faults in them they would take notice. Its not as if you are a
casual observer walking down the street - it arises from your experience
in a professional capacity. YMMV


--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
 
Danny Colyer wrote on 03/05/2007 00:28 +0100:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Halfords is to produce new PoS showing customers how to wear cycle
>> helmets correctly.

>
> I'm guessing that they don't intend "PoS" to mean quite the same as it
> means to me.
>


:) :)

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell
 
On Thu, 03 May 2007 08:07:10 +0100, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I think if a kettle repair shop owner came in and said "I'm seeing a lot
>of kettles coming in for repair sold by X that have some very dangerous
>wiring faults in them they would take notice. Its not as if you are a
>casual observer walking down the street - it arises from your experience
>in a professional capacity. YMMV


The reversed fork problem is no more than reversed handlebars which
have then been turned the right way round. As the cause and solution
is so simple, I don't believe it is a bike shop issue. I believe it
to be caused by a parent or child fiddling with the handlebar
adjustment and getting it wrong, or by incorrect setup when receiving
a boxed bike by mail order.

In the two cases I have seen, the problem was caused by the latter. In
one case, it was an Islabike set up incorrectly by a child in my
school. Needless to say, the bike never made it from the classroom to
the bike store in that condition.

Another way the problem could occur is after a bike is dropped and the
handlebars have become twisted. The handlebars are then straightened,
but out by 180 degrees to the front wheel and forks.

None of the above are trading standard issues, unless it is a
fundamental design fault that makes it possible for handlebars to be
twisted by 180 degrees. However, I think that it is necessary for
handlebars to be able to twist by such a margin to reduce the
possibility of handlebars piercing a rider's body in the event of a
fall.
 
in message <[email protected]>, Tim Woodall
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:52:55 +0100,
> John B <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Recently I've twice encountered 'forks the wrong way round'.

>>
>> Two so far this year also :-(
>>
>> Its easily fixed but potentially lethal if not.
>>

> I've never seen it but what exactly is the problem?


Steering. Not impossible, but amazingly difficult. I too have dealt with
BSOs which were delivered or assembled like this, with owners which found
them quite impossible to use. I've also seen one bought from Halfords
where one of the V brake posts had been brazed to the fork a full 12mm
higher than the other (the child's father brought it to me saying 'the
brake doesn't work...).

Presumably some droid at Halfords had assembled this, seen it was
defective, and passed it as good to sell.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.