Posties' Helmets

Some interesting points in the following article. Carol Thain may not be wrong when she says that a
helmet would reduce injuries in low impact collisions but does it necessarily follow that, "In most
cases of head impact it would provide significant protection to the wearer"? It's the word
'significant' that troubles me. Assuming that most instances of head impact are of the low impact
variety is there a need for 'significant protection'? I assume that most injuries caused in low
impact collisions are insignificant. Saying that a helmet can provide 'significant protection'
implies that it protects in situations for which it isn't designed, doesn't it?

Also, if you're really interested in safety, why have a dark blue helmet with black stripes? Hardly
makes it more visible, does it?

Safety first for cycling Posties by Billy Youngson, The Buchan Observer, 10/04/03

http://www.buchanie.co.uk/archived/2003/Week_015/news/cycle.asp

CYCLING Peterhead posties were some of the first in country to try out new mandatory safety helmets.
Royal Mail has issued all 37,000 Royal Mail staff who do their rounds on their bike with the new
helmets and high-visibility clothing. It has been brought in after extensive tests to find ways of
making Britain's posties safer. At the beginning of last year, Royal Mail looked at different
colours, fit, style, comfort and usability for the uniform. Royal Mail spokeswoman Carol Thain said:
"Research undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory concluded that the routine wearing of
cycle helmets would reduce injuries in low impact collisions. "In most cases of head impact it would
provide significant protection to the wearer." Further research analysing the causes of road traffic
accidents involving cyclists showed that in many cases the motorist did not see the cyclist. Mrs
Thain said: "Therefore the wearing of high visibility garments introduces measures to reduce the
risk of collision." She added: "Royal Mail has the largest cycle fleet in the country and the safety
of our cyclists is absolutely paramount." June McMahon, Acting Manager at Peterhead Delivery Office
said: "Staff at Peterhead are very enthusiastic about wearing the cycle helmets and look forward to
doing their duties in a safer environment." Individuals will receive a pack which consists of a top
quality adjustable helmet with an integral set of pads, a spare set of pads, a hat for use with the
helmet in cold weather and a waterproof cap to be worn over the top of the helmet in wet weather.
Each helmet will have discrete branding and serve mainly to positively identify ownership in case of
loss. The helmet itself is dark blue with black stripes.
--
Michael MacClancy

 

>head impact are of the low impact variety is there a need for 'significant protection'? I assume
>that most injuries caused in low impact collisions are insignificant.

Well - personal anecdote here - both t'other half & I have had "impacts" where we both feel that the
helmet stopped the impact transferring to our bonces, which damaged the helmets and didn't damage
our bonces. One of the reasons we both wear helmets when cycling. Before we get accused of being
rabid pro-helmet types ;-) if you want to wear one, wear one and if you don't that's your choice.
Also - anecdotal and not purely statistical, which of course, could trnaslate to lies, damn lies,
and statistics ;-)

>Saying that a helmet can provide 'significant protection' implies that it protects in situations
>for which it isn't designed, doesn't it?

Not to me it doesn't

I do not know of anyone who wears a helmet who thinks of it as some sort of total defense device
where the wearer immediately becomes immune to any cycling "accident" or will be saved by the helmet
if they happen to go under the wheels of an HGV. What a helmet does, IMO, if offer some protection
against some potential injuries to the head. It will not protect my arms, my knees, my feet etc.,
etc.. Wearing of a helmet is just part of the toolkit a cyclist has to aid personal safety, along
with high viz/reflective clothing, lights, defensive/assertive cycling etc.

>Also, if you're really interested in safety, why have a dark blue helmet with black stripes? Hardly
>makes it more visible, does it?

I completely agree here. The dark colour does nothing to increase visibility.

I have seen cycling posties in my neck of the woods wearing bright red PO helmets and also
non-uniform yellow helmets, as well as those who wear no helmet.

Cheers, helen s

~~~~~~~~~~
Flush out that intestinal parasite and/or the waste product before sending a reply!

Any speeliong mistake$ aR the resiult of my cats sitting on the keyboaRRRDdd
~~~~~~~~~~

 

In message <[email protected]>, wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter
<[email protected]> writes

>>Saying that a helmet can provide 'significant protection' implies that it protects in situations
>>for which it isn't designed, doesn't it?
>
>Not to me it doesn't

Not to me either, but then I've been following endless helmet threads for some time so I, like you,
probably know much more about this topic than the average reader of the Buchan newspaper. My concern
is about the impression being created in the minds of non- or occasional cyclists that cycling is
such a dangerous activity that 'significant protection' is necessary and that helmets provide it.

I have to admit that my view about this has changed significantly since joining this NG, thanks to
the expert guidance of David Damerell and others. I still wear my helmet but it's more to do with
keeping my head warm and avoiding any minor discomfort caused by low impact collisions than a belief
that it would save my life!
--
Michael MacClancy

 

wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter wrote:

> Well - personal anecdote here - both t'other half & I have had "impacts" where we both feel that
> the helmet stopped the impact transferring to our bonces, which damaged the helmets and didn't
> damage our bonces. One of the reasons we both wear helmets when cycling.

Same here, but OTOH I've had "impacts" in pedestrian mode and XC skiing where I got a rather
unpleasant rap on the head which would've been eaten by a helmet quite happily, but that isn't of
itself enough to make me want to wear one as a ped or XC skier (or indeed as a touring cyclist on
a nice day). Comfortable though modern helmets are compared to the original canonballs, they're
not as comfortable as not wearing them. For comfort consideration you have to weigh "might help a
fair bit in an accident" against "will definitely hinder a little if I'm not in an accident".
Tough call IME...

>>Saying that a helmet can provide 'significant protection' implies that it protects in situations
>>for which it isn't designed, doesn't it?
>
> Not to me it doesn't

Ah, but you're rather better informed on the matter than Mr. and Mrs. J Public who may be reading
the article and concluding that they'd be mad to go cycling without a helmet (and from that they may
infer mad to go cycling, period, as it's "obviously" dangerous). That *is* a common public
perception now, and it's not really backed up by the numbers.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[email protected] (wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter) wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Before we get accused of being rabid pro-helmet types ;-) if you want to wear one, wear one and
> if you don't that's your choice.

Fair enough, but the article says "CYCLING Peterhead posties were some of the first in country to
try out new _mandatory_ safety helmets."

So posties won't get the choice the rest of us cyclists have.

Toby

--
Remove spamtrap to reply by mail

 

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Ah, but you're rather better informed on the matter than Mr. and Mrs. J Public who may be reading
> the article and concluding that they'd be mad to go cycling without a helmet (and from that they
> may infer mad to go cycling, period, as it's "obviously" dangerous). That *is* a common public
> perception now, and it's not really backed up by the numbers.

Plus, how long will it be before some poor Postie is dismissed for not wearing the 'appropriate'
safety equipment or finds him/herself (or their family) denied proper compensation because they were
not wearing the safety equipment provided even though the injury may be nowhere near their head or
of a severity that the helmet would have had little or no effect?

Mi'lud, Pat was just gently tapped by my client's juggernaut and lightly squeezed under its wheels.
No fault attaches in anyway to my client who was proceeding at a safe speed along the highway with
his brain fully engaged by his Yorkie bar, Mi'lud. But, Mi'lud, the family of the late Pat must
accept the accident was entirely his own fault as he was cycling in a road without the proper safety
equipment (viz one GPO standard safety 'elmet) while wearing a regulation Romulan Cloaking Device.
The fact that the only part of his body not squashed flat during this regrettable incident was is
head is, of course, entirely irrelevant.

This seems a further victory of the woolly minded in their unholy alliance with the H&S Nazis.

T

 

wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter <[email protected]> wrote:

> I do not know of anyone who wears a helmet who thinks of it as some sort of total defense device
> where the wearer immediately becomes immune to any cycling "accident" or will be saved by the
> helmet if they happen to go under the wheels of an HGV.

True, but I know lots of people that don't wear them, but want others to wear them, that think much
of the above.

-- Marc Tabards, banners and signs for fundraising events and charities
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/

 

Toby Barrett <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Before we get accused of being rabid pro-helmet types ;-) if you want to wear one, wear one and
> > if you don't that's your choice.
>
> Fair enough, but the article says "CYCLING Peterhead posties were some of the first in country to
> try out new _mandatory_ safety helmets."
>
> So posties won't get the choice the rest of us cyclists have.

And this will be the thin edge of a very thick wedge.

At the moment it is not illegal to ride without a helmet, unless you are riding as part of your
employment and your employer has decided that a cycle helmet is part of your "personal safety
equipment". When that happens if you don't wear your helmet it is a breach of the law and your
employer can be fined or you could be dismissed. Once one large comapny has decided that helmets are
"personal safety equipment" then the quais legal powers that the H&SE inspectors have and their huge
lattitude for personal interpretation may well force other employers to decide that a cycle helmet
is part of your "personal safety equipment". Then when it becomes the norm in work for people to be
compelled to wear helmets it doesn't take long for urban myths to start "It's illegal not to wear a
helmet" , followed by large scale wearing and subsequent reduced insurance payouts because a non
helmet wearer wasn't conforming to the norsm of society. One this stage has happened then the
goverment will brign in legislation to " Meet current practice" :-(

--
Marc Tabards, banners and signs for fundraising events and charities
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/

 

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 08:52:10 +0100, Michael MacClancy scrawled: ) Royal Mail has issued all
37,000 Royal Mail staff who do their rounds on ) their bike with the new helmets and
high-visibility clothing.

Are they likely to stop them from: cycling on pavements, cycling on the wrong side of the road,
running red lights, or cycling across pedestrian crossings? Might they also stop the Royal Mail vans
from: straddling pavements, obstructing traffic, blocking cycle lanes, or parking on double-yellow
lines for long periods with their magical illegal-parking lights flashing?

Given their already high visibility, Royal Mail employees are one of the worst advocate for road
safety. Are helmets going to make them behave like responsible human beings all of a sudden?

J-P
--
Where did they get my name? It's always just the same junk mail, junk mail I think I'll
change address

 

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:56:42 +0100, marc scrawled: )> Fair enough, but the article says "CYCLING
Peterhead posties were some of )> the first in country to try out new _mandatory_ safety helmets."
)> )> So posties won't get the choice the rest of us cyclists have. ) ) And this will be the thin
edge of a very thick wedge.

Yes. Next they will have mandatory postman's trousers, and then where will we be? Stalin's theme
park, that's where.

Will we all have to wear mandatory postman's trousers?

J-P
--
"From the point of view of a villager in Afghanistan whose family has died in a bombing raid, a
villager who has probably never heard of the World Trade Centre, the distinctions between what the
US forces are doing and what was done on 11 September will be academic. "

 

Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote: [Mandatory helmets for postmen]
>Also, if you're really interested in safety, why have a dark blue helmet with black stripes? Hardly
>makes it more visible, does it?

If they were really interested in safety they would make more regular checks of brakes on postmen's
bikes (I often see postmen with inadequately functioning brakes); equip them with breakaway front
mudguard stays to reduce the likelihood of a free flying lesson if something fouls the front
mudguard; issue second taillights to postmen who ride in the dark (since the failure of one
taillight, unlike a headlight, is not obvious to the rider); and suchlike measures. But it's easier
to spend money on a popular panacea - and better PR, being more obvious to the man in the street
than well-adjusted brakes, etc.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

> Royal Mail spokeswoman Carol Thain said: "Research undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory
> concluded that the routine wearing of cycle helmets would reduce injuries in low impact
> collisions.

One of the most interesting things about this research is that the Royal Mail wouldn't allow it to
be published! Anyone else smell a very large rat?

> "In most cases of head impact it would provide significant protection to the wearer."

Not supported by any robust research, which at best shows no effect, and at worst shows reduction in
protection. Could this be the first case of an employer insisting that employees behave more
dangerously? and will they withdraw the helmets when it's shown that they didn't work? Of course
they wouldn't possibly claim that any reduction in actual collisions, caused by the hi-vis clothing,
and subsequent reduction in injuries/deaths was due to the helmets would they?

Cheers

Rich

 

While stranded on the hard shoulder of the information super highway
[email protected] typed:
> [email protected] (wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Before we get accused of being rabid pro-helmet types ;-) if you want to wear one, wear one and
>> if you don't that's your choice.
>
> Fair enough, but the article says "CYCLING Peterhead posties were some of the first in country to
> try out new _mandatory_ safety helmets."
>
> So posties won't get the choice the rest of us cyclists have.

Think yourself lucky that you don't live in Australia, where cyclists have to wear helmets, but
posties don't. They managaed to get a special dispensation, because they are in the sun for hours on
end, and thus they can wear their Akubra (cowboy style hat). I would not be at all surprized if
someday legislation is introduced in the UK to oblige cyclists to wear helmets. I sincerely hope
that it is not introduced.

--
Trog Woolley | trog at trog hyphen oz dot demon dot co dot uk (A Croweater back residing in Pommie
Land with Linux) Isis Astarte Diana Hecate Demeter Kali Inanna

 

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:20:45 +0100, Tony W <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Mi'lud, Pat was just gently tapped by my client's juggernaut and lightly squeezed under its
> wheels. No fault attaches in anyway to my client who was proceeding at a safe speed along the
> highway with his brain fully engaged by his Yorkie bar, Mi'lud. But, Mi'lud, the family of the
> late Pat must accept the accident was entirely his own fault as he was cycling in a road without
> the proper safety equipment (viz one GPO standard safety 'elmet) while wearing a regulation
> Romulan Cloaking Device. The fact that the only part of his body not squashed flat during this
> regrettable incident was is head is, of course, entirely irrelevant.

We had a case locally several years ago where a woman was standing holding her bike on the pavement.
A motorist changing the tape in his player dropped tape, so reached down (with his head in the
footwell) to pick it up. He mounted the kerb, ploughed straight into the woman who was dead at the
scene from massive internal injuries. The motorist expressed remorse, and got away with barely any
penalty. Some official in the process (I don't recall who - coroner, magistrate, someone) stated
that this incident just went to show how important it was for cyclists to wear helmets.

So it's already happened.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

Thus spake Ian Smith <[email protected]>

> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 10:20:45 +0100, Tony W <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Mi'lud, Pat was just gently tapped by my client's juggernaut and lightly squeezed under its
> > wheels. No fault attaches in anyway to my client who was proceeding at a safe speed along the
> > highway with his brain fully engaged by his Yorkie bar, Mi'lud. But, Mi'lud, the family of the
> > late Pat must accept the accident was entirely his own fault as he was cycling in a road
> > without the proper safety equipment (viz one GPO standard safety 'elmet) while wearing a
> > regulation Romulan Cloaking Device. The fact that the only part of his body not squashed flat
> > during this regrettable incident was is head is, of course, entirely irrelevant.

> We had a case locally several years ago where a woman was standing holding her bike on the
> pavement. A motorist changing the tape in his player dropped tape, so reached down (with his head
> in the footwell) to pick it up. He mounted the kerb, ploughed straight into the woman who was dead
> at the scene from massive internal injuries. The motorist expressed remorse, and got away with
> barely any penalty. Some official in the process (I don't recall who - coroner, magistrate,
> someone) stated that this incident just went to show how important it was for cyclists to wear
> helmets.

Then there was the postie in Poole a few years ago who died of an isolated head injury after
colliding with a car door that was opened into his path.

I think comments were made at the time about wearing helmets.

None were made about the need to check before opening doors :-(

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

 

On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 10:13:52 +0100, Helen Deborah Vecht <[email protected]> wrote:

>None were made about the need to check before opening doors :-(
>

A couple of days ago I had a car door opened on me. There was no danger as no traffic was coming
towards me, and as I'd just looked over my shoulder knew I was safe in veering to my right slightly.

Anyway, I said a sarcastic but reasonably cheery "Thank You!" and was met with a "F****** c*** of a
cyclist." I stopped. The obese, middle-aged driver got back in his car. I heard the clunk of central
locking. I never knew I looked so frightening. Grrr...

Oh well.

James

--
A credit limit is NOT a target.

 

On 10 Apr 2003 08:22:27 GMT, contributor Wafflycathcsdirtycatlitter had scribed:
> Well - personal anecdote here - both t'other half & I have had "impacts" where we both feel that
> the helmet stopped the impact transferring to our bonces, which damaged the helmets and didn't
> damage our bonces. One of the reasons we both wear helmets when cycling. Before we get accused of
> being rabid pro-helmet types ;-) if you want to wear one, wear one and if you don't that's your
> choice. Also - anecdotal and not purely statistical, which of course, could trnaslate to lies,
> damn lies, and statistics ;-)
>

Sorry Cath, the counter personal anecdote - I've had two bonce bangs and a further incident as a
result of involuntary separation of myself from a moving bicycle, the first required two stitches
while the second resulted in a huge sympathy attracting egg-shaped bruise on my forehead together
with rearranged skin on my knees. The other incident resulted a sore wrist. The latter two incidents
also involved a moving motor vehicle, the egg-head occasion was a hit'n'run while the wrist was a
'side on' from a side road. Do I wear a lid? - Ask my friends!

Gary

--

The email address is for newsgroups purposes only and therefore unlikely to be read.

For contact via email use my real name with an underscore separator at the domain of CompuServe.