Cycle safety..... a holistic approach?

[ufkacbln]

On one of the helmet threads, training and bike maintenance has been excluded as an alternative to helmet use in reducing risk to cyclists.

Riding a bike is a complex task, and wearing a helmet may reduce injury, but is it really bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Preventing accidents is a basic ethos of any activity with protective euipment as a last, not first resort?

My personal feeling is that riding a well maintained bike in a responsible manner has an equal if not greater contribution to cyclist safety as helmets.

A holistic approach in which training, experience, a safe and well maintained bike are as (if not more) important.

What is the panel's opinion. Should we be looking at reducing risk by a single intervention such as helmets or a holistic approach to reducing risk altogether?

 

[tigger]

I think an holistic approach makes complete sense. The problem will be making sure this holistic knowledge is passed on to all cyclists, new and old - i.e. are shops/retailers up to the job, government, british cycling? Which body can do this? How do we do this without introducing elements of compulsion - i.e. if we accept learning/knowledge needs to be passed on, is this a step away from assessment and licensing? This is an aside point for now.

By holistic, I'm assuming you mean when everything valid is taken in to consideration? So teaching people how to maintain their bikes, teaching them road sense from a cyclists perspective, teaching them about handling / breaking, teaching them out fitness etc... would be parts of the whole holistic approach??? So these are part of the accident prevention modules of the holistic approach if you like? But if we are going to be truly holistic, we also have to accept that accidents will happen regardless of training and maintainance... i.e. puncture / act of third party. So therefore safety equipment would also need to be considered as part of this holistic approach.

I guess what I'm saying is, an holistic approach includes discussion on helmets, it doesn't replace it.

 

[Norm]

But if we are going to be truly holistic, we also have to accept that accidents will happen regardless of training and maintainance... i.e. puncture / act of third party.

Whilst I agree with the sentiments, I think you are both being a tad blinkered and a true "holistic" approach would include training of the third parties too.

I see nothing in either of your posts about addressing the misunderstandings and misconceptions of some of those who don't venture onto the roads without their safety cages.

 

[Red Light]

The hierarchy in the health and safety field is:

• Address the source of the risk and minimise it. Only then consider
• Training the people at risk so they minimise the risk to themselves
• Where risk mitigation and training are insufficient to make the risk acceptable consider personal protective equipment

The big difference of course though is that you would design the PPE to protect against the risk. What the helmet industry and its campaigners have done is offered oven gloves to steel foundry workers as the onlyl response.

So you get instances like Troy Parker. His parents were quite happy to let him go out on his BMX bike with no functioning brakes which resulted in him riding into the road where the pavement ended without stopping. He was hit and killed by a car. The coroner's report said nothing about helmets (he wasn't wearing one) but did say:

"The consequences at not getting round to routine maintenance can, and in this case were, tragic and fatal."

Troy Parker became a poster child for the attempts for a mandatory helmet law six years ago with his mother claiming that if only he had worn a helmet she would still have her son (a medic telling her a helmet would have saved his life) and that helmet wearing should be made compulsory. Not a mention by her or in the campaign of bike maintenance and the importance of having working brakes which was completely subsumed in the ambition to make helmets compulstory.

And that is one of the big problems with helmets. They dominate the safety debate and squeeze out debate about things that might make a real difference.

 

[lukesdad]

Too much focus is concentrated on helmets at the end of the day people make up their own minds.

Training in all aspects involved in the world of cycling is far more important IMO.

The trouble is, we will never be able to agree on the best way to do it.

I have allways found the best way to be mentoring in a social enviroment, and I believe firmly that clubs and groups to be invaluable in this respect.

 

[lukesdad]

Whilst I agree with the sentiments, I think you are both being a tad blinkered and a true "holistic" approach would include training of the third parties too.

I see nothing in either of your posts about addressing the misunderstandings and misconceptions of some of those who don't venture onto the roads without their safety cages.

Thats not going to happen soon Norm, not while car is king. The general thinking Ive found amongst motorists including close friends is "its their choice they know the risks".

Ive allways ridden with this in mind. Thats the way it is and like I said its not going to change soon. I think most people here appreciate that fact.

 

[Red Light]

Thats not going to happen soon Norm, not while car is king. The general thinking Ive found amongst motorists including close friends is "its their choice they know the risks".

I think that is starting to change slowly. City wide 20mph limits are being seriously discussed in both London and Cambridge for example.

 

[tigger]

Norm - you're right, I was merely addressing the basics and current touch points. Holistic is massive and covers EVERYTHING. We'd all still be typing the same post next week if we want to cover it all.

I do actually think we may start to see more ads directed at motorists re cycle awareness. Cycling seems to be of key interest to the powers that be, as we know it fits the green agenda, so I expect this will be addressed at some point as/if their plan to replace car journeys with bicycles starts to take fruition.

Whilst I agree with the sentiments, I think you are both being a tad blinkered and a true "holistic" approach would include training of the third parties too.

I see nothing in either of your posts about addressing the misunderstandings and misconceptions of some of those who don't venture onto the roads without their safety cages.

 

[lukesdad]

I think that is starting to change slowly. City wide 20mph limits are being seriously discussed in both London and Cambridge for example.

I may not have made myself clear. It s the mentality of motroists i was reffering to.

 

[tigger]

+ 1

Too much focus is concentrated on helmets at the end of the day people make up their own minds.

Training in all aspects involved in the world of cycling is far more important IMO.

The trouble is, we will never be able to agree on the best way to do it.

I have allways found the best way to be mentoring in a social enviroment, and I believe firmly that clubs and groups to be invaluable in this respect.

 

[Norm]

Thats not going to happen soon Norm, not while car is king. The general thinking Ive found amongst motorists including close friends is "its their choice they know the risks".

Ive allways ridden with this in mind. Thats the way it is and like I said its not going to change soon. I think most people here appreciate that fact.

As I said, I'm not disagreeing with the suggestions made or that it will take a long time.

I think a truly "holistic" approach needs to ensure that "everything valid is taken in to consideration". By not addressing what I think Red Light calls the "source of the risk", I think we are discounting a large element of everything valid. That is all.

 

[david k]

ppe is always the last resort redlight as you have stated in your H&S reference
yes, other aspects of safety should be addressed
however, this in itself doesnt mean helmets should be ignored

 

[tigger]

Agree with all that. I'd also add that despite helmets dominating the safety agenda on this forum, it doesn't seem to have been discussed rationally or well at all. Instead its a hot bed of emotion centred around compulsion and therefore finding ways to undermine any validity of helmets whatsoever.

All that seems to have been covered in pages anf pages of debate about helmets is wanting a choice and therefore arguing the toss against helmets anyway we can.

Hence the intention of my new thread - I want to hear the positive reasoning behind why people don't want to wear helmets. Not the negative undermining of helmets per se.

Its subtle - but hopefully people understand the difference.

Also, the discussion of each facet needs to be made in isolation BEFORE you can discuss how they fit into the whole. Therefore, threads need to be tight, chaired and kept on track. In the same way as a sensible committee would chair an inquiry.

Sadly forums are not the best place for this - the written word is easy to misconstrue with tone etc. By its nature it seems inflammatory - people love to have a go - the safety of the keyboard allows this.

So its probably all very pointless

The hierarchy in the health and safety field is:

• Address the source of the risk and minimise it. Only then consider
• Training the people at risk so they minimise the risk to themselves
• Where risk mitigation and training are insufficient to make the risk acceptable consider personal protective equipment

The big difference of course though is that you would design the PPE to protect against the risk. What the helmet industry and its campaigners have done is offered oven gloves to steel foundry workers as the onlyl response.

So you get instances like Troy Parker. His parents were quite happy to let him go out on his BMX bike with no functioning brakes which resulted in him riding into the road where the pavement ended without stopping. He was hit and killed by a car. The coroner's report said nothing about helmets (he wasn't wearing one) but did say:

"The consequences at not getting round to routine maintenance can, and in this case were, tragic and fatal."

Troy Parker became a poster child for the attempts for a mandatory helmet law six years ago with his mother claiming that if only he had worn a helmet she would still have her son (a medic telling her a helmet would have saved his life) and that helmet wearing should be made compulsory. Not a mention by her or in the campaign of bike maintenance and the importance of having working brakes which was completely subsumed in the ambition to make helmets compulstory.

And that is one of the big problems with helmets. They dominate the safety debate and squeeze out debate about things that might make a real difference.

 

[Red Light]

Hence the intention of my new thread - I want to hear the positive reasoning behind why people don't want to wear helmets. Not the negative undermining of helmets per se.

Its subtle - but hopefully people understand the difference.

Oh, that game. Let see.

I say

Wind in my hair
Less sweaty
More comfortable
Don't need to spend money on one
Don't need to find somewhere to keep it
Don't need to carry it around with me
Don't have to spend time washing sweat out of the pads and straps.
Don't trap bees and wasps through the vents
etc etc

You say

But those aren't really that much of problem considering the benefits

I say

What are the benefits

You say

Protection for your head

Segway to traditional argument on helmet benefits.

Right, done that, next?

 

[ufkacbln]

Whilst I agree with the sentiments, I think you are both being a tad blinkered and a true "holistic" approach would include training of the third parties too.

I see nothing in either of your posts about addressing the misunderstandings and misconceptions of some of those who don't venture onto the roads without their safety cages.

I agree fully, but as there is a tendency in these debates to refuse to discuss anything outside basic cycling I wanted someone else to raise it.

Meier Hillman many years ago expressed concern over the way helmets were stifling the debate over cyclist safety.

His conjecture was that if only the energy, evangelism, expense and time spent on helmets was spent on training road users of all types the benefit to cyclists would be far greater than promoting helmets