Helmet ban by delivery firm

[classic33]

I meant that concept that riders feel safer with a helmet - and therefore ride ina more dangerous manner - applies to otehr things

For example - if I wear hi-vis then I could possibly assume that now everyone can see me so I can look around less.

It has been said - by people who know about such things - that introducing seatbelts in cars did change driving behaviour in some people - for the worse
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1564465,00.html

I don't agree with this concept - just to be clear - but I think it is this sort of things that prompted the decision and comment from the company

and it applies to anything that makes the rider feel safer

Safe/risk averse cyclists were in charge of these loads for the company. Inner tubes are the only thing holding the load in place. Imagine a lorry with a similar held load.

A video on their Facebook page shows what some of their safe riders feel about red lights.

A helmet would be way down the list, carrying that sort of load. You do have the chance of cycling in their Aurora Pink Hi-Vis though.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

For example - if I wear hi-vis then I could possibly assume that now everyone can see me so I can look around less.

There is a paper that looked at cycling accidents and hiviz and helmets. Helmeted and hiviz riders do make up a disproportionate number of those admitted to hospital following an accident.

 

[boydj]

Looks to me like the company are taking a pragmatic view on the efficacy of helmets while impressing on the riders the type of riding and company image that they want to convey. Practical, utility cycling should not need helmeted riders - how many cycle helmets do you see in Amsterdam? Cycling is statistically barely more dangerous than walking, after all.

 

[palinurus]

Safe/risk averse cyclists were in charge of these loads for the company. Inner tubes are the only thing holding the load in place. Imagine a lorry with a similar held load.

Not a direct response to the loading but they use inner tubes in part because their own incident logging showed bungees were among the top causes of injuries to riders.

Ah, here we go.....

I'm glad you were glad, but your anecdotal story of joy is meaningless in the helmet dilemma!

To make an additional comment about this- the incident this was in response to seems fairly unlikely to occur to a rider of a long-wheelbase cargo bike with a forward-facing load bed.

 

[Scotchlovingcylist]

I feel I agree with posters here mentioning the company image. Many arguments are made around people seeing a lycra, helmet clad 'cyclist' over 'A person on a bike' and makes me wonder if the company are trying to disassociate with that image considering its often negative associations in the media and general attitudes, hence the 'Helmet wearers take more risks' stance like 'Those lycra clad helmet wearers weaving about traffic being a menace' etc.
Where it stands to reason that company will want to maintain an image I do feel, legalities aside and considerations for employer responsibility for correct ppe etc, its an incredibly unethical stance not that all companies are ethical obviously (another debate ) however, much like the helmet debate, hardhats on building sites are only suggested to reduce severity of incident just as bike helmets often are. They may not save your life if the incident is high risk however imagine a building firm banning hardhats as it makes their trade look more dangerous with tradesmen more likely to be careless in their work due to perceived safety of having a hat on their bonce - I appreciate this comparison is a bit of a stretch and hardhats are a legal requirement whereas helmets aren't however, aims to show where do we draw the line? Should it be up to the company or the individual? Is the severity of a head injury from a vehicle equitable to that of a falling hammer? and should this decision be taken away from an employee due to image?

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

I can agree to it being a company decision
They have a reasonable right to determine employees appearance - but saying that they are NOT ALLOWED to wear a helmet is rather extreme.
could they wear a wolly hat in cold weather - what about a cap with a peak in sunny weather?
The solution is probably to design a company helmet but make it optional.

Or it could be just for publicity????

 

[mjr]

Is the severity of a head injury from a vehicle equitable to that of a falling hammer?

Again, I feel this is ignoring that cycle helmets are designed and tested for falls not collisions. If building site helmets were only for falls not impacts, plus had a reputation for reducing users' caution, there would be a similar logical if difficult-to-make argument against issuing them to people who should not venture into areas where impacts are likely.

 

[newfhouse]

employer responsibility for correct ppe

Cycle helmets are not tested or certified as PPE.

 

[classic33]

I can agree to it being a company decision
They have a reasonable right to determine employees appearance - but saying that they are NOT ALLOWED to wear a helmet is rather extreme.
could they wear a wolly hat in cold weather - what about a cap with a peak in sunny weather?
The solution is probably to design a company helmet but make it optional.

Or it could be just for publicity????

The company provide an Aurora Pink cap, with the company logo on it.

Should you decide to ride for them, you're paid per load(I enquired and got that answer as to how you can earn £37,000 per annum). Which may well explain the abnormal loads carried.

Odd as it sounds, I've never hurt my head falling, that usually happens when the head collides with something.

I think it's a PR stunt as well.