Helmet ban by delivery firm

[Ian H]

I’m not convinced.

I wear a helmet because of idiot road users, not because of how I ride.

They say that other road users drive less carefully around helmet-wearing cyclists. Nonsense! Most risk is posed by drivers not paying attention. If they are not concentrating enough to spot a cyclist they certainly won’t spot a helmet, or lack thereof…

This is the result of fairly extensive research.
And Bicycle Helmets Not Designed For Impacts From Cars, Stresses Leading Maker Giro.

 

[cyberknight]

another PR angle if they employee can wear a helmet will potential customers be put off using the service which affects the potential profit ...............

 

[mjr]

You can prove that point?
Wearing a helmet means you're a "risky rider".

As I understand it, the data is inconclusive on the tiny part of my point that you bolded, but I am confident that surveys would show enough people perceive helmetted riders as greater risk-takers to dent Pedalme's profits.

Taking the motoring analogy: who but a fool would trust anything valuable to a taxi or courier van driven by Top Gear's Stig? I bet loads of motor transport firms have rules prohibiting wearing racing helmets while driving. Where's the outrage over them?

 

[Cerdic]

This is the result of fairly extensive research.
And Bicycle Helmets Not Designed For Impacts From Cars, Stresses Leading Maker Giro.

They may not be designed for cars, but when my head contacted the rear window of a Renault a few years ago I was glad I was wearing one!

 

[RoubaixCube]

another PR angle if they employee can wear a helmet will potential customers be put off using the service which affects the potential profit ...............

I would think they are unlikely to care so long as the service is steady and reliable.

 

[I like Skol]

They may not be designed for cars, but when my head contacted the rear window of a Renault a few years ago I was glad I was wearing one!

Ah, here we go.....

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

I also had a nasty RTV while cycling a few years ago. It resulted in me suffering a broken neck and fractured skull. I was mobile and giving accurate factual data immediately after the crash (name, address, contact telephone numbers, etc. Although I don't remember this). I walked out of hospital 3 days later having in the meantime proven to medical staff that I could dress myself, toilet and shower unaided. I have since made a near full recovery (as near as can be expected for a mid-late 40yr old being catapulted down the road at speed ). I WASN'T WEARING A HELMET. So the conclusion is that helmet use is unnecessary?

This is the problem with any debate regarding cycle helmets. Where are the numbers? Where are the statistics?
I want facts, not anecdotes or psuedo science. I want to know that helmet wearers are X% more/less likely to suffer cycling injuries requiring hospitalisation or resulting in life changing injuries? I want to know do cycling helmets make me safer?

If somebody, anybody, can give me those figures and they can withstand reasoned scrutiny, and the conclusion is that on the whole wearing a helmet is beneficial, then I will wear a helmet.
At the moment, I do not wear one because the total sum of the compulsion to wear one so far appears to add up to "Wearing a helmet is sensible, it's obvious innit?"

 

[classic33]

As I understand it, the data is inconclusive on the tiny part of my point that you bolded, but I am confident that surveys would show enough people perceive helmetted riders as greater risk-takers to dent Pedalme's profits.

Taking the motoring analogy: who but a fool would trust anything valuable to a taxi or courier van driven by Top Gear's Stig? I bet loads of motor transport firms have rules prohibiting wearing racing helmets while driving. Where's the outrage over them?

Do you see many drivers, let alone delivery drivers, wearing helmets as a rule? There's likely to be a uniform that's worn as well, whilst driving, ruling out your far fetched comparison.

Cyclists on the other hand, are more likely to be seen wearing cycling clothing/equipment as a general rule on an everyday basis while cycling.
That tiny point of your post I bolded is the bit I want proof for, from you. You made that claim that cyclists who wear a helmet are "risky riders". Please back that claim up, or withdraw it.

I quoted your whole post, highlighting the piece I was questioning. As opposed to removing all but that piece to avoid any claim of rewording what had been posted.

 

[Chap sur le velo]

It might be PR but it's not BS... I'd never heard of Pedal Me before yesterday, and what is it they say about all publicity?

Effective it is, but that doesn't change my opinion its B!(avoiding the software catch). You are taking the position that what "seems" to them is not a 'rubbish' argument?

 

[Fredo76]

Egghead speculation, in many dimensions. I have enough of a problem being told that I have to wear a helmet, and can hardly imagine being ordered not to. The speculating egghead who came up with this policy needs a fat lip, IMO. I agree that the free PR angle may be an explanation.

 

[mjr]

Do you see many drivers, let alone delivery drivers, wearing helmets as a rule? There's likely to be a uniform that's worn as well, whilst driving, ruling out your far fetched comparison.

No, you don't see many drivers wearing helmets, because restricting one's vision and hearing while using the road is obviously daft, maybe enough to be done for careless driving.

Cyclists on the other hand, are more likely to be seen wearing cycling clothing/equipment as a general rule on an everyday basis while cycling.

More likely than a vanishingly small and probably illegal action, but still less likely than not, despite the massive boneheaded societal pressure to do it.

That tiny point of your post I bolded is the bit I want proof for, from you. You made that claim that cyclists who wear a helmet are "risky riders". Please back that claim up, or withdraw it.

No, I claimed that there is an image of helmet users being risky riders. I do not have to back up a different claim I never made, but you might like to consider https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_Risk_Taking_and_Sensation_Seeking_in_Adults anyway.

I quoted your whole post, highlighting the piece I was questioning. As opposed to removing all but that piece to avoid any claim of rewording what had been posted.

You bolded and challenged a subphrase which has a different meaning in isolation, which is pretty much the same effect.

 

[classic33]

No, you don't see many drivers wearing helmets, because restricting one's vision and hearing while using the road is obviously daft, maybe enough to be done for careless driving.


More likely than a vanishingly small and probably illegal action, but still less likely than not, despite the massive boneheaded societal pressure to do it.


No, I claimed that there is an image of helmet users being risky riders*. I do not have to back up a different claim I never made, but you might like to consider https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_Risk_Taking_and_Sensation_Seeking_in_Adults anyway.


You bolded and challenged a subphrase which has a different meaning in isolation, which is pretty much the same effect.

What pumping balloons up, so that they'll burst, has to do with cycling helmet or not is beyond me.

I questioned one part of your statement and you cannot answer or back up your claim. You introduce balloon bursting as proof instead.

The company themselves were challenged over a week ago, about the "materials" used to draw their conclusion. To date they've yet to supply any kind of answer.


*"image of risky riders who need protective headgear".

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

If wearing a helmet increases risk taking behaviour then surely other safety equipment has this problems as well

I therefore presume this company bans them from using lights (except when legally required - I presume) and high-vis.
I also presume they paint their bike a nice matt black with no reflective bits - again except when legally required.

and their uniform - if there is one - should also comply

really strange concept

 

[mjr]

If wearing a helmet increases risk taking behaviour then surely other safety equipment has this problems as well

Why surely? None of the other items you mention are as intrusive and noticeable for the rider.

But I still think it's more the image it projects than whether it is.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Why surely? None of the other items you mention are as intrusive and noticeable for the rider.

But I still think it's more the image it projects than whether it is.

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

 

[icowden]

This is the result of fairly extensive research.
And Bicycle Helmets Not Designed For Impacts From Cars, Stresses Leading Maker Giro.

Going back over the data from a small study in 2007 in Australia.