Bike helmets - a rant

[SteveH]

whats the point of smoking a pipe, if you don't inhale?

The taste, dear boy, the taste. It's like sampling a fine wine without swallowing, which is what the connoisseurs do.

[SteveH]

Golly gosh - I do seem to have stirred up something of a hornets' nest with this thread, don't I?

[DB1100]

Golly gosh - I do seem to have stirred up something of a hornets' nest with this thread, don't I?

Have a look at my rant about hi vis vests for walking postman!!

[DGP1]

Helmets - because RM have deemed them as PPE and as such will sack you if you fail to use them, if anything else that should make you wear them.

[SteveH]

Golly gosh - I do seem to have stirred up something of a hornets' nest with this thread, don't I?

Have a look at my rant about hi vis vests for walking postman!!

Will do, but I bet I agree with you in advance. Most of this effin' safety nonsense is really about employers covering their arses against compensation claims. (Er... can I have a link?)

[SteveH]

Helmets - because RM have deemed them as PPE and as such will sack you if you fail to use them, if anything else that should make you wear them.

Yes, but that's the only reason. If I was still a delivery postman, I'd paint "WORN UNDER PROTEST" on either side of my helmet.

[DGP1]

Helmets - because RM have deemed them as PPE and as such will sack you if you fail to use them, if anything else that should make you wear them.

Yes, but that's the only reason. If I was still a delivery postman, I'd paint "WORN UNDER PROTEST" on either side of my helmet.

Can't do that, you'd probably end up on a conduct charge for it

At the end of the day (I'm drunk so excuse the cheesy statement) all we can do is obey the rules that they put out and hope we don't screw up and get sacked.

[Dorset Plodder]

Hemets - An old chestnut. RM says you have to wear it...So I'll wear it! Why give them a chance to Conduct you....Are you just a "Rebel without a Cause"? Find something more Important to fight over.

One thing I will say is several years ago there was an item on TV about a World Class Academic, who lectured at Ox/Bridge. He used to cycle to lectures and had a bad accident that put him into a coma, and they thought he'd be a cabbage for the rest of his life. Luckily he fully recovered and he always starts his lecture with a slide of his damaged brain! He implores any students that have cycled in that morning to start wearing a cycle helmet! There but for the grace of God.....

[Wiggins79]

In my experience, they restrict your view. I've lost count of the times I've nearly knocked myself out walking straight into a hanging basket that I would otherwise have been easily able to see.

You wear yours when on foot?

It might come as a shock, but it's physically impossible to get to every letterbox without getting off the bike, and it would add a further hour every day if I was to take to helmet off 500+ times a day.

[robinhood]

Why are RM and the CWU in cahoots in forcing posties who use bikes to wear a helmet, when it isn't a legal requirement, and why are they suppressing all dissenting voices? I've written more than once to both 'Courier' and 'CWU Voice' criticising this, but no letter has yet been published. I don't expect my letters to appear as of right, but I've never seen a dissenting letter from anyone in either publication, and I'm sure I'm not the only person who objects to it.

Helmets are absolutely useless: they may save your head in an accident, but they make accidents more likely, due to 'risk homeostasis' - the tendency of people who think they are safer because of a particular measure to take more risks. Surveys of helmets actually in use, such as the survey conducted by Mayer Hillman, who is probably Britain's leading expert in traffic issues, as opposed to laboratory tests, have always shown that they make no difference. Indeed, for one category of cyclist - young men in their teens and twenties - risk homeostasis is so marked that they are likely to be at more risk of serious injury wearing a helmet than not. Many bike-using postmen fall into that category: are RM and the CWU happy to be putting many of their employees and members at greater risk of serious injury and death?

Head injuries are actually quite rare in cycling accidents: they only usually happen if the cyclist goes straight over the handlebars in a head-on collision, but when collisions occur, the cyclist is usually able to take at least some avoiding action, and they are usually side-swipes, the cyclist coming off the bike sideways, and injuring the arm and leg on that side, rather than their head.

RM and CWU are fond of giving us anecdotes of posties who were saved from a head injury by their helmet, but the afore-mentioned risk homeostasis phenomenon means that the accident may well not have happened if they'd not been wearing one, and in any case, anecdotal evidence is worthless. However, if we're dealing in anecdotes, here's mine: I've been riding bikes for over 50 years, and since the mid-80s have put in a pretty large annual mileage, a fair amount of it in heavy traffic and on complicated traffic systems (Hemel Hempstead has one of the two 'magic roundabouts' in the country, the other being in Swindon), and I have never suffered a head injury while cycling on roads in all that time. I have only suffered one head injury on a bike ever, and that was when I was about 10, bombing down a steep path - I hit a tree root, went over the handlebars, and split my forehead open. So what? I'm still here to tell the tale! Anyway, we're talking about on-road riding.
Why are cyclists singled out for helmet propaganda? Don't car drivers and passengers and pedestrians ever suffer head injuries? Why not pressure them to wear helmets as well? Cycle helmets for ordinary on-road cycling imply that cycling is a dangerous activity, which it isn't, particularly, and serves to put people off a healthy, eco-friendly, and enjoyable activity. Countries which have made them compulsory have seen a large drop in cycle use, with all the bad health and environmental consequences of that. The only real gainers are the people who make and sell the bloody things, who are no doubt laughing all the way to the bank. I suspect that RM's real reason for this disgraceful rule is legal arse-covering rather than concern for their employees, but why are the CWU going along with it?

Absolute rubbish, should wear helmets and hi vis!!!
People like you set back all th HS gains by workers.

[SteveH]

Well, thanks for the detailed, point-by-point answer.

[muzzy]

Postie in our office has a shark fin on his, like the ones on roofs of new BMW's

I'll reserve judgement on that, each to their own

I'd never worn a cycle helmet before starting the job, I'm not too fussed, I see it as my uniform nothing more or less

[brothermagrew]

Well, thanks for the detailed, point-by-point answer.

Simple answer on why the CWU bought into it, is that both Royal Mail Service Delivery and the CWU recognised the need to improve cycle safety and agreed that the introduction of cycle helmets and high visibility garments where key to meeting those aims by ensuring that those delivering and collecting mail on cycles were firstly more visible to other road users and secondly better protected in the event of an accident.

Therefore since 2003 it has and continues to be an agreed process. Shouldn't have thought that it would cause you to go off on a major rant though SteveH considering that you appear to work indoors, but i respect your right to post your rant.

[DB1100]

SteveH
Here's the ink pal,you will not believe it let me know what you think http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 23&start=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SteveH]

DB - thanks for the link. I agree with most of the comments, that having to wear a hi-viz in broad daylight is bloody silly - and they can be surprisingly hot, so they are a real pain in hot weather. Our managers, being a bunch of jobsworths, insist on us wearing one when and where the rfules say we should, however ridiculous. I suppose it's no big deal, if they want to be tiresome about it, except that they are, as I say, quite hot in summer.
Brothermagrew - have accidents and injuries deceased since then? Bet not!