Bike helmets - a rant

[SteveH]

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?

[alhothi]

Totally agree it should be up to the individual, i find them very uncomfortable, make you feel too hot.

[AnotherLimey]

It took me a while to get used to wearing one, mainly vanity, but there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that you are safer wearing one than not, if you feel you can take more risks just because you are wearing one more the fool you, some of you need a trip to A&E to see the result of head truma i think

And reading your years of safe riding without an accident, are you the same bloke that has smoked 40 a day without lung cancer so smoking is harmless too? laughable

[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. I understand the need to wear one on a main road, but surely common sense dictates cycling betwen houses isn't going to result in a high speed collision where your head gets cracked open.
And I agree, they do make your head hot especially in the summer. Also, when it is chucking it down, you can't get the coat hood up and over it, meaning the back of your head and neck get drenched.
And don't get me started on my receding hairline- I wish I could prove the helmet is causing me to go bald down the middle, then I'd be straight to a no win no fee lawyer to sue RM.

[AnotherLimey]

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?

[SteveH]

It took me a while to get used to wearing one, mainly vanity, but there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that you are safer wearing one than not, if you feel you can take more risks just because you are wearing one more the fool you, some of you need a trip to A&E to see the result of head truma i think

And reading your years of safe riding without an accident, are you the same bloke that has smoked 40 a day without lung cancer so smoking is harmless too? laughable

Well, I did say that anecdotes prove nothing. However, while hard statistics prove beyond any reasonable doubt that cigarette smoking is harmful to your health, and increases your chance of dying young very considerably*, such statistics as there are strongly suggest that helmet-wearing makes no significant difference.
Anyway, my main beef is about compulsion. If you choose to wear a helmet, that's entirely up to you, as long as you don't think it makes a significant difference to your safety, because it doesn't, and if RM encouraged delivery posties to wear one, and even provided them free, I'd have no argument with that either. (Well, not much of one, anyway.) It's making them compulsory that I think is outrageous.

*Confession - I'm a pipe-smoker. However, pipe-smoking isn't very harmful, as long as you don't inhale, which I don't, and I gave up cigs decades ago.

[AnotherLimey]

Look lets be honest here, wearing a helmet is safer than not wearing one, simple!

[AnotherLimey]

I'll just add for the record that if ONE postie is saved from death through having to wear a helmet it's worth everyones problem with doing so, and if you think our union should say no to save your blushes you are mistaken what a union is about IMO

[fishtank]

I'll just add for the record that if ONE postie is saved from death through having to wear a helmet it's worth everyones problem with doing so, and if you think our union should say no to save your blushes you are mistaken what a union is about IMO

I won't get into a debate on the pros and cons of wearing one.
They are mandatory...that's where my interest ends,but i do have a slight issue with the "if it saves ONE life" culture that we seem to be living in.
Since pedestrians are involved in far more accidents than cyclists......
Where is the cry for pedestrian helmets?

[SteveH]

Look lets be honest here, wearing a helmet is safer than not wearing one, simple!

NO IT ISN'T! Did you read any of my first post? All the statistics show that they make bugger-all difference, and in the case of young men in their late teens and twenties, like a lot of cycling posties, may even make cycling more dangerous! I know it's counter-intuitive, but I explained why it's so. Anyway, I repeat AGAIN that my quarrel is with compulsion. If some posties want to stick something that looks like a psychedelic toadstool on their heads, that's their business, but they shouldn't be made to, when the law of the land quite rightly doesn't compel their use.

Fishtank - quite!

[AnotherLimey]

Well i don't see it as a "culture" FT, i see it as a simple thing to do, no real hardship, just something most don't like to do as it makes them feel stupid?
would i wear one if i had a choice? maybe not, but i understand the reason for wearing one and find it very hard to argue a case to not do so.

[AnotherLimey]

Look lets be honest here, wearing a helmet is safer than not wearing one, simple!

NO IT ISN'T! Did you read any of my first post? All the statistics show that they make bugger-all difference, and in the case of young men in their late teens and twenties, like a lot of cycling posties, may even make cycling more dangerous! I know it's counter-intuitive, but I explained why it's so. Anyway, I repeat AGAIN that my quarrel is with compulsion. If some posties want to stick something that looks like a psychedelic toadstool on their heads, that's their business, but they shouldn't be made to, when the law of the land quite rightly doesn't compel their use.

Fishtank - quite!

As above, your main problem is that it makes you feel like you look silly, not a good point IMO

[fishtank]

As above, your main problem is that it makes you feel like you look silly, not a good point IMO

No wonder Limey...have you seen the new ones...

[AnotherLimey]

As above, your main problem is that it makes you feel like you look silly, not a good point IMO

No wonder Limey...have you seen the new ones...

[weirdo]

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