The local police and ambulance services in Hackney, East London, one of the most successful boroughs in the capital in terms of cycling numbers, have come under fire for a series of bizarre tweets about not wearing a helmet being ‘risky’.
The Joint Response Units tweeted on February 18th that they were attending a “RTC- cyclist in collision with a van. Taken to a Major Trauma Centre as a priority @MPSHackney #NoHelmet #999family”
It was sent after a call out to Northchurch Road, De Beauvoir, where a man in his 70s had head injuries after colliding with a van.
The hashtag #NoHelmet brought about an instant angry reaction on the social media site.
Jono Kenyon of the Hackney Cycling Campaign tweeted back: “Hoping a speedy recovery. Not sure the #nohelmet hashtag is needed though. We don't do it for car drivers.”
But then Hackney Police weighed in, responding: “it's best to wear a helmet. Provides far more protection. We see injures from #Nohelmets”
Hackney Cyclist said: “do you recommend pedestrians wear helmets whilst walking round Hackney Central?”
But the police tweeter continued to argue in a string of tweets reading: “I would see it more as prevention than blaming. It's not necessarily the cyclists fault but you are more vulnerable.
“not wearing a helmet is still very risk [sic] in our opinion. That's what we were saying.”
Meanwhile the Joint Response Unit was back for more, saying: “A helmet would have prevented further injury to the head from the road. Tweet not about blame.”
Another member of the public said: “disgraceful victim-blaming. Helmets aren't the law. Pedestrians and drivers don't get criticism for not wearing.”
Back in 2015 we reported how Chris Boardman told road.cc that cycle helmets are “not even in the top 10 of things you need to do to keep cycling safe or more widely, save the most lives.
“We’ve gone away from the facts,” he said. “We’ve gone to anecdotes. It’s like shark attacks - more people are killed building sandcastles than are killed by sharks. It’s just ludicrous that the facts aren’t matching up with the actions because the press focus, naturally, on the news stories, and [the notion that cycling is dangerous] becomes the norm, and it isn’t the norm.
“You can ride a thousand times round the planet for each cycling death. You are safer than gardening.”
But in 2013 Sir Bradley Wiggins said they should be mandatory for all cyclists.
Speaking to BBC’s Newsround, he said: “I think certain laws for cyclists need to be passed to protect us more than anything.
“Making helmets compulsory on the roads, making it illegal to maybe have an iPod in while you’re riding a bike, just little things like that would make a huge difference.”
However he was seen riding a Boris Bike in London without a lid just this month.
Add new comment
69 comments
As utterly tedious as the debates are, the underlying problem is that compulsory helmet-laws are an ever-present threat. That's why these sorts of comments can't just be ignored.
Anyway, what creates the danger is not the absence of helmets but the presence of cars. So why wasn't the hashtag #toomanymotorisedvehicles or #badroads ?
Oh that's awful from @beztweets and more...
https://twitter.com/beztweets/status/674363056932155392
I'm old enough to remember when police officers wore helmets rather than flat caps. Since then violence both by and against police officers has increased. Bring back police officers in helmets
#nohelmet
#NoCar
I wonder how many car RTCs where the driver or passanger suffer head trauma that they tag nohelmet?
I do very much love the comment from Hackney Cyclist it is very accute.
"Provides far more protection" - than what? And even if you compare it with no helmet at all did the police take into consideration that if he had not been wearing one he might not have been hit, or even a long haired wig? (http://www.helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm)
"I would see it more as prevention than blaming" - prevention?! Prevention would have been if he hadn't been hit at all. If the collision had not taken place, if there had been infrastructure in place to protect him.
I hate these things as you have people weighing in with anecodtes all the time as if it is comparable with actual whole population statistics. If I were to be terribly crude I could point to studies of Dutch cyclist hospitalisation rates where back ground helmet use is in the region of about 0.5%, but the proportion of cyclists hospitalised who do wear helmets is far higher (13.3%). Obviously it points to helmets being more dangerous. *ahem*. Now this misses out on the point that those invovled in injury are doing something no-usual, racing or mountain biking not the utility trips that make up the majority of journeys.
Or crude analogies between helmets and seatbelts, one has a proven efficacy, the other hasn't. You might as well say that had he been wearing his lucky tailisman then he wouldn't have been hit.
Until we have concensus in the efficacy of helmets then it should not even be on the discussion board. What would save more lives than helmets would be if people on bikes stopped being run over.
You would probably be very surprised at the evidence about seat belts. Their efficacy is proved for vehicle occupants, but because of risk compensation by drivers, more vulnerable road users, pedestrians and cyclists die, resulting in a higher overall death rate.
Barking up the wrong tree yet again.
625526_397971763600256_638908149_n.jpg.650x0_q70_crop-smart.jpg
Unlike yourself who choose a study from Germany, where the cycling culture is completely different. Where some roads allow yu to drive at any speed your car is capable of, although you will invalidate your insurance if deemed excessive. And where the police do commonly stop riders on the road and informally discuss 'no helmet' choice with them. And where the same policeman can give you an on-the-spot fine for riding on the road if there is a cycle lane in place and they deem it was a safer option, completely at their discretion.
But never mind that, how about just considering the baselines of number of cyclists / walkers / drivers etc.
Care to reference a more relevant study then?
Pages