Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to news
news
Collision
Police social media team face backlash for "victim blaming" posts reminding cyclists to wear helmetsair ambulance helicopter - via Thames Valley Police West Oxon on Twitter

Police social media team face backlash for "victim blaming" posts reminding cyclists to wear helmets

The West Oxfordshire branch of Thames Valley Police said its officers attended a collision between a "cyclist and a car", and urged cyclists to remember to wear a helmet...
by Jack Sexty
Sun, Jul 10, 2022 12:13
64

The social media team for the West Oxfordshire branch of Thames Valley Police are facing fierce criticism for their choice of wording on posts about a collision. The posts say that officers "attended a collision involving a cyclist and a car", after which the cyclist was transported to hospital by helicopter, and end by reminding those out cycling to "please remember to wear a helmet!" 

On Twitter particularly, over 200 people and counting have left comments under the post, with many criticising the lack of clarification over whether the car was being driven by a person or not at the time of the collision, and suggesting that the closing reminder about helmets could be irrelevant, considering that regular cycling helmets are not rated to protect against impacts from vehicles. 

> Only one in five competitive cyclists aware helmets don't protect from concussion, according to new research

Despite all this, and most importantly, it appears the cyclist suffered no major injuries from the collision on the Burwell estate in Witney, Oxfordshire, with his mother saying: "This was my son. A HUGE thanks to all who stopped and helped him and called me, some truly lovely kind people in Witney, it’s very much appreciated. All the Emergency services and JR have been amazing. He’s now home, battered and bruised, and realises he’s a lucky lad, someone was looking down on him today." 

road.cc has contacted Thames Valley Police and asked for comment. 

As has happened numerous times in the past when police decide to remind cyclists about wearing protective gear and/or don't quite clarify whether the vehicle they are referring to had a person operating it, the debate over collision reporting seems to be rearing its head more and more regularly. The Road Collision Reporting Guidelines launched last year, that road.cc strives to adhere to, asks journalists to refer to 'drivers of vehicles' and not the vehicles themselves, and to consider "whether language used negatively generalises a person or their behaviour as part of a ‘group’." 

> “Language matters” – Road collision reporting guidelines launched

It could be argued that Thames Valley Police fell foul of both of those recommendations here; and while the guidelines are aimed at journalists, the media relies on police communications departments to generate a lot of its news. 

Adoption of the guidelines has been far from universal so far, with one local news editor in Brighton going as far as to block anyone on her social media for "language policing" when it came to criticism of collision reporting on the Brighton & Hove News website. 

Thames Valley Police
thames valley police west oxon
West Oxfordshire
burwell
Helmet
Cycling helmets
Jack Sexty

Jack has been writing about cycling and multisport for over a decade, arriving at road.cc via 220 Triathlon Magazine in 2017. He worked across all areas of the website including tech, news and video, and also contributed to eBikeTips before being named Editor of road.cc in 2021 (much to his surprise). Jack has been hooked on cycling since his student days, and currently has a Trek 1.2 for winter riding, a beloved Bickerton folding bike for getting around town and an extra beloved custom Ridley Helium SLX for fantasising about going fast in his stable. Jack has never won a bike race, but does have a master's degree in print journalism and two Guinness World Records for pogo sticking (it's a long story). 

Add new comment

64 comments

Avatar
Jetmans Dad replied to Oldfatgit | 2 years ago
4 likes
Oldfatgit wrote:

For some on this website, true life situations like mine and others that display even slightest evidence that a helmet does help prevent even more serious injury, do not seem relevant and are dismissed as mere ' anecdotes '.

In scientific terms it is irrelevant and only forms evidence in the loosest possible sense because it cannot be tested. That isn't rude or dismissive, it is exactly why changing rules, regulations on things like helmets should be based on properly collected data and not anecdotes. 

If 10000 riders headed out on an identical cycle journey, and one was seriously injured, that individual's anecdote would be a powerful personal story, but utterly irrelevant in assessing the safety record of the ride as a whole, wihch would be based on the overall, properly collected statistics. 

The statistics I have seen show a number of things, 2 important ones being: that helmet usage reduces serious head injuries by a tiny amount across cycling as a whole and compelling riders to wear helmets significantly reduces the number of people cycling (and statistics also show that the larger the proportion of journeys done by bicycle the fewer (relatively) incidents, KSI and deaths there are of cyclists). 

That (current) understanding of the efficacy of helmets across a cycling population (not for an individual rider) is why it is still a personal choice to wear one. 

No one, certainly not I, would seek to cheapen any rider's personal experience of wearing/not wearing a helmet in an incident (and I personally choose to wear one the vast majority of the time) but it isn't useful scientific data in assessing the benefits of them for everyone given that cycling is inherently  (and statistically) pretty safe. 

Avatar
Oldfatgit replied to Jetmans Dad | 2 years ago
1 like

" cycling is inherently (and statistically) pretty safe. "

Yes it is.

Unfortunately, the ground - and the objects that either hit you or you hit - aren't.

It is better to wear some PPE than none at all, and the land where we should not have to wear any is cloud locco land as there will always be something to hit your head off.

* Edited to rearrange some words in to a better order so they actually made sense.

Avatar
Jetmans Dad replied to Oldfatgit | 2 years ago
1 like
Oldfatgit wrote:

... and the land where we should not have to wear any is cloud locco land ...

Otherwise known as The Netherlands and/or Denmark. 

Get the infrastructure correct, separate bicycles mostly from motor vehicles and the need for everyone to wear personal protective equipment vanishes. 

That is basically the point of the whole discussion. Constant banging on about helmets is a way of distracting from the real problem, which is that the standard of driving is not high enough in this country for motor vehicles to safely mix with bicycles and just a way of making it the cyclists' problem, not the drivers'. The police instintively responding to incidents by putting out that sort of reminder is just part of that. 

As I said ... on an individual level, the choice to wear a helmet does make sense (I never said otherwise). On a population level it makes no difference because the evidence shows it isn't just ineffective it is couter-productive. 

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Jetmans Dad | 2 years ago
2 likes
Jetmans Dad wrote:

... the real problem, which is that the standard of driving is not high enough in this country for motor vehicles to safely mix with bicycles ...

Or any country.  I think it's extremely difficult to permit humans to drive en mass and at the same time reduce the rate of crashes below a certain minimum.

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/16/higher-standards-of-driving-would-mak...

https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/30/liability-laws-will-make-people-drive...

Cycling is a very safe activity but people in the UK don't feel it is safe.  Or pleasant or convenient.   That's not just the weather, or "because we have hills"...

Pages

Latest Comments