- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
White cycle helmetCouncil defends using image of cyclists without helmets to promote cycling
Herefordshire Council has defended using an image of cyclists without helmets to promote cycling. A spokesperson pointed out that cycle helmets are not compulsory in the UK and that there is evidence many people stop riding in areas where they are.
The Hereford Times reports that at least one local had taken issue with a Herefordshire Council advert posted on the back of a bus which promotes the Beryl Bikes bike-share scheme.
“I was just out and about in the Hereford traffic and noticed a rather large advertisement on the back of a bus,” he said.
“‘Choose how you move’ was the caption, with a gentleman on a bicycle without a helmet on.
“Yes it’s great Herefordshire Council are trying to encourage us to move more, but please do it with a helmet on your head.”
A Herefordshire Council spokesperson said: “The wearing of helmets is a contentious issue with industry experts, interest groups and numerous research studies failing to reach agreement.
“There is agreement on the need to improve protection and safety for cyclists and also on the need to encourage more cycling as way of increasing activity and health in the general population and reducing congestion.
“The debates and disagreements are about how both can be achieved and specifically, whether making the wearing of helmets compulsory will reduce the number of people cycling.
“There is international evidence to show that many people stop riding as a result of such a requirement, and others are put off cycling completely, which amounts to a serious impact on activity levels and health.”
Organisations such as Cycling UK maintain that the public health impact of people being deterred from cycling by being made to wear a helmet outweighs any argument for legislation to make them compulsory.
In 2018, Malta scrapped its compulsory cycle helmet law after finding that it hindered efforts to get people riding bikes and discouraged uptake of bike-sharing schemes.
A 2010 study by researchers at Sydney University’s School of Public Health found that levels of cycling had dropped by around 30 per cent in Australia since helmet laws were brought in almost 20 years earlier.
The Herefordshire Council spokesperson added: “We try to encourage safe and confident riding. We provide free Bikeability training for year 6 primary school children and the children are required to wear helmets for the Level 2 on-road training.
“We also provide free lessons for adults, promote the wearing of hi-visibility clothing and we encourage trainees to consider wearing a helmet but we cannot require that they do.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- brooksby 5 min 47 sec ago
I didn't know that! https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Paul_Neil_Milne_Johnstone
- mdavidford 6 min 15 sec ago
Close passes and PSPO restrictions, for extra reality.
- hawkinspeter 9 min 56 sec ago
It's a cartastrophe! https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/trojan-tax-parking-charges-cause-9709032
- brooksby 18 min 3 sec ago
IIRC when I was in primary school, the only time the school had to go outside and stand by the side of the road and wave was this one time that the...
- mark1a 10 hours 16 min ago
No problem at all old chap, its successor the CAAD13 is available in mechanical 105 11sp guise (not too shabby a groupset IMO with Shimano trickle...
- David9694 11 hours 10 min ago
Car crashing into Colchester Co-op sees two hospitalised https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/24719022.car-crashing-colchester-co-...
- Prosper0 12 hours 11 min ago
No offence to Endura, but same advice as to Rapha, I actually have all the kit I need, for probably several years. You need to go and win the next...
- chrisonabike 16 hours 6 min ago
Ah - yes, they've got an American Star the wrong way round (means the child carrier needs rearranged though). Or it could be a Facile but inverted?
- lesterama 17 hours 58 min ago
What a bunch of ases
Add new comment
22 comments
It's ludicrous that this should even need defending. It's people on bikes, that's all the image needs to include to promote people on bikes, there is nothing to take issue with, the complaint is invalid and devoid of logic.
I could understand if they were naked and the complainer from the fun police was asking why weren't they wearing clothes as that's possibly something a council wouldn't want to be seen to promote.
Does this moron also complain to car companies when their adverts feature drivers not wearing crash helmets??
Why is this even news. It doesn't require defending.
Unfortunately it does. Thirty years of helmet propaganda, myths and lies have convinced most people that forcing cyclists to wear a helmet is the answer to them getting run over. If this kind of nonsense isn't challenged every time it comes up, we'll have a helmet law and fewer cyclists.
The person who complained - does he cycle?
Aren't Beryl Bikes hire bikes, to expect someone to be carrying a helmet around just in case they want to ride on one is a bit much surely.
Yes, they are hire bikes and I've yet to see anyone riding one in Hereford that is wearing a helmet, probably for this reason as much as any other. The advert was likely put together by Beryl Bikes and I doubt the Council knew anything about it until ONE person decided to have a moan.
In Australia helmet wearing is compulsory. In Melbourne they tried a similar 'Beryl Bike' scheme. Tourists form other countries got fined... They tried to sell cheap helmets at newsagents etc. The only people who used the bikes were locals. Not enough to make it profitable. The scheme failed. We all knew it would.
They fined tourists for not having helmets? I knew AU was a miserable sh(tty country full of halfwits but this takes the biscuit!
My impression was that tourists were the main user of the Melbourne share bike scheme and that warnings rather than fines for non locals were the norm...I would argue that the scheme failed because of its limited geographic coverage essentially any journey could be done by tram or on foot and other than tourists heading out and along the Beach rd trail to St Kilda the roads in Melbourne centre are pretty unpleasant to ride...though improving...not saying mandatory helmet law doesn't impact utility cycling but lack of ambition and a hostile environment responsible for death of Melbourne bike share
At Last - a local authority that knows what it is talking about.
I've been boiling my head during the hot weather, not because I think my helmet will protect me in a collision with a vehicle, but because it will make the insurance claim easier.
It won't make any insurance claim easier; that's just another myth put about by the helmet zealots. There has been a single case of contributory negligence in the UK for not wearing a helmet, under unique circumstances that don't make case law. The driver's insurance company will insist that not wearing one is contributory negligence, but they will always withdraw it at the doors of the court because they know it will be thrown out; it's just a scam on gullible cyclists.
Unsurprisingly, given Burt's predilection for dishonesty, this is not true.
https://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-helmets-and-contributory-ne...
Without a helmet most claims for head injuries will be more difficult, in that the opposing solicitors will push for a reduction in payout from the beginning, but only about 10% of claims would be reduced if the case reached court.
Why don't driveristsd wear helmets then? You woudl think the insurance industry woudl push for that no?
Until it's recommended in the highway code they won't be able to apply contributory negligence.
If it ever was recommended the insurance companies would immediately apply it.
Just like they did with seatbelts.
Perhaps if you hadn't taken a quote out of context when all the rest of the articles on that site support what I've said, I might respect you.
Have you considered getting professional help for your obsession?
All I'm doing is providing clear, unambiguous evidence of your repeated dishonesty. Stop lying and I'll stop replying to you. Simples.
The conclusion on the page I linked to is clear. You can receive a reduced payout if you don't wear a helmet. The quote is taken directly from the conclusion.
You claimed that an insurance claim won't be easier if you wear a helmet yet the link I provided makes it crystal clear that it would be. It would remove the need to argue about contributory negligence. Thereby making the claim easier.
It's immoral and wrong though, isn't it. Just because it's advised you wear certain things, doesn't make that any use in avoiding collisions.
Not wearing a helmet does not contribute to the collision. The collision is 100% the cause of the injuries. You can argue over who was responsible for the collision, but this is usually 100% the driver.
Well done Herefordshire Council!
Absolutely. So good to see that not all local authorities have fallen for the helmet myth and are prepared to show cyclists without helmets.
I'm more annoyed by official images where the person has a helmet but it is worn on the back of the head leaving the front unprotected.
Maybe take up some kind of mindfullness or maybe weed so that you dont get so annoyed all the time?
How does that follow? How did you conclude that I get annoyed all the time?
The article seemed to want a binary reaction from readers, so I suggested an alternate.