- 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
Helmet campaign (Bedfordshire Road Safety Partnership)Road safety organisation accused of "victim-blaming" over cycling helmet campaign
A road safety organisation has come under fire for its latest campaign, which urges cyclists to wear a helmet and has been criticised for "victim-blaming" and failing to tackle road danger "at source".
Bedfordshire Road Safety Partnership — a group "working together to reduce road casualties" and is made up of representatives from the council, police, fire and rescue and the Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner — launched the campaign, which has since been shared on Road Safety GB's website, a national road safety organisation.
In the video, which can be viewed on the Bedfordshire group's website, viewers are shown an animated story of a cyclist called Ted, who didn't wear a helmet on his head. "Whilst riding real quick, he hit a big stick, and now he's in a hospital bed," the rhyme ends.
The campaign was also shared on Road Safety GB's website, the national road safety organisation that is run in association with THINK! and representatives from groups across the UK, including local government road safety teams.
Road Safety GB said the campaign aims to make wearing a helmet "the norm", drawing on comparison with Australia where helmet use is mandatory and cyclists breaking the rules can be fined.
It was also revealed that all schools in Bedfordshire have been sent the resources to add to their social media accounts and pass on to parents in newsletters.
Promoting the three-week campaign, a spokesperson told Road Safety GB: "We are trying to make wearing a helmet the norm, as it is in Australia. To do so, we are targeting all age groups to change their habits – as has happened with the wearing of seatbelts over the years."
The campaign was shared on social media by one Twitter (X) user simply saying, "Oh dear", while another joked about the comparison to Australia a country "famous for so much cycling".
> Why is Dan Walker's claim that a bike helmet saved his life so controversial?
Another reply shared a link to an Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report which showed one in five people injured on Australian roads and paths is a cyclist while the rate of hospitalisation for cyclists increased by 1.5 per cent per year over the 17-year period of the report, 4.4 per cent year-on-year in the final six years of the report.
"If this approach works why do the stats show cycling is getting more dangerous in Australia? Stop victim-blaming and tackle road danger at source," they said. "If you really want to make the roads safer for people on bikes campaign for proper infrastructure. Helmets and personal protective equipment are not and never will be the answer."
The reply also tagged England's cycling and walking commissioner Chris Boardman, who famously said back in 2014 that helmets are "not even in top 10 of things that keep cycling safe".
In June, an Irish children's hospital consultant spoke out making the case for cyclists to be legally required to wear a helmet, arguing accident and emergency units see a spike in crash-related injuries during the summer months.
The UK government has repeatedly shut down occasional calls for cyclists to be required to wear a helmet, most recently in December of last year when a minister of state from the Department of Transport said the matter had been considered "at length" during the cycling and walking safety review in 2018.
They said: "The safety benefits of mandating cycle helmets for cyclists are likely to be outweighed by the fact that this would put some people off cycling, thereby reducing the wider health and environmental benefits. The Department recommends that cyclists should wear helmets, as set out in the Highway Code, but has no intention to make this a legal requirement."
Dan is the road.cc news editor and joined in 2020 having previously written about nearly every other sport under the sun for the Express, and the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Dan has been at road.cc for four years and mainly writes news and tech articles as well as the occasional feature. He has hopefully kept you entertained on the live blog too.
Never fast enough to take things on the bike too seriously, when he's not working you'll find him exploring the south of England by two wheels at a leisurely weekend pace, or enjoying his favourite Scottish roads when visiting family. Sometimes he'll even load up the bags and ride up the whole way, he's a bit strange like that.
Latest Comments
- brooksby 1 sec ago
Motorists seem to forget that their vehicles have a reversing gear whereas bicycles don't (unless you're riding a fixie, arguably). Shuffling...
- alexuk 5 min 22 sec ago
That poor guys nads'. You can see the pain in his eyes.
- Rendel Harris 13 min 38 sec ago
They do indeed, of course, and they are responsible for the shared pavement on the eastern side and so presumably for this absurd signage as well!...
- Cugel 19 min 6 sec ago
Do you think that all drivists who kill and maim set out to do so? Are they all intent on assassinating others at random? (Yes, I do know there are...
- FionaJJ 29 min 26 sec ago
In my experience, delays to the planning process are usually down to the developers failing to do what they have been told time and time again they...
- HKR 1 hour 48 min ago
Sven not so Nys? Not a great way to treat a supplier. Could be worse though - could be the cranks like Shimano. But his son won so why say this?
- HoarseMann 2 hours 29 min ago
Yep, many are just parking on their front lawn, no dropped kerb, probably no planning permission to park there. I particularly liked this comment: ...
- slc 2 hours 53 min ago
It was the side roads that put me off even though they are marked to give the track priority. I was used to taking primary position for the best...
- Dhill 13 hours 14 min ago
I agree with you. Just enjoy riding a bike. Easy to forget that one simple thing.
- Rendel Harris 14 hours 53 min ago
By no means claiming that Armstrong was the only doper in that period but your claim makes no sense: the average speed is taken on the time of the...
Add new comment
77 comments
Ah yes, that danger I face every day on the roads... big sticks.
I'm wondering if sticks will actually make cycling safer, at least for me, particularly if I always cycle with a big conspicuous bundle of them strapped sideways on to my rack sticking out either side.
This is stupid. It's not one or the other. Drivers being held accountable is a good thing. More helmet use is a good thing. We can, and should, campaign for both.
Why should we be campaigning for cyclists to wear helmets? We should spend our time campaigning for things that reduce collisions and encourage more people to cycle (like proper infrastructure), not trying to mitigate the failure of the former and in doing so increasing the perceived risk of cycling and putting people off riding.
People choosing to wear helmets might be a good thing, but campaigning for cycle helmets is not a good idea at all. The more that you emphasise the danger of cycling, the more that people are put off from it (one of the most common reasons people quote for not cycling is that they are afraid of the traffic) and of course the health benefits of cycling vastly outweigh any risks from cycling (statistically, that is).
Currently, it's slightly more dangerous for someone to walk a kilometre than it is to cycle a kilometre, so it would make more sense to campaign for pedestrian helmets. For some reason, that idea never seems to be discussed, yet people are always happy to be pushing the cycle helmet agenda instead.
Not one of the most common, the most common reason.
Having a mishap with an obstacle is an example of when a cycle helmet can be beneficial and might be within its design capability. If you're hit by a driver, then not so much.
"Don't be like Ted, get drivers to slow down instead"
Ted campaigning...
Any cartoons of motorists with head injuries who didn't wear a helmet?
OMG! Another "road safety" organisation that knows the sum of the square of not much at all about road safety. Surely someone on their staff pointed out that helmets only reduce minor injuries and that the death rate of cyclists doesn't fall as helmet wearing rates increase. Or that in Australia, the place they want to emulate, it went up after the helmet law.
We can all make mistakes, but if you're running an organisation and publishing stuff, you really ought to know what you're talking about. It's hard to believe the level of competence that is now the norm in this country.
EDIT: I went on to their website to leave a scathing but polite message, but got this:
2Have your say , until the 11th June 2023 we would like to hear your views on Road Safety in Bedfordshire please follow the link below.
Thank you, the survey has now closed"
So how long has this utter crap been up?
2nd EDIT: They've actually used two CUK safety videos, but didn't think to ask them about helmets!
And seatbelts don't save you if your car is crushed in an 80mph impact with you inside, so anyone who suggests you should wear one is a paid shill for Big Strap.
Idiot!!!!!!
Thank you for that helpful interjection.
You lot are classic conspiracy theorists. There's literally nothing that could convince you helmets might have uses, nor even that anyone who thinks differently might do so for valid reasons.
I've hit the ground from 20mph, and the bits that were protected came off a lot worse than the bits that weren't. I've hit my unprotected head in falls from height, resulting in temporary blindness and dizzy spells. I've never met a doctor (including ones working in trauma centres) who (when asked) doesn't strongly recommend helmet use. I've seen the damage to my brother's helmet from a fall onto a kerb, and was very glad it wasn't his skull that took the impact.
And you lot will just bleat "that's anecdote" and "doctors don't know everything" and "but Australia" and "you don't wear a helmet when you're walking", and you just don't get it.
Nobody sane thinks a helmet will help if you're run over by a truck. Not many people think they should be a legal requirement (and I don't either). There absolutely should be better infrastructure, better drivers and harsher punishments for the bad ones. But helmets are inexpensive, easy to use, and stop your head from hurting as much or as long if you hit it at speed. I honestly don't understand why you wouldn't wear one, still why it's so psychologically-important for you to posit some grand coalition of doctors and road safety campaigners who are trying to conceal The Truth.
Whilst I agree that the previous poster's comment wasn't particularly helpful, you are unhelpfully conflating two things - (1) what makes sense for an individual and (2) what makes good public policy. We are discussing the second.
Do I think safety campaigns focused on helmet use are a good idea? No. Do I wear a helmet when I ride? Yes. If you can't see why, then you need to do some more thinking.
I guess it's a bit of a stretch to expect busy A&E staff to say "if only whoever hit this poor cyclist had been more careful"
Conspiracy is over-stating it, but there are plenty of drivers who seem to want to (i) suppress cycling generally and (ii) continue the transference of the myriad consequences and costs of driving on to others.
Sounds like you've been shafted by big strap-on
Pages