- 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
Pedal Me (Twitter)Pedal Me bans cargo bike riders from wearing helmets for safety reasons
E-cargo bike and pedicab company Pedal Me confirmed rumours it has banned staff riders from wearing helmets, citing safety reasons for the rule.
The news was first reported by Carlton Reid for Forbes after the firm posted a series of tweets on Friday explaining the decision.
The London-based cycling logistics provider said it believed riders and other road users take more risks when a helmet is worn, and that the "vast majority" of injuries sustained by staff occurred off the bike.
Instead, Pedal Me says reporting near miss incidents, properly training riders, maintaining its fleet of cargo bikes, as well as tracking poor rider behaviour is more effective.
In response to a question posed by the owner of a bike shop, Pedal Me clarified the company's stance in a detailed Twitter thread.
"People taking risks that are sufficient that they feel they need to wear helmets are not welcome to work for us - because our vehicles are heavy and could cause harm, and because we carry small children on our bikes. Instead - we systematically work to reduce risk," it began.
"We do this by: 1) Thorough risk assessment. 2) Extremely high level of training, on an ongoing basis. 3) Near miss reporting - we track near misses, and minor injuries, and tackle the causative factors.
"We know that increasing helmet wearing rates makes cycling more dangerous per mile - although there are confounding factors here, this indicates that overall they do not provide a strong protective effect in the round - otherwise the opposite effect.
"Extensive reading of the literature suggests that this is because while helmets definitely help in the event of a crash, that risk compensation results in more collisions. So riders wearing helmets take greater risks, and those driving around them take greater risks too."
Pedal Me suggested a "major cause" of head injuries are crashes where the rider is thrown over the handlebars, something it says is "not possible" when using one of its three-metre long cargo bike.
The company also reported seeing worse behaviour from competitor firms that use helmets, saying the protective equipment seemed to make riders "much more likely to jump red lights and take risks in general".
Overall the vast majority of injuries to our riders occur off the bike, which we know because of our near miss and incident reporting - and that's our focus for tackling danger.
As @Chris_Boardman says: "Helmets not even in top 10 of things that keep cycling safe"
— Pedal Me (@pedalmeapp) February 4, 2022
Pedal Me currently employs 70 staff riders, who together cover around 50,000 miles per month. The firm says it has not had any third-party or passenger injuries since it founded, although there have been minor collisions.
Bungee cords were the biggest cause of injuries, but have since been phased out. The most common source of injury comes "mainly off the bike", when loading and unloading the bikes, or when at a customer's premises.
Pedal Me also outlined its internal safety strategy, including training concepts "hammered home" and repeated passenger qualification every 18 months. Additionally, "near misses get reported and investigated, allowing us to systematically tackle real safety issues based on data rather than fear".
This reporting system is credited for "major changes" to training, bungees being phased out, upgraded brakes, and changes to the maintenance process, which is undertaken by in-house mechanics. All Pedal Me bikes and riders are also tracked through nameplates and GPS.
And finally, here are our incident logs.
We're particularly keen to help @metpoliceuk crack down on harrassment and assault on the street as this is something that is not common, but does happen and we don't think it's acceptable.
They have not appeared particularly interested. pic.twitter.com/EfEMkzhDDh
— Pedal Me (@pedalmeapp) February 4, 2022
Since 2017, one rider reported suffering a concussion in a collision, which may have been mitigated by wearing a helmet, but Pedal Me stressed: "Potentially [a helmet may have helped]. But likely would have also increased risk taking and therefore increased the number of incidents overall."
Co-founder Ben Knowles told Forbes: "We once had an incident where a member of staff was assaulted with a machete, but that doesn’t mean we would equip all riders with stab vests."
The thread prompted much discussion, including questions of the legality of denying a rider work because they choose to wear a helmet.
Pedal Me responded to this concern, saying: "We've spent a lot of time thinking about this, and it's our legal responsibility to look after the safety of our staff, and the safety of those who might be impacted by our operations. We're legally obliged to put in rules that will keep our staff and third parties safe."
Dan is the road.cc news editor and has spent the past four years writing stories and features, as well as (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. 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 joined road.cc in 2020. Come the weekend you'll find him labouring up a hill, probably with a mouth full of jelly babies, or making a bonk-induced trip to a south of England petrol station... in search of more jelly babies.
Latest Comments
- dh700 2 sec ago
Well if so, they should have said that. They did not, they said "As a low income person I can tell you that a 40% discount on a bike still leaves...
- kingleo 35 min 3 sec ago
I can never understand why prosperous Kinston on Thames has no problem with cyclists going through the busy medieval pedestrianised part of the...
- dh700 40 min 23 sec ago
Should have been a lifetime driving ban -- and lengthy prison sentence -- the first time he hit someone and left them to die on the side of the...
- dh700 52 min 58 sec ago
The entire concept of "safe cycling routes" is insane, and bassackwords. A town near me is debating officially designating about 5% of its roads...
- mattw 2 hours 24 min ago
Reading this story, it's worth noting:...
- Car Delenda Est 2 hours 28 min ago
Did the report make any mention of the pope defecating in the woods?
- JLasTSR 2 hours 5 min ago
Of course it comes from boeuf but we are still using it that is the very point. Just like we use what are essentially archaic terms or essentially...
- mattw 2 hours 49 min ago
The Fr Russell Rd one looks horribly narrow, with a pedal-strike kerb against the cycle track on one side.
- Hirsute 3 hours 40 min ago
Nuclear powered one. https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/24653246.bramfield-nuclear-engineer-turns-be...
Add new comment
92 comments
I don't think it disproves it, any more than a lot of evidence put forward on the pro-helmet side proves it. What it shows is that other factors have an effect that outweighs that of helmets, if there is any.
I hope you put plastic hats on your kids in that case when they use stairs, walk on slippery conditions, or are rough housing in a playground... I seriously do.
This is a really strange decision by PedalMe. One which could end them in serious financial difficulty.
All it would take is for an employee to be involved in an accident which results in a brain injury which could have been prevented or reduced by wearing a helmet. If that employee/family/spouse then raises a case to say that the employee would normally have worn a helmet but the terms of their employment prevented them wearing the helmet..... I'm pretty sure there would be a significant payout due from the court and I'm not sure their Employers Liability insurance would cover them.
They're free to not work there, then. It would be difficult to prove they would have worn a helmet, yet continued to work in a place where this was a known issue.
You would also have to prove the helmet would have prevented or sufficiently mitigated the injury. Difficult to do when testing standards just don't get that far
Helmets are such part of the cultural bias against people on bikes what you say in theory might not actually happen in practice.
In addition legislatively employers are required to provide appropriate safety equipment.
The fact that PMA might have to defend that in court may in itself not sustain a risk benefit analysis.
I thought the HSE stated bike helmets aren't PPE?
Yep they're not ppe
https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg174.pdf
I interpret that as the "PPE at work" document doesn't cover them due to the road being a public space and not a work environment. Bike helmets are surely some kind of PPE whether or not they are as effective as top surgeons claim.
It is a work environment. Hsaw covers you when you are at work, it doesn't exclude public spaces.
Thanks for that, really interesting! - the implication I think is that lids specifically shouldn't/can't be cited in an RA as mitigating a risk.
I wonder what the implication is here for specifically prohibiting them. Should a cautious employee wish to wear one, and persisted in doing so, would they be placed under disciplinary? How would that play out in tribunal?
Despite that, many H&S over zealous reps demand them for riding on company business. I resigned from being the local H&S rep when Bristol council mandated them on the insistence of the cheif H&S officer, and they ignored the evidence presented by myself and other cyclists.
sounds like a cause for malicious compliance, either start using public transport (wasting time) or taxis (wasting money) for those work same journeys. Perhaps "forget" to bring a helmet when cyclng to work in the morning.
An employer is entitled to mandate helmet use but may well run into legal difficulties if they ban the use of bike helmets.
A long time ago the HSE explicitly ruled that cycle helmets don't fall under PPE at work legislation.
AFAIK it was for a very similar issue - postal workers arguing about whether they should have helmets for doing delivery rounds on bicycles.
So I suspect the case law is already on pedalme's side...
In error, reply intended for different poster
Although there's a difference between them not being obliged to provide helmets, and them banning workers from exercising their choice to wear them.
That's what worried me, surely something that should be left up to the individual rider, just as it should be for all other riders on the road. I am sure those who disagree with helmets would be cross if helmets were mandated by a company (are there any companies that do so?), a mandatory ban on helmets would seem to be the other side of the same coin.
It just occurred to me that by making it a policy decision they are preemptively avoiding the accusation that they are leaving their staff to provide their own PPE - with a firm nod to Nosferatu's link that lids are not considered PPE by HSE. I think that nuance would be lost on many lidiacs
There's a very big difference between not requiring bike helmets to be used as PPE and an employer banning employees from wearing helmets; I suspect you are not in the legal profession.
I'd have thought the main risk was toppling over at low speed with a heavy load where you might hit the kerb. Seems the sort of thing helmets are useful for.
"risk compensation results in more collisions"
"upgraded brakes"
No risk compensation from upgraded brakes then. Seems rather selective to me.
Very much a 'cherry picking' approach.
Confusing a psychologist hypothesis that sports people might risk compensate (race down the Ventoux, anybody?) with how recreational or occupational cyclists may behave seems highly questionable given the range of motivation that is likely.
Free publicity, yes.
A well thought through position, hmm...
Risk compensation isn't limited to any specific activity, it affects all human activities, including better brakes on bicycles and cars.
Just found this, a study showing that drivers of bigger vehicles take more risks https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10603-022-09511-w?fbclid=IwAR...
Honestly did they really need to make a rule here? It doesnt appear that they have done any formal risk assessment which IMO leaves them open to a claim from one of their employee's if they now bump their head in the course of their duties.
Taking more risks with a helmet on? Thats a subjective measure if ever there was one. When Im at top speed in the big ring going down a bit hill I dont think thank god for my helmet I usually think "better take it easy otherwise its a trip to skin graft city".
Whilst cycling in London I have never thought I'll take a chance against this car because I have a helmet on.
Regardless of what you think of helmets - this was a case of if it aint broke don't fix it.
"if it aint broke"
Very much the question here...
"And in today's weather: there'll be an outbreak of reasoned debate and common sense, spreading out from London..."
That's quite reasonable. I don't wear a helmet riding my town bike.
I do when mountain biking as the likelihood of falling off is far greater and the collision more likely to be one where a helmet would offer some benefit. I also wear one when on the road bike, but mainly for the very small risk of a pothole sending me over the bars. You're not likely to go over the bars on a cargo bike!
This is exactly how it should be, an individual can make their own call based on what they are doing. If I'm nipping to the shops I don't take a helmet as its 3 minutes adn I CBA carrying the thing. If I'm out with the club or racing I'll wear it because there is a chance of a crash. If I'm commuting I'll wear, not because I think it will make any difference, but because my wife would kill me if I didn't.
All personal choices and I think these riders should be given that same personal choice.
The choice of what PPE must be worn is not down to the individual in work situations where you must comply with, legislation and company policy/risk assesments etc.
Many years ago, the HSE looked at cycle helmets and excluded them from the designation PPE.
I work with people in various Highways teams and they are required to wear full PPE on site visits - even when it's on the pavement in the middle of a town!
On helmets - it should be personal choice - even when working for Pedal Me! Not convinced by their logic tbh.
Pages