Posted By Richard Burton
Gentlemen,

Anyone suggesting a mandatory helmet regulation should consider very carefully their position. As professional H&S people, you should be aware of your professional responsibilities, and act to them.

I'll repeat from my previous post: nowhere with a helmet law or a massive increase in helmet wearing because of propoganda campaigns has been able to show any reduction in risk to cyclists. Cycle helmets have been specifically excluded from PPE by the H&S executive, presumably because they bothered reading the evidence, something obviously lacking in most of the people who've posted here.

The only reason the Post Office insists on them is as part of the uniform, not on H&S grounds.

To be honest, any H&S official who tries to insist on cycle helmets is laying themselves open to the charge of unprofessional conduct and disciplinary action from your overseeing body.

Anyone who does insist on cycle helmets is opening themselves and the H&S profession in general to the caricature of the "don't do anything, ever, it might be dangerous" which is already the general public's view of H&S people.

Regular cyclists live two years longer on average than the general public, so not cycling is much more dangerous than cycling.

Posted By Simone Granger
Jay wrote:

"Yes, there are studies, but how many are actually peer-reviewed and include a large cohort of subjects??"

Yes indeed. And yet H&S practitioners always seem to want to specify cycle helmets without very much peer reviewed evidence of their effectiveness. In my experience it is usually a knee jerk reaction: helmets exist so they must be a very good thing. Nothing ever seems to be said about any other aspect of cycling safety, it's always just the helmet that gets mentioned.

Posted By Richard Burton
There is plenty of peer reviewed research. The long term, whole population studies that show no benefit from helmet wearing have not been challenged by peer review. The short term, small scale research which shows massive benefits however, has been completely torn apart by peer review.

I repeat: nowhere with a helmet law or massive rise in helmet wearing because of propaganda campaigns has been able to show any reduction in risk to cyclists. The only effect is a reduction in cyclists, and because there are fewer cyclists, there are fewer cyclists getting killed or injured, which helmet proponents claim as a success. The rate at which cyclists get killed or injured either does not change or increases, and many thousands of people lose the overwhelming benefits that regular cycling brings.

RoSPA does indeed have an interesting selection of studies, the operative word being "selection". They seem to have specifically selected studies which show that helmets work, and ignored those that don't. Neither do they mention that most of the studies which show that helmets are effective have been shown to be suspect by peer review.

Any H&S professional who demands cycle helmets on the evidence is not professional, merely biased against cycling.

Cycle helmets may prevent minor injuries, but this has not been proven, and they may also turn what would have been a minor injury into a serious one by increasing the diameter of the head and making rotational injury more likely. Such minor injuries as they may prevent are by definition, not life threatening, yet all the propaganda put out by helmet proponents is of the "riding a bike without wearing a helmet is suicide" variety. Such minor injuries are also suffered by pedestrians, public transport users and drivers, office workers, factory workers etc. The general population in fact. So if you mandate helmets for cyclists, you must also mandate them for everyone, all the time, including in bed. I'm sure there must be some people who suffer minor head injuries as a result of falling out of bed.

Posted By John J
Richard,

you have clearly stated that anybody who supports the use of cycle helmets is biased against cyclists?
As a cyclist myself I consulted with other cyclists and the policy was agreed in a union partnership meeting.
We also asked for guidance from local cycling event organisers and competitors and they supported the policy.
The reason I asked Simone for clear evidence was because after hours trawling the Internet I have seen views that are poles apart and little common ground on helmet use. It seems that you cannot have an unbiased opinion on the subject.
Your accusations of unprofessionalism are unwarranted and could be directed back at yourself judging by the tone of your post.
I, along with the other cyclists on site, are happy with our policy and the way we reached it.
If my approach and decision means I need to be diciplined by a governing body I don't want to be part of that organisation anyway,

John

Posted By clairel
Richard I take great offence to both your posts, being both a H&S professional and a cyclist.

I wear a cycle helmet for road cycling and mountain biking. In fact you will be hard pushed to find many mountain bikers who are prepared to bike off road without a helmet. Wearing a helmet doesn't put me off riding at all, nor all the other people that I bike with.

I also have worn helmets for climbing, horseriding off-piste skiing, white water rafting, whire water kayaking, parachuting, paragliding, motorbiking....but apparently you are saying that because I wear and encourage the use of helmets that I am risk averse and putting that image across to the greater public??? That list would suggest otherwise wouldn't you say!

I wear a helmet for all the activities that I do as a considered course of injury prevention and cycling is no different.

I have never fallen off on the road but I have fallen off many time off-road and my helmet has undoubtedly saved my head. A helmet in my opinion saves someone from making a minor injury into a major or fatal injury. Yes there are circumstances where weariung a hemlet may aggravate the inury, the same can be true for any kind of helmet and any type of protective equipment. You cannot give 100% protection in any circumstances but you can do your best to mitigate the most likely outcome.

I have no opinion as to the orignal post but I will not stand by and be insulted because I wear helmets and advocate the wearing of helmets to others.

Have your opinion but do not condemn or insult others who have an opposing view.

Posted By John J
Arran,

the point I tried to make with my earlier post is that none of the reports give absolute evidence one way or the other. Much of it is hypothetical and the vast majority biased depending on which camp the author sits in.

You are therefore left to make judgement based on your own or experiences from those around you.

If we had definitive evidence either way I'd go with it. Unfortunately, as one of the earlier posters has demonstrated, this is difficult to obtain.

John

Posted By Kevin Drum
Richard you state, 'Anyone who does insist on cycle helmets is opening themselves and the H&S profession in general to the caricature of the "don't do anything, ever, it might be dangerous" which is already the general public's view of H&S people'
IMHO this is nonsense. The bread and butter of any H&S Practitioner is about reducing risk and as both a H&S Practitioner and a road and mountain biker I would always advise the wearing of a cycle helmet, as I would advocate the wearing of safety goggles, hard hat or gloves depending on the Risk Assessment. On that basis I will always wear a helmet myself and advise that others do so. As for it putting people off cycling I have just spent the weekend at two of the 7 Stane mountain bike centres, and did not see a single soul without a cycle helmet. I came over the handle bars two weeks ago on the Glentress Red Route and my helmet saved me from injuring my head, which I banged on a rock when landing. I did have to buy a new helmet but when I think what could have happened to me if I hadn't worn it!!!!

So guess I will continue giving the profession a bad name and reduce the risk of injury by wearing my helmet!

Posted By clairel
Richard

I think you'll find we object to your choice of language and to being told that helmet advocates are not professional.

In this debate there is no such thing as fact. The only thing you can actually say is that there is conflict on the subject.

One of the major points made in the debate is the fact that the results of reseach vary according to how that research was carried out. That is why there is conflict in the debate because there is no agreed fact only differing presentations of research. Research is never truely objective. You seem to assume that you are the only person who has read the research. You are not.

No one is asking you to change your opinion on the use of helmets but what some of us are asking you to do is moderate your attack on the professionalism of those that disagree with you.

I too have read the reseacrh and so I will once again state that there is no fact in this debate only opinion. So let others have theirs.

Posted By steve grimes
clairel
i agree with your comments
unfortuneatley in our industry there are still dinasaurs who pontificate
the word dynamic does not spring to mind, the words my voice and i like the sound of it do

Posted By MT
rjhills, I disagree that the TUC were taking a "moral" stance against high heels. They were quite rightly objecting to employers who force women to wear high heels as part of their uniform, because this can impact on the woman's health. This is quite reasonable on the part of the TUC. If women are forced to wear high heels, they may suffer not only sore feet, but possibly bunions too. Does that not come under the remit of *health* and safety?

Posted By clairel
I used to get better tips as a waitress / bar staff when I wore a skirt and heels. Forget feminism - give me the money!!

(I fear this thread will be bought to a halt by the moderators very soon! ;-))

Posted By steve grimes
just to get in before its closed
clairel i love your style and philosophy on life
woo hoo