Sorry, I don't understand the point of the anecdote - you know he was "saved from a direct HGV RTC by a helmet" because he was wearing a helmet and his head missed the kerb? Would it not have missed the kerb as well if he had not been wearing a helmet?

Isn't this about habit? If you just always wear one - it's there when you need it??

What annoys me is the "do as I say, not as I do" people out there. You know the ones...kids cycling along with helmet securely fastened and Dad or Mum peddling beside them with nothing on their heads. You can bet they told the child they couldn't go out without their helmet but are quite happy to risk a head injury themselves!

As to the sans helmet vs wear helmet arguement.

- Is a helmet going to save you if confronted with a juggernaut...um, probably not.

- Is a helmet going to save you if you get whacked by a wing mirror on said juggernaut...perhaps not but the injury might be less severe...possibly.

- Is a helmet going to save you if you hit a pot hole gouged out the road by said juggernaut and go head first over the handle bars...possibly moving towards probably.

Is a helmet uncomfortable - a bit

Does a helmet mess up your hair - yes but nothing a brush can't handle and way better than long hair on a motorbike..now that does do serious damage to the ends!

So, should I wear a helmet...yes, if it saves me getting my head bashed but means messy hair then I think I can live with that..the emphysis being the live part.

As to compulsory arguement child seat belts weren't compulsory when I was a kid (I remember climbing from the back seat into the passenger beside my Mum to get away from my brother). I'm still here to tell the tale thankfully. My daughter won't get to try that as by law she must be strapped in and I feel safer with her secure in the back. If you want your kids to wear a helmet when they go out then lead by example and wear one. If everyone had to wear one then people would be less self concious about their looks and just do it...like wearing a seatbelt.

Ok - so we cant really be sure that wearing a helmet saves lives or doesn't (problem with sample population and getting enough identical people to cycle into trees and lorries). Perhaps the answer would be BETTER helmets and more research?
Its difficult to say how many lives are saved by seatbelts - extrapolation from old data when cars were slower, and had less safety equipment fitted anyway (possibly fewer cars on the road as well)

Oh and yes PPE should be low down in the hierarchy of prevention ... but it does still have its place or we wouldn't have PPE regs.

Apologies in advance for the naivety of this response

I'm sorry but that's a ridiculous thing to say Stedman. Should we not debate the issue surrounding any fatality as a mark of respect? How then would we learn anything from accidents? This is not a polictical points scoring forum (and I don't think this thread has gone down that route at all). Rather this is a health and safety discussion forum and this is exactly the place that such issues should be discussed. We are not discussing this particular case rather the general issue surrounding cycle helmets.

Well it should be controlling the danger at source - proper training of the operators of the dangerous machines on the roads, decent control of their operation, proper penalties for endangering others in their use.

None of that is socially acceptable / politically expedient, of course - society would rather kill five people a day than infringe on their 'freedom' to drive. With respect to the freedoms of motorists, it seems that one death is in no way too many.

Keep your mouth shut!

Clairel,

Sorry, but if you look at the title of this thread ‘If it's good enough for Bradley Wiggins’, this has its origins in the unfortunate death of Dan Harris and his family are now calling for an end to the political point scoring with regards to this matter. See: http://www.thetimes.co.u...afety/article3498156.ece

If you read this article, he was wearing a helmet at the time of his death and they have stated “Finally, our family do not want Daniel’s name associated with any protests, or used for any ‘political point-scoring’ whatsoever by pro-cycling lobbyists or similar factions.”

We have already thoroughly debated cycle helmet use and research on a number of occasions, however on this occasion I feel that it would be very insensitive to put over a pro-cycling argument and continue with this particular thread.

Yes please, bring it on! I am a cyclist and wear one every time I go out, 2 x idiots have knocked me off my bike so far even though I had high viz and lights on!!

Considering the length of time seatbelts have been compulsary (30yrs) there are still plenty of people not wearing them and others arguing that they are dangerous because they slow down your escape from a vehicle.

You can argue all day that they are 'just a bit of polystyrene' but a motorbike helmet isn't much more. The thing that is needed is an EN standard and test data. Only then will it be less subjective.

On a personal note all my family wear them.

Hi JJ,

In response to your initial enquiry. Our site is large and the use of cycles is permitted for and on company business. However, this comes with control by way of a risk assessment. Cycle helmets & high viz are mandatory with the use of lights after dark. All equipment including the bike itself is to be of the appropriate EN standard, maintained and fit for purpose. The cyclist is to be deemed competent to use the cycle by their line manager.
During extreme weather conditions when the risk of involuntary dismount is more likely, alternative arrangements are to be used.
As for cycling in / out of work on non-company business, it a mass rush & free for all with the only condition being - adherence to the highway code.
It can be done - with control.

Regards
AW

After seeing the references to "lights after dark" I can't resist mentioning that too many cyclists in my area - and probably throughout the UK - seem to think that having and using lights on their bicycles in the dark is optional and decide against them. Furthermore, of those who do use lights, too many seem to have dim ineffectual ones and perhaps still believe somehow that they are reasonably visible to other road users. Considering that reliable and bright bicycle lights are now widely available at reasonable price it's madness for cyclists to not to use lights after dark or during adverse conditions such as heavy rain. Some motorists (of all ages, not just older ones) have poor uncorrected eyesight, so it surely makes sense for cyclists to make themselves as visible as possible to drivers, and also to pedestrians including ones with poor eyesight and/or more intent on gawping at their mobile phones as they step off pavements.

The final point above reminds me of an incident last year late one evening near home. As I was crossing a dimly lit stretch of road a cyclist wearing dark clothing and without any lights suddenly came round a corner at speed towards me. Fortunately I was alert, sober and able to see him and thus avoided being mown down. From the ensuing brief discussion/altercation it transpired that the cyclist, a middle aged bloke, was somewhat drunk and didn't think he was doing anything wrong regarding his speed and having no front light. The lack of a front light was heightened by the fact that he had a reasonably bright rear light. I'll refrain from quoting anything of the discussion as some of the words exchanged would almost certainly render me in breach of forum rules! Goodness knows whether my comments had any effect on him, so he's probably still cycling in the same manner and posing a significant risk to himself and other road users, including elderly pedestrians with poor eyesight and hearing, etc.

No apologies for the above comments about lights even though they comprise a digression from the main topic about whether or not helmets for cyclists should be mandatory.

It's not that straightforward, actually.

The reliable and bright lights aren't legal. While the police probably will accept any bright white / red (as appropriate) light, the same is not necessarily true of the weasels at insurance companies.

Until very recently, LEDs were not legal (though they were more reliable and brighter and lighter and better in every respect) because the BS required a filament bulb, and specified a MAXIMUM power of 3.6W (or 2.4W if it was a halogen bulb) and no minimum power (but there was a minimum battery life, which encouraged manufacturers to use low power bulbs). That is, the dim ineffectual lights you saw were probably the legal ones.

LEDs are now theoretically legal, but if the light has a continuous mode (rather than only flashing or occulting) then it must be BS approved. All of them do have continuous modes, and almost none of them are BS approved, meaning that they are not legal. I know of one not-very-popular model that is BS approved, but it's not approved when fitted with the mounting bracket it comes with, only when fitted with an optional bracket it's nearly impossible to buy and doesn't fit every bike.

There's potentially a get-out-of-jail card in that under EU legislation a setup that's legal in another EU state with equivalent legislation must be legal in the UK. The trouble with that one is determining what is equivalent - and in the limiting case Greece does not require any bicycle lights after dark, so does that mean no lights is legal in the UK? It needs case law to determine which country's legislation is equivalent, I think.

So, ranting about dim cycle lights is all well and fine, but you ought to bear in mind that the cyclists you're lauding (the ones with bright and effective lights) are almost certain to be breaking the law - there just aren't any bright effective cycle lights that are legal to UK law (though there may be to EU law, possibly).

Admittedly, the bright ones probably don't know they are illegal, and the dim ones probably aren't dim because they are carefully complying with the law, but that's the end effects.

In case you're interested, my main bike has a front and rear light that each comply with German law (but not UK), I have a second rear light that is the one LED one that is BS approved (but it's not approved as fitted because the approved bracket doesn't fit my bike) and I carry a spare front and rear LEDs both of which are bright and reliable and don't fully comply with any country's law (as far as I know).

What is interesting in this Loooooong tread is that:
1. Everybody seems to have an opinion on this matter even if it is in most cases not a work related matter.
2. The assumption is, just because BW is probably the best cyclist in the world, he has the final say on whether people should wear cycling helmets or not. Come on he hasn’t even got his Grad IOSH! ( and he lives in Lancashire)
3. Very few people have offered to any scientific evidence as to the efficacy of cycling helmets, rather they have relied on their gut instructs or anecdotes etc.
We do not use cycles at work but provide facilities for staff to use them to get to work. We have no rules as to what they wear on their heads, anymore than we would tell them at what speed to drive to work or if they should use a ladder to change a light bulb at home.
We do have problems with cyclists on site following the rules of the road especially at a roundabout near the entrance which they insist on cutting across. This includes the CEO who is a keen (if not fanatical) ‘middle aged man in lycra’.

In light of how the accidents occur shouldn't the debate be focused on prevention (i.e. driver competency, refreshers, suitable road widths, serviced vehicles, and a code of reappraisal of what use to be the Governments own National Cycling Proficiency before with statutory responsibility for road safety being given to local authorities in 1974 etc.) rather than protection (i.e. wearing a piece of plastic on your head). The latter seems to be consenting to the occurrence accidents as though there were uncontrollable, whilst many are clearly foreseeable.

Conversely, my foremost concern is that this is a societal safety issue rather than a specific occupational related one, and means that as practitioners we are rather leaving our brief.

We are too often accused of poking our nose into these things, so unless the specifics were to related to cycles used for the purpose of work and what considerations should be given, it does seem a dangerous arbitrary discussion for us to engage in. Not least, as this thread seem to have been simulated in the wake of the tragic death of Daniel Harris.

I note that several of the other practitioners here are keeping the thread related to specific occupational related issues, and would suggest we all bear that in mind.

So this drunk was hurtling towards you at speed but despite it being a dimly lit stretch of road, him wearing dark clothing and without lights you managed to see him! What exactly was this anecdote meant to illustrate?

With the greatest respect there is link to tragedy on virtually every thread we post on here. Whether its asbestos, RIDDOR, COMAH, Work at Height etc. etc
I can't think of a single regulation that hasn't been driven by some human cost.
I recently posted a question regarding Japan's nuclear industry. That directly links back to Fukushima and the tsunami. 16000 souls were lost in the Tsunami, including two on the site, but nobody objected to that discussion.