Another CTC Helmet Rant

Ron Stuart

Here's the latest gem from the CTC part of a recent cycleclips email....

"CTC's Chris Peck has also been giving a conference address - although not by bike, we assume! He spoke at this year’s VeloCity in Vienna and presented evidence that cycling is not an exceptionally high-risk activity, and that attempts to reduce that risk by urging cyclists to wear helmets would almost certainly shorten far more lives than helmets could possibly save. An editorial in the British Medical Journal also questions the British Medical Association’s advocacy of helmet laws."

So according to the CTC wearing a helmet will shorten your life :shock:

I think what they meant to have said is that getting off one's arse and getting some excercise might just prolong one's life span and as far as I am concerned if you intend to ride a bike on a regular basis sticking a helmet on your bonce is a sound idea. (Speaking as one who has been moan down by a hit and run driver and lived to tell the tail mainly because of wearing a cycle helmet) :!:

Anyone care to comment 'again even' :?

Hoopdriver

I too saw, and sighed at, the wearisome CTC report.

As far as I am concerned if somebody doesn't want to wear a helmet, fine. I happen to wear one - always. But I don't believe in compulsion. But at the same time I don't feel like having my intelligence insulted with a lot of arrant nonsense about helmets shortening lives, curdling milk, making the cat squawk - whatever. If people don't want to wear a helmet, so be it. Who cares? I just wish they would man-up and, if asked, say they don't want to wear a helmet because they don't want to wear a helmet and spare us all the ludicrous justifications and rationalisations and pontifications.

rolf_f

Possibly you need to check what he actually said rather than what sounds like an interpretation of what he said. Here is a verbatim quote from Chris Peck:

Chris Peck, CTC's Policy Coordinator, said:

""We welcome Bradley Wiggins's clarification that he is not calling for helmets to be 'made the law', as CTC believes that making cycle helmets compulsory would be likely to have an overall damaging effect on public health.

"This is because the health benefits of cycling massively outweigh the risks and we know that where enforced, helmet laws tend to lead to an immediate reduction in cycling.

"Two thirds of collisions between adult cyclists and motor vehicles are deemed by police to be the responsibility of the motorist. Any legislation should put the onus on those who cause the harm, not the victims."

Anyone disagree with that? Seems pretty pragmatic to me.....

Hoopdriver

Rolf F wrote:

Possibly you need to check what he actually said rather than what sounds like an interpretation of what he said. Here is a verbatim quote from Chris Peck:

Chris Peck, CTC's Policy Coordinator, said:

""We welcome Bradley Wiggins's clarification that he is not calling for helmets to be 'made the law', as CTC believes that making cycle helmets compulsory would be likely to have an overall damaging effect on public health.

"This is because the health benefits of cycling massively outweigh the risks and we know that where enforced, helmet laws tend to lead to an immediate reduction in cycling.

"Two thirds of collisions between adult cyclists and motor vehicles are deemed by police to be the responsibility of the motorist. Any legislation should put the onus on those who cause the harm, not the victims."

Anyone disagree with that? Seems pretty pragmatic to me.....

Perhaps you need to refresh your screen every now and then. Your quote from Chris Peck is nearly a year old (2 August 2012) whereas the OP was referring to something in today's Cycle Clips

Ron Stuart

Hoopdriver wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Possibly you need to check what he actually said rather than what sounds like an interpretation of what he said. Here is a verbatim quote from Chris Peck:

Chris Peck, CTC's Policy Coordinator, said:

""We welcome Bradley Wiggins's clarification that he is not calling for helmets to be 'made the law', as CTC believes that making cycle helmets compulsory would be likely to have an overall damaging effect on public health.

"This is because the health benefits of cycling massively outweigh the risks and we know that where enforced, helmet laws tend to lead to an immediate reduction in cycling.

"Two thirds of collisions between adult cyclists and motor vehicles are deemed by police to be the responsibility of the motorist. Any legislation should put the onus on those who cause the harm, not the victims."

Anyone disagree with that? Seems pretty pragmatic to me.....

Perhaps you need to refresh your screen every now and then. Your quote from Chris Peck is nearly a year old (2 August 2012) whereas the OP was referring to something in today's Cycle Clips

Thanks Hoop and that's the point of course it's about being careful how one reports issues, this was a poorly worded Cycle Clip know mater what view you have on helmet use.

rolf_f

Hoopdriver wrote:

Perhaps you need to refresh your screen every now and then. Your quote from Chris Peck is nearly a year old (2 August 2012) whereas the OP was referring to something in today's Cycle Clips

I didn't say it was a current clip - I was just using it to illustrate the point that Chris Pecks opinion (unless it has changed which seems unlikely) is that, to quote someone else, "if someone doesn't want to wear a helmet, fine". Of course, you may disagree with that but Mr Peck apparently doesn't.

That said, the Cycle Clips piece doesn't say that wearing helmets shortens lives - it says that compulsory wearing of helmets shortens lives; the missing bit is presumably the connection that compulsory wearing of helmets reduces take up of cycling and therefore people miss out on the health benefits of cycling - and that then shortens the lives. Or putting it another way - it is more dangerous to not cycle at all than to cycle without wearing a helmet. It's a slack report on a worthy attitude by the CTC IMO.

FWIW - this is the presentation Chris Peck gave. Without the words some context is missing but it all seems to make sense. http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/1306_cp_velo-city_health-costs-of-rd-safety_pres.ppt#262,1,Slide%201

Hoopdriver

Ron Stuart wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Possibly you need to check what he actually said rather than what sounds like an interpretation of what he said. Here is a verbatim quote from Chris Peck:

Chris Peck, CTC's Policy Coordinator, said:

""We welcome Bradley Wiggins's clarification that he is not calling for helmets to be 'made the law', as CTC believes that making cycle helmets compulsory would be likely to have an overall damaging effect on public health.

"This is because the health benefits of cycling massively outweigh the risks and we know that where enforced, helmet laws tend to lead to an immediate reduction in cycling.

"Two thirds of collisions between adult cyclists and motor vehicles are deemed by police to be the responsibility of the motorist. Any legislation should put the onus on those who cause the harm, not the victims."

Anyone disagree with that? Seems pretty pragmatic to me.....

Perhaps you need to refresh your screen every now and then. Your quote from Chris Peck is nearly a year old (2 August 2012) whereas the OP was referring to something in today's Cycle Clips

Thanks Hoop and that's the point of course it's about being careful how one reports issues, this was a poorly worded Cycle Clip know mater what view you have on helmet use.

Indeed it was poorly worded. Almost elephantine in its clumsiness and the hyperbole in it lost it any chance of being taken seriously. They really need to get better writers and reporters.

Tim Dukes

I think the CTC Cycleclips email is sent out to existing CTC members, therefore anything in it I would assume would carry a certain amount of assumptions about what the CTCs stance is on various issues. So surely, if you're criticising writers and reporters it would be wise to consider the audience as well as the content. Not to mention that the e-mail needs to be short and therefore has to include "soundbites" (a frustration of any modern media form IMO). The Helmet Debate is a very complex subject and Cycleclips isn't the place where detail can be elaborated. Personally, I saw nothing wrong with the subject, context or writing style, but then maybe my axe wasn't there to be ground....

Ron Stuart

Tim Dukes wrote:

I think the CTC Cycleclips email is sent out to existing CTC members, therefore anything in it I would assume would carry a certain amount of assumptions about what the CTCs stance is on various issues. So surely, if you're criticising writers and reporters it would be wise to consider the audience as well as the content. Not to mention that the e-mail needs to be short and therefore has to include "soundbites" (a frustration of any modern media form IMO). The Helmet Debate is a very complex subject and Cycleclips isn't the place where detail can be elaborated. Personally, I saw nothing wrong with the subject, context or writing style, but then maybe my axe wasn't there to be ground....

Your response doesn't consider the impact the 'clip with sound bites' may have on recent CTC members and certainly should have made reference to there officially worded CTC stance on the use of cycle helmets, further more I would assume that longer standing CTC members would have decided by now how they stand on the use of helmets.

Also, if it is your opinion that "The Helmet Debate is a very complex subject and Cycleclips isn't the place where detail can be elaborated." then this just gives me more reason to think that it should have included a reference to where the CTC's line if you like is on the use of helmets, a place where it should be better worded.

My post was completely motivated by how the " audience" may interpret the clips content I can assure you. It was in particularly those that may be new to cycling and the CTC that led me to post.

Tim Dukes

Fair point, but it (soundbites) is the nature of journalism these days. I disagree with it personally, and ideally Cycleclips should include a hyperlink to the relevant CTC pages. I suppose we're just going to have to put up with more and more of this kind of lowest-common-denominator stuff. CTC/Cycleclips are certainly not the worst offenders, but I take your point about new/experienced memebers.

Sorry for assuming the worst about your intent, and thank you for correcting me so cordially! I've gone round in circles with the helmet debate for countless times and it starting to make me cynical!

Ron Stuart

Tim Dukes wrote:

Fair point, but it (soundbites) is the nature of journalism these days. I disagree with it personally, and ideally Cycleclips should include a hyperlink to the relevant CTC pages. I suppose we're just going to have to put up with more and more of this kind of lowest-common-denominator stuff. CTC/Cycleclips are certainly not the worst offenders, but I take your point about new/experienced memebers.

Sorry for assuming the worst about your intent, and thank you for correcting me so cordially! I've gone round in circles with the helmet debate for countless times and it starting to make me cynical!

No problem

Mike Healey

The title of this thread implies a definition of "rant" which doesn't accord with any I've ever read.