metro article on helmets

[Boris Bajic]

The Norwich experience showed that the main reasons for non participation were financial with the group withdrawing most were from low income families and those from deprived areas.

The choice of whether to buy a helmet was nothing to do with "taking some kind of stand" more about prioritising a limited financial resource.

Tragically these are the same groups who statistically are over - represented in the accident statistics.

The only "stand" is being made by the helmet compulsionists who are excluding the group that would benefit most from training. Why not waive the helmet compulsion and save children's lives?

Or is excluding them by taking a pro compulsion stand acceptable?

Many people are excluded from taking part in many activities through poverty.

However, the cost of a child's cycle helmet does not convince me in this instance that it's the real reason.

eBay is chocked full of helmets for under £10 and better bargains are available in the window advertisments of many newsagents.

I like a sob story as much as the next man. I gave lifts to and from training and matches to very poor, welfare-dependent, socially-housed team-mates when my elder boy was (for many years) in a local soccer league. Poverty is ghastly and I hope that neither I nor my children ever experience it. Nonetheless, every one of those boys from hard-up homes had just about the best boots you could buy. Their parents smoked and often drank rather more than is sensible.... I do not tar all with one brush and have no moral point to make, but the sub-£10 cost of a child's cycle helmet (or less) is not much of a decider for non-participation in potentially life-saving training.

It makes a good weepie, but it's cheaper than 40 cigarettes.

 

[StuartG]

You forget Boris that all the alternative ways of spending £10 bring some perceived benefit to the family. And £10 for them may have the same value as, say, £100 to you. 40 fags helps kill, but it does so pleasurably. Whereas buying a helmet has no proven utility and might just deprive one member his very last smoke. They, I think, are being more logical than you.

Please don't cry ...

 

[ufkacbln]

.. and the point is that if this was really about cycle safety for the children then we (and these training groups) should be looking at the fact that these children are unnecessarily at greater risk because of a political decision

They could be reducing child cycle accidents by 50% but are choosing not to do so This however is not what the politics is about, there is a preference yet again to deal with the aftermath and "prevent a head injury" rather than take steps to reduce the likelihood of the accident occurring in the first place

Another coup for the compulsionists at the cost of real improvements to cyclist safety.

 

[Boris Bajic]

.. and the point is that if this was really about cycle safety for the children then we (and these training groups) should be looking at the fact that these children are unnecessarily at greater risk because of a political decision

They could be reducing child cycle accidents by 50% but are choosing not to do so This however is not what the politics is about, there is a preference yet again to deal with the aftermath and "prevent a head injury" rather than take steps to reduce the likelihood of the accident occurring in the first place

Another coup for the compulsionists at the cost of real improvements to cyclist safety.

This point I buy in its entirity. I do not know the figures, but I find your overall assessment convincing.

As I said above, I find compulsion silly in this example.

Nonetheless, I think the cost-threshold weepie is all smoke and mirrors. Much of that smoke coming from Messrs Lambert & Butler.

 

[Boris Bajic]

You forget Boris that all the alternative ways of spending £10 bring some perceived benefit to the family. And £10 for them may have the same value as, say, £100 to you. 40 fags helps kill, but it does so pleasurably. Whereas buying a helmet has no proven utility and might just deprive one member his very last smoke. They, I think, are being more logical than you.

Please don't cry ...

I like this post, but I disagree on two points.

I didn't forget that there were other uses for the £10. I didn't mention it, but I didn't forget it.

The £10 or less spent on a child's cycle helmet would bring the perceived utility (or benefit) of potentially life-saving cycle training. It may be that the budget holders within that family put a lower value on that than they do on cigarettes or some other product, but that is their assessment.

If that family value training sufficiently to consider it and assess its affordability, they are likely to have made some sort of assessment of its benefit or utility. If they then give the cost of a helmet as the reason for not going ahead with it, they may give the appearance of having made a cold budgeting assessment showing quite unusual priorities.

On the matter of logic, if we stay with our example and if we think of logic as defined by AJ Ayer and others, then a family preferring to spend money on a leisure habit proven to hasten ill health and/or death over a single (saleable) item that will enable their offspring to enjoy potentially life-saving training... I would argue that their position is not logical.

I am quite comfortable with the reality that I do little that is logical and am quite probably certifiable... It's my pleasure to be this way. But (to stick with the example being discussed) spending money on fags over an item that will enable valuable training is many things... Logical is not one of them.

 

[Rickshaw Phil]

I don't think anyone has mentioned the insurance aspect yet.

Cycle trainers, schools and groups have to have public liability insurance when organising their training/group rides and it is quite likely that their insurance will be invalidated if an incident occurred and the riders involved weren't wearing helmets.

Insurers would just see that an item of safety equipment wasn't being used if there was an accident of any kind.

 

[Red Light]

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2012/05/extreme-sport-in-la-not.html

Insurance companies have a lot to answer for but so do we for letting them get away with it.

 

[dellzeqq]

I don't think anyone has mentioned the insurance aspect yet.

Cycle trainers, schools and groups have to have public liability insurance when organising their training/group rides and it is quite likely that their insurance will be invalidated if an incident occurred and the riders involved weren't wearing helmets.

Insurers would just see that an item of safety equipment wasn't being used if there was an accident of any kind.

I've some experience of this. It is possible to fight off compulsory helmets on a charity ride, not least because one can refer to the CTC policy on helmets, which is, essentially, live and let live. And CTC groups are under no obligation with regard to helmets.

 

[marafi]

The pure reason why i don't read the metro. The same writers as the Daily mail.