Police stopped me & son to tell us should be wearing helmet

[willpom]

Today I was off to Bristol's Biggest Bike Ride with my 22month old son in the seat behind and my baby mama on her own bike. None of us were wearing helmets. I don't own a helmet, my partner does but doesn't wear it and I bought one for my son but have actually never used it. I have been cycling with my son on the back like this since he was 8months old, mainly cycle paths, quite country roads but also round town.

On the way there whilst on a city main road at 09:45 (if any body knows Bristol it is pretty void of traffic at that time on a Sunday) we were pulled over by 2 WPCs who proceeded to tell me that for our safety we should be wearing helmets on these busy dangerous roads. I quieried them asking why they had stopped us when there was no law insisting that we should. They changed there tack saying they were advising especially for my son. I explained I know the risk, I am a competent cyclists that is even more aware of traffic around me whilst my son is on the back and I believe their faith in helmets is misplaced. They were very insistant even when I thanked them for their advise but explained I was happy with my desision. They kept on, I had to defend my actions to these WPCs in the process becoming a little hot under the collar as it was pretty much "we're giving you this advise, you must take it". My partner stepped in, "why did you stop us?" "Because you need advice." "Thank you, we'll be on our way."

Any way this has played on my mind all day.

In the exchange two things came up that stuck.
1. They were mothers: Was their (over) protective motherly instincts (please ladies no offence meant mamas just tend to be more protective) combined with their uniform giving them a sense that they could dictate their views to us?
2. They stated that on these busy dangerous roads it would be an idiot motorist that would cause an accident: I wish I had asked them why they weren't spending more time then on policing the roads rather than divulging what I see as misguided views.

A bit of back ground from where I'm coming from.
1. I am well read into the effectiveness of helmets especially after suffering a serious head injury a few years ago - drunk+bike+hill+wall=fracture of skull+lose of taste.I'm asked why after this I don't wear a helmet; a) I was drunk & even if I did wear a helmet I wasn't going to walk 2miles across town and back for a helmet before getting on a bike at 3 in the morning. b) The evidence for appears flawed. c) The standard which they must achieve seems more suitable for a drunk person running into a wall (should have left the bike behind).
2. I am involved in the organisation of mass participation cycle events, including specifically the risk assessment of routes so I look at the lay of the land and traffic conditions in a particular way.

What are your thoughts? Be frank, on the police intervention and my decision not to put a lid on the kid!

[Redvee]

Should have taken their shoulder numbers and reported the interaction to A&S police. If they were pulling you over for lack of lights, very unlikely going on the number of ninjas I see on the way home, I can understand but lack of helmets I can't.

[bovlomov]

I would have found it hard to think straight and act calmly in the face of such idiocy.

Generally, a good tactic with troublesome officials is to press them to clarify exactly what they mean. This gives them an uncomfortable feeling that 1) you are listening to what they are saying, and 2) that they may have to answer for it later. Usually it results in some rapid back-pedalling (no pun intended).

So in this case, perhaps, explain to them that you don't believe that the research supports their view, but, given that they have stopped you, they must have some solid research to back them up. What exactly? Have they been instructed to stop unhelmetted riders? By whom?

Finally, get their numbers and pursue it. If indeed it is a policy, then the police chief needs to be held to account. I suspect it isn't though.

Not easy in the heat of the moment.

About the child helmet:
I've never worn a helmet, but when it came to putting my child on the back of the bike, I had some thinking to do. Making a decision for myself is easy. making it on behalf of my child is more difficult. I asked some questions on this forum and did some research, and came to the conclusion that the biggest risk to the child is a broken arm if the bike falls sideways. Also, the forces exerted by a huge helmet perched on such a small head seem likely to cause neck damage.

My daughter enjoys being on the bike. Long may that continue. If I forced her to wear a helmet, I doubt she'd be so pleased to come with me. I don't want my daughter to think that cycling is something that requires body armour.

[bovlomov]

By the way, have a look at the Bobike maxi-exclusive rear child seat:


http://www.evanscycles.com/products/bob ... 5#features

One of the stated features is a helmet recess "to ensure your child’s comfort". As far as I can see, unless the child is of exactly the right height, the helmet is likely to be lodged in a rather unnatural position. And, more worryingly, if the helmet does sit in the recess and the bike falls, what happens to the child's neck?

But it complies with European Safety Standard EN 14344.

Very odd!

[thirdcrank]

I'd always advise anybody thinking of complaining to be clear first what they hope to achieve. In this case, I'm not sure that there's much that can be achieved. The official line would inevitably be that they were only giving advice - traditionally one of the roles of the police, especially with regard to road traffic matters.

Here's the HC on the subject of cycle helmets:

59
Clothing. You should wear

a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened...

https://www.gov.uk/rules-for-cyclists-59-to-82

That's a should rather than a must so it's only advice, but that's all you had from the police.

If this thread goes the same way as many helmet threads, you will find that a lot of posters will support the HC's line.

[Michael R]

How often have those WPCs stopped motorists using mobiles - hand-held or hands free.

[bovlomov]

In this case, I'm not sure that there's much that can be achieved. The official line would inevitably be that they were only giving advice - traditionally one of the roles of the police, especially with regard to road traffic matters.

Hopefully their boss will be unhappy that, in a city where a fair proportion of the residents ride bikes, two of his officers are going around alienating law-abiding cyclists.

[EDIT: Being pragmatic for a moment (it doesn't come naturally), I wouldn't expect the official line to be anything other than fully supportive of the officers. It would be an achievement though, if quiet words were had at the station and the officers didn't do it again. In that sense, I think a complaint may be successful. No one's expecting a charge of harassment to stick.]

[squeaker]

Should have taken their shoulder numbers and reported the interaction to A&S police.

Quite: complete waste of taxpayers' money, if nothing else

[thirdcrank]

... Hopefully their boss will be unhappy that, in a city where a fair proportion of the residents ride bikes, two of his officers are going around alienating law-abiding cyclists.

I spent a couple of decades of my life as a police inspector and most of that time I was a uniform patrol inspector During that time I met a lot of people who were unhappy about the way the police had dealt with something. I always tried to find out what the person would see as suitable outcome. I've never fobbed anybody off by promising something I couldn't deliver such as promising (with fingers crossed) to carpet the people concerned.

In the present case, I can't see anything which suggests that the officers have committed either criminal or disciplinary offences. A brief summary would be that they stopped some cyclists and advised them of a provision of the Highway Code. Regular readers of my ramblings will know that I think helmets are pretty much a waste of time, but I never ride a bike without one because I'm familiar with the attitudes of those who would be dealing with the outcome of a serious collision with me on the receiving end. However, with my police inspector's hat on (black braid round neb) rather than any form of cycling hat, I'd not advise police officers that they shouldn't stop members of the public to advise them of the provisions of the Highway Code. Apart from anything else, I'd be open to a complaint of committing the disciplinary offence of abuse of authority.

There's always the implication of "Have you nothing better to do with your time?" to which my own response was often "Yes, and just as soon as I've dealt with you, I'll get on with it." Followed to it's logical conclusion, the police couldn't deal with anything till they'd cleared up all the treason and the more serious murders.

In this context, the advice to wear a helmet is included in the HC. endov. The time to have fought this battle was at the consultation stage before it was included. (See my lone ravings against the amendment of the HC's advice on cycle farcilities.)

[Vorpal]

They are clearly poorly educated on the subject of helmet efficiacy

Firstly, when it comes to discussion with the police, I might suggest that the following points are significant
1) the main risk to cyclists on the road is from motor traffic
2) helmets are designed for falls, not getting run over
It may even be possible by politely asking the right questions (as Bovlomov suggests) to get them to come to the above logic on their own.

It will not likely do anyone any good to get upset about the ignorance of someone who has simply never been exposed to more than one viewpoint. Rather than complaining, I might write to the new police commissioner and explain that helmet promotion may discourage cycling. The police should encourage people to cycle rather than stopping them to tell them to wear helmets when there are so many more effective things they could do with their time.

[bovlomov]

Thanks, thirdcrank.

In that case, going back to the original question, I suggest you engage in a long and earnest discussion with the officers. Ask whether they know anything about the subject, beyond the Highway Code; quote statistics; discuss the various pro and anti arguments; explain your thinking and invite them to explain theirs; discuss BS vs Snell, correct fitting of helmets... civil liberties.. ...recycling of polystyrene... Treat them like old friends with whom you have so much to talk about.

In short: waste their time, just as they are wasting yours. Hopefully they won't try again.

[willpom]

All good points.

It will not likely do anyone any good to get upset about the ignorance of someone who has simply never been exposed to more than one viewpoint. Rather than complaining, I might write to the new police commissioner and explain that helmet promotion may discourage cycling. The police should encourage people to cycle rather than stopping them to tell them to wear helmets when there are so many more effective things they could do with their time.

Firstly I have no intention of following up in relation to the officers involved as I fully understand they were passing on 'advise'. If only I could have passed on mine with the same authority. For that reason Vorpal I agree and have already been formulating a letter at 4 this morning as I lay awake with son as his molars are pushing through at the mo.

I suggest you engage in a long and earnest discussion with the officers. Ask whether they know anything about the subject.

I had a go but didn't get much further as they were very insistent which led to me getting hot around the collar as no matter what I said the reply was "we advise you to wear helmets". One officer commented that my attitude was obnoxious whilst I was trying to put forward my case. That's when the misses stepped in, mama to mama!

One of the stated features is a helmet recess "to ensure your child’s comfort". As far as I can see, unless the child is of exactly the right height, the helmet is likely to be lodged in a rather unnatural position. And, more worryingly, if the helmet does sit in the recess and the bike falls, what happens to the child's neck?

I have the Hamax Siesta with the same recess. At the start when I did buy a helmet it is exactly the reasons you point out that I didn't use it. My son was way to short, that coupled with the fact the smallest helmet that I could buy had to be 'dialled in' to fit correctly meant that when secured in the seat the helmet actually pushed his head forward and down, wobbling from side to side on his neck. The helmet went back in its box and that is where it will stay.

Regular readers of my ramblings will know that I think helmets are pretty much a waste of time, but I never ride a bike without one because I'm familiar with the attitudes of those who would be dealing with the outcome of a serious collision with me on the receiving end.

Would a highvis jersey with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002: Schedule 5 - Sign 950 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/schedule/5/made on the back be classed as an effective safety aid providing a visual known warning on approach from rear?

On an aside whilst on the BBBR there were many other families there, kids on bikes, tag-alongs, seats up front & behind, tandems, even a triplet and also trailers. I'd say on a rough guess about 90% of the kids had helmets (same for mothers, a lot less for fathers). Many of them fitted incorrectly lolling on the back of their heads, cocked to one side or with the straps undone. Also I did not see one child in a trailer with a helmet, even if there were 2+ children on seat, bike etc in the same family.

Keep the comments coming.

[meic]

Many of them fitted incorrectly lolling on the back of their heads, cocked to one side or with the straps undone. Also I did not see one child in a trailer with a helmet, even if there were 2+ children on seat, bike etc in the same family.

Thats my daughter. You cant make helmets sit straight if they are five sizes too big but it works OK as a fashion accessory.

The suggestion of asking them to wear a helmet in a trailer is generally a good indicator that somebody is unable to think past the words they are using.

[bovlomov]

One officer commented that my attitude was obnoxious whilst I was trying to put forward my case. That's when the misses stepped in, mama to mama!

Oh dear! I can see it all, as if it had happened to me.

[kwackers]

One officer commented that my attitude was obnoxious whilst I was trying to put forward my case. That's when the misses stepped in, mama to mama!

Oh dear! I can see it all, as if it had happened to me.

There's little point in arguing with 'authority', firstly they've seen it all many times before so you've initially got to get past that and show them you're making sense.
Frankly you simply won't have time and they won't be interested enough. Best you can hope for is a plastic smile and apologetic nods, worse is comments like above and the possibility of it becoming confrontational.

Best bet imo is to start with a patronising smile yourself and just say "possibly" before riding off and ignoring them.