[Closed] Helmet compulsion again

It's a very sad case. But there seems to be a strange blindness to the cause of the injury. Being run over by a van is what put him in a coma. If he'd been wearing a helmet he might or might not be in a coma. If he hadn't been run over by a van he wouldn't be.

its his son, but he didnt make him wear a helmet, now he regrets that decision.
not that it would change his current situation
as pointed out above, its the van that done the damage, not the lads choice of clothing.

but why try to push that decision/responsibility onto the state?

Regardless of the argument, the father holding his son in hospital just breaks my heart.

FWIW Im in favour of wearing helmet regardless, whether its a quick spin round the corner to the shop or a full on day in the hills.

I don't get the attitude that wearing a helmet isn't effective at all.

Surely if you wear ANY protection of any sort when undertaking a potentially hazardous activity, then the risk of injury or death is reduced (or survivability is increased, whichever way you look at it)? Or am I being overly simplistic?

I'm throwing hypotheticals around with reckless abandon here, but lets say with this young lad that when he set off on his journey [u]without a helmet[/u] if he is involved in an accident there's a 10% chance of him ending up in a coma.

If he had been wearing a helmet and the risk is reduced to say, 9%, then surely that's better than the risk not being reduced at all? Isn't it?

He might still have ended up in a coma but at least he took the precautions to protect against that situation.

Surely if you wear ANY protection of any sort when undertaking a potentially hazardous activity, then the risk of injury or death is reduced (or survivability is increased, whichever way you look at it)? Or am I being overly simplistic

You are being over simplistic I'm afraid. The assumption that more safety devices in a system automatically makes that system safer is I'm afraid incorrect.

I'm not going to get involved with the debate on this again, I am obviously a massive advocate of helmet use, however i don't think anything should be compulsory. If you choose not to wear one, then fine. Mandatory for kids, maybe?

I don't get the attitude that wearing a helmet isn't effective at all.

Not sure that attitude has been expressed on this thread.

I'm anti compulsion, not anti helmet.
This:[img] [/img]
quite simply is NOT danegrous. Why should you be forced by law to wear a helmet for that and then not wear one when you go jogging, or play football, or go ice-skating, or walk up a flight of stairs?

Heartbreaking picture.

IMO people in that kind of situation (thinking also of that guy last week whose daughter committed suicide and he was lashing out at a website she'd been 'cyber-bullied' on) can't be expected to be rational.

You'd be better compelling car drivers to wear helmets.....

first of all my sympathy to the father

currently living in Melbourne Aus and helmets are mandatory - even for kids on scooters (push sort - not French style) on our way to school this morning a car reversed out of a drive (too fast) and braked just in time to avoid hitting my youngest only probably because of her evasive action- she rides her BMX to school everyday and is very aware of the dangers of vehicles turning/reversing - my feelings on this are that wearing a helmet would have made no difference to potential injuries - I was wearing a fluro jacket and less than a wheel length behind - the problem is [b][u]bad driving [/u][/b] not what cyclists should or shouldn't wear. that's a full stop

I don't get the attitude that wearing a helmet isn't effective at all.

If I'm to come off my bike and bounce my head along the road, I'd rather be wearing a helmet than not. But the issue is that cycling isn't a particularly dangerous activity per se, and it's far from clear that helmets make a significant difference to the overall reduction or prevention of injury.

If we were to come up with a big list of things that would make cycling safer, helmet-wearing wouldn't be near the top in my view, which is why it's disappointing that it's given so much media attention.

You guys must have considerably better hair cuts than mine, I'd be perfectly fine with them enforcing it. Arguing the toss with ancient pseudo-science either way is useless.

Why not just enforce it on the road? The above picture isn't on the road.

They said exactly the same when seatbelts were enforced, it's equally people thinking their freedom has been taken away. Really doesn't make a bit of difference. The above argument about "bad driving" fits the case perfectly, why wear a seatbelt? Can't everyone just not have accidents? Great logic!

Here's another RTA victim who was in a coma and suffered brain injury. A car passenger in this case.

http://www.londonderrysentinel.co.uk/news/roe-valley/car-crash-coma-victim-recovers-to-claim-academic-awards-1-4888662

So why is it only head injuries to cyclists that prompt the calls for helmet compulsion?

johnellison - Member

I don't get the attitude that wearing a helmet isn't effective at all.

passing a 'helmet law' would reinforce the idea that cycling is dangerous (it's not really),

It would be a great way to encourage people into their cars, and into an early grave through lack of exercise.

They said exactly the same when seatbelts were enforced, it's equally people thinking their freedom has been taken away. Really doesn't make a bit of difference.

Seat belts? You mean the safety measure that when first introduced increased the deaths of rear seat passngers, cyclists, and pedestrians.

http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2013/03/24/the-biggest-lie/

You guys must have considerably better hair cuts than mine, I'd be perfectly fine with them enforcing it.

In which case, you'd surely have no problem with enforcing them for pedestrians and drivers.

In which case, you'd surely have no problem with enforcing them for pedestrians and drivers.

and people playing football
http://news.sky.com/story/1101822/heading-a-football-leaves-the-brain-injured

theres loads of stuff that causes head injuries, why single out cycling?

If you're a libertine, stick to the argument that its your inalienable right to do something stupid without state intervention. But don't try to argue that in the event of a cycle accident a helmet would make no difference to your physical well being.

But don't try to argue that in the event of a cycle accident a helmet would make no difference to your physical well being.

Why not? Where's the evidence that it definitely would make a difference?

when you say cycle accident, you are being quite narrow in your parameters, for that to be true.

EDIT - it wasnt good enough to quote twice.

[url= http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.co.uk/ ]pedestrian loses leg to cab driver[/url]

If you're a libertine, stick to the argument that its your inalienable right to do something stupid without state intervention. But don't try to argue that in the event of a cycle accident a helmet would make no difference to your physical well being.

If you're going to argue in favour of helmet compulsion, it might be a good idea to understand the argument of those who are against it. Have you spotted anybody actually making the (strawman 😉 ) argument you suggest they are?

Why not just enforce it on the road? The above picture isn't on the road.

Because there's a mountain of evidence that'd need to be climbed to demonstrate any kind of net benefit.

There are 120 or so deaths of cyclists each year.
Let's say (HIGHLY generously) that 5% of those deaths would be prevented by helmet [i]mandation[/i] (not just by helmets)

There are 90,000 deaths from inactivity each year.
You'd have to show, on this measure, that helmet mandation would not have an impact on activity rates that led to a 0.006% increase in mortality.

Confident?

If you're a libertine, stick to the argument that its your inalienable right to do something stupid without state intervention. But don't try to argue that in the event of a cycle accident a helmet would make no difference to your physical well being.
If you're going to argue in favour of helmet compulsion, it might be a good idea to understand the argument of those who are against it. Have you spotted anybody actually making the (strawman ) argument you suggest they are?

I've never argued in favour of compulsion. I'm stating that it's inexcusable in a public environment/forum to argue that wearing a helmet in an accident will have no net benefits. By all means it is your right to ride helmet-less but you have a responsibility to not convince others to take greater risks with their lives than they otherwise would.

I'm stating that it's inexcusable in a public environment/forum to argue that wearing a helmet in an accident will have no net benefits

It will only have any net benefits if you hit your head. If run over by a lorry for instance, a helmet would likely make no difference. Even if you do hit your head if the impact is large enough you're still going to suffer some sort of brain injury. I don't know of any studies that have shown how helpful a helmet is in reducing brain injuries when crashing at high speeds.

By all means it is your right to ride helmet-less but you have a responsibility to not convince others to take greater risks with their lives than they otherwise would.

By going mountain biking at all we're increasing risk, but in the long run it will make them fitter and probably make them live longer. It's a net gain. Helmet compulsion will reduce the numbers riding and this will damage public health.

You cant shut down debate by saying we have a responsibility to not talk about risky behaviour.

I'm stating that it's inexcusable in a public environment/forum to argue that wearing a helmet in an accident will have no net benefits.

I've not see anyone saying that in this thread. I do think there is a good argument that wearing a helmet for road cycling has no net benefits. Any benefit from the helmet is outweighed by other factors. Most likely risk compensation by both cyclists and drivers in my opinion.

Those advocating compulsion need to prove that the alleged benefits are both proved and substantial enough to justify using criminal law to change behaviour.

I'm stating that it's inexcusable in a public environment/forum to argue that wearing a helmet in an accident will have no net benefits.

Therefore we extend this rule to other groups who get head injuries in accidents like say car drivers and pedestrians.

Anything else would be madness and foolhardy libertine tosh from crazy risk takers.

I wear a helmet and I've no doubt my helmet has saved me from serious injury on at least one occasion, but it hasn't been on the road, mostly on technical trails and rocks.

Helmets make sense if you are going fast or your risk of collision is greater than normal, but I don't agree with a nanny state forcing me or anyone else to wear a lid.

Riding can be a hazardous sport, even if you are just commuting on the road. It involves risks, if you don't want to take risks then not riding a bike on the road is safer than doing so whilst wearing a helmet.

To even begin to argue that wearing a helmet on the road has little or no benifit is just plain stupidity. That like saying a motor cycle rider will gain nothing by wearing a helmet. Not every RTA involves getting run over, some people need to stop trying to sound intelligent and start using some intelligence.

i know this is an extreme case, wouter weylandt wore a helmet, he crashed, he died. Helmets are not a panacea.

And as most accidents are the fault of driver error not cyclist error, i would rather the true cause of accidents was solved!

Arguing about helmets only allows people to ignore the elephant in the room, there are far to many crap drivers on the road!

Arguing about helmets convinces non cyclists that cycling is dangerous and something they shouldn't do!

We need people to see cycling as normal, something you do without thinking.

If you want to wear a helmet feel free, if you don't, go ahead. Just ride a bike and don't drive the car to the shop!

[img] [/img]

I'm taking up smoking seems its safe despite all the -ve press.

To even begin to argue that wearing a helmet on the road has little or no benifit is just plain stupidity

Evidence please?

That like saying a motor cycle rider will gain nothing by wearing a helmet

No its not. Its nothing like that. The speed that a motorcycle travels at and the speed a bike (generally) travels at are very different. A bike helmet is also totally different in construction and the speeds they're designed for.

Oh and the big fallacy that its safe on a bike in Holland, with 200+ deaths in 2011 it is worse than the UK by almost 100%.
The stats are quoted as safe against the number of miles/km traveled as most of them are done on traffic free cycle paths wearing a helmet is probably not a necessity as the objective dangers are low. Having cycled on the roads in the Netherlands away from the cyclepaths its pretty scary.

Oh and the big fallacy that its safe on a bike in Holland, with 200+ deaths in 2011 it is worse than the UK by almost 100%.

My word.

What mrmo said ^^.

I had a discussion with some bloke the other day who said he was campaigning for all cyclists to wear helmets and hi-vis and could he count on my support with this petition for the MP etc.

Tried explaining to him that it was simply one more stick to beat cyclists with:
"van collides with cyclist - cyclist not wearing hi-vis therefore it's perfectly OK, it's all the cyclist's fault" kind of thing. I mean, bloody hell, we get enough of that now without such stupid compulsion laws!

It's unworkable, unenforceable and just one more insidious way of shifting the blame onto the victim rather than fixing the root of the problem - crap driving, shockingly poor infrastructure and zero education of motorists re things like rights/responsibilities on the roads, the myth of road tax etc.

Asked him if he'd campaign for all children, all horse riders, all pedestrians to wear helmets and hi-vis? Maybe all people walking up and down stairs - do you know how many head injuries there are per year from falling down stairs?!

He said he agreed with me but he'd still be pushing on with his petition.

Cock.

(oh and for the reocrd, I'm pro-helmet, anti-compulsion).

I've fallen off and banged my head twice, both times I'm a 100% certain that wearing a helmet [b]ensured[/b] I was able to get up and carry on. I shall carry on wearing a helmet and you will all carry on arguing the toss with no conclusion .....

If helmets were compulsory, that kid probably wouldn't be in a coma.
Mainly because he probably wouldn't be riding at all.

both times I'm a 100% certain that wearing a helmet ensured I was able to get up and carry on

Why are 100% certain? Have you done any studies banging your head with and without a helmet to get empirical data?

Not every RTA involves getting run over,

But almost all the fatal ones do do. The risk of a cyclist being killed on the road without the help of a motor vehicle is so low it is not worth worrying about.

How many TdF riders (riding on traffic free roads) have ever been killed? Four. One drowned on a rest day (lifejacket law?). One fell down a ravine. One drug assisted heart failure. One crash at 55mph.

So 4 deaths in a century. A helmet wouldn't have helped for 3 and my not have saved the life of the rider who crashed at 55mph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_de_France#Deaths

As for deaths in the UK without motor vehicle help. Very few. Look for yourself. Click on the pics here. The vast majority involve MVs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tour_de_France#Deaths <

I've not see anyone saying that in this thread. I do think there is a good argument that wearing a helmet for road cycling has no net benefits. Any benefit from the helmet is outweighed by other factors. Most likely risk compensation by both cyclists and drivers in my opinion..

You've patently never had an OTB moment in heavy traffic, skidded off in the rain or hit a mini that pulled out in front of you, resulting in a full face plant on the tarmac. Last incident was a friend who was 17, not wearing a helmet and incurred brain damage.

The benefit of wearing a helmet is outweighed by nothing, other than if the helmet you were wearing was 1) dangerously radioactive 2) lined with razor blades 3) made of glass. What are the downsides of wearing a helmet in an accident?

Moreover, as with many transportation related injuries, cycling injuries are often to the head; such injuries account for approximately 30% of admissions to hospital for cycling related injuries

source: BMJ 2013; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2674 (Published 14 May 2013)
(This is also the Canadian study that states overall there was no reduction in cycling deaths where mandatory helmet law was introduced, taking into account the improvement of road safety & general uptake of helmet wearing across the cycling community as a whole)

Why are 100% certain? Have you done any studies banging your head with and without a helmet to get empirical data?

To even begin to argue that wearing a helmet on the road has little or no benifit is just plain stupidity.

That like saying a motor cycle rider will gain nothing by wearing a helmet.

Oh and the big fallacy that its safe on a bike in Holland, with 200+ deaths in 2011 it is worse than the UK by almost 100%.

Whatnobeer- 'ensured' ...... !

Carry on! 🙄

21 years ago (almost to the day) I went head first through the back of a VW camper on a very quiet road on my way home from work.
I was paralysed for three days and the doctors at first suspected I had broken my neck- I hadn't but I'd done quite a bit of damage.
A few days before I'd just found out I was going to be a father for the second time.
Been told I may never walk again was a bit harrowing and the prospect of not been able to run around with my kids was very upsetting.

One thing I'll never forget is the neuro-surgeon telling me that the helmet I was wearing at the time probably saved my life,or at least saved me from serious head trauma.

I've been riding bikes ever since.
This last week I waved my youngest son off to Thailand and yesterday started fettling a second hand bike for my grandsons 4th birthday.

I'm quite happy to have seen my boys grow into men and can't wait to go for my first ride with my grandson in a week or so. I was wearing my helmet,who knows what mine and my families life would have been if I hadn't.

Wearing a helmets up to you.But I'm glad I had mine on.

....and ,did the compulsory helmet law for motorcycles really affect anything ?

Just for the record I'm pro helmet, anti-compulsion too.

To be honest, I'm stunned by a couple of the statements & assumptions made in this thread so far which to me are ludicrously illogical.

Firstly wearing helmets is not a black & white issue of death vs life, as the main factor to be considered is the reduction of injury, which is a very grey area. For example I've had a crash in which my head & helmet hit a rock, but (obviously)I didn't die. However if I hadn't been wearing a helmet I may have had a sore head/concussion/fractured skull or other undesirable medical phenomenon.
Surely the question to be asked is, would you be better or worse off wearing a helmet in the majority of cycling accidents, not will I live or die if I wear/ don't wear a helmet? This type of question won't appeal to the lovers of statistics as qualitative judgements like this won't be consistently recorded by the NHS or other organisations around the world.

Secondly to suggest that the compulsary wearing of helmets would have a direct effect on the use of bikes is ridiculous. Why should one thing have a direct correlation on the other? A very tenuous assumption in my opinion especially when there are so many other strong influences on peoples decision to buy & ride bikes.

You've patently never had an OTB moment in heavy traffic, skidded off in the rain or hit a mini that pulled out in front of you, resulting in a full face plant on the tarmac. Last incident was a friend who was 17, not wearing a helmet and incurred brain damage.

The benefit of wearing a helmet is outweighed by nothing, other than if the helmet you were wearing was 1) dangerously radioactive 2) lined with razor blades 3) made of glass. What are the downsides of wearing a helmet in an accident?

There are no downsides to wearing a helmet in an accident. But there are downsides the rest of the time. Less comfortable than bare headed is the main one for me.

And no I have never gone OTB in traffic, hit a car, or in fact had any injury accident bigger than slight bruising. Maybe I would have done if I had worn a helmet and taken just a bit less care.

We all have different risk profiles depending on our skill and where we ride. I find riding within my limits, looking where I'm going, watching the road surface, being aware of other road users and anticipation of what they will do works for me.

headpotdog - Member

^ what he said! 😀

Secondly to suggest that the compulsary wearing of helmets would have a direct effect on the use of bikes is ridiculous. Why should one thing have a direct correlation on the other? A very tenuous assumption in my opinion especially when there are so many other strong influences on peoples decision to buy & ride bikes.

Read this:
http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australi a's-helmet-law-disaster

When compulsory helmet laws were introduced in Austraila, there was an almost immediate 30+% decline in the number of people cycling. That link above has some of the reasons why.

Try it in this country and it would kill off any hire bike scheme like in London (unless each bike came with a universal fit helmet too?).

It's not an assumption to say it leads to an immediate reduction in the number of people cycling, it's been observed everywhere it's been tried. People assume that cycling is more dangerous than it actually is, people just popping to the shops or pub don't want to go to the hassle of putting on specialist biking kit or don't want to mess up their hair for such a short journey. Current cyclists who don't own a helmet don't want to/can't afford to go and buy one so they just stop cycling. All sorts of reasons.

Compulsion for this is wrong.
It's not the same as the seatbelt argument - seatbelts are already in cars, they all fit, you might as well use them and you don't have to pay extra for them!

Edit: that link won't embed properly, it is correct, the apostrophe is supposed to be there

Secondly to suggest that the compulsary wearing of helmets would have a direct effect on the use of bikes is ridiculous

Well that's exactly what happened in Australia, in the short term at least. Just because an effect is apparent to you doesn't mean it isn't real.

Secondly to suggest that the compulsary wearing of helmets would have a direct effect on the use of bikes is ridiculous.

Read the studies, people stop riding/don't ride if there are compulsary helmet laws.

I have crashed, needed stiches to my face, i have crashed and written off a helmet or two.

The first point to make, if i hadn't been wearing a helmet i wouldn't have been doing what i was doing when i crashed! Risk compensation at work.

A few weeks ago stopped to help 2 fellow cyclists, one had an over the bars head first ontot the road, deformation of his helmet and sunglases.

He was a paramedic and so was his riding buddy, air ambulance finally arrived to take him to hospital,after treatment by 2 more car based paramedics, im so glad as he must have been he was wearing a helmet.

Also tonight, van almost smidsy s me by him doing a left turn, further on a lgv, almost crushes me into the Kerb,then a gang of kids started throwing stones at me and a few other cyclists a helmet wouldnt have helped, but it did when i went under a low branch and smacked my head.

Secondly to suggest that the compulsary wearing of helmets would have a direct effect on the use of bikes is ridiculous.

A very tenuous assumption in my opinion especially when there are so many other strong influences on peoples decision to buy & ride bikes.

However, the evidence strongly suggests that being told to wear helmets strongly deters some people from cycling, and that the loss of cycling’s health benefits (not to mention the wider environmental, congestion-reducing and other benefits of cycling) far outweigh any helmets could possibly deliver, even on the most optimistic assessment of their benefits.”

I am not sure why you would think it wont have an impact tbh

Wow. What always gets me in these arguments is that cyclists are wasting effort arguing with other cyclists over the effectiveness of helmets during RTA.

Surely everyone here would be better off joining the CTC and writing to your MP to know what they're doing to improve conditions for cyclists on the roads and reduce the root cause, vehicle/cyclist collisions.

fourbanger +1

Helmet arguments are wasting time, it is not actually solving anything.

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/helmet-compulsion-again

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/wiggo-on-helmets

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/how-do-you-deal-with-folk-not-wearing-a-helmet

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/bike-helmet-for-kids

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/the-helmet-debate-rumbles-on-in-the-mainstream-media

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/would-you-helmet-nazi-content#post-3139927

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/psa-another-study-on-the-efficacy-of-bike-helmets#post-3128520

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/thank-god-for-helmets#post-3071801

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/so-i-decided-to-write-off-my-helmet-today#post-3015561

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/will-the-uk-every-be-like-this#post-3001646

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/no-helmet#post-2983986

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/my-helmet-is-very-deformed-graphic-photo-content#post-2963127

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/the-woman-who-tragically-died-in-dent-on-the-letjog-ride#post-2956453

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/helmets-2#post-2941835

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/cyclist-hit-15-times-with-hammer-by-driverfor-riding-too-slow-up-a-hill#post-2943106

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/this-really-makes-you-want-to-wear-a-lid#post-2919841

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/good-or-bad-advert#post-2894537

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/james-cracknell-wear-a-helmet-video#post-2783611

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/bmxers-idiots#post-2758996

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/motorcyclist-protesting-helmet-laws-dies-in-bike-crash-while-not-wearing-helmet/page/3

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/wear-a-helmet-kids#post-2705179

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/psa-helmet-debate-on-radio-2-now#post-2584202

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/if-helmets-were-to-be-made-compulsory#post-2573922

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/helmet-on-your-child-always#post-2482018

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/some-very-sad-news#post-2476001

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/the-great-helmet-debate#post-2432920

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/kids-cycling-to-school-without-helmets-is-it-me-or#post-2368335

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/compulsory-helmet-law-in-ni#post-2236497

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/how-smug-will-tj-be

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/helmets-possibly-the-last-word

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/anyone-else-hear-peter-thatchel-on-jeremy-vine-calling-for-compulsary-helmets/page/2

the helmet 'argument' is a smokescreen for the real problem--people who do not know how to operate motorised vehicles....and the non enforcement of said behaviour...

The benefit of wearing a helmet is outweighed by nothing, other than if the helmet you were wearing was 1) dangerously radioactive 2) lined with razor blades 3) made of glass. What are the downsides of wearing a helmet in an accident?

This is a thread called "Helmet [b]compulsion[/b]"

I'm pro research, pro wearing a helmet, pro appropriate education to wear a helmet (but only based on real life research).

I am totally, utterly, absolutely against any legal compulsion to do so.

There are more than enough laws in this nanny state. We do NOT need more.

It is awful when people loose their lives or get badly injured doing anything. When riding, most fatalities are from motor vehicles, not bicycles. The problem isn't bikes, it's cars.

What are the downsides of wearing a helmet in an accident?

There aren't any. If I'm going to bang my head I'd rather be wearing a helmet. I think most people would.

BUT...

What if wearing a helmet made it MORE LIKELY that you'd be involved in an accident in the first place?

And what if helmet compulsion meant less cyclists, therefore more people dying from sedentary lifestyles and an increase in risk to those still cycling?

Both those are quite realistic concerns backed by a fair amount of research.

Fundamentally we're supposed to be encouraging people to cycle - not sucking our teeth and recommending compulsory safety equipment.

(Helmet wearer (mostly), Staunchly anti-compulsion)

We have most of the weekly threads now....time for the "banned" thread next than we have the full house.

(anti compulsion FWIW)

Regarding the link between compulsary helmet use & decline in bike use, there are many other factors that could contribute to this effect in other countries that may not necessarily apply elsewhere such as:

The existing culture of bike and helmet use in the country prior to the legislation change.
The nature of the media coverage prior to & after the change is made.
The nature of penalties introduced for law breakers
Incentivisation given by government & other institutions when the law is introduced.
Methods of enforcement used after the law has been introduced.
Education campaigns used after the law change etc....

Believe me I'm the last person wanting to have legislation introduced for bike helmets, but I still think it's naive to assume there is a direct correlation there and to assume the stats on their own tell the whole story.

Don't think they should be made compulsory but I reckon, although I have no evidence, that banging my head on the floor whilst wearing a helmet will hurt less than doing the same without the helmet.

For that reason I'll carry on wearing one whether it's law or not.

I'm going to bed now though, what are the stats for injury whilst walking up stairs helmetless? 😉

rudebwoy - Member
the helmet 'argument' is a smokescreen for the real problem--people who do not know how to operate motorised vehicles....and the non enforcement of said behaviour...

Precisely the point...

Again I'm a Helmet user but not in favour of compulsion.

The efficacy of helmets is not the point really, Odd as that sounds.

Compulsory use of helmets for cycling on the road becomes a way of shifting responsibility for avoiding accidents from drivers onto cyclists.

As sad as the story that set this thread off is, why is the boys father not campaigning for safer driving?

We've already seen lack of helmets being commented on by the police and even judges When considering RTAs.

Anecdotally I now seem to find many non-cyclists seem consider helmets to effectively be mandatory, and almost always comment upon non-helmet wearers as if they are breaking an unwritten law. But thats not actually the case my choice to wear a helmet or not should not be seen as absolving any motorist of their duty of care.

As sad as the story that set this thread off is, why is the boys father not campaigning for safer driving?

That is the point right there, and precisely why I started this thread (well maybe not the only reason 😉 )

I still think it's naive to assume there is a direct correlation there and to assume the stats on their own tell the whole story.

I'm not sure i understand your point? Yep all those things could be factors that contribute to the correlation, but that doesn't make the correlation any less valid.

The biggest issue is the accompanying media and advertising campaign. It's unlikely to be [i]"Hey guys, why not wear a helmet mmmmkay?"[/i]

It would be a hard-hitting commercial showing exactly the kind of situation as in the OP and sending the message that [i]"Hey, cycling is INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS! If you are idiotic enough to ride a bicycle instead of driving a nice car like a proper person then you need to wear a helmet or you'll DEFINITELY DIE"[/i]

Which funnily enough kinda puts people off the whole idea.

As sad as the story that set this thread off is, why is the boys father not campaigning for safer driving?

Exactly!

The parents of kids who are stabbed or shot don't campaign for compulsory body armour.

They campaign to stop other kids being stabbed or shot!

[url= http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/01/stop-child-murder.html ]Stop the Child Murder![/url]

Yes. The kid is in a coma because someone can't drive, not because he wasn't wearing a helmet.

Lets take someone who was stabbed in the street.
"EVERYONE SHOULD WEAR STAB PROOF VESTS!!!"

It's ridiculous and embrassing isn't it? Lets have a campaign to stop shite driving and ****wits being in charge of two tons of fast moving metal, then we'll be able to stop stuff like this. Forcing people to wear helmets will only stop people riding bikes.

[i]I'm going to bed now though, what are the stats for injury whilst walking up stairs helmetless? [/i]

Way higher that for riding a bike while helmetless.

IHNRAT! Poor TJ must be about to have a stroke.

However I couldn't ignore this:

johnellison - Member
I don't get the attitude that wearing a helmet isn't effective at all.

Surely if you wear ANY protection of any sort when undertaking a potentially hazardous activity, then the risk of injury or death is reduced (or survivability is increased, whichever way you look at it)? Or am I being overly simplistic?

I'm throwing hypotheticals around with reckless abandon here, but lets say with this young lad that when he set off on his journey without a helmet if he is involved in an accident there's a 10% chance of him ending up in a coma.

If he had been wearing a helmet and the risk is reduced to say, 9%, then surely that's better than the risk not being reduced at all? Isn't it?

OK lets play that made up numbers game.

There is some evidence to suggest that (i) Drivers subconsciously risk compensate for helmet wearers. (ii) Cyclists may also risk compensate. I have done my own experiments and believe both happen. Perhaps that increases the chance of an accident by 15% by putting a helmet ON. Now your 9% is actually 10.35% of ending up in a coma AND 15% more likely to get the less serious injuries too...

Now the other adverse effect of compulsory helmets is reduced activity. It won't stop serious 'cyclists' but if we are making up hypothetical statistics. Lets say 5% of journeys made without helmets would stop if helmets were compulsory. The net impact is more cars = more risk for all cyclists. Then remove the health benefits of cycling from those 5% - so in order that a tiny number of people MIGHT not get head injuries many people might be fatter, and less healthy. So lets keep playing made up numbers: 3 million regular cyclists in the UK. Lets say 20% of them don't wear helmets = 600,000, and if 5% stopped because of a new rule then 30,000 people don't cycle. Now lets assume 10% of them become fat / unhealthy as a result = 3000 people. Perhaps 1000 of them actually die indirectly as a result of the rule (and their stubbornness not to wear a helmet). Even if every cycling fatality could be avoided it wouldn't make sense!

Now rather than playing made up numbers the government employs people who properly understand statistics, road accidents etc - and they (the TRL) have come to the conclusion that there is no compelling argument for compulsion.

I do USUALLY wear a helmet. But there are some journeys where I assess the risk is low and its more convenient not to bother. Its likely that if I had to wear a helmet I would just leave the bike at home for those.

Numpties paradise here - sure, lots of people stopped driving after seatbelts were made compulsory, didn't they?

There may be some initial dip - but then folk will get habituated to wearing a helmet, and getting the coolest one will be the thing to do. It will become second nature to not go out without one (except amongst the most extreme wind-in-your-hair evangelists, who will queue up for legal martyrdom).

Helmets don't protect against all accidents and bad drivers - but how many people other than the great and long-lost TJ can claim that they are safer not wearing one?

Bike helmets in 'not the work of the devil' shock.

Numpties paradise here

So you thought you'd join in?

but how many people other than the great and long-lost TJ can claim that they are safer not wearing one

I believe (rightly or wrongly) that wearing a helmet can mitigate the injuries in some accidents but it contributes very little to the safety of cyclists and campaigning for compulsory wear will not fix anything - the major cause of serious injury and death for cyclists is vehicles and the way in which they are driven - here are some simple checks - based on the ever popular "what about the kids"

if helmets were compulsory would it be safer for kids to cycle to school?
- my answer = no it might mitigate the outcome of a collision

if high viz were compulsory would if be safer for kids to ride to school?
-my answer no = high viz just helps those drivers that are already aware of cyclists and other vulnerable road users

If speed limits in urban areas were reduced on all roads and enforced would it safer for kids to ride to school - yes

if drivers had to resit tests every five years would if be safer - yes

if more road space were take away from vehicles and given to cycles would it be safer - yes

a campaign for compulsory helmet wear moves the blame for accidents on to cyclists and fails to address anything

Numpties paradise here - sure, lots of people stopped driving after seatbelts were made compulsory, didn't they?

Driving is already the norm. People feel safe driving (and generally are).

Cycling is an "out" activity. Lots of people [i]already[/i] avoid it because they believe it is dangerous. Insisting they need safety equipment for a five minute ride to the shop just reinforces this. As would hard hitting adverts about why wearing a helmet is terribly terribly important.

There may be some initial dip - but then folk will get habituated to wearing a helmet, and getting the coolest one will be the thing to do.

Oh good so it will make cycling more expensive instead of more accessible?

I was having a conversation with someone just the other day that thought the new money released for cycling was ridiculous because "[i]people are struggling to live so how could they possibly afford a bike ???"[/i]

You think adding another £30 for the cheapest helmet will help them?

I'm going to bed now though, what are the stats for injury whilst walking up stairs helmetless?

Way higher that for riding a bike while helmetless.

Just to let you I made it up stairs and back down again this morning without any problems, there are no cars on my stairs though, thankfully! 😀

a campaign for compulsory helmet wear moves the blame for accidents on to cyclists and fails to address anything

+1 & everything else he said too

dekadanse - Member
Numpties paradise here - sure, lots of people stopped driving after seatbelts were made compulsory, didn't they?

There may be some initial dip - but then folk will get habituated to wearing a helmet...

You may think people who disagree with you are "numpties"; but perhaps they have just engaged their brains to understand the issues a bit better before labelling everyone who disagrees.

Helmets don't protect against all accidents and bad drivers - but how many people other than the great and long-lost TJ can claim that they are safer not wearing one?

Am I safer not wearing one? Depends what I am doing. Am I healthier making short journeys on a bike or in a car? Which is more likely to kill me (I live in Scotland) - Heart Disease or a bike accident...

a campaign for compulsory helmet wear moves the blame for accidents on to cyclists and fails to address anything

You'll have to forgive me for not reading all of the thread, While you are quite correct that this could be construed as placing the responsibility of road safety onto the cyclist and not the driver, I still think it's a sensible thing for cyclists to wear a helmet on the roads.

You can bring in what laws you like with regards to drivers, but a minorty still drink and drive, a significant amount still use the mobile phone while driving, and an awful lot will still drive like w****rs. I don't know about you, but I don't want more cyclists to be martyred just to highlight bad driving.

As for the whether a helmet is a good thing or a bad thing to wear protection wise, I have seen a few incidents in my time and quite a lot of claret left on the roads, but the helmets did their job as described.

We've had these arguments decades before with motorcycles for helmets and number plate skull splitters. I think we take those arguments against as quite stupid now. Hopefully we look back at this argument in the same way.
Regardless of who caused the accident it's what stops your head from bouncing that causes the damage. Kerbs, lamp posts, signs, tarmac, car wings don't care who caused it and don't forgive innocent parties. Some kind of impact damage is going to decrease the chances of head trauma. Bails picture on the first page is very nice and idyllic but you may notice it's lacking street furniture and isn't in the UK. Until we have cycle paths like that with no street furniture and wide run offs I would prefer to protect myself.
If people don't want to wear one that is up to them. If they take a tumble crack their head on a kerb and spending the rest of their miserable life drooling down their fronts, it was their choice. It won't be their parents/loved ones choice at the time to mop up the drool, sell their assets to look after that child or give up their own life because their child wanted to look cool by not wearing an helmet.
The good thing is there will be good supply of relative fit specimens donating organs. This will really rattle the helmetless rider in the afterlife, if their is such a thing, when their nice healthy lungs are transplanted into a 40 a day ex-smoker, white van man who hates cyclists.

Loving the attempted emotional manipulation by the helmet devotees!

Blackmail is a dodgy trait at the best of times, but using it to try to win points in this way is particularly sick.

We've had these arguments decades before with motorcycles for helmets and number plate skull splitters.

Except motorbikes don't make you fit. If less people chose to ride motorbikes then that wouldn't have an negative effect on public health.

Bails picture on the first page is very nice and idyllic but you may notice it's lacking street furniture and isn't in the UK. Until we have cycle paths like that with no street furniture and wide run offs I would prefer to protect myself.

So am I allowed to not wear a helmet on my commute, in the UK with wide run offs and no street furniture then?

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

(note: don't worry - when these pictures were taken I was wearing a full-face helmet, shinpads, elbow and knee guards, spine protector, high viz flouro vest and helmet cover 😀 )

because their child wanted to look cool by not wearing an helmet.

It REALLY isn't about "looking cool" - I think that's another strawman argument.

Helmets don't look cool, granted, but then neither does being a sweaty red-faced late-30s overweight man with pale hairy legs poking out the bottom of some overly tight lycra.

Anyone who makes the decision whether or not they should wear a helmet based purely on whether it looks cool or not is an idiot - but I don't see anyone on here espousing that view. Do you?

Good article in The Times this morning:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3849991.ece

I note that Lord Sir Bradley of Wiggins has waded in by saying they should be compulsory.

Idiot.