Just listen to Jeremy Vine while washing my bike and they had the Addison Lee guy on, and Peter Thatchell (supporting the cyclist). Right at the end Thatchell just said, pretty much out of the blue, how we ought to look at compulsary helmets for cyclists!
While I've a lot of time for Thatchell and his support of the 'underdog', where did that come from?
What kind of helmet did he want?
What kind of helmet did he want?
ha ha ha! If politically incorrect!
as long as they don't make them compulsory we'll be ok.
i don't even want a voluntary one
He also mentioned that being an experienced cyclist he always cycled 'close to the kerb' to help buses pass. That's a no no in my book.
i'm fine with mandatory helmets. don't understand why anyone wouldn't be?
Kill it. Kill it now!
Sounds like an expert and has obviously never had the fun factor of clipping a kerb with pedal in traffic.
Sounds to me like one of these types who thinks the best way to get his point across is to give up a personal liberty. Obviously thinks that if we accept compulsory helmets motorised vehicle operators will suddenly respect us. Obviously not seen the research that indicates that "cars" give helmet wearing riders less room as they perceive that the rider is safer.
Thatchell just said, pretty much out of the blue, how we ought to look at compulsary helmets for cyclists!
I 100% support the idea of looking into it.
I 100% support the idea of looking into it.
again? really?
http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/helmet-compulsion-bill-fails/012175
What's the harm in looking into it?
What's the harm in looking into it?
Opportunity cost. i.e. Waste of money that could be spent doing other things that would greater improve safety.
Luckily I've just been to Lidl and purchased some bourbon creme biscuits
OK.
I'm usually against anything that is compulsory......Its unfair to people who can think for themselves
Are helmets compulsory for banging your head against a wall?
Another 'make allowances for crap drivers' idea.
numbers of cyclists fell in Oz when helmets were made compulsory...
i'm fine with mandatory helmets. don't understand why anyone wouldn't be?
Eject.. Eject.. EJECT!
[img] 
[/img]
Are helmets compulsory for banging your head against a wall?
Or the headboard?
Didn't we go through all this when they made seat belts compulsory (or am I the only one that can remember that far back)?
Or the headboard?
Or another person?
Are helmets compulsory for banging your head against a wall?
Actually there is a study which tells us the the reduced coeff of friction between a helmet and the wall will lead to the brain rotating up to seven times more then when banging your head against a wall without a helmet. Leading to a little known form of brain damage called brainio over ratatio.
Didn't we go through all this when they made seat belts compulsory (or am I the only one that can remember that far back)?
We did, and compulsory seat belts didn't make life any safer for car occupants - though they made life a lot more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.
Risk compensation is a funny thing.
tracknicko - memberi'm fine with mandatory helmets. don't understand why anyone wouldn't be?
helmet laws = fewer cyclists = more dangerous for those still riding.
(it's a very effective way to reduce the numbers of cyclists)
For everyone who wants a helmet law - just send me 50 quid each time you don't put your helmet on for cycling.
Problem solved.
compulsory seat belts didn't make life any safer for car occupants
back that up please with some evidence.
from this link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1294442/
Evidence demonstrating the advantages of seat belts in improving safety of road travel is overwhelming and has resulted in government legislation.
what do you know that they don't?
Sorry, mandatory seatbelt usage doesn't make life any safer for car occupants... Really??? I mean, seriously that's what you think?? You must be joking?
I'll ask the next guy who goes through the windscreen at the next RTC I go to and ask him if he thinks he should have worn their seatbelt and see what they say.
Sorry, mandatory seatbelt usage doesn't make life any safer for car occupants... Really??? I mean, seriously that's what you think?? You must be joking?
I'll ask the next guy who goes through the windscreen at the next RTC I go to and ask him if he thinks he should have worn their seatbelt and see what they say.
He'll say "maybe if I wasn't going so fast I wouldn't have had an accident".
Risk compensation is, as I said, a strange thing. But basically, if you make cars safer (or seem safer) then people drive faster in compensation. John Adams' book "Risk" is a good read on the subject.
What made a big difference was stricter drink-driving laws. Making seatbelts compulsory had no effect as people just drove faster (so had more accidents but were more likely to survive, hence no difference) - which made things more dangerous for other road users.
An interesting test to do if you don't believe in risk compensation is to drive along the road, and undo your seatbelt - see what happens to your speed and style of driving.
An interesting test to do if you don't believe in risk compensation is to drive along the road, and undo your seatbelt - see what happens to your speed and style of driving.
Another is to ride along the road while wearing a helmet, then do it again without. Check to see if the behaviour of the drivers changes.
Making seatbelts compulsory had no effect as people just drove faster (so had more accidents but were more likely to survive, hence no difference) - which made things more dangerous for other road users.
Err, more likely to survive is a big positive difference no?
[i] Check to see if the behaviour of the drivers changes.[/i]
Impossible to do.
Check to see if the behaviour of the drivers changes.Impossible to do.
There was a study done at (I think) Warwick Uni, using a rangefinder to see how close cars passed a cyclist. They gave the cyclist less space when he was wearing a helmet...
...and loads more space when he wore a long blonde wig 🙂
I'll ask the next guy who goes through the windscreen at the next RTC
What did I do? 😯
They gave the cyclist less space when he was wearing a helmet...
That's what I rememember, it was a good few years ago now so it's posssible that behaviours and attitudes to cyclists have changed.
Err, more likely to survive is a big positive difference no?
Not if there are more accidents. To give a rough example:
- 50 accidents, no seatbelts, 50/50 survival = 25 deaths
- 100 acidents, seatbetls, 75% survival = 25 deaths
Of course those aren't real numbers, but the principle holds. The idea is we all have a set level of risk we're happy with - it's different for every person, but pretty constant for that person. So do something to make life safer, and we autonatically and subconciously act in a more risky way to bring the total lovel of risk back to where it was.
Making seatbelts compulsory had no effect as people just drove faster (so had more accidents but were more likely to survive, hence no difference) - which made things more dangerous for other road users.
still no evidence.
does anyone else remember cars speeding up when seatbelt wearing became compulsory - I sure don't.
People generally drive faster now due to more powerful cars, better suspension isolating them from road feedback, and better handling.
anyway, back to the post...
still no evidence.
I refer you to John Adams book - I'm not going to quote 20 pages of scientific data and analysis.
Replace the driver's seatbelt with a 12" steel spike in the middle of the steering wheel and see much more careful people will become
Wear a helmet myself but very much NO to compulsory.
I keep my helmet on the pelmet.
I heard that programme, didn't rate Tatchell at all.
However it is discriminatory that moped riders some of whom cannot achieve the speeds some road bikes do have to wear helmets and road bikers don't. So I'm sure a case could be bought similar to the Mini Cab V Hackney Cab and Bus lanes thing, to insist on any Cyclist riding on the road being forced to wear a helmet.
It also actually beggars belief that road cyclists are allowed on the roads un insured, so another potential way for the Government to get badly needed tax receipts and thus save some public sector jobs, would be to Tax road cyclists.
So compulsory helmets and road tax doesn't seem unreasonable in todays climate, then maybe dutch style kerbs to protect cycle lanes could be funded across the land, think of all the employment that would create, oh and cycle helmet enforcement officers of course, a very popular job, I can see mental health professionals considering a career change for that job.. 😆
Oh er just to declare an interest here, I do sell nice helmets.... 😉
I refer you to John Adams book - I'm not going to quote 20 pages of scientific data and analysis.
does he specifically talk about seatbelts or just risk compensation in general.
if you have the evidence then you should alert the government to it and they can reverse the law - time is of the essence as lives are clearly being lost needlessly.
It also actually beggars belief that road cyclists are allowed on the roads un insured
Most of them are insured. Home contents insurance often has a public liability clause which covers legal fees and damages.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/jul/02/bike-insurance-covered
so another potential way for the Government to get badly needed tax receipts and thus save some public sector jobs, would be to Tax road cyclists.
What does tax have to do with insurance???
Doesn't this all depend on the amount of extra risk people compensate for? I'd be very surprised if the human brain can calculate this with 100% accuracy.
Heelllllppppppppppppp
compulsory helmets would cause extra deaths
Maybe a few cyclists would not die of head injuies - very arguable. Less folk would cycle tho increasing diseases of inactivity and increasing risks for the remaining cyclists
Cycle helmets simply do not provide enough benefit to justify this and the woldwide evidence shows this
Doctors don't want compulsory helmets
http://road.cc/content/news/39882-british-medical-journal-poll-says-no-helmet-compulsion
A good summary of the evidence with a load of links
http://www.ctc.org.uk/desktopdefault.aspx?tabid=4688
Actually, government laws in this area may a major problem, but insurance companies may just decide to withdraw insurance cover for cyclists not dotting the "i"'s and crossing the "t"'s, and if they say you must wear a helmet to be covered, things will change. Be careful lobbying the insurance industry is all I say!
Heelllllppppppppppppp
Push the button TJ - it's the only way to save yourself
[img] 
[/img]
This is interesting also
No-one has yet proved in court that a cyclist has been negligent in not wearing a helmet whilst on the road.
My grandpapa is called Helmut.
If cyclists are getting head injuries because they're being hit by cars, the answer is surely to make sure cars don't hit cyclists, not that cyclists are wearing helmets.
Making helmets compulsory would be a massive shift of responsibility for any injuries from the people doing the hitting to the people being hit.
It's that aspect of it that really sticks in my craw, on top of the arguments about how it impacts levels of cycling generally and the consequences of that (as mentioned by TJ).
The answer is make helmets compulsory and make driving a distance of under 3 miles an offence unless you are medically disabled - forcing people to cycle or walk more, so keeping rates of exercise up.
Mr Destructo - insurance companies have tried this one but it will not stick as no one can say that a helmet would have reduced injury.
I'm bailing out capt
[img] 
[/img]
More car occupants die of head injuries than cyclists.
If the motivation is to save lives then helmet compulsion for anyone in a car makes more sense. Funnily this is not a popular idea.
I'm bailing out capt
Roger. Punching out too. See you at base for a cuppa.
I just went for a ride. Proper snotty weather. Horizontal rain and headwind all the way in. Treated myself to some rocky road and a cup of tea at the halfway point. Boston Tea Party awesomeness. Wound it up on the way back and with a tailing wind and a belly full of sugar cranked it up to about 45km/h. Only on the tourer mind so happy with that. Big dose of rule number 5 and burning lungs. Taste the blood! Now in the bath reading this thread and contemplating my belly button. Never ceases to amaze me just how much fluff accumulates when I wear my fleecy bibs. Anyway, getting out on your bike and turning some circles, whilst not giving a flying **** about yet another pointless helmet debate. Anyone remember that?
Oh yeah, freedom of choice for the win.
As you were...
[i]It also actually beggars belief that road cyclists are allowed on the roads un insured[/i]
And I presume that then you'll want pedestrians also insured?
It also actually beggars belief that road cyclists are allowed on the roads un insuredAnd I presume that then you'll want pedestrians also insured?
POSTED 1 MINUTE AGO #
No, difficult to enforce, but tell me what's the difference between a £6 thousand road bike travelling at 30 mph along the queens highway and a moped costing less than half that price. Why should one owner pay road tax and insurance and wear a helmet when the other on the more expensive machine and un protected so more likely to incur greater injury so more expense in a legal claim against a motorist should they crash into them has no legal obligation to any protection or insurance cover, or pay anything toward the upkeep of the said highway. Pure discrimination, I can't believe the Tories haven't spotted this huge potential income stream.
Is the proposition from those suggesting enforcement of helmet law that it should include all riders?
I only ask because this weekend our village was full of young kids on scooters, bmx, balance bikes and mountain bikes, all in large group of varying ages and none wearing helmets as they rode around the local park. The were also riding on the lanes around the park as whatever game they were playing necessitated. If this becomes law will it follow seatbelt legislation and apply to all ages of rider. Would there be a bike size and type stipulation - frames over 16", wheels over 24", age over 18yrs, must have pedals, etc.
If so, I cannot see how it could be either policed or enforced. There are insufficient police on the streets to deal with quite serious offences, adding this to their workload is unlikely to be popular with anyone. And how they structure the punishment for a violation of this law would be equally challenging.
Irrespective of its merits and problems regarding protection from injury, a practical application seems disproportionately complex to implement.
No, difficult to enforce, but tell me what's the difference between a £6 thousand road bike travelling at 30 mph along the queens highway and a moped costing less than half that price.
Weight for one thing! The presence of highly flammable liquids for another.
has no legal obligation to any protection or insurance cover
Even if they are not covered by public liability on their household insurance that doesn't prevent a motorist (or insurer) making a claim against them for damages.
or pay anything toward the upkeep of the said highway
Oh sweet cheeses. Please tell me you're not falling for the mythical "road tax" nonsense???
I wouldn't mind paying cycling road tax actually, so long as it's proportionate to the wear and tear I cause and reflects the amount of carriageway I can legally cycle on. Some guessing would arrive at a figure of sod all that's not worth tyring to enforce and collect. No to helmet compulsion BTW.
I'll going to say it once just so we are all clear.
[u][b]"ROAD TAX" DOES NOT PAY FOR ROADS[/b][/u]
Or in fact, exist at all.
I wouldn't mind paying road tax if it was calculated in the same way as it is for cars.
Doctors don't want compulsory helmets
http://road.cc/content/news/39882-british-medical-journal-poll-says-no-helmet-compulsion
TJ share your own disturbed opinions if you must, but don't use your position in the health industry to misinterpret the opinion of the medical body of this nation. That citation is rubbish - its little more than a poll and if you believe that then I'm going to have to stop turning my bike upside down to change a tube!
The British Medical Association [url= http://www.bma.org.uk/health_promotion_ethics/transport/promotingsafecycling.jsp?page=3#.T5huZBB5mSM ]supports[/url] compulsory helmet legislation.
The British Medical Association supports compulsory helmet legislation.
It does [u]now[/u], because [url= http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4690 ]it U-turned due to political pressure[/url]. Prior to late 2004 it was openly against helmet compulsion for the same public health reasons that the BMJ poll cites (and most BMJ readers are probably BMA members).
In other news: my ejector seat has clearly malfunctioned. 😳
[url= http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.169.4005&rep=rep1&type=pdf ]paper on seatbelts[/url]
Oh no the Robinson paper again. It is flawed. It was little more than academic trolling that made her famous.
Her work has been countered comprehensively many times over.
Her statistics were gathered in Australia and yet the Australian Medical Association [url= http://ama.com.au/node/6188 ]disagree[/url] with her too.
Compulsory helmet legislation has been in place in Oz for 20 years and has undergone multiple reviews since its controversial introduction yet it is still well supported by the medical bodies, and now accepted by the community.
The current generation don't consider riding without one much as most people automatically wear a seat belt when driving.
I wouldn't mind paying road tax if it was calculated in the same way as it is for cars.
Dependent on how much pollution and emissions the cyclist causes ?
How much for a fat cyclist who sweats, farts, eats, and shits a lot ?
Whilse people have commented that cycling numbers decreased in Australia after helmets became compulsory, didn't also bad injuries and.or deaths increase due to over confidence and risk taking of helmet wearers after this date?
As with our current wars, if you only report on the deaths, and not the life changing injuries, the numbers aren't representative. It's like if cyclists run down OAP's and break their hips. A year and a day is the law for causing death, yet the average life expectancy of an OAP who has a hip operation has been something like 2 years? (This demographic is elderly, so the figures aren't cut n dry) So, are cyclists running down OAP's and not causing legal deaths contributing to the deaths of them? I bet there's no real way to find out this info and nobody will be interested. It pops up for me everytime our city planners talk about shared cycling paths, etc.
So there was no drop in cycling numbers following helmet compulsion in Australia?
The current generation don't consider riding without one much as most people automatically wear a seat belt when driving.
Quick google. Ah [url= http://www.adelaidecyclists.com/forum/topics/helmet-s-in-a-free-society ]a helmet debate just the other day in Australia[/url].
I bet there's no real way to find out this info and nobody will be interested. It pops up for me everytime our city planners talk about shared cycling paths, etc.
The ONS STATS19 figures on road casualties cover injuries (serious and minor) as well as deaths on roads and pavements. They'd be a good place to start.
Latest update. A huge drop from the previous figure of 503,000:
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
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/helmets-2#post-2941835
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/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/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
The seat belt law did not save lives.
"Figure 1, all road accident deaths (excluding motor cyclists), shows that a well-established downward trend was interrupted (by the seat belt law?) and replaced by a slightly rising plateau. After the seat belt law (arrow) total deaths did not fall below the 1983 level until 1991."
http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/11/05/seat-belts-another-look-at-the-data/
i'd happily pay 'road tax' on my bikes. i have to on my car van and motorcycles so why not.. a van is 210 car 170 one bike is 17 quid all the rest are free ( over 25 years old) as its based on emissions i imagine that the bike ll be free too ( aside form when i fart whilst riding, which i cant remmebr doing so its free)
that achieved a lot..
i'd happily pay insurance too its circa 350 for car and van and for my bikes its 120 quid for seven ( limited mileage agreed value etc) based on that for my bike it ll be tuppence
that again achieved a lot..
i ll happily wera a helmet if i fall off without one it ll hurt it may not hurt as much if i do cost 50 quid last 3/5 years a tenner a year then
that achieved potentially less pain for about 3p a day..
Best way to get motor drivers to give you a wide berth, is to stick a baby seat on the back with suitably realistic doll, or a real kid if you can borrow someone's..
second to that, would be a rack monted kitten, or baby panda-in-transit sign.
Ah yes, of course John Adams has a website 🙂
And since when has the government (of any colour) allowed the facts to get in the way of a policy?
kcr - Member
Latest update. A huge drop from the previous figure of 503,000:
god, it really is [i]that[/i] tedious.
second to that, would be a rack monted kitten
Or puppy?
[img] 
[/img]
http://bikeyface.com/2011/09/28/perfec-safety-gear/
or partner:
[img] 
[/img]
Hmm. I can't see how an old giffer in a flat cap is going to help me - unless he uses the brolly to fend off cars that get too close.
