Complusory helmet law

bramstoker

A decision is expected today on whether cyclists in Jersey should have to wear helmets.A proposed new law is being debated. It has been suggested by Deputy Andrew Green, whose own son suffered a brain injury in a bike accident when he was 9.Deputy Green has been making his case for complusory headgear.

** As a update to this it has been passed by the states of jersey as a law and will come into force in a year or so, it was amended to only apply to children, in jersey this will mean anyone 18 years old or below

Should it be law?
Is it enforcable?
Nanny state going to far?

Chrissz

bramstoker wrote:

Should it be law?
Is it enforcable?
Nanny state going to far?

No, difficult and yes!

I have visions of sprinting up the High Street, helmetless, shouting "You'll never take mae alive copper!" persued by the local doughnut scoffr on his Police issue MTB

disgruntledgoat

Completely against helmet laws. If you want your children to wear one, great, make your children wear one. I'ma grown up and the only person who'll be injured by my not wearing a helmet is me. Where I see the risk as being great enough, i'll wear one. If i don't want to, I won't.

Chris Boardman had an excellent article on this in Pro-Cycling a couple of years ago after being hounded out of his bike-testing job by busybodies wrting letters about him riding without a helmet.

freehub

Don't bother me if it's introduced, I'll happily wear a helmet.

disgruntledgoat

freehub wrote:

Don't bother me if it's introduced, I'll happily wear a helmet.

Is this the level of reasoning they teach at school/college/university these days?

What if you don't want to? Why should you be forced to? What compelling argument convinces you that it is neccessary? Or is it just that only things that are directly of detriment to you and your own choices bother you and you can't see the connection with anything else?

zanes

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Or is it just that only things that are directly of detriment to you and your own choices bother you and you can't see the connection with anything else?

This. Seems to be endemic to this country.

redddraggon

zanes wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Or is it just that only things that are directly of detriment to you and your own choices bother you and you can't see the connection with anything else?

This. Seems to be endemic to this country.

It's not Will's fault he's not the brightest chap

Smokin Joe

If you were to look for evidence that helmets have made a difference to the number of recordable head injuries since their introduction you might well come to the conclusion that they are a solution to a problem that never existed.

Cue a whole bunch of "A helmet saved my life posters" spluttering outrage and damnation.

simonaspinall

It is a good point - As if the coppers on police issue MTBs could catch....well, anyone!

Back on subject...

I suppose it depends on how they shape the case for the bill.
Statistically you're more likely to bang your head on a sunday morning in your home etc etc.

I think i've always grown up with pro-helmet nagging and after a lot of encounters with traffic (including a helmet saving my noggin) I think I would be pretty nervous about going out without one.

Doesn't mean everyone should have to though. In terms of the real difference it will make to the Road User population and deaths/injury stats, I can't see it doing too much.

But I can see the MP's point.

crown_jewel

I am not outraged at all, but I think it is a very difficult case to make that wearing a helmet is a valueless proposition. Whether wearing them should be mandated is a different issue. Personally I think we have larger problems to solve in the US.

Bikerbaboon

ouch not feeling the love today will.

If im going out and about on the bike im fine about sticking a lid on.

I dont think it should be law
i cant see it as realy inforceable
nanny state or not its realy not an issue and i cant see why so much vim and vigor about it.

If people realy think that 1.5 ich of polly is going to stop brain damage from a blunt impact at 50mph all power to them,

skyd0g

I wear a helmet when I'm on my bike 99% of the time - out of choice.

I would hate a compulrory helmet law was to be passed - I don't want to be 'nannied' in to wearing one, neither do I want to potentially face a fine for the odd occasion when I may choose not to wear one.

South Bound

Hmmmm, tricky one this, balancing the freedom of choice against being seen to be doing something.

Same argument could be made (exactly) for seat belt usage in cars and helmet use on motorbikes.

Personally I am for everyone wearing helmets, but everyone is entitled to their views!

Smokin Joe

South Bound wrote:

Same argument could be made (exactly) for seat belt usage in cars and helmet use on motorbikes.

There is considerable evidence that both of those measures made a big difference to survival rates among drivers and motorcyclists. However, you cannot compare motorcycle accidents to bicycle accidents because of the different dynamics involved. A motorcycle will be many times heavier than it's rider, and will throw the rider off when he loses control. You can see this when racers highside and they are flung off the machine and into the air. A cyclist will be as much or more than ten times heavier than his bike and when control is lost he will dictate the direction the bike falls rather than the other way round, the bike itself will not have the energy to launch you into the sky so the vast majority of cyling accidents result in a simple fall where the body will take the force of the impact with the ground.

Barrie_G

A compulsory law also gives a reason to those people who would like to wear a helmet but are worried about looking un-cool, i.e. teenagers and some of the more vain adults.

Though personally I think that it should be down to personal preferance.

freehub

disgruntledgoat wrote:

freehub wrote:

Don't bother me if it's introduced, I'll happily wear a helmet.

Is this the level of reasoning they teach at school/college/university these days?

What if you don't want to? Why should you be forced to? What compelling argument convinces you that it is neccessary? Or is it just that only things that are directly of detriment to you and your own choices bother you and you can't see the connection with anything else?

Well tbh, I just aint bothered about it, if it comes in as law, then fine, if not, then fine. I sometimes ride to college without a helmet

Smokin Joe

Barrie_G wrote:

A compulsory law also gives a reason to those people who would like to wear a helmet but are worried about looking un-cool, i.e. teenagers and some of the more vain adults.

Though personally I think that it should be down to personal preferance.

Do you seriously think that adults don't wear helmets just to look cool? If I wanted to look cool I'd buy an expensive one to look like the pros do.

bompington

Personally I'm very pro helmet, on a personal n=2 trial I can testify to a couple of impressively split helmets and no split skulls, but I am well aware that this does not prove a great deal. The evidence certainly seems to suggest that compulsory helmet wearing does not improve things, or possibly even makes them worse e.g. by reducing the number of people actually cycling. The evidence on efficacy in preventing serious head injury is pretty shaky too; I would love to see some serious crash test dummy type research on this.

The thing is, I can't really see the point in not wearing a helmet - when I get on my bike, I put on shoes, gloves, glasses & some pretty weird clothes, what further discomfort, hassle or indignity is there in a helmet?

The libertarian argument often sounds more to me like the teenage rebel's "you're telling me to do it so I won't", see the tone of some of the "you can't make me" posts above for examples; but, speaking as someone who works with with teenage rebels on a daily basis, neither enforcement nor "do it 'cos it's good for you" are necessarily the best ways to change habits.

freehub

When I get on my bike, I put on shoes, gloves, glasses & some pretty weird clothes, what further discomfort, hassle or indignity is there in a helmet?

How is cycling stuff weird clothing? It's not weird at all when on a bike.

South Bound

However, you cannot compare motorcycle accidents to bicycle accidents because of the different dynamics involved.

IMO, tosh. You get hurt when you hit something, does not matter how. I go more than fast enough on a bike to hurt myself and have trashed a lid to prove it, let alone allowing for the other idiot road users out there, but if we want everyone to learn these lessons for themselves then so be it.

Just my view!

Smokin Joe

bompington wrote:

Personally I'm very pro helmet, on a personal n=2 trial I can testify to a couple of impressively split helmets and no split skulls, but I am well aware that this does not prove a great deal. The evidence certainly seems to suggest that compulsory helmet wearing does not improve things, or possibly even makes them worse e.g. by reducing the number of people actually cycling. The evidence on efficacy in preventing serious head injury is pretty shaky too; I would love to see some serious crash test dummy type research on this.

The thing is, I can't really see the point in not wearing a helmet - when I get on my bike, I put on shoes, gloves, glasses & some pretty weird clothes, what further discomfort, hassle or indignity is there in a helmet?

The libertarian argument often sounds more to me like the teenage rebel's "you're telling me to do it so I won't", see the tone of some of the "you can't make me" posts above for examples; but, speaking as someone who works with with teenage rebels on a daily basis, neither enforcement nor "do it 'cos it's good for you" are necessarily the best ways to change habits.

How about not believing they are nescessary and therefore not blowing sixty quid of your hard earned cash on one?

disgruntledgoat

To be honest the only occasions I wear them are

1) Racing cos I have to

2) When i'm riding with people I don't know

3) When i'm doing a fast technical descent

4) When it's icy

In all except no. 1 they're a comfort blanket, they make me feel better. I've no idea if they are effective or not, hence i'm all for people making up their own mind. I have, incidentally caused myself nasty facial injuries twice in bike crashes. Both times I was wearing a helmet, neither time did it take any impact. Go figure.

Smokin Joe

South Bound wrote:

However, you cannot compare motorcycle accidents to bicycle accidents because of the different dynamics involved.

IMO, tosh. You get hurt when you hit something, does not matter how.
Just my view!

How you fall dictates what part of the body takes the impact from the ground. I take it you've fallen over a few times without a helmet and lived to tell the tale?

bramstoker

As a update to this it looks like it will be limited to children only as a law.

deptfordmarmoset

Young lad, 4th year med student, was killed by a tipper truck near London Bridge yesterday. He wasn't wearing a reinforced diving suit to protect him from having a lorry run over him. Jason McIntyre, the Scottish cyclist who was killed out on a training ride, wasn't wearing a helmet, papers even cited this fact in their headlines as though it were a contributory factor, but, as the inquest heard, a helmet would not have saved him.

I can't think of many recent examples of serious cycling accidents where a helmet would have made any significant difference. Sure, effective against cuts and abrasions, and there will be a relatively small range of impact velocities where a helmet will offer protection or turn what might have been, say, major concussion into minor concussion.

But not effective enough to be justified as law, particularly as enforced helmet wearing discourages people from cycling and thereby undermines the ''safety in numbers'' effect. Forcing people to wear helmets may, from what statistics I've seen, actually increase the mortality rate per mile cycled. (Note: I'm not saying more people will be killed - I'm talking about danger increasing for the smaller number of cyclists on roads where drivers are correspondingly less cycle aware.)

kieronymous

I "used" a helmet for the first time ever the other day. But 'twas offroad. Glad I had it on.

On-road, the jury's out for me. I usually wear one.

In NZ it's law, but it didn't stop a colleague of mine from spending a few weeks in coma after having a very intimate forehead vs. roof bar moment, thanks in part to an SUV turning right without seeing him, and (if we're honest) perhaps in part to him choosing to train (and therefore 'undertake' traffic in the cycle lane) during rush hour.

He was pretty lucky to come out of hospital A) alive and with most of his face's original parts. He has redefined the phrase 'steely-eyed'! :shock:

Bunneh

Forcing people to wear a helmet and then enforcing it is just yet more paperwork for our already buried police forces. The police don't want to be chasing every cyclist without a helmet, they haven't the time.

I hate wearing helmets, and it is purely because I look like a nobber in it. Whilst that is not an excuse it's the same excuse those hundreds of thousands of other cyclists use. Some riders look great, sadly I do not but I wear it anyway.

owenlars

The interesting thing about this debate is that no one has ever answered the question; do helmets do any good?

If we could get a definitive and authoritative answer to that there may be a similarly authoritative argument for saying compulsory or not compulsory.

A non cycling example was when instrument flying was brought into the Helicopter Private Pilot Licence course as a "get you out of trouble if you flew into cloud" measure. This led to increased deaths because new pilots thought they could do it did and as a result some died. The syllabus was amended as a result

In other words some money needs to be spent on serious research before laws are made, as I believe was done for seat belts.

In my particular case I reckon that helmets can't do any harm so why not use them? And so I do use them. However this does not seem to me a sufficient basis for enacting law.

crown_jewel

The fact that helmets will not protect you from injury in all crashes does not mean they are worthless. They clearly protect against injury in some, and therefore have value. Unless there is a law on the matter, which I would not support except for children, riders are free to wear helmets or not. But we are kidding ourselves if we think we are not wearing a helmet because it makes no difference.

jugglingphil

+1 for what CrownJewel says

Plenty of motorcyclists still die even through they are wearing helmets, but plenty are probably saved.
I wear one 99% of the time

Ban all cars/buses/truck/etc from the road, that's a sure fire way to reduce cycling fatalities.

iainment

Seems like a good idea to me. Some people just like a fuss though don't they.

Pip pip.

8)