Complusory helmet law

warpcow

Smokin Joe wrote:

a crash is a great leveller. Your ability to ride a bike faster than everyone else does not make your head less prone to injury than anyone elses. If they managed for over 100 years without helmets and no problem it re-enforces my earlier statement that helmets are a solution to a problem that never existed. I have been riding for over fory years and can't recall a single serious head only injury among club-mates or the countless cyclists I have known or known of. I have known a few who were killed and seriously injured, but those were in accidents with vehicles where the injuries were such that head protection would not have helped.

My main problem is just that I generally agree with you. I only have half of your experience cycling but even then I think people such as us are a minority (which would include most people on this board too). The couple of people I've known who died or were seriously injured were through injuries where no helmet would have helped.

I just believe that the circumstances in which the 'average' rider generally finds themselves are different enough to make your insistence on using pros/experienced riders as an example inappropriate in the context of this discussion. The fact of the matter remains though, that cranial injuries have a greater possibility of causing permanent and serious injury.

Chrissz

Does anyone remember an article published on one of the cycling mags several years ago about an analysis of stats from Australia that showed cycle related accidents/injuries INCREASED with the implementation of compulsory helmet wearing? I think the conclusion blamed the rise in an increase in perceived levels of safety - cyclists were taking less care as they felt they were safe ass long as they had their helmet on!

I also remember a comment from Jeremy Clarkson, talking about car safety. He said remove all driver safety aids, ABS, seatbelts, crumple zones etc. and put the driver out in front of the vehicle and bet that accidents would be drastically reduced.

During the winter time I wear a helmet because my Assos skull cap looks a little silly without one. Come the summer I prefer not to but I confess I often feel 'pressured' into wearing one anyway - I have to justify myself to work colleagues who seem horrified the
at I would cycle helmetless "But you have a little girl at home! You have to think of them too!" - I argue (fruitlessly) that if I come off at those speeds (often 20mph+) then I'll be bu99ered with or without a hat on!

dennisn

Crown Jewel wrote:

Dennis, I agree. Up to each person. My only point is that if we choose not to wear a helmet we shouldn't pretend that we aren't taking on some risk. I don't know how much, but clearly some.

I don't know if anyone is pretending or not. Young people usually don't even think about risk. They just do it. Even seeing someone bounce their head off the pavement doesn't instill much sense of "It could happen to me" in them. Ahhhh youth. Didn't happen to me, therefore it won't happen to me. Or maybe it's more of a "that stuff only happens to others" type of thing. I remember thinking, before leaving for Vietnam, that death was what happened to others, not me. I think about that now and can't do much else except laugh at how stupid and naive an idiot I was. Opps, rambling on.
I remember when helmets were first required for all racers in U.S. Cycling Federation races. All the moaning and groaning about " hey, the pros don't use them, why do we have to?". That kind of thing. I think people who refuse to wear then are trying to make a statement more about being forced to rather than a safety related thing about whether they do any good or not. But that's just me.

deptfordmarmoset

Chrissz wrote:

Does anyone remember an article published on one of the cycling mags several years ago about an analysis of stats from Australia that showed cycle related accidents/injuries INCREASED with the implementation of compulsory helmet wearing? I think the conclusion blamed the rise in an increase in perceived levels of safety - cyclists were taking less care as they felt they were safe ass long as they had their helmet on!

I don't know the article, Chrissz, but for a very long time I never wore a helmet because I had a fear, perhaps irrational, but nevertheless a real fear that it would affect my assessment of risk.

I never wore one until I was 53 years old, but started wearing one because I was commuting to a primary school and wanted to encourage kids to cycle responsibly. Unfortunately, not a lot of kids rode in - or behaved responsibly for that matter, kids being kids - yet it quickly became part of the ritual of dressing up for going out on the bike for me. I still do, yet I don't believe it will actually do very much, so I guess I don't cycle any differently or think about risk differently. Well I'm slower, of course, but that's just age.

nasahapley

Scrumple wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

What if you don't want to? Why should you be forced to? What compelling argument convinces you that it is neccessary

How about the fact you indulge in a free health service?

Would you opt out of treatment if you didn't wear a helmet and got injured?

That is compelling.

Well since you don't have to cycle on the road at all, but could take up indoor rowing or do all your training on the turbo which is much safer, I take it you'll be turning down NHS treatment should you ever be involved in a crash? You've taken the risk of cycling on the road, why should others pay for it?

As Porgy said, crap.

oldwelshman

Smokin Joe wrote:

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.

Os same could be said about no helmet fans spouting about civil liberties, nanny state, no evidence blah blah blah.
Get over it, helmet wearers are in the monority.
If you dont want to wear one, don't eben if it is breaking the law if legalised. You could start a mass protest with all 50 of you in the UK who won't wear them
I guess you don't wear a seat belet either or crash helmet on notorbike !

rhodrigwyn

I didn't add earlier that I have a slight bias and interest in this since I crashed (not wearing a helmet) and broke my skull when I was 12. That compels me to wear one. But frankly I think that no adult should be forced to wear a helmet. It is an individual decision to accept the risk.

_Brun_

RoSPA Home & Leisure Accident Surveillance System

This is great fun!

After clicking on some of the buttons I uncovered the disturbing fact that in 2002, nearly 100,000 people suffered concussion or loss of conciousness IN THE HOME. That's approximately 1 in 600 people, in a single year.

Obviously it would be stupid to suggest everyone should wear a helmet around the house all the time just in case (although it wouldn't do any harm), but how many people consider protecting their head while climbing a ladder etc?

rick_chasey

This personal individualist perspective is all well and good, but if we're talking about laws, surely we're talking about public health.


In which case, that last article Chris Boardman wrote for procycling about helmets is particularly useful.

Without any quotes to hand, as I remember it, the argument was the following:

Cycling provides significant health benefits to people, thus, the more people who are cycling, the healthier the population. < a reasonable assessment.

Helmets prevent serious injury or death in blah percentage of accidents. Enough to be considered as mandatory anyway.

Studies in nations where helmets have been made compulsary show a DROP in the number of people cycling, and, importantly, the number of children taking up cycling.

I imagine at this point a stat to say that kids who take up cycling are much more likely to be cycling in adulthood than those who don't is produced. < can't remember that, but it would seem likely and reasonable.

Finally, the damage to public health caused by people put being put off cycling by compulsary helmets, in public health terms, is greater than the damage to public health done by not wearing helmets.

Makes sense to me anyway.

shouldbeinbed

Smokin Joe wrote:

a crash is a great leveller. Your ability to ride a bike faster than everyone else does not make your head less prone to injury than anyone elses.

so by this logic the chidrens stats are relevant then?

I'm pro helmet but anti compulsion and to be honest thoroughly bored of the pointless debates over it with the same stats and rebuttals posted over and over again here and elsewhere.

Jersey is a different kettle of fish to the mainland, far less cars far less urban areas and far less congestion and as a tourism place lots more slow moving touristy traffic cars and bikes, helmets will probably be more effective there in the low speed accidents caused by inattention whilst cycling in the pretty scenery and the relative scarcity of cars to be crashed into at speed by.

Bugly

disgruntledgoat wrote:

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.

I am sorry sir you are wrong. The economy suffers through your injury and resources that could be better spent elsewhere are diverted to provide medical support for your self harm. Now if you want to foot all the medical and insurance costs involved in your head injury caused by not wearing a helmet the by all means go ahead.

The simple truth is that preventable injuries damage more then the one person and the costs to society are very high.

irideredthebike

I am glad all those not smart enough to wear a helmet - apparently some of you find it difficult to find the top of your head and to do up the strap - choose not to do so. I only hope you have private health insurance, that way if you survive the crash you can pay for your own medical bills. Ultimately, that is why compulsory helmet laws are passed - it reduces the costs of treating people injured in cycling crashes. While we have a public health system it is reasonable for society to require you to undertake simple steps to reduce the likelihood of you needing to use it. If you aren't going to pay for your own hospital bills in the event that you have a crash, put a helmet on.

To those citing the Australian statistics, you are ignoring that these laws were introduced 20 years ago when the only helmets available were expensive, heavy and ugly (my first helmet, when these laws were introduced cost more than 50 per cent of the cost of my bike). Subsequently, helmets were made compulsory for racing and we have much better helmets today. Also, the immediate drop off in cycling numbers over 12 months was reversed after about three years. I don't think the law discourages people from cycling now - helmets are cheaper (less than 5 per cent of the price of my bike), lighter and more comfortable - and shouldn't be repealed.

merra

_Brun_ wrote:

RoSPA Home & Leisure Accident Surveillance System

This is great fun!

After clicking on some of the buttons I uncovered the disturbing fact that in 2002, nearly 100,000 people suffered concussion or loss of conciousness IN THE HOME. That's approximately 1 in 600 people, in a single year.

Obviously it would be stupid to suggest everyone should wear a helmet around the house all the time just in case (although it wouldn't do any harm), but how many people consider protecting their head while climbing a ladder etc?

Did you know in 2001 there were 18 accidents involving Clay pigeon throwers in the home!

what kind of society are we living in when we can't even be safe from clay pigeon throwers in our own homes

South Bound

Dennis, I agree. Up to each person. My only point is that if we choose not to wear a helmet we shouldn't pretend that we aren't taking on some risk. I don't know how much, but clearly some.

I am with CJ on this. If you guys choose to believe that helmets don't make a difference then you are kidding yourselves. Feel free to wait for cast iron medical evidence, but for me, the experience of trashing one helmet in a crash and my ability to imagine my head vs a windscreen is enough for me to wear a lid. This does not make me right, this is just my assessment of the risk - you guys make your own for you and your kids...

Oh, and as for people not riding and the population getting obese if we introduce helmet laws, that says more about a lazy spoiled society than it adds to the helmet argument.

awallace

Bugly wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

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.

I am sorry sir you are wrong. The economy suffers through your injury and resources that could be better spent elsewhere are diverted to provide medical support for your self harm. Now if you want to foot all the medical and insurance costs involved in your head injury caused by not wearing a helmet the by all means go ahead.

The simple truth is that preventable injuries damage more then the one person and the costs to society are very high.

As i said before i am pro helmet wearing and feel odd without one however i dont think society has to worry about massive costs and burden to the NHS by people not wearing helmets.

Overweight, long term unemployed, drinking, fighting, hypochondriacs (may apply to one person or five different people) will cause a greater burden to the economy. I dont have stats but im sure there are not that many people who have serious head injuries from not wearing a helmet (who are almost certainly healthy in every other way) compared to those who abuse themselves without care for the burden on the NHS. Think friday night high street situations.

Are we going to tell anybody who fails to wear a seatbelt involved in a car crash cough up or die?

Anonymous

irideredthebike wrote:

I am glad all those not smart enough to wear a helmet - apparently some of you find it difficult to find the top of your head and to do up the strap - choose not to do so. I only hope you have private health insurance, that way if you survive the crash you can pay for your own medical bills. Ultimately, that is why compulsory helmet laws are passed - it reduces the costs of treating people injured in cycling crashes. While we have a public health system it is reasonable for society to require you to undertake simple steps to reduce the likelihood of you needing to use it. If you aren't going to pay for your own hospital bills in the event that you have a crash, put a helmet on.

To those citing the Australian statistics, you are ignoring that these laws were introduced 20 years ago when the only helmets available were expensive, heavy and ugly (my first helmet, when these laws were introduced cost more than 50 per cent of the cost of my bike). Subsequently, helmets were made compulsory for racing and we have much better helmets today. Also, the immediate drop off in cycling numbers over 12 months was reversed after about three years. I don't think the law discourages people from cycling now - helmets are cheaper (less than 5 per cent of the price of my bike), lighter and more comfortable - and shouldn't be repealed.

Strewth Cobber, why doncha mind yer own and get back to putting some shrimps on the Barbie ? And if you do, make sure you are wearing oven gloves, teflon apron, goggles and have a bucket of water, sand and 3 fire extinguishers ready. I am typing this with wrist supports on, saftey glasses, steel toecap boots, luminous jacket and a correctly positioned and anatomically correct posture chair. :roll:

Choice. Every time.

If I chose to wear a helmet or not is my business, there are far more important things to sort out before cyclists wearing helmets. :twisted:

Anonymous

Bugly wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

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.

I am sorry sir you are wrong. The economy suffers through your injury and resources that could be better spent elsewhere are diverted to provide medical support for your self harm. Now if you want to foot all the medical and insurance costs involved in your head injury caused by not wearing a helmet the by all means go ahead.

The simple truth is that preventable injuries damage more then the one person and the costs to society are very high.

Utter Crap. :roll:

disgruntledgoat

Bugly wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

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.

I am sorry sir you are wrong. The economy suffers through your injury and resources that could be better spent elsewhere are diverted to provide medical support for your self harm. Now if you want to foot all the medical and insurance costs involved in your head injury caused by not wearing a helmet the by all means go ahead.

The simple truth is that preventable injuries damage more then the one person and the costs to society are very high.

But do I not already pay my healthcare costs through the variety of excellent taxes provided for me to pay into the pot? Is my increased physical activity not a mitigating factor in keeping down my net cost to the health system. Now, in the last 6 years I have visited A&E for 3 bike crashes

The first resulted in a broken collarbone, the second, required 5 stiches to my top lip, the crowning of 2 teeth and stitches in my chin, the third required surgery on a broken elbow. Given that i was racing my bike in 1 & 3 and commuting in 2, which of these would the Bugly Health Service allow me to be treated for? Were they not all preventable? Are all accident preventable?

It's an illogical argument as you could have the entire populous paying their tax dutifully only to be told "sorry sir, that injury/illness was preventable on your way and die quietly". I am happy for anybody who pays their taxes to be treated for any ailment which is detrimental to their health on the NHS. That is what it's there for, it doesn't discriminate as to how you ended up there.

Besides, casquettes look way cool

DaSy

I always ask this question when the helmet debate arises, why do you choose this one activity to single out for special attention? It is statistically safer (especially as an adult cyclist), than being a pedestrian, car driver or even doing many home maintenance tasks, but no-one seems to call into question a car drivers or pedestrians sanity for not choosing to wear head protection.

That is the point I don't understand, many are willing to take those risks, amongst many others, but consider it insane to not wear a cycle helmet.

And as for the burden placed on the NHS by not wearing a a cycle helmet; I think the incredible burden placed on the NHS and society in general by alcohol would be a better place to focus attention if we are endeavouring to save the NHS money...

Edit to agree that casquettes do look very cool.

rolf_f

bompington wrote:

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?

This is where I get stuck too. I'm all in favour of people having the choice but I honestly can't see why you wouldn't wear a helmet. It isn't though you even notice them when they are on. I got all the way to the office a couple of weeks ago only to discover I'd left my helmet at home when I went to take it off! Much the same as wearing seatbelts I'd have thought.

Cressers

I got all the way to the office a couple of weeks ago only to discover I'd left my helmet at home when I went to take it off! Much the same as wearing seatbelts I'd have thought.

For that very reason. No state should be able to levy a penalty on a cyclist who forgets their helmet or decides that due to the short nature of their journey and the quietness of the roads they don't regard the risk of injury as being high enough to warrant wearing a helmet, your garnny nipping down to the cornershop on her step-through folder for example.

Once started, where would it end? Compusory motorcycle style prtective body suits for cyclists?

disgruntledgoat

Rolf F wrote:

bompington wrote:

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?

This is where I get stuck too. I'm all in favour of people having the choice but I honestly can't see why you wouldn't wear a helmet. It isn't though you even notice them when they are on. I got all the way to the office a couple of weeks ago only to discover I'd left my helmet at home when I went to take it off! Much the same as wearing seatbelts I'd have thought.

Well great, we agree then. You don't see why I wouldn't want to wear one, I don't wish to wear one most of the time. But we respect each others view points and agree it's a personal choice!

Cressers

For now...

Porgy

dmclite wrote:

Bugly wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

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.

I am sorry sir you are wrong. The economy suffers through your injury and resources that could be better spent elsewhere are diverted to provide medical support for your self harm. Now if you want to foot all the medical and insurance costs involved in your head injury caused by not wearing a helmet the by all means go ahead.

The simple truth is that preventable injuries damage more then the one person and the costs to society are very high.

Utter Crap. :roll:

In fact the way we measure our economy, accidents are beneficial to the economy. Money gets spent - goods get produced, services renedered, and people and companies get a bit wealthier.

rolf_f

Cressers wrote:

For that very reason. No state should be able to levy a penalty on a cyclist who forgets their helmet or decides that due to the short nature of their journey and the quietness of the roads they don't regard the risk of injury as being high enough to warrant wearing a helmet, your garnny nipping down to the cornershop on her step-through folder for example.

Quite - as I said, I don't agree with it being made compulsory; I just don't understand why anyone would choose not to (at least most of the time) because I can't see the downside (given that I can cycle for many miles before I realise I have forgotten to put the thing on!). I suspect I may well dust off my nice retro Salvarani cycle cap this summer (hot days do make lids less comfortable) and wear it instead of my helmet on some of the flatter, quieter rides I do.

rick_chasey

No-one's buying the public health angle then?

dennisn

Rick Chasey wrote:

No-one's buying the public health angle then?

I don't think anyone is buying any groups(government, medical, religious, whatever)
desire to tell you and I what we must do because "it's good for us".

rick_chasey

dennisn wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

No-one's buying the public health angle then?

I don't think anyone is buying any groups(government, medical, religious, whatever)
desire to tell you and I what we must do because "it's good for us".

That wasn't the public health angle I was referring to?


I meant the - the drop in the number of cycling as a result of compulsary helmet use is a bigger drop in public health than the damages to public health caused by non-helmet use.

iainment

Rick Chasey wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

No-one's buying the public health angle then?

I don't think anyone is buying any groups(government, medical, religious, whatever)
desire to tell you and I what we must do because "it's good for us".

That wasn't the public health angle I was referring to?


I meant the - the drop in the number of cycling as a result of compulsary helmet use is a bigger drop in public health than the damages to public health caused by non-helmet use.

How do you know there'd be a drop?

rick_chasey

iainment wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

No-one's buying the public health angle then?

I don't think anyone is buying any groups(government, medical, religious, whatever)
desire to tell you and I what we must do because "it's good for us".

That wasn't the public health angle I was referring to?


I meant the - the drop in the number of cycling as a result of compulsary helmet use is a bigger drop in public health than the damages to public health caused by non-helmet use.

How do you know there'd be a drop?

Maybe I should copy my original post...


Apparantly (according to that Boardman article in procycling a while back), studies in countries where helemt use has been made compulsary shows a significant drop in the level of cycling, and, importantly, a big drop in the number of people taking up cycling for the first time.