Complusory helmet law

rick_chasey

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

nasahapley

DaSy wrote:

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.

I've always wondered that too, seems a perfectly valid question buts never gets an answer beyond 'you're just being facetious' or 'don't be silly'. I understand that you're more likely to get a serious head injury from a slip/trip in the bathroom than almost anything else, but if I suggested always wearing a helmet in the bathroom ('cept when washing your hair, obviously) you'd think I was a lunatic.

lloyd_bower

Well living somewhere where helmet use is complusary (on road), I'd much prefer it wasn't the case. Sure I'd wear one 95% of the time anyway, and certainly commuting but you should have freedom to choose.

I am sure the evidence when the law was introduced here showed a reduction in cycling. Strange really, helmet use has been compulsary for years, yet driving and holding a hand held mobile was only made against the law last December, and it's still legal to drive without 3rd party vehicle insurance!

I'm sure evidence would suggest that lives would be saved if drivers wore helmets, but there's no country in the world that would suggest it.

shouldbeinbed

disgruntledgoat wrote:

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.

slight drift then I'll go again.

It's jolly decent of your A&E to let you go there to have your bike crashes,

The choice or not NHS argument is a bit of a fallacy all round - someone that chooses to become obese or clog their lungs with tar gets free treatment. me that was born with long sightedness and a squint has to pay for my necessary exams and treatment.

its an absolute farce that naturally occurring medical deficiencies that are genuinely debilitating (I can't see well enough to work, drive, ride without me gigs) are chargeable whereas self inflicted choice problems get sorted for free.

drift over

but in the same way car accident treatment is now chargeable, I really don't think it will be long before bike accident treatment is, especially if it occurrs during a voluntary leisure pursuit (for want of a better phrase) such as racing.

I also think that in the same way judges have occasionally (& inappropriately in the e.g that sticks in my mind) commented adversely on non-helmet use, wearing a helmet could be a deciding factor in our getting a bill or not as we hobble out with our mangled bike. Nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of the argument, simply economics of a skint public service looking to pay the bills.

brin

what irks me about this law being proposed then passed is the fact it was the deputy, who's son was injured due to a fall, who proposed it. whilst understanding his concern for his son, surely HE should have made sure his son was wearing a helmet? How many other cyclists were injured before his son? did he care about them? seems to me he is looking to blame everybody except himself. If that's an excuse for passing a law, woe betide us all.

MickyA

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.

I can't be bothered to dig out the figures again, but based on the UK cause of death statistics and a pro-helmet government report, I worked out that you would save the same amount of lives making helmets compulsory as you would by making life jackets compulsory for people in the bath - about ten a year.
Despite perceptions, cycling is actually a very safe activity. Helmet laws aren't necessary.

teulk

I wear a Helmet all of the time and personally dont feel comfortable without it on. Helmets are there for the safety of the wearer so why not wear one ?

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.

Well you might well be a grown up and you might well be the only person who will be injured but what about your family, how do you think they would feel if you were seriously injured and a helmet could have prevented it ?

Obviously people will argue the toss until the cows come home for and against the wearing of them but id rather wear one and not need it than not wear one and end up wishing i had.

softlad

teulk wrote:

I wear a Helmet all of the time and personally dont feel comfortable without it on.

surely you take it off at bedtime..?

mercsport

I've avoided this thread until now, but have succumbed and had a jolly good read of everyone's thoughts on this contentious issue. After over fifty years of cycling I realise that the good times are over and the new age of puritanism is well and truly with us again.





Edit : I hadn't mean to post that quite yet. But happen it's just as well as I was going to get over-wordy!

No matter, read into the pictures what you will. If nothing else, helmets have certainly taken the individual out of the equation. Everyone looks the ruddy same now.

toontra

Children yes, adults no. If (God forbid) this became law then I would practice civil disobedience and be prepared to go to court.

teulk

softlad wrote:

teulk wrote:

I wear a Helmet all of the time and personally dont feel comfortable without it on.

surely you take it off at bedtime..?

At bed time i give my helmet a good rub

awallace

I think if this did become law there would be very little prosecution (how many unlit bikes at night are prosecuted) and would just be the perfect excuse for insurers particularly motor insurers to say sorry - no money cuz you didnt have a lid on!

crown_jewel

I repeat that I am in favor of adults having the right to make their own decisions about wearing helmets, but I just want to report that the husband of a woman I work with was hit on his bike last night and, according to the doctors, is alive today only because he was wearing a helmet. I guess they do work sometimes.

zanes

Crown Jewel wrote:

I repeat that I am in favor of adults having the right to make their own decisions about wearing helmets, but I just want to report that the husband of a woman I work with was hit on his bike last night and, according to the doctors, is alive today only because he was wearing a helmet. I guess they do work sometimes.

crown_jewel

You are probably right. What was I thinking?

Seanos

toontra wrote:

Children yes, adults no. If (God forbid) this became law then I would practice civil disobedience and be prepared to go to court.

I bet you wouldn't. In fact I'm willing to bet that you'd pay the first on the spot fine you were given then wear a helmet from then on

garrynolan

I like being alive. I have 100% belief in my ability not to put myself off my bike (except when falling over while stopped and still clipped in!). However... I have no faith in anyone else on the road and if some eejit decides to SMIDSY me I will give myself every chance of survival, ergo: I wear a helmet. I also have lights on during the day. I'm not joking about 'Cycle in Dublin and know fear'.
An early poster stated it would only affect him if he was killed/injured. Total boll0cks! What about the family and/or friends left behind? Or have to look after you if you survive? I won't be affected if they make helmets compulsory as I wear one anyway - it'll be fun here watching the law be ignored and not enforced. The local bike cops don't even have lights in the winter. 'The batteries died' (front and rear) was his excuse to me when I challenged him.

Wheelspinner

Someone earlier mentioned motorcycle helmet laws in the US getting repealed in some states. I was in Indiana for work a while back where they can ride without a lid, and asked the locals about it.

Apparently the law was repealed, WITH THE BLESSING OF THE LOCAL HOSPITAL SURGEONS group, because the immediate effect was a noticeable increase in younger, healthier organ donors coming in to the emergency doors of the hospitals. I am not making this up. :shock:

Bunneh

No one gets my organs I'm taking them to the grave! *puts on helmet*


Pssst I am an organ donor btw.

DaSy

I hate that line "think about your wife and kids" touted at you when saying you don't wear a helmet, and the whole "burden on the welfare state as they'll feed you through a straw" stuff.

This still applies and in a much more amplified way, as previously stated to showering, walking on a public footpath or driving without head protection, so you are shunning those risks without care for your family or the welfare state.

Just because someone has made a helmet for cycling and not for being a pedestrian does not make one safe and the other activity dangerous, it just means manufacturers found a way of marketing expanded foam as a necessary item for a subsection of society prepared to pay princely sums for it.

Can those advocating the use of cycle helmets explain why they don't wear those helmets for walking, or driving their cars; where is the difference in risk?

blackpanther

There is no difference in risk, just percieved risk.

Ive crashed in races and had helmets in pieces they saved my head from scratches nad cuts, ive crashed and been knocked off my bike without a helmet and survived.

my wife would prefer i wore one, i would prefer if she didnt keep going on about it. Even the BMA dont think a law is appropriate. Ive also had a car drive over my head ( back wheel) it hurt and shagged my nose in but im still here. Im reasonably sure a helmet would not have helped.

Im rambling perhaps the helmet would have helped.......

You get a much better sun tan without a helmet.

Wheelspinner

DaSy wrote:

Can those advocating the use of cycle helmets explain why they don't wear those helmets for walking, or driving their cars; where is the difference in risk?

Because my car has about 300 airbags in it, including overhead curtain ones and even some just for my precious knees... and I do the walking stuff on things we call "footpaths", at worst. Not, (surprisingly) out on the same bit of pavement where people routinely drive their 2 tonne 4wd's.

That's why the "risk" is lower.. I'd have thought this would be in the category of the bleedin' obvious explanation, but apparently not..

DaSy

So you chose to ignore the fact that statistically those things have a much higher rate of head injury.

I suppose I could just rename my bike a safety bike and I would then be safe from accident, in the same way that footpaths are safe because it has the word foot in it.

So as I thought, no good reason.

Wheelspinner

DaSy wrote:

So you chose to ignore the fact that statistically those things have a much higher rate of head injury.

I suppose I could just rename my bike a safety bike and I would then be safe from accident, in the same way that footpaths are safe because it has the word foot in it.

So as I thought, no good reason.

"Much higher rate of head injury..."

Really? Per what? Kilometre travelled? Time spent doing the activity? Injuries sustained per accident?

Statistics can be used to prove absolutely anything you want if you are selective about what you measure. Please provide something that substantiates your claim.

I've had precisely zero motor vehicle crashes and subsequent injuries in 32 years of motoring, and over three quarters of a million kilometres driven.

I've also had precisely zero head injuries in that time while out walking.

Statistically therefore, the risk is identical for me. Zero equals zero.

YMMV.

And spare me the dribble about "Not a representative sample... " blah blah blah.

Unless I have missed the doppelganger following me around all that time, no other individual has done exactly the same activities as me over that period. I am the only person who has ever completed all those car, bike and walking trips at those exact times and places. Comparing my "statistics" to someone who lives elsewhere, walks/drives/rides on different roads and pathways, at different times in different conditions is utterly, stupidly useless.

Statistics on road accidents as they relate to injuries and or deaths in particular take no account of the driving/riding/walking behaviour of the people involved. Nor do they have any allowances for the road conditions at the time of the accident, traffic volumes, or any of a stack of other variables.

They are essentially useless in assessing an individual's "risk", since every single trip you do is under different circumstances.

In more than a hundred posts on this thread, over 6 pages, I've yet to read a single "good" reason here why people choose to NOT wear a helmet. Not ONE. The complaint that they cost 50 quid or whatever is ludicrous. If your head and brain aren't even worth 50 quid to protect, (even if it's a marginal improvement in protection and not a guarantee of safety), then by all means don't wear a helmet, and help improve the human gene pool in the long run. I and many others could care less about your choice.

Now, tell me again, why would you choose to not wear a helmet? A good reason?

DaSy

How many bike accidents have you had in this time that resulted in a your head being impacted?

disgruntledgoat

Wheelspinner wrote:

Now, tell me again, why would you choose to not wear a helmet? A good reason?

I don't want to and its none of anybody elses business.

DaSy

Wheelspinner wrote:

Now, tell me again, why would you choose to not wear a helmet? A good reason?

For the same reason you don't wear one for being a pedestrian or driving your car, I don't perceive the risk to be high enough to warrant it.

Smokin Joe

Well, I've survived to the grand old age of 57 without a helmet, and that includes my share of crashes. Maybe I'm just lucky, like the millions of others who also got by without them.

crown_jewel

Smokin Joe and DaSy, I of course support your right to not wear a helmet if you wish. But you make it sound as though the decision is purely one of preference, when it clearly is not. While I do not know the extent of the effect, and I'm not sure anyone does, there is no doubt that in some accidents wearing a helmet will reduce the risk of injury, perhaps serious injury. I posted on one such incident yesterday. By choosing not to wear a helmet, you are saying you choose to accept this risk. Fair enough. But I don't think it is fair to say that there is no risk involved.

Smokin Joe

No one is anti-helmet.

The reason these debates last so long and get heated is because of the attitude of some of those who would either like to see compulsory helmet laws or come out with a load of emotional blackmail to try and bully everyone else into wearing one. I have never told someone who wears one that they shouldn't, in fact I have never even commented on another cyclists helmet when they are wearing one.

All we ask is the same in return, wear what you want but leave those of us who have decided that the risk doesn't warrant it to ride in peace. You wouldn't appreciate being told you are irresponsible because you don't were a back protector and knee and elbow pads when you descend a hill at 40 or 50mph.