Compulsory wearing of helmets.

jeremyrundle
jeremyrundle Posts: 1,014
edited October 2010 in Commuting chat
I apologize if this has been discussed before, I searched and could not find it.

Regardless of personal beliefs benefits or not, do people think that cycle helmets like seatbelts should be compulsory.

(a) for under eighteens (have to have some age here)

and

(b) over eighteens.

I have always worn a seatbelt since passing my test m a n y years ago and have always worn a helmet and believe they should be compulsory.

Living near the Camel Trail I see many families who have never ridden before with children jumping on a bike for the first time and hitting the road (once literally) and yet they take no helmet, (and are not offered one).
Peds with ipods, natures little speed humps

Banish unwanted fur - immac a squirrel
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... heads.html
«13

Comments

  • I wear one, my kids wear them, but I understand why others choose not to and respect their choice. I'm also always very quick to stress to my kids that they *must* take their helmets off when they stop to climb a tree.
  • asprilla
    asprilla Posts: 8,440
    edited September 2010
    istock_can-of-worms.jpg

    I wear one whenever I get on the bike, but I also accept that it's about personal choice. More people would be saved each year if pedestrians and drivers wore them but for some reason driving and walking without them are deemed to acceptable risks.
    Mud - Genesis Vapour CCX
    Race - Fuji Norcom Straight
    Sun - Cervelo R3
    Winter / Commute - Dolan ADX
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    I apologize if this has been discussed before, I searched and could not find it.

    What did you search for? I tried "Compulsory and wearing and helmets" and got 2 pages of angry threads..........
    Faster than a tent.......
  • spen666
    spen666 Posts: 17,709
    I apologize if this has been discussed before, I searched and could not find it.


    You can't have looked very hard is all I can say.

    I'll give it 6 posts before it descends into the usual polarised abuse


    There is less discussion in glasgow of Protestant/ Catholic debate
    Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
    Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

    Twittering @spen_666
  • spen666 wrote:
    I'll give it 6 posts before it descends into the usual polarised abuse

    You would say that, you Nazi! (short-cut to Godwin?)
  • I apologize if this has been discussed before, I searched and could not find it.

    The subject comes up every couple of months. Do you mean a specific poll?
    ...
    ....I have always worn a seatbelt since passing my test m a n y years ago and have always worn a helmet and believe they should be compulsory.
    This is irrelevant, worse, it implies that you think the two are in some way comparable. That highlights a lack of understanding of the issue.
    Seat belts were demonstrably effective before they were mandated and subsequent experience confirmed that. Cycle helmets are not proven to be effective and where they have been mandated have not resulted in safety improvements.
    Furthermore, the health benefits of cycling are such that discouraging it by mandating helmets is likely to result in an overall increase in healthcare costs, as well as increasing the risk for those that continue to cycle.
    Living near the Camel Trail I see many families who have never ridden before with children jumping on a bike for the first time and hitting the road (once literally) and yet they take no helmet, (and are not offered one).
    Any deaths? Serious injuries? Thought not.

    Why not campaign for helmets for car drivers or pedestrians? If that seems odd, perhaps it would be worth doing some digging on the relative risks of the activities involved.

    Finally, what do you expect from the outcome of the poll? It won't prove anything... is this just a mechanism to start an argument or promote an agenda?

    I should point out (as this is a topic people love to jump to conclusions around) that I'm not anti-helmet, though I am anti-compulsion and I'm strongly anti-ignorance! :-)

    Cheers,
    W. (One of the usual suspects)
  • spen666 wrote:
    ...
    There is less discussion in glasgow of Protestant/ Catholic debate

    Disagreements on that issue are rarely settled by debate.

    Cheers,
    W.
  • spen666 wrote:
    ...
    There is less discussion in glasgow of Protestant/ Catholic debate

    Disagreements on that issue are rarely settled by debate.

    Cheers,
    W.

    Right you! Outside! Now!



    (right, that got rid of him...)
    Chunky Cyclists need your love too! :-)
    2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
    2011 Trek Madone 4.5
    2012 Felt F65X
    Proud CX Pervert and quiet roadie. 12 mile commuter
  • cee
    cee Posts: 4,553
    I choose to wear one, however, I see no benefit to compulsion.
    Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.

    H.G. Wells.
  • spen666
    spen666 Posts: 17,709
    spen666 wrote:
    ...
    There is less discussion in glasgow of Protestant/ Catholic debate

    Disagreements on that issue are rarely settled by debate.

    Cheers,
    W.

    They aint here either doughboy
    Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
    Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

    Twittering @spen_666
  • Troll

    Yawn
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • don_don
    don_don Posts: 1,007
    Cycle helmets are not proven to be effective and where they have been mandated have not resulted in safety improvements.
    Furthermore, the health benefits of cycling are such that discouraging it by mandating helmets is likely to result in an overall increase in healthcare costs, as well as increasing the risk for those that continue to cycle.

    Just about the simplest and best summary of the situation that I've ever seen.
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    cee wrote:
    I choose to wear one, however, I see no benefit to compulsion.

    This.
  • I generally but not always wear one.

    I could give a rat's arse about whether other people wear them.
  • I've said most of this before, so for once, I may not be peeing petrol onto the bonfire...
    Cycle helmets are not proven to be effective and where they have been mandated have not resulted in safety improvements.
    Furthermore, the health benefits of cycling are such that discouraging it by mandating helmets is likely to result in an overall increase in healthcare costs, as well as increasing the risk for those that continue to cycle.

    These are all fair points (although I'm personally sceptical that mandating helmet use would deter new cyclists).

    However.

    If you do cycle, and pretty well all of us do here (yes, Linsen, even you, shuffling around the place like Charles Laughton), then the question is whether the possibility that a helmet will reduce the severity of an injury is greater than the possibility that it will increase the severity of an injury.

    For me, it's a fairly simple decision. I can't make a living, or support my family by sitting in a home dribbling gently, staring at the window, counting to one and waiting for someone to change my clothes. I'm prepared, without the benefit of empirical evidence, and mostly relying on instinct, to conclude that a helmet is more likely to reduce the chance of that being my fate in an accident than to increase it. So I wear one.

    Besides which, I get enough sh!t on the domestic front already about dangers of cycling. If I were to ditch the helmet, I am pretty certain I'd be locked in my room. Besides which (#2) if I don't wear one, my kids won't, and as every parent knows, projected fear is more intense than personal fear.

    It is, however, and should remain, a personal decision.

    Much like playing Russian Roulette. I mean, seriously, what freedom hater would ban Russian Roulette? :wink:

    It would be political correctness gone mad, I tell you.
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • shm_uk
    shm_uk Posts: 683
    I believe that parents should make young children wear a helmet until they feel their kids are sufficiently proficient and confident, after which point it should be down to parental discretion.

    There should certainly be no legal requirement.

    Me, I always wear one, but maybe that's just a habit created due to the fact I ride off-road a lot therefore am more likely to come off the bike...
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    Actually, I find it interesting that OP has such a concern for people who don't wear helmets that he wants to compel them by law to do so. Considering how debatable the H&S benefit of wearing a helmet is (statistically), I find this a bit odd. My pet theory is that occasionally some people simply want to see things done their way and for that reason will support one side of a debate more emphatically than they would have based on the evidence that backs that position alone.
  • NO!!!! in both cases
  • I will say strait up I do not ever get on my bike without a helmet and feel very uncomfortable around someone else on a bike without one, but my resons are my own and not anyone elses.

    should we make everyone wear one is another story, and not one I can even answer to myself. I believe it is the right of everyone to make a call like that for themselves and those they are responsible for(kids).

    but then because I wear mine religiously, I can't see what is so hard for everyone else and what harm can it do. I have heard a bunch of claims of extra neck injuries and the like, but at the end of the day I am not a crash expert by any stretch of the imagination.

    how was the seatbelt law brought in and on what grounds? medical costs? saving lives? by referendum?

    maybe its just darwins therory at work!
    trek 7.9fx with mudgaurds (Thanks terk for warrenty freebie)

    kona kula

    mtbr come commuter
  • sc999cs
    sc999cs Posts: 596
    Does any one even care any more?
    Steve C
  • iPete
    iPete Posts: 6,076
    I'm a helmet wearer and voted no.

    Infact I left my helmet in my draw friday night and cycled in this morning without, I'm not a convert but I don't see it as problem.
  • Greg66 wrote:
    ....the question is whether the possibility that a helmet will reduce the severity of an injury is greater than the possibility that it will increase the severity of an injury. ...

    I don't agree, I'm afraid. The question of whether or not helmets "work" or "are effective" or whatever continues to be secondary to the question of whether cycling is dangerous enough to warrant the discussion.

    Fundamentally, cycling's no more dangerous than lots of other everyday activities which people don't consider to need special safety gear.
    In discussing whether or not they should be mandated we implicitly support the contention that they are necessary.

    Now, I don't go as far as to suggest that wearing a helmet is misguided, because it implies they are needed, but I do think we should challenge the underlying assumption that cycling is dangerous.

    People should not feel that they are putting themselves in danger by cycling without a helmet.
    Articles like the DMs one about BojoBikes are irresponsible.

    Cheers,
    W.
  • iPete
    iPete Posts: 6,076
    Aren't you statistically far more likely to die from diabetes from not cycling than taking up cycling? Always a good stat I tell people, just can't remember my source!
  • Greg66 wrote:
    ....the question is whether the possibility that a helmet will reduce the severity of an injury is greater than the possibility that it will increase the severity of an injury. ...

    I don't agree, I'm afraid. The question of whether or not helmets "work" or "are effective" or whatever continues to be secondary to the question of whether cycling is dangerous enough to warrant the discussion.

    I disagree that its secondary, I think Greg has a very good point - but its your view and is equally valid

    However, and I don't mean this as a personal attack, what seems to happen is your follow up points then deviate so far from others because of your rebuttal of the initial idea that this then expands the discussion to new realms and we get more varied reponses and original points are lost.
    Fundamentally, cycling's no more dangerous than lots of other everyday activities which people don't consider to need special safety gear.

    I'd like to know which ones. I've yet to see a stat that says cycling per person - ie my risk to me is as a safe as walking in the city centre. I am pretty sure it is riskier to cycle than walk but please prove beyond reasonable doubt that it isn't.
    In discussing whether or not they should be mandated we implicitly support the contention that they are necessary.

    Disagree again but we've covered that above
    Now, I don't go as far as to suggest that wearing a helmet is misguided, because it implies they are needed, but I do think we should challenge the underlying assumption that cycling is dangerous.
    I don't think it should be "is dangerous" but that it *can* be more dangerous - if you don't know know and use good cycle craft, make yourself visible and drivers are aware of you an all etc etc.
    People should not feel that they are putting themselves in danger by cycling without a helmet.
    Articles like the DMs one about BojoBikes are irresponsible.

    Very much agree. Its classic scaremongering to use bogus data and fear to try to force an unsubstantiated change.

    MM

    /2cents
    Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
    The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]
  • .... I am pretty sure it is riskier to cycle than walk but please prove beyond reasonable doubt that it isn't. ...

    A quick response on this point- from memory, I think the risk is lower by unit distance but higher by unit time.

    So, if you choose to cycle 4km to your destination you are marginally less likely to be hurt (Hmm.. KSI'd?) than if you walk. If OTOH, you go out and walk for an hour, you are less likely to be "hurt" than if you go out and cycle for an hour...

    You are, of course, very unlikely to be injured doing any of the above, as they are safe activities.... so the comparison is of dubious value :-)

    Cheers,
    W.
  • jonginge
    jonginge Posts: 5,945
    .... I am pretty sure it is riskier to cycle than walk but please prove beyond reasonable doubt that it isn't. ...

    A quick response on this point- from memory, I think the risk is lower by unit distance but higher by unit time.

    So, if you choose to cycle 4km to your destination you are marginally less likely to be hurt (Hmm.. KSI'd?) than if you walk. If OTOH, you go out and walk for an hour, you are less likely to be "hurt" than if you go out and cycle for an hour...

    You are, of course, very unlikely to be injured doing any of the above, as they are safe activities.... so the comparison is of dubious value :-)

    Cheers,
    W.
    Can I nominate this response to go into the Twin's paradox thread. Purleeze
    FCN 2-4 "Shut up legs", Jens Voigt
    Planet-x Scott
    Rides
  • Stuey01
    Stuey01 Posts: 1,273
    I ALWAYS wear a helmet when on my bike, but don't think it should be compulsory.
    Not climber, not sprinter, not rouleur
  • Stuey01
    Stuey01 Posts: 1,273
    .... I am pretty sure it is riskier to cycle than walk but please prove beyond reasonable doubt that it isn't. ...

    A quick response on this point- from memory, I think the risk is lower by unit distance but higher by unit time.

    So, if you choose to cycle 4km to your destination you are marginally less likely to be hurt (Hmm.. KSI'd?) than if you walk. If OTOH, you go out and walk for an hour, you are less likely to be "hurt" than if you go out and cycle for an hour...

    You are, of course, very unlikely to be injured doing any of the above, as they are safe activities.... so the comparison is of dubious value :-)

    Cheers,
    W.

    Have you read Super Freakonomics? They make a very convincing, statistically supported argument that you would be safer drunk driving a short journey home than you would walking. Their recommendation? Do neither and take a cab.
    Not climber, not sprinter, not rouleur
  • after reading a few of Jeremy's posts I'm drawn towards the opinion he is a troll having a laugh with us.
    But it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong (or for that matter the last)
  • CiB
    CiB Posts: 6,098
    I don't wear a helmet to ride my bike along country lanes as the chances of having the sort of accident that would put me into a vegetative state but which would be prevented by the wearing of said helmet, is negligible, so I don't wear one.

    I also fail to wear one in the shower, in the car, when walking the kids to school in the snow, when in the loft looking for things, when under the Land Rover looking for things, and when up a ladder balanced on a chair fitting a sat dish to the wall (altho that probably did warrant a helmet, and safety harness & landing mat. Or maybe just a longer ladder).

    I'm with Mr Warburton on this. Cycling is so far inside the safety margins that I don't feel that a helmet is warranted, in my personal situation. Other people may cycle in different situations - each to their own eh? But I would resist compulsion with everything at my disposal - we don't need a law for every situation, to micro-manage our lives and wrest more responsibility away from the self to the state

    Thanks to MonkeyMonster for being so concerned about my well-being. Sad to report that it's a bit misplaced. Cheers tho.