'Compulsory cycle helmets' - bbc.co.uk article

snailracer

Greg66 wrote:

W1 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

hatbeard wrote:

snailracer wrote:

W1 wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

Its called social responsibility, the NHS has to pay (using my tax money) to patch up the pieces, much like wearing seat belts in cars or helmets on motorbikes, if they came up with a system whereby not using such safety items meant no NHS assistance to the person who decided their own safety was less important than wearing that item, then I'd be fine with that, but that won't happen, so compulsion is the 'least worst' option.

Simon

You should pretty much ban everything then. Most sports for example have an element of risk with regards to injury.

Ban cycling altogether, then there'd be no pesky cyclist head injuries clogging up NHS beds.

much safer to ban all travel.

Bollocks to that! I'm not sitting indoors waiting for a plane/comet/satellite to fall on my house. I want to be out, running around, ready to dodge falling objects.

Clearly BAN = Death Sentence!

Ban bans?

Whup! Whup! Whup!

PARADOX ALERT!

Ban paradoxes - problem solved.

W1

Greg66 wrote:

W1 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

hatbeard wrote:

snailracer wrote:

W1 wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

Its called social responsibility, the NHS has to pay (using my tax money) to patch up the pieces, much like wearing seat belts in cars or helmets on motorbikes, if they came up with a system whereby not using such safety items meant no NHS assistance to the person who decided their own safety was less important than wearing that item, then I'd be fine with that, but that won't happen, so compulsion is the 'least worst' option.

Simon

You should pretty much ban everything then. Most sports for example have an element of risk with regards to injury.

Ban cycling altogether, then there'd be no pesky cyclist head injuries clogging up NHS beds.

much safer to ban all travel.

Bollocks to that! I'm not sitting indoors waiting for a plane/comet/satellite to fall on my house. I want to be out, running around, ready to dodge falling objects.

Clearly BAN = Death Sentence!

Ban bans?

Whup! Whup! Whup!

PARADOX ALERT!

Whatever you do, do not (I repeat, DO NOT) google "google". It makes the internets stop.

cee

rjsterry wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

182 choked on food

Most of the 60million odd people in this country eat solid food; far fewer cycle so I'm not sure that statistic tells us anything much, :P but I agree that cycling in general is relatively safe.

Thats why I only consume soup, very thin porridge and energy gels. Safety First.

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

Only 140 cyclists were killed in 2009, but:

3958 people died in falls... 254 from accidental stangulation, 182 choked on food

Nearly 3500 killed themselves.

179 people died from accidental alcohol poisoning.

Stats. Love 'em.

Not sure that they tell one that much though.

For example: take an extreme example. Say only 140 people cycled in 2009, but they were all killed.

Might then infer with confidence that cycling was quite dangerous.

OTOH, every person on the country over 14 (say, oh, 40 million?) drinks, and only 179 of them died from accidental alcohol poisoning.

So cycling would be a lot more dangerous than drinking.

Wouldn't, in this context, a more helpful set of stats be:
- number of person-miles ridden
- number of accidents involving injuries to cyclists' heads
- number of such cyclists who were wearing helmets
- relative severity of long term effect of injury on helmeted vs non-helmeted groups?

Even that's not ideal, as it assumes that the distribution of severe vs non-severe injuries is statistically identical between helmeted and non-helmeted groups, which it may not be.

On a 'deaths per mile travelled' basis would travelling in a Space Shuttle be the safest form of travel?

Drysuitdiver

Greg66 wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

What we need is some melons to drop from a great height to see what happens. Yeah!

Yeessss...

What I don't recommend is that you google images "melons", with safesearch off.

No sirree. No way, no how, no sir. Don't do it. At all.

Not even a little bit.

and don't whatever you do put in "bouncing melons" unless you want a visit from the IT police.


as for the OP. I wear one cos it makes my wife feel safer and reduces the nag factor. it also means i am not doing the do as i say not as i do to the kids. when they are 18 they can do what they like - until then they wear a helmet.

Drysuitdiver

rjsterry wrote:

Back on topic, Nobody is proposing to make it a LAW that you should wear suitable protective equipment to use, say, a hedge trimmer, or a circular saw, or a chainsaw, or... The potential to lop off an appendage is pretty high and I don't think many would argue that it's a very good idea to wear safety goggles, gloves, not wear loose clothing that could get caught and so on, but why has nobody suggested legally enforced safety equipment?

Mind you if you use power tools for work, then your employer will almost certainly insist that you do use safety equipment, so if I ride my bike to a work meeting, should my employer insist that I wear a helmet? We now also have an office Brompton for general use - perhaps there should be an office helmet to go with it (the office provides hard hats, hi-viz and boots for site visits).

chainsaws- you can buy and use with no training or safety gear- hire one however and you need to have the correct safety eqpt and be trained in its use.

your employer does have a responsibility and should carry out a risk assesment on the use of the bike or consult a safety proffesional who has the neccesary skills training and experience to asses the risks

each user will require their own PPE though.

Mike Healey

Ah yes, the good old "Wear a Helmet or You WILL DIE! campaign to encourage people to take up the safe and healthy activity of cycling.

The kind of joined up thinking which demonstrates that the proposer should have been wearing a helmet when undertaking the kind of brain injury causing incident which led to this kind of idea

jimwin

Dealt with in P46 of 'Cycle' Feb/Mar (the CTC mag). In summary, the risk of not wearing a helmet is far less than the risk of taking other forms of transport. Read it and both enjoy and learn.

gaz545

The Beginner wrote:

Personally I'm in favour of making helmets compulsary, in much the same way s seatbelts and motorbike helmets are, I see it as a sensible way to reduce a risk factor that is both proportional and not penal, but tht is just my view.

All the evidence suggests that helmet use reduces the risk of death or serious injury to cyclists involved in an accident, it will of course not remove all risk of injury, and in some cases it will not help at all, much like seatbelts, however as it does not appear to increase any risk (caveat that neck injury risk has been shown to be slightly increased when heavier helmets were the norm) then wearing them seems sensible.

Simon

We all know what seatbelts have done for driving. Because it's made it safer to crash, people drive like idiots and put other people at risk on the roads. Remove the seatbelts and put a large spike in the middle of the steering wheel and we will soon have lots of safe drivers on the road, or lots of dead ones.

hatbeard

I just rode a lap of farringdon road up old bailey and around smithfields at lunchtime to

a) test my newly adjusted seat height before my ride home tonight
b) try on a pair of endura singletrack shorts in evans

and guess what... I didn't wear my helmet :shock:

quick everyone light the pitchforks and start waving the unlit torches!

jonginge

Just so long as you wore a little cap of steel...

*goes off to google batfink*

Kieran_Burns

hatbeard wrote:

I just rode down a lap of farringdon road up old bailey and around smithfields at lunchtime to

a) test my newly adjusted seat height before my ride home tonight
b) try on a pair of endura singletrack shorts in evans

and guess what... I didn't wear my helmet :shock:

quick everyone light the pitchforks and start waving the unlit torches!

So clearly you're dead, and this is a necro-post from beyond the grave.

Or

This entire forum is a figment of your brain damaged imagination. We aren't actually here and you're in fact drooling into a bib while an overly hairy nurse wipes your soiled bottom.

Red pill or blue pill?

hatbeard

blue pill i think. I jumped the red.

Kieran_Burns

JonGinge wrote:

Just so long as you wore a little cap of steel...

*goes off to google batfink*

Who had my favourite cartoon quote until "quick man! cling tenaciously to my buttocks!"

MonkeyMonster

hatbeard wrote:

b) try on a pair of endura singletrack shorts in evans

I got the 3/4 versions after looking into the range. How did you find the shorts?

oh and apologies for de-railing to sensibilities, I know, imagine me asking sensible questions!

ebt

Remember folks, the masses like to pick on a minority;

http://www.news24.com/World/News/Obesity-stretches-UK-ambulances-20110203

....it seems we're certainly smaller than these masses

bloomboy

I look like a right dick in a cycling helmet and theres no way I will be wearing one! But thats just me. In fact the time that I have worn one that 'edge' that I usually have when I am cycling seems duller or at least cushions the experience of me cycling and my feeling of the road and the space around me. In fact I think theres alot to be said for the dangers of wearing protection and thinking your going to be safe. What the government really should be focusing on is making cycle lessons compulsory at school so that everyone becomes confident in their later years out on the road and on a bike. . I cycle and I also drive, and I often see helmet wearing novices in their 30s 40s bumbling along the high road oblivious to the vehicles and with little awareness, its not safe its dangerous.
But I do agree living in London, that the Hire a Bike scheme needs to provide helmets with every bike, the people who I see using this service are usually office workers zipping around on their lunch hour or tourists, the cycle lanes dont make any sense and all its asking for is one serious accident and the papers will come down on the initiative like a ton of bricks!

dilemna

I have read so many helmet threads which go absolutely no where. Some I comment on many I don't. I'm so bored with them now I just hope the government will bring in legislation soon so they go away. End of. So if you currently wear a helmet - great. If you don't wear a helmet - great. The choice is yours. INLGAF.

shouldbeinbed

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Perversely, I think I'd stop wearing mine if such a law were introduced.

Me too.

I'm rarely in favour of the state stepping in to force me to do something which is solely for my own safety, rather than the protection of others. If I wish to ride without a helmet the only danger is to myself - what business is that of anyone else?

So you don't give a stuff for the feelings of your loved ones, friends, colleagues, if it were an accident deemed survivable if you were helmetted (medical opinion on James Cracknells recent wing mirror to the head incident is that bare headed he would most likely have died) - the driver that 'killed' you, as long as you get to do what you want.

I'm no fan of compulsion either but realise my life and choices have an effect on others, even if it is a bit of a placebo.

W1

shouldbeinbed wrote:

W1 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Perversely, I think I'd stop wearing mine if such a law were introduced.

Me too.

I'm rarely in favour of the state stepping in to force me to do something which is solely for my own safety, rather than the protection of others. If I wish to ride without a helmet the only danger is to myself - what business is that of anyone else?

So you don't give a stuff for the feelings of your loved ones, friends, colleagues, if it were an accident deemed survivable if you were helmetted (medical opinion on James Cracknells recent wing mirror to the head incident is that bare headed he would most likely have died) - the driver that 'killed' you, as long as you get to do what you want.

I'm no fan of compulsion either but realise my life and choices have an effect on others, even if it is a bit of a placebo.

God, are you being serious? Firstly it's rare for it to be as cut and dried as "survivable with a helmet, certain death without" - the many threads on here about helmets make it obvious that their utility can be in question.

Secondly I don't want the state to be enforcing my feeling/considerations of my family. What if I hate my family and have no wish to save them any anguish? It is up to the law toforce me to love them? As it happens I do wear a lid, but I don't want to be compelled to.

Thirdly how many things do you do each day that you could make safer but don't? Holding the rail when going down stairs for example? That might save you life (and your family's anguish) so using your logic I suppose you think this should be compulsory, punishable by fines and brought into law do you? What about jay-walking? It's a dangerous game to start playing.

I am never ceased to be amazed by how positively willing so many people are to have each and every second of their lives micro-managed by someone else/the government, and have more and more red tape and regulation and less and less freedom and personal responsibility. It's a mindset that I simply cannot understand. Maybe there should be a system where those unable to use their own judgement can vegetate and let the state take over, and leave the rest of us to get on with our lives with only minimal interference.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

Maybe there should be a system where those unable to use their own judgement can vegetate and let the state take over, and leave the rest of us to get on with our lives with only minimal interference.

What do you think is the right level of "interference" for the government?

CiB

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Maybe there should be a system where those unable to use their own judgement can vegetate and let the state take over, and leave the rest of us to get on with our lives with only minimal interference.

What do you think is the right level of "interference" for the government?

The right level? In this instance, none.

Let's have another go. Helmet compulsion is fine as long as it also applies to pedestrians walking in snow or icy conditions, people taking a shower, car occupants, and people walking under ladders. And for good measure make stab vests compulsory in inner-cities - enough people are stabbed to make it a serious problem that only government intervention can solve, with another raft of laws for the majority to break and become criminalised without ever realising that the virutally zero-risk needed to be managed and controlled by an act of parliament.

We don't all battle through the streets of London every day, putting our lives and heads at risk. Out here in The Rest Of The World, it's pretty much ok you know.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Maybe there should be a system where those unable to use their own judgement can vegetate and let the state take over, and leave the rest of us to get on with our lives with only minimal interference.

What do you think is the right level of "interference" for the government?

As little as possible.

northstar

Let's have another go. Helmet compulsion is fine as long as it also applies to pedestrians walking in snow or icy conditions, people taking a shower, car occupants, and people walking under ladders. And for good measure make stab vests compulsory in inner-cities - enough people are stabbed to make it a serious problem that only government intervention can solve, with another raft of laws for the majority to break and become criminalised without ever realising that the virutally zero-risk needed to be managed and controlled by an act of parliament.

We don't all battle through the streets of London every day, putting our lives and heads at risk. Out here in The Rest Of The World, it's pretty much ok you know.

+1 many times over.

mybreakfastconsisted

CiB wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Maybe there should be a system where those unable to use their own judgement can vegetate and let the state take over, and leave the rest of us to get on with our lives with only minimal interference.

What do you think is the right level of "interference" for the government?

The right level? In this instance, none.

Let's have another go. Helmet compulsion is fine as long as it also applies to pedestrians walking in snow or icy conditions, people taking a shower, car occupants, and people walking under ladders. And for good measure make stab vests compulsory in inner-cities - enough people are stabbed to make it a serious problem that only government intervention can solve, with another raft of laws for the majority to break and become criminalised without ever realising that the virutally zero-risk needed to be managed and controlled by an act of parliament.

We don't all battle through the streets of London every day, putting our lives and heads at risk. Out here in The Rest Of The World, it's pretty much ok you know.

Indeed.


Since you are more likely to receive a head injury in a pub than on a bike it makes more sense to hand out helmets outside Wetherspoons (especially the one in Leytonstone)

captainfly

People who choose not to wear a helmet whilst on a bike have nothing for a helmet to protect But if that is your thing then at least carry a donor card and make you reletives aware of this.

dysonsphere

Oh my Lord this should never be compulsory. Not only for all the reasons mentioned above but also because of the principle of 'survival of the fittest'. If people are so stupid as to not wear one then they truly deserve to vacate their place within the gene pool thereby improving the general standard of those who are left.

I wear one, however that is my choice.

meanredspider

I think that there's a judgement or trade-off that needs to be made. I'm not for the compulsion of lid-wearing BUT should you end up with head injuries then there ought to be some way that you pay for your own medical treatment of those injuries rather than relying on the rest of us to pay for your treatment.

When my kids were of the age, there was the big MMR scare. Lots of parents decided not to innoculate their kids - basically relying on the rest of us that did innoculate our kids to protect their little loves by ensuring there wasn't a critical mass of kids for measles to spread. Me paying for someone's injuries who hasn't taken obvious precautions feels the same.

I'm also a little tired of the "helmets offer no protection" arguement. Whilst there's huge quantities of anecdotal evidence on here (and statistical evidence from the US on the web) supporting the benefit of helmet wearing - not to mention the simple engineering basics of energy dispersion - I've yet to hear a single person come up with an 1st person anecdotal statement of the dangers of wearing a helmet against which to balance the benefits. Even when seatbelts were made compulsory (and there can be few people left arguing this isn't sensible) there was anecdotal evidence of people being trapped in cars by their belt. The best the anti-lid lobby seems to be able to come up with is that cars might drive a bit closer or something (which I've yet to see) about "rotational" injuries. I've never needed my lid to protect me from impact but on two occasions it has saved me from some potentially serious abrasions - both occasions relating to coming off on slippery surfaces (leaves & diesel). If someone is feeling strongly about the anti-helmet position, put up a survey on here asking people to vote to say one of:
a. I've been protected by a helmet
b. I've been injured by a helmet
c. I've neither been protected or injured by a helmet
and let's start to gather a body of (albeit crude) evidence of the arguement one way or another.

I also wonder how many A&E staff believe that helmets are useless? I know all of my neighbours (nurses & surgeons - 6 of them) all wear helmets.

As for all the other risks (snow & ice, ladders, stabbing etc) there's mitigations to many of these already available (salt, barriers, policemen etc). In accidents where these are causes, people's reaction tends to be shock at how pointless such deaths are.

Again, I'm not in favour of compulsion but I am in favour of taking responsibility.

W1

meanredspider wrote:

I think that there's a judgement or trade-off that needs to be made. I'm not for the compulsion of lid-wearing BUT should you end up with head injuries then there ought to be some way that you pay for your own medical treatment of those injuries rather than relying on the rest of us to pay for your treatment.

Me paying for someone's injuries who hasn't taken obvious precautions feels the same.

But now you have a problem - what is an "obvious precaution" - the lack of which would exclude you from free NHS care? OK, it's easy to say cycle helmets - but why not wear helmets all the time? That would reduce all head injuries. As I mentioned earlier, what about holding the hand-rail when walking down stairs?

It has to be accepted that - short of locking ourselves up in cotton wool caves - there is an element of risk in day to day life.

meanredspider

W1 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I think that there's a judgement or trade-off that needs to be made. I'm not for the compulsion of lid-wearing BUT should you end up with head injuries then there ought to be some way that you pay for your own medical treatment of those injuries rather than relying on the rest of us to pay for your treatment.

Me paying for someone's injuries who hasn't taken obvious precautions feels the same.

But now you have a problem - what is an "obvious precaution" - the lack of which would exclude you from free NHS care? OK, it's easy to say cycle helmets - but why not wear helmets all the time? That would reduce all head injuries. As I mentioned earlier, what about holding the hand-rail when walking down stairs?

It has to be accepted that - short of locking ourselves up in cotton wool caves - there is an element of risk in day to day life.

And I know it's unworkable.

But the point of compulsion is that people can't be trusted to take responsibility for their own actions. I'm personally not sure which is worse:

- A nanny state that forces you to be responsible
- A nanny state that picks up the pieces allowing you to be irresponsible

I can see how the arguement for compulsion builds as prevention is better than cure. I don't need to supervise my kids because I know they'll act responsibly.