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

ndru

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.

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.

If you took a knuckle sandwich in your face at a pub, would it be ok for the nhs to charge you because you didn't wear a helmet with a face mask? If you fell off the stairs because they were slippery and dislocated your shoulder should you be made to pay and then made to wear a body armor? I think it's going in the wrong direction. Sure helmets do offer some protection. As well as other pieces of safety gear. However it's absurd to suggest that it's victims fault and thus responsibility to protect him/herself from every possible harm in the same way as you wouldn't expect women to cover all of their bodies to avoid rape and if they don't and are in fact raped charge them for the services they need (police, nhs) and call them irresponsible. I know it's strong but this is in fact the same kind of blame the victim approach.

meanredspider

Before we get too sunk into the NHS arguement - I was being provocative to make a point - as I've said, it's unworkable.

BUT - how many of us lock up our bikes in a public place (or even at work)? I'm guessing most. Why? Because if it's nicked, we lose our bike (even if it's insured, the insurer is going to want to know it was locked up). Now bike locks are of limited protection (even if the frame remains, bits get nicked off bikes or bikes are vandalised) yet we still do it. How many would still do it if you could walk to your LBS and pick up a replacement FOC?

And, whilst it's analogy full of holes, it tries to explain my view on this. If you knew taking the risk was going to have additional consequences, you probably wouldn't take it.

I avoid pubs where I'm likely to get smacked. I do tend to hold handrails - though stairs already have standards, like angles, hand rails etc to minimise the risks - unfortunately some risks do exist - it's impractical to protect against all risks. But helmet wearing (as judged by I guess more than half the population these days) isn't impractical.

It's just an opinion but I'm still trying to understand the other side of the helmet arguement and it's just not stacking up for me.

_Brun_

meanredspider wrote:

Blah, blah, blah...

When my kids

...blah, blah

Did you take reasonable precautions? Presumably anyone who doesn't shouldn't expect any subsequent help from the tax payer, right?

Agent57

I only started wearing a helmet fairly regularly when I found one I thought looked good. All the ones before that looked utter gash.

W1

The key point is not whether wearing a helmet is good or bad, it's whether it should be compelled by law, with enforcement and fines. I don't think it should, because there are many things we can practically do to reduce risk, yet chose not to.

If people are incapable of being allowed the freedom to chose to take a measured risk then that is a very sad state of affairs, and does not bode well for a reduction in red-tape and nannyism. It is a slippery slope from being forced by law to wear helmets, to not being allowed to us bicycles at all - because the car/bus/train is "safer" (when, of course, it's not). There are many, many things that we all do each day that are dangerous, yet we accept that risk. It's only because cycle helmets are already widely used that people now consider they should be made compulsory. Exactly the same thing would happen if more and more people started using "falling down the stairs armour".

As for the analogy that it's a nanny state because someone is there to pick up the pieces, that doesn't wash with me. The decision to wear a helmet or not is (for me) not because I know I can get treatment for free. It's whether I may be injured or killed!

_Brun_

meanredspider wrote:

But the point of compulsion is that people can't be trusted to take responsibility for their own actions.

I take far more responsibility for my safety than the vast majority of people I encounter on bikes. To suggest I'm reckless because of what I choose to wear on my head is insulting, and quite frankly, stupid.

CiB

captainfly wrote:

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.

Yadda yadda yadda. Whenever I see comments like this it makes me less not more likely to wear one, if nothing else because it's the equivalent of pointing in the playground saying 'he smells he does'. Childish, immature b0ll0cks.

Helmets offer a v limited degree of protection. They aren't a panacea that resolves everything ergo it's a personal decision about wearing one. In 40+ years of riding bikes and occasionally falling off, a helmet would never have changed the outcome in any of my tumbles. And as I don't ride home from works Christmas parties absolutely steaming these days, and do virtually all of my miles on open quiet country roads I'm quite happy to take whatever minimal risk there might be in not wearing one.

To the muppets who think that I should be responsible for paying for any treatment that might be required were I to be injured, I can only say what ar$e logic you display. I've already paid - probably a lot more than some of you FWIW, but then we're off down the I pay road-tax / get off my roads Johny argument, which as any fule know doesn't work in the real world. These money-grabbers who know the price of everything but the value of nothing seem to imagine that 'their' taxes are paying for any treatment that I may - just may - require. Tough - that's tax for you. And it doesn't anyway - I've checked and your tax & NICs paid for 20 minutes of the Afghanistan business.

Obviously what these people want is a country where everybody is required to confirm to very strict limits of behaviour, where only sanctioned activities are implicitly or explicitly allowed, and no-one is allowed to do anything that doesn't have a 100% Safe Safety Ceritifcate, issued by HM Safety Department which no-one is allowed to challenge. If that's what you want, stuff your ridiculous po-faced arrogant nasty me-me-me future up your own archway. Life is about having a bit of fun, doing perfectly safe activities without being badgered by do-gooders and know-it-alls and without needing to be criminalised for doing something that is pretty much gauranteed not to result in any kind of damage, to me, to you, or to anyone else.

Now naff off. You self-important lump of toss.

jds_1981

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/arc ... 10906.html

The famous 'passing distance' study.
Hit twice with helmet, not once without.

jonginge

_Brun_ wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

But the point of compulsion is that people can't be trusted to take responsibility for their own actions.

I take far more responsibility for my safety than the vast majority of people I encounter on bikes. To suggest I'm reckless because of what I choose to wear on my head is insulting, and quite frankly, stupid.

This

Oh, pet peeve time.
1) If you're going to 'quote'* Darwin then at least understand the theory.
2) Lack of helmet = donor to be? Really? Just really? (I have a donor card by the way)


* 'Survival of the fittest' wasn't coined by Darwin himself and is generally used incorrectly

notsoblue

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.

For the record (Theres a record right? This is all being minuted?) I'm not for compulsory helmets, in fact I don't wear one when I'm pootling on the hybrid. I only do when I'm on the road bike, mainly because it encourages me to go faster. Its not a purely rational choice. Anyway I was just interested to know what people thought was a correct level of "government interference". Because we do actually enjoy quite a lot of benign "intereference" from the government in this country. Its what makes it quite an attractive place to live.

meanredspider

_Brun_ wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

But the point of compulsion is that people can't be trusted to take responsibility for their own actions.

I take far more responsibility for my safety than the vast majority of people I encounter on bikes. To suggest I'm reckless because of what I choose to wear on my head is insulting, and quite frankly, stupid.

Why do you think compulsion (laws) exist? The point I'm making is compulsory wearing is only on the agenda because:
a. People think they are safer
b. People won't do it if you're not forced to

Again (I don't know how many times I have to say this) I'm not in favour of compulsion but it's like alcohol laws - they only exist because people can't act responsibly.

W1

meanredspider wrote:

_Brun_ wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

But the point of compulsion is that people can't be trusted to take responsibility for their own actions.

I take far more responsibility for my safety than the vast majority of people I encounter on bikes. To suggest I'm reckless because of what I choose to wear on my head is insulting, and quite frankly, stupid.

Why do you think compulsion (laws) exist? The point I'm making is compulsory wearing is only on the agenda because:
a. People think they are safer
b. People won't do it if you're not forced to

Again (I don't know how many times I have to say this) I'm not in favour of compulsion but it's like alcohol laws - they only exist because people can't act responsibly.

Your implication is that not wearing a helmet is de facto irresponsible.

rick_chasey

Forget rights and gov't intrusion.

The argument should be a public health one - since the law is aimed to improve public health (i.e. by preventing serious head injury in accidents).

Boardman wrote this in an article a while back about when he was on a committee which was supposed to decide whether enforcing helmets was a good thing or not.

The conclusion was as follows; The cost to public health for having compulsary helmet laws was bigger than the gain saved through less head injuries, because it put a significant amout of people off cycling (so losing the health benifts cycling provides).

That was based on evidence from nations (such as Australia if I remember right) which have introduced compulsary helmet wear, rather than conjecture.

meanredspider

CiB wrote:

To the muppets who think that I should be responsible for paying for any treatment that might be required were I to be injured, I can only say what ar$e logic you display. I've already paid - probably a lot more than some of you FWIW, but then we're off down the I pay road-tax / get off my roads Johny argument, which as any fule know doesn't work in the real world. These money-grabbers who know the price of everything but the value of nothing seem to imagine that 'their' taxes are paying for any treatment that I may - just may - require. Tough - that's tax for you. And it doesn't anyway - I've checked and your tax & NICs paid for 20 minutes of the Afghanistan business.

Obviously what these people want is a country where everybody is required to confirm to very strict limits of behaviour, where only sanctioned activities are implicitly or explicitly allowed, and no-one is allowed to do anything that doesn't have a 100% Safe Safety Ceritifcate, issued by HM Safety Department which no-one is allowed to challenge. If that's what you want, stuff your ridiculous po-faced arrogant nasty me-me-me future up your own archway. Life is about having a bit of fun, doing perfectly safe activities without being badgered by do-gooders and know-it-alls and without needing to be criminalised for doing something that is pretty much gauranteed not to result in any kind of damage, to me, to you, or to anyone else.

Now naff off. You self-important lump of toss.

IF you're refering to me with some of those comments (it's difficult to tell) please do me the favour of reading what I wrote before spouting your cr@p.

I'm being provocative to illustrate why these laws come into being. When there's an accident, somebody has to clear up the mess. I was told by a police driving instructor, for instance, that a fatal RTA costs on average a million quid to society. Whatever the accurate figure, that's worth saving. What's a night in hospital these days? Over 100 quid.Governments look at these figures, figure out what needs to be done and introduce laws with a view to improving society. Again - I'm not in favour of compulsion nor am I arguing people shouldn't get free healthcare at the point of care (Got that? Good). I'm just explainiing the logic people use to bring in these laws.

So you've paid your taxes (more than me? Probably not but whatever). Do you really think that gives you any more rights? If so, you're so far right wing that there's just no point in taking this any further... but I couldn't follow the point you were trying to make. WTF has Afghanistan got to do with anything?

meanredspider

W1 wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

_Brun_ wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

But the point of compulsion is that people can't be trusted to take responsibility for their own actions.

I take far more responsibility for my safety than the vast majority of people I encounter on bikes. To suggest I'm reckless because of what I choose to wear on my head is insulting, and quite frankly, stupid.

Why do you think compulsion (laws) exist? The point I'm making is compulsory wearing is only on the agenda because:
a. People think they are safer
b. People won't do it if you're not forced to

Again (I don't know how many times I have to say this) I'm not in favour of compulsion but it's like alcohol laws - they only exist because people can't act responsibly.

Your implication is that not wearing a helmet is de facto irresponsible.

As measured by the people wanting to make it law - correct.

wgwarburton

Hi,
Once again: there isn't a balance to be struck... there isn't a public health argument and there isn't a case for compulsion.

For any of those things to exist there would have to be real, hard evidence that wearing a helmet makes you safer. It doesn't.

I have to say that if it did exist I think helmets would already be mandatory- arguments about choice, responsibility etc will fall like leaves in the wind if anyone is ever able to demonstrate effectively that helmet wearing did actually reduce injuries. There are far too many people around looking to protect, punish, discourage or otherwise victimise cyclists!

There was a big report into this a couple of years ago by the TFL. They tried really hard to demonstrate that helmets worked but were forced to conclude that they couldn't! On the potential for rotational injuries, for example, they highlighted that there was insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion and then simply ignored the issue thereafter...

It would be helpful if people would recognise that the assumption, implicit or otherwise, that putting a helmet on makes you safer is at best flawed...

Cheers,
W.

ndru

meanredspider wrote:

As measured by the people wanting to make it law - correct.

How is that a measure of anything? And how many people actually want to make it a law? Are people who make laws infallible? I don't think so.

You're not being provocative your arguments have been refuted and you are now simply being repetitive.

bails87

meanredspider
I think that million pound figure is massively overstated. I'm sure the DfT use a figure of no more than £50,000 for saving a life. If a fatal collision cost £1,000,000 then they'd use something closer to that. After all, if something predicted to save one life would cost £60,000, then they'd essentially be choosing to spend £1,000,000 rather than £60,000. And they should be lookig at the societal costs, rather than just the damage done to their roads/barriers/lamposts.

meanredspider

WGWarburton wrote:

On the potential for rotational injuries, for example, they highlighted that there was insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion and then simply ignored the issue thereafter...

It would be helpful if people would recognise that the assumption, implicit or otherwise, that putting a helmet on makes you safer is at best flawed...

Cheers,
W.

Has anybody on here actually suffered a rotational injury from helmet wearing? (genuine question as I'm interested).

I'd like to see all of the inconclusive studies if someone can point me towards those (again, genuine interest) or is it that there just haven't been studies? I'd imagine it's pretty hard to measure since you have to factor in the people who WEREN'T injured because they were wearing a lid (like me when I fell off) or WEREN'T injured because they weren't wearing a lid (even harder to measure).

bails87

I actually fell off my moutain bike, at very low speed.....well, stationary :oops: Topple over sideways after getting stuck trying to go over a log. There were logs and branches off to the side, I think the back of my helmet clipped one of them as I went down, and I ended up with what felt like a pulled muscle in my neck.

I obviously couldn't say for sure though.

Kieran_Burns

http://www.anweald.co.uk/cyclehelmets.html

gives:

Why you should wear a cycle helmet

1. They ought to prevent cuts, scrapes and bruises to the top part of your head, and mild concussion (feeling a bit woozy), in the event of coming off your bike. Such things won't kill you but could ruin your whole afternoon. One of the original purposes was off-road cycling where hitting your head on low branches and stones next to the track then became a preventable danger. [1]
2. If not wearing a helmet makes you feel sufficiently at risk to avoid cycling at all.
3. If your mates are calling you names for wearing a helmet then you could continue to do so as practice in not being told what to do.
4. Some insurance companies sometimes claim a cyclist has contributed negligently to "accidents" they're involved in by not wearing a helmet, even when there has been no head injury. In fact, no such claim has succeeded, partly thanks to CTC lawyers [2].
5. It's a good place to put a rear light since it's the highest point available. Also you can get neat helmet-mounted mirrors.
6. Some organised events and venues, and countries, and partners, require them.

Why you shouldn't wear a cycle helmet

1. Their design-intended strength is equivalent to a impact speed of about 12.5mph [3]. They were never intended for collisions with cars. They're not a cycle-equivalent of motorbike crash helmets (and you can't wear one of those because your brain would boil). They're not safety gear in the sense of being designed to save your life [1]. They work by the outer shell keeping the polystyrene in place whilst it absorbs the deceleration by being crushed. Counter-intuitively if the shell breaks in the initial contact the total energy absorbed is a lot less: a broken helmet is one that didn't work. This means above about 12.5mph the helmet has little effect; certainly it won't reduce a crash at, say, 30mph by an amount equivalent to crashing at 12.5mph. Ask an engineer. Doctors and nurses aren't usually engineers.
2. Children are supposed to learn physical control and awareness of limits by informed trial and error, but those wearing helmets do more damage to their bikes [4], implying that they're not learning as much. Teenagers, who already think they're immortal, don't need something that appears to make it true.
3. Because they protect that which feels the most important and vulnerable they can lessen the perceived importance of proven safety devices e.g. brakes that work and lights with charged batteries, not to mention knowing what you're doing [5]. It's disturbingly easy to mistake a reduction in fear for a reduction in actual risk.
4. They mess up your hair. It's difficult to keep the rain off as well. They take up a fair bit of space when not being worn. More seriously, despite all the vent holes they're hot in the summer. Many people lose focus if they're too hot, even faint. Small people might also find them tiring.
5. Presumably no driver wants to kill anybody, so why do they? It must be when the margin for error is either too small or gets used up too quickly. They probably don't know how weak these helmets actually are. Research has shown drivers go closer to cyclists wearing helmets than those without, though it isn't known why. [6]
6. There is some concern that helmets, because they're wider than the head, make rotational brain injuries more likely, and those are really nasty [7]. And if your head+helmet is bigger and heavier it's more likely to be hit.
7. If you are pro-choice the Department of Transport views a Mandatory Helmet Law as unfeasible partly because of the current low wearing rate. [8]
8. Here are some numbers:
1. Many places have made helmets compulsory since the early 1990's. All found either no effect on deaths and serious injuries or that they got worse if you include that cycling tended to drop significantly. For example, Western Australia had a drop in cycling of 30% but a drop in head injuries of 11%-21%. No one knows why this should be the case. [9]
2. A 1988 US study of 8 million cyclist crashes over 15 years showed a correlation between increased helmet wearing and increased risk of death [10]. No one knows why.
3. UK child cyclist figures show twice as many girls as boys wearing cycle helmets but with the same head injury rate. [11]

These lists are an attempt to show that it is by no means obvious that cycle helmets are always a good thing and can do no harm. I think it comes down to a rather complex judgement call for each rider and context. Personally I don't wear one on the road, because I feel safer knowing I'm perceived as more vulnerable by my main source of danger, particularly at the speeds which matter. There's more information at http://www.cyclehelmets.org, with which I have no connection, I'm just an average cyclist.
[1] Tom Gill, Cycling and Children and Young People, National Children's Bureau, http://www.ncb.org.uk/Page.asp?originx1 ... 2583383929 (p.36-37)
[2] Cyclists' Touring Club, http://www.ctc.org.uk (--> What I need --> Peace of Mind)
[3] EU helmet standard EN 1078, 1997, http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... P235_31794
[4] Mok, D et al., Risk compensation in children's activities: a pilot study, June 2004, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compe ... le_Helmets
[5] National Cycle Training, http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3529
[6] Drivers overtaking cyclists, Dr Ian Walker, 2006, Bath University press release
[7] Curnow, WJ, The efficacy of bicycle helmets against brain injury, Accident Analysis & Prevention, Volume 35, Issue 2 , March 2003, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/pub ... enDocument
[8] Department of Transport, Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone, March 2000, http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 987_141309 (§9.25)
[9] Helmet Laws: What has been their effect?, http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1096
[10] Rodgers, GB, Reducing bicycle accidents: a re-evaluation of the impact of the CPSC bicycle standard and helmet use, J Product Liability, 11: 307-317, 1988, summary by John Franklin: http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/hel ... earch.html
[11] Hewson, PJ, Investigating population level trends in head injuries amongst child cyclists in the UK, February 2005, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.03.020

meanredspider

ndru wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

As measured by the people wanting to make it law - correct.

How is that a measure of anything? And how many people actually want to make it a law? Are people who make laws infallible? I don't think so.

You're not being provocative your arguments have been refuted and you are now simply being repetitive.

Why do YOU think people want to make it law? Why were the drinking laws put in place?

I was being provocative - rather too successfully it seems. Remember, I don't want it to be law.

Kieran_Burns

I think everyone needs to remember the term 'devils advocate' before waving the pitchforks at MRS

Kieran_Burns

Oh yeah and I suggest we link the following site to anyone who wants to make helmets compulsory:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

meanredspider

bails87 wrote:

meanredspider
I think that million pound figure is massively overstated. I'm sure the DfT use a figure of no more than £50,000 for saving a life. If a fatal collision cost £1,000,000 then they'd use something closer to that. After all, if something predicted to save one life would cost £60,000, then they'd essentially be choosing to spend £1,000,000 rather than £60,000. And they should be lookig at the societal costs, rather than just the damage done to their roads/barriers/lamposts.

I did put a caveat with my statement. The guy (Hugh Noblett) had researched the subject for a book, I believe. The DfT will probably err on the side of conservative figures else the cost of engineering to save a life on the road would probably be unaffordable. But I'm not going to try to defend the number any more than that.

meanredspider

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I think everyone needs to remember the term 'devils advocate' before waving the pitchforks at MRS

Thank you!

I'm trying to understand the other side of the arguement. I genuinely don't understand why you wouldn't wear a lid but, with the strength of feeling against them, there must be lots of good reasons.

Kieran_Burns

MRS - I suggest you read those links I've given you. They are very informative and useful.

Agent57

meanredspider wrote:

there must be lots of good reasons.

Yes; many of them have been mentioned in this thread.

bails87

meanredspider wrote:

bails87 wrote:

meanredspider
I think that million pound figure is massively overstated. I'm sure the DfT use a figure of no more than £50,000 for saving a life. If a fatal collision cost £1,000,000 then they'd use something closer to that. After all, if something predicted to save one life would cost £60,000, then they'd essentially be choosing to spend £1,000,000 rather than £60,000. And they should be lookig at the societal costs, rather than just the damage done to their roads/barriers/lamposts.

I did put a caveat with my statement. The guy (Hugh Noblett) had researched the subject for a book, I believe. The DfT will probably err on the side of conservative figures else the cost of engineering to save a life on the road would probably be unaffordable. But I'm not going to try to defend the number any more than that.

Fair enough. But if a collision with a car is fatal without a helmet, it's unlikely to be one that is just shrugged off when the rider is wearing a helmet. Neruological rehab and physiotherapy along with a lifetime of support for someone who's been seriously injured will be a hell of a lot more expensive than clearing up after a fatal accident.

White Horse

Can anyone find an advert by a retailer or helmet maker that claims safety as a selling point?

They all claim things like "lightweight", "well ventilated", "stylish" etc. If people were wearing helmets because they saved your life, don't you think retailers and manufacturers would use that as a selling point? Much like the car safety ratings?