Compulsory helmet law proposed in Northern Ireland

sfichele

Yeh my msg should have included education and awareness for cyclists as well. It cuts both ways. And enforcing helmets isn't the same as instilling cycling awareness.

I can't stand RLJ etc, it gives the wrong impression of cyclists.

There was a quote in the Metro texts today - Cyclists should stop running red lights, since if they get hit they'll be the first to complain.

Northwind

Red light jumping while turning left isn't that dangerous mind. IIRC it's legal in the states (turning right obviously). It's more bad for the image of cycling than anything else IMO.

It's the guys weaving around, no signals, no awareness, slow as anything on a fast road, hugging the gutters, looking like they'll fall off by themselves. Riding up the inside of trucks or down the middle of 2 queues of traffic then getting caught in the middle when it starts moving... And so on.

Briggo

Northwind wrote:

Red light jumping while turning left isn't that dangerous mind. .

Erm that depends on the junction itself...

Northwind

Yeah, but that's the junction being dangerous, not the rlj being inherently dangerous, see? Trouble is it's one of those things that relies on the rider having an independantly functioning brain.

sfichele

Now where would be if all car drivers started thinking the same thing and jumping red lights where safe?

Northwind

Well... As it happens, one of the popular current theories is that dumbing down driving and trying to remove the element of choice is one of the reasons that modern driving is so poor- you can drive without thinking. Some of this stuff is pretty counterintuitive, like cyclists being safer in bus lanes if motorbikes are allowed to share them, or removing corner signs reducing the number of crashes in corners, or average speeds on some NSL roads falling if you take the speed limit signs down.

Besides, turning left when safe at a red light is just like pulling out at a regular non-lit junction and drivers can do that.

Daz555

Northwind wrote:

Besides, turning left when safe at a red light is just like pulling out at a regular non-lit junction and drivers can do that.

I'd like to see that introduced here. Makes a lot of sense. I seem to recall that it is allowed in several US states (right turn there of course).

Anonymous

How would that (turn left at a traffic light) work?
Say you're at a junction, and the lights stop you so that cars approaching from your right can cross the junction... you'd be forcing yourself in their way. I must be missing something.
I know you can do the same (except on right turns) in some states in America. There was even a Mythbusters episode related to it.

Northwind

yeehaamcgee wrote:

How would that (turn left at a traffic light) work?
Say you're at a junction, and the lights stop you so that cars approaching from your right can cross the junction... you'd be forcing yourself in their way. I must be missing something.

You do it when there's no cars crossing the junction- you still yield to cars coming through under green.

Anonymous

Northwind wrote:

yeehaamcgee wrote:

How would that (turn left at a traffic light) work?
Say you're at a junction, and the lights stop you so that cars approaching from your right can cross the junction... you'd be forcing yourself in their way. I must be missing something.

You do it when there's no cars crossing the junction- you still yield to cars coming through under green.

Oh, I see. I thought you meant you had free reign to just pull out.

cooldad

Off topic but stupidest turning law ever:
In NZ if you are turning left, and a car coming the opposite way is turning right (ie across the road and your bows) they have right of way as they are approaching from the right.

.blitz

Quite like these analogue traffic lights used in Oz up until the 1970s.

They would be really useful in the UK

projectsome

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Where are my stabilisers? wrote:

It's no different to laws making people wear seat belts in cars and motorcyclists wearing helmets.

But those annoy me too. If it's ME who's going to get hurt, let ME decide.

If you fly through your windscreen and hit some unsuspecting suspect or some passerby sees your brain hanging out of your head?

But yes I still think it should be your choice

projectsome

Daz555 wrote:

Where are my stabilisers? wrote:

I'd expect people to break the law by not wearing a helmet, but I wouldn't expect people to give up riding? I don't get it

I suppose it is because the vast majority of people are not "cyclists". Most people just happen to ride a bike from time to time.

I have a mate for example who only ever rides his old clapped out bike when he takes his car to the garage (seriously) - he sticks it in the boot and then rides home to save taxi fare. Oh he pops down to the pub on it as well from time to time on days when he has pissed his wife off and she won't give him a lift. I doubt he'd bother to buy a cycle helmet.

My wife has ridden about once in 5 years. We popped out the other day during a brief moment of sunshine for a quick ride down the Bristol Portway before stopping off for a pint on the way back. Would it be worth buying a helmet in her case or would it just be better if she never rode a bike again?

my friend is the same, she only rides once a year. She has actually bought a helmet though

Anonymous

projectsome wrote:

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Where are my stabilisers? wrote:

It's no different to laws making people wear seat belts in cars and motorcyclists wearing helmets.

But those annoy me too. If it's ME who's going to get hurt, let ME decide.

If you fly through your windscreen and hit some unsuspecting suspect or some passerby sees your brain hanging out of your head?

Not much chance of that really

beelzebomb

I never used to wear a helmet, despite the usual amount of crashes, I guess I got lucky - till October 2009 when I stopped my bike on gravel with my forehead. 999, emergency treatment & barely able to leave the house for 2 weeks.

Wise up, like I did - wear one.

FJ

yeehaamcgee wrote:

If it's ME who's going to get hurt, let ME decide.

But its OUR taxes that have to pay to pick up YOUR pieces of brain from the road, or pay for YOUR lifetime incapacity benefit/hospital care etc etc.

Anonymous

FJ wrote:

yeehaamcgee wrote:

If it's ME who's going to get hurt, let ME decide.

But its OUR taxes that have to pay to pick up YOUR pieces of brain from the road, or pay for YOUR lifetime incapacity benefit/hospital care etc etc.

I pay for it as well. By your logic, should I begrudge you having a broken bone, or a child?

Northwind

No man's an island, what you do affects others BUT once you start on that line of thought then clearly riding without knee and elbow pads is worse (you're more likely to be seriously injured in the knee than the head by about 10-1) so you'll need to make them a legal requirement too. And then, now you mention it, mountain biking (helmet or not) is antisocial because you might break yourself and miss work and create healthcare costs and take up an ambulance and a bed... And if mountain biking's out then so are a million other things. Where do you draw the line?

bails87

I haven't read the whole thread, but I assume someone has already pointed out that there's very little proper evidence that helmets actually work? They'd save more lives by making pedestrians wear helmets, that's where you're more likely to have a head injury.

MrChuck

yeehaamcgee wrote:

FJ wrote:

yeehaamcgee wrote:

If it's ME who's going to get hurt, let ME decide.

But its OUR taxes that have to pay to pick up YOUR pieces of brain from the road, or pay for YOUR lifetime incapacity benefit/hospital care etc etc.

I pay for it as well. By your logic, should I begrudge you having a broken bone, or a child?

+1, that's a ridiculous argument. Same goes for you driving without a helmet on, or playing football, or rugby, or banging your head doing the DIY, or any one of a million other things where protective gear would help.

It's all about proportion, and there's nothing to suggest that cycling is that dangerous.

EDIT: So, er, what Northwind said really.

bails87

Exactly, it's safer per mile than walking.

Northwind

bails87 wrote:

I haven't read the whole thread, but I assume someone has already pointed out that there's very little proper evidence that helmets actually work? They'd save more lives by making pedestrians wear helmets, that's where you're more likely to have a head injury.

I did, yup. But, that's an epic straw man there, walking injuries are higher because walking miles travelled are higher.

teulk

I have nothing against the compulsory wearing of helmets, i always wear one however the biggest problem will be enforcing it. I remember people moaning when the wearing of seatbelts was made compulsory - its all part of driving now and the two go hand in hand so why shouldnt it be the same for cycling and helmets.
If helmets were given for free when you purchase your bike i bet there would be fewer complants as opposed to having to go and buy one if you dont have one if the law made it compusory.

The main complaints i seem to read about for not wearing a helmet is " they make my head hot"...............lets face it the real reason why the vast majority of poeple dont wear one is because they feel it makes them look stupid end of !

MrChuck

teulk wrote:

I have nothing against the compulsory wearing of helmets, i always wear one however the biggest problem will be enforcing it. I remember people moaning when the wearing of seatbelts was made compulsory - its all part of driving now and the two go hand in hand so why shouldnt it be the same for cycling and helmets.
If helmets were given for free when you purchase your bike i bet there would be fewer complants as opposed to having to go and buy one if you dont have one if the law made it compusory.

The main complaints i seem to read about for not wearing a helmet is " they make my head hot"...............lets face it the real reason why the vast majority of poeple dont wear one is because they feel it makes them look stupid end of !

I think a lot of people don't like it because it's kow-towing to the 'car is king' culture. Perhaps people don't see why they should be forced to wear safety gear for what is an inherently safe activity rather than the people hurling tons of metal around the streets actually being held to some sort of standard of care.

cloudynights

must be mad to go out on a bike without a lid,if it takes a law to make sure every cyclist wears one then so be it, my boys always wear a lid i make sure they do, people hate being told what to do, the seat belt law was just the same,
some laws regarding health and safety are daft i know, i work in the construction industry, but this law would not be daft, ask the family of a cyclist with head trauma who didnt wear one if they should off?

Northwind

cloudynights wrote:

must be mad to go out on a bike without a lid

Why? Serious head injuries are rare on a bike. I'm pro helmet and don't ride without one but I still totally disagree with this comment, people can make their own decisions.

Where it gets interesting is that head injuries are rare, but they're the ones we protect against the most. Permanent knee injuries are massively more common in offroad riding- more than 10 times- but nobody thinks you have to be mad not to wear knee pads, in fact, some people take the piss if you do.

Sure, a dent in your brain is worse than a dent in your kneecap but really you don't want either, knees are useful things and they're exposed, delicate and complex. Brains are relatively well protected. So if you're sitting here saying that not wearing a helmet is madness, but you don't wear knee pads, you might want to have a think.

bails87

Northwind wrote:

bails87 wrote:

I haven't read the whole thread, but I assume someone has already pointed out that there's very little proper evidence that helmets actually work? They'd save more lives by making pedestrians wear helmets, that's where you're more likely to have a head injury.

I did, yup. But, that's an epic straw man there, walking injuries are higher because walking miles travelled are higher.

Not a straw man at all, per mile traveled, cycling is safer than walking. That might only apply to road/pavement/non-mtb cycling, but that's all the law would apply to.

I always wear a helmet for "proper" cycling, but if I'm just going a mile down the road to the shops I don't wear one.

Also, providing some evidence that they actually work would be the first step, before saying that wearing them is good thing.

cloudynights

Northwind wrote
Why? Serious head injuries are rare on a bike. I'm pro helmet and don't ride without one but I still totally disagree with this comment, people can make their own decisions

Could the same not be said for motor cyclist, you carnt work on a building site without either hard hat or safety boots, but serious head or feet injuries are rare, safety glass has to be fitted in doors and in windows with a cill height less than 900mm but its rare your gonna have a accident, im not into a nanny state but if your of the view that people can make there own decisions why have any health and safety laws at all your reasoning is without logic

cloudynights

think its 800mm now