Compulsory helmet law proposed in Northern Ireland

bails87

But when helmet compulsion became law in australia head injuries amongst cyclists went up, even though the number of cyclists fell.

Northwind

bails87 wrote:

Not a straw man at all, per mile traveled, cycling is safer than walking.

Uh, yeah, that was my point

bails87

Northwind wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Not a straw man at all, per mile traveled, cycling is safer than walking.

Uh, yeah, that was my point

So how was my previous point a strawman? :?

I'm glad we agree though!

bails87

On a related note....

I think every driver should be forced to wear these all the time:

They'll prevent hand injuries from broken glass in the event of a crash. Therefore they're a good idea, regardless of what any evidence may say.....

Northwind

You said "They'd save more lives by making pedestrians wear helmets", which is true but tells you nothing about the usefulness of helmets on bikes. it's like saying alcohol causes more health issues in the population than crack, therefore crack is safe.

bails87

Ah, fair enough, I meant to make the 'per miles' point, but missed it! Coming from a healthcare information background, I automatically think in 'per head/per mile/per year' etc.

Anonymous

But crack is a million times safer than drugs like, say, Charlie Sheen, for example. Crack won't make your face melt off, and cause your loved ones to weep over your exploded body.

Daz555

bails87 wrote:

But when helmet compulsion became law in australia head injuries amongst cyclists went up, even though the number of cyclists fell.

Same thing has happened in NZ IIRC. A significant number of cyclists stopped riding permanently and no doubt many of them went back to driving their cars more often - only to end up running a cyclist over at some point in the future.

The thing which makes cyclist safer over all other factors is a reduction in vehicle traffic and an increase in cycle traffic. Legislation which reduces the numbers of cyclists on the roads will end up killing more cyclists because the remaining cyclists have to ride amongst more cars and buses than previously.

Anything which even smells like it might discourage people from cycling should be given no more than a fleeting consideration before being chucked into the bin and set on fire. Fire only to be considered with relevant safey headwear of course.

tsenior

i was thinking this morning that i now automatically stick a lid on for the commute, wheras i'd used to never wear one for country lanes and light offroad......its a matter of habit i guess.

when did motorcycle helmets become compulsory?

MrChuck

yeehaamcgee wrote:

But crack is a million times safer than drugs like, say, Charlie Sheen, for example. Crack won't make your face melt off, and cause your loved ones to weep over your exploded body.

wordnumb

I'm fully in favour of compulsory helmet wearing, I also feel that pedestrians should be made to wear a suit of armour when in sight of a road. And all bikes should have mandatory stabilisers and a big sign reading "caution: deathwish on wheels". And there ought to be rules about siting nuclear reactors near tectonic faultlines. And... ah, ftw.

Kaise

right then

i've signed this as i believe it is my right to have the choice of whether i wear a helmet or not. if i head out on my roadie i wear one, one my mtb i wear one, but i want the choice.

This is a money making scheme, pure and simple.

They'll be telling us we need to wear one walking down the road next, just in case we get run over by a bus!

bails87

kaiser83 wrote:

They'll be telling us we need to wear one walking down the road next, just in case we get run over by a bus!

The silly thing is that that would be more sensible than making you wear one while cycling!

I think one thing to remember is that we're not 'normal' (no offence intended, stay with me on this...)

What I mean is, the average cyclist probably does a lot of 10mph pootles to the shops, along off road cycle paths. Obviously 'we' wear helmets most of the time because we're hurtling down rocky mountains or hitting silly speeds going downhill on the roads. A helmet for that seems like an obvious decision (ignoring what the actual evidence says about low speed vs high speed impacts). But a lot of people do cycling that is more akin to walking, whereas our cycling might be comparable to rock climbing or trail running.

The key point is that cycling is extremely safe, and cycling with a helmet on isn't really any safer. With that in mind, why bother spending money to legislate and police it?

Northwind

bails87 wrote:

The silly thing is that that would be more sensible than making you wear one while cycling!

Noooooo it would not.

EnglishChris

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?

I don't want to diminish the right of infrequent cyclists such as these to ride when they want. But if infrequent cyclists such as these are mainly the ones who stop cycling because its not worth them buying a helmet, there probably wouldn't be much negative impact on health by making helmets compulsory i.e. they don't cycle enough at the moment to see any real health benefits anyway. I suppose that in that group of cyclists are individuals who, if they carried on cycling, might get the bug and become regular cyclists, but that number must be fairly small?

Daz555

tsenior wrote:

when did motorcycle helmets become compulsory?

1973. It was a big safety win win.

1. Motorcycle helmets are a heavy, sweaty, smelly nightmare but are bloody great at keeping your head in shape if you hit something at 40mph. WIN for safety stats.

2. It discouraged a lot of riders and they quit riding. WIN for safety stats - less riders, less death.

bails87

Northwind wrote:

bails87 wrote:

The silly thing is that that would be more sensible than making you wear one while cycling!

Noooooo it would not.

Wait, am I confusing myself here? I thought we agreed that cycling was safer per mile than being a pedestrian? So if you wanted to prevent injuries, pedestrians would be the group to go for, even if peds and cyclists existed in even numbers.

EDIT: I might just retract my statement, and stick with "cycling isn't dangerous". That does enough.

Northwind

bails87 wrote:

Wait, am I confusing myself here? I thought we agreed that cycling was safer per mile than being a pedestrian?

Cycling KSI numbers are higher per mile travelled (and much higher per hour spent travelling)

cooldad

I wish they'd just make the blasted things compulsory already and end these stupid threads.

Northwind

cooldad wrote:

I wish they'd just make the blasted things compulsory already and end these stupid threads.

Or ban them

sheepsteeth

ive heard that helmets can cause as many accidents as they help to prevent.

Northwind

sheepsteeth wrote:

ive heard that helmets can cause as many accidents as they help to prevent.

I know I've said this before but you're good.

sheepsteeth

Northwind wrote:

sheepsteeth wrote:

ive heard that helmets can cause as many accidents as they help to prevent.

I know I've said this before but you're good.

it seems my work here is done