Compulsory helmet laws

adm1

Isn't this a little bit like when car seat belt laws, and motorbike helmet laws got introduced? Loads of people moaned about it for a while, but nowadays you don't think twice about buckling up in the car or putting a lid on on a motorbike. In fact, you'd feel strange - and probably at risk - without it. It took passing a law to make it widely accepted, but nowadays, even if there was no law, most people would still take the safer option.

I don't really see the argument - other than the freedom of choice side of things, surely wearing a cycle helmet is worthwhile? You could take a pratfall while forgetting unclip at a traffic light and smash your head on the kerb. Potentially - that could be lights out forever. Wearing a lid might not prevent that, but it probably would.

Anyway. I don't agree with laws to enforce things like this, but I do think that the common sense argument is in favour of wearing a helmet. After all, they aren't particularly heavy, hot or uncool. Really. And what is the benefit of NOT wearing one?

Just my tuppence worth

Ron Stuart

adm1 wrote:

Isn't this a little bit like when car seat belt laws, and motorbike helmet laws got introduced? Loads of people moaned about it for a while, but nowadays you don't think twice about buckling up in the car or putting a lid on on a motorbike. In fact, you'd feel strange - and probably at risk - without it. It took passing a law to make it widely accepted, but nowadays, even if there was no law, most people would still take the safer option.

I don't really see the argument - other than the freedom of choice side of things, surely wearing a cycle helmet is worthwhile? You could take a pratfall while forgetting unclip at a traffic light and smash your head on the kerb. Potentially - that could be lights out forever. Wearing a lid might not prevent that, but it probably would.

Anyway. I don't agree with laws to enforce things like this, but I do think that the common sense argument is in favour of wearing a helmet. After all, they aren't particularly heavy, hot or uncool. Really. And what is the benefit of NOT wearing one?

Just my tuppence worth

+1

bails87

Ron & adm1: The same goes for wearing a helmet while walking around, you could fall over and smash your brains out anywhere. For what most of us do , yeah, it makes sense to wear one, because we're riding fast, dodging trees (MTB) and traffic (road).

For a bloke pootling 500 yards down a segregated bike path to get the sunday paper, cycling is very, very, very safe.

If I remember correctly, when helmet compulsion was brought in in parts of australia cycling injuries fell, but not by as much as the dramatic fall in cyclist numbers. So the helmet law put people off and meant that the cyclists who continued cycling were more likely to be injured or killed.

Cycling for the typical person without a helmet (ie, not 'us') just isn't dangerous. If it was then The Netherlands would have the highest head injury related death rate in the world.

If you (like me) want to wear a helmet, then do so. But pushing for a law that will put off more casual cyclists, and creating the illusion that getting about by bike (rather than MTBing or road racing) is an 'extreme sport' you risk doing more damage than you prevent.

bails87

essjaydee wrote:

bails87 wrote:

essjaydee wrote:

if a compulsory law saved one life, surely it's worth it?

This was with regards to a compulsory helmet law for cyclist only. By only quoting this fragment of my post, you have (cleverly?) taken it out of context

It wasn't my intention to twist what you'd said. But if the "one life saved" thing doesn't apply anywhere else then why should cycling be a special case?

bompington

A minor point to make at this point:
NOBODY HERE AGREES WITH HELMET COMPULSION!!!!!!
NOBODY HERE AGREES WITH HELMET COMPULSION!!!!!!
NOBODY HERE AGREES WITH HELMET COMPULSION!!!!!!
NOBODY HERE AGREES WITH HELMET COMPULSION!!!!!!NOBODY HERE AGREES WITH HELMET COMPULSION!!!!!!NOBODY HERE AGREES WITH HELMET COMPULSION!!!!!!NOBODY HERE AGREES WITH HELMET COMPULSION!!!!!!

...even though a lot of us think it's a good idea to wear a helmet.

Ron Stuart

bompington wrote:

A minor point to make at this point:
NOBODY HERE AGREES WITH HELMET COMPULSION!!!!!!
NOBODY HERE AGREES WITH HELMET COMPULSION!!!!!!
NOBODY HERE AGREES WITH HELMET COMPULSION!!!!!!
NOBODY HERE AGREES WITH HELMET COMPULSION!!!!!!NOBODY HERE AGREES WITH HELMET COMPULSION!!!!!!NOBODY HERE AGREES WITH HELMET COMPULSION!!!!!!NOBODY HERE AGREES WITH HELMET COMPULSION!!!!!!

...even though a lot of us think it's a good idea to wear a helmet.

+1 and a bit more please.

Could be a classic case of being so hell bent on wanting to get a point of view across that there's a complete failure to register what others have actually said :roll:

Mike Healey

I recall some research by a Dr. Mayer Hilman, some years ago. He looked at the autopsy reports (IIRC) of a large number of cyclists who'd suffered fatal head injuries. The autopsies showed that about 92% had suffered other injuries which would have been fatal, but more slowly, which is why the COD was brain trauma.

He calculated that helmets would have saved about 6 lives. No mention was made as to whether or not they would be vegetables or suffer lesser brain injuries.

The first state to introduce them in Oz, was, I think, Western Australia. There followed a reduction in head injuries. There also followed an even greater reduction in broken collar bones, facial and other injuries from cycling accidents. Since it is unlikely that the helmets were the cause of the latter reduction, the reaonable conclusion, backed by surveys, was that fewer people rode because of the (unstated), "WEAR A HELMET OR YOU WILL DIE!" campaign to encourage the safe and healthy activity of cycling.

Beware the law of unitended consequences

That said, I always wear one to reduce the effect of relatively minor prangs.

tarquin_foxglove

Ron Stuart wrote:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... 309109.ece
It's a no brainer isn't it :?:

Yes, you certainly haven't used your brain before posting that.

James Cracknell goes on about helmets & wears an Alpina helmet
http://bit.ly/rsVEdV
& states his Alpina helmet saved his life but doesn't "have a commercial relationship with the manufacturer"
http://tgr.ph/ea9H2t
But he is a sponsored by Alpina
http://bit.ly/qCGi0V
Also he rides a bike while not wearing a helmet
http://bit.ly/eZpxtk

The facts are he was involved in an (unsolved?) hit & run, due to a support vehicle the emergency services were called & he received fast & first class medical treatment within the 'golden hour' and made near enough a full recovery.

Using his celebrity he could campaign for:
- drivers to stop & help after an accident, they could save someone's life
- Police to take accidents involving cyclists seriously and find the perpetrators
- all paramedics and hospital A&E's to have the equipment/expertise on hand to be able to offer the correct treatment in time to give people the best chance of surviving
- that helmets are made stronger so that people don't suffer the severity of injury that he did
or he could promote a piece of "safety equipment" made by his sponsor as a "life saver".

He's not so brain damaged that he doesn't know which side his bread is buttered on.

Ron Stuart

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

Ron Stuart wrote:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... 309109.ece
It's a no brainer isn't it :?:

Yes, you certainly haven't used your brain before posting that.

James Cracknell goes on about helmets & wears an Alpina helmet
http://bit.ly/rsVEdV
& states his Alpina helmet saved his life but doesn't "have a commercial relationship with the manufacturer"
http://tgr.ph/ea9H2t
But he is a sponsored by Alpina
http://bit.ly/qCGi0V
Also he rides a bike while not wearing a helmet
http://bit.ly/eZpxtk

The facts are he was involved in an (unsolved?) hit & run, due to a support vehicle the emergency services were called & he received fast & first class medical treatment within the 'golden hour' and made near enough a full recovery.

Using his celebrity he could campaign for:
- drivers to stop & help after an accident, they could save someone's life
- Police to take accidents involving cyclists seriously and find the perpetrators
- all paramedics and hospital A&E's to have the equipment/expertise on hand to be able to offer the correct treatment in time to give people the best chance of surviving
- that helmets are made stronger so that people don't suffer the severity of injury that he did
or he could promote a piece of "safety equipment" made by his sponsor as a "life saver".

He's not so brain damaged that he doesn't know which side his bread is buttered on.

The clue is in the name I guess :roll:

tarquin_foxglove

Ron Stuart wrote:

The clue is in the name I guess :roll:

Arf, first time I've received an ad hominem attack on this site.

Enlighten me, why does James Cracknell saying that his helmet didn't prevent a serious injury make wearing a helmet a 'no brainer'?

megilleland

Following the death of a cyclist near the Olympic Park here in the Guardian today:

After the fatal incident, gold medal-winning cyclist Bradley Wiggins was asked for his views on how safe London's roads are for cyclists. He said: "It's dangerous and London is a busy city and [there is] a lot of traffic. I think we have to help ourselves sometimes.

"I haven't lived in London for 10 to 15 years now and it's got a lot busier since I was riding a bike as a kid round here, and I got knocked off several times.

"But I think things are improving to a degree – there are organisations out there who are attempting to make the roads safer for both parties. But at the end of the day we've all got to co-exist on the roads. Cyclists are not ever going to go away as much as drivers moan, and as much as cyclists maybe moan about certain drivers they are never going to go away, so there's got to be a bit of give and take.

Wiggins said he would like to see the introduction of a law making it compulsory to wear cycling helmets.

I can see the politicians jumping at this and making it compulsory now that Bradley has added his voice. Looks like us gentle cyclists won't get a choice as we will be lumped in with the high speed lycra group.

megilleland

More media have now jumped onto Bradley Wiggins statement about compulsory wearing of helmets.

Daily Mail
Independent
The Times

disgruntledgoat

How does a helmet stop you getting crushed by a bus?

diy

I think there is a stronger argument that motorcylists shouldn't wear a helmet than cyclists. I really can't see why anyone would object to wearing a helmet. I also don't get the argument that "gentle" cyclists are at less risk. It is slower speed impacts where a helmet can make the difference.

You can be riding at 5mph, get clipped by a car and hit your head with sufficient force to kill you.

snorri

diy wrote:

I really can't see why anyone would object to wearing a helmet.

You don't have to understand the reasons, just as long as you are happy to accept the vast majority of utility cyclists don't want to wear one and don't want to be goaded in to wearing one.

potters1863

Yes I think everyone should wear a helmet when riding.

No evidence for reasons apart from common sense, I have to wear one at work in plant rooms and outside due to the fact that if I hit my head or something else hits my head I will have a better chance of a less serious injury than not wearing some head protection.

Cycling is just the same, you don`t have to fall off every week, once in 50 years is good enough reason. You may not hit your head on the road, curb or anything else but if you do then it is far better that the padding in the helmet takes the bashing and damage rather than starting at the skull and so on.

Saw a family today, two kids with helmets and the father without. Is he any safer than they are? Why does he think they are better off with helmets and he is not? Not the best to look after the welfare of your children and then ignore your own welfare, do they raise themselves if the dad is killed due to his thinking that he is ok and they need protection?

Yes always wear a helmet, may not save you in a serious accident but the chances of survival must be better than not wearing one on the basis that any damage is being taken out on the helmet before your skull rather than direct.

bails87

AARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!

FFS, there's a difference between "doing X is a bad idea in my opinion*" and "doing X must be made illegal".

What's so hard to understand about that?!



*"despite the fact that I've just said I've got no evidence to support my opinion"

JamesB5446

zummerzet-lou wrote:

I really don't understand why compulsory helmets are not enforced in the UK.

Because it's a stupid idea.

There is evidence that numbers of cyclists drop in areas where helmets are mandatory.
There is evidence to show that helmet laws do not bring head injuries down by much.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1241.html

dylanfernley wrote:

the pro compulsion lobby would logically have to extend helmet wearing for all pedestrians , in case they are hit by a vehicle, the helmet might reduce head injury, a common one involving cars and people, also there are a suprising number of head injuries to occupants of vehicles involved in collisions so scope there also for helmet wearing.

Head injuries per mile are higher for pedestrians than cyclists, so you're bang on the money on that one.
(Drunk walking is also statistically more dangerous than drunk driving, although only for the person doing it)

Ron Stuart wrote:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... 309109.ece

It's a no brainer isn't it :?:

It is, he's proof that a helmet won't save you from a brain injury.

Ron Stuart wrote:

The list of riders that have had a head injury as a result of a cycling accident but have sustained much lesser injuries as a result of wearing a helmet is growing all the time, I myself have experienced this as I was run down by a hit and run driver. Also 5 weeks ago a rider I know was playing silly whotsits racing for the village sign on a club run as some do when he lost control hit the road head first, broke his jaw, nose and suffered concussion/ brain swell and bleed. Afterwards he was told by the surgeon that had he not been wearing a helmet he wouldn't be here today. The helmet was in several pieces after the crash.

I think anyone who makes statements like this should be made to back them up by taking part in double blind trials.

essjaydee wrote:

There haven't been any reported cases (that I know of) where a helmet has caused additional injuries, and if a compulsory law saved one life, surely it's worth it?

1.http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1039.html
2. No, it wouldn't be worth it if it puts people off riding leading to more cars on the road and less people taking regular exercise.

diy wrote:

You can be riding at 5mph, get clipped by a car and hit your head with sufficient force to kill you.

You can get clipped by a car as a pedestrian. You can fall down the stairs drunk (girlfriend's sister is a physio in a brain injury hospital, huge number of patients are in because of this). Do you wear a helmet when these could be a risk?

potters1863 wrote:

Saw a family today, two kids with helmets and the father without. Is he any safer than they are? Why does he think they are better off with helmets and he is not?

Because kids fall over a lot more than adults. Quite simple really.
Risk of falling off when racing or mountain biking > risk of falling off when riding to work or the shops.

Sorry for the huge post, but I think the links I've posted are quite interesting.

snorri

potters1863 wrote:

Yes I think everyone should wear a helmet when riding.
No evidence for reasons apart from common sense, I have to wear one at work in plant rooms and outside due to the fact that if I hit my head or something else hits my head I will have a better chance of a less serious injury than not wearing some head protection.

I think everyone should wear a lifejacket when travelling by ferry.
No evidence for reasons apart from common sense.
Regarding your work situation, I doubt that helmets are much more than a visible evidence of your company safety culture. If helmet wearing had been introduced as the sole safety measure in the workplace 50 years ago I doubt if we would have seen much difference in accident statistics. It is the less visible measures which have improved industrial safety,eg training staff to think safety, safety inspection of tools and plant, regular testing of potentially dangerous equipment, encouraging staff to report accident hazards, etc etc.
Unfortunately, the call for helmet wearing has become a dangerous distraction from the real issues affecting cyclist safety on our roads.

diy

cyclehelmets.org is an anti helmet campaign site, I've been through much of their claims and its mostly distraction and diversion. Some of it is quite reasoned though, but its not a balanced site.

JamesB5446

It has links to pretty much all the 'pro-helmet' studies I think, or at least it used to.

Which site would you recommend for a more balanced picture?

diy

I don't think there is one. People seem to come down on one side or the other, which isn't helpful.

JamesB5446

Sod people. I look at which side the evidence comes down on. And it seems to be on the side that says compulsory helmet use is a terrible idea.

diy

Why?

JamesB5446

Why what?

diy

JamesB5446 wrote:

I look at which side the evidence comes down on. And it seems to be on the side that says compulsory helmet use is a terrible idea.

Just interested in what you thought was the compelling argument(s).

JamesB5446

1. That numbers of cyclists on the road go down when these laws are introduced.
2. The number of deaths per 1000 cyclist on the road doesn't go down by much.

As I say though, I go with the figures, not opinion. If someone has any evidence to show they are a good idea I'd love to take a look.

jimmies

I'm new to road cycling, so this is something I've had to think about as I have had to buy gear - Now from a pure riding perspective, I do prefer it without a helmet.....but there is little in it - but I also know that my wife would not be happy....so I now wear one

I guess that if you are a person who would not be put off riding by wearing one....then it does make sense to wear one, I would also say that making it compulsory would be a backwards step for ALL those people who would be put off riding. I'm sure the people who ride without a helmet know what the risks are. If they do not know the risks, then they probably wouldn't care about any laws that would be in place should it be made compulsory anyway.

I personally think no laws are needed and that personal responsibilty needs to be the order of the day.

I ride bikes and I'd never go out in jeans,trainers and t-shirt even though it is legal to do so. There is plenty of evidence to show that boots,leathers and kevlar inserts save riders from all sorts of injuries, yet I too wouldn't want these made law that they had to be used.

freddiegrubb

I don't like wearing a helmet, but I do. I personally knew 3 cyclists (dead) who had the misfortune to die of head plus other injuries, none wore helmets, you pays your money!!!!!!!!

JamesB5446

freddiegrubb wrote:

I don't like wearing a helmet, but I do. I personally knew 3 cyclists (dead) who had the misfortune to die of head plus other injuries, none wore helmets, you pays your money!!!!!!!!

So they would have died even if they wore a helmet.