Forum home Commuter cycling forum Commuting general


NgalbraiNgalbrai Posts: 279
edited November 2014 in Commuting general
People are giving consideration to this preposterous notion here in Auz: ... dad06730bf


  • The RookieThe Rookie Posts: 27,748
    Given that they think making helmets compulsory had a negative effect on the number of cyclists such that the net health effect (benefit versus loss) was negative, what effect would that expensive monstrosity have?
  • oxomanoxoman Posts: 8,839
    Hope no local government wallahs see it here in the UK, you just know that they would try to bring it in. One easy step to stop people cycling overnight. As to What rookie says. what effect would that expensive monstrosity have?
    I suspect neck ache might be the answer.
    Too many bikes according to Mrs O.
  • InitialisedInitialised Posts: 3,047
    According to the Health and Safety Executive: PPE should only be used as a last resort when alternative measures cannot be deployed in order to mitigate risk.

    Bike helmets were originally developed for high risk activities on a bike.

    When racing collisions with other riders are likely so falls at high speed are likely.
    Mountain Biking, high speeds, loose surfaces and rough terrain, therefore a high chance of a crash.
    BMX/Trials etc learning and performing tricks on the bike is likely to result in fall.

    Pootling to the shops at 5-15mph in dry conditions does not imply a high enough risk of head injury to warrant the use of PPE.

    Commuting sits in the middle, I haven't had a head impact in a fall since my first winter of commuting so now I wear a lid more out of habit than necessity.

    So, before making helmets mandatory to cyclists the following measures could be considered or deployed to minimise their risk of injury:

    Give vulnerable, non-pedestrian road users priority over motorised traffic in line with the "Cyclists Must Give Way to Pedestrians and Horses" rule for Bridleways and Shared Use paths.
    Apply strict liability.
    Adopt a minimum passing distance law.
    Make more sections of road car free, enforce this with pop-up bollards.
    Improved driver awareness and rider training. e.g. hit a cyclist, pass Bikeability Level 3 before you get your license back, same for cyclists deemed to be at fault.
    A review of the road layout at any site where near misses or accidents are reported.
    A change of road 'design rules' to improve cyclist safety without reducing cycling speed whenever a roadway is improved or built.
    A review of collision avoidance technology with a view to making some devices mandatory to new vehicles.
    Provide larger, longer ASLs and delay motor traffic with respect to cycle traffic at complex and high traffic junctions.
    Provide more roads for cyclists (as opposed to shared use paths).

    Once all this is in place and it can be shown that the occurrence of cycling head injury in utility cycling is lower in a meaningful statistically significant way for those who wear helmets then consider making them mandatory.

    Licencing riders is merely going to compound the problem, cycling (in the UK at least) needs less regulation not more.
    I used to just ride my bike to work but now I find myself going out looking for bigger and bigger hills.
  • I take more issue with whoever wrote tis article.
    Cyclist screaming down the road at around 30-40 km/h when the traffic lights were red
    'Screaming' down the road? Where are the red lights? A more apt caption would be along the lines of cyclist woth no loghts, if the author really wishes to make a point.
    ... designer Toby King... would prefer to keep his name out of the public eye in case of any backlash from cyclists...
    Well done you for respecting his wishes and keeping his name out of the public eye. Twunt.
Sign In or Register to comment.