G is a helmet

jgsi

Can someone actually point out to me where the political impetus is for a cycle helmet law?
This country has certain more important matters to sort out in the next few months than wasting breath on this non subject.
Ooh may be a refendum? See the sh it storm one of them has got us into.

lucan

qpp wrote:

Lucan wrote:

Why shouldn't helmets be compulsory? They are on motorcycles, seatbelts are compulsory in cars. What's the difference? People generally are too stupid to be trusted with their own safety decisions.

Hi

I lurk here mostly, only occasionally post

I'm motivated to post here because I saw this post. Why this issue particularly? Well, because I live in Australia, where we have compulsory helmet laws, although am originally from the UK

Compulsory helmet laws here have been a disaster. Our head injury rates and cyclist KSIs have hardly changed, but participation in cycling has dropped quite badly. We now have an injury/KSI rate that's markedly worse than that in the UK, based on a per km basis.

The drop in cycling participation has been really damaging. You just don't see people cycling around their suburb, to the shops etc, much at all, and this particularly applies to kids and older adults. Every time I come back to the UK I'm struck by how many people are just knocking about on bikes all over the place - kids, senior citizens, commuters, everyone. You just never see that here.

Cycling has become marginalised into something that's either done seriously as a sport, or semi-seriously by regular commuters (of which I am one). Non-serious cyclists have been essentially pushed off the roads and you only see any numbers of them on off-road cycle paths, or in cities where the authorities have actually regarded it as their duty to provide cycling infrastructure, like Canberra.

As a result, the "them and us" behaviour between drivers and cyclists has just been exacerbated. Drivers are not used to dealing with large numbers of cyclists and the attitude that they "shouldn't be on the road" gets more common, the less there are. And many of the cyclists who remain have become increasingly militant and assertive (drivers would probably say aggressive) in establishing their rights. It's a sh1t situation.

Add to that the intangible harm that is done through increased obesity and a less generally active population. And of course "bike share" or bike hire schemes fail badly here because of the requirement to lug a helmet about.

The irony is that those cyclists who remain are the ones who would almost always wear helmets anyway, for either sport cycling or regular commutes. It's the casual cyclists, the people who just use bikes as local transport, who have been pushed off the roads

You really do not want compulsory helmet laws. It staggers me that any jurisdiction should consider it. All they have to do is the most brief research as to its impacts on Australia and New Zealand and see how damaging it has been

A thought-provoking post. Thank you.

sgt.pepper

SJH76 wrote:

inseine wrote:

Lucan wrote:

Why shouldn't helmets be compulsory? They are on motorcycles, seatbelts are compulsory in cars. What's the difference? People generally are too stupid to be trusted with their own safety decisions.

This is probably not the place to open up the whole debate, but there is a difference between cyclists and folk riding a bike. There is a general concencus that cycling is a good thing (for the individual and the planet) and anything that puts up a barrier is a bad thing. Do you think all these bike hire and bike share schemes would survive if helmets were compulsory?

I agree wholeheartedly. If you say cyclist in the UK, the image seen by most would undoubtedly be that of a group of lycra clad men buzzing around causing a nuisance on the roads as per the picture painted by tabloid papers. Say cyclist (or Dutch translation) in Holland and you pretty much picture every day people going about their every day business. Teenagers dressed in casual clothes going to school or commuters in work dress. Hardly a helmet to be seen. Not all cyclists are the same. You rightly mention hire bike schemes. How would that work? Do you carry a helmet with you all day on the off chance you take out a Boris bike? Do they employ people to hand them out at the point of sale? It would kill the industry stone dead. Its an unworkable plan. Going back to Holland, you can just jump on a citybike and go. No fee. They may not be comfortable but you're mobile. We knee jerk react to everything in this country and allow the minority form our opinions.

This is literally one of the main reasons bike hire/Boris bike type schemes have stalled here in NZ.

Compulsory helmets are also a regularly cited factor in the reduction of school children cycling to school. Now they either use a scooter (similar speeds, no helmet) or get driven.

I also wholeheartedly second everything qpp says.

shimanobottombracket

Would the helmet law apply to off road riding/MTBing aswell?
PENIS PENIS PENIS PENIS

slowbike

I have 3 lids and a number of bikes.
Yes - lids are comfortable to wear - when they're dry - put them on when wet - eugh!!
I don't bother with my lid all the time, it really does depend what sort of ride I'm doing - TT, commute, training or club ride - wear the lid - anything else - may be, may be not.
Little Slowbike always wears his lid - but at the age of 3 he's falling off a lot more than me (he doesn't fall much though) - even on the Followme he's got his lid on.
Would I make wearing lids Compulsory? No - but I would encourage it.
The boating community have a similar issue with lifejackets - I can't help but laugh when I see adults done up to the 9's in full kit and lifejackets motoring through the harbour on their 40+ft boat on a balmy summers day. Not that they shouldn't and I wouldn't tell them they shouldn't - but you know they've just motored from around the coast in weather you could paddleboard it with a full glass of something unspilt. Perhaps they can't swim, or perhaps they're trying to set a good example for some juniors -
It just makes me laugh a little - because it suggests that there's no assessment of risk associated with their actions - wear lifejacket = safe, don't wear lifejacket != safe - where actually, wearing a lifejacket doesn't make you safe - it will just keep your body afloat should you enter the water. In a similar way - wearing helmets = safe and not wearing helmets != safe - no thought that actually, wearing a helmet only mitigates against a head injury should it come into contact with something and you're better off avoiding your head hitting anything if possible.

shirley_basso

A lot of time you have to be dressed like that when going through startgates for offshore races to demonstrate you have the equipment on board.

Lifejackets are only useful when worn. And it's probably a lot easier to fall off a boat than you think, given how many trip hazards there are.

Dorset_Boy

Most ski resorts now make helmets compulsory for kids and as a result they keep wearing them into adulthood.
I think that's probably a more sensible approach that compulsion across the board.

You don't need to crash at speed to damage your brain.
Personally I think you're stupid (and selfish) if you don't wear a lid.

shirley_basso

Dorset Boy wrote:

Most ski resorts now make helmets compulsory for kids and as a result they keep wearing them into adulthood.
I think that's probably a more sensible approach that compulsion across the board.

You don't need to crash at speed to damage your brain.
Personally I think you're stupid (and selfish) if you don't wear a lid.

While what you say makes sense, skiing is inherently fast and dangerous (very generally speaking) as there is also a risk of being hit by someone else as well.

A lot of the time cycling can be very not dangerous. I ride a shopping bike 1km to work and back across a park and down a pretty non-busy road. I don't wear a helmet for that, but I probably will when baby comes along to demonstrate responsible behaviour.

For anything on my road bike, I always wear a helmet, although did take it off while ascending the mountains if it's bloody hot.

Dorset_Boy

Shirley Basso wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

Most ski resorts now make helmets compulsory for kids and as a result they keep wearing them into adulthood.
I think that's probably a more sensible approach that compulsion across the board.

You don't need to crash at speed to damage your brain.
Personally I think you're stupid (and selfish) if you don't wear a lid.

While what you say makes sense, skiing is inherently fast and dangerous (very generally speaking) as there is also a risk of being hit by someone else as well.

A lot of the time cycling can be very not dangerous. I ride a shopping bike 1km to work and back across a park and down a pretty non-busy road. I don't wear a helmet for that, but I probably will when baby comes along to demonstrate responsible behaviour.

For anything on my road bike, I always wear a helmet, although did take it off while ascending the mountains if it's bloody hot.

For most amateurs, skiing is no faster than riding a road bike, my max speeds on both are similar. I would agree that collisions and crashes are more frequent skiing, but even on your ride across the park you could be caught out by a loose dog or stray toddler.

Having a child and expecting them to wear a lid and you not setting the example is difficult to reconcile and that event is what made me start always wearing a helmet, both for cycling and latterly for skiing.

If you do come a cropper then someone has to clear up the mess after you (hence my selfish comment!).

Ben6899

SJH76 wrote:

We knee jerk react to everything in this country...

See this thread and Twitter.

I'm pro choice, but the reaction to G's misinterpreted interview answer is not at all proportional.

shirley_basso

Yes of course on the road bike and riding fast, but what about casual pootling on a bike (10-15mph) to the shops, to school or in the park? Wearing helmets should be encouraged but not mandatory for all the reasons qpp stated.

I does also irk when when people shout 'grr they weren't even wearing a helmet'. It really isn't that bad!

Where I live there are lots of people riding around with headphones in, hands not on bars and playing on their phones which in my view is FAR more dangerous.

Imagine someone riding along, staring at their phone with headphones in and hands off bars runs down pedestrian with headphones in, staring at phone who steps into road. Just too deliciously ironic.

drlodge

Helmets address the effects of a collision, not the cause.

Wear a helmet if you want (I do, always), but expect the causes to remain unaddressed and the rate of collisions to increase.

I wonder, what would happen if everyone suddenly, en masse, stopped wearing helmets?

larkim

We've made all our kids wear lids 100% of the time when riding from a young age.

Our 18 year old (who rode solo throughout the Les Gets / Morzine downhill areas for two weeks two years ago) goes nuts when he sees anyone not wearing a helmet, and if he's riding around the garden (and its not a big garden) will still always put his own helmet on. Irrespective of the element of compulsion, I'm happy knowing that my four will voluntarily wear a lid for the rest of their lives when riding a bike because it's just something they have been brought up to do.

2 minutes to the shops, 4 hours on busy roads, I'll wear a lid all the time. Why wouldn't I, it carries no inconvenience at all to me.

shirley_basso

larkim wrote:

We've made all our kids wear lids 100% of the time when riding from a young age.

Our 18 year old (who rode solo throughout the Les Gets / Morzine downhill areas for two weeks two years ago) goes nuts when he sees anyone not wearing a helmet, and if he's riding around the garden (and its not a big garden) will still always put his own helmet on. Irrespective of the element of compulsion, I'm happy knowing that my four will voluntarily wear a lid for the rest of their lives when riding a bike because it's just something they have been brought up to do.

2 minutes to the shops, 4 hours on busy roads, I'll wear a lid all the time. Why wouldn't I, it carries no inconvenience at all to me.

Indeed but there are occasions when it may not be convenient to have one. What if you hopped on a hire bike in a city without one, what if it broke from a drop and you wanted to pop to the shops? For the times that this situation arises, it is stupid to have compulsory helmet laws. What if you simply didn't care about helmet safety?

It's more important that more people are on bikes than it is to protect them if they fall off as the health benefits in general outweigh the cost.

larkim

I agree the city bike hire thing would be a interesting challenge in a mandatory helmet world - though from what I've seen first hand commuters who rely on city bikes tend to take their helmets with them on the train that gets them to the bike store etc. I wouldn't fancy riding city centre London for example on a hire bike or my own bike without head protection.

There are always niche scenarios you can come up with that make compulsion complex. What if my seat belt buckle breaks and I need to drive my car to the garage? What if my motorbike helmet is stolen and I need to ride to the shops? These things happen, they are inconveniences but not really good reasons to avoid compulsion.

If there is an argument against it, it is the one which demonstrates lower bike usage if compulsion is introduced. That one has a fair degree of persuasion behind it with me, though in the meanwhile I'll still say I think everyone should wear them all the time (leaving open the question as to whether I think the state should say everyone should wear them).

fenix

[quote="larkim"
2 minutes to the shops, 4 hours on busy roads, I'll wear a lid all the time. Why wouldn't I, it carries no inconvenience at all to me.[/quote]

Slight inconvenience of carrying a helmet round the shops ?

I wear a helmet when I'm out 'properly' - but pootling to the shops or hiring a Boris Bike or the Northern equivalent ? No.

DeVlaeminck

larkim wrote:

We've made all our kids wear lids 100% of the time when riding from a young age.

Our 18 year old (who rode solo throughout the Les Gets / Morzine downhill areas for two weeks two years ago) goes nuts when he sees anyone not wearing a helmet, e.

And doesn't this illustrate the hypocrisy around this question. Your son is OK with riding downhill mountain bikes around the Alps so long as he has some polystyrene on his head but "goes nuts" if someone is popping to the shops for a paper without a helmet.

I've no problem with your son choosing to take the risks he does but he is taking far bigger risks than the guy popping to the shops.

mamil314

DeVlaeminck wrote:

larkim wrote:

We've made all our kids wear lids 100% of the time when riding from a young age.

Our 18 year old (who rode solo throughout the Les Gets / Morzine downhill areas for two weeks two years ago) goes nuts when he sees anyone not wearing a helmet, e.

hypocrisy

davebradswmb

Dorset Boy wrote:

Personally I think you're stupid (and selfish) if you don't wear a lid.

It's OK for you to think that, so long as you don't express your opinion to criticise others. There have been a couple of illuminating posts in this thread which very clearly demonstrate that helmet wearing for normal cycling doesn't save lives, and that compulsion has contributed to a decrease in the health of a population because a lot of people don't want the hassle of wearing a helmet on a commute or trip to the shops.

Vino'sGhost

drlodge wrote:

Helmets address the effects of a collision, not the cause.

Wear a helmet if you want (I do, always), but expect the causes to remain unaddressed and the rate of collisions to increase.

I wonder, what would happen if everyone suddenly, en masse, stopped wearing helmets?

Exactly, if they want everyone to be obese and do some proper victim blaming ( yes I killed him but he wasn’t wearing a helmet, I feel sick etc ) then tax and compulsory insurance badge is the way ahead too.

How about banning non motorised transport from A roads as well, perhaps ban bikes from the roads an hour before and an hour after sunset/sunrise.

Actually I’d agree with abolishing time trials on dual carriageways

larkim

DeVlaeminck wrote:

larkim wrote:

We've made all our kids wear lids 100% of the time when riding from a young age.

Our 18 year old (who rode solo throughout the Les Gets / Morzine downhill areas for two weeks two years ago) goes nuts when he sees anyone not wearing a helmet, e.

And doesn't this illustrate the hypocrisy around this question. Your son is OK with riding downhill mountain bikes around the Alps so long as he has some polystyrene on his head but "goes nuts" if someone is popping to the shops for a paper without a helmet.

I've no problem with your son choosing to take the risks he does but he is taking far bigger risks than the guy popping to the shops.

He's the same guy - he heads down to the shops with his helmet on, probably leaves the chin guard off though ;-)

There's no hypocrisy here - he knows that riding down to the shops a metal object with an internal combustion engine could hit him at about 30mph, not that different to hitting a rock at 25-30mph on a downhill track. He therefore doesn't see that he is faced with risks that are that hugely different. He goes "nuts" because he doesn't see why others don't see the risk in the same way that he does.

davebradswmb

larkim wrote:

[There's no hypocrisy here - he knows that riding down to the shops a metal object with an internal combustion engine could hit him at about 30mph, not that different to hitting a rock at 25-30mph on a downhill track. He therefore doesn't see that he is faced with risks that are that hugely different. He goes "nuts" because he doesn't see why others don't see the risk in the same way that he does.

He's wrong though, rocks don't deform, whereas the car panels and glass do. Also your head is not going to be the first thing to get hit, so the impact will be reduced. Also it is fairly unlikely to happen, whereas crashing on skis is not at all uncommon. He needs to be able to make appropriate risk assessments (as do most do-gooders who think they know better)

shirley_basso

^ he's talking about mountain biking not skiing helmets.

Humans are notoriously bad at judging risk where the probability of incident is very low but the outcome very severe.

slowbike

Shirley Basso wrote:

A lot of time you have to be dressed like that when going through startgates for offshore races to demonstrate you have the equipment on board.

Lifejackets are only useful when worn. And it's probably a lot easier to fall off a boat than you think, given how many trip hazards there are.

I've only been sailing for more than 4 decades - so fairly new to it all ... I have fallen in on one memorable occasion - whilst waiting for the race to start - I was young, fit and able to swim - I swam after and caught the boat - but then it was a capsised dinghy and I was wearing a buoyancy aid (not that that helped).

Anyway - if we wanted to make sure everyone took all safety precautions, we wouldn't set foot in on a boat to start with... far too dangerous and unstable :roll: I have a friend who always wore his lifejacket - his reason - he can't swim and has a reasonably small vessel - it's fair enough - I just find it amusing when I see it on boats not much smaller than a ferry....

Finally - it's not what is advised that matters - it's when it becomes compulsory that it takes a hit. As seen above - make lids compulsory and you'll deter incidental cycling - people will drive - then get irate at cyclists - then cycling becomes even more hated and so less people ride and so the circle tightens...

larkim

LOL at the thought of him as a do-gooder!! Agree, at age 18 you've not honed your risk assessment capabilities. But even I wouldn't be putting my faith in the deforming of a car pillar or windscreen in lieu of putting on a lid. But kerbs are fairly "rocky", as are lamp-posts in lieu of trees, road signs, lorries, buses, brick walls fronting onto the road etc. And it tends to be the rider who loses control as a consequence of their own actions on a DH trail, so is more prepared for a fall, rather than a vehicle unexpectedly clipping you and sending you flying.

(And when I say he goes nuts about people without helmets on, he doesn't make that point to anyone other than his family members - he's not some sort of vigilante who berates others for their lack of helmet!!)

As I say, I'm not making the case for compulsion, just describing why I think he (and I) wear helmets for every bike trip, no matter how slow, short or theoretically safe.

More cycle lanes, better driver education (and more driver punishment), etc etc all need to be added into the mix to make road cycling safer for everyone. Helmets, compulsory or discretionary, are only a small part of the whole. But helmets are a cheap part that I can take control of, so I do.

craigus89

larkim wrote:

There's no hypocrisy here - he knows that riding down to the shops a metal object with an internal combustion engine could hit him at about 30mph, not that different to hitting a rock at 25-30mph on a downhill track. He therefore doesn't see that he is faced with risks that are that hugely different. He goes "nuts" because he doesn't see why others don't see the risk in the same way that he does.

That is fine if that is how he perceives the risk, but to say the risks are not that different between him doing 25-30mph on a downhill track and riding to the shops, his critical thinking probably needs some more work.

But as most people do when they already have their mind made up, you seem to have missed the larger points being made in this thread.

Edit: Just read your last post,maybe you haven't missed the point being made, but I still disagree entirely with how much risk is attached to popping to the shops on a bike.

shirley_basso

Slowbike wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

A lot of time you have to be dressed like that when going through startgates for offshore races to demonstrate you have the equipment on board.

Lifejackets are only useful when worn. And it's probably a lot easier to fall off a boat than you think, given how many trip hazards there are.

I've only been sailing for more than 4 decades - so fairly new to it all ... I have fallen in on one memorable occasion - whilst waiting for the race to start - I was young, fit and able to swim - I swam after and caught the boat - but then it was a capsised dinghy and I was wearing a buoyancy aid (not that that helped).

Anyway - if we wanted to make sure everyone took all safety precautions, we wouldn't set foot in on a boat to start with... far too dangerous and unstable :roll: I have a friend who always wore his lifejacket - his reason - he can't swim and has a reasonably small vessel - it's fair enough - I just find it amusing when I see it on boats not much smaller than a ferry....

Finally - it's not what is advised that matters - it's when it becomes compulsory that it takes a hit. As seen above - make lids compulsory and you'll deter incidental cycling - people will drive - then get irate at cyclists - then cycling becomes even more hated and so less people ride and so the circle tightens...

Possibly insurance related if on enormous boats? I've been sailing for about 25 years and fallen out of dinghies plenty of times, usually due to missing a footstrap. Never off a yacht though! Lifejackets and sailing aren't the same debate. I would never go dinghy sailing without a buoyancy aid on. Windsurfing I wear my harness which has some +ve float. I only race yachts and don't really sail them recreationally but the series I race on has stipulations when to wear a life jacket (wind speeds, visibility, between sunset and sunrise) so it's easy to obey.

Dorset_Boy

davebradswmb wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

Personally I think you're stupid (and selfish) if you don't wear a lid.

It's OK for you to think that, so long as you don't express your opinion to criticise others. There have been a couple of illuminating posts in this thread which very clearly demonstrate that helmet wearing for normal cycling doesn't save lives, and that compulsion has contributed to a decrease in the health of a population because a lot of people don't want the hassle of wearing a helmet on a commute or trip to the shops.

In response to the highlighted bit, have there?
There have been posts that imply compulsion puts people off riding casually and that I agree with and acknowledge. But not sure there have been posts proving that wearing a helmet doesn't save lives.
Sure if you suffer an impact at 40+ mph the helmet probably / almost certainly won't save you, but it certainly saves you if the impact is at a lower velocity. However it isn't just about saving your life, it is also about avoiding damage to the brain.

Go over the handlebars at 15 mph and land on your head having hit a pot hole, and I suspect you might not be in great shape without a helmet. You might not be in the morgue, but you could well be in intensive care for a prolonged period. And someone has to clear up that mess (and pay for it).

I'm certain insurers will start to use contributory negligence in this area in the near future too.

Vino'sGhost

We all fell off the yacht

Y'know, by the end of that first dawn... lost a hundred men. I dunno how many sharks. Maybe a thousand.
I dunno how many men, they averaged six an hour. On Thursday mornin', Chief, I bumped into a friend of mine, Herbie Robinson from Cleveland- baseball player, boatswain's mate. I thought he was asleep, reached over to wake him up... bobbed up and down in the water just like a kinda top. Upended. Well... he'd been bitten in half below the waist. Noon the fifth day, Mr. Hooper, a Lockheed Ventura saw us, he swung in low and he saw us. Young pilot, a lot younger than Mr. Hooper. Anyway, he saw us and come in low and three hours later, a big fat PBY comes down and start to pick us up. Y'know, that was the time I was most frightened, waitin' for my turn. I'll never put on a life jacket again

slowbike

larkim wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

larkim wrote:

We've made all our kids wear lids 100% of the time when riding from a young age.

Our 18 year old (who rode solo throughout the Les Gets / Morzine downhill areas for two weeks two years ago) goes nuts when he sees anyone not wearing a helmet, e.

And doesn't this illustrate the hypocrisy around this question. Your son is OK with riding downhill mountain bikes around the Alps so long as he has some polystyrene on his head but "goes nuts" if someone is popping to the shops for a paper without a helmet.

I've no problem with your son choosing to take the risks he does but he is taking far bigger risks than the guy popping to the shops.

He's the same guy - he heads down to the shops with his helmet on, probably leaves the chin guard off though ;-)

There's no hypocrisy here - he knows that riding down to the shops a metal object with an internal combustion engine could hit him at about 30mph, not that different to hitting a rock at 25-30mph on a downhill track. He therefore doesn't see that he is faced with risks that are that hugely different. He goes "nuts" because he doesn't see why others don't see the risk in the same way that he does.

I can nip down to the shops on a national delimited road (well - a section of it) and therefore be faced with potentially 60mph vehicles (although they'd probably hit me from behind - so is that "therefore be arsed" with .... ? ) or I can nip down to a different shop on a cycle path and avoid cars altogether - should I wear a lid for either or both of these activities?

Personally - I don't - I mitigate the risk of the first by ensuring I ride appropriately and have a bright rear light and the second - by not pushing myself technically and paying attention to where I am riding. Both activities still carry a risk of falling off or being knocked off - but I believe that risk to be minimal and therefore the benefits of the lid are minimal - and as it's usually still wet from the commute, it's really not pleasant to put on.