# Compulsory helmet wearing for children under 16 mooted.



## User (18 Sep 2009)




----------



## Davidc (18 Sep 2009)

What risk? Presumably he's also in favour of children wearing helmets while walking and riding in a 4x4, both of which are more dangerous than cycling.

Really ought to put them in full body armour 24/7 from birth.


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Sep 2009)

> max martin wrote:
> If you left this law alone then this is a case where survival of the fittest might see better parenting:
> Bad parents do not insist on helmets; so more children of bad parents die; so these children who were more likely to be bad parents do not grow up to be parents of bad parenting children etc.



So now we have cycle helmets as the indicator of parenting.... the kid may be on smack, pregnant and thieving from the neighbours, but as long as he has a helmet on it is good parenting?


----------



## Bollo (18 Sep 2009)

RichK said:


> I suppose that if his field is paediatrics (sp?) then he doesn't have to deal with all the lardy couch potatoes who can't walk up the stairs without getting out of breath.



Yes he will.


----------



## ComedyPilot (18 Sep 2009)

I never wore a helmet as a child, and I turned out OK.



ftang, ftang,bleep, bleep, weeeeeeeeeaaaarrgghhhhhhhhhhhhhh


----------



## Sam Kennedy (18 Sep 2009)

When I was like 5, maybe 7 my mam just said that I was good on my bike and didn't need a helmet.

I'm still fine, managed to get through life in 1 piece! 
I've even fallen off my bike and got a scarred knee, I didn't wear a helmet then either.

Now I would prefer no helmet over a badly fitted one, but I would probs wear one if I had one which fitted. It's just choosing between if I fall off my bike, would I rather have a fractured skull or broken neck. So I might just keep without.


----------



## Archie_tect (18 Sep 2009)

Predictable.... as ever.


----------



## MacB (18 Sep 2009)

I like some of the stats quoted:-

90k road and 100k off road accidents involving cyclists each year - over half involve children - seems rather high to me

an estimated 52k children in Britain have suffered traumatic brain injury from various causes - over what time scale and how many related to cycling?

just more sloppy sensationalist journalism, the scary bit on most news websites now are the comments.


----------



## Bollo (19 Sep 2009)

I do hope all you parents of young children have bought one of these. Remember.....

“As an expert and a parent I feel it is just common sense — *anything that can protect our children from this risk should be compulsory.*”


----------



## UKPhil (19 Sep 2009)

Thudguard? Yes, that's really clever. Teach your child that they can go around headbutting things/people with no pain or consequences


----------



## very-near (19 Sep 2009)

Bollo said:


> I do hope all you parents of young children have bought one of these. Remember.....
> 
> “As an expert and a parent I feel it is just common sense — *anything that can protect our children from this risk should be compulsory.*”



Have you got any children Bollo ?


----------



## Bollo (19 Sep 2009)

very-near said:


> Have you got any children Bollo ?



Worryingly yes. That was sarcasm BTW. I do a lot of sarcasm.

I actually have the opposite problem as my 7yr old daughter is very risk averse. If she'd have been running Lehman Brothers, I'm pretty sure the world's economy would be in a better place today.

Actual risk and perceptions of risk are an interest of mine (I've a reasonable grounding in stats) and cycle helmets are a classic example of mis-interpretation and exploitation of statistical data to support an agenda. I apply that to both the pro and anti-helmet lobbies.

I do get majorly irritated that cycling safety, especially for kids, is reduced down to an over-simplified helmetty gloop.


----------



## MartinC (20 Sep 2009)

“As an expert and a parent I feel it is just common sense — anything that can protect our children from this risk should be compulsory.” 

This is a pretty damning admission of failure. As an expert he ought to be able to advance a reasoned argument for cycle helmets. Quoting "common sense" merely highlights the fact he hasn't got one. Nevertheless the media will not bother with any of the facts.


----------



## very-near (20 Sep 2009)

MartinC said:


> “As an expert and a parent I feel it is just common sense — anything that can protect our children from this risk should be compulsory.”
> 
> This is a pretty damning admission of failure. As an expert he ought to be able to advance a reasoned argument for cycle helmets. Quoting "common sense" merely highlights the fact he hasn't got one. Nevertheless the media will not bother with any of the facts.



You still didn't answer my question of whether you would put your own children in a cycling hat Martin ?

In your own time of course


----------



## Tony (21 Sep 2009)

The argument is broader. As Cunobelin has so often shown,why is cycling to be a special case? And the statement about teaching children they can headbutt things without risk---again, cycling is different?
Does not compute.


----------



## very-near (21 Sep 2009)

Tony said:


> The argument is broader. As Cunobelin has so often shown,why is cycling to be a special case? And the statement about teaching children they can headbutt things without risk---again, cycling is different?
> Does not compute.



You simplify the arefument far too much I think Tony.

Kids fall over all the time when learning to walk/run. They are well versed in the connection between a fall and the pain and injury which goes with it long before they attempt to get onto two wheels.

I think there is a risk of being a little bit indiganant on behalf of others on this thread, and worse than that, face the accusation that individuals making a choice for themselves are then attempting to do so for others where the ability and safety may not be an equal measure.

It's alright spouting the facts and figures and statistics of how cycling is the safest thing bar living like a hermit in a cave, but the same can be said for flying - safe until it goes wrong.

The law for horseriding is that anyone under the age of 14 must wear a riding hat when on the road. I think this is entirely a senbsible guideline given that 90% of horseriding on the road is done at walking pace.

Accidents are just that - if we know they are going to happen, we take steps to avoid them, likewise, if we know that there is a likelihood our heads are going to connect with an object, we take steps to lesten the impact.

If you don't want to use common sense for your own safety, it doesn't mean you should have the right to deny that right to others.


----------



## dellzeqq (21 Sep 2009)

Bollo said:


> I do hope all you parents of young children have bought one of these. Remember.....
> 
> “As an expert and a parent I feel it is just common sense — *anything that can protect our children from this risk should be compulsory.*”


Bollo, it took me a little while to work out that this website was for real. I despair.

Standing on Whitstable railway station this summer I watched thirty or so pre-school children running round the playground of their nursery school. They were having a grand time, a far better time than the hapless adults, who were chasing them and replacing their caps every time one of the little horrors brushed it off, or discarded it because their heads were hot. I can only presume that someone had decided that if they were going to get skin cancer it wouldn't be in the playground.........


----------



## MartinC (21 Sep 2009)

very-near said:


> You still didn't answer my question of whether you would put your own children in a cycling hat Martin ?
> 
> In your own time of course



I guess you must be referring to some long forgotten thread. No, I wouldn't put my own children in a cycling hat. Given that you know nothing about my children (e.g. age, whether they cycle, etc.) I can't see how this answer has any relevance to anything but if you feel it helps you then you're welcome.


----------



## Bollo (21 Sep 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> Bollo, it took me a little while to work out that this website was for real. I despair.
> ........



F***ing unbelievable is it not? But it serves as a useful baseline in the whole helmet argument. For me the key question for the whole helmet debate is....

If a helmet can reduce risk of injury, even by the smallest statistically significant amount, then should it mandated? If you take the absolutist view that the answer is yes, then we should all probably don a helmet as soon as we get up in the morning.

If you believe that any increase in risk can be traded against other benefits (comfort, practicality, cost, the dread 'convenience', health etc etc) then you must decide where this subjective boundary lies. This is how nearly all of us live our lives on a daily basis, and not just when cycling. It's really the only way anyone can live their lives.

I'd be interested to know (sends bat-signal to Origamist) whether there has been any research that has compared peoples' perceptions of risk of cycling (with and without a helmet) with other activities that have the same objective risk of injury?

FTR - if 7yr old Bolletta is pootling about in our cul-de-sac, I've no problems with her not wearing a helmet. For on road stuff, she wears the hat but I'm under no illusions that this is for minor injuries only and, when she's more competent and confident and less likely just to fall off, I'll leave it up to her. I also let her play outside unsupervised and walk the short distance to school by herself. She's a pretty chilled out kid and I trust her not to do something daft. If she were different, then my attitude might be different as well. But I'm her dad, and its up to me to judge the risks.


----------



## MacB (21 Sep 2009)

well my 3 boys headed off to school this morning on their bikes. They all own cycling helmets but these gather dust in the garage. I'm comfortable with their decision


----------



## very-near (21 Sep 2009)

MartinC said:


> I guess you must be referring to some long forgotten thread. No, I wouldn't put my own children in a cycling hat. Given that you know nothing about my children (e.g. age, whether they cycle, etc.) I can't see how this answer has any relevance to anything but if you feel it helps you then you're welcome.



If you are attempting to force your 'choice' argument upon other parents, then it is not unreasonable to ask whether you yourself (and your chldren's other parent('s)) actually live by these decisions you make on their personal safety.


----------



## very-near (21 Sep 2009)

MacB said:


> well my 3 boys headed off to school this morning on their bikes. They all own cycling helmets but these gather dust in the garage. I'm comfortable with their decision



About 3 months ago, myself and my missus were walking the dog along a cyclepath when a kid (about 13) came past on a MTB. He rode about 100ft ahead of us, and then attempted to ride onto a grassed area next to the path. He got is wrong and went over the bars. He started screaming like there was no tomorrow, and so we went running up to help him. (He was complaining about his hip/back so I called for an ambilance and told him to stay still till they go there ) turns out he was just bruised there.

Whilst we were waiting, he took his hat off and handed it to me. It was split in half inside from where he went head first into the tarmac and he had a bit of a moan his dad would kill him for breaking it!

He turned outto be OK, and by chance I know his father as an old neighbour of mine from years ago.

Damned lids don't take much punishment before they need replacing do they !!


----------



## CotterPin (21 Sep 2009)

very-near said:


> Damned lids don't take much punishment before they need replacing do they !!



They are only designed to take the one hit. That's how they work. As soon as a cycling helmet hits a hard surface (with or without a head in it), it should be replaced. It's structural integrity is damaged and it will offer limited or no protection in future.


----------



## Bollo (21 Sep 2009)

very-near said:


> If you are attempting to force your 'choice' argument upon other parents, then it is not unreasonable to ask whether you yourself (and your chldren's other parent('s)) actually live by these decisions you make on their personal safety.



How do you 'force choice'?


----------



## MacB (21 Sep 2009)

seriously Linf, how many people do you know that have suffered serious head injuries through cycling? I don't personally know anyone, I split my head open several times as a child and none of these involved a bike. I do know several people that have suffered head injuries through other mediums, number one being drivers/passengers of cars.


All you're doing is making the what if arguement. I could say to you that if you'd never been on a motorbike you couldn't have had your crash, didn't your parents tell you motorbikes were dangerous?


----------



## very-near (21 Sep 2009)

MacB said:


> seriously Linf, how many people do you know that have suffered serious head injuries through cycling? I don't personally know anyone, I split my head open several times as a child and none of these involved a bike. I do know several people that have suffered head injuries through other mediums, number one being drivers/passengers of cars.
> 
> 
> All you're doing is making the what if arguement. I could say to you that if you'd never been on a motorbike you couldn't have had your crash, *didn't your parents tell you motorbikes were dangerous?[/*quote]
> ...


----------



## ChrisKH (21 Sep 2009)

very-near;909032][quote=MacB said:


> seriously Linf, how many people do you know that have suffered serious head injuries through cycling? I don't personally know anyone, I split my head open several times as a child and none of these involved a bike. I do know several people that have suffered head injuries through other mediums, number one being drivers/passengers of cars.
> 
> 
> All you're doing is making the what if arguement. I could say to you that if you'd never been on a motorbike you couldn't have had your crash, *didn't your parents tell you motorbikes were dangerous?[/*quote]
> ...



Never been on a cancer ward then? Not meaning to patronise but, they can be seriously depressing (and uplifting).


----------



## MacB (21 Sep 2009)

well all 3 have arrived home safe and sound, though I did feel a bit of a twinge of guilt. Yep they're all burdened down with a heavy bike lock, I really wish they could cycle without one of these as well.


----------



## MartinC (21 Sep 2009)

very-near said:


> If you are attempting to force your 'choice' argument upon other parents, then it is not unreasonable to ask whether you yourself (and your chldren's other parent('s)) actually live by these decisions you make on their personal safety.



Linf, you've got me here. I can't even parse this into semantically correct English. 

I like the bits of whimsy though - "forcing choice" and my children having an indeterminate number of parents.


----------



## very-near (21 Sep 2009)

MartinC said:


> Linf, you've got me here. I can't even parse this into semantically correct English.
> 
> I like the bits of whimsy though - "forcing choice" and my children having an indeterminate number of parents.



So instead of actually answering the question, you try and divert with a 'I don't understand' answer. It seems a fairly common trick when you really don't want to face it - you did it last time (stir things up and run away) which makes your arguments come across as a load of bollocks.

Now the previous statement makes perfect sense to me, and BTW you did understand the bit about 'forcing choice' on the children. 

We treat them as minors and make choices in their best interests because they are not mature enough to do it themselves

They are children and cannot rationalise in the way you or I can. 

What you are actually doing is taking away their parents ability to enforce the application of a perfectly sensible piece of safety equipment.

If you don't understand this bit, then I'd say you are talking bollocks about being a parent of a teenager as you just don't have the experience to understand where I'm coming from or how they behave (try Kevin and Perry as an insight)

Kids don't wear cycling hats because it isn't cool to be seen with one on by their dopey sniggering 'mates'. 
Kids will walk into town on a saturday afternoon in a T-shirt when it is 5c degrees because a jacket will 'spoil the look' and then spend the next few hours running from shop to shop to stay warm. 

That is the only logic they can apply to whether there is a benefit to be had or not.

If kids have a law they are obliged to obey, then hopefully it will get them past this age of stupid and reach a point where they make the choice to wear a lid with maturity over such a potentially life changing decision.

My two kids are 19 and 16 (the eldest lives with her B/F). I've been through their 'age of stupidity' twice now as a parent and I have absolutely despaired of their actions from time to time in their early teen years. The only thing I can enforce is if they wish to ride on the back of my m/cycle, they wear a decent crash helmet, a fully armoured leather suit, leather gloves and boots - and they don't argue the toss over it.

Now back to you - How old are your kids, and have your own experiences as a parent such that you feel qualified to lay down the law to other parents Martin ?


----------



## very-near (21 Sep 2009)

Bollo said:


> How do you 'force choice'?



see my last post Bollo. Your kids are still at an age where you can lay the (your) law down to them. It is an eye opener when they turn around and tell you to fcuk off because they don't like the rules you make.

They may not quite put it like that, but one day, you will feel quite inadequate when they realise 'your laws/rules are ones they can ignore at their own discretion.

This is where the laws of society step in to protect them as individuals and the rest of us from their actions. It also protects the children from the willful stupidity of their parents who would transpose their misguided ideology on their kids.

Riding hats are an entirely sensible proposition for horse riders under the age of 14 and likewise for young cyclists.


----------



## Bollo (21 Sep 2009)

Linf,

First of all, we're in Campaigning. Not P&L, not the P&L lite that is commuting, or even Cafe. Campaigning. Look at the tone of the posts in here. They're generally serious, considered and balanced. They're usually posted by Origamist.

If I remember correctly, the last time a thread veered off on to the topic of child-rearing and opinions thereof, the mods had to pile-in quick-sharp like a pride of nightclub bouncers before it all kicked off in a very very ugly way.

So, without expressing any further opinion, I'm going to take a deep breath and quietly make you the one and only member of my ignore list. It's best for both our sakes. Night night.


----------



## very-near (22 Sep 2009)

Bollo said:


> Linf,
> 
> First of all, we're in Campaigning. Not P&L, not the P&L lite that is commuting, or even Cafe. Campaigning. Look at the tone of the posts in here. They're generally serious, considered and balanced. They're usually posted by Origamist.
> 
> ...



Ignore the poster when your belief system is challenged Bollo.

As a parent, I have a much a right to air my opinion on this matter as any other here. We as adults rationalise the subject of cyclehats for minors because they themselves are not mature enough to do so.

The fact you have stomped off in a huff because you don't like what I have to say is indicative that you yourself lack the maturity to debate this very serious issue of safety also.

Perhaps it is for the best that you have...


----------



## skrx (22 Sep 2009)

very-near said:


> This is where the laws of society step in to protect them as individuals and the rest of us from their actions.



And so many teenagers obey all the laws they see as pointless... (drink, drugs, sex, age limits for entry to places.

Anyway, we don't have laws to protect ourselves, we have laws to protect *others* from our actions.

If you want to force your child to wear a helmet, tell them to. If you see them riding without it, confiscate their bike.


----------



## MacB (22 Sep 2009)

Linford, your arguements don't follow any logical chain, by your own reasoning you should have enforced safety helmet wear on your children for a myriad of activities other than cycling. Equating non-wearing of helmets with non wearing of a jacket/jumper on a cold day is nonsensical:-

don't wear enough clothes = guaranteed to get too cold, experience discomfort and possbily get ill

don't wear a cycle helmet = nothing guaranteed, either way, certainly no greater risk of head injury than for many other activities

If you have any hard data to back up your position I'd like to hear it, your own perceived wisdom isn't enough.


----------



## very-near (22 Sep 2009)

skrx said:


> And so many teenagers obey all the laws they see as pointless... (drink, drugs, sex, age limits for entry to places.
> 
> Anyway, we don't have laws to protect ourselves, we have laws to protect *others* from our actions.
> 
> If you want to force your child to wear a helmet, tell them to. If you see them riding without it, confiscate their bike.



Well, I do agree with you on the issue of other stuff, but then you don't see many teeenagers having sex on the side of the high st.

Kids don't worry about personal safety because their parents do the worrying for them. I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen kids riding down the road with their cycle hats attached to the handlebars where they have obviously put it on when leaing the house, and taken it off when they get around the corner.


----------



## very-near (22 Sep 2009)

MacB said:


> Linford, your arguements don't follow any logical chain, by your own reasoning you should have enforced safety helmet wear on your children for a myriad of activities other than cycling. Equating non-wearing of helmets with non wearing of a jacket/jumper on a cold day is nonsensical:-
> 
> don't wear enough clothes = guaranteed to get too cold, experience discomfort and possbily get ill
> 
> ...



Cycling is a potentially high impact activity (especially when mixed with traffic) There are many high impact activities where the use of a hat is becoming a fairly standard piece of kit safety Horseriding/ski'ing/motorcycing/skating/climbing etc etc

You don't have a magic shield around you when doing any of these things. Why should cycling be any different ?


----------



## skrx (22 Sep 2009)

I've just come across the CBBC News article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_8260000/newsid_8262800/8262826.stm which includes this:
"And there have also been studies that say helmets can make life more dangerous on the roads, because they make cyclists think they're safer than they actually are. 

Some say that can encourage cyclists to take bigger risks when riding."

Also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_3150000/newsid_3150100/3150157.stm
"You don't have to wear a helmet by law and there's a big debate about whether or not it's a good idea, so ask your parents what they want you to do."


----------



## MacB (22 Sep 2009)

very-near said:


> Cycling is a potentially high impact activity (especially when mixed with traffic) There are many high impact activities where the use of a hat is becoming a fairly standard piece of kit safety Horseriding/ski'ing/motorcycing/skating/climbing etc etc
> 
> You don't have a magic shield around you when doing any of these things. Why should cycling be any different ?



so still no hard data then!


----------



## very-near (22 Sep 2009)

MacB said:


> so still no hard data then!



This isn't exactly new data is it. It's not my fault if you choose to ignore it 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/990853.stm


----------



## MartinC (22 Sep 2009)

very-near said:


> So instead of actually ................. you feel qualified to lay down the law to other parents Martin ?



Linf, get a grip. I can't answer your question because it's not logical. Most of the post quoted is a reflection of what's in your mind and totally unrelated to anything I've said.

For example "lay the law down" - just think for a minute and come up with an instance of when I've done this. Your argument seems to be that unless I collude with you to enforce something you want then I'm forcing something on people. Clearly this is untenable hyperbole.

Back to the OP. If a Paediatrician, on behalf of their professional association is calling for mandatory helmets for children then it's reasonable to expect them to explain their rationale a bit better than "it's common sense". Don't you agree?


----------



## MartinC (22 Sep 2009)

very-near said:


> This isn't exactly new data is it. It's not my fault if you choose to ignore it
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/990853.stm



This article published in 2000 doesn't show the figures for the claimed increase in helmet wearing in the study group between 1991 and 1995. Do you know if they had any or was it an assumption? I'm genuinely interested.

Given that the number of admissions to hospital in the years compared were very similar (about 1% different) and the study posits a causal correlation between helmet wearing and reduced admissions for head injuries then it must also be positing a causal correlation between helmet wearing and increased admissions for other injuries.

These analyses are often compromised by small sample sizes and incomplete data for other changes in the environment and can be used to draw false conclusions. This appears to be the case here.


----------



## Jonathan M (22 Sep 2009)

RichK said:


> I suppose that if his field is paediatrics (sp?) then he doesn't have to deal with all the lardy couch potatoes who can't walk up the stairs without getting out of breath.



No, he probably recognises that obesity in childhood and adolesence has increased massively, but will be seeing things from a (flawed) right to wear helmet/wrong not to wear one stance.

Incidentally I wear a helmet & won't let my son ride a bike without one.


----------



## summerdays (22 Sep 2009)

I've ummed and ahhed over whether I should put in my point of view, so here goes: whether you wear a helmet as an adult is a personal choice for you - and I think that is right. 

Whether a child wears a helmet I think is personal choice of the parents in charge of the child. 

My kids have worn them when they were young - and had plenty of small off's. The eldest is currently not wearing one as she hates it - not cool for a teenager but then she rarely goes on a bike.

You shouldn't make it compulsory as it would either be a law which was ignored or it would prevent children from taking up cycling. If the result is that they never learn then that would be awful in the long time.

Even if they were made to wear helmets - who is going to police whether they are adjusted properly - I have to adjust mine regularly, most kids I see with helmets have the straps really loose.


----------



## very-near (22 Sep 2009)

summerdays said:


> I've ummed and ahhed over whether I should put in my point of view, so here goes: whether you wear a helmet as an adult is a personal choice for you - and I think that is right.
> 
> Whether a child wears a helmet I think is personal choice of the parents in charge of the child.
> 
> ...



I've heard this old chestnut so many times with motorcycling and crash helmets as well. The reality is that people will ride a cycle because they want to and will put up with the constraints the law throws at them regarding safety equipment as do motorcyclists. You don't see any hells angels riding without a lid on a roads in the UK, but helmet wearing in the states is often ignored because the riders have this invincibility attitude towards their mortality (until they come off) and also because not all states enforce it - have you seen how many people die on motorcycles as a percentage over there by comparison to the UK ?

As for scooter kids wearing their helmets at a jaunty angle in the UK - they are still in the age of stupid and do get injured even if their scoots are barely faster than a quick roadie.


----------



## summerdays (22 Sep 2009)

Kids aren't supposed to ride motorcycles but kids ... you know 3, 4, 5 year olds and on upwards do ride bikes. Go to an housing estate - the ones where you know you are more likely to see them not wearing seat belts than wearing a seat belt. And most kids won't have helmets on. If the adults won't bother with seat belts for them and their kids what makes you think that a less proven item that doesn't come with the bike will be used.

And they showed Hells Angels on the news riding without helmets to a funeral recently on TV so you are wrong there.

But my main point about compulsion is that a badly fitting helmet is useless (which all the pro and anti helmet wearers can agree on - ignore taking that arguement any further please). Compulsion will not ensure that they fit properly.


----------



## very-near (22 Sep 2009)

summerdays said:


> Kids aren't supposed to ride motorcycles but kids ... you know 3, 4, 5 year olds and on upwards do ride bikes. Go to an housing estate - the ones where you know you are more likely to see them not wearing seat belts than wearing a seat belt. And most kids won't have helmets on. If the adults won't bother with seat belts for them and their kids what makes you think that a less proven item that doesn't come with the bike will be used.
> 
> And they showed Hells Angels on the news riding without helmets to a funeral recently on TV so you are wrong there.
> 
> But my main point about compulsion is that a badly fitting helmet is useless (which all the pro and anti helmet wearers can agree on - ignore taking that arguement any further please). Compulsion will not ensure that they fit properly.



I agree on the final point 100%, but I think you will find the Hells Angels put their lids back on after the wake to ride home. Most funeral marches are not exactly 100mph to the cemetery affairs


----------



## CotterPin (23 Sep 2009)

Linf,

A couple of quick points...

I think there are a whole load of other issues around the enforcement of motor cycle helmets: You need to take a test to be able to ride a motorbike, the bike needs to be taxed, and it carries a registration plate. 
These do not apply to cyclists, especially children, so enforcement would be exceptionally hard to achieve (if it were desirable - and there are differences of opinion on that matter here and elsewhere). 

You comment that motorcycle helmet use varies in different US states, as a reflection of how well the law is enforced. How would you envisage a law requiring the mandatory wearing of cycle helmets amongst under sixteen years to be enforced, with this mind? Also, take in consideration, what you would like the police and pcsos to be doing less of to enforce this particular law.

My personal opinion is that the wearing of cycle helmets should be the personal choice of a responsible adult, taking into consideration the limited protection helmets do offer and other measures that can be taken to reduce risk whilst on the bicycle. For a child, the decision should be taken by their parent, again with due consideration of all the available facts.


----------



## very-near (23 Sep 2009)

CotterPin said:


> Linf,
> 
> A couple of quick points...
> 
> ...



This final argument doens't work when they take it off around the corner from their house. An adults decision is just that, but the law should be in place to prevent an action taken by wanton stupidity on the grounds of not looking cool.

I've got a cycle hat but don't always wear it myself. This is my decision and I weigh up the odds on whether I wear it depending on the journey I look to undertake so I do understand and accept both sides of the argument for adults. IMO Kids take much greater risks than adults without bothering to weigh up the benefits though.


----------



## CotterPin (23 Sep 2009)

very-near said:


> This final argument doens't work when they take it off around the corner from their house. An adults decision is just that, but the law should be in place to prevent an action taken by wanton stupidity on the grounds of not looking cool.
> 
> I've got a cycle hat but don't always wear it myself. This is my decision and I weigh up the odds on whether I wear it depending on the journey I look to undertake so I do understand and accept both sides of the argument for adults. IMO Kids take much greater risks than adults without bothering to weigh up the benefits though.



In response to your first paragraph... do you really think that a priority for the police should be trying to enforce this particular law, bearing in mind all the other activities that we ask of them? Would it not be better for their priority be on enforcing existing traffic regulations which in my view would probably have a greater impact on saving lives than trying to get kids to wear skidlids?

Also, if you are trying to encourage your children to wear helmets, would it not be better for you to wear your own helmet?


----------



## very-near (23 Sep 2009)

CotterPin said:


> In response to your first paragraph... do you really think that a priority for the police should be trying to enforce this particular law, bearing in mind all the other activities that we ask of them? Would it not be better for their priority be on enforcing existing traffic regulations which in my view would probably have a greater impact on saving lives than trying to get kids to wear skidlids?
> 
> Also, if you are trying to encourage your children to wear helmets, would it not be better for you to wear your own helmet?



Whether kids are being actively policed or not, most have enough respect for the law that they don't risk getting pulled for it.

When my kids were growing up, they always cycled with a hat. Neither cycle now (because cycling isn't cool apparently), but the eldest one rides a horse and always uses a hat even though she is aware she is not bound by law to do so as an adult as she fell off and landed on her head a couple of times as a youngster.


----------



## summerdays (23 Sep 2009)

very-near said:


> Whether kids are being actively policed or not, *most have enough respect for the law that they don't risk getting pulled for it*.



Kids I think actively challenge boundaries (and therefore laws) - for example have you ever seen a teenager cycle on the pavement? or wearing their school uniform in such a way to flout the rules? or using their phones in school. If they will break a parents rule about wearing it once around the corner what makes you think they won't break the law. 

I've also talked with teenagers about riding on the pavement and they reckon they would just ride off if the police came along and escape.

My kids know that I'm more anti riding with it on the handlebars because it can get caught than because its not on their heads.


----------



## babs01 (24 Sep 2009)

*Hoping for a resolution . . .*

Please forgive the tunnel vision, but I work in a brain injury rehabilitation unit. It's sad to me that the issue of wearing helmets when cycling has turned into a debate about age, parenting, free choice, legal imposition and degree of safety provided by said helmet.

I work with people with acquired brain injury. Yes, as one poster said, it's depressing (and hopeful), in comparing the comments made about a friend who'd been in a brain injury trauma ward (to a cancer ward). Yes, people can die from tripping over a rock, falling off a horse or slipping down the stairs.

For me, helmet = prevention. For those who say a helmet offers limited protection, I'd like to say that 'little bit of protection' can make all the difference.

This helmet issue is similar to the wide difference in opinion on Sports-related brain injuries from Concussion and Second Impact Syndrome. How and why a brain injury can be prevented is being debated in a variety of arenas - and there seems to be so much difference of opinion, as evidenced in the variety of opions here in this forum.

Again, I may be seeing things from a unique perspective, but can only say that I believe that wearing a helmet does not hurt anyone; it can only help prevent a head trauma or traumatic brain injury.


----------



## skrx (24 Sep 2009)

babs01 said:


> I believe that wearing a helmet does not hurt anyone; it can only help prevent a head trauma or traumatic brain injury.



Some research suggests people with helmets are more likely to have accidents, or have worse ones -- e.g. because car drivers pass closer if they cyclist looks "protected".



> It's sad to me that the issue of wearing helmets when cycling has turned into a debate about age, parenting, free choice, legal imposition and degree of safety provided by said helmet.



The issue isn't "wearing helmets". It's "being legally required to wear helmets", which is quite different.


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Sep 2009)

babs01 said:


> For me, helmet = prevention. For those who say a helmet offers limited protection, I'd like to say that 'little bit of protection' can make all the difference.


it might. I've come off sideways, and put a seven inch crack in my pelvis and a seven inch crack in my helmet but...............



babs01 said:


> Again, I may be seeing things from a unique perspective, but can only say that I believe that wearing a helmet does not hurt anyone; it can only help prevent a head trauma or traumatic brain injury.


there's nothing unique about ignorance, babs. Helmets can reduce awareness, and given the pattern of death and injury in my part of the country, don't do much for the safety of cyclists. So, while you may choose to put a helmet on your kid, others, some with more cycling experience, may not.

When you're addressing a bunch of people who know stuff it's always better to start with a question. There's some here that wear helmets, and some that don't (I used to, but gave up) and you might just have taken the trouble to find out about what has been a pretty spirited (I'm putting it mildly) and well informed debate before coming in with your size 12s


----------



## snorri (25 Sep 2009)

babs01 said:


> For me, helmet = prevention. For those who say a helmet offers limited protection, I'd like to say that 'little bit of protection' can make all the difference.


A helmet certainly does not offer prevention, only a little bit of protection in a very small number of incidents.
What about the exposure to other health problems due to people stopping taking healthy exercise because a a plastic hat is not available or considered uncomfortable or impractical?
What about rotational injuries? What about risk compensation?


----------



## 4F (25 Sep 2009)

I don't wear a helmet and accordingly will not tell my children that they have to wear one. They have helmets purchased by their grandparents and it is their choice as to whether they wear it or not. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

I would perceive the danger of them climbing a 30 foot tree to be far more dangerous than cycling and would not make them wear a helmet for that.

I think we have to stop trying to wrap them up in cotton wool and let kids be kids.


----------



## MacB (25 Sep 2009)

4F said:


> I don't wear a helmet and accordingly will not tell my children that they have to wear one. They have helmets purchased by their grandparents and it is their choice as to whether they wear it or not. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.
> 
> I would perceive the danger of them climbing a 30 foot tree to be far more dangerous than cycling and would not make them wear a helmet for that.
> 
> I think we have to stop trying to wrap them up in cotton wool and let kids be kids.



well said Big T


----------



## ufkacbln (25 Sep 2009)

babs01 said:


> Please forgive the tunnel vision, but I work in a brain injury rehabilitation unit. It's sad to me that the issue of wearing helmets when cycling has turned into a debate about age, parenting, free choice, legal imposition and degree of safety provided by said helmet.
> 
> I work with people with acquired brain injury. Yes, as one poster said, it's depressing (and hopeful), in comparing the comments made about a friend who'd been in a brain injury trauma ward (to a cancer ward). Yes, people can die from tripping over a rock, falling off a horse or slipping down the stairs.
> 
> ...




As always :

1. Are cyclists the largest single group you see with these head injuries?
2. Do you not agree that all these statements apply equally to pedestrians and car drivers(if not - why not)?

It is all a ed herring!

If we are serious about reducing the incidence of head injury , and minimising the effects both on the individual and their relatives, cyclists are one of the groups where there will be the least effect!


----------



## Davidc (25 Sep 2009)

I think summerdays is right.

My children when teenagers (some years back) would rather not have ridden bikes than wear helmets.

The health benefits need to be balanced against the added risks from not wearing a helmet.

Helmets should be compulsory in cars though. Might encourage a few to walk or cycle as well as protect against the (higher?) risk of head injury while in them.


----------



## Mark_Robson (28 Sep 2009)

As a keen cyclist and parent I am dismayed by some of the attitudes portrayed in this thread.
I have always insisted that my children wear a helmet when cycling, to me it's no different to wearing a seatbelt in a car. If one of my children were to sustain a brain injury due to cycling without a helmet then I would never forgive myself. Surely people must realise that there is a very good chance of receiving a head injury if you come off a bike at speed? If a helmet can minimise that injury then surely that is justification enough for ensuring that you child wears one.
As an adult its up to the individual to decide whether they wish to wear a helmet or not but IMO the law should protect children from unnecessary risk and I would be in favour of a law that made it compulsory for under sixteen's to wear a helmet. 
As for statistics, do you really need them? surely common sense must tell you that helmets can and do save lives. My wife is a nurse on a stroke ward and she often cares for patients who have received brain trauma do to accidents, including cycling accidents.

I wonder if the same people who are arguing about helmets and the nanny state also argued about boosters seats and the compulsory use of seat belts for kids?


----------



## Dan B (28 Sep 2009)

Mark_Robson said:


> If one of my children were to sustain a brain injury due to cycling without a helmet then I would never forgive myself.


And how would you feel if they were to sustain a brain injury due to
- falling off a climbing frame
- slipping on an icy pavement
- falling out of a tree
- falling over in the shower
?

Do you insist on their wearing helmets for all these activities too? If not, what makes cycling different?


----------



## ufkacbln (28 Sep 2009)

Mark_Robson said:


> As a keen cyclist and parent I am dismayed by some of the attitudes portrayed in this thread.
> I have always insisted that my children wear a helmet when cycling, to me it's no different to wearing a seatbelt in a car. If one of my children were to sustain a brain injury due to cycling without a helmet then I would never forgive myself. Surely people must realise that there is a very good chance of receiving a head injury if you come off a bike at speed? If a helmet can minimise that injury then surely that is justification enough for ensuring that you child wears one.
> As an adult its up to the individual to decide whether they wish to wear a helmet or not but IMO the law should protect children from unnecessary risk and I would be in favour of a law that made it compulsory for under sixteen's to wear a helmet.
> As for statistics, do you really need them? surely common sense must tell you that helmets can and do save lives. My wife is a nurse on a stroke ward and she often cares for patients who have received brain trauma do to accidents, including cycling accidents.
> ...



Which sums up all the reason for compulsory Thudguards!


----------



## Bollo (28 Sep 2009)

Mark_Robson said:


> As a keen cyclist and parent I am dismayed by some of the attitudes portrayed in this thread.


As a keen cyclist and parent I am dismayed by some of the attitudes portrayed in this thread.




> I have always insisted that my children wear a helmet when cycling,


Fine. I have no say in how you treat your children.


> to me it's no different to wearing a seatbelt in a car.


To me it is.




> If one of my children were to sustain a brain injury due to cycling without a helmet then I would never forgive myself.


Your child does not sustain a brain injury by not wearing a helmet. Your child sustains a brain injury due to the impact of the pavement or a car's bonnet on their heads. This is the cause. The question you mean to ask is "will the wearing of a helmet reduce the risk of a head injury?", a question that is still to be settled conclusively. Would you 'forgive yourself' if your child sustained a serious head injury while wearing a helmet? Emotion is not evidence.



> Surely people must realise that there is a very good chance of receiving a head injury if you come off a bike at speed?


I don't realise it. Evidence would be nice. Supposing this is true, then I am at more risk than my child, as she can only cycle very, very slowly. 



> If a helmet can minimise that injury......


An assumption. Peer-reviewed evidence please.




> As an adult its up to the individual to decide whether they wish to wear a helmet or not but IMO the law should protect children from unnecessary risk and I would be in favour of a law that made it compulsory for under sixteen's to wear a helmet.


I'm glad you've not mentioned cycling here, because if you take that view then we should make children wear helmets when a helmet can reduce risk, and that children suffer head injuries from causes other than cycling, the we should make children wear helmets whenever there is any risk of a head injury. As there is always a risk of head injury (think wobbly vase on shelf), then we should make children wear helmets at all times. I repeat my link.....

http://www.thudguard.com/

I do hope you've put in an order.


You've used the phrase 'unnecessary risk'. What is a 'unnecessary risk'? Driving your child in a car is a risk, but is it necessary or unnecessary? Could you have walked? Trick question! Walking is more risky than driving and cycling per mile. Should you just have stayed at home? Should they have worn a helmet while walking? Really, there is no such thing as necessary or unnecessary risk, even for children. There's always a trade of risk vs benefit. I don't do base jumping or potholing because its high-risk and I see little benefit. Its an extreme example, but consciously or sub-consciously we perform risk assessments many times a day. So do our children. 

When it comes to cycling, the small risk of head injury (with or without helmet) must be balanced against the risks of reduced social interaction, exercise and ->my personal favourite<- the need for a child to learn how to assess risk themselves. "But helmets do no harm" I hear you cry! Then why not wear a helmet while walking? Also, there is some admittedly disputed evidence, not anecdote, that helmet wearers are treated with less care by other road users than non-helmet wearers and that helmet wearers tend to take greater risks due to a greater feeling of protection. Look up "risk compensation". 



> As for statistics, do you really need them? surely common sense must tell you that helmets can and do save lives.


Who needs evidence and statistics when good old common sense comes to the rescue every time. Go to your medicine cabinet and throw out all your medicines. Turn off all your consumer electronics. Go to your car and rip out its engine management system. Have a chat with your deity of choice and tell him to make gases, radioactive nuclei and populations of wildebeest behave less in a bogus 'statistical' way and more along the lines of common sense. I can't begin to educate you in how f***ing ignorant that last sentence is and how much statistics impinge on your life. Just because you don't understand something (and by that last quote you surely do not), doesn't make it any less valid. I do hope you're just trolling.




> My wife is a nurse on a stroke ward and she often cares for patients who have received brain trauma do to accidents, including cycling accidents.


She must be friends with the paediatrician that keeps popping up in people's conversations, you know, "I'm friends with a doctor and he says..... etc etc". 

I trust your wife has studied the literature and kept tallies of the causes of injury passing through her hands? Did she compare the incidence of cycling injuries with other causes of head injury. Against age, experience, location, ethnicity, helmet make, age and fit and other factors that could potentially introduce bias into an assessment? Or did she just remember the chap who'd been hit by a car and not been wearing a helmet? I'm not picking on your wife. Paediatricians will see ugly consequences of accidents of all kinds, but very few will be involved in the rigorous analysis of the factors that determine the cause of accidents and the degree of injury. The plural of anecdote is not evidence.




> I wonder if the same people who are arguing about helmets and the nanny state also argued about boosters seats and the compulsory use of seat belts for kids?


All risks are not the same. Each risk must be assessed independently on its own merits and the trade off between risk and benefit performed. Even for children.

You're new. You probably think you're adding something, but just type "helmet" into the search facility and you'll realise how much this has been done to death. The only reason I've bothered to reply is that I'm so heartily sick of the "think of the children" argument that I want to bang my head against a wall. Should I wear a helmet?


----------



## very-near (28 Sep 2009)

Cunobelin said:


> Which sums up all the reason for compulsory Thudguards!



You are a radiologist (IIRC), you see the patients and know how the trauma's occur from their notes/dialogue CB. How many brain injuries do do you see from cycling in a year ?


----------



## Crackle (28 Sep 2009)

Thank you Bollo for answering that post.


----------



## Dave5N (28 Sep 2009)

It's all nonsense. I wear a helmet, so do my kids. We have to to do what we do on bikes.

Local kids don't and passing a law won't make them do it either. Just like passing a law against underage drinking hasn't stopped underage drinking.

The kids in my local park all have bikes. They, or many of them, have deeply impressive technical ability.

They don't wear helmets and they are all embarrasingly teenage-pissed every Friday night. Laws won't change things.


----------



## very-near (28 Sep 2009)

Helmet testing portugese style 


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P-1a_e_Yz8&feature=related


----------



## 661-Pete (29 Sep 2009)

Hmmmm.....



babs01 said:


> For me, helmet compulsion = prevention of many cyclists' full enjoyment of the activity, and deterrence from cycling; leading to increased incidence of cardiovascular disease etc. etc.....  For those who say a helmet offers limited protection, I'd like to say that 'little bit of protection' can make all the a little bit of difference.


FTFY


----------



## 4F (1 Oct 2009)

coruskate said:


> And how would you feel if they were to sustain a brain injury due to
> - falling off a climbing frame
> - slipping on an icy pavement
> - falling out of a tree
> ...



Exactly


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Oct 2009)

very-near said:


> You are a radiologist (IIRC), you see the patients and know how the trauma's occur from their notes/dialogue CB. How many brain injuries do do you see from cycling in a year ?



I am a radiographer with extensive experience of A/E and CT scanning (now involved in PET CT imaging). 

Very few, I used to see more pedestrian and drunks, however referring to my personal experience is not "evidential" - for this reason I quote peer reviewed and published evidence from papers such ads the BMJ.

Typical are the cohort studies. One such study that I often refer to is by Thornhill and colleagues who simply took ALL head injuries admitted in Glasgow Hospitals, no exclusions or bias. Cyclists as a presenting group did not even rate a mention!


Wardlaw in the BMJ also puts this into contct:



> Let us examine the facts. The inherent risks of road cycling are trivial. Of at least 3.5 million regular cyclists in Britain, only about 10 a year are killed in rider only accidents. This compares with about 350 people younger than 75 killed each year falling down steps or tripping. Six times as many pedestrians as cyclists are killed by motor traffic, yet travel surveys show annual mileage walked is only five times that cycled; a mile of walking must be more “dangerous” than a mile of cycling.


----------

