Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[StuartG]

What's the point of wearing one in "obviously hazardous conditions"? They are not anything to do with the conditions the helmet has been designed to handle. For example at 50kph you are only about ten time over its maximum design limit. You might as well suggest the soldiers wear a t-shirt in Afghanistan to protect them from the hazards of bullets and shrapnel.

Naughty, naughty - you would not be trying to undermine a post by selectively unquoting the bit that addressed your point would you? Come on, you are too nice a chap to do that ...

 

[jonesy]

I hate to say it but the TRL report was slated for good reason. There's an interesting critique of it here.

Yes, I've seen it. I have no objection to people criticising the methodology, it is fair game in research, especially as government commissioned projects like this doesn't have a formal peer review process, unlike research coouncil funded work (this is unfortunately a widespread problem in transport research, as so much is commissioned as consultancy projects by government bodies and agencies, and I know from personal experience how clients can try to influence findings of such projects). What I thought was unfair was the accusation of dishonesty, which makes it personal. And as I said, knowing some of the authors, I don't accept that charge. And let's not forget that one of the authors is a former CTC campaigns manager who most definitely cannot be accused of holding pro-compulsionist biases!

 

[GrumpyGregry]

About five attempts in Parliament in about eight years doesn't sound like "none" to me. There was a time in the last decade when there was a real risk of something getting on the Statutes - the Road Safety Act for example - and only determined campaigning by CTC & others plus the briefing and help of a number of members of the House of Lords kept the amendment out. But that was a close call and it only needed the Goverment to have owed a favour to an MP for it to have got through. I agree the chances are less now because of all that hard work but it would be easy to slip back.

Which of the five attempts were successful? None. As in parliament were having none of it.

 

[Red Light]

Which of the five attempts were successful? None. As in parliament were having none of it.

So far. Having tried five times do you think they will have given up or will they regroup and try again? And then can you guarantee that future attempts will not be successful? We need to win every time. They only need to win once.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

So far. Having tried five times do you think they will have given up or will they regroup and try again? And then can you guarantee that future attempts will not be successful? We need to win every time. They only need to win once.

Nothing in life is guaranteed.

 

[Red Light]

Naughty, naughty - you would not be trying to undermine a post by selectively unquoting the bit that addressed your point would you? Come on, you are too nice a chap to do that ...

No. You suggested a crude definition of "seriously hazardous" as a speed that exceeds the helmets design limit by a factor ten. Be my guest at trying to design a helmet to that speed but the laws of physics are against you.

 

[Linford]

I've missed a key point of logic somewhere obviously. Why would you wear a helmet designed to protect against 16kph impacts when you're going 3 times that speed?

You can get brain damage from falling off a kerb and banging your head on the pavement. It is not unreasonable for people who are moving more quickly than walking pace to have some sort of head protection.

Just because we don't protect our heads as a matter of course, doesn't mean we shouldn't.....

 

[martint235]

You can get brain damage from falling off a kerb and banging your head on the pavement. It is not unreasonable for people who are moving more quickly than walking pace to have some sort of head protection.

Just because we don't protect our heads as a matter of course, doesn't mean we shouldn't.....

Yes but perhaps head protection for the job in hand might be an idea. You wouldn't wear an oven glove to pick up molten lead would you?

 

[mcshroom]

If we are using ovens, a better analogy would be the ovens in the 1980s that had dangerously hot doors on them. Instead of removing the problem by making better doors (which they did do), perhaps they should have made oven glove weraing compulsory in the kitchen.

 

[Linford]

Yes but perhaps head protection for the job in hand might be an idea. You wouldn't wear an oven glove to pick up molten lead would you?

Another failing of the licensing is to allow a lid to be made and sold which really isn't fit for purpose. If they can manage to do this for motorcyclists with the ECE 2205, and gold star ACU badging to certify a minimum standard, then why are the cycling community let down so badly with the current offering - you'd not buy a m/cycle lid from Argos !

Compulsion in law for motorcyclists also means that the strap needs to be done up for them to be classed as a 'worn item' for compliance and punishable with a fine.

The fact that people say that cycle helmets are not effective in their present form means that they should be made a legal requirement and they must reach an agreed minimum standard of construction, and effectiveness.

Motorcyclists spend a lot of money on lids, and the fit is very much emphasized before they leave the shop with them (well you do want to know it fits properly when you spend £100+ on something which you will look to replace in 3 years time)

 

[dellzeqq]

So far. Having tried five times do you think they will have given up or will they regroup and try again? And then can you guarantee that future attempts will not be successful? We need to win every time. They only need to win once.

I don't even go along with that. The chances of legislation coming about has receded to the far margins of probability, but, just to hypothesise, if legislation were passed the chances of it surviving for any length of time would be slim. The immediate fallout - a reduction in the number of commuting cyclists, the loss of bike shops and the hit taken to sustainable transport (which, for all their shortcomings, all parties have signed up to) would be bearable - but I seriously doubt whether the police would enforce it - they've got enough to do.

You'll doubtless consider me an optimist, but I do seriously think that a helmet law would bring about a result that very, very few people, other than a few rabid cyclist haters, want

 

[Red Light]

I don't even go along with that. The chances of legislation coming about has receded to the far margins of probability, but, just to hypothesise, if legislation were passed the chances of it surviving for any length of time would be slim. The immediate fallout - a reduction in the number of commuting cyclists, the loss of bike shops and the hit taken to sustainable transport (which, for all their shortcomings, all parties have signed up to) would be bearable - but I seriously doubt whether the police would enforce it - they've got enough to do.

You'll doubtless consider me an optimist, but I do seriously think that a helmet law would bring about a result that very, very few people, other than a few rabid cyclist haters, want

For optimists things nearly always turn out worse than they expect. OTOH for pessimists have things turn out better than they expect. Given the consequences you set out I'd rather not leave it to hope and expectation. The way politics works helmets could quite easily be the consequence of the barter to achieve another political objective.

 

[Red Light]

Another failing of the licensing is to allow a lid to be made and sold which really isn't fit for purpose. If they can manage to do this for motorcyclists with the ECE 2205, and gold star ACU badging to certify a minimum standard, then why are the cycling community let down so badly with the current offering - you'd not buy a m/cycle lid from Argos

Have you actually looked at what the spec of motorcycle helmets means? It's for a maximum impact speed IIRC of about 20mph. So not much better than a cycle helmet.

 

[MarkF]

- you'd not buy a m/cycle lid from Argos !

I would. If it was cheap enough.

Motorcyclists spend a lot of money on lids, and the fit is very much emphasized before they leave the shop with them (well you do want to know it fits properly when you spend £100+ on something which you will look to replace in 3 years time)

I spend as little as possible, always have, I also wear them for many years not 3. Hasn't anybody told the cops in Spain it's dangerous to ride in short sleeved nylon shirts, nylon office trousers, open face lids and standard shoes?

 

[ufkacbln]

Quote from Giovanni Treduci.

" The most common injuries the medical team sees at races are fractured collarbones. Before helmets were made compulsory it was head trauma injuries, my area of expertise.

...and, as with a lot of Medics the fallacy of "evidence based practice" is ignored when they spout tripe like this.

To be factual the most common injuries seen by Doctors in professional cyclists are "over use" injuries, and when it comes to trauma fractures are way, way down the list.

One study showed:
That fractures were not that common:

The most common injury types were abrasions (63%) followed by contusions (23%) and strains (8%).

That clavicles are not even the most common site

Knee (18%), wrist and palms (16%), shoulder and clavicle (16%), elbow (14%) and femur (14%) were the most common sites of injury

Finally Major injuries such as fractures were only 8% of injuries.

The number of minor injuries (92%) was significantly higher than that of moderate and severe injuries

Another medic trying to make unfounded claims to support a personal agenda?