Compulsory cycle helmets - what's the proof

[Woz!]

Is it possible to tack an ammendment on the end so that this also applies to pedestrians, given that the weight of evidence shows they would benefit more from wearing helmets?

 

[Davidc]

Is it possible to tack an ammendment on the end so that this also applies to pedestrians, given that the weight of evidence shows they would benefit more from wearing helmets?

As there are more car drivers than cyclists who are killed or seriously injured it would be reasonable to include them as well. After all, they already have to wear seat belts and we don't!

 

[Woz!]

No point - the motor industry is a VERY powerful lobby group. It would never get on the statute.
But who would defend the peds? Helmet manufacturers would love it too.

 

[TrevorM]

Who's telling anyone not to wear helmets?


Some people are saying that helmets should be compulsory and others arguing against that, but I just don't see how you get to this statement.

Has anybody noticed a hardening of the anti-compulsion position. I am strongly anti-compulsion but I can't agree with the following argument I heard last week. There was a similar headline in the CTC magazine but I don't think this is what the CTC meant to imply.................
1) Compulsary helmet laws result in a significant drop in the numbers of people cycling. This is a major public health issue because more people will then die of diseases such as heart attack, stroke etc. etc.
2) But even without such laws, many people don't cycle because they think it is dangerous. One reason is that they see cyclists wearing helmets - so it must be very dangerous
3) Therefore helmet wearing is the same type of public health issue as smoking. Helmet wearing in public should be banned. Helmet wearers should feel guilty about wearing in front of children.

 

[TrevorM]

There was a full debate on compulsory cycle helmet legislation in the Northern Ireland Assembly this week. A fine of £50 to be introduced. The full text of the debate - interesting reading - can be found at http://www.niassembl...10/110131.htm#j

The legislation was passed by 2 votes to the second stage.

If you ignore the depressing result, my favourite part of the whole debate was this from the only cyclist MLA in the debate....

"Mr McDevitt: I suppose that I should declare an interest in the debate. I arrived here this morning by bike, and, when we eventually leave here, I will do so by bike. It is worth noting that, weighing 7 kg, my bike is very light. When I cycle down the hill, it will probably hit around 35 miles an hour. Coming off anything at that speed is dangerous, so I never get on a bicycle without a helmet, irrespective of what other clothes I might have on."

so his argument was that he needed a helmet because he breaks the legal speed limits in an urban area. And nobody picked up on that despite many comments throughout the debate about supporting a 20mph limit in such areas.

 

[pshore]

Arrg, bangs head on table without helmet

They should be made to watch the Mikael Colville Andersen video. We need helmets for babies !

 

[MarkF]

Hmm, my mothers dog is about to pop it's clogs, she's 72 now and not going to get another, I was a bit worried as she goes for long walks with it every day, that keeps her fit and healthy. I've been trying to get her to cycle, even lent her my folder, no luck though. However, this week she surprsied me by saying she was going on a cycle course, council sponsored and aimed at oap's.

It was in park, on grass, she took her friend, they came home without taking part, they didn't want to wear helmets. Why? Because they didn't want to, but mainly, I suspect, because they'd had their hair done.

 

[Davidc]

so his argument was that he needed a helmet because he breaks the legal speed limits in an urban area.

Sorry Trevor, but he doesn't.

UK wide, speed limits only apply to MOTOR vehicles. They don't apply to horse drawn vehicles, pedestrian vehicles, or pedal cycles.

Byelaws can be introduced limiting speeds for any of those vehicle categories in a specific place. Richmond park and Bournemouth sea front come to mind for bikes, and some parks have no galloping or cantering restrictions.

 

[TrevorM]

Sorry Trevor, but he doesn't.

UK wide, speed limits only apply to MOTOR vehicles. They don't apply to horse drawn vehicles, pedestrian vehicles, or pedal cycles.

Byelaws can be introduced limiting speeds for any of those vehicle categories in a specific place. Richmond park and Bournemouth sea front come to mind for bikes, and some parks have no galloping or cantering restrictions.

I knew that but had forgotten in my enjoyment of the moment. Now I'm left only with the result

 

[Dan B]

his argument was that he needed a helmet because he breaks the legal speed limits in an urban area.

As the law stands currently, who or what exactly is stopping him from wearing a helmet if he thinks it will help?

 

[dellzeqq]

Old people should be made to wear rubber rings at all time. Think of the savings the NHS could make on hip replacement surgery.

you probably know more about this than me, but the last time I looked 8000 old people a year died after falling. Skipping the argument about the effectiveness of helmets, how many cyclists died from head injuries.

 

[JoysOfSight]

Has anybody noticed a hardening of the anti-compulsion position. I am strongly anti-compulsion but I can't agree with the following argument I heard last week. There was a similar headline in the CTC magazine but I don't think this is what the CTC meant to imply.................
1) Compulsary helmet laws result in a significant drop in the numbers of people cycling. This is a major public health issue because more people will then die of diseases such as heart attack, stroke etc. etc.
2) But even without such laws, many people don't cycle because they think it is dangerous. One reason is that they see cyclists wearing helmets - so it must be very dangerous
3) Therefore helmet wearing is the same type of public health issue as smoking. Helmet wearing in public should be banned. Helmet wearers should feel guilty about wearing in front of children.

So, what do you conclude instead of #3? Although I don't think helmets should be banned, I strongly agree with 1 and 2 above.

So here's a straight and honest question - why is it acceptable to campaign for a law to prosecute everyone who rides a bike if they *don't* wear a helmet, but not acceptable to follow through the "net loss of public health" argument to campaign *against* wearing one?

It's probably very much to the point that the entirety of the CTC's submission on mandatory helmet laws was dismissed because "when they ride bikes themselves, they wear helmets".

 

[JoysOfSight]

you probably know more about this than me, but the last time I looked 8000 old people a year died after falling. Skipping the argument about the effectiveness of helmets, how many cyclists died from head injuries.

In Northern Ireland, there were no cyclist deaths in 2009 or 2010 and no child cyclist deaths since 2005 - according to the Assembly.

 

[shunter]

If you ignore the depressing result, my favourite part of the whole debate was this from the only cyclist MLA in the debate....

"Mr McDevitt: I suppose that I should declare an interest in the debate. I arrived here this morning by bike, and, when we eventually leave here, I will do so by bike. It is worth noting that, weighing 7 kg, my bike is very light. When I cycle down the hill, it will probably hit around 35 miles an hour. Coming off anything at that speed is dangerous, so I never get on a bicycle without a helmet, irrespective of what other clothes I might have on."

so his argument was that he needed a helmet because he breaks the legal speed limits in an urban area. And nobody picked up on that despite many comments throughout the debate about supporting a 20mph limit in such areas.

I think he is specifically referring to the fact that he can get up to 35mph coming down the hill from Stormont to Dundonald House. I have done it myself. It is only the speed bumps at the bottom that prevents you going faster. The good news is that the speed bumps where removed last week so I reckon 40mph is achievable.

Your assessment of the debate is spot on though. A fine of £50 on not wearing a helmet on any open space is unenforcable and the waifer system is laughable.

 

[numbnuts]

how many cyclists died from head injuries

if it's one, it's one too many