Compulsory cycle helmets - what's the proof

[TrevorM]

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

Nothing. I was just having a bit of fun pointing out he needed a helmet to keep him safe while breaking the law. But as pointed out above I was wrong and the speed limits don't apply.

 

[blubb]

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.

That argument is quite funny, since helmets only help in small and medium size accidents. If you hit something head on at 35mph your helmet won't protect you.

Thinking 35mph on a bicycle is safe, because you wear a helmet is another wrong assumption done by many.

 

[bornagainst]

Just out of interest, I believe Australia has compulsory helmet regulations. But I just spent 3 weeks in Perth, and there was a lot of people cycling without helmets (40c heat!). Fremantle was the same, some cyclists did wear them, some didn't.

I hired a bike for a week and was given a helmet that looked like it cost less than a tenner ten years ago, it was basically unwearable.

I'm firmly of the 'wear one if you want' camp, and I do...

 

[MacB]

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".

if you follow that chain of thought then you end up with prosecuting people for not taking enough exercise

 

[Woz!]

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

Then I suggest you never leave the house as you don't seem to want to asses risks based on their net benefit.

You certainly don't want to go getting in a car!

 

[Dan B]

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

And how many pedestrians?

 

[TrevorM]

if you follow that chain of thought then you end up with prosecuting people for not taking enough exercise

No that's a different argument. Not exercising has an effect on your health not others.
The anti-helmet argument is that wearing them reinforces the image that cycling is dangerous and influences other people's behaviour to the detriment of their health. Smoking adverts are banned because they promote unhealthy behaviour, therefore helmet adverts should be banned using the same logic.

 

[tyred]

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

I undestand 1,100 people die every year in the UK from falling down stairs in their own home. I trust you wear a helmet while going upstairs to bed every night?

 

[TrevorM]

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.

I don't know. I also agree with 1 and 2. I suppose if 1 and 2 are true then logically 3 must be true. But that's not practical.

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 shouldn't be. The BMA position has a lot of influence with DOT which in turn influences policy here. I would like to see a more balance position from the BMA that reflects public health as a whole rather than just the A&E view. I remember one comment from a doctor in the BMA debate, something like..... "you occasionally see cyclists in A&E with head injuries but you never see them in the stroke or cardiac wards"

 

[Mad at urage]

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

"The risk in cycling is low", "Risk assessment prior to the introduction of helmet laws in Australia showed pedestrians faced higher risks than cyclists, and car occupants equal risk"
(source http://www.healthandtransportgroup.co.uk/research/Ch_2_Active_transport_Cycling.pdf)

The risk for people dying of illnesses brought on by lack of exercise is significantly higher than the risk to cyclists of not wearing a helmet.

I trust you are actively campaigning for pedestrians and car drivers to be forced by law to wear helmets?

I trust you are actively campaigning for compulsory PT for everyone, every morning (and we can all be monitored through the viewscreens, to ensure we take part enthusiastically).

 

[numbnuts]

I undestand 1,100 people die every year in the UK from falling down stairs in their own home. I trust you wear a helmet while going upstairs to bed every night?

I live in a flat and there's a lift

 

[Mad at urage]

I'd be more worried about those things creating impact points and snag points which not only negates any possible benefits but is equivalent to adding spikes to your skull.

My lights and camera are mounted on a stretchy head band which is secured with velcro and sits under and within the profile of the helmet.

But then I'm not wearing it to protect my head, I'm wearing it because of the inevitable "Were you wearing a helmet?" if someone drives their car into my ankle in a traffic jam (or pulls my front wheel out by the axle, using their wheel arch, or catches my pedal in their wheel arch and pulls me along at 30+ - both have happened!).

Helmets are designed to protect in an impact of less than 12mph which does not involve another moving vehicle. "Evidence" that they help at all at greater speeds is largely anecdotal and the BMA u-turn in 2005 was based on a single - flawed - study (and what behind the scenes pressure, one wonders).

The lights and camera on your stretchy band would still be next to your head if your head impacts a solid object, some of mine (the front light) are separated by the thickness of the padding: I wouldn't worry too much though, it certainly never gives me any concern over potential head injury to walk along with a head-torch on my bonce and yet pedestrians are more at risk of head injury than cyclists (see my last post for reference).

The Great Helmet Debate is a complete distraction, promoted by the car industry.

 

[TrevorM]

I think several people have said they wear a helmet just in case of accident and getting asked "Were you wearing a helmet?"
As there is no legal requirement to wear one then who asks you this question? What difference does the answer make?

 

[TrevorM]

I live in a flat and there's a lift

Be careful of those lift doors

 

[Woz!]

I think several people have said they wear a helmet just in case of accident and getting asked "Were you wearing a helmet?"
As there is no legal requirement to wear one then who asks you this question? What difference does the answer make?

When it comes to claiming damages, several insurance companies have apparently raised the lack of helmet as negligence on the part of the cyclist and attempted to get a reduced payout agreed by the court.

If I didn't have kids I wouldn't care, but if some driver turns me into a vegatable I want my kids to get as much financial support as possible with no way for the insurance company to wiggle out of it.