Compulsory cycle helmets - what's the proof

[Mad at urage]

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?

On different occasions I've been asked by ambulance crew (no I wasn't but my eye protection saved my sight), police (when I reported a 'road rage' incident!).

What difference? It should make none and for many years I've resisted wearing one. I think the balance of bureaucracy is changing and feel that this is one fight too many for me . I'll leave it to the other, more motivated opponents to resist the creeping tide of conformity. Perhaps one day I'll stop wearing one again, but meanwhile ... it does stabilise the veho movie (set into a cut-away of the padding ) much more than the elasticated headband! .

Edit: And if I'm moaned at about the attached lights, the answer is "You are criticising me for attempting to make myself more visible?".

 

[Ravenbait]

it would be a psychological thing for some people, if it were compulsory, that they would naturally feel safer going out on a bike, then it being optional now - perhaps

Eh what?

How does that work? How does "we insist you wear one of these things because cycling is dangerous enough to require protective equipment" make anyone feel safer?

Sam

 

[Origamist]

Eh what?

How does that work? How does "we insist you wear one of these things because cycling is dangerous enough to require protective equipment" make anyone feel safer?

Sam

Presumably risk compensation?

 

[JoysOfSight]

The frustrating thing about the BMA stance is that it's driven by (effectively) asking neurosurgeons or trauma specialists whether, when they have someone with a head injury on the operating table, they'd like them to have worn a helmet or not. That's a bit like asking someone who you're about to stab whether they'd like a stab vest or not - it bears little resemblence to the question that we should be asking.

Asking GPs, cardiologists etc. whether they think it's better to have 250,000+ annual deaths from sedentary disease, or a couple of dozen fatal head injuries from cycling, and you'd get a wholly different answer.

The obvious point to make about the hon. member who flies downhill at 35mph every day is not so much that his helmet will do jack if he face-plants a wall at such speed, but simply that if he wasn't wearing one, he might not fly downhill at 35mph in the first place.

 

[shunter]

For those who would be prepared to watch the rivetting Northern Ireland assembly debate on cycle helmets . Here is the link http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/northern_ireland/newsid_9378000/9378567.stm

Sorry, no subtitles

 

[classic33]

http://www.sydneycyclist.com/forum/topics/drivers-to-wear-head

As for being asked if I was wearing one & who asked. Police call taker, after she had told me to remove it, so that she could understand me.
Full face helmet being worn at the time.

Sort of defeats the object of wearing one IF those who may be policing it ask you to remove it so they can talk to you.

 

[Norm]

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.

Thanks for the lesson.

Mounting stuff on your helmet not only removes any potential benefit but significantly increases the danger that they pose, IMO.

It was a general point, not aimed specifically at anyone, just something for people to cogitate over rather than just blithely stick stuff through their vents.

And your last line is rather bizarre, IMO. I'd love to hear how the car industry benefits. I would say that I'm "all ears", but then my helmet wouldn't fit very well.

 

[Supersonicscientist]

Never worn one and not likely to in the future .I would however say that it should be compulsory for kids up to the age of 16 to wear one whilst on the road but i doubt that this would be enforceable ..

 

[blubb]

That job should be up to the parents to be enforced and not the government.

 

[Woz!]

Never worn one and not likely to in the future .I would however say that it should be compulsory for kids up to the age of 16 to wear one whilst on the road but i doubt that this would be enforceable ..

The kids are the ones that you're MOST likely to put off with a helmet enforcement policy!
And if you put them off as kids, you're going to have a much tougher job getting them on to a bike as an adult.

 

[MarkF]

The kids are the ones that you're MOST likely to put off with a helmet enforcement policy!
And if you put them off as kids, you're going to have a much tougher job getting them on to a bike as an adult.

I agree with you Woz, I made it compulsory for my kids (9, 12 &16) not to wear them. I didn't want the association of "danger" with their cycles. My heart sinks when I see kids on family outings wearing helmets, knee pads and hi-viz vests, I bet some can't wait to ditch their bikes, what a palaver!

 

[Banjo]

Around here the police dont seem to notice the unlit stealth riders the pavement riders or red light jumpers so I cant see them getting out of their comfy little cars to worry about helmet wearing should it ever become compulsory.

The odd thing is that I nearly allways wear one but would be quite sad if they were made compulsory.

 

[400bhp]

The text of the CTC submission is here.

I found that CTC article pretty poor and full of holes.

 

[400bhp]

Just started to read the NI Bill

I have introduced the Bill to the House and brought it to Second Stage because those parents asked me to do it

Should such emotive opinions by a very small minority lead to a potential change of the law to affect the majority?

I hope that the House and the Department will give very serious consideration to the Bill. When I considered and consulted on whether the scope of the legislation should include adults as well as children, I spoke to a number of cyclists. Many adults who cycle said that they sometimes wear a helmet and that, sometimes, they do not. Often, for quick journeys, they do not bother with a helmet just because of the convenience. Many of them said that, if the legislation were in place, they would spend the extra minute or two fitting the helmet. Therefore, I decided that the legislation should cover all age groups, not just children.

So, he's increased the potential legislation to cover adults based on his own anecdotal evidence.

 

[blubb]

Proper use of a cycle helmets by a country that is a lot more advanced in this topic.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlaAt1p6Y5Q