Helmets.....

[NotthatJasonKenny]

I think...I'll keep my opinion to myself.

 

[Raging Squirrel]

you assume wrong

 

[Red Light]

you assume wrong

So when you are walking around after cycling, why don't you wear your helmet? You've got it with you, it might protect you when you have a minor accident. Surely it makes sense to wear it rather than carry it round as you are so keen to prevent minor head injuries?

 

[Wobblers]

"I wanted to be a cyclist and I was really keen. I saved up for a bike and a pump and some lights and, like, everything... I was really looking forward to it."



"Then they changed the law and said I had to buy a helmet too. So I thought F*ck it, why bother".



"See how the Government is messing with my head?"



"Err... No. Run that past me again."

The number of cyclists has fallen everywhere compulsion has been brought in. It does have a chilling effect. It reinforces the (errorneous) stereotype that cycling is dangerous - something that most certainly puts people off. It also impacts utility cycling - I'm going to be far less inclined to cycle to the shops if I have to cart a helmet around for the simple reason that it'll stop me carrying as much shopping. That rather defeats the purpose of the exercise. It therefore marginalises cycling as not something ordinary people would do for simple convenience but as an activity which is the exlcusive preserve of very fit sportsmen.

 

[Wobblers]

you assume wrong

But you're more likely to suffer a head injury whilst walking - and the impact energies are low enough that it might actually make a difference [1]. Wearing a helmet off the bike will have a greater benefit to your safety than wearing one whilst cycling - why would you not wear one? It seems inconsistent that you would not wear a helmet for the more risky activity.

[1] Note that even here it is not possible to state categorically that a helmet will have a protective benefit: just that, on average, it is probably beneficial.

 

[Boris Bajic]

The number of cyclists has fallen everywhere compulsion has been brought in. It does have a chilling effect. It reinforces the (errorneous) stereotype that cycling is dangerous - something that most certainly puts people off. It also impacts utility cycling - I'm going to be far less inclined to cycle to the shops if I have to cart a helmet around for the simple reason that it'll stop me carrying as much shopping. That rather defeats the purpose of the exercise. It therefore marginalises cycling as not something ordinary people would do for simple convenience but as an activity which is the exlcusive preserve of very fit sportsmen.

I like the way you put that. I am myself 103% against compulsion - and your argument mirrors my views fairly closely.

I differ from others (and perhaps you, too) in that I do not find the threat of helmet compulsion in the UK a credible one.

 

[mcshroom]

You may well be right Boris, and I hope you are; but there have been some cases recently such as the Northern Ireland Childrens' Helmets Bill last year (which failed but did make it through to the second stage of legislature) that mean I'm wary of relying on that assumption.

 

[lejogger]

I differ from others (and perhaps you, too) in that I do not find the threat of helmet compulsion in the UK a credible one.

All credit to the nations/cities who have tried to impose helmet compulsion. They're weren't trying to spoil anyone's fun, they merely saw a problem and tried what they assumed to be a solution for making cycling safe and inclusive. We have to be thankful that our sport/leisure choice is the subject of discussion and indeed action, and that there is concern for us from those in power...
...but all the evidence shows that this is the wrong way to do it. In simple cycling terms, a handful of lives may be saved. In wider health terms, more lives will have be lost, and more costs will have be heaped onto the medical institutions.

Such is the strong feeling, in this country specifically, I can't believe helmet compulsion would ever be attempted. You'd also like to think that the brains in the government would be able to evaluate the case studies from around the globe and realise that the cons outweigh the pros.

I'm not for one second saying that helmets do not save lives or that anyone who wants to wear one shouldn't. If everyone wore a helmet, there may well be fewer injuries or deaths, however this specific debate is whether helmets should be mandatory for ALL and whether cycling as a whole would benefit from such a law. In my opinion it's clear that it wouldn't.

 

[Boris Bajic]

There's been 5 attempts in the last 8 years.

For all we know, there may have been ninety attempts in the last seven years to reach the moon on a pogo stick. If so, none was credible.

There have been no credible attempts to impose mandatory helmet use in the UK in my cycling life. A debate or an EDM in the house can be as significant as the fart of a young sparrow.

I do not believe things will change on this front in the next two decades.

I admire the strenuous efforts of those who brace themselves for the fight against helmet compulsion, but they might equally productively brace themselves against the threat of invasion from Mars.

Perhaps more productively...

I do not have the links for the threads on this topic, but I dare say they are out there.

 

[mcshroom]

"The chances of anything coming from Mars, we're a million to one ...
... but still they came"

 

[CotterPin]

The trouble with banging on about wearing a helmet when cycling is that other much more important messages get lost. In the tragedy that prompted Wiggins' comments, as I understand it, the cyclist had positioned himself on the left of the bus and the driver did not check his mirrors carefully enough before setting off. A helmet did not help this poor soul and it is unlikely to help somebody else who, god forbid, finds themselves in the same situation. I imagine that Wiggins was not in full possession of the facts of the incident (and of course none of use know them fully either) but I would have much preferred it if he had reinforced the message that cyclists should stay back behind large vehicles and drivers should check their mirrors before moving.

Too often on this forum and in other places, there are posts describing incidents where the poster suggests their helmet protected them. Very often these posts include descriptions of the actions that led up to the incident - usually these involve excessive speed on the part of the cyclist, not paying enough attention, not being able to stop in time, sometimes even drunk. I recently cycled the London to Brighton. One of my work colleagues was very keen that we should all wear helmets. I didn't and he gave me grief on the route. When we got to the other end I discovered that his brakes were barely functioning (luckily I was nowhere as we descended into Brighton, and luckily he got there in one piece).

He, like many others, keep hearing this siren call that they should wear a helmet. Tragically there is no similar siren call saying make sure your bike is roadworthy and don't ride up the inside of large vehicles, for example. If all those people who bang on about wearing a plastic bucket spent more time time talking about these issues then they genuinely would be saving lives.

 

[Davidc]

I sometimes wear a helmet, sometimes not. Taken across the year it's about 50/50.

If it's cold I generally do, if it's hot I never do as the risk of an accident from passing out or from sweat in my eyes is far too high. All helmets are unpleasant to wear and uncomfortable. Compulsion wouldn't stop me cycling but it would either reduce my cycling or force me to break the law in warm or hot weather (unless like many Australian cyclists I could get a doctors certificate exempting me from helmet wearing).

My reading of literature on this tells me that the only benefit from helmet wearing is less abrasion in a slow speed accident, but that at speeds over about 12 mph I'm more likely to suffer spinal or neck injuries with than without one.

The same reading tells me that normal cycling is safe enough that no PPE is needed. The same applies to walking. Both are safer than doing DIY at home, for which I usually use PPE. A risk assessment done using conventional techniques will support this.

If I were (younger and) doing BMX riding I'd wear a BMX helmet. Designed to not have protrusions that cause torsional injuries. The ventilated ones might even be better as road helmets than the low specification standard ones. Unlike road cycling BMX does justify helmet use.

My gripe is with compulsion. Why should nanny state insist on helmet wearing when doing a safe activity? There is a small risk to cycling, but most KSIs don't involve head injuries. Does nanny state have the right to insist on something which under some circumstances (see above) massively increases the likelihood of an accident?

If we were to see compulsion with any sort of enforcement we can be sure that the effort would come out of the pool which should be enforcing traffic law in areas where a significant risk is being caused. That in itself is a good reason to object to compulsion.

Until formal and rigorous research can show a significant safety benefit from helmet wearing there shouldn't be any consideration of compulsion. Even if there were any demonstrable safety benefit this should be weighed against other contraindications, as referred to in the CTC response above.

As yet no rigorous research has, to my knowledge, ever been carried out. It would seem appropriate, if compulsion were to be under consideration, for the manufacturers of helmets to be forced to fully fund full and thorough research by an independent body such as TRRL to prove the efficacy of helmets at all speeds between 0 and 45 mph, and also to demonstrate that there is no danger caused by helmets over that range.

I'm not against helmet wearing, it should be a free choice with information available to inform that choice. I am however very strongly opposed to any form of compulsion.

On the other hand I'm with Wiggo over using headphones while riding. It ranks alongside using a mobile phone as a cause of reduced attention.

 

[jonesy]

David, regarding independent research, see this discussion here about a review that has already been carried out...
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/br...ng-laws-and-compulsory-helmets.107549/page-12

 

[GrasB]

No, because i'm not driving my car at excessive speeds and pushing it to it's limit like a pro driver does.

idea fail! 2 & 3 pt harnesses are used because they're cheap to make & install in production vehicles, retrofittable to vehicles & convenient. However they offer very limited lateral & vertical retention in a collision. So a car going onto the side of yours at 20mph can cause enough displacement to cause serious body trunk injury to the occupant with a 2 or 3 point harness. About the only thing they're really effective at is securing people from travelling forwards, they're more useful for low occupancy seats (such as rear seats) where there is a high risk of secondary injury caused by a person who is 'mobile' within the survival space of the vehicle during a collision.

If we were serious about laws for securing the person in the seat we'd be using much more effective so called 'multi-point harness'. These offer far better lateral & vertical retention of people leaving only the extremities to move about. It's not exactly hard to retro fit a vehicle with effective multi-point harnesses but it does require reenforcement of critical mounting areas as the chassis isn't designed to take high loadings in certain places. For this reason you'll find 5 point harnesses (with turn buckle release) up front in my 'daily driver', 5 point harnesses in my track car & 8 point harnesses in my rally car, all of course with decent seats.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Yes there have. The fact that they have been credible attempts is one reason why organisations such as CTC have had to expend so much time and resource on combatting them.

The assertion that compulsion is 'highly unlikely' is silly and contrary to the evidence.

I think your last sentence may depend on which evidence tickles your fancy. None has succeeded to date and indeed none has reached the stage where success seems very likely. There is no current planned attempt to change the law which looks likely to enjoy any success. To my mind, that makes the prospect of compulsion highly unlikely.

If it is not highly unlikely, what is it? A little bit likely? Moderately likely? Slightly unlikely?

There is little public support for a change.

I continue to find the introduction of mandatory helmet use on bicycles highly unlikely. You disagree.

It may not be helpful to brand as silly assertions that are out of kilter with your own views or beliefs.

I rarely wear a helmet and confidently expect to continue riding that way, quite within the law.