if helmets became compulsory...

[Bicycle]

What you believe has nothing to do with reality though. In every jurisdiction where helmet wearing has been made mandatory and enforced cycling has dropped significantly and particularly in the under 16s where decreases of up to 90% have been seen.

A study of UK towns showed that cycling declined in those where helmets were promoted but grew in those where they weren't.

Several cities are now repealing mandatory helmet laws because their Boris Bike equivalents are incompatible with mandatory helmets. Those that haven't, most noticeably in Australia and New Zealand, have bike hire schemes that are largely unused compared to the great successes in London, Paris, Dublin, Barcelona.......

Have a look at this Australian view of Dublin compared with Melbourne and the impact of mandatory helmets.

I'm not sure it matters whether what I believe has anything to do with reality in this case. In truth, what I believe has quite a lot to do with reality, but in this case I may be mistaken. My comment began:
"I don't believe for a moment that cycle helmets will become compulsory, but if they do then very few people will stop cycling."

I continue not to believe that cycle helmets will become compulsory. It is likely my belief will prove well-founded.

In the unlikely event that I'm wrong, I believe there will be very little impact on the numbers who cycle in the UK.

Indeed, as energy prices rise and cycling becomes more accepted I wouldn't be surprised if compulsory lycra failed to put people off.

Studies are huge fun on the right day and comparisons between studies are great when it's raining, but nobody I know would stop cycling because of a helmet law. Most of my friends are not keen cyclists. They just ride bikes because it's fun or makes sense. They would continue to do so.

I need not go beyond the conditional tense because I'm confident that no such Act will be passed in the UK.

You commented: "A study of UK towns showed that cycling declined in those where helmets were promoted but grew in those where they weren't."

I don't live under a blanket and I do occasionally watch the News, but I'd never realised that there were two distinct types of town; those where helmets are promoted and those where they aren't. That's the sort of statistic that gives statistics a bad name. In fact 73% of statisticians have grave misgivings about such data.

Promoted how? By whom? To what end?

Not promoted how? Not promoted by whom? Not promoted to what end?

How can two towns in the same study either promote or not promote helmet use with equal vigour.

Over what period of time? In which season?

It isn't going to happen - and if it did the impact would be minimal.

There was a huge and passionate debate in the mid-80s (when I was a bike courier) about proposals to introduce mandatory leg guards on all new motorcycles. The debates, petitions and heated arguments were endless and hilarious.... but it was never going to happen and never did.

 

[Red Light]

I continue not to believe that cycle helmets will become compulsory. It is likely my belief will prove well-founded.

Really? Jersey now has it; Northern Ireland had a close escape. Then in the UK we've had Martlew EDM, and the subsequent attempt to insert it into another Act going through Parliament and more recently Peter Bone all agitating for a mandatory helmet law. The Government has simply said it won't consider one until there is a sufficient level of helmet wearing to make it viable. So I wouldn't have your faith and but for the efforts of a small band of cyclists we could very well have had one by now.

In the unlikely event that I'm wrong, I believe there will be very little impact on the numbers who cycle in the UK.

And that is a belief that is inconsistent with the evidence. Cycling use in those countries which have introduce helmet laws has dropped significantly - typically 30-50% and by up to 90% in children.

Studies are huge fun on the right day and comparisons between studies are great when it's raining, but nobody I know would stop cycling because of a helmet law. Most of my friends are not keen cyclists. They just ride bikes because it's fun or makes sense. They would continue to do so.

Ah, so nationally derived statistics are wrong but your anecdotal survey of a few friends is right. I see.

You commented: "A study of UK towns showed that cycling declined in those where helmets were promoted but grew in those where they weren't."

I don't live under a blanket and I do occasionally watch the News, but I'd never realised that there were two distinct types of town; those where helmets are promoted and those where they aren't. That's the sort of statistic that gives statistics a bad name. In fact 73% of statisticians have grave misgivings about such data.

Promoted how? By whom? To what end?

Not promoted how? Not promoted by whom? Not promoted to what end?

How can two towns in the same study either promote or not promote helmet use with equal vigour.

I can see you are having trouble with the concept that some councils run helmet promotion campaigns and others don't and that when it was investigated the former showed a drop in cycling while the latter showed a rise.

"Eleven Local Authorities reported that they had held
short cycle helmet campaigns, when activities were
focused solely on the promotion of helmets. The changes
in wearing rates between 1994 and 1996 in these regions
were compared with those who had not held such a
campaign (Table 16). A significantly greater increase in
helmet wearing was found among those who had held a
short, focused campaign than those who had not
(p<0.001). However, the overall numbers of cyclists
observed in areas which had held such a campaign fell
significantly by 2.8%, versus a 4.9% increase in the other
areas (p<0.001)."
TRL Report 286.

Denmark started promoting cycle helmets about three years ago and for the first time in decades saw a drop in cycling.

It isn't going to happen - and if it did the impact would be minimal.

Ah yes, the good old proof by assertion fallacy.

 

[ufkacbln]

Im sorry this makes you so angry, it was not my intention. I'm surpirsed such a short statement and somebody elses opinion would make you so angry that you feel compelled to reduce it to its constituant parts with numerous long, multi quoted threads. It is a little bizzare that this can lead you into this anxious state. Its just a comment on a forum, I dont think it should make you so stressed.

I must admit, youve lost me with your latest post, its become way to clouded now, if I cannot explain my point in the threads above Im not sure I can make it clear to you, I'll let others make up their own minds rather than continue with the repitition.

Nicely avoided... are you pro-compulsion or not?

 

[Bicycle]

Ah yes, the good old proof by assertion fallacy.

Errrr..... No Act will be passed in the UK. Parliament won't even debate it in any serious way.

If an Act is passed I'll eat my cycling helmet.

I will then buy another and wear it when cycling.

I wasn't trying to prove anything, by assertion or any other means; I was just stating my belief that there will be no act and that if there is it will have little effect.

It's a belief, not a credo. I may be wildly wrong. It won't change my life or my shoe size.

However, I am rarely wrong. I suspect I am right.

But theoretically, your concerns about the impact on cycling behaviour in the UK (based on the introduction of laws on a small Channel Island and some antipodean former colonies) might have some validity if Parliament ever wakes up one morning and finds itself so utterly bored it has to debate and vote on matters of no consequence to any of its members' constituents.

There will be no compulsory helmet law for bicycles in the UK and if there is it will have no impact.

If I am wrong, am I allowed mayonnaise and pepper on my punishment meal?

 

[Red Light]

Errrr..... No Act will be passed in the UK. Parliament won't even debate it in any serious way.

You've missed all the serious debates about cycle helmets that have already taken place in Parliament then? This one for example on the Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill ran to many pages of Hansard in the House of Commons and this one on an amendment to the Road Safety Bill in the House of Lords was definitely a serious debate.

Still sure Parliament won't even debate it in any serious way?

 

[Bicycle]

You've missed all the serious debates about cycle helmets that have already taken place in Parliament then? This one for example on the Protective Headgear for Young Cyclists Bill ran to many pages of Hansard in the House of Commons and this one on an amendment to the Road Safety Bill in the House of Lords was definitely a serious debate.

Still sure Parliament won't even debate it in any serious way?

No Bill passed.

No Act.

Yes, I'm still waiting for a serious debate.

Many pages of Hansard do not a Law make.

The speaker coughing might get into Hansard - and if he/she is bronchitic that might go to a few pages.

I take the HoL very seriously as a moderating chamber, but not as a forum for debating issues like these.

There will be no Act. There will be no compulsion. If there is, I will do as I promised and eat a cycling helmet.

Further; if there is, few people will be put off. I do not take studies in the Channel Islands or former colonies very seriously.

 

[Red Light]

No Bill passed.

No Act.

Yes, I'm still waiting for a serious debate.

Many pages of Hansard do not a Law make.

Wow!! Look at those goal posts move!!!

The speaker coughing might get into Hansard - and if he/she is bronchitic that might go to a few pages.

So you haven't bothered to read either of the debates then.

I take the HoL very seriously as a moderating chamber, but not as a forum for debating issues like these.

They were introducing amendments to the Road Safety Bill before sending it back to the House of Commons. A number of those amendments passed into the Road Safety Act 2006. There were three separate debates on helmets before the helmet amendment was rejected. You really don't have a clue what has gone on and just how close we came to a mandatory helmet law in the UK do you? It was only concerted lobbying of members of the House of Lords that resulted in an informed debate and that particular amendment being rejected.

There will be no Act. There will be no compulsion. If there is, I will do as I promised and eat a cycling helmet.

Further; if there is, few people will be put off. I do not take studies in the Channel Islands or former colonies very seriously.

You are entitled to your opinion and you can ignore studies in the UK (not the Channel Islands) if you wish. But that makes it clearly a matter of faith on your part, not an evidence based position. But its irrelevant what you think because I couldn't care a less if you had to eat your helmet if you are wrong. I do care a lot though about being forced to wear a helmet and the impact it will have on cycling. Boris Bikes are doing great things for cycling in London and there is a very clear divide. Those places with no helmet laws - London, Barcelona, Paris... - have flourishing cycle share schemes, those with helmet laws -Melbourne, Brisbane, Auckland - have cycle share schemes that are languishing unused. Some - Mexico, Israel, Hungary - have withdrawn their helmet laws so they can have successful cycle share schemes.

But there is no point in continuing this exchange as for you its clearly an article of faith irrespective of any evidence.

 

[Bicycle]

Wow!! Look at those goal posts move!!!



So you haven't bothered to read either of the debates then.


No... I did once read Les Miserables from start to finish in French, but I haven't got onto Hansaerd yet....


You are entitled to your opinion... But its irrelevant what you think because I couldn't care a less if you had to eat your helmet if you are wrong. I do care a lot though about being forced to wear a helmet and the impact it will have on cycling.

I suppose that's where we differ. I care not a jot about a Law which will not be passed and which has yet to be passed in any form. Even if it were passed, which sort of idiot would cease to do something they love doing just because they were required to wear a hat?

But there is no point in continuing this exchange as for you its clearly an article of faith irrespective of any evidence.

I didn't seek this exchange. I just put my opinion onto the thread and it elicited some dissent. I don't recall ever moving any goalposts either.

We seem not to have convinced one another.

You seem to be taking it all jolly seriously and I seem not to give a fig.

The Law will not be passed in the UK.

If in some bizarre parallel legislature powered by Jelly Babies such a law is passed, it will have no significant effect on the number of people who cycle.

I base this view on no data and it is nothing more than my opinion.

However, on this matter I am right. I often am.

 

[ufkacbln]

Even for a pro-compulsionist (not put anything refering to that here, this is your assumption based on historical threads.

I realise that coming clean about your pro-compulsion motives may be difficult, but please let's make this clear....... this is not an assumption, but an unequivocal statement on your part. Claiming it is only an assumption is devious and underhand - You are still failing to back up the claim that this is not the case

 

[Red Light]

The Law will not be passed in the UK.

If in some bizarre parallel legislature powered by Jelly Babies such a law is passed, it will have no significant effect on the number of people who cycle.

I base this view on no data and it is nothing more than my opinion.

However, on this matter I am right. I often am.

Someone's having another go at getting one passed.

 

[david k]

do you think they will be successful?

 

[Red Light]

It would be foolish to assume it won't. That is how Jersey ended up with one and once its there, as the Australians have found, its virtually impossible to remove it. But its more likely to succeed as an amendment to another bill going through as was attempted with the Road Safety Act 2006 (took three debates in the House of Lords to get it rejected and a lot of advocacy with Peers to ensure those friendly to cycling were well briefed for the debates)

 

[MontyVeda]

cyclists protective head gear for children bill.... well thats gonna stop a lot of kids from cycling.

(my opinion based on no facts other than personal experience)

 

[david k]

It would be foolish to assume it won't. That is how Jersey ended up with one and once its there, as the Australians have found, its virtually impossible to remove it. But its more likely to succeed as an amendment to another bill going through as was attempted with the Road Safety Act 2006 (took three debates in the House of Lords to get it rejected and a lot of advocacy with Peers to ensure those friendly to cycling were well briefed for the debates)

You've made the point that the benefits of modern cycle helmets are minimal, therefore would the standards not also have to be looked at?
That would result in more robust helmets? Wouldn't this be to our advantage?

 

[david k]

cyclists protective head gear for children bill.... well thats gonna stop a lot of kids from cycling.

(my opinion based on no facts other than personal experience)

do they define what age they mean when they say children?