The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[mjr]

Compulsion for kids in France...

http://road.cc/content/news/215619-france-makes-cycle-helmets-compulsory-children-aged-11-and-under

Saving an average of zero children a year who currently die from head injuries while cycling. As in Jersey, it's nothing to do with saving children and everything to do with getting the bloody cyclists off the roads by discouraging child cycling as much as possible, in the hope that they'll never take it up or never continue into adulthood, while the increased crash rates of the fewer remaining ones who continue despite helmets (both from the reverse of Safety-in-Numbers and from the helmetting itself) removes them from the population, Darwin-style.

 

[Racing roadkill]

Compulsion for kids in France...

http://road.cc/content/news/215619-france-makes-cycle-helmets-compulsory-children-aged-11-and-under

Excellent news.

 

[srw]

Excellent news.

In that it will be widely ignored, and that someone will make a very good test case when they contest their fine - yes.

 

[jefmcg]

that someone will make a very good test case when they contest their fine - yes.

Where has that happened? In Australia it's been in force for the entire population for nearly 30 years, despite a few exceptions in court.

 

[Shut Up Legs]

Compulsion for kids in France...

http://road.cc/content/news/215619-france-makes-cycle-helmets-compulsory-children-aged-11-and-under

Excellent news.

No, it's very bad news. Australia is a perfect example of how a mandatory helmet law discourages cycling and encourages obesity and pollution. In the 25 or so years since the MHL was introduced here, cycling has never recovered. There is a definite 'pecking order' on the roads:

• larger 4-or-more wheeled vehicles;
• smaller 4-or-more wheeled vehicles;
• motorcyclists;
• pedestrians; and
• cyclists.

Cyclists are just treated like shoot over here, even on the so-called 'shared paths', intended for use for both pedestrians and cyclists, but in reality, only very grudgingly shared by most pedestrians, and not shared by many of them.

France, in contrast, was a refreshing change: motorists shared the roads with cyclists. They didn't drive perfectly all the time, but in general, they showed far more consideration towards cyclists than the motorists here, and I felt perfectly safe cycling over there.

There's a reason why Australia is one of a small minority of countries with a MHL: it's a STUPID idea.

 

[benb]

It's idiotic.
Even if helmets were 100% effective at protecting against head injuries (which even the most dogmatic helmet proponent wouldn't suggest), mandatory helmet laws are still a terrible idea, as they massively reduce the number of people cycling.

Obesity and inactivity are killers, and the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risk by at least 20:1 so any measure you take, if it reduces the number of people cycling by more than 1/20th will by definition do more harm than good.

 

[Tim Hall]

Can you explain why?

Stands to reason, doesn't it.

(This post may contain sarcasm, or traces of sarcasm)

 

[Brandane]

Compulsion for kids in France...

http://road.cc/content/news/215619-france-makes-cycle-helmets-compulsory-children-aged-11-and-under

Excellent news.

Can you explain why?

He probably can't explain, which could be the reason for his silence. A few months ago, he wasn't so keen on compulsory helmets, taking instead a much more common sense approach based on risk assessment:

However, not all my rides warrant helmet use ( subject to my risk assessment of the ride in question) and (shock horror) I do ride a lot of my trail rides / park rides / 'traffic free' routes etc. without a lid. I've never found a long road ride etc. to pass the 'should I wear a lid or not' part of the risk assessment. So I've never done these rides without a lid, since the time I didn't risk asses the ride, and found out the hard way, why that's not always a great idea. I use a fairly simple model for my assessments, and thus far, it seems to have worked well.

In typical style though, such an approach only applies to RR; the rest of us are not capable of making such decisions for ourselves in his humble opinion. As always, take his posts with a huge dollop of salt.

 

[Ian H]

I find it strange, the number of cyclists who would have died except for their (wrecked) helmets. Yet, before helmets were invented, they suffered either broken collar-bones or painful road-rash. What has changed?

 

[Racing roadkill]

I find it strange, the number of cyclists who would have died except for their (wrecked) helmets. Yet, before helmets were invented, they suffered either broken collar-bones or painful road-rash. What has changed?

Clipless pedals and traffic volumes?

 

[Racing roadkill]

@Racing roadkill it is put up or shut up. You need to justify, preferably with solid fact and figures, your compulsion ism.

I can't prove that shoving your hand in a food blender and turning it on is a bad idea, there's no scientific data, no proof, no studies, no numbers that prove that it's a bad idea. However, I personally think that doing so would be a bad move.

 

[martint235]

Clipless pedals and traffic volumes?

Not sure how clipless pedals can cause more head injuries and it's largely accepted that in an interaction with a road vehicle a helmet is going to be of little use.

 

[mjr]

I find it strange, the number of cyclists who would have died except for their (wrecked) helmets. Yet, before helmets were invented, they suffered either broken collar-bones or painful road-rash. What has changed?

Greater head impact rate due to helmet use, including increased size and weight.

Clipless pedals and traffic volumes?

Clips were a lot more difficult to get out of than clipless and cyclists seem to avoid the busiest pseudo-motorways more than they used to. I used to ride to school up a NSL trunk road sometimes and I doubt I'd do that now.

 

[srw]

I can't prove that shoving your hand in a food blender and turning it on is a bad idea, there's no scientific data, no proof, no studies, no numbers that prove that it's a bad idea. However, I personally think that doing so would be a bad move.

There's loads of data, looking at it simplest rather like this.

 

[ufkacbln]

Excellent news.

I must admit that I agree fully that this is excellent news

At last a European country where we can watch the numbers of child cyclists decrease, the mortality from other causes such as obesity decrease and even confirm the evidence that compulsion increases the head injury rate in the remaining few


In 5 years we can hopefully watch them repeal the laws, apologise to th nation for the number of children they have killed or disadvantaged and admit their mistake



...it will however not be excellent news to the victims of this legislation