The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Shut Up Legs

Down Under Member
Apropos of nothing, one theme I've noticed having viewed this debate over a few years is that the helmet wearers always seem to be tolerant of both camps, wheareas the anti-helmet guys appear to be more militant and confrontational. Sneering references to "plastic hat wearers" are very common, but the opposite (I'm guessing a comparably sneering opposite might be "bareheads", or "bandana wearers", "cap fans" or whatever, it's hard to find an example) seem to be entirely absent.
Just an observation. I'm genuinely pro choice, for everyone.
There's a few things wrong with that:
  1. I'm a helmet wearer, but I'm anti-mandatory helmet i.e. pro-choice;
  2. If you haven't seen any derogatory comments from the anti-choice proponents, then you need to read back through this thread again, because I've seen the insults fly in both directions.
 

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
Apropos of nothing, one theme I've noticed having viewed this debate over a few years is that the helmet wearers always seem to be tolerant of both camps, wheareas the anti-helmet guys appear to be more militant and confrontational. Sneering references to "plastic hat wearers" are very common, but the opposite (I'm guessing a comparably sneering opposite might be "bareheads", or "bandana wearers", "cap fans" or whatever, it's hard to find an example) seem to be entirely absent.
Just an observation. I'm genuinely pro choice, for everyone.
Really? I'd say that both on here and in real life I've noticed the exact opposite. "You will die a horrible death with your brains spread across the road" isn't exactly pleasant. Okay, I'm paraphrasing, but not much.
 

snorri

Legendary Member
Apropos of nothing, one theme I've noticed having viewed this debate over a few years is that the helmet wearers always seem to be tolerant of both camps,.
I am genuinely surprised to hear you say this, I have often been taken to task for cycling without a helmet, sometimes in quite an abusive manner, by the pro-helmet people.
Although, it only happens in the UK:smile:.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
Apropos of nothing, one theme I've noticed having viewed this debate over a few years is that the helmet wearers always seem to be tolerant of both camps, wheareas the anti-helmet guys appear to be more militant and confrontational. Sneering references to "plastic hat wearers" are very common, but the opposite (I'm guessing a comparably sneering opposite might be "bareheads", or "bandana wearers", "cap fans" or whatever, it's hard to find an example) seem to be entirely absent.
I'm not sure why you think those would be the opposites - helmet zealots tend to call non-users "organ donors", "brain-dead" or just general terms of abuse like "tosser" and hoping that we die by smashing our heads into a flat smooth piece of road (not a stone because then a helmet wouldn't save us).

It does seem closer to 50-50 in this discussion, but a lot of the worst insults used to get deleted and now this thread is pre-moderated, they don't even appear or get emailed out. I feel the confrontational stuff that survives tends to be anti-helmet because it contains some facts, whereas a lot of the pro-helmet posts used to be just abuse - at best, they're emotional and anecdotal, which is difficult to be confrontational with, because if someone challenges an anecdote, all the story-teller can say is claim "it really really happened honest".

Anyway, for a more realistic sample of the abuse, try advancing an anti-helmet or even helmet-sceptic view in an unmoderated facebook discussion (on some page/group not full of your friends) and see how long it takes before you get death threats!

The aggression and insults In Real Life are almost all one-way traffic from helmet zealots towards non-users, to the point of banning us from trying to ride with them on open public roads sometimes.
 

Mugshot

Cracking a solo.
Apropos of nothing, one theme I've noticed having viewed this debate over a few years is that the helmet wearers always seem to be tolerant of both camps, wheareas the anti-helmet guys appear to be more militant and confrontational. Sneering references to "plastic hat wearers" are very common, but the opposite (I'm guessing a comparably sneering opposite might be "bareheads", or "bandana wearers", "cap fans" or whatever, it's hard to find an example) seem to be entirely absent.
Just an observation. I'm genuinely pro choice, for everyone.
Plenty of examples above, all of which will have been experienced by every individual that doesn't wear a helmet, which show that you're wrong with what you think you've noticed. I'll add to the evidence with one I've mentioned before, I've had a motorist threaten to punch me in the face for not wearing a helmet.
 
Strictly speaking a 'test case' is one that tests the law - it doesn't necessarily change it. A test case can confirm a law. And it would only set a precedent if in a court of record.
Still, my point stands. This clearly wasn't a test case, as it ruled against the law but the law is unaffected and the person best placed to use this "precedent" in court is still being fined.
Bringing it up to date, there is apparently a pattern of not appearing in court....

If it is so clear cut, why are the Officers so afraid of appearing?
I have no idea of what makes Adelaide police not attend court, but it seems quite plausible to me that even if they regard the helmet laws as a brilliant idea, they still might not think spending half a day in court to give someone a ~£100 fine was a good use of their time. Do they turn up for seat belt offences?

"Test case" is far removed from to "slightly worry local police officers after 7 years of consistent law breaking and court appearances".

And let's just say that tomorrow that a judge makes a ruling that effectively ends the helmet law in SA. That does not say "good news" for new jurisdictions. They can look forward to 26 years of helmet laws, and individuals making huge personal sacrifices in a 7 year campaign. It doesn't even say very good news for most Australians, because most probably the precedent would only apply to South Australian laws.

Seriously, can anyone point to a test case that has actually affected change?
 

deptfordmarmoset

Full time tea drinker
Location
Armonmy Way
Apropos of nothing, one theme I've noticed having viewed this debate over a few years is that the helmet wearers always seem to be tolerant of both camps, wheareas the anti-helmet guys appear to be more militant and confrontational. Sneering references to "plastic hat wearers" are very common, but the opposite (I'm guessing a comparably sneering opposite might be "bareheads", or "bandana wearers", "cap fans" or whatever, it's hard to find an example) seem to be entirely absent.
Just an observation. I'm genuinely pro choice, for everyone.
A counter observation: I've cycled with a couple of the recently-posting non-helmet wearers on this thread and they've been completely silent on the issue, neither criticising me when I was wearing a helmet nor praising me when riding without. In fact, every cyclechat ride I've been on has been uniformly pro-choice.
 

MontyVeda

a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
Back to the French law - compulsory for under 12's?

For the moment ignore the fact that it may be benefial or non beneficial. As an adult, i have life experiences and can make an informed decision and decide whether or not to wear one.

But can a child? The child will probably do what ever the parent influences and they will have no say in the matter.

Now suppose that your child is in an accident and suffers a head injury whilst not wearing a helmet. Again ignore the fact that a helmet had no benefit and it would have not changed the outcome if worn.

Now consider how the non cycling relatives of the injured child will interpret events. Regardless of the effectiveness of a helmet they will probably blame you for not insisting the child wears a helmet. Like wise as the cycling parent, you will feel some kind of guilt, even if you know there is no proven reason for compulsory helmet wearing.

I think this is justification for the U12 law. It removes all responsibility from the parents and is a clear rule to be followed.

When the child is older they can make their own decision.
codswallop...

put the same scenario back 30 years. My dad taught me to ride and i wasn't wearing a helmet. I probably fell off and banged my head a few times in the process. Each time i was put back on and told to try again before being let out on my own, again without a helmet... now consider your heartfelt post regarding non cycling relatives and how they may or may not have interpreted a life changing injury?

I could tell a story about a child who's been in a wheelchair since the age seven after falling off a swing... would it be right to suggest that the parents were wrong for not making their child wear a helmet in a playground?
 

Profpointy

Legendary Member
"test cases" I seem to recall that a few years back someone in the UK was charged with not having a bell on his bike. He fought it in court on the grounds that the law said something like "a means of audible warning" or some such. He sucessfully got off on the grounds he had his voice and could shout. May or may not have strictly been a precedent as such but the outcome is that bells ceased to be compulsory i the uk, although they are still compulsory at time of sale.
 

Profpointy

Legendary Member
Bells weren't compulsory in the UK and the case does not set a precedent as it wasn't heard in a court of record.

Whilst I understand and do accept your point, it nevertheless did set a precedent-with-a-small "p" and people had previously been fined for not having a bell, and subsequenlty it was accepted you didn't need a bell.
 

martint235

Dog on a bike
Location
Welling
I've said this before, but I have never gone up to a cyclist who is wearing a helmet and asked them why they are wearing it. But on group rides I can almost guarantee that a new rider who does choose to wear a helmet will feel it's fine to confront me about my bare head - 'Where's your helmet?', 'Are you coming out with us like that [points at my head]?', Don't you ever wear a helmet then?' Those are the most recent examples, and when I reply I get an unwanted lecture, often quite an angry one. The rudeness goes one way in my experience.
I'm frequently on rides with you but it's very rare anyone does that to me. I wonder why........ :wacko:
 
Good point Martin. I do take issue with the 'frequently' though - haven't seen you for ages.
I was about to also point out that (1) the rides you are both on together are rare these days (and I'm pointing my finger at the taller of the two!) and (2) those you are both inclined to be on are attended almost overwhelmingly by those in the 'pro choice' camp.

When I rode on one of Kajsa Tylen's group rides last spring, there were only 2 of us without helmets. I got harrangued about it all day*. The other helmet-less rider was Steve Abraham and I'd love to know if he got the same.

* My favourite was from the woman for whom this was her very first group ride. She was alongside me and said "Oh I do love that... thing... on your head... What is it, it's awfully cute!" "It's a cycling cap," I replied. "Oh is that a new thing?" "No, they've been around for decades, nearly centuries, much longer than helmets". "Oh! Do they protect your head, then?" "About as much as your helmet does yours," I replied. And that was the end of that.
 

Pat "5mph"

A kilogrammicaly challenged woman
Moderator
Location
Glasgow
there were only 2 of us without helmets. I got harrangued about it all day*.
I get the same from fellow riders, once even been told that if I'd had a helmet on I would be less scared of downhills - I'm a wuss.
Thing is that ride was organized by a local cycle safety campaigning group, the leader and most of them don't wear helmets!
But the best one ever was when I was leading a women only ride, two of us were not wearing a helmet: so this random guy joins us, asks for details, then proceeds to preach about helmets and hi-vis!
He was given his marching orders pronto!
 
Top Bottom