The main point of this thread isn't whether a helmet will give some protection, it's about helmets being made compulsory by law. I always wear my helmet when out on the bike but I'm against compulsion by law.
The mandatory Helmet law in Australia. Even after 20 years and plenty of research, there is still no compelling evidence that Australia's compulsory helmet laws have reduced injury rates on a population-wide basis. but did reduce the number of cyclist by as much as 20%.
When I read of all these folk wanting to make new laws I just have to laugh.
Is there legislation against using mobile phones on the move? Against littering? Large dogs must wear muzzles must they not? Motorways are limited to 70mph. Cyclists must not cross red lights . Cyclists must have lights at night. Ebikes must be limited to 15mph under power......
With or without legislation, cyclists will wear or not wear helmets as they wish with no fear of prosecution if they do not. If we want to waste ink on paper, electronic space on government web sites and make the law look even more impotent and feeble than it is, go ahead, legislate. I'll wear or not wear a helmet as I choose.
Is there legislation against using mobile phones on the move? Against littering? Large dogs must wear muzzles must they not? Motorways are limited to 70mph. Cyclists must not cross red lights . Cyclists must have lights at night. Ebikes must be limited to 15mph under power......
With or without legislation, cyclists will wear or not wear helmets as they wish with no fear of prosecution if they do not. If we want to waste ink on paper, electronic space on government web sites and make the law look even more impotent and feeble than it is, go ahead, legislate. I'll wear or not wear a helmet as I choose.
Funny - I thought this might come up again after Wiggins' comments. There is a very strong opinion piece in the Times by Christian Wolmar arguing against compulsion - making some of the same points as have been made in this thread - it is pay-walled so here is an excerpt:
First, it would reduce considerably the number of cyclists on the roads, as evidence from Western Australia, where helmets have been mandatory for 20 years, shows. Cycle use in Perth rose by 10 per cent a year between 1983 and 1989. But by 1994, two years after the law was introduced, the number of cyclists had fallen by 50 per cent.
Cost and practicality are deterrents, as is style, especially for the young. As Dr Mark Porter, chairman of the BMA Council, has said: “My children refuse to wear helmets. I would prefer them to ride without than not cycle at all as the benefits far outweigh any risks that would be mitigated by a helmet.”
And why not make motorists wear helmets? As 50 per cent of car occupants’ deaths are caused by head injuries, wearing a head band with a hard shell, such as the one designed at Adelaide University, would save many lives. But motorists balk at the idea. When I tweeted it yesterday, Edmund King, of the AA, said it was “a silly idea as drivers have airbags, crumble [sic] zones etc”. But they still die in droves.
Second, cycle helmets may increase accidents because of the well-documented phenomenon of risk compensation. Remarkably, in Western Australia, despite the fall in cycle use after the legislation, hospital admissions of cyclists remained the same. The reason may not be just that cyclists feel less vulnerable and take more risks, but because motorists treat cyclists wearing helmets differently.
In 2006 Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist from the University of Bath, cycled in Salisbury and Bristol recording data from overtaking motorists. They came closer when he wore a helmet because drivers felt he was likely to be more experienced and gave him a wider berth when he wore a blonde wig, pretending to be a woman.
There is a wider point. Making helmets compulsory suggests that cycling is dangerous and needs special equipment and protection. Only when old ladies and pregnant women feel safe cycling in our cities, as they do in the Netherlands and Denmark, will the aim of protecting cyclists have been achieved.
First, it would reduce considerably the number of cyclists on the roads, as evidence from Western Australia, where helmets have been mandatory for 20 years, shows. Cycle use in Perth rose by 10 per cent a year between 1983 and 1989. But by 1994, two years after the law was introduced, the number of cyclists had fallen by 50 per cent.
Cost and practicality are deterrents, as is style, especially for the young. As Dr Mark Porter, chairman of the BMA Council, has said: “My children refuse to wear helmets. I would prefer them to ride without than not cycle at all as the benefits far outweigh any risks that would be mitigated by a helmet.”
And why not make motorists wear helmets? As 50 per cent of car occupants’ deaths are caused by head injuries, wearing a head band with a hard shell, such as the one designed at Adelaide University, would save many lives. But motorists balk at the idea. When I tweeted it yesterday, Edmund King, of the AA, said it was “a silly idea as drivers have airbags, crumble [sic] zones etc”. But they still die in droves.
Second, cycle helmets may increase accidents because of the well-documented phenomenon of risk compensation. Remarkably, in Western Australia, despite the fall in cycle use after the legislation, hospital admissions of cyclists remained the same. The reason may not be just that cyclists feel less vulnerable and take more risks, but because motorists treat cyclists wearing helmets differently.
In 2006 Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist from the University of Bath, cycled in Salisbury and Bristol recording data from overtaking motorists. They came closer when he wore a helmet because drivers felt he was likely to be more experienced and gave him a wider berth when he wore a blonde wig, pretending to be a woman.
There is a wider point. Making helmets compulsory suggests that cycling is dangerous and needs special equipment and protection. Only when old ladies and pregnant women feel safe cycling in our cities, as they do in the Netherlands and Denmark, will the aim of protecting cyclists have been achieved.
I have a helmet, I sometimes wear it, sometimes I don't. I am totally against compulsion.
Having had a couple of serious offs on motorcycles, in which helmets played a large part in protecting my head, I'm convinced of the part they play in saving lives - at the right speed and the right angles. At the wrong speed and angles you're dead or a cabbage anyway and it's no good kidding ourselves about that.
I was really disappointed with Wiggins's statement - ill thought-out, ill-judged and just letting his belly rumble. Once again, we see undue weight being lent to the the outpourings of a top sportsman or athlete, as if he/she has some really valid things to say on every subject.
It reminds me of the dribble that top footballers spout.
Having had a couple of serious offs on motorcycles, in which helmets played a large part in protecting my head, I'm convinced of the part they play in saving lives - at the right speed and the right angles. At the wrong speed and angles you're dead or a cabbage anyway and it's no good kidding ourselves about that.
I was really disappointed with Wiggins's statement - ill thought-out, ill-judged and just letting his belly rumble. Once again, we see undue weight being lent to the the outpourings of a top sportsman or athlete, as if he/she has some really valid things to say on every subject.
It reminds me of the dribble that top footballers spout.
C
Cyclezee
Guest
Now we have possibly exhausted this topic, it is time to nail my colours to the mast.
I confess to being somewhat of a Devil's Advocate and took the opportunity to reopen the safety/helmet debate following the remarks by Bradley Wiggins.
I quite understand the views of those who felt that enough has already been written on the subject and no amount of statistics or opinion would change their minds one way or another.
Here is where I stand on the subject:
I confess to being somewhat of a Devil's Advocate and took the opportunity to reopen the safety/helmet debate following the remarks by Bradley Wiggins.
I quite understand the views of those who felt that enough has already been written on the subject and no amount of statistics or opinion would change their minds one way or another.
Here is where I stand on the subject:
- I am personally in favour of wearing helmets
- The wearing of personal protective equipment e.g. helmets should not be compulsory
- Training should be available for cyclists of all ages, but not compulsory
- All users of motorised vehicles should have cycle awareness training as part of driver training
Mmmmmm.....good idea.....Im trying to keep off chocolate so my vote is for the 50% discount....are you like me NRG...SURE we saw that written by John somewhere in this long thread...about anyone commenting gets a prize ?
Unpacked that consignment yet John ? ......you know what I want
This will teach you to play Devils Advocate
Lynda
Unpacked that consignment yet John ? ......you know what I want
This will teach you to play Devils Advocate
Lynda
C
Cyclezee
Guest
With all your activities Lynda, I'm really not sure what you want, I think you may be beyond helpMmmmmm.....good idea.....Im trying to keep off chocolate so my vote is for the 50% discount....are you like me NRG...SURE we saw that written by John somewhere in this long thread...about anyone commenting gets a prize ?
Unpacked that consignment yet John ? ......you know what I want
This will teach you to play Devils Advocate
Lynda
If I tried to unpack that consignment right now I would get my feet wet, it is currently in the Med approaching the Straits of Gibraltar
Far from it Ben, obviously a helmet can help to varying degrees in many different circumstances and I've said as much a little earlier, adding that helmets should be widely and cheaply available for those who want one. I'm pleased that your helmet saved you from any worse effects, but it was your accident, not mine, so the evidence from it is not relevant to me.
Therefore please don't misunderstand the opposition to them being made compulsory. Most of the objections are based on whether one feels the need for them or not, and in my case with 66 years of cycling behind me and never a single scratch to show for it, I clearly have not needed a helmet or any other protection for that matter.
My argument is that neither you or anyone else has the moral right to tell me I must wear one, it's a matter of personal choice.
With all your activities Lynda, I'm really not sure what you want, I think you may be beyond help
If I tried to unpack that consignment right now I would get my feet wet, it is currently in the Med approaching the Straits of Gibraltar
LOL.....you keep pretty active yourself John
.....and you KNOW you know what I want, and what I want, at the moment, sounds like its approaching Gibraltar and the homeward stretch...... and then you really WILL be active Lynda
Flecc,
I agree with freedom of choice and to not be legislated to wear a helmet.
However, your comments made with hindsight to the effect of "It's never happened to me, therefore I clearly have not needed a helmet" is like a skydiver saying "I've not bothered with or needed a reserve chute for 30 years, therefore I clearly didn't need one and made the right choice not to carry one".
My accident (and every other cycle accident) is relevant to every other cyclist out there as any one of you could be in the same situation as I was. We should learn from other's misfortunes.
I agree with freedom of choice and to not be legislated to wear a helmet.
However, your comments made with hindsight to the effect of "It's never happened to me, therefore I clearly have not needed a helmet" is like a skydiver saying "I've not bothered with or needed a reserve chute for 30 years, therefore I clearly didn't need one and made the right choice not to carry one".
My accident (and every other cycle accident) is relevant to every other cyclist out there as any one of you could be in the same situation as I was. We should learn from other's misfortunes.
Last edited:
Same old arguments as for seat belts and Motorcycle helmets.
Personally as having been saved by both of above I have started to wear a cycle helmet ( when I remember).
Although I do understand the arguments for freedom of choice thats fine if the only person who will suffer the consequences is just you which is highly unlikely. I would hate to live in a totally risk free environment but taking reasonable precautions seems like a no brainer.
Personally as having been saved by both of above I have started to wear a cycle helmet ( when I remember).
Although I do understand the arguments for freedom of choice thats fine if the only person who will suffer the consequences is just you which is highly unlikely. I would hate to live in a totally risk free environment but taking reasonable precautions seems like a no brainer.
That's too simplistic to say merely hindsight, it is also foresight. My 66 years is relevant since it shows that I'm very adept at avoiding accidents and therefore have some justification in reliance upon that, especially since most of my life has been in London, riding there and in the congested South East.
As I said, your accident was yours and not mine so your experience is not relevant in every way to me. You might think that in the same circumstance I would also suffer that accident, but I refute that for you cannot possibly know that to be true.
True of course it's impossible to say the same would have happened to you, I merely propose that it could, not would.
Unless of course you never ride a bike, on a road.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
Last edited:
What is 'reasonable' is open to interpretation. I usually cycle on otherwise deserted country lanes at about 10 mph. Is it reasonable that I should have to wear a helmet? I don't think so. Take 'reasonable precautions' one step further and pedestrians will be required to wear a helmet when walking in the High Street (or wearing a Mae-West when walking on the promenade at High Tide!)
Ah, but is there a law saying you MUST have a reserve chute?* That's the point we're trying to make.
*For the record no there isn't - there are many parachutists that don't have reserve chutes - many in the special forces and base jumpers for example. They, like many who choose not to wear a helmet, weigh up the risk vs cost and make an informed decision whether to use one or not. And as jumping without a reserve chute only affects the particpant and no other parties (the same as a cyclist not wearing a helmet) the choice should remain in the hands of the participant.
I understand the point and as I said I agree with it and agree with freedom to choose...there is a secondary discussion in this thread as to whether my experience of the benefits of wearing a helmet are relevant to others who may not have every been in a situation to benefit from wearing one. I stand by my point that it is.
I picked the analogy of the skydiver for the very reason you picked up on...there is no law to say you can't do it without a reserve chute but there is a clear and real increase in risk for not doing so. I'm a SCUBA instructor....when we dive we carry as much redundancy as possible (no LAW to say we have to carry everything that we do)....diving with a buddy, secondary regulator. For tech diving; multiple dive computers, multiple regs, multiple tanks. I have never needed any of my emergency diving equipment but does that mean I should dive without it?? The fact that I have never had decompression sickness or lung or ear injury when many others have does not make me believe it could never happen to me. I can use foresight (as mentioned by Flecc) and I have confidence in my ability and hope that I will never suffer any injury. I may however suffer equipment failure or some other unplanned and unforseen incident....however unlikely this could also happen on a bicycle, failure leading to a crash etc.
Not wearing a helmet could well affect others. The trauma for a driver who kills (or seriously injures) a cyclist that may have survived if wearing a helmet or not been hurt so badly.
There are so many aspects to this which is why the discussion always raises a lot of posts. For the record I really don't like wearing a helmet as they look crap, are generally uncomfortable and it's another awkward thing to lug around....but I still wear it
I picked the analogy of the skydiver for the very reason you picked up on...there is no law to say you can't do it without a reserve chute but there is a clear and real increase in risk for not doing so. I'm a SCUBA instructor....when we dive we carry as much redundancy as possible (no LAW to say we have to carry everything that we do)....diving with a buddy, secondary regulator. For tech diving; multiple dive computers, multiple regs, multiple tanks. I have never needed any of my emergency diving equipment but does that mean I should dive without it?? The fact that I have never had decompression sickness or lung or ear injury when many others have does not make me believe it could never happen to me. I can use foresight (as mentioned by Flecc) and I have confidence in my ability and hope that I will never suffer any injury. I may however suffer equipment failure or some other unplanned and unforseen incident....however unlikely this could also happen on a bicycle, failure leading to a crash etc.
Not wearing a helmet could well affect others. The trauma for a driver who kills (or seriously injures) a cyclist that may have survived if wearing a helmet or not been hurt so badly.
There are so many aspects to this which is why the discussion always raises a lot of posts. For the record I really don't like wearing a helmet as they look crap, are generally uncomfortable and it's another awkward thing to lug around....but I still wear it
A side point on the subject of compulsion. The government approved existence of city hire bikes like the Barclays ones in London and Velib in Paris has put paid to any chance of enforcement. People have varying head sizes and there's the health issue of multiple wearers so helmets simply cannot be provided with the bikes.
David Cameron's response on this issue on the TV news last night showed how government doesn't want compulsion. Ducking and diving, he said it was "a matter kept under constant review", code speak for "we don't intend to do anything".
David Cameron's response on this issue on the TV news last night showed how government doesn't want compulsion. Ducking and diving, he said it was "a matter kept under constant review", code speak for "we don't intend to do anything".
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
