Schumacher's Helmet

[flecc]

Sounds like politicians trying to justify their own laws

That's exactly what it is Mike. The mandatory helmet law has seriously damaged cycling in Australia which now has the lowest incidence of cycling in the world. This is politically at odds with most of the rest of the world where cycling is being actively encouraged for environmental reasons, so the self professed environmentally concerned Australians are self conscious about the effects of this law.

 

[filsgreen]

OK, the forum is split on whether wearing a helmet helps prevent injury. May I ask what harm would it do to wear one?
Phil

 

[Kenny]

Other road users give you a "wider berth" when your not wearing a helmet. I assume they think your more vunerable if your not wearing one.

 

[filsgreen]

Other road users give you a "wider berth" when your not wearing a helmet. I assume they think your more vunerable if your not wearing one.

All of the videos shown on You tube of cyclists getting cut up and so forth; I think negates your opinion Kenny. I could counter that proposal by stating that the majority of cars only give me a wide berth when there is room to do so, and even then some do not bother.

 

[flecc]

OK, the forum is split on whether wearing a helmet helps prevent injury. May I ask what harm would it do to wear one?
Phil

The majority prefer not to, probably similar to the country as a whole where the figure is 27% wearing.

Harm is not relevant in this context, it's more a convenience and comfort matter. I don't like hats in general and particularly find strap-on helmets uncomfortable. A helmet is also inconvenient, cycling to me is just an alternative to walking and I do it in street clothing without the nuisance of any special clothing, just as they do in the main cycling countries of the world where helmets are rarely worn.

 

[los monty]

In the past we have accepted seat belts, helmets and smoking bans so if a cycle helmet law comes in we will accept it.
For my part I'm a recent convert as I now ride most days covering 50 - 100m per week. It keeps my head warm and provides a place to attach a supplementary red flashing light.

 

[flecc]

In the past we have accepted seat belts, helmets and smoking bans so if a cycle helmet law comes in we will accept it.

It will never happen, our governments have resisted every attempt to introduce it, even blocking an attempt to make it mandatory for children.

They know that compelling greatly reduces the incidence of cycling as proven where it's been done, and that is the opposite of what they want. In the EU the official opposition to compulsory helmets is even greater and as a transport matter the EU has supremacy and can lean heavily on any member government doing something they disapprove of.

 

[mike killay]

None whatsoever.
I usually wear one, it keeps me warm.
BUT
I see no need at all to make them compulsory. This is just a politicians wet dream.
I am related to a number of politicians and am well aware of their tricks.
They all have a policy in their back pockets, and something like compulsory cycle helmets has a feel good factor and remember to protect the children etc.
Contrary to what you may believe, they don't want this to go through easily, the longer it takes, the more publicity (and money) they get. They get a reputation for fighting to look after people etc.
Politics stinks.

 

[filsgreen]

I think we will disagree on this one flecc. You are prepared to accept the risk of head injury because of your belief and that is your choice. The problem is there are lots of brain injury units across the country, full of people who were of the same opinion. Now I know the majority were probably not due to cycling accidents, but even if just one of them was, would it not be worth it to have it compulsory to wear a cycle helmet?

I suppose you could quote the example of the smoker who lives to his late fifties before he develops COPD and Cancer, who thought he would never contract either of those diseases and could quote the example of his grandparents who smoked right up until they died of a ripe old age. Or that he has cycled for years without having an accident. I've never had a crash whilst driving in nearly forty years, but I still put a seat belt on. There are wards full of those people with a devil may care attitude, who think that the "Nanny State" is already fit to burst with health and safety initiatives.

Now it is understandable why the Government does not step in and ban smoking, not least the big tobacco companies who can and do dictate policy, but I do not understand why the Government would not want to introduce legislation that has the ability to save lives and prevent harm. At the end of the day the NHS has to foot the bill to help people recover from cycling accidents, and it's not as if the cyclist generates vast wealth for the country like the smoker does.

 

[Cakey]

More important than helmets , is proper cycling lanes away from the traffic .
Now if one of our so called muppet leaders came up with this . It would get my vote .
This has to be the only country in Europe why cyclists are classed as badgers

 

[flecc]

I think we will disagree on this one flecc. You are prepared to accept the risk of head injury because of your belief and that is your choice. The problem is there are lots of brain injury units across the country, full of people who were of the same opinion. Now I know the majority were probably not due to cycling accidents, but even if just one of them was, would it not be worth it to have it compulsory to wear a cycle helmet?

I suppose you could quote the example of the smoker who lives to his late fifties before he develops COPD and Cancer, who thought he would never contract either of those diseases and could quote the example of his grandparents who smoked right up until they died of a ripe old age. Or that he has cycled for years without having an accident. I've never had a crash whilst driving in nearly forty years, but I still put a seat belt on. There are wards full of those people with a devil may care attitude, who think that the "Nanny State" is already fit to burst with health and safety initiatives.

Now it is understandable why the Government does not step in and ban smoking, not least the big tobacco companies who can and do dictate policy, but I do not understand why the Government would not want to introduce legislation that has the ability to save lives and prevent harm. At the end of the day the NHS has to foot the bill to help people recover from cycling accidents, and it's not as if the cyclist generates vast wealth for the country like the smoker does.

You haven't followed this like I have, if you had you might not have disagreed. Successive governments have stubbornly blocked every determined attempt to introduce compulsory helmets. The attempts haven't merely been asking for legislation, they have included some well presented private members bills backed by large numbers of members and all the usual safety organisations.

The bill thought to have the best chance was that applying only to children, but even that the government swiftly blocked, not allowing it to proceed. Which main party makes no difference, it is policy not to have compulsion. And I repeat, in transport matters the EU has primacy and can overrule, and in the EU helmet compulsion has absolutely no chance of adoption in any lifetime.

And as for this argument:

"Now I know the majority were probably not due to cycling accidents, but even if just one of them was, would it not be worth it to have it compulsory to wear a cycle helmet? "

No it's not worthwhile since the premise is fundamentally flawed. It's certain that A & Es have to deal with far more pedestrian head injuries than cycling ones. Should pedestrians wear helmets? The same applies to the huge numbers of head injuries in and around the home, there is no end to this process.

Cycling is not inherently dangerous and it's a disservice to cycling to pretend it is. Some cyclists are dangerous, but that is an entirely different matter.
.

 

[filsgreen]

You haven't followed this like I have, if you had you might not have disagreed. Successive governments have stubbornly blocked every determined attempt to introduce compulsory helmets. The attempts haven't merely been asking for legislation, they have included some well presented private members bills backed by large numbers of members and all the usual safety organisations.

The bill thought to have the best chance was that applying only to children, but even that the government swiftly blocked, not allowing it to proceed. Which main party makes no difference, it is policy not to have compulsion. And I repeat, in transport matters the EU has primacy and can overrule, and in the EU helmet compulsion has absolutely no chance of adoption in any lifetime.

And as for this argument:

"Now I know the majority were probably not due to cycling accidents, but even if just one of them was, would it not be worth it to have it compulsory to wear a cycle helmet? "

No it's not worthwhile since the premise is fundamentally flawed. It's certain that A & Es have to deal with far more pedestrian head injuries than cycling ones. Should pedestrians wear helmets? The same applies to the huge numbers of head injuries in and around the home, there is no end to this process.

Cycling is not inherently dangerous and it's a disservice to cycling to pretend it is. Some cyclists are dangerous, but that is an entirely different matter.
.

I did understand your original premise about the Government not wanting to introduce compulsory wearing of cycle helmets, However, you have not given me a reason why they are so reluctant to do so.

You state that my premise is flawed about cycle safety not being relative as far more accidents happen in the home, and that many people are injured whilst walking in the street. If we adopted your logic, why stop at not wearing cycle helmets? we could dispense with the need for cycle lighting at night, after all more people are probably hurt whilst walking downstairs. I admit that last statement was spurious, but I think your opinion that just because people get injured in the home or on the street, there is no need for head protection whilst cycling is equally so,

Finally, you state that cycling is not inherently dangerous, try telling that to the families of the six people that died in December last year, riding their bikes in London. I agree, cycling it is not as dangerous as mountain climbing or bungee jumping, but the speeds that the majority of cyclist travels at these days, does increase the risk of bodily injuries, and as I've already said, if one of those deaths could have been avoided, it's well worth it. After all, in your defence, you state that many politicians and safety organisations have supported the need for compulsory cycle helmets, why would they waste their time and effort campaigning, if helmets did not save lives?

 

[flecc]

I did understand your original premise about the Government not wanting to introduce compulsory wearing of cycle helmets, However, you have not given me a reason why they are so reluctant to do so.

I have, I gave it in the post you originally responded to:

It will never happen, our governments have resisted every attempt to introduce it, even blocking an attempt to make it mandatory for children.

They know that compelling greatly reduces the incidence of cycling as proven where it's been done, and that is the opposite of what they want.

On your further comments, yes of course helmets can and sometimes do save lives, but so do a huge variety of other measures which are not adopted and which could be far more productive in that connection.

That these measures are not adopted is a matter of reasonability. The costs, inconvenience, difficulties of enforcement, proportion of lives saved and ill-effects of legislation are all factors that come into play in each case. Clearly our governments consider that these factors balance in favour of not having compulsion.

 

[peerjay56]

As stated elsewhere, we are a nation awash with legislation. The more petty laws we have, the more the authority of Goverment is diminished. I'm uncomfortable riding my bike without a helmet - I literally feel underdressed. But I cannot agree with compulsion for an issue that education can solve. It's my choice to wear one, and I hope that those who don't can be persuaded to change their minds.

 

[flecc]

I hope that those who don't can be persuaded to change their minds.

You'd have a job with the Dutch who almost all don't wear helmets and have the highest incidence of cycling in the world but with the lowest cycling accident rate. That's the persuasion I'd like to see happen, to ride more sensibly like them and not have the accidents.

Riding hell-for-leather and relying on a helmet to protect against the inevitable as so many do in this country is daft in comparison.

 

[oldman]

They are compulsory in Australia and on visits there I have noticed that it is not, by some, taken seriously; because the models they use range from skateboard helmets to canoeing helmets. The roadies are in conventional cycling helmets. Also the usage of bikes dropped in the early years of the law but has picked up of late.

 

[mike killay]

Just what is it that makes some people get on a self built high moral plain and full of self justified, self righteousness decide to tell others how to live their lives?
ITS FOR THE SAKE OF THEIR HEALTH they trumpet.

Remember Torquemada of the Spanish Inquisition.
ITS FOR THE SAKE OF THEIR SOULS he trumpeted.

 

[Geebee]

That's exactly what it is Mike. The mandatory helmet law has seriously damaged cycling in Australia which now has the lowest incidence of cycling in the world. This is politically at odds with most of the rest of the world where cycling is being actively encouraged for environmental reasons, so the self professed environmentally concerned Australians are self conscious about the effects of this law.

So the Netherlands has the same issue (the other link)?

Do you really think repealing the helmet law in Australia would suddenly cause a mass increase in riding?

Unlike Europe, Australia has massive urban sprawl and very low population density, other than our main cities traffic density is not severe, and our entire society is built around the car possibly more so than America.

I live in one of our capital cities and our peak hour increases my diving to the town center by around 2 minutes, our absolutely worst longer distance commutes increase by around 10 minutes on average, oh and peak hour is never any where near an hour long. Combine that with a very hilly enviroment that makes cycling initially difficult etc., ie. there are are factors other than the helmet law.

The reason I agree with the law is that for every person that ends up with a brain injury the cost to the medical system is massive and often extended over years thus increasing costs to everyone.
Personally I would prefer to wear a helmet than risk even minor brain damage.
Yes there are other things that would lower brain injury etc. in the general population but none so cheap and easy to implement.

 

[flecc]

So the Netherlands has the same issue (the other link)?

I don't understand this comment, what same issue?

Do you really think repealing the helmet law in Australia would suddenly cause a mass increase in riding?

No of course not, some of the conditions there are very different as you say. But the compulsory helmet law is a deterrent to some that will always reduce the potential for adopting cycling. That Australia has the lowest incidence of cycling in the world is in part due to that, as shown by it's reduction after that law was introduced.

Yes there are other things that would lower brain injury etc. in the general population but none so cheap and easy to implement.

That still doesn't justify compulsion. There has to be a cut-off point in the introduction of compulsory safety measures and it happens to be just before cycle helmets in the UK. As I said, it's about the balance of all the factors and here they come down in favour of no compulsion in our governments view. Some of our factors are not present in Australia.

 

[Geebee]

Frankly, these sort of figures are meaningless and also suggest someone trying to pad out the case.
What we need to know is how many accidents...obviously most are not reported.
Of those reported, how many head injuries with helmet/without helmet.
What is 'Any head injury?' could be a trifling scratch
What is 5.5 times more likely than? Sounds obvious to the man in the street, but it could be that of the 348 patients, 2 with helmets and 11 without helmets had serious head injury.
Even the authors of the report admit that they need better data!
Sounds like politicians trying to justify their own laws

Taking Mikes reply to which you appear to agree, is the Netherlands trying to justify helmets for the same reason? they have had multiple studies indicating helmets be should be worn, and that is a country with ideal riding conditions!