[Closed] Compulsory Helmet Consultation

I've no idea why they don't apply to driving a car do you?.. That's a seperate issue which isnt being discussed ( certainly not by me ).
What ' evidence ' are you talking about ..the fact that helmets save riders from head injuries ..are you saying they don't or are you trying to tell me that because I don't agree with the majority that I'm not allowed an opinion ..?
What exactly have you added to the thread ..and by the way do you wear one ?
( tbf..Im not that bothered if you do or not ) 🙂

Whatnobeer ..I would suggest that you keep your advice to yourself ..when I want it I will ask for it ..just so that you know I found THAT extremely rude..so maybe take heed of your own advice .

The lack of self awareness is mind blowing!!!

All that I have said ..and again it's a personal opinion ..I think wearing a helmet is a good idea.

And I don't see the need for wearing a helmet when cycling any more than I would wear one when doing any other activity. Just my personal opinion and adds as much to this thread as your opinion, i.e. nothing.

As others have said you need to look at the research, data and impact of compulsion to see if overall it is a good idea.

In what respect ?
Someone who I have previously never communicated with has a pop at me at you think that I shouldn't respond ...
I've absolutely no problem with my " self awareness " ..thanks .

Keeley ..your choice ..once again I'm not bothered ..but don't try to tell me that helmets haven't saved lives ..I don't need to read any data to know that ..do I ?..
Oops sorry ..Kerley ..predictive txt eh !

[b]hodgynd[/b] The key thing is this isn't about being able to CHOOSE to wear a helmet, it's about it being illegal to ride a bike without one.

The health benefits to society from riding bikes (for transport, not necessarily mtbing) are huge. If wearing helmets is made compulsory then that is likely to reduce cycling rates. If cycling rates are reduced (it any growth is stunted) then that will lead to loads of deaths due to inactivity, obesity, additional pollution from extra car journeys etc.

Stop thinking about whether choosing to wear a helmet, given that you're going to ride a bike anyway, is a good or bad idea. The problem is around people who don't ride bikes at the moment who will be discouraged. It's also around giving government a get-out where they can say they don't need to do anything to address the sources of danger through law/road design changes because "we've already given cycling a huge safety boost by mandating helmets".

Don't forget, the easiest way to reduce the number of people injured/killed while cycling is to reduce the number of people cycling, helmet compulsion will achieve just that.

Guess which paper this was published in? The clue is that I've protected you, the ethical reader, from the shame of the click-thru.

Daily I risk death or serious injury on the roads, simply because I ride a bicycle. I know the danger, but I’d rather face it than box myself in a car.
I have many reasons for this. I think cars spoil our countryside and our towns, cloud the air with filth and noise, and make us horribly dependent on Middle Eastern despotisms for fuel.
I also think there’s no quicker way of transforming a decent person into a power-crazed selfish maniac than to put him behind the wheel of a car.
And I’ve found over time that cycling is good for me, at least for as long as it doesn’t actually kill me. In fact cars, like cigarettes, are one of the very few products which, used according the makers’ instructions, will damage the user’s health.
Heart disease, lower back pain and depression can all be traced to the lack of simple regular exercise which almost always accompanies car use. I’ve driven cars in the vicious madness of Moscow traffic and on the vast freeways of California, and I hate the responsibility. One small slip in concentration, and imagine how much damage you can do.
Now it seems I am to be punished for my rejection of the sacred car, by being ordered to wear body-armour while I bicycle.
A silly Minister, Jesse Norman, has launched a ‘review’ that will ‘consider’ the mandatory wearing of cycle helmets.
A bike helmet is not a device to make cyclists safer. It is a device for making drivers feel safer while driving selfishly.

I’ve tried these things. Have you ever looked at one? A bowl of Styrofoam with a thin plastic coating, wildly expensive to buy, easy to leave behind on a train, which might conceivably save you from injury if you fell off at 4mph. Otherwise? Not much.
It’s quite useful in a hailstorm. But it won’t save you if a 45-ton lorry decides to turn across your path, or if a water-filled pothole deeper than it looks (there are more and more of these, and Mr Norman’s Transport Department seems unable to do anything about it) sends you sprawling in front of a bus.

More important, drivers think a rider in a helmet is invulnerable – so they treat him worse than they otherwise would. Research has shown that drivers steer dangerously closer to helmeted cyclists than to those without headgear.
A bike helmet is not a device to make cyclists safer. It is a device for making drivers feel safer while driving selfishly. Far too many motorists want cyclists to be wholly responsible for their own safety, so they don’t need to bother taking care. Many of their minds have been poisoned by Clarksonite rubbish about how we ‘don’t pay road tax’. Oh yes, we do.
Far too many motorists want cyclists to be wholly responsible for their own safety, so they don’t need to bother taking care.

In the Netherlands, where everyone understands that bicycling is a sensible, clean, quiet, healthy way to travel, you hardly ever see a bike helmet at all. It’s not the cycling that’s dangerous, you see. It’s the other road users who won’t show consideration.
As for cyclists themselves, yes, I know that quite a few of them are very stupid. I hate what they do just as much as anyone. And I notice that it is those most kitted out in headgear and battledress who take the most risks. Donning the Styrofoam bowl makes far too many riders think they are immortal as well as righteous. Watch the red-light jumpers. Most of them will be wearing helmets.
If this idea becomes law, the only result will be that, as happened in Australia, even fewer people will ride bicycles, especially the hire bikes that are now becoming increasingly common. Once again, we are planning to pass the law of unintended consequences.

Yes, it's the Mail trolling its own readership. Haven't looked at the comments section yet but I imagine it will be spectacularly frothy. 🙂

EDIT: Or not 😀

Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.

curto80 - Member
Hi Hodgynd
Sometimes it's impractical or unrealistic to wear a lid. Take people cycle-commuting in London as an example. The success of the Boris bike scheme would never have been possible with a compulsory helmet law.

Exactly. And to use that point to put the risk of un-helmeted riding in perspective the first death of a Boris Bike rider was after approx 34 million miles had been done on them. So for practical purposes for any one rider - zero.

And that is assuming a helmet would have saved that rider who was killed by lorry. Unlikely IMO

https://understandinguncertainty.org/fatality-risk-boris-bikes

Nicely put ..but once again ..please find anything in what I've previously written that states I'm pro compulsion ..
All that I've said is that from a personal viewpoint I think that wearing a helmet is a good idea and that they absolutely do reduce the risk of head injury ..and people have taken offence that I dared to say that .
Can anyone supply evidence to the contrary ?( not how much ..but that they don't? )
I'm old enough to remember similar outrage when motorbike helmets were made compulsory ..and also seatbelts in cars ..yet most people seem to conform these days
I'm about as far removed from London as it is possible to be living in the wilds of Northumberland ..so city commuting is something that doesn't particularly resonate with me ..
But my other question that remains unanswered is that if you had an accident with head trauma ..would this then change your mind about wearing one ?

I'm old enough to remember similar outrage when motorbike helmets were made compulsory

..and also seatbelts in cars

On the plus side you don't have to wear a helmet on a quad and they're the sketchiest thing ever on the road. 😀

hodgynd - Member

But my other question that remains unanswered is that if you had an accident with head trauma ..would this then change your mind about wearing one ?

Do you ask that question of anyone else who suffers a head injury? Mostly it isn't cyclists.

And for me ... no it wouldn't change my mind. I've cycled for 50 years without any injuries beyond scratches. I'm happy that my cycling isn't risky enough to need a helmet.

Happy for you .. 😀
May your good fortune continue ..

...oh and no I don't ask that question of anyone else ..
The fact that it mostly isn't cyclists is probably down to the fact that the majority ( that I see ) are sensible enough to be wearing a helmet already 😀

I always wear a helmet when cycling off road, but very rarely on the road. I can’t see a helmet doing much good if I get hit by a few tonnes going over 30mph. Don’t wear hiviz either, although I do have some reflective gear. Personal choice and I’d continue in that vein regardless of the law. Totally unenforceable twaddle.

but don't try to tell me that helmets haven't saved lives ..I don't need to read any data to know that ..do I ?.

Yes you do. That is what data and research does for you, it informs you and could save you from making incorrect assumptions.
How do you know they have saved lives without any data, whose lives did they save ?

As for compulsion (which is what the thread is actually about) For example, if less people ride bikes, less people are fit and healthy, more people die due to health related issues that they would not have had if fitter and healthier from the cycling they would have done if not made to wear a helmet.

These things are not quite as straight forward as you would hope (or need them to be)

hodgynd - Member
The fact that it mostly isn't cyclists is probably down to the fact that the majority ( that I see ) are sensible enough to be wearing a helmet already

Ever been to Cambridge. Huge number of cyclists. Very few with helmets. No head injury epidemic.

Not read the previous three pages, but here's my take on it...

I've normally cycled riding a helmet for at least the last ~20 years, cannot remember of I had one as a kid or while at uni. It didn't help in my initial Xmas 2013 collision into the back of a refuse collection lorry, but then the initial impact was my lower nose and upper jaw (which turned into a live jigsaw) plus my right hand (two metacarpal joints fractured). However, the rear of the helmet was obliterated, so as part of the secondary impacts, the back of my head must have hit the tarmac.

Road helmets probably help a little with low speed impacts to the upper head. They can also help you be more visible, if wearing a bright coloured one.

At the cost of overheating, full face helmets as used by some mtb cyclists and motorcyclists probably offer more protection, not just in terms of coverage but also how secure they are on your head.

Do full face helmets reduce your peripheral vision?

If it's about safety, lets make it compulsory to wear full face masks in/on all road going vehicles.

irc..
No never been to Cambridge ..hope that I never have to...but which bit of "( that I see )"..did you have difficulty understanding?
I will just leave this here ..its a survey conducted by experts in 2016..for those of you who got their knickers in a twist earlier in the thread because I hadn't quoted any facts and figures ..its the first one I found online ..I don't read the Guardian ..
Chew on this and start frothing at the mouth ..
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds

Well it’s obvious that wearing a helmet will reduce head injuries. The same would apply to walking, running and any other activity. That’s also one study in isolation. Head injuries aren’t the main cause of cyclist death though. Did somebody not post this earlier?

You are 100% correct Funkmaster ..but the thread subject [b]is [/b]about compulsory helmet wearing and by association helmet safety ..not cycling related injuries or deaths

It’s sold as improving cycling safety though, which it won’t do. It will just make shit drivers feel better. Following your logic helmets should be worn at all times for all activities. Slip in the bath and die from a head injury. Compulsory helmet wearing whilst showering would have stopped that.

but the thread subject is about compulsory helmet wearing

So where do you stand on that one? You have pointed out that you think people should wear helmets (and those that don't should be in an accident to mend their ways) and you have also pointed out that you haven't said make them compulsory.

So what do you want ? (realise you probably can't answer that as you sound very confused by it all)

Not confused at all..I will conform to whatever is decided as a law abiding citizen..while continuing to wear my helmet every time I ride a bike .
Clear enough ?

Not confused at all..I will conform to whatever is decided as a law abiding citizen..while continuing to wear my helmet every time I ride a bike .
Clear enough ?

Not really as you haven't answered the question at all.

Do you think helmets should be compulsory? Yes or No

None of your bloody business 😀

None of your bloody business

Your contribution to the debate has hit a high point.

Chris Boardman has written about this: https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/article/20171126-Chris-Boardman-0

It was supposed to be in the Sunday Times but was dropped for some reason, couldn't possibly be that it doesn't fit their compulsory helmet push could it...

None of your bloody business

Sums up the helmet debate perfectly. Personal choice. Full stop.

bails - Member

Chris Boardman has written about this: https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/article/20171126-Chris-Boardman-0

It was supposed to be in the Sunday Times but was dropped for some reason, couldn't possibly be that it doesn't fit their compulsory helmet push could it...

Well The Times did publish a piece today by Andrew Gilligan (former London cycling commissioner) saying after looking at the evidence he concluded a helmet law would cost more lives than it saved. This was through reduced cycling and loss of health benefits, and risk compensation meaning helmeted riders are involved in more crashes.

Another article alongside has leading neurosurgeon Henry Marsh saying many of his patients involved in cycling accidents had been wearing helmets but they were too flimsy to be beneficial.

[quote=hodgynd ]I've no idea why they don't apply to driving a car do you?

Well if you don't understand why you form your own opinions then it's unlikely I'm going to be able to help. Because you're the one on here who's attitudes to helmet use are that cyclists without one deserve to be injured, or are extremely foolish. Yet you're not applying those same standards to driving, where you presumably don't wear a helmet?

That's a seperate issue which isnt being discussed ( certainly not by me ).

No, it's not a separate issue, it's a useful way to examine the attitudes of those who use pejorative terms towards those who choose to cycle without wearing a helmet. Why do you consider a helmet so important for one and not the other? Is your attitude evidence based?

What ' evidence ' are you talking about ..the fact that helmets save riders from head injuries ..are you saying they don't or are you trying to tell me that because I don't agree with the majority that I'm not allowed an opinion ..?

I'm talking about the evidence you haven't provided in support of your opinion, instead falling back on "it's just my opinion" when challenged.

What exactly have you added to the thread ..and by the way do you wear one ?
( tbf..Im not that bothered if you do or not )

Well I've challenged unsupported opinions, which tends to be more useful to debate than presenting those unsupported opinions. My helmet wearing choices are utterly irrelevant to the debate (and the wider question).

Aracer ..if you would like an analogy as to why drivers of motor vehicles don't wear helmets then I would guess that the space in which they are sitting in most cases has a roof over their heads ..this being the equivalent to a bike helmet ..wouldnt you say ..as in somthing that comes between them and direct contact with the road ?
In terms of analysing crash data there is no way that you can have a like for like analysis as there are significantly more vehicles on the road than bicycles .
With regard to the evidence that I haven't provided ..are you just being lazy here ..or did you miss the link I provided earlier?
Something else which you have quite obviously missed is that when asked the question directly by a previous poster is that I have retracted my statement where I said that non helmet wearers deserved to have a head injury ..its obvious from my stance on the wearing of helmets that I'm in favour of less head injuries ..please try to keep up ..your last post was obsolete and a few minutes reviewing could have saved you a lot of effort ..

if you would like an analogy as to why drivers of motor vehicles don't wear helmets then I would guess that the space in which they are sitting in most cases has a roof over their heads ..this being the equivalent to a bike helmet ..wouldnt you say ..as in somthing that comes between them and direct contact with the road ?

I think you are perhaps misunderstanding or simplifying what the helmet is intended to do, the eps foam is designed to compress and absorb some of the energy from the impact to stop that energy/force being applied to your head. This along with the outer shell will also protect you to some degree from sharp objects etc.

So its nothing like a car roof, more comparable to the airbag or crumple zones on the car.

Fair comment..

Also in relation to earlier comments in the thread about helmets always having a positive effect in a crash, this is not so clear cut. In general most traumatic brain injuries are caused by rotational motion of the brain, in some circumstances the helmet can increase the rotational force applied to the brain during the impact.

This happens in some cases by making the head physically bigger and therefore the head is more likely to be impacted and any impact results in a bigger rotational force; due to the effective bigger 'lever' as the force of the impact is happening further from the centre of the brain.

The helmet can also prevent the scalp from sliding relative to the skull and makes the head bounce rather than slide during impact. MIPS and other similar systems are an attempt to improve the helmets ability to absorb these rotational forces. It’s good to see helmet brands trying to address these issues, though it’s unclear how effective the various solutions are; hopefully someone will come up with a test/standard to benchmark these.

Plenty of studies etc. on rotational impacts on the interweb if anyone wants to read further, don’t take my word for it.

So it’s certainly not clear cut that helmets = better, I would not be in favour of compulsion, for the reasons already stated by others on the negative effect this is shown to have on participation etc.

That's also interesting ..
I guess that as I'm defending the wearing of helmets what I'm bound to take from that is that you have said "in some cases ".
Would it also be fair to say that they can also in other cases have a beneficial effect ?

Absolutely, I’ve definitely smashed a helmet up instead of my head before. I’ve also had a concussion from a crash where the helmet had little damage. There are many scenarios where it could be a help or a hindrance, though you might not know which it is till after the event.

As such I think it’s up to the individual to decide, there certainly isn't a definitive argument I can find either way, hopefully people can take a bit of time to read up on the various studies and stats and make their own choice.

Certainly there isn’t a convincing case for compulsion.

For me it’s something I always wear off road and rarely on the road.

[quote=Finkill ]So its nothing like a car roof, more comparable to the airbag or crumple zones on the car.

Indeed. Somebody has even done research on this, and shown that even with airbags and crumple zones on cars, there is still a huge benefit from wearing bicycle helmets in cars.

http://www.monash.edu/muarc/research/our-publications/atsb160

Hence any argument about the necessity of helmet wearing for all cycling is invalidated if the person making the argument doesn't wear a helmet in a car. Which is pretty much every argument ever made regarding the necessity of wearing helmets whilst cycling.

I note that I'm not suggesting there are no benefits to wearing a helmet for cycling, simply that it's impossible to make an argument for helmet compulsion, or even for the stupidity of people not wearing helmets to cycle if they aren't considered equally necessary for driving.

aracer...
So this is the piece of evidence you have been dying to bring into the discussion to support your argument ? 😆 results of a lab test taken in excess of 20 years ago.
In case you missed the point about using softer materials in the roof space ..its mentioned about three times ..and far from disputing the fact that helmets helped to save serious head injuries I'm in complete agreement ..they do..but given that it was a lab test I could have predicted the positive results myself !
So in the intervening years what has actually happened to make good use of this data..
Well I'm no expert or design engineer but I don't need to be to understand that to accommodate helmet wearing passengers in a family car would need a massive re-think in terms of car design to make them taller and wider ( go sit in your own car with your bike helmet on )..an absolute non starter from a material cost alone ..but which in turn would make the vehicle more dangerous as the roads on which they are driven will remain the same width giving every driver less room in which to manoeuvre ..
In the intervening 20+ years I'm guessing (!) that the motor industry has used some of that data to improve upon some of the points it raised ..softer roof materials , front and side facing air bag impact protection ( which was on very few family vehicles 20 years ago ) better crumple zone protection, better seat belts , softer head restraints ..to name but a few ..but spookily no mention whatsoever of car helmets ...
However ..if such a car specific helmet were ever produced and car design changed to accommodate this ..then I would consider wearing one ..but as things stand it's a non starter...from a safety point of view ( that being a lack of space inside the vehicle).
If in turn it was found to be a huge benefit ..as you yourself have claimed it to be ..then I would definitely wear one 😀
Have you any more up to date info as to how this idea might have progressed which might in turn lend relevance to your nice quaint out of date story ?
Ps..check your own facts first ..no one has suggested wearing a bicycle helmet in a car ..but a helmet [b]similar[/b] to a bicycle helmet ..as yet not designed 8)

Well this has become the inevitable circular debate on whether they work rather than if they should be compulsory, which is probably how the formal review will go, the "evidence" will more than likely be whichever interest group can shout the loudest...

And of course lids and yellow vests are only part of the scope, the whole review was triggered by someone on a bicycle hitting and killing a woman in that there London... The whole basis for this review is a knee jerk need to slap cyclists down.

It's probably in their interests that we all get sidetracked arguing the toss over foam hat compulsion and miss whatever other curtailments of cycling or new charging for cycling offences are snuck in...

Well I'm no expert

You could have left it at that and saved all the typing you did after that statement as the rest of the stuff you have said is just made up or personal opinion.

Of course nobody is going to bother with helmets in cars, the point is why bother with helmets on bikes. If the answer is because it is easier then it is also easier to wear a helmet at all times just in case you fall over, knock your head on something etc,.

A law should not be based on peoples poor risk assessment skills...

Really? ..did you read the out of date link that Aracer posted ..or do you just like writing complete bollocks or god forbid maybe you dont like me 😥 😆
Edit : I don't get what you mean by " because it's easier"..
Which forms part of the utter bollocks ..please explain..

Out of date? Has physics changed in the last 20 years? Presumably you're going to present the more recent study which contradicts that one then? No, thought not, because it's just your personal opinion not backed up by any facts at all, and the reason you don't wear a helmet in your car is just convenience, which makes you extremely foolish. I'm guessing you also didn't bother to read the report properly because it already accounts for the presence of airbags - quite clearly those intervening 20 years haven't stopped people being seriously injured and killed due to head injuries in cars (go check the stats), which makes your opinions somewhat invalid. Your suggestions that cars would have to be wider is also somewhat bizarre - can you explain that one to me? The report also specifically says "in the form of a soft shell bicycle helmet" - I'm not sure how you think a car helmet is likely to be any different, perhaps you could also furnish us with your useful personal opinion on that hod?

[quote=hodgynd ]If in turn it was found to be a huge benefit ..as you yourself have claimed it to be ..then I would definitely wear one

That report is all the proof you need - the only possible contradiction to it is your unevidenced personal opinion. But then you're not actually interested in any evidence which doesn't agree with your personal opinion are you?

Anyway, the available evidence suggests there's plenty of space for a helmet in an ordinary car, so let's get that one out of the way

[img] [/img]

I guess this is just another fudge so they can dodge the real issue, which is implementing proper cycling infrastructure to separate cars and cyclists.

Drivers aren't the issue, cyclist aren't the issue when it comes to the road. It's piss poor infrastructure.

I think the remit of this review is not actually all that well understood and it's being co-opted to generate click bait and frothy headlines galore, what it's scope and goals actually are hasn't been very well publicised TBH.
I'll admit I had to go off and have a quick google which yielded [url= https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-urgent-review-into-cycle-safety ]this[/url] from September:

The review, which will seek to improve all elements of cycle safety, will be in 2 phases.

The first phase will analyse the case for creating a new offence equivalent to causing death or serious injury by careless or dangerous driving to help protect both cyclists and pedestrians. This will address a specific issue emerging from some of the most distressing cases seen recently and will be informed by independent legal advice. The conclusions from this phase are expected to be reported in the New Year.

The second phase will be a wider consultation on road safety issues relating to cycling. It will involve a range of road safety and cycling organisations, as well as the general public and will consider different ways in which safety can be further improved between cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. It will consider the rules of the road, public awareness, key safety risks and the guidance and signage for all road users.

Phase 1 is the more interesting bit IMO because that's the bit of scope directly triggered by Charlie Alliston's brakeless adventures, the part where they're potentially going to try and update/create new criminal offences for cyclists...

Compulsory Lids and Hi-Viz would fall under the second phase along with infrastructure, signage, education, etc, etc (you know all the stuff people have been shouting for over the last decade or so) and TBH if the review is actually as wide ranging as the above indicates i.e. all [i][u]"road safety issues relating to cycling"[/u][/i] then helmets and vests should only form a relatively small part of it.
I especially note inclusion of the term [i][u]"for all road users[/u][/i], so although the focus is bicycles, I take that to mean everything from Pedestrians to HGVs should be under consideration both in terms of risks posed to/by cyclists... That's a lot to actually cover

Personally I can't see helmet and vest compulsion being a practical measure, not because of their efficacy, but because I don't believe there would be much if any actual enforcement, it would be yet another set of rules governing road users that the police lack the time, resources and/or inclination to enforce.