Just going through the current bills in Parliament, and I see theres one that is to introduce a law for all cyclists using the public highways to wear a safety helmet.
Only in its first reading, but as its a good idea and likely to save lives and serious injury, it could well go through.
https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3472
Not for me.
In all honesty, I'd repeal the helmet law for motorcycles too.
I'd keep the seatbelt law though.
Cheeky pricks snuck that one in there didn't they.
Hasn't the Aussie helmet law driven down bicycle use? Just what the UK needs now eh?
Aside from the odd angry DM columnist who was really crying out for helmet compulsion? Good old Tories really got their fingers on the pulse.
Relevant question - does not wearing a helmet affect the punishment for someone who causes you a head injury you probably would have avoided if you were wearing one? As it could be said you weren't taking what most people IMO would consider normal and reasonable precautions.
Same principle as not wearing a seatbelt and then dying in a car crash I expect.
oes not wearing a helmet affect the punishment for someone who causes you a head injury you probably would have avoided if you were wearing one?
Yes, they'll get away with a minimum sentence even if they were in the wrong, and probably the other way around too. There will be some penalty if you are injured and not wearing a lid. Remember its a tory who proposed this, and the MP in question is a right nasty piece of work. A tory will always be a tory and from that you can easily guess how something like this bill is going to pan out.
Relevant question – does not wearing a helmet affect the punishment for someone who causes you a head injury you
probably wouldarguably might have avoided if you were wearing one?
Lack of a lid seems to get treated as a mitigating factor in some cases despite not actually being illegal, the link didn't include a direct link to the bill, what else is covered in the bill are they trying to compel Hi-Viz too?
Lid compulsion is a ready made victim blaming measure. If they actually gave two shits about saving lives on the roads they'd actually push for enforcement of the mobile phone driving laws.
Edit: fixed your question for you too, an EPS hat is not a shield of invulnerability 😉
Fair enough, those were the words I wanted.
Wasn’t it the case that after this was done in Australia the fall in numbers cycling was so great that increased deaths due to heart disease etc outweighed lives saved due to head injuries on bikes?
The bicycle helmet "debate" is one of the strangest little culture war battlegrounds when you think about it.
The good old Right of centre, small government loving, libertarian, anti-nanny-state lot pushing for a rather 'nanny-state' measure. It has of course got sweet FA to do with protecting bicycle users from injury or death, it's always been about kicking the sort of yoghurt weaving lefty tree huggers that the dusty old buffers that make up the core Tory vote imagine ride bicycles...
The stock answer I go to when someone starts talking about how such a measure will "save lives" is "Great but why aren't we dealing with all the pricks playing on their phones while driving first? They pose a far more imminent threat to my life when cycling than a plastic hat could ever mitigate".
Edit:
A further line of argument cited by opponents to mandatory wearing of cycle helmets is that legislation would be difficult to enforce. While it would certainly create an additional burden on the police, it does not strike me as particularly difficult to enforce compared with other offences: it is easier to spot a cyclist without a helmet than to spot a driver using a mobile phone, or a car passenger without a seatbelt. No one here suggests that wearing seatbelts should be a matter of individual choice on the basis of difficulties in enforcing the current legislation.
Bless him he addressed the point head on, don't deal with the cause, it's far harder than bullying the victims...
It's probably going to go through isn't it, now it's reached the commons.
personally, I always wear one, but since a bike can be an incredibly cheap transport with huge benefits of fitness, freedom and ability to reach work, education and entertainment I am against anything that puts a barrier in place for some potential cyclists. If (and I would need to see some data) the cost of a helmet is a barrier to some then no they must not be compulsory.
I’d be tempted to say yes to compulsory lids for delivery riders on e-bikes.
When you think of the sheer momentum carried by those bikes flipping over🫢🫢🫢
Though, most delivery cyclists round my part of town don’t even have any lights.
Fwiw, I’d have the police do more random checks for lights, and if the cyclists fall foul of the Highway Code, they could have the choice of paying a fine or buying a voucher for some lights.
At least that would clear any backlog of unsold lights in the bike shops.
Unlikely to go through.
"It is very rare for a Ten Minute Rule bill to pass into legislation. Since 1945, at the time of writing, only sixty Ten Minute Rule Bills have passed into legislation. "
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/what-is-a-ten-minute-rule-bill/
cycle helmet compulsion would cost lives due to reduction in cycling and thus increased diseases of inactivity. so if yo u wantmore deths and an unhealthier population make cycle helmets compulsory
A good summary of the actual evidence
https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/cycle-helmets
You also need to know what 'problem' to is trying to fix. I don't wear a helmet but would guess that around 99% of people I see doing the sort of riding I do (road and gravel) are wearing them as it is unusual to see someone not wearing one.
Would be good to see the data (which of course they don't have) on how many people are not wearing them already and what type of riding they are doing.
The text of the Bill:
A Bill to require a person riding a bicycle on the public highway to wear a safety helmet; and for connected purposes.
It's the last 4 words that worry me. That reads as a prelude to smart/connected vehicles all talking to each other and all needing to recognise cyclists so therefore cyclists need a helmet with some kind of chip or beacon in it to talk to the cars.
The Tories can always be relied on to drag this one around every year or so. Maybe worth flagging it to British Cycling, Cycling UK and Sustrans though just so they can start encouraging members to write to their MP and ask WTAF the Tories are playing at (again) and point out that they could try a bit less corruption and a bit more fixing the country.
Absolutely for wearing helmets and totally against compulsion. It's unnecessary, unenforceable, and a huge barrier to active travel and exercise.
If only politicians and the media were so keen to resource the Police so existing traffic offences - including those committed by cyclists - were properly dealt with and effectively punished.
Cyclists are the most vulnerable road users. Given all the data about how much safer cyclists are when they wear a helmet
So let's not hurt them so much when we hit them....
As said above, complete waste of time and money this, completely unenforceable, the Police are under resourced, so unlikely to enforce this.
Reading that link, it is in response to a very nasty head injury one of his constituents suffered after falling off. It's not the usual anti-cycling-disguised-as-fake-concern churned out by the DM and friends.
Oliver had hoped to be in the Public Gallery here today, but because of the severity of his disability he would have needed two support staff to accompany him from Rugby
For some reason, I get a 403 error when trying to post a copy of the text.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-06-07/debates/877059D3-FC26-4823-84E2-364995CF4ABB/RoadSafety(CycleHelmets)
The MP backing it has already said that he's standing down at the next GE https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-63865213
The second reading is scheduled for 24th Nov, except that it's unlikely to happen on that date because the House won't be sitting
Everyone's winding up for the next GE, which will probably be called within the next 12 months
Won't happen (IMHO)
Compulsory helmet wearing is a bad idea.
Wearing a helmet is a good idea for cycling activities if you’re a child, or at increased risk of falling off and banging your head such as fast road riding and mountain biking.
For most other forms of cycling the benefits of helmets are very marginal.
Look at countries like the Netherlands where very few cyclists use helmets.
It's probably a good idea to wear a helmet. But if you are incharge of making things safer...
The Man seems to be having problems compelling motorcyclists to wear helmets round where I am, never mind cyclists.
Reading that link, it is in response to a very nasty head injury one of his constituents suffered after falling off.
Certain cases make it worth bringing in new laws - some so horrific that new / better legislation is the only way of dealing with it.
On the other hand if we introduced new legislation for everyone who fell over and hurt themselves - especially when there's no proof it would have solved anything - we'd be buried under a pile of totally bollocks laws.
It’s not the usual anti-cycling-disguised-as-fake-concern churned out by the DM and friends.
It's exactly that. It may not be meant as anti-cycling but it's exactly that.
It’s the last 4 words that worry me. That reads as a prelude to smart/connected vehicles all talking to each other and all needing to recognise cyclists so therefore cyclists need a helmet with some kind of chip or beacon in it to talk to the cars.
Don't worry, you're barking up the wrong tree. It's a phrase that's used in many bills. Google it. It just means the bill would do x (make it compulsory to wear a helmet), but also whatever other ancillary stuff is required to achieve x (create a Helmet Enforcement Squad, allow exchange of data with other countries, declare 2024 the Year of the British Helmet...). It's nothing to do with connectivity.
I’d be tempted to say yes to compulsory lids for delivery riders on e-bikes.
It's the law in New York City that delievery drivers need helmet, high viz, bell and light when working. It seems to be mostly complied with - certainly a big improvement from the old days. Whether it was overall worthwhile, I don't know. But we already accept the principle of higher H&S standards at work than at home, so...
https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pr2007/pr07_63.shtml
Private Members' Bill so still has a lot of hurdles to cross before it becomes law. The government wants to legislate to take away rights and generally make life worse for lots of other people before the end of the Parliament, so there may not be enough time for this to get through.
I’d be tempted to say yes to compulsory lids for delivery riders on e-bikes.
take up would be pretty much instant, as I’m pretty sure most ebike delivery riders won’t want a copper looking too closely at their ‘bike’
I wear a helmet 'cos I ride briskly and often off road (where I think I'm more likely to fall off as opposed to being in a collision). I don't think they should be compulsory. I think well designed and executed cycling infrastructure should be, in order to allow people to cycle as a means of transport without having to get specially dressed up.
Anyway good luck trying to enforce it.
https://twitter.com/TourofBritain/status/1700101726295019730
some one should send that nyc link to the proposer of this bill, any hint of a free helmet scheme should see it killed off 🙂
Reading that link, it is in response to a very nasty head injury one of his constituents suffered after falling off. It’s not the usual anti-cycling-disguised-as-fake-concern churned out by the DM and friends.
You reckon?
I think Oliver was just a handy prop I'm afraid (who apparently couldn't attend because of the costs of his complex care needs in the midst of the government laying waste to the NHS).
I'm sure he's a very passionate advocate for helmet use, I would similarly encourage people to wear them as a matter of course (which a large number already do), but compulsion by law is not required or likely to provide an overall benefit to society when stacked up against the probable downsides and the actual probability of enforcement.
Also this interaction almost certainly didn't take place as recounted:
At a personal level, on a recent family holiday, we rented bikes. When the person serving us offered me a helmet, I initially declined. He then looked me in the eye and asked, “Just how many brains do you have, sir?” I took the hint and I took the helmet
I wouldn’t let compulsory helmet wearing stop me from cycling, and doing so for that reason is just curmudgeon level narcissistic click bait whinging IMO regardless of political party enforcing it.
.
Its a bit like the toast/cat perpetual motion machine for the meathead right. Helmet compulsion is a massive PITA to cyclists and will reduce the number of one of their bogiemen - but compulsion is The Nanny State. Expect the instruction to hate cyclists wins out.
The case quote says the root cause was slipping off a pedal. So what needs to be mandated is better pedals.
Most of the reasons for needing helmets could be solved by sticking two zeros on any motoring offence fine. That would calm people down. Add automatic acceptance of helmet camera videos and much of the probelm would go.
Toatlly against any form of compulsion to look after oneself. M/c helmets, seat belts etc.
At a personal level, on a recent family holiday, we rented bikes. When the person serving us offered me a helmet, I initially declined. He then looked me in the eye and asked, “Just how many brains do you have, sir?” I took the hint and I took the helmet
https://twitter.com/_dhotya?lang=en
How would it work with all the bike hire schemes?
They must be a fairly big business and people who ride them seldom seem to have helmets.
Helmet compulsion is a rubbish idea. There's a reason almost no country does it
However, if the MP is genuinely concerned about saving lives then mandating car helmets would make much more of an impact (pardon the pun). In fact, what makes bikes uniquely dangerous, why not mandate helmets for anyone using the public highway.
Hasn’t the Aussie helmet law driven down bicycle use?
No, it hasn’t.
Just like cars speeding. Lots of people ride bikes without wearing helmets here. But people that ride bikes a lot always wear helmets
ie - it’s the law but nobody gives a ****, lots of people ride around with helmets on their handlebars but I’ve never heard of anyone getting fined.
It’s really not worth worrying about
Well it's not going to happen. It's a private members bill and the government just recently ruled it out after a fairly thourgh review on the matter.
Hasn’t the Aussie helmet law driven down bicycle use?
Yes it did significantly - without any real corresponding decrease in head injuries.
Another authoritarian ruling from this absolute state of a government.
I'm all for minimal government intervention in people's daily lives, sometimes however i understand its required and has its place, this however does not.
If people want to make stupid decisions and know what the impact of that decision could have, go ahead, be my guest, you do you and don't tell me how to live my life either,each to their own.
I love helmets, but would I have ever gotten into bikes at a young age if it was mandated? Probably not, I only started wearing one around 2010 when the idea of mortality and flying down trails past trees at 20+mph became more of a thing and I decided hey wearing a helmet is probably actually a good thing, and I hate seeing the youngsters up at the trails who don't wear them, but mandated on all public highways? It's just going to put people and kids off who hop on a bike for convenience to nip to the shops or their friends house, it's another thing to carry around and worry about, what if you misplace it and lose it? You have to wheel your bike home in fear of getting a fine from the police?
It also gives action man police who have gotten into the job for the wrong reasons more excuses to penalise and be a nob to people who are easy targets because investigating burglaries is too hard to do.
Not a fan of this at all. Quote me, disagree with me, try and have a STW edgy debate with me, call me an idiot for my opinion do whatever but you won't get a response from me as my opinion will not change on this matter.
<span style="color: #555555; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; font-style: italic; text-align: left; background-color: #eeeeee;">Given all the data about how much safer cyclists are when they wear a helmet</span>
Chinny reckon...
I'd love to see all this data. Peer reviewed and published of course.
(The plural of anecdote is not data, however many frothing loons seem to think it is.)
even though helmets reduce injuries and you're an idiot for not wearing one the choice should be yours to do so.
I’ve never heard of anyone getting fined.
I certainly have - NSW Police used to set up checkpoints on key commuting routes and fine people en masse. I think I must have either been wearing a helmet or spotted them early enough to avoid them, as I didn't get pinged. I think the fines were fairly chunky, maybe 10 penalty units or something, so $220? It wasn't nominal iirc
Well in QLD I see people every day not wearing them - school kids and adults. Just like I see lots of cars without front number plates.
even though helmets reduce injuries and you’re an idiot for not wearing one the choice should be yours to do so.
Just as you should wear a helmet when driving, when going up a ladder, when going down stairs etc, and you're an idiot for not wearing one but the choice should be yours.
Helmet compulsion is a rubbish idea.
Maybe its a set up to start fining cyclists not wearing them.
Pro helmet, anti compulsion.
The helmet is a help if I fall off due to a pot hole or fluffing a corner or grabbing too much front brake or a front tyre blowout or whatever.
It is next to no use against a motor vehicle as demonstrated by a motor manufacturer's research no in 2019....
Given that my aged out/old helmets get flattened before going in a bin and it doesn't take much more than a hefty heel stamp in the middle I'm curious as to what protection it will offer if some inattentive halfwit in a 1 tonne metal box hits me at considerably more than cycling pace?
So here's a super idea... fund roads policing properly, stop letting people accrue points vastly in excess of the totting up limit due to "exceptional hardship" and explain to them that if not driving will ruin them they might get a second chance at 12 points ONCE but really if you are that habitually law breaking in a car even knowing you've exceeded the totting up limit and your financial and family life is massively dependent on it then you are fundamentally not fit to hold a driving licence either through incompetence or lawlessness and both are equally bad in their own way.
Every time one of these people gets let off a lengthy ban (time and again) it sends a message that they will get away with it next time too and the cycle must perpetuate.
There’s a worrying tendency amongst some on here to buy into the (right wing) paradigm of blaming people for not wearing helmets.
Gently riding a bicycle is not that dangerous. The biggest risk is being hit by a car, at which point wearing a helmet is likely to make **** all difference.
Quite worrying to see this on a forum that’s ostensibly for cyclists.
<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; background-color: #eeeeee;">Just as you should wear a helmet when driving, when going up a ladder, when going down stairs etc, and you’re an idiot for not wearing one but the choice should be yours.</span>
oh do shut up. You put a seatbelt on in a car and you make sure a ladder is safe to use before going up.
Never used to wear a lid other than the hair net things when road racing. As helmets got better, I just got used to them. I wear them when out training, commuting or any off road. I don't wear one when bimbling with family.
We has some fat lass comment to us three (me, wife and adult daughter). Oh look they aren't wearing helmets. I am not wearing a lid when bimbling about.
I don't agree with compulsion, although I'll wear one when I'm shifting. A mate of mine never wears a helmet, even off road (and hes has a fractured skull in an off and head lacerations in two others).
There is a limit on the protection a lid offers (unless a DH lid), but if it lessens a concussion or gravel rash on your forehead (skin isn't thick up there), all for it.
If seatbelts prevented all head injuries car occupants wouldn’t be significant recipients of those injuries. The case for helmet compulsion in cars is particularly clear with motor vehicle use not offset by any health benefits to compensate.
You put a seatbelt on in a car and you make sure a ladder is safe to use before going up.
Yet you can still sustain a head injury in a car accident when wearing a seatbelt and still fall off a ladder that you have checked is safe or fall down stairs. The fact you seem to think cycling is more dangerous is up to you but don't state that is more dangerous for all others and they are idiots for not wearing a helmet.
Guessing you are not very good at riding a bike, which is fine, a lot of people are not that good so wear that helmet of yours if it makes you feel better.
A quick Google of the BMJ seems to suggest old people should wear helmets as they fall over a lot and bang their swedes. And it gets worse the more you age, and there's a lot of old people out there. Some who may even compound the issue by riding bicycles.
My father fell last Christmas day, had he been wearing a helmet he would have dodged a head injury but of course I fully respect his decision and right to expose himself to risk. He wasn't riding a bike at all, and had just finished 3 courses.
Helmets are sweaty, look stupid and help 'other' ordinary cyclists who are just trying to get somewhere.
Rarely wear one when using a bike for transport. Compulsion can do one and I'll pay the fine.
(obviously when cycling for sport whether on the road or mtb, I'll always wear one unless is a complete bimble)
I wear one as I don't do slow, don't have an e-bike, nor am I that quick off road down hill, but I push it, I always have. Shit happens sometimes. Very useful to let the paramedics pick me up off the road on a spinal board letting them see a helmet without a mark. I'd broken my spine and I suspected it. Pain was incredible, but I was able to say lower back, not head or neck, check helmet.
I wouldn’t let compulsory helmet wearing stop me from cycling, and doing so for that reason is just curmudgeon level narcissistic click bait whinging IMO regardless of political party enforcing it.
Neither would most of us - the point is that its another barrier that may stop other people starting cycling.
There’s a worrying tendency amongst some on here to buy into the (right wing) paradigm of blaming people for not wearing helmets.
Can you point out some examples by quoting who has said that.
Gently riding a bicycle is not that dangerous. The biggest risk is being hit by a car, at which point wearing a helmet is likely to make **** all difference.
I've written off three helmets while "riding gently". I agree they shouldn't be compulsory, and are not going to save you if you get walloped by a car, but they are quite handy things in case of ice, mud, idiot pedestrians....
Only in its first reading, but as its a good idea and likely to save lives and serious injury, it could well go through.
It isn’t a good idea.
Go on then Ranos.
I dont wear one, because my pottering along isnt a dangerous occupation, but if you are going to bounce your head off the ground, and in cycling that is a possibility, then the reduction a helmet will bring makes it a good idea.
I have also fallen off (OTB) and landed on my head(Vodka and cycling aren't a good mixer) but it was a whiplash injury that was the result, which took about 5 years to fully clear up.
That one really bloody hurt. It like walking into a concrete lintel 10x.
but if you are going to bounce your head off the ground, and in cycling that is a possibility, then the reduction a helmet will bring makes it a good idea.
The question is whether, overall, safety outcomes for cyclists would be significantly improved through helmet compulsion. As far as I'm aware, that hasn't been demonstrated in countries where compulsion has been introduced.
@MoreCashThanDash there’s a quote for you:
you’re an idiot for not wearing one
Damaging a helmet doesn’t mean that you needed to wear one. None of us can tell what the counterfactual would be, which is why we use data rather than anecdotes.
One of the weird counterintuitive things is helmet wearers appear more likely to crash!
Read the link I provided before - it gives good summaries of the evidence. Compulsory helmets would at best save a handful of lives and cost dozens via diseases of inactivity.
Edit: Its very interesting to look thru the data. Loads of counterintuitive effects. The quality of data varies from mediocre to downright rubbish so some of the most cited articles being particularly poor. There is little decent evidence of helmets reducing injuries overall when compulsion has been tried.
Meh, not going to happen and if it did I’d make a point of not wearing one for a bimble to the shops. Local plod can’t/won’t deal with the unlicensed electric mopeds or any number of petty crimes as it is.
The biggest risk is being hit by a car, at which point wearing a helmet is likely to make **** all difference.
I don't think this is true. However hard you hit your head it's worse without a helmet. Doesn't matter if you hit a car A pillar or tarmac. Yes it won't save you from being mown down at 60mph but not all accidents are that.
@garage-dweller that's not an accurate representation of how they work. Try this: put a helmet on and hit yourself on the head with a brick. Now take the helmet off and do it again. See the difference?
That inch or so of polystyrene deforms and takes away some of the energy that would go into your skull. Similar to how a car can look like it's weak and useless be ause it's completely crumpled in a crash, but it's the crumpling that has saved you.
I ride all the time, only place I'll ever wear a helmet is technical downhill sections. Never on a road.
They're just damn unpleasant things and I shouldn't have to wear one. So I won't, no matter what the law says.
One of the weird counterintuitive things is helmet wearers appear more likely to crash!
Is that adjusted for type of cyclist? The kind who ride fast for a long time are more likely to crash and they almost all where helmets.
Petition to add to the same bill a presumption of guilt on any driver who hits a cyclist and I might accept it.
I didn’t ride in on Friday due to the fog, not because I don’t like riding in fog (I do, really evocative atmosphere - literally) but because I know drivers don’t drive to the conditions - and that’s scary.
Is that adjusted for type of cyclist?
Impossible to pick that type of granular detail in the data from what I remember
but as its a good idea
Is it?
All it will do is reduce cycling use and lead to more people being fat and putting more strain on the NHS. A bit of polystyrene will do bugger all when an inattentive motorist splats you into the tarmac.
Got to wonder whether the body that governs this country doesn't have better things to do with its time. They haven't answered for the previous PPE scandal yet. Has anyone checked ACOBA to see what interests the minister proposing this has in related businesses?
Shit idea.
My hair is my concern.
If I've been hit by a car it's probably because the driver is a **** and not because I wasn't wearing a helmet.... Something something cause vs no f-off you drove into me.
As seen is Australia this reduces the participation in cycling.
In most large cities in China you can rent a bike at the side of the road by hour/day/monthly subscription. At first they were Boris Bikes style. Now we see slow, single seater emopeds everywhere.
The manually pedalled bikes all have baskets in the front for your shopping. The ebikes have a sort of basket, but there is a helmet locked in there that you remove when you unlock the bike, then you can put your shopping in there. The helmet is attached by a long security cord.
People don't wash ......
Sometimes the rain washes the helmet for you.......
Most of the time these bikes are wobbling down the roads with the helmet banging away locked in the basket because most people don't wear them. They're also single seaters but people put two, sometimes three people on them. Small kids too. Bigger emopeds, and 100-150cc motorbikes you can see four people on them, and no helmets.
Helmets are cheap here. You can get supposedly DOT rated full face modular helmets for less than a tenner, where the front flips up so you can breathe better whilst stopped at traffic lights (for those that bother to stop). Most people here can't even ride a bike safely, because study and exams are almost every hour of a kid's life.
Gore is banned from social media, but I still see videos of people showing off their accident injuries. Dented/fractured skulls, broken noses and jaws, damaged/missing limbs. Ironic that it's usually their fault for not wearing a helmet, learning to ride, or observing traffic rules. Usually, in this society, disabled family members are hidden away from the public. You rarely see them wheeled out of their homes. They're a hidden issue. Preventative actions (cause and effect principles) aren't a strong point in local academic/social education. Following rules given the political environment is odd
There are checkpoints many places at rush hour, stopping riders enmasse. They get a stern talking to. I think there is a 20rmb (£2.19) fine too.
So we come to industrialized Western nations and the problems with cyclists without lights, helmets, lack of observing traffic rules. You'd think they'd have more sense.
All it will do is reduce cycling use and lead to more people being fat and putting more strain on the NHS.
That is potentially as much bullshit as the people who say wearing helmets will save lives. Riding at 10mph to the shops, or a 2 mile commute is not going to stop you getting fat and putting more strain on NHS. The people who would no longer ride due to a helmet law may just walk instead which could be argued is harder work than cycling slowly for a short distance (I used to walk 3 miles to work and back every day and it was much harder than cycling 3 miles)
The people who are actually fitter/thinner/healthier are largely going to be those who actual cycle further and faster and from what I can see the majority of those already wear a helmet.
Some good data would be on how many people do not wear a helmet when cycling and what sort of cycling are they doing.