Forum menu
Wish I could run or walk at 20mph for prolonged periods.
Fairly certain I can't even achieve that down a hill no matter how long it is.
Yes – that one Iinked to cycling UK not cyclehelmets.org
https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/cycle-helmets
The answer you were looking for here apparently was no. You have posted the same link again.
I'm not pro compulsion but I'm anti people who try and make out that a helmet provides no protection - even more so by waving around what are skewed statistics by their very mature of how they are gathered.
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
So why do so many people in cars end up with head injuries?
This is interesting: https://blog.ukdataservice.ac.uk/nts-road-deaths/
Using the raw numbers, we found that four times as many drivers and five times as many pedestrians died from a head injury as cyclists.
.....
A key finding from this use of NTS showed that young males are up to five times safer when they cycle than when they drive – and the rest of us are also safer if they cycle and don’t drive!
So even with the seatbelt, (and assuming helmets would make a difference, but racing drivers wear them for a reason) mandating helmets for drivers would save more lives, as I reckon close to 0% of driven miles are done by someone wearing a helmet, while a good % of cycled miles are done by someone already wearing a helmet. And that then leads to a follow on question of what % of cyclists who died from a head injury where actually wearing a helmet anyway.
It really is strange that bicycles are a special case for needing helmets. Look at these lunatics, risking life and limb head:
Whereas this is completely fine and sensible and there is no chance of a head injury:
And for the avoidance of doubt, I always wear a helmet when MTBing or 'proper' road riding, but not always if popping to the shop on a kerb-protected cycle lane.
Trail rat - have you bothered to read it? Cycling UK is a large pro cyclist lobbying campaign. That briefing is a decent analysis of the data. Its not slanted in any way particularly
And that then leads to a follow on question of what % of cyclists who died from a head injury where actually wearing a helmet anyway
More interesting would be the number of people who crashed, Impacted their head wearing a helmet and subsequently didn't report the incident due to their being no injury. - I know I have several times.
I've also been added to the head injury statistics when not wearing a helmet , snapped a chain , hit the ground at speed and took an epileptic fit + spent the rest of the year getting tests to ensure it was related directly to the trauma and not an ongoing thing.
Trail rat – have you bothered to read it? Cycling UK is a large pro cyclist lobbying campaign. That briefing is a decent analysis of the data. Its not slanted in any way particularly
Yes I have - seems they got a new PR guy doing their copy so it's less alienating than in the past. But their history is such that you cannot accept them as not biased towards helmet=bad.
Just waiting for the helmets increase injury line and my bingo card will be complete for this thread.
It would be interesting to know the rate/severity of head injuries on drop-bar road bikes vs more upright city bikes - on the latter your body has to rotate much further for your head to hit the ground first.
trail_rat
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1410838/
https://ideas.repec.org/p/mut/wpaper/21.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01785.x/abstract
Those are a good start I have more if you want them
Have you read more than the abstract while Googling?
the corrections on the first article alone are interesting.
Trail rat. Are you confusing it with cycle helmets.org?
I never use google 🙂
I read those - and others - last time this debate happened as I realised I was arguing from assumption not knowledge. It changed my mind about a few things.
but it’s ok, I see where you’re coming from now: “I want evidence. No, not that evidence”.
Edit.
**** it going for a bike ride .....with my helmet on. .
Enjoy your ride trail_rat. Sorry if I annoyed you.
There's a very, very big difference between "helmet = bad" and "helmet compulsion = bad".
I think these threads so often go a certain way because the people disagreeing with one another are actually arguing for/against different things.
Well, I've just got back from a 4 hour MTB ride with a helmet on. Tomorrow morning, I'll get up and do my 30 minute cycle commute down a tow path, without one. Time and a place.
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 feel that the question from the bike hire guy had a different meaning than the MP thought...
I’d be tempted to say yes to compulsory lids for delivery riders on e-bikes.
Applying a new law to folks who are legendary for their non-compliance with existing ones? (Well a sizeable proportion of them, at least)
I wonder how that will pan out...?
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.
That's not true at all. It's exactly that kind of low impact, everyday activity that stops people becoming immobile, overweight and sick - esp if the alternative is driving (as opposed to walking).
bails
There’s a very, very big difference between “helmet = bad” and “helmet compulsion = bad”.
I think these threads so often go a certain way because the people disagreeing with one another are actually arguing for/against different things.
I'm still missing the more fundamental question of why anyone thinks they have a right to legislate over some safety thing someone chooses of their own violation that doesn't affect them
If you have to wear a helmet on a bicycle then you should also have to wear on a scooter, skates or any other wheeled toy you ride.
My boy came off his bike yesterday and got mild concussion, dread to think what would have happened if he'd not had one on.
Had to take him to A&E. I was a little shocked on how unfit looking the vast majority of the other people were in the waiting room. Maybe if we need the state to enforce something as sensible as wearing a helmet when cycling, maybe the state should also ban other things that people need protecting from like:
- Booze
- Fags
- Gambling
- Sugar/sweets/confectionary
- Fast food
- Additives in food
- Pesticides
I was a little shocked on how unfit looking the vast majority of the other people were in the waiting room.
That's not exactly a random selection of punters, is it? Of course the hospital is going to be filled with unhealthy people. 🤣
I’m still missing the more fundamental question of why anyone thinks they have a right to legislate over some safety thing someone chooses of their own violation that doesn’t affect them
Interesting point but there is plenty of legislation that protects people from themselves. People don't always make good decisions do they?
I was a little shocked on how unfit looking the vast majority of the other people were
If we're into banning things for health reasons, we need to ban cities and road planning that forces you to go everywhere by car.
Transport planners should be held liable for all the deaths they cause from ill health by disallowing cycling.
Why do you not ware a helmet walking or running? There is nothing special about riding a bike
Well, I've never fallen and banged my head whilst walking or running, so in my limited anecdotal experience, I'd prefer to wear a helmet while riding.
If you have to wear a helmet on a bicycle then you should also have to wear on a scooter, skates or any other wheeled toy you ride.
And plenty of people choose to do so. Choose being the key word.
Srewth, there are some judgemental people on here. It is not stupid not to wear a helmet . It is your opinion that it doesn't suit you. Please STW, stop being so nasty about other peoples views.
It really is strange that bicycles are a special case for needing helmets.
Not really. Cyclists mix with cars which tend to knock them over and given the way you get knocked over it seems you're fairly likely to hit your head on the floor or part of the car. Falling off unassisted is probably a different dynamic.
I’m still missing the more fundamental question of why anyone thinks they have a right to legislate over some safety thing someone chooses of their own violation that doesn’t affect them
Because it happens in other aspects of life all the time but doesn't seem to cause as much upset as it does with cyclists.
And if I can't get an ambulance/hospital bed/operation when I need one because someone didn't follow mandatory PPE, then suddenly it does affect me.
(Playing devil's advocate as I'm prochoice until I see more research confirming that compulsion does more good than harm at a societal level)
Falling off unassisted is probably a different dynamic.
Not in my experience....
– Booze
– Fags
– Gambling
– Sugar/sweets/confectionary
– Fast food
– Additives in food
– Pesticides
Many of these already have some form of legislation in place to protect both individuals and environment.
Another authoritarian ruling from this absolute state of a government.
There have been a few posts along these lines. It's, not a 'ruling' and it didn't come from the government. It's a private member's bill from a back bencher that never had much hope, and has now been rejected by...... the government.
Yes I know they're a bunch of throbbers who are to blame for a lot of stuff, but in this case they did the right thing. They carried out a review, saw it was counterproductive and torpedoed it before got anywhere. Blaming 'the government' for everything bad in a knee jerk fashion diminishes genuine criticism when they do **** up.
MOlgrips - the point being rates of head injury when driving or walking are similar to cycling. so why cycling helmets and not driving or walking ones?
If anyone is interested, this is a good write up on the introduction in 1973 of compulsory helmets for motorcyclists. Including the fight against compulsion by MAG and the activist Fred Hill who was imprisoned 31 times for refusing to wear a helmet and died in Pentonville prison aged 74.
This is very still emotive in some quarters amongst motorcycling rights groups. There are possibly some parallels in the arguments for and against compulsory cycle helmets.
Personally, I wouldn't ride my motorbike or cycle without wearing a helmet, but I don't support compulsion in either case.
This is very still emotive in some quarters amongst motorcycling rights groups.
Wow that’s a shock because, in 30 years or so I’ve never met anyone in favour of riding motorcycles without a helmet (I’ve done it occasionally with the Honda c90 and it’s really stupid).
With a motorbike it’s all the gear all the time, with a bike I only wear a helmet if it’s mountain biking; road, commuting, cx / gravel riding never bother. It’s just a risk assessment thing
the point being rates of head injury when driving or walking are similar to cycling. so why cycling helmets and not driving or walking ones?
I think that there is more under my control when I am walking. I'm much more likely to be clattered by a car when riding due to someone else's mistake than I am to randomly collapse and hit my head.
I would query the stats on head injuries whilst walking, I wonder how many times there is something else involved like a fight, collapsing for some other reason, being old, or the involvement of alcohol etc.
I've seen maybe half a dozen cyclists on the deck following accidents. I've probably seen the same number of pedestrians, but in most cases they were knocked over by someone else. In one, some poor woman who looked pretty unwell just collapsed.
With a motorbike it’s all the gear all the time
Yeah - seems like motorcyclists are aware of the benefits of protective clothing, since they are nearly always wearing leathers which aren't compulsory.
Yeah – seems like motorcyclists are aware of the benefits of protective clothing, since they are nearly always wearing leathers which aren’t compulsory.
Some. Us older fellas prefer textile gear to leathers as the power ranger look is non too flattering for the dad bod!
I've seen plenty of people riding sports bikes in shorts and T-Shirts over the last few days and whenever the weather is hot. It makes me cringe thinking of the consequences in even a low speed off. But ultimately it's their choice, which imo is as it should be
Well, I’ve never fallen and banged my head whilst walking or running, so in my limited anecdotal experience, I’d prefer to wear a helmet while riding.
I have never banged my head when cycling (50 years as a very keen cyclist) so I would be exempt from any law the yes?
And if tomorrow you tripped and banged your head when walking would you then propose wearing helmets for all walkers?
Your argument is based on some very odd thinking. We need to the data to be able to make an informed decision and as nobody has that it is all aa very pointless discussion really.
Key for me is how many people already wear a helmet, what activities are cyclists doing and which of those activities lead to the most occasions of falling off of a bike.
I would say that 99% of road, gravel and MTB riders I see are already wearing a helmet so what if they are also the people most often falling off.
Even most people I see in towns are wearing helmets so are those types of rides where most people fall off
As I normally ask when yet another fool thinks that helmets should be compulsory or that all cyclists should have training/insurance/number plates etc, from what age?
so I would be exempt from any law the yes?.....
We need to the data to be able to make an informed decision and as nobody has that it is all aa very pointless discussion really.
To repeat, I am opposed to any law/compulsion, unless some conclusive evidence supports it.
So I think we are disagreeing about the fact that in my opinion, there's no real reason to choose not to wear one.
Transport planners should be held liable for all the deaths they cause from ill health by disallowing cycling.
I actually feel sorry for transport planners, highway engineers etc. Everyone thinks their job is easy and anyone could do it ("common sense scientists" assemble!), the organisations they work for are woefully underfunded, it's often not a very high paying job, and sometimes they get blamed for stuff that was nothing to do with them -- like this bill!
<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';">I actually feel sorry for transport planners, highway engineers etc.</span>
And the requirements they receive are mostly set by angry local councilors with the intellect and common sense of pond scum.
@morecashthandash:
So I think we are disagreeing about the fact that in my opinion, there’s no real reason to choose not to wear one.
Yep, I get it's your opinion. But to illustrate my 'real' reason:
For me, they're horrible things. Been wearing them for about 20 years though - dependent on the circumstance. I'm a head sweater, so if the temperature gets above about 12 degrees they severely compromise my comfort.
I take 'em off going uphill at trail centres. Which is a lot of faff. And I hate faff, so will only put up with it if the faff-to-benefit ratio is worth it.
Not wearing a helmet is unquestionably worth it for me. And for rides where it's exceedingly unlikely that I'll fall off and smack my noggin - riding around towns or bimbling XC rides, it's highly likely that I won't wear one at all. I might even choose to wear flip-flops as footwear if it's a sunny day.
We're aligned on compulsion. But even if there was conclusive evidence and compulsion I'd weigh my own risks. And the calculation would likely be how likely would it be for the cops to stop me.
I seem to remember about 20-25 years ago someone posted guidelines stating you need 20+ minutes of cycling to benefit from it physiologically.
By that standard, by forcing that group to wear helmets, and them not bothering to cycle anymore, those only going upto a couple of miles would see more benefits by walking, far greater than cycling that distance.
Although, if you're riding a Toys'R'Us Magna/Rhino special, heavy and with high stiction tyres, I'm not so sure 😄
But ultimately it’s their choice, which imo is as it should be
No. People need protecting from themselves. How many of you look back on the stuff you did as youths and think 'my god I did some stupid stuff back then' ? How many of you are now parents and worry about the consequences of your kids doing the same stuff you used to do?
That was the point I made earlier. If people are really that bothered by having to wear a helmet and then walk 2 miles instead of ride they will be at least as healthy as walking is harder work than riding slowly and the fact they were riding before means they are more likely to just walk than someone who was never riding on the first place (i.e. using their car).
I also don't think that just the act of cycling a couple of miles a day is going to be the difference between whether you are a strain on the NHS or not and more the case that the type of person who can be bothered to ride instead of drive is going to be less of a strain.