[Closed] Debate on cyclists being forced to wear helmets on Radio 2 now

Or turn off the radio?

Oh.......my.....God.

The woman, she just said wearing a helmet doesn't have any bad points.

SET CONDITION RED ACROSS THE BOARD, STAND BY FOR MASS DEBATING.

{Klaxon noise, closing blast doors and people running for shelter}

I'm very attached to my helmet!
;-))

(wheels up chair)

seriously - what is wrong with wearing a lid? I've always worn one, modern designs are barely noticable...I've never had anyone kick me out of a pub for taking one in with me???

SERIOUSLY, what is wrong with wearing a lid?

So go on, please enlighten me, having commuted for years now, and recently taken up proper MTB'ing, what are the bad points to wearing a helmet, cos none spring to mind to me?!...

Well apparently. according to a few of the more vocal STW bores, wearing a helmet encourages you to take risks.

SERIOUSLY, what is wrong with wearing a lid?

Very little, but that's not the point is it? It's all about personal freedom. This is the UK, it's not yet some Police State where we are forced to do what we don't want to because the state forces it upon us (even if Gollum Brown is trying to make it that way).

Perhaps motorcyclists should be able to ride without helmets too.

It's all about personal freedom. This is the UK

sorrys but you can't use these two phrases in the same sentence unless you are a sanctioned member of the Rambler party

oh, and while we're at it, why don't we let everyone not wear seatbelts

what are the bad points to wearing a helmet

There is a school of thought that they can cause a broken neck, in an otherwise unremarkable accident.

donald, fair enough, hadn't heard that one, but I think in the majority of cases they prevent injury, or am I naive?

I'm ignoring any political point i just don't get the people who don't want to wear a lid, WHY NOT?

Perks. Why do you not wear a helmet when walking near a road?

SERIOUSLY, what is wrong with wearing a lid?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
But sometimes I like to pop into town without one. And they can bring in any law they like, I'll still do it.

perks, I'm with you, especially on the roads in Bristol you'll only last a short while if you don't, but then again I guess that's one way to improve the gene pool

This is taken from a comment on BikeRadar, posted by an employee of the CTC: http://www.bikeradar.com/blogs/article/naughty-duffy-eh-20525

"* The evidence from places where helmet use has been increased significantly, notably through helmet laws (e.g. in Australia, New Zealand, parts of the USA and Canada etc) is that cycle use has declined drastically, and that safety for the remaining cyclists has not detectably improved, in some cases it appears to have got worse.

* There is very little evidence about the reason(s) for this apparently counter-intuitive lack of benefits from helmet-wearing, however there are plenty of possible explanations. For one thing, helmets offer at best only very limited protection, they are (and can only be) designed for minor knocks and falls, not impacts with moving traffic. And then there are a whole host of possible reasons why the wearing of helmets may make cyclists more likely to hit their heads in the first place, potentially negating or outweighing whatever (at best limited) benefits a helmet might provide in the event of such an impact.

* For instance, it is known that some people, including young children as well as teenagers, "risk-compensate" when using helmets, i.e. act less cautiously. Drivers may also risk-compensate - one small-scale study has found that they leave less space when overtaking a cyclist with a helmet than one without. By effectively increasing the size of the head, a helmet may also turn what would otherwise have been mere glancing blows or even complete "near misses" into very serious neck injuries or "rotational force" injuries of the kind most likely to result in brain damage. Or, by reducing the numbers of cyclists, pressure to wear helmets may also be counter-productive by reducing the "safety in numbers" for those cyclists who remain. There are other possible factors but these are the main ones.

I explained all this very patiently to him. I also sent him links to CTC's main helmet page ( http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4688 and http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4641) and to the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (www.cyclehelmets.org)."

Broken neck? seriously?

someone going to start posting links to some research here or is it just going to be the usual heresay?

who mashed the statistics to get the helmet = broken neck conclusion????

I would say it falls down the same route as motorists being made to wear seatbelts and motorcyclist not wearing helmets. If you are stupid enough (IMO) not to want to do it, then dont make people do it. ~After all if there are injured/killed then thats their tough s**t for not wareing one in the first place. I dont think its the governments/police place to make people do it!!

There is another school of thought that other road users will take more risks around a helmeted rider thereby increasing the probability of an accident happening.

because, like moter cyclists and car seatbelts, i shouldn't have to wear one.

Speed limits are to protect others, as are gun laws. Enforcing seatbelt and helemt wearing is the governemt encroaching on MY personal safety, it will only kill me if i choose not to wear one.

That is why.

The problem with reports like that is the word "MAY"...

furthermore - the issue with reduction in cycling is indeed a problem, however, you could read that as an ABSOLUTE reduction in number of accidents.

I heard a similar story on radio 4 at the weekend (and instantly thought of STW) where they also said that the cycle numbers recovered after a while - therefore it ended up being benificial.

Again, perks. Why do you not wear a helmet when walking?

[i]"safety for the remaining cyclists has not detectably improved" ?[/i]

So why bother?

FWIW I helmet off road, or when doing a 'serious' road ride, but don't when pootling about town.

like to see you make me wear a lid, seatbelt or condom.

its my choice.

im off for a smoke now.

glenp _ are you serious? no, this is STW...as a pedestrian you walk on pavements, generally dont wander into busy roads, and are able to avoid most accidents! damn....I bit...

I commute in london, my route includes hyde park corner, the building site around westminster bridge and elephant and castle. I'm wearing a lid, no question.

[i]the issue with reduction in cycling is indeed a problem, however, you could read that as an ABSOLUTE reduction in number of accidents.[/i]

So... your policy for reducing the total number of cycling accidents is to reduce the number of people cycling?!? Hmmm... maybe I misunderstood that.

You do realise that helmets aren't designed to withstand impacts greater than 12mph? and the man who was hit by a motorcyclist wouldn't have been any less injured if he had been wearing a helmet?

I've actually been told by someone that its OK to deliberately run cyclists off the road because they're "wearing helmets and so won't be injured".

Totally serious. You are twice as likely to sustain a head injury as a pedestrian near a road as you are cycling (per time spent doing those activities).

If I were doing your route I'd wear a helmet, sure. But I see no reason that I should be forced.

btw - i don't want to make anyone - all I asked was WHY wouldn't you - there have so far been no good reasons why not.

the reasons re the [i]collective[/i] behaviour aren't necessarily relevent to [i]individual[/i] cyclists.

Incidently I hate the idea of nanny state, I'm honestly not arguing the compulsion point.

helmets - very good
compulsory helmet laws - very bad

that is all

Glenp - good example of why people should use reference links...i'd be interested in reading the source of that statistic.

[i]'it will only kill me if i choose not to wear one'[/i]

Have you not seen the adverts!? You may also kill your mum, who's sat infront of you.

FWIW I think it's a bad idea to enforce helmet use, but do support seatbelts, and I'm fairly indifferent on motorcylcists wearing helmets, although the number of lives saved by both is much much greater than would be saved on a push bike.

I've heard the broken neck thing too, it does make sense, but I imagine it's such a tiny number of cases it's not really worth factoring in!

I helped the CTC with some literature searches on this subject.

I used to wear a helmet all the time but after reading all the research papers I now no longer wear one when when commuting.

I do wear one when riding a mountain bike.

Risk compensation, increased risk of rotational brain injury, attitude of motorists, convenience, relative risk of various activities were all reasons that contributed to this decision.

perks -

1. Cyclists risk compensate
2. Drivers risk compensate
3. Inconvenient
4. Hot head
5. Helmets cost money
6. Ruins your hair

is this debate taking place on the radio because there's a plan to introduce this as a law?

Or is it Vine and his production team revisiting old chesnuts in order to get a response from his listeners?
trolling, in other words.

I think its because of the recent compensation case between a cyclist and a motorcyclist where the judge said that the cyclist had an element of contribution to injuries because they hadn't been wearing a helmet - except that the imnpact was at greater than 11 (12?) mph and so wearing a helmet wouldn't have a made a difference (because almost no cycle helmet is designed to withstand an impact greater than 12 mph).

Always wear a helmet! You never know when you are going to get taken out by "numpty" while riding on the road - almost happened to me 48hrs ago! My mate would be dead if he hadn't bought a helmet the day before he went over the pars and "head planted" on a cricket ball sized rock. The helmet split in two, his head did not!

Wearing a good helmet is also cool. It demontrates that you are an enthusiast, not the sort of person that is too tight to buy proper clothing and safety gear! You know, the type that ride in jeans or baggy chain snagging jogging bottoms, untied laces, no gloves, no SPD shoes etc. It is this sort of person who is uncool, not the properly attired cyclist.

Always wear a helmet! You never know when you are going to get taken out by "numpty" while riding on the road - almost happened to me 48hrs ago! My mate would be dead if he hadn't bought a helmet the day before he went over the bars and "head planted" on a cricket ball sized rock. The helmet split in two, his head did not!

Wearing a good helmet is also cool. It demontrates that you are an enthusiast, not the sort of person that is too tight to buy proper clothing and safety gear! You know, the type that ride in jeans or baggy chain snagging jogging bottoms, untied laces, no gloves, no SPD shoes etc. It is this sort of person who is uncool, not the properly attired cyclist.

"no SPD shoes" = "not the properly attired cyclist."

WHAT! 😉

I will continue to feel entirely free to assess my own level of risk, ta.

I wear a helmet when I consider myself at a substantial risk of falling off and whacking my head. When my gnarl is adjusted to the maxx (or even close to it) I wear the helmet. Yesterday, despite it being rather warm, I wore a helmet because I was caning down steep and brokn up roads on my racer at 45mph. Friday I wore a helmet because I was riding off-road as fast as I know how to.

If I'm riding my cargo bike 10 minutes to the grocers I probably won't bother, being as how I'm averaging about 6mph on a gigantic bike which it is physically impossible to go over the bars of.

Done like this, cycling is no riskier than walking, or having a shower. If you wouldn't wear a lid while walking there is no sane reason to do it while pottering on the bike. 🙂

(While assessing these risk I am carrying £1million of 3rd party insurance, private health insurance and half a million of life cover and have no dependents, by the way).

Where's Smee when you need him?

Or the people who pedal on the arches of their feet, toes poking out like Charlie Chaplin. Totally uncool!!

I am just waiting and waiting for TJ to come on the air.
*fingers crossed*

[chuckles at Spongebob]

I'm surprised at the judge's ruling.

I accept the argument that wearing a helmet may have reduced the injuries, but IMO that does not mean the cyclist was irresponsible by going helmet-less, and should lose compensation. Taking the argument further, perhaps cyclists will be entirely blamed for their injuries, because they can all be avoided by driving their car instead?

It's possible that, as in AUS, if we are legally forced to wear helmets we'll think twice about road cycling*. But for sure, rulings like this will put people off.

*It's debatable whether the AUS data proves that the helmet law caused the reduction in cycling. It was declining anyway I think, and you have to allow for the negative impact of the media highlighting cycling injuries.

BTW. I always wear one.

Glenp - good example of why people should use reference links...i'd be interested in reading the source of that statistic.

I think a big problem with these debates is that they make cycling sound far more dangerous than it actually is. To me, active safety is far better than passive - the idea of riding in traffic with a helmet and an iPod, for example, is just ludicrous. Paying attention to what is coming up behind you is far more important than having a little extra protection on your head just in case.

perks - Member

btw - i don't want to make anyone - all I asked was WHY wouldn't you - there have so far been no good reasons why not.

the reasons re the collective behaviour aren't necessarily relevent to individual cyclists.

Incidently I hate the idea of nanny state, I'm honestly not arguing the compulsion point.

I think that's the relevant distinction here. Wearing a helmet is always to be encouraged, most of the time it will only add (a little) to your safety.

Helmet compulsion is a very different thing though. The very debate over helmet compulsion is counter productive to us as cyclists. Surely I can't be the only one to have noticed the growing culture of resentment towards unhelmeted cyclists? There is an ever more prevalent attitude in the press and in public reaction that a cyclist without a helmet almost 'had it coming', which is clearly ridiculous in instances where the driver was to blame for the accident, and about as casually distasteful as suggesting that a girl in short skirt is 'asking for it'. I don't even buy the 'contributory negligence' argument, as I believe the greater burden of responsibility should lie with the party that has potential to do the most harm; which is nearly always the motorist.

The issue that really needs addressing (but isn't being addressed) is to get drivers to treat cyclists (and in fact,other road users) with more courtesy, care and respect*. Helmet use is good advice, but compulsion on anything should always be the last resort.

*I know this cuts both ways - don't get me started on cyclists who run red lights 😡

>trailbreak-martin

Thumbs up.

perks, I'm with you, especially on the roads in Bristol you'll only last a short while if you don't

Or is it just possible you may be exaggerating a tad?

"I accept the argument that wearing a helmet may have reduced the injuries, but IMO that does not mean the cyclist was irresponsible by going helmet-less, and should lose compensation. "

You only lose compensation for the injuries that [b]would have been prevented[/b].

It is really interesting how the research has been used to justify behaviour...

just been reading all the articles - the motivations FOR wearing a lid - easy - low speed collisions, minor injury/medium injury prevention, of course sensible off road...

the reasons for not are all based on collective responses - i.e. the reponses of external factors - e.g. the drivers being less careful..

HOWEVER - by what degree do you deal with that? my argument is that drivers being a little less careful and therefore (very slightly) increasing the risk of the major incident is a lot better than the status quo with the massive increase in possible damage during minor incidents. That seems to me an easy equation.

Furthermore - the collective response will change in due course - there was almost certainly a similar response when motorcycle helmets weren't mandatory - but of course over time, if everyone felt they should wear a lid then that argument would start to dissapear. The "dip" in the number of cyclists would be a small price to pay for a general absolute reduction in casualties.

Collective response for this sort of thing would indeed take a while to change, granted, but it shouldn't be a reason for not balancing the equation properly - look at smoking - it hasn't been banned (quite rightly) but it is becoming socially unacceptable over time and attitudes have changed. The similarity there is that many of the arguments against compulsion will actually dissapear if the action was to remove this "risk taking" issue by education - i.e. massively promote helmet wearing...this would take a while but would work in the same way therfore leaving us with only one argument i.e. reduction in minor/medium injuries = good thing!

an improperly attired cyclist, last month.
[img] [/img]

For myself, I believe that a lot of pro-helmet compulsion is about transfering blame to others and reducing other people's (when I write that what I really mean is driver's) perceived risk without actually doing anything about it at all by what trailbreak-martin quite rightly states is the party with the most potential to do harm - but then to do so otherwise obviously would restrict driver's "rights".

seriously - what is wrong with wearing a lid? I've always worn one, modern designs are barely noticable

I walk with my hands in my pockets quite often, maybe I should be wearing a helmet... 😛

Honestly think these debates on compulsory helmet wearing are heading in the wrong direction, never see people talking on the phone whilst driving now do you!? Nice to hear the government are wasting money soon to findout if helmets really are safe, that not already been covered by others...?!

In NZ and Canada I saw people riding without helmets and no one was stopping them, probably as the authorities have better things to do...

The debate should be about changing drivers attitudes to cyclists, was interested to hear the final comment about making the driver more responsible...

my argument is that drivers being a little less careful and therefore (very slightly) increasing the risk of the major incident is a lot better than the status quo with the massive increase in possible damage during minor incidents. That seems to me an easy equation.

can we stop with the "you should waer a helmet as a pedestrian" argument.

I'm neither clumsy nor stupid, it is poor use of statistics that leads to those statements - i wear the lid because of unavoidable situations e.g. another cyclist smashing into me, or pedestrian walking out in front of me etc. etc. not because I might be in danger by cycling per se...

that's the important difference and is relevent to the pedestrian lid/cycle lid argument...context!

[b]aracer[/b] - yeah - agreed, depends on the research, we should wait for the findings...in the mean time, my [i]personal[/i] experience of commuting and the most frequent types of "near miss" leads me to the conclusion that I am right to wear a helmet.

can we stop with the "you should waer a helmet as a pedestrian" argument.

OK, just as long as we can agree that comparisons with seatbelts or motorcycle helmets are equally spurious.

I love how people are so selfish, Nanny state this, Freedom of choice that.

what about the cost of the ambulance / police when they pick your brains up off the hillside. what about the mental stability of your mates who shouldn't have egged you on to go down the bit you weren't comfy with but did anyway and saw you smash your head in on a rock and now have to live with seeing you disabled. what about the car driver who shouldn't have knocked you off but at least it was minor injury not death?

but it doesn't matter because at least YOU do what YOU want, balls to everyone else.

I by the way never tend to wear one when I pop to the shops but always do when I go off road.

if it is made compulsory, they should factor in wearing one that isn't properly adjusted is classed as not wearing one, just like not doing the strap on your motorbike helmet is classed as not wearing one. i'm sick of seeing kids with them dangelling off the back of their heads leaving the front of their heads uncovered and producing more of a choking hazard than anything else. if you are going to wear one, wear one properly

can we stop with the "you should waer a helmet as a pedestrian" argument.

I'm neither clumsy nor stupid, it is poor use of statistics that leads to those statements

thepodge - Member

I love how people are so selfish, Nanny state this, Freedom of choice that.

what about the cost of the ambulance / police when they pick your brains up off the hillside. what about the mental stability of your mates who shouldn't have egged you on to go down the bit you weren't comfy with but did anyway and saw you smash your head in on a rock and now have to live with seeing you disabled. what about the car driver who shouldn't have knocked you off but at least it was minor injury not death?

but it doesn't matter because at least YOU do what YOU want, balls to everyone else.

I by the way never tend to wear one when I pop to the shops but always do when I go off road.

So you like to exercise freedom of choice then...

what about the car driver who shouldn't have knocked you off but at least it was minor injury not death?

Get the kit or look like a twit!

Hmmmmm............ I'll still be wearing my helmet after I have cracked 2 of them and several of my friends have had off's on their bikes and smashed theirs to pieces - one hitting a woman who stepped out infront of them - don't forget about the pedestrians who only uses their ears instead of their eyes - thats one situation where a helmet prevents brain inujuries (low velocity impacts !)

The point about the case which I presume sparked the debate:

[url= http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5908387.ece ]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5908387.ece[/url]

is that the Judge said this:

[i]"Mr Justice Griffith Williams accepted Smith’s case that he was close to the centre of the road, preparing to turn right into a driveway, when the motorcyclist, travelling at excessive speed in the same direction, tried to overtake him on the offside.

However, Smith had not been wearing a cycle helmet. The judge is the first to express sympathy for the view that this omission put the cyclist at fault and made him partly responsible for his own brain damage.

“There can be no doubt that the failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to risk of greater injury,” he ruled. Subject to limitations, “any injury sustained may be the cyclist’s own fault”"[/i]

Despite the fact that:

[i]"Smith’s head hit the ground at more than 12mph and the judge therefore concluded that wearing a helmet would not have made any difference."[/i]

The consequence of which is/could be:

[i]"But by establishing the principle of “contributory negligence” in cases involving helmetless cyclists, the ruling could open the door to attempts to reduce damages by insurers."[/i]

Given that wearing a helmet is not law in the UK, it seems odd of the judge to mention it at all, never mind the two other points that a) the accident was wholly the motorbiker's fault and b) a helmet would have made no difference at all to the injuries sustained.

The next logical step is that pedestrians should also wear helmets and padding, or they would be held partly responsible for any injuries they sustain from a car deliberately mounting the pavement to knock them down.

I normally wear a helmet myself but don't agree it should be either compulsory or used an excuse to reduce damages when a cyclist behaving correctly is hit by someone who was wholly at fault, as in this case.

Do ambulances collecting thepodge from outside the shops cost less? 😯

wow - it gets better...

the articles Ive been reading are quite flawed in terms of individual v group benefits (even they admit it as a caveat to how they choose which groups to study). This is because you can never get an "all things considered" conclusion.

i.e. all the STW massive, who are (for the sake of argument) skilled cyclists with a view to safety in the appropriate situations - added risks aside (e.g. skipping lights) would all BENEFIT from wearing a helmet.

when you start trying to create statistics for the whole population it gets really difficult - think of all the sub groups within cycling. the only real problem with this is the "driver attitude" thing - and even that massively depends on the type of cyclist - e.g. child/youth/woman (yes, this has been reported - it is better to have long blonde hair apparently)/old person etc. etc.

I can't find a good reference that takes all this into account properly - also - the statistics in terms of head injury treatment are similarly flawed - this is massively due to the fact that hardly any of the studies are recent enough...helmet technology is one issue, but more importantly it is simple "signal to noise" in the statistics - i.e. not enough helmet wearers of ALL the different TYPES of cyclist have been admitted to hospital with head injuries yet...

so what? well, if you took this alone, actually the conclusion might be that older, skilled riders are so unlikely to be involved in a major accident that they may as well use a helmet for the undoubted benefits to low speed injuries. OR...we simply don't know because nothing as yet is PROPERLY comparable - kids are always going to take risks, helmet or no helmet. We need reasonable studies using modern helmets (think how much modern cycle helmets have changed compared with motorcycle helmets over the last 20 years)...

ok. bored now.

In nearly every argument that has been for Helmet use the biggest reason for wearing one is in the event that your are hit or knocked off by someone else. On that basis and seeing the pic of the "improperly attired cyclist" above surely Hi-Vis jackets are better protection and should these be made compulsary, as your more likely to be seen. How many every-time helmet wearers wear Hi-Vis?

bleh. anyone here got a qualification in statistics?

So you like to exercise freedom of choice then...

Are you really suggesting we should have sympathy for them? [8O]

Any problem, therefore on the flip side, that he doesn't wear a helmet - he's bothered to get a high vis jacket - poss "borrowed" from work? I agree high vis jackets are good but in summer, in the day - any advantage?

actuall - not bored - this is a great statement from:

[i]Effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets in preventing head injuries: a case-control study

Thompson DC, Rivara FP, Thompson RS. JAMA, 1996 Dec 25;276(24):1968-73[/i]

[i]

Nobody doubts that helmets can prevent minor head wounds, but these are not injuries of concern.

Do ambulances collecting thepodge from outside the shops cost less? [8O]

Hi vis jacket would have made no difference in the case mentioned above, as the motorbike clearly saw the cyclist and decided to overtake where it was unsafe to do so.

ho ho ho

[i]i never said i was perfect [/i]

You didn't, but you'd need to be to get away with that kind of hysterical clither. 😉

actually - s0d the forum - you should all look at the cited articles - search back through the references - it is really really bad in terms of trying to get a control group to base a study on.

moreover - some of the studies in australia actually involved including the soft "racer" hairnet type

helmet

on this basis i shall continue to wear a lid. By choice. you must do what you think is best, of course 😉