[Closed] Jersey Cycle Helmet Law

Obviously they paid no attention to the 'Australian' experiment, one of best ways to put people off cycling.

And after previous press, it seems they want to show they are now looking after their children...

stupid law. Everywhere it has been done rates of cycling have dropped and often rates of head injury per mile cycled has increased.

what a stupid law make it compulsary to wear one whatever your age!
so when you turn 18 you can stop wearing one...

Slogo - when the evidence says it does not good? Reduces the number of cyclists thus the health of the nation without reducing head injury per mile cycled.

Its the wrong answer to the wrong problem

statistics are bollocks especial the ones that come out of the mouths of politicians!

They did it in Australia, cycling dropped markedly.

Serious question - If you ride without a lid in Australia, can they a) Catch you? and b) Do anyhting about it if they do?

Just a thought.....

I'm all for helmets, and wear one most of the time (I crash a lot) but I'd never in a million years support their compulsory use. In fact, if it came in here, I'd ride more without one in protest.

Well I shall add that it has been done in australia 'bad cycling' dropped markedly. There is a sutdy (I can't remember but TJ has it) that link the likelihood to commit a traffic offence with the fact to wear or not the helmet.
Then why are people put of cycling when they have to wear a helmet is beyond me. I mean even all is bravado TJ wears one. I have seen it. It's a standard XC lid that will cause is spin to shatter if he looks at the ground.

Slogo - Member

statistics are bollocks especial the ones that come out of the mouths of politicians!

+1 any reports I know of that show drop offs in number of cyclists are produced by cycling groups by fairly questionable methods. Many 'proper', peer-reviewed, medical reports show no such drop and no increases in liklihood to have an accident just because you wear a helmet.

There are equally interesting studies showing that the main reason for unwillingness to use helmets is because people in a position to vocally support their usage (that'd probably include us then) don't, thus making it all a bit uncool.

When is the law coming into place to make helmet-wearing in cars compulsory?

I'm sure you could wrap the belt around your head if you wanted 😉

Oh well, that's bugger all - looks like we're going to have compulsory [url= http://www.gov.im/ConsultationDetail.gov?id=147 ] BELLS [/url]here.....

WTF ?

I thought it meant Bell helmets for a second. Bells are law here in Sweden for any bike riding on the road. I don't use one on my mountain bike though (technically I just haven't found one that doesn't shake itself to pieces yet). The police actually enforce stuff like this occasionally too, if they're not up to something 'important' and catch you in the act. No lights/reflectors/bell = big fine (about £50-100 per missing bit).

I'm all for helmets, and wear one most of the time (I crash a lot) but I'd never in a million years support their compulsory use. In fact, if it came in here, I'd ride more without one in protest

Everywhere it has been done rates of cycling have dropped and often rates of head injury per mile cycled has increased.

TJ I think I have found the answer.

Could be falkirk mark. could be.

Is PP Australian?

Warpcow, you seem to think that biased 'cycling groups' have some sort of agenda againt cycling helmets out of sheer evilness. 🙄
Could it not , just perhaps, be because these militant velocimaniacs would like to see some ACTUAL benefit to a law that would reduce cycling, despite your made-up statement about 'no studies showing a reduction'

Why, for instance, are the hospitals of Amsterdam and Beijing not overflowing with maimed, brain damaged cyclists?

One thing that I have learned for sure is [b][u]all[/u][/b] the research is pish, everyone seems to have an agenda and the amount of evangelical people who want to burn heretics is large.

For example the only studies that show large benefits fro helmet wearing are after the fact statistical studies on A&E admissions. These are a self selecting sample - no one who hits their head without a helmet and has no injury is included, no weighting for experience can be done as they do not know what the comparison between the relative experience of the A&E attendees and non attendees are and so on.

Then there is the Australian stats. One side shows a reduction in head injury since the law and say it has saved lives, the other side point out that miles cycled has reduced more than the reduction in head injury and head injury rates have decreased faster in pedestrians so show that the helmet law has made things worse. Neither side knows who has stopped cycling if anyone.

Then offroad biking is not considered separately. [i] My guess[/i] would be that there are a lot more head impacts but of a lessor severity - but there is absolutely no studies done into this.

Then there is the fact that head injuries are very very unlikely - this makes research harder as you are studying one in millions occurrences

Lies damn lies and statistics - a healthy scepticism to the lot is needed and a sensible person makes their own mind up having read the evidence

Could the link between increased head injuries and compulsory helmet wearing be due to the 'claim' mentality that is sweeping the world i.e. I was wearing a helmet and fell off my bike and my head hurts, therefore the helmet didn't do its job?

If attempts to protect people from accidents were truely sincere, places that brought in helmet laws would also make it a requirement that toddlers learning to walk would wear some kind of head protection, that elderly people were not allowed to wear slippers (a big cause of accidents in the home apparently) and that whenever there is frost or ice, all pedestrians should wear saftey helmets, and perhaps body padding (I know of 3 people with broken bones from slipping over this winter including a concussion).

No one knows votchy. [i]My guess[/i] is two things - one that the more experienced cyclists stopped cycling leaving only the crashers and that risk compensation had an effect.

There is no research into this tho that I have seen

west kipper - Member

Warpcow, you seem to think that biased 'cycling groups' have some sort of agenda againt cycling helmets out of sheer evilness.
Could it not , just perhaps, be because these militant velocimaniacs would like to see some ACTUAL benefit to a law that would reduce cycling, despite your made-up statement about 'no studies showing a reduction

Ok, I should've qualified my made-up statement (it was to some extent 😉 ): there are no studies that can show a direct link between helmet legislation and reduction in number of cyclists, though I cannot deny that there will always be some who will be put off by the thought of messing up their hair (I personally don't wear a helmet when commuting 😯 )

There is absolutely no consideration of outside factors in what is an enviably long timescale for such studies. Has the number of cars on the road increased in the same time? Yes. Have there been major changes to the infrastructure and social conditions of major cities/modern countries? Yes. You could go so far as to suggest that the growth of TV and video-games, junkfood, etc could all be equally valid factors for study.

I don't use one on my mountain bike though (technically I just haven't found one that doesn't shake itself to pieces yet)

[img] [/img]

If attempts to protect people from accidents were truely sincere, places that brought in helmet laws would also make it a requirement that toddlers learning to walk would wear some kind of head protection, that elderly people were not allowed to wear slippers (a big cause of accidents in the home apparently) and that whenever there is frost or ice, all pedestrians should wear saftey helmets, and perhaps body padding (I know of 3 people with broken bones from slipping over this winter including a concussion).

If the attempts were sincere, they'd do something about the elephant in the room. The 30mph 4-wheeled elephant that kills people.

Warpcow - the Aus experience was the year before and the year after the helmet law. IIRC this showed an immediate fall but there were some outside factors discussed - i can't remember what they were.

Doesn't affect me one way or the other. I always wear a helmet road cycling and offroad cycling - I don't want to hurt my head if I fall off my bike.

Duh.

🙄

If anyone is curious, the Dept of Transport, Road safety research and statistics division has obtained a report from Transport Reseach Laboratory called:

"Published project reprot ppr 446 - The potential for cycle helmets to previent injury, a review of the evidence by D Hynd,R Cuerden,S Reid, S Adams. November 2009."

I think this must be available on the internet. I have seen a hard copy. It caused a lifelong helmet wearing collegue to stop wearing a helmet once he had read it. I have not had chance to look through it yet.

There is some info on the UK report here:

http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_road_user_safety/report_the_potential_for_cycle_helmets_to_prevent_injury___a_review_of_the_evidence.htm

The Australians also brought in a raft of road traffic laws and enforcement on speeding, drink-driving etc, things that should have made cycling safer and more desirable (with or without a helmet) yet it still went down.
Anyway, I'm off out (without BTW!) for a wee road run.

The problem with making helmets compulsory is that they only work for certain types of impact and if you come off your bike at high speed they may or may not save you from a serious injury; there simply isn't a guarantee that the helmet will act as required. To my knowledge there isn't even an accepted performance standard for helments.

With car seat belts and airbags their effectiveness has been proven through years of testing and real life examples and so it is only right that they are now a legal requirement. Making helmets compulsory when it can't be proved either way if they will be effective in the majority of accidents seems pointless. I do wear a helmet but much of the time it just makes me hot and doesn't add to my feeling of well being when cars pass too close.

I guess taking reckless and poorly skilled/ stupid drivers off the road is seen as being too much of a vote loser...

Is PP Australian?

Hell no. Thank God. Been there though. Once was enough.

I have no problem with compulsory bells - I think anyone who does not have one / use one is a clown - what is the downside of having one? All my bikes have a bell

midnighthour:

I'm not sure why they would stop wearing it, some of the main conclusions are:
1) Helmets are effective at reducing injury, especially cranial fracture.
2) 10-16% of fatalities could have been prevented with a helmet.
3) helmets are particularly effective for children
4) No evidence found for the previously noted mythical rotational injuries.

And questions the "population based" approach versus the controlled and detailed hospital-based research methods.

have no problem with compulsory bells - I think anyone who does not have one / use one is a clown - what is the downside of having one? All my bikes have a bell

I have no room on my bars on any but my road bike, but I can't think of the last time I needed to warn someone of my approach when offroad, fortunately I see that few other trail users in tight situations!

TJ- I didn't see anthing about that. The one I saw was based on government data that was about 5yrs apart and didn't mention anything other than the helmet law and the figures (posted by those evil velocimaniacs).

Helmets? [url= http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/strip.aspx?id=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27 ]Foolproof[/url], aren't they?

[img] http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=57f6ca71-73a8-42a3-acc4-29e6d333df27 [/img]

😆

Ta for the link to the TRL review. It will make interesting reading. TRL is known for its evangelical approach to mechanistic passive road safty - leg protectors for motorbikes and so on

a quick glance tells me two things - they have just ignored / discounted risk compensation and have ignored studies that clearly show rotational forces having an adverse effect.

How would they have ignored the studies, when they have introduced the topic for discussion?

This registers about 1.5 on my give a toss meter [it goes to 11]

I wear a helmet 95% of the time
If they made it law to wear one all the time - I wouldn't change my ways for a couple of reasons
They'd have to catch me
They'd have to get valid ID details from me
a £60 fine wouldn't be the end of the world

I haven't got a password to get to the full thing but this
Curnow WJ. The efficacy of bicycle helmets against brain injury.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2003,35:287-292.
Very much questions the facts about prevention of rotational injury

I think anyone who does not have one / use one is a clown

I'm a clown then. I don't think they are as effective as a voice. I do have a VERY loud 'ding dong' bell on my commuter though - Bloke in front of me this morning managed to ignore 2 uses of that on a quiet offroad cycle path......

I have no problem with compulsory bells - I think anyone who does not have one / use one is a clown - what is the downside of having one? All my bikes have a bell

Then that makes me (and most other people, I suspect) a clown.

What I object to is compulsory this, compulsory that - I always wear a helmet but I wouldn't advocate it being made compulsory. Same with bells - if I meet anyone else out on the trail and I think that they haven't seen or heard me then I slow down and speak. Works for me.

Coffeking - the TRL review clearly states that they are not considering any behavioural effects into crashing and weather helmets have any effect on this.

Studies in the past have shown significant alterations in behaviour when passive safety measures are taken. it does not invalidate the review totally but it is a limitation on it.

The TRL review also dismisses rotational effects with a very limited discussion of limited sources.

Edit - I just found in one of the appendices a comment which explains some of the doubts over rotational injury.

Typically a linear impact causes a focal brain injury and a oblique impact a diffuse axon injury. None of the studies separated these two types of brain injury so we don't know if the helmeted folk had a higher rate of difuse axon injury or not

Both of these are in line with previous TRL reviews and research on this.

Its a good review but a clearly slanted one - thus as with all research and reviews don't forget your pinch of salt.

I’m going to go against the grain here and say I’m in favour of compulsory helmet wearing in the UK, I do think the law should go further and applied to all age groups…
I can’t see why so many people are anti compulsion…

I know the same studies get wheeled out each time and we’re told that “Statistically” helmets make you no safer, and cycle use goes down with compulsion to use one, but in all honesty I think it’s cobblers, no such law would ever be properly enforced anyway, but if it were I think we would see a reduction in fatal and serious head injuries for cyclists involved in RTAs …

Anyone who’s hairstyle and image matters more than trying to minimise (not mitigate) the risk a brain injury shouldn’t really be riding a bike on UK roads anyway; where the drivers are angry and careless and the signage, road markings and cycle lanes are apparently designed to help kill those who are not alert when it comes to their own safety, so pull em over and fine em, get them off the road or force a helmet on their heads, it may save them from themselves…

I for one will never ride on a UK byway or highway without a helmet, while I agree cyclists shouldn’t feel that unsafe on the roads, the fact still stands that they are not, they are at the mercy of other road users anger management and lack of attention, and as such a cycle helmet should be compulsory in this country…

TJ - the helmets in the test (the paper you quoted, I have access to that source) that that report highlights are from 1987. Does anyone remember the helmets of 1987?

[img] [/img]

🙂

Massive wide items, generally poorly designed with poor coverage and limited internal padding. While the question is a good one, I'm not convinced that that report does anything more than throw doubt at soft-shell helmets impact friction and question their weight. Significant questions arise as to how much helmet-floor grabbing has any effect (and that's what the TRL report says) as the helmet tends to rotate around the head on impact, massively reducing the rotational force that the head actually sees.

Anyone who’s hairstyle and image matters more than trying to minimise (not mitigate) the risk a brain injury shouldn’t really be riding a bike on UK roads anyway; where the drivers are angry and careless and the signage, road markings and cycle lanes are apparently designed to help kill those who are not alert when it comes to their own safety, so pull em over and fine em, get them off the road or force a helmet on their heads, it may save them from themselves…

Perhaps we should make the roads safer and get rid of the angry and carless drivers first? You know, since a helmet will make naff all difference if you're hit by a car anyway...