[Closed] Anette Brooke MP seeks helmet law study

...or perhaps it may be worth looking into to see if its worth doing?

Note that its a study into whether its worth doing, not a call for a law change.

The only cyclist I have met who was vehemently opposed to wearing a helmet was the one who had fractured his skull not once, but twice in bike crashes (though, to be fair, he was an @sshat)

Won't somebody think of the children!

I think calling for a study of the efficacy of helmet laws is a good thing, so long as its a fair and balanced review of the evidence.

And there's the issue. How fair and balanced would such a review be? I see it as part of a push for creeping compulsion.

Why under-14's? I think that's the worst bit, it'd just become a rite-of-passage that you can ride a bike without a helemt once your 14.

Either a blanket law or leave things as they are, either way I'd still wear a helmet, I've yet to hear a convinceing reason not to.

I'm still waiting for a replacement lid from Giro after bashing my head against the wall over this topic last week.

For this reason... I'm out.

Should've kept you gob shut Wiggo...

@bradwiggins: Just to confirm [b]I haven't called for helmets to be made the law[/b] as reports suggest

I suggested it may be the way to go to give cyclists more protection legally I involved In an accident

I wasn't on me soap box CALLING, was asked what I thought [i]#myopiniondoesntcountformuch[/i]

And of course no-one would jump on a cyclist-hating-by-stealth-regulation bandwagon...

I would prefer not to see legal compulsion

I would prefer to see everyone wearing a helmet through choice and common sense...

More importantly there should be a law against people walking about town still wearing them #prats

[i]Note that its a study into whether its worth doing, not a call for a law change.[/i]

Obviously you have little understanding in how these people work, day-time running lights for cars?

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/safety-fears-raised-over-mandatory-daytime-vehicle-lights-29304/

and The Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (BHRF) are among those opposed.

Sustrans says it should be a decision left to parents and BHRF claims research cannot prove wearing a helmet makes cycling safer.

Erm..

^ That's classic.

TSY.... 😆

what rkko1 said..spot on mate

Problem is that everyone has heard (or rather mis-heard) the Wiggins quote but as usual, no one has picked up on the retraction and now the usual bandwagon-jumping MPs are coming along with the usual ill-thought out bollox. More ways to waste money and make it sound like you're doing something while actually not compelling you to do anything.

thisisnotaspoon - Member
Why under-14's?

Guardian Poll:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/poll/2012/aug/02/compulsory-cyclists-wear-helmets-poll

79% against helmet compulsion.

MP finds a (non) issue to jump on to try and further her career, shocker.

Why don't they do a study to see if stopping motorists crashing into cyclists would save lives?

I'm happy to wear a helmet. Just don't want to be forced to wear one just incase a ****t on the phone accidently hits me!

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/safety-fears-raised-over-mandatory-daytime-vehicle-lights-29304/
br />
What bollox!
I've yet to see any problems with Xenon lights, and DRL's I would have thought would be a boon to cyclists and peds, especially in misty and dull conditions.

DRL's I would have thought would be a boon to cyclists and peds, especially in misty and dull conditions.

How so? It's not cyclists and peds crashing into cars that is the problem.

Drivers are blind enough to other road users without training them to look for lights.

I would have thought would be a boon to cyclists and peds, especially in misty and dull conditions.

Why so? (I don't think there's an emoticon for a 'why so?' intended in a non confrontational manner, but if there was I'd be using it)

In my mind once two lights get associated with the presence of a car, then in misty an dull conditions there's an increased chance of people thinking at some subconscious level that no lights = no vehicle.

GrahamS - Member
Should've kept you gob shut Wiggo...
@bradwiggins: Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law

Whether he did or didn't, more people will have seen it as [i]Wiggins calls for compulsory helmets[/i] as that was the headline, reported both in the press and on the BBC national news. A small re-interpretation/correction on twitter hasn't had the same national headline coverage, more just niche forum coverage. Wouldn't have happened if he had "kept his gob shut" on the issue.

TBH, if it happens there's every chance it'll now be known as "Wiggo's Law"

[b][u]Bradley Wiggins calls for compulsory helmets on cyclists[[/u]/b] - videoGold medal-winning cyclist Bradley Wiggins says those using bicycles should not wear ipods and or use phones while riding after the death on Wednesday of a cyclist outside London Olympic Park. Wiggins, who was raised in London, said he would like to see a law established to make it compulsory to wear helmets while riding bikes

DRL's I would have thought would be a boon to cyclists and peds, especially in misty and dull conditions.

what rkk's first post said.

Wouldn't have happened if he had "kept his gob shut" on the issue.

So when asked the question at a press conference he should just have said [i]"Next question please"[/i] ?

We was asked for his opinion. He gave it. Seems fair to me.

More importantly there should be a law against people walking about town still wearing them #prats

Why prats? I think it's just common sense to wear a helmet while walking around town, in case a car mounts the kerb and hits you, or a roof tile falls on your head.

There's a big difference between answering a question, and rambling drunkenly for two minutes.
He knew that at the time he was, in his own words:

[i]"a bit too tipsy to start talking about this now"[/i]

but carried on for over two minutes adding:

"There's got to be, kind of, laws for both parties as well that protect both parties, cyclists...
you know, things like legalising helmets - making them the law to wear, because ultimately if you get knocked off and you ain't got a helmet on how can you, kind of, argue. Or if you get killed and you ain't got a helmet on..."

From your twitter quote, it sounds like he knows he should have "[i]shut his gob[/i]".
If he didn't regret what he said, why's he attempting to retract it afterwards?

She says the success of Britain's Olympic cyclists could inspire more children to up cycling and she fears [s]there could be an increase in injuries.[/s] that

FTFH

I think a much more useful law would be one prohibiting journos from ambushing pissed celebs. There used to be a regulation in the army that you weren't deemed responsible for your actions for the first few seconds after being woken. Same thing really.

[url= http://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/all-those-helmets-posts-in-one-place/ ]All those helment links in one place[/url]

pissed or not, he definately said that helmets should be legalised (which they are, the same as kites are legalised, i.e. they are not banned items like guns or crack). whether he meant that wearing a helmet should be law, i don't know, but to me that is what he implied.

i hope that helmets do not become compulsory. i'm 99% sure that if they did then my mum wouldn't use her bike to get to town as a helmet would mess up her hair.