So what are we going to do to ensure our views are represented?

Would selected days of everyone not riding bicycles, but using cars, trains or buses have any effect on peak traffic/cause gridlock? Try to get across what appears straightforward to most cyclists- that we are part of the solution and not the problem.
It would appear to me that these proposals are not being made for the well-being of cyclists, but as part of an anti cyclist agenda.

Sadly, it seems that way to me too.

Rusty spanner ..
Apologies I misunderstood ..

No worries matey.
🙂

So it’s fine, they will base it on evidence.. let’s hope that evidence isn’t some kind of opinion poll or referendum. LOL

Oh dear, were you one of the ‘we’ve had enough of experts’ bunch? Your first hand experience is exactly that, and I don’t dismiss it, but unless you’ve written papers or studied the issue professionally, it’s just anecdotal. While anecdotes aren’t necessarily useless, they miss they often miss the bigger picture and are often misleading.

Whatnobeer ..
I’m not dismissing anything ..what is it that you are missing from what I’ve written ?
Please quote anything that I have said with regard to making helmet wearing compulsory ..
All that I have said ..and again it’s a personal opinion ..I think wearing a helmet is a good idea..
I get that you want me to look at facts and figures ..but can I throw that back to you ..has there ever been an instance where actually wearing a helmet has saved someone’s life ?
Surely the answer to that has to be yes ?
Can you be 100% certain that at some point in your life you won’t need the benefit of one while riding your bike ..if you can answer yes to that then I take my helmet off to you as your expertise and psychic skill is indeed a wonder to behold.
I sincerely hope that my tone was to your liking ..and that you stay safe while riding ..

Hi Hodgynd

I agree with you, it is a good idea. Personally if one of my mates turned up to go MTBing without a lid that would surprise me and make me feel uncomfortable. Their choice though.

I don’t agree with what you said about not wearing one being an “accident waiting to happen” though. That implies it’s reckless or stupid not to wear one and that’s simply not true, at least not in all circumstances.

Sometimes it’s impractical or unrealistic to wear a lid. Take people cycle-commuting in London as an example. The success of the Boris bike scheme would never have been possible with a compulsory helmet law. And helmets aren’t really an appropriate mitigatant for the main risks to that type of cycling anyway. The helmet debate puts the focus onto the vulnerable group and distracts from where that focus should be which is properly holding drivers to account for their actions.

For me cycling is a personal choice and so is wearing a helmet. I’d like to think most adults are capable of carrying out their own risk analysis for whatever cycling they are doing at the time. A mandatory helmet law would be a disaster for our cities generally an a horrible backward step.

Thanks for your reasoned reply ..Im not going to disagree with anything you have said ..
Appreciated .

So if it’s got no evidence behind it, what did it add to the thread?

Can you be 100% certain that at some point in your life you won’t need the benefit of one while riding your bike

Can you be 100% certain that at some point in your life you won’t need the benefit of one while driving your car?

and yes, that is a serious point – if such attitudes apply to riding a bike, then why don’t they apply to driving?

I’ve no idea why they don’t apply to driving a car do you?.. That’s a seperate issue which isnt being discussed ( certainly not by me ).
What ‘ evidence ‘ are you talking about ..the fact that helmets save riders from head injuries ..are you saying they don’t or are you trying to tell me that because I don’t agree with the majority that I’m not allowed an opinion ..?
What exactly have you added to the thread ..and by the way do you wear one ?
( tbf..Im not that bothered if you do or not ) 🙂

Whatnobeer ..I would suggest that you keep your advice to yourself ..when I want it I will ask for it ..just so that you know I found THAT extremely rude..so maybe take heed of your own advice .

The lack of self awareness is mind blowing!!!

All that I have said ..and again it’s a personal opinion ..I think wearing a helmet is a good idea.

And I don’t see the need for wearing a helmet when cycling any more than I would wear one when doing any other activity. Just my personal opinion and adds as much to this thread as your opinion, i.e. nothing.

As others have said you need to look at the research, data and impact of compulsion to see if overall it is a good idea.

In what respect ?
Someone who I have previously never communicated with has a pop at me at you think that I shouldn’t respond …
I’ve absolutely no problem with my ” self awareness ” ..thanks .

Keeley ..your choice ..once again I’m not bothered ..but don’t try to tell me that helmets haven’t saved lives ..I don’t need to read any data to know that ..do I ?..
Oops sorry ..Kerley ..predictive txt eh !

hodgynd The key thing is this isn’t about being able to CHOOSE to wear a helmet, it’s about it being illegal to ride a bike without one.

The health benefits to society from riding bikes (for transport, not necessarily mtbing) are huge. If wearing helmets is made compulsory then that is likely to reduce cycling rates. If cycling rates are reduced (it any growth is stunted) then that will lead to loads of deaths due to inactivity, obesity, additional pollution from extra car journeys etc.

Stop thinking about whether choosing to wear a helmet, given that you’re going to ride a bike anyway, is a good or bad idea. The problem is around people who don’t ride bikes at the moment who will be discouraged. It’s also around giving government a get-out where they can say they don’t need to do anything to address the sources of danger through law/road design changes because “we’ve already given cycling a huge safety boost by mandating helmets”.

Don’t forget, the easiest way to reduce the number of people injured/killed while cycling is to reduce the number of people cycling, helmet compulsion will achieve just that.

Guess which paper this was published in? The clue is that I’ve protected you, the ethical reader, from the shame of the click-thru.

Daily I risk death or serious injury on the roads, simply because I ride a bicycle. I know the danger, but I’d rather face it than box myself in a car.
I have many reasons for this. I think cars spoil our countryside and our towns, cloud the air with filth and noise, and make us horribly dependent on Middle Eastern despotisms for fuel.
I also think there’s no quicker way of transforming a decent person into a power-crazed selfish maniac than to put him behind the wheel of a car.
And I’ve found over time that cycling is good for me, at least for as long as it doesn’t actually kill me. In fact cars, like cigarettes, are one of the very few products which, used according the makers’ instructions, will damage the user’s health.
Heart disease, lower back pain and depression can all be traced to the lack of simple regular exercise which almost always accompanies car use. I’ve driven cars in the vicious madness of Moscow traffic and on the vast freeways of California, and I hate the responsibility. One small slip in concentration, and imagine how much damage you can do.
Now it seems I am to be punished for my rejection of the sacred car, by being ordered to wear body-armour while I bicycle.
A silly Minister, Jesse Norman, has launched a ‘review’ that will ‘consider’ the mandatory wearing of cycle helmets.
A bike helmet is not a device to make cyclists safer. It is a device for making drivers feel safer while driving selfishly.

I’ve tried these things. Have you ever looked at one? A bowl of Styrofoam with a thin plastic coating, wildly expensive to buy, easy to leave behind on a train, which might conceivably save you from injury if you fell off at 4mph. Otherwise? Not much.
It’s quite useful in a hailstorm. But it won’t save you if a 45-ton lorry decides to turn across your path, or if a water-filled pothole deeper than it looks (there are more and more of these, and Mr Norman’s Transport Department seems unable to do anything about it) sends you sprawling in front of a bus.

More important, drivers think a rider in a helmet is invulnerable – so they treat him worse than they otherwise would. Research has shown that drivers steer dangerously closer to helmeted cyclists than to those without headgear.
A bike helmet is not a device to make cyclists safer. It is a device for making drivers feel safer while driving selfishly. Far too many motorists want cyclists to be wholly responsible for their own safety, so they don’t need to bother taking care. Many of their minds have been poisoned by Clarksonite rubbish about how we ‘don’t pay road tax’. Oh yes, we do.
Far too many motorists want cyclists to be wholly responsible for their own safety, so they don’t need to bother taking care.

In the Netherlands, where everyone understands that bicycling is a sensible, clean, quiet, healthy way to travel, you hardly ever see a bike helmet at all. It’s not the cycling that’s dangerous, you see. It’s the other road users who won’t show consideration.
As for cyclists themselves, yes, I know that quite a few of them are very stupid. I hate what they do just as much as anyone. And I notice that it is those most kitted out in headgear and battledress who take the most risks. Donning the Styrofoam bowl makes far too many riders think they are immortal as well as righteous. Watch the red-light jumpers. Most of them will be wearing helmets.
If this idea becomes law, the only result will be that, as happened in Australia, even fewer people will ride bicycles, especially the hire bikes that are now becoming increasingly common. Once again, we are planning to pass the law of unintended consequences.

Yes, it’s the Mail trolling its own readership. Haven’t looked at the comments section yet but I imagine it will be spectacularly frothy. 🙂

EDIT: Or not 😀

Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.

curto80 – Member
Hi Hodgynd
Sometimes it’s impractical or unrealistic to wear a lid. Take people cycle-commuting in London as an example. The success of the Boris bike scheme would never have been possible with a compulsory helmet law.

Exactly. And to use that point to put the risk of un-helmeted riding in perspective the first death of a Boris Bike rider was after approx 34 million miles had been done on them. So for practical purposes for any one rider – zero.

And that is assuming a helmet would have saved that rider who was killed by lorry. Unlikely IMO

https://understandinguncertainty.org/fatality-risk-boris-bikes

Nicely put ..but once again ..please find anything in what I’ve previously written that states I’m pro compulsion ..
All that I’ve said is that from a personal viewpoint I think that wearing a helmet is a good idea and that they absolutely do reduce the risk of head injury ..and people have taken offence that I dared to say that .
Can anyone supply evidence to the contrary ?( not how much ..but that they don’t? )
I’m old enough to remember similar outrage when motorbike helmets were made compulsory ..and also seatbelts in cars ..yet most people seem to conform these days
I’m about as far removed from London as it is possible to be living in the wilds of Northumberland ..so city commuting is something that doesn’t particularly resonate with me ..
But my other question that remains unanswered is that if you had an accident with head trauma ..would this then change your mind about wearing one ?

I’m old enough to remember similar outrage when motorbike helmets were made compulsory

I’m still annoyed at that…

..and also seatbelts in cars

…and that.

On the plus side you don’t have to wear a helmet on a quad and they’re the sketchiest thing ever on the road. 😀

hodgynd – Member

But my other question that remains unanswered is that if you had an accident with head trauma ..would this then change your mind about wearing one ?

Do you ask that question of anyone else who suffers a head injury? Mostly it isn’t cyclists.

And for me … no it wouldn’t change my mind. I’ve cycled for 50 years without any injuries beyond scratches. I’m happy that my cycling isn’t risky enough to need a helmet.

Happy for you .. 😀
May your good fortune continue ..

…oh and no I don’t ask that question of anyone else ..
The fact that it mostly isn’t cyclists is probably down to the fact that the majority ( that I see ) are sensible enough to be wearing a helmet already 😀

I always wear a helmet when cycling off road, but very rarely on the road. I can’t see a helmet doing much good if I get hit by a few tonnes going over 30mph. Don’t wear hiviz either, although I do have some reflective gear. Personal choice and I’d continue in that vein regardless of the law. Totally unenforceable twaddle.

but don’t try to tell me that helmets haven’t saved lives ..I don’t need to read any data to know that ..do I ?.

Yes you do. That is what data and research does for you, it informs you and could save you from making incorrect assumptions.
How do you know they have saved lives without any data, whose lives did they save ?

As for compulsion (which is what the thread is actually about) For example, if less people ride bikes, less people are fit and healthy, more people die due to health related issues that they would not have had if fitter and healthier from the cycling they would have done if not made to wear a helmet.

These things are not quite as straight forward as you would hope (or need them to be)

hodgynd – Member
The fact that it mostly isn’t cyclists is probably down to the fact that the majority ( that I see ) are sensible enough to be wearing a helmet already

Ever been to Cambridge. Huge number of cyclists. Very few with helmets. No head injury epidemic.

Not read the previous three pages, but here’s my take on it…

I’ve normally cycled riding a helmet for at least the last ~20 years, cannot remember of I had one as a kid or while at uni. It didn’t help in my initial Xmas 2013 collision into the back of a refuse collection lorry, but then the initial impact was my lower nose and upper jaw (which turned into a live jigsaw) plus my right hand (two metacarpal joints fractured). However, the rear of the helmet was obliterated, so as part of the secondary impacts, the back of my head must have hit the tarmac.

Road helmets probably help a little with low speed impacts to the upper head. They can also help you be more visible, if wearing a bright coloured one.

At the cost of overheating, full face helmets as used by some mtb cyclists and motorcyclists probably offer more protection, not just in terms of coverage but also how secure they are on your head.

Do full face helmets reduce your peripheral vision?

If it’s about safety, lets make it compulsory to wear full face masks in/on all road going vehicles.

irc..
No never been to Cambridge ..hope that I never have to…but which bit of “( that I see )”..did you have difficulty understanding?
I will just leave this here ..its a survey conducted by experts in 2016..for those of you who got their knickers in a twist earlier in the thread because I hadn’t quoted any facts and figures ..its the first one I found online ..I don’t read the Guardian ..
Chew on this and start frothing at the mouth ..
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds

Well it’s obvious that wearing a helmet will reduce head injuries. The same would apply to walking, running and any other activity. That’s also one study in isolation. Head injuries aren’t the main cause of cyclist death though. Did somebody not post this earlier?

You are 100% correct Funkmaster ..but the thread subject is about compulsory helmet wearing and by association helmet safety ..not cycling related injuries or deaths

It’s sold as improving cycling safety though, which it won’t do. It will just make shit drivers feel better. Following your logic helmets should be worn at all times for all activities. Slip in the bath and die from a head injury. Compulsory helmet wearing whilst showering would have stopped that.

but the thread subject is about compulsory helmet wearing

So where do you stand on that one? You have pointed out that you think people should wear helmets (and those that don’t should be in an accident to mend their ways) and you have also pointed out that you haven’t said make them compulsory.

So what do you want ? (realise you probably can’t answer that as you sound very confused by it all)

Not confused at all..I will conform to whatever is decided as a law abiding citizen..while continuing to wear my helmet every time I ride a bike .
Clear enough ?

Not confused at all..I will conform to whatever is decided as a law abiding citizen..while continuing to wear my helmet every time I ride a bike .
Clear enough ?

Not really as you haven’t answered the question at all.

Do you think helmets should be compulsory? Yes or No

None of your bloody business 😀

None of your bloody business

Your contribution to the debate has hit a high point.

Chris Boardman has written about this: https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/article/20171126-Chris-Boardman-0

It was supposed to be in the Sunday Times but was dropped for some reason, couldn’t possibly be that it doesn’t fit their compulsory helmet push could it…

None of your bloody business

Sums up the helmet debate perfectly. Personal choice. Full stop.

bails – Member

Chris Boardman has written about this: https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/article/20171126-Chris-Boardman-0

It was supposed to be in the Sunday Times but was dropped for some reason, couldn’t possibly be that it doesn’t fit their compulsory helmet push could it…

Well The Times did publish a piece today by Andrew Gilligan (former London cycling commissioner) saying after looking at the evidence he concluded a helmet law would cost more lives than it saved. This was through reduced cycling and loss of health benefits, and risk compensation meaning helmeted riders are involved in more crashes.

Another article alongside has leading neurosurgeon Henry Marsh saying many of his patients involved in cycling accidents had been wearing helmets but they were too flimsy to be beneficial.

Well if you don’t understand why you form your own opinions then it’s unlikely I’m going to be able to help. Because you’re the one on here who’s attitudes to helmet use are that cyclists without one deserve to be injured, or are extremely foolish. Yet you’re not applying those same standards to driving, where you presumably don’t wear a helmet?

That’s a seperate issue which isnt being discussed ( certainly not by me ).

No, it’s not a separate issue, it’s a useful way to examine the attitudes of those who use pejorative terms towards those who choose to cycle without wearing a helmet. Why do you consider a helmet so important for one and not the other? Is your attitude evidence based?

What ‘ evidence ‘ are you talking about ..the fact that helmets save riders from head injuries ..are you saying they don’t or are you trying to tell me that because I don’t agree with the majority that I’m not allowed an opinion ..?

I’m talking about the evidence you haven’t provided in support of your opinion, instead falling back on “it’s just my opinion” when challenged.

What exactly have you added to the thread ..and by the way do you wear one ?
( tbf..Im not that bothered if you do or not )

Well I’ve challenged unsupported opinions, which tends to be more useful to debate than presenting those unsupported opinions. My helmet wearing choices are utterly irrelevant to the debate (and the wider question).