No one has posted anything yet so:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/jersey/8559668.stm

There was a big piece on the news this morning, what do you guys think??

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 BELLS 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

PP

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

TJ

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 all 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. My guess 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. My guess 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)

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.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme1/ppr446.pdf

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? Foolproof, aren't they?

😆

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……