Compulsory cycle helmets - breakfast news item

[Tourist Tony]

I actually rather liked the video that came up after that one http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/school_report/8563398.stm  Dicussing the loss of a fellow pupil, without being emotive and getting some differnet views on the issue.  It was a fair bit more balanced then a lot of 'professional' reports...

Yes, but as has already been said: he died of head injuries AFTER BEING HIT BY A CAR.

[CrinklyLion]

Indeed - and it was a bunch of teenagers who phrased it that way.  They also didn't say 'if he'd been wearing a helmet he's have been ok' or 'you should wear helmets', nor did they portray non-helmet-wearers as suicidal loons.  And they showed young people riding around without helmets and hi-vis and NOT having dreadful horrible accidents.  Wouldn't it would be nice if 'professional' reporters managed to do the same? 

In the last week I've been told that I'm a bad parent for not making my 8 year old wear a helmet, a bad example because I don't myself, and a hypocrite because my toddler does wear one when he's in the bike seat.  All of this by perfectly pleasant and normally sensible people who I would consider to be friends.  The pro-helment agenda is very very strong in schools...

[FatnDaft]

The pro-helment agenda is very very strong in schools...

Indeed, the head at my sons school sent out a letter stating that cycle helmets are mandatory.

[windrush]

Head teachers.  Mmm the imagination runs wild.
Tesco starts schools vouchers-for-Tesco-helmets - that'll be next  

Actually what should be illegal for children is crossing a road while looking at a mobile.
I bet some of those your-child-should-wear-a-helmet people let their kids wander across roads willy-nilly texting away.

[woollypigs]

One of the schools I train at have filled ou our consent forms for the parents on the have to wear a helmet part.

Good part is that some parents have "vote" against that and thier kids are not wearing a lid.

This morning four of the six cyclist following me down Chiswick High Road was wearing lids and all four of them were jumping the red lights, hmmm.

[mattc]

The pro-helment agenda is very very strong in schools...

Indeed, the head at my sons school sent out a letter stating that cycle helmets are mandatory.

Total arse-covering cowardice.

[rogerzilla]

Miss Z can only ride to school if she wears a helmet.  So she walks.

Also why I have never ridden a sportive.

[frankly frankie]

The one thing that does seem clear is that its your head at risk and your head isn't going to hurt anyone else.  It will just be an additional load on the NHS.

As opposed to the additional load on the NHS from not cycling.

As opposed to the additional load on the state pension (and NHS) from hanging around when you're not wanted living long and dying slow.

[Wendy]

Miss Z can only ride to school if she wears a helmet.  So she walks.

Also why I have never ridden a sportive.

I can't believe you allow the school to get away with that.  I would flout that and kick up a massive fuss if the school tried it on with me.

[mattc]

The one thing that does seem clear is that its your head at risk and your head isn't going to hurt anyone else.  It will just be an additional load on the NHS.

As opposed to the additional load on the NHS from not cycling.

As opposed to the additional load on the state pension (and NHS) from hanging around when you're not wanted living long and dying slow.

The latter is not true: fit folk tend to die quickly when they go.

[and it's the baby boomers that are the pension problem, not cyclists )

[CrinklyLion]

Miss Z can only ride to school if she wears a helmet.  So she walks.

Oh, not looking forward to the day that they try that at my sons' school.  That'd be an interesting conversation.  I think I'd start with whether they should allow children who don't have functioning brakes (at least 1 in 3 of the bikes that I played jenga with in the bike shed the other had brakes that were dodgy, if they worked at all) to cycle to school, and how they plan to police that one.  And they probably ought to have a policy about children riding unaccompanied to school on the pavements, at some speed and without giving way to pedestrians - I would expect that if they're old enough to cycle to school alone they should be doing it properly. Then there's the children who haven't learnt that you don't undertake left-turning skip lorries - which I witnessed this morning, on the same corner where I've seen a child undertaking a bus.  Or the parents who blithely cycle into the playground, scattering small people as they go.  Obviously helmet-wearing for cyclists is going to make everyone much safer    But it is so easy to police....

[simonp]

Andy, you know this already. Seatbelts work, whilst cycle helmets are fragile bits of polystyrene.

Oh really?

Britain’s seat belt law should be repealed | John Adams: Risk in a Hypermobile World

[Quisling]

Miss Z can only ride to school if she wears a helmet.  So she walks.

..the irony being that per km travelled pedestrians are more likely to incur injuries than cyclists therefore following that logic pedestrians should be compelled to wear h*l*e*s before cyclists.

There are probably some proper facts around the type of injury they suffer, but I can only remember the headline bit. 

[Quisling]

Andy, you know this already. Seatbelts work, whilst cycle helmets are fragile bits of polystyrene.

Oh really?

Britain’s seat belt law should be repealed | John Adams: Risk in a Hypermobile World

Of course, this conveniently appears to ignore passengers wearing seatbelts, whose lives are saved by them, yet are unable (by virtue of not being behind the steering wheel) of being guilty of compensation behaviour like driving faster.

Whilst individual tests will determine proof of compensation behaviour in seat-belt wearers, the overall statistics will (unless heavily adjusted) reflect the output of various tinkering with road layout, traffic volume change over time, design and performance of cars, introduction of other safety measures, changes in driver training etc.  Accordingly, it is immensely difficult to confirm whether seatbelts as a whole save lives.  I know someone who reckons he's only alive because he wasn't wearing his seatbelt.  I also know another bloke whose wife buried her teeth in the back of his skull because she wasn't wearing hers.  Bloody back seat drivers. They're a menace

[simonp]

Andy, you know this already. Seatbelts work, whilst cycle helmets are fragile bits of polystyrene.

Oh really?

Britain’s seat belt law should be repealed | John Adams: Risk in a Hypermobile World

Of course, this conveniently appears to ignore passengers wearing seatbelts, whose lives are saved by them, yet are unable (by virtue of not being behind the steering wheel) of being guilty of compensation behaviour like driving faster.

Whilst individual tests will determine proof of compensation behaviour in seat-belt wearers, the overall statistics will (unless heavily adjusted) reflect the output of various tinkering with road layout, traffic volume change over time, design and performance of cars, introduction of other safety measures, changes in driver training etc.  Accordingly, it is immensely difficult to confirm whether seatbelts as a whole save lives.  I know someone who reckons he's only alive because he wasn't wearing his seatbelt.  I also know another bloke whose wife buried her teeth in the back of his skull because she wasn't wearing hers.  Bloody back seat drivers. They're a menace

Quite:

The country that experienced the greatest
decrease in the mid-1970s was Denmark, before its law was passed. As can be
seen in Figure 3, after its law road deaths increased slightly.

As you seem to have realised, other factors have come into play and then the seatbelt lobby have claimed that the seatbelt law was responsible.  Unfortunately, one of the effects of a seatbelt law is more pedestrian and cyclist deaths.

[oncemore]

Just possible that I'll live through the complete package....as a child I rode in cars and vans with no "restraints" (tho' my father was quite modern and didn't let me ride in the front!). I learnt to drive in a car with no seat belts and they weren't compulsory for a short while afterwards. I used to ride a m'cycle helmetless (legally!).

Now, I fit my seat belt automatically. I wouldn't dream of riding a m'cycle without a lid.

See where this is going? And the "scientific arguments" are as ever irrelevant.

[rogerzilla]

I have occasionally driven a few hundred yards (e.g. from the local shop to home) without putting a seatbelt on, just for the frisson of excitement.  I can report that this makes me really, really careful about how I drive.  To play devil's advocate, maybe they should be optional for the driver only?

Also, unlike seatbelts, cycle helmets involve considerably more discomfort for the user.  For me, the chin strap is the worst thing since pressure there aggravates my asthma, but there's also:

- heat in summer
- inability to choose appropriate headwear for the climate; you can't fit a woolly hat under one, and strictly speaking you're not supposed to wear a cap or Buff either
- weight, which is a big issue on a long ride when you are prone to fatigue and neck pain.

Fortunately the UK government has realised that wearing rates are too low to consider enforcement*.  Jersey presumably has few voting cyclists, and more helmet-wearers anyway.


*which is why wearing a helmet is voting for compulsion according to the government's twisted logic, whether you like it or not.

http://www.peeble.com/bikes/letter1.gif
http://www.peeble.com/bikes/letter2.gif

[simonp]

The vote for compulsion is the reason I have all but stopped wearing a helmet. I'll accept a small increase in risk if it means I'm not voting in favour of compulsion. I've mainly become more aware of kerbs.

[rogerzilla]

Riding in the snow without a helmet, elbow pads or, in fact, full body armour makes you aware of everything!

[Cudzoziemiec]

I have occasionally driven a few hundred yards (e.g. from the local shop to home) without putting a seatbelt on, just for the frisson of excitement.  I can report that this makes me really, really careful about how I drive.  To play devil's advocate, maybe they should be optional for the driver only?

Or maybe they should be optional for passengers and banned for the driver?

[oncemore]

"optional for passengers"

So you really want to see small children bouncing around inside cars doing 70 per?

[Cunobelin]

The one thing that does seem clear is that its your head at risk and your head isn't going to hurt anyone else.  It will just be an additional load on the NHS.

As opposed to the additional load on the NHS from not cycling.

That's the bit missed out with all these news items.

The load on the NHS argument is irrelevant as the most common factor in head injuries is alcohol, followed by a previous head injuries, followed by falls.

If you want to reduce the NHS load, then full face helmets when drinking?

[Martin]

This morning four of the six cyclist following me down Chiswick High Road was wearing lids and all four of them were jumping the red lights, hmmm.

not pigeonholing at all? 

The vote for compulsion is the reason I have all but stopped wearing a helmet. I'll accept a small increase in risk if it means I'm not voting in favour of compulsion. I've mainly become more aware of kerbs.

that's very noble of you; I however prefer to think of Me Myself and I when it comes to wearing one

[Cudzoziemiec]

Full-face helmets when drinking should drastically reduce alcohol comsumption. Perhaps they should be compulsory at McD's as well to combat obesity?

[Cudzoziemiec]

"optional for passengers"

So you really want to see small children bouncing around inside cars doing 70 per?

Unless the car crashes, it makes them no safer. But how do very small children - babies - feel at being strapped into a contraption where they can see but not touch their parents?