To ask my DDs to wear helmets when they go out on their bikes?

[LackingInspiration]

Because I'm starting to feel like an overprotective mother (and I so am not one of those!). All the other children in the street don't wear helmets, and my DDs are so good at keeping theirs on, but I know it annoys them.

The thing is that, unlike most of the decisions DH and I have made about parenting, we've just swallowed the standard advice about helments, without researching the ins and outs of them. So what's the deal?

Am I being overprotective? Or haven't I read enough research and arguments to make an informed decision?

Shabba, I'm so sorry for you. What an awful thing to happen.

I'm just wondering though, did many people actually wear helmets 30 years ago? I'm 44 now, had a bike as a child and again at uni, and I don't remember ever having a helmet till about 8 years ago when I started cycling to work. Our kids are always made to wear helmets, but weren't they much less common back then, like seatbelts in the back of cars, and child seats, and all the other safety measures we take for granted now?

"If you want to influence people's behaviour, anedocotes work best. "

I didn't ask for my behaviour to be influenced. I asked for the exact opposite - informed, research and evidence to make an informed decision.

I have been guilty in the past of sometimes letting DD who is nearly 4 ride her bike without her helmet.

Most of the year we live abroad in a small compound where we don't have to go on the roads as there are lots of footpaths and in any event, the speed limit on the roads is 20KPH. I bought DD a helmet when I bought her bike and she did wear it 90% of the time but there were occasions when she didn't.

Having read shabba's terrible story, DD (and DS when he is old enough) will never go on a bike without a helmet. I am so very sorry for your loss Shabba but thank you for sharing your story with us and hopefully preventing other tragic losses x

I have just found this thread and wanted to say NEVER NEVER let your child on a bike without a helmet.

Last summer ds (then 6) was riding his bike down a gravel track when for no apparent reason he fell off and hit his head. By the time the air ambulance arrived an hour later, his pupils were still unreactive and he could not speak. He spent days in a drug induced coma when we had no idea at all whether he had sustained any brain damage.

He is now absolutely fine. However the consultant neurologist was quite clear that had he not been wearing a helmet, he would be dead. We have kept the helmet to remind us - it is completely crushed down one side.

yanbu ,its a must if they want to go on skates,scooters,bikes or skateboards.ive told mine its against the law not to just like seat belts.which makes me question why isnt it??my ds a few years ago got knocked off his bike going down a steep hill you can only imagine the force he hit the ground with his head,he even cracked teeth. first response paramedic was astounded he didnt recieve a severe head injury .he did not have his helmet on,i couldnt believe the one time..paramedics and hospital were really angry with me and him,explaining the weekly deaths they see because helmet wasnt worn.

YANBU. Any argument which states that everyone should wear helmets because life in general is dangerous does not fly; just because other activities can cause harm does not mean you should be any less vigilant in that one. I cannot get on with the argument that wearing a helmet makes you less careful as if this were the case, wearing seatbelts would not be a legal requirement. Does anyone seriously drive less carefully because they are wearing a seatbelt? (Actually, wouldn't know, always wear one, it is automatic). Until it is proved that wearing a helmet whilst cycling is more dangerous that not wearing one, my children will ALWAYS wear a helmet if they are physically able.

I am a personal injury lawyer and have defended loads of cases where people have been injured because they have been knocked off their bikes. If the injured person hasn't been wearing a helmet we seek a reduction in their damages for contributory negligence. This requires us to prove that their own negligence (not wearing a helmet) contributed to their harm. That requires a report from an expert neurologist to comment on what their head injury would have been had they been wearing a helmet. I appreciate Riven cites some evidence to the contrary but I have consulted dozens of neurologists in hundreds of cases and have literally NEVER had a case where the doctor didn't say that the injuries would have been significantly lessened had the injured person been wearing a helmet. I would never let my children out without a helmet. You don't have to hit your head very hard to get a really nasty brain injury.

If your kids are objecting to wearing a helmet you can point out that every single professional or elite cyclist in every single discipline wears a helmet. Road cycling, MTBs, bmx, track cycling... they all wear helmets so if they want to look like a good cyclist they need to have one.

addictedtoportlandbabies

"If the injured person hasn't been wearing a helmet we seek a reduction in their damages for contributory negligence"

Can you sleep at night?

LackingInspiration "I didn't ask for my behaviour to be influenced. I asked for the exact opposite - informed, research and evidence to make an informed decision."

It's because it doesn't exist, there is no clear cut evidence to support either side.

There might not be clear statistical evidence but I have very clear statements from experts that ds would be dead if he had not had a helmet on. What more do you need?

"Odd, therefore, that the two countries with the lowest rate of helmet use, Holland and Denmark, have high rates of cycle use and amongst the lowest rates of death and injury. Perhaps we need to get in amongst the cyclists in the streets in Amsterdam and tell them the hideous risks they're taking. Spreading the idea that cycling is so dangerous that it needs special protective clothes means that fewer and fewer people are doing it"

tokyo - probably because the drivers are more careful on the road with the amount of cyclists there are and have respect for them. I don't see that same respect here, not even around children who are on their bikes."

Would it also be relevant that Denmark and Holland, unlike the UK, are perhaps the countries in the world with the best system of designated cycle paths? Totally different situation to riding a bike in the UK.

I am the parent and I make the decisions about my kids' safety, it is non-negotiable. They wear helmets from the first time they sit on a bike...it's just the way it is. Like sitting in car seats. And not sitting in the front seat "for a treat". And not swimming without an adult around. And not playing football in the carpark. And not standing in a supermarket trolley. Sure, the worst might not happen to my kid. On the other hand, it might. And like the other poster said, until it's proved to be more dangerous to wear a helmet than not...they will be wearing them (and so will we, when we cycle). Children need to know that we are trying to keep them safe and IME if you give a valid reason for the rule, and are consistent, they are pretty ok about it.

I'm confused by these doctors and such like saying that 'the helmet saved your life' or 'the helmet would have saved your life', when as I understand it this has never been proved in any study. Please correct me if I am wrong on this, I would really appreciate some sort of solid evidence on this.

When ds came off his bike, there was an enormous dent in the side of his helmet.

The neurologist was aware of what the approximate strength of a helmet was in relation to the strength of a skull. He could also see exactly where the impact was. The force required to dent the helmet in that way would have resulted in irreversible and fatal brain damage. His opinion was unequivocal.

Tyler80 - "Can you sleep at night?"
What a pointless and spiteful thing to say about someone doing a completely legitimate and necessary job. Presumably if Addictedtoportlandbabies had said she was a claims lawyer she would have been subjected to the usual sneers of "ambulance chaser". As a defence lawyer she is apparently a heartless cow.
Perhaps the carefully developed law of negligence should be swept aside and replaced with "if anything bad happens to you it doesn't matter whether or not you did anything wrong, you just get lots of money because that is nice". And then watch the insurance industry collapse in a big heap of no-blame claims.....

So you think that someone knocked off their bike and injured by someone driving carelessly is in some way to blame for an accident if they weren't wearing a helmet? And therefore this is a legitimate point for defence lawyers to try and mitigate their clients actions.

They may not be to blame for the accident itself, but they may be to blame for the extent of their injuries, depending on the type of injury. Personal injury law is purely about causation and quantum so any lawyer who does not address these issues is failing to do a proper job.
The issue of contributory negligence is not about mitigating the defendant's actions - personal injury is not a punitive area of law. In any event, in the vast majority of personal injury cases involving cycle helmets, the defence team are representing an insurance company, not the offending individual driver. Hence it being a purely financial calculation, not an issue of punishing the "guilty".
You may or may not agree with the way the justice system has evolved over hundreds of years, but that doesn't mean that you are justified in making a spiteful little dig at someone working in that system in a legitimate role.
In any event, the issue of contributory negligence is hardly a basis for deciding whether or not to put your child in a cycle helmet - it was only raised as relevant to the argument about whether or not there is any evidence as to helmets reducing injuries.

I think the issue is that helmets might be just as useful, or more so, for pedestrians, who are more at risk than cyclists anyway, but if your child gets run over by a car nobody's going to blame you for not having him wear a pedestrian helmet, yet if he's on a bicycle the default position is to try and blame the cyclist:

• no helmet
• no lights/lights not bright enough
• no hi-vis jacket
• riding in the middle of the road
• riding on the edge of the road
• riding too fast
• riding too slow

This process doesn't seem to happen when car drivers kill/injure pedestrians, but when it comes to cyclists different rules apply, the blame is shifted as much as possible from the car driver, in charge of 2 tonnes of speeding metal, towards the essentially defenceless cyclist.

Anne555 thanks for your efforts - couldn't have put it better myself. Suspect Tyler probably not sharp enough to understand the issues here. For the record, I sleep like a log. Tyler, if you don't wear a seatbelt/cycle helmet etc your injuries are partly your fault. It's really quite simple but apparently beyond your comprehension.

well that depends. If someone drives down the motorway the wrong way drunk, and kills me, and I am not wearing a seatbelt, the injuries are absolutely not my fault, and it's disgusting to suggest otherwise. That person is 100% liable.

It's no different to saying that women with short skirts are partly responsible if they get raped.

It is different JoA.

Wearing a seatbelt is a legal requirement and could save your life in the event of an accident. It's not a law for any other event. If you break the law you may contribute to your own injuries. Not all accidents end in death. Wearing a seatbelt saves lives - I thought everyone knew that.

If you wear a short skirt you don't cause rape. A rapist is a rapist.

And so is a drunk, dangerous driver.

The law is designed to encourage us to wear our seatbelts, because there is sound and solid evidence they save lives. It's for our own good. When the first seatbelt law was introduced, deaths fell 40%. Simple statistics, repeated all over the world.

When helmet laws have been introduced, similar effects simply haven't occurred. A seatbelt is not the same as a bike helmet, they are two completely different items. The correct comparator for a bike helmet would be wearing crash helmets in cars, and nobody suggests that you're too blame or negligent if you don't do that.

And while it's true that seatbelts save lives, if you're the victim of an accident caused by somebody else, well that person shouldn't have caused the accident.

If I punch someone who has an 'eggshell skull', I have to face the legal consequences if they die. And if a motorist kills someone wearing no seatbelt they should likewise face the consequences.

Seatbelts are worn to protect the wearer, NOT the maniac driver who ploughs into you.

When you do wrong unto someone, you have to take them as you find them, simple as that.

Other equipment might be relevant - a cyclist or car with no working lights would potentially be negligent and reduce fault for the other party, because they would be less able to see you, but personal safety equipment doesn't fall into that category.

The bottom line is it should be simple to point to bike helmet laws and show that they had positive effect as the seatbelt laws did, but that's simply not possible, so not only is my personal safety equipment my choice (albeit that in the case of seatbelts, if I don't wear one, I am breaking the law), but in the case of bike helmets there isn't anything to prove that bike helmets even save lives.

If a drunk driver collided with me at low impact which normally might cause minor injury but I had chosen to bring my work home (chemist) and had a bottle of acid in my lap........and suffered facial injury.... is he responsible?