To wonder why wearing a cycle helmet isn't made law?

[sensuallettuce]

I struggle to make my kids wear a cycle helmet as they perceive it to be very uncool ( and don't listen to me suggesting it may be more uncool to be dead or brain damaged .)

I lived in New Zealand for a while where it is law to wear one which seems to take away the "option" for school kids esp - everyone wears one - there is no debate.

Driving through town today I passed a lady on a push bike wearing a sam brown and loads of reflectors on her backpack but no helmet - so its our responsibility to see her rather than for her to protect herself.

AIBU to wonder what the reason is for it not being law to wear a helmet on a bicycle as it is on a motorcycle in this country? Even if not just for kids?

IvanaNap - my ex rode a bike again but he never wore a helmet on the other hand dd smashed her helmet, it is cracked in two pieces and refuses to go out without a helmet - I brought her a replacement. Thing is she is 13 and probably the only girl that would ride to school and not have her helmet on the handlebars (it is entirely her choice to wear a helmet and no peer presure will make her take it off) - as that is what I see a lot on my walk to work, boys and girls riding their bikes and the helmets dangling from the handlebars as it is not cool.

What will the police do as they are to young to fine and the parents will send them off with helmets on their heads and say I am not paying the fine - they will stop them riding their bikes as they will not be able to control the helmet wearing - so bike riding will diminish

Did the seatbelt law or drink driving law reduce the number of people driving? No - but at the time a lot of people made a fuss and said they weren't going to take any notice, trotted out the nanny state line etc. Now it's just normalised and second nature.

If someone needs or wants to cycle they are either going to follow the law or go ahead and flout the law because they don't care or think they are above it. Anyone who gives up cycling because they don't want to wear a helmet it's probably best they are not cycling on the road anyhow.

people still drink and drive, hold mobile phones and chat and don't wear seat belts, so those that object just ignore the laws

Have you done any research into this subject jasbro?

No, I didn't think so.

Firstly the seat belt is there in the car. It does not make your head sweaty, it is not an additional purchase or a conspicuous carbuncle on your head. Cycle helmets on the other hand must be carried with you, whether or not it is convenient (e.g., Boris Bikes).

Secondly, seat belt legislation has been proven, by repeated trials across the road, to reduce fatalities.

Cycle helmet laws have had no such effect, in fact when cycle helmet legislation has been brought in there are just two consistent effects:

1. fewer people cycling (despite your fatuous comparison with seatbelts, they are not comparable)

1. reduced safety for those still on the road.

The fact is in that the net effect of cycle helmet legislation is simply undeniable: more people will die. There is no doubt whatsoever about this effect. Firstly the remaining cyclists become more marginalised, and secondly those who as a result of the law never become cyclists (just as significant as stopping) or stop have significantly inferior health. NOT cycling is extremely dangerous:

cyclehelmets.org/1015.html

"The health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks (BMA, 1992) by a substantial margin.

Estimated benefit:cost ratios range from 13:1 to 415:1"

Cycle helmet laws are in my view an effort by non-cyclists to marginalise and stigmatise cycling with the desired effect of getting as many pesky cyclists off the road as possible. Similar bleatings by these types include 'cyclists should have insurance', and 'cyclists should have compulsory training'; of all these initiatives designed by non-cyclists to reduce the number of cyclists on the road cycle helmet laws are taken most seriously, usually as a result of spurious analogy with seat belts. For some reason the entirely logical corollary, that car drivers, who are going much faster, and for whom studies have shown that helmets are unambiguously a good thing, should be forced to wear helmets is just ignored. This is presumably because - surprise surprise - motorists don't want to be forced to wear a plastic carbuncle on their heads, they just want it for other people.

Now isn't that thoughtful.

But far, far fewer. You can look at the stats and see a massive decline in fatalities from car accidents, particularly the sort of injuries caused by going through a windscreen. Before seatbelts were widely used, the front passenger seat was known as the 'suicide seat'.

I remember my Mum moaning about how daft it was when the law changed so you had to use rear seat belts. She still doesn't put a seat belt on in London taxis (fortunately doesn't live in London) on the grounds that you are never safer than in a London cab.

It's really really simple. It is possibly (the studies are contradictory) safer for an individual, who is going to cycle anyway, to wear a helmet rather than not. However it is CERTAINLY safer, in general, to cycle than not to cycle, regardless of any helmets, and cycle helmet laws DO reduce cycling and therefore they are unquestionably a bad idea.

Lizzie Armitstead, who lives in Belgium IIRC, says cycling there is so much safer as cycle lanes are separated from other traffic by a grass verge. Would be far safer if lorries had to have warning noises that alert them to a cyclist on their left, as well. (So they know the cyclist is there when turning left, even if daft cyclist is in their blind spot.)

I think the 'people will stop cycling if they are made to wear helmets' is a pretty daft argument. We don't let motorbikers get away without helmets just because some of them might not like them. If people are so stubborn they'd give up cycling if they had to wear a helmet, that's their own look out, frankly.

I'm not sure it's 'safer' to cycle than not cycle (on British roads without proper separation of bikes and motor vehicles). It may be 'healthier' but that's not the same thing as 'safer'.

James Cracknell is not a cyclist. He was side-glanced by a truck's wing mirror while cycling, and sponsored by a helmet manufacturer. www.kimharding.net/blog/?p=1693

Had he fitted a rear view mirrror to his bike he would likely have seen, and evaded, the truck. Unfortunately there is no money in promoting bike mirrors, but lots of money in selling £400 bike helmets: www.wheelies.co.uk/p54824/Alpina-Venga-Road-Helmet.aspx

I bike everyday, and wear a helmet. Am aware of the stats and debate but it would feel counter-intuitive to not wear one.

Of course the entire debate about helmets avoids the responsibility of car drivers etc to see us and not carelessly kill us, but that's the separate subject of lots of other threads.

Can I ask why if it is a daft thing to happen - less people cycling if they are made to wear helmets - why did this happen in Australia? Cycle helmets were made law and cycling decreased and cycle accidents increased?

I think the 'people will stop cycling if they are made to wear helmets' is a pretty daft argument.

But it's true. And not just that but people will never start cycling in the first place.

"In practice, the experience of enforced helmet laws is that cycle use typically falls by at least 30%, and more among teenagers. The resulting loss of cycling?s health benefits alone (let alone its environmental, economic and societal benefits) is very much greater than any possible injury prevention benefit. "

We don't let motorbikers get away without helmets just because some of them might not like them.

False analogy again.

Why don't car drivers wear helmets? The most common injury in fatal car accidents is head injuries discovery.ucl.ac.uk/3494/1/3494.pdf ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/vehicle/key_issues_for_vehicle_safety_design/what_are_main_crash_injury_problems.htm

If people are so stubborn they'd give up cycling if they had to wear a helmet, that's their own look out, frankly.

It most certainly is not.

"Cycling is hugely beneficial to people?s health. Those who cycle regularly in mid-adulthood have a level of fitness equivalent to being 10 years younger, and have a life expectancy 10 years above the average. "

These people are healthier, they are not costing the NHS money, so that is a public health issue.

"The Government estimates that the health benefits outweigh the risks of cycling on Britain?s roads by a factor of 20:1 (n.b. estimates from other countries place this ratio higher still).

Based on this 20:1 ratio, it can be shown that telling people to wear helmets would result in a net increase in early deaths (due to physical inactivity etc) if there was more than 1 person deterred from cycling for every 20 who continue, even if helmets were 100% effective at preventing ALL cycling injuries (i.e. not just head-only injuries). Once you factor in the
proportion of serious and fatal cycling injuries that are not head-only injuries, and the at-best limited protection that helmets could provide (they are and only can be designed to withstand minor knocks and falls, not collisions with fast-moving cars or lorries), it can be shown that it only takes a fraction of a percentage point reduction in cycle use for pro-helmet policies to shorten a lot more lives than they could possibly save. "

And that's all there is to it.

Maybe it's better for individuals to wear cycle helmets, maybe it isn't. But it quite unambiguously is NOT better for governments to enforce helmet wearing, because the government's goals are different from an individual's goals.

In countries where most people cycle, such as the Netherlands, helmet wearing is extremely rare. Mass participation in cycling, which is hugely beneficial for society, will NEVER happen with compulsory helmet legislation.

Furthermore, Dutch statistics show that 13% of cyclist admissions to hospital are by helmet wearers. This is despite the fact that wider helmet wearing statistics are around 0.5% in Holland. This shows the fact that those wearing helmets are almost certainly taking part in riskier activities and essentially individuals should be trusted to make this decision for themselves.

Cycling to the shops is less risky than walking there (no helmets for pedestrians have been proposed, for some reason), and for cyclists taking part in this kind of activity, helmets do not provide a significant safety benefit, since the risk is so low

why does it matter if I choice to wear a helmet when cycling and the man next to me doesn't?

If he falls off his bike and bangs his head - how is that situation going to effect anyone else?

if I fall of my bike and bang my helmet how is that going to effect anyone else?

If that same man drinks and drives that could effect others
If I sit in the back f a car and don't wear a helmet that could effect the person in the seat in front of me

Your Dutch example shows 87% of admissions are non-helmet wearers. Which doesn't suggest helmet wearing is inherently unsafe. And it's clearly ridiculous to say pedestrians don't wear helmets so cyclists shouldn't either!

I did say earlier cycle helmets are one of those issues where some people are bizarrely vehement and get extremely cross that anyone could possibly disagree with them...

Yes, 100% - 13% = 87%, that is very true.

I wasn't suggesting that helmet wearing is inherently unsafe, just pointing out that in Holland, hospital admissions of cyclists are disproportionately people wearing helmets.

And it's clearly ridiculous to say pedestrians don't wear helmets so cyclists shouldn't either!

No it's not.

Walking and cycling have very similar KSI rates. You can say 'cyclists are going faster' or make any similar non-evidence-based statement that you like, but the fact is that the hospital admissions are very similar for both groups.

I did say earlier cycle helmets are one of those issues where some people are bizarrely vehement and get extremely cross that anyone could possibly disagree with them...

Because as a cyclist it's upsetting that people are trying to put in measures that would (a) reduce the number of cyclists (this is certain) and (b) result in more people dying (again this is certain).

I'm honestly confused as to how there is even a debate.

I quite understand that people might say 'hey, Stunning, you should wear a helmet'. But from that statement we do not get to 'Not wearing a helmet should be made illegal'.

www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaigns/Cycle-helmets-(the-evidence)_brf.pdf

And let's not forget the absurdity of the fact that this issue has come to the fore because a cyclist was crushed by a 15-tonne bus. Who was wearing a helmet and always did.

Perhaps going up the left-side of long vehicles should be made illegal.

Now that would save some lives.

Stunting Excellent arguments.

I do believe a massive problem with this debate is the belief that cycle helmets will provide a magic solution, and that itself stops a lot of the other very important debates about cycling and health and cycling and safety.

There are too many fallacies that are created by the idea of helmet wearing. Fallacies that are very damaging.

Completely agree about cyclists going up the left side of long vehicles. Dangerous beyond belief.

The biggest fallacy for me is the 'kids must wear helmets' fallacy.

This is the fallacy whereby schools periodically have 'ride to school days' or similar and they dictate 'helmets must be worn'.

Which is all very well but kind of ignores the fact that

(a) the kids have no road sense
(b) the bikes have not been ridden in months and are basically death traps
(c) the bikes came from Toys R Us and are not fit for the purpose in the first place.

There really is nothing worse than the attitude that bike safety is solely, or primarily, about wearing a helmet. They had to edit helmets into a Peppa Pig episode for reruns because she didn't have a helmet on.

There are so many dangerous things that cyclists, both adult and children do, that focusing on helmet wearing is absurd. It's like saying to someone doing 100mph in a residential area that 'you should wear your seatbelt'.

Helmet wearing has a negative to minimal impact on cycle safety. If people want to wear one, fine. If they don't, likewise. But please, rather than fretting that your child is riding to school with no helmet, why not observe them as they cycle from the pavement into the road, down a one way street the wrong way, etc. And take action.

You should buy, and read, this:

www.amazon.co.uk/Cyclecraft-complete-enjoyable-cycling-children/dp/0117037400/

before you even consider this:

www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/3333516/Trail/searchtext%3ECYCLE+HELMET.htm

Of course this won't happen because it's more convenient to blame cyclists for being injured based on wearing/not wearing a plastic hat.

And please ensure that your tyres are safe and properly inflated (this is very difficult to achieve without a proper track pump with gauge costing £15 or so), that brakes are adjusted and effective, forks around the right way, that you have effective luggage (backpack, or better, basket/rack and panniers), rather than dangling things off the handlebars.

All these things have an unambiguous safety benefit and are very commonly not done, yet people still blather on about helmets?

Bradley Wiggins was trying to put his fantastic achievements to good use by saying he thought people should be made to wear a helmet, but he didn't take into consideration the 'Wiggins effect'

Lots of people getting out on their bikes because of the olympics and imagining they're on the telly, but forgetting that professional cyclists have the traffic stopped for them.

The police have warned motorists there might be lots of cyclists about on the roads, which makes it seem as though they're not that fussed about all people who cycle all the time, as well as giving motorists the impression that watching out for them is only a temporary measure while people like BW are high up on the news agenda.

I think the biggest problem is that U.K roads are totally unsuitable for cyclists and the cheap attempts to make cycle lanes on footpaths (illegal) and by segregating part of a road designed for cars, lorries etc is nothing more than a joke. The entire road infrastructure needs to be rebuilt from the ground up to accomodate cyclists imo. as to the compulsary use of helmets, well they have been forced onto other 2 wheeled road users so imo they should be made a legal requirement as should insurance but until the roads are made suitable for cyclists its all pie in the sky really.

It is not illegal to make cycle lanes on footpaths!

Mandatory insurance for dogs, skateboards, etc. IMO.

Let's just ban everything.

Maybe kick off the ban with dayglow lycra cycling shorts?

Ban indecent lycra cycling shorts. Its porn y'know.