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?

When we moved to NL we were caught in a quandary - force DCs to wear helmets and make them stand out as foreigners or allow them to cycle bare headed like everyone else.

We opted for the latter. IMO there are huge differences between cycling in NL & cycling in UK:

• cyclists have right of way in the majority of settings
• the vast, vast majority of drivers are cyclists as well
• there are loads of cycle lanes, far more than in the UK

If DCs cycled in the UK then I would insist that they wore helmets.

I've said this before on here and I'll say it again now. We have a friend who is an A&E consultant at a huge city hospital. She tells us that nearly all the cycling fatalities she has dealt with involve the frontal lobe of the cyclist being sliced open on impact with the kerb. She also tells us she deals daily with cyclists with head injuries who have been wearing helmets.

She's not a risk averse person at all; in fact, she's one of the wildest of all our friends but she always, always wears a cycle helmet. As does her DS.

I'll be taking her word for it for now.

I'm not sure why you have asked a few times about "letting" or "making" your dc wear a helmet.
When they were younger, I made my dc wear helmets. Once they get to teens, older teens even more, then they will quite often go out on their bikes when I'm not around. It isn't a case of me "allowing" them to go without a helmet, it's a case of children getting to a certain age when they are able to do things out of sight of their parents.
With the law on our side, then it's easier to impose as we wouldn't be the only ones saying it. Oh, and dh has cycled to work and back for years, always wearing a helmet, so it's not as though they associate it with 'being a kid'.

I didn't mean to be bitchy if that was aimed at me too - for what it's worth we all wear helmets in our family but I see people calling for things to be made illegal quite often on here and I honestly think there's no point unless it is going to be enforced. There's a park at the end of our road and kids from about 8 upwards often do cycle down there on their own.

I don't think it should be law.

I think if it is made illegal and enforced, less people will cycle. Cycling is excellent exercise and a carbon-free way to travel, and we should be encouraging as many people to cycle as possible.

I cycle often, but only wear a helmet sometimes. Why? Because I don't want to carry it around with me when I'm out to dinner/shopping/whatever. I wear one when cycling to work or cycling for the sake of cycling.

And as far as I keep hearing, there are only a few situations in which they are actually effective.

There is no law that says anyone on a cycle, or motorcycle should wear protective clothing, and the injuries caused by bare skin scraping on a hard surface are terrible. Common sense should tell these people to cover their skin, but many rarely do.

I dont think it should be compulsory to wear a helmet at all times, but I do think maybe if you are on the roads then yes, it should be.

Another thought. In NL a lot more people cycled with lights than do in the UK. Dynamos, very economic!

One of the problems I can see in the UK is that at least where I live, very few people cycle. Of those who do cycle a significant percentage are early teens kids on stunt bikes of one sort and another. Many dont really have saddles let alone lights.

In certain parts of town these kids will be cycling around, hopping on and off the kerb into the road as a kind of dare and about as visible as ghosts.

Forget enforcing helmets, start by enforcing lights. A while back I heard an MP ask the Transport Minister how many people had been prosecuted for cycling without lights in the previous year. The answer was:

None

You started a thread to say "Why isn't it law?" and I supplied a quick link that defends the anti-compulsion case well; ergo, asking on MN is rhetorical. If you want to canvess MNers opinions fine, but OP didn't say "What do MNers think?" rather it asked "AIBU to wonder what the reason is for it not being law?" which could have been better researched without asking for random MNer opinions.

I know I am too literal on those threads, I struggle with ignoring what OP actually wrote & leaping to deduction of "What does OP really mean to ask?" Note I haven't bothered to supply my own opinion or practices.

I can go into much more detail on historical reasons & current politics if OP really wants to know reasons, however I think she's actually only concerned with MNer opinions, so carry on.

I am against compulsion but 99% of the time I wear a helmet. As far as kids go, I think they'd be more likely to have a slow speed accident of the type that helmets are designed for. The statistics around compulsion need good analysis, because less people cycling is detrimental to society.

The seatbelt comparison doesn't really stand up for me. Lots of people die because someone else has chosen not to wear one. Not true for cycling helmets.

Op I think your question should have read -

Should cycle helmets be compulsory by law in the Uk?

Then it would have been clear you wanted an opinion and not a reason that it is not law

YANBU. I live in NZ and remember when the law came in - there was a fuss at first, but you get used to it and after a while no-one cares what you look like with a helmet on. Now the law has been in place for 18 years I would be surprised if it makes any difference. In fact, it wasn't until I moved to the UK that it even occured to me that wearing a helmet could make you look daft as until then it was just what you did. Over time, no-one cares about the vanity aspect, and no-one who spends any time in NZ could possibly think that cycling rates have been hurt by the helmet law. Cycling is more popular in the Netherlands it's true, but that's not because of the helmet law. It's because the cities are more cycle friendly. Studies also show that the compulsory seat belt laws was linked to more reckless driving as well, but that doesn't mean wearing a seatbelt lacks value.

AdventuresWithVoles that study doesn't seem to take into account other mitigating factors that can cause injury when people bike, or why they may not bike. You also have to remember when looking at cycling and injury stats in NZ that mountain biking has really taken off in the last decade so any statistics about injury need to clearly differentiate between moutain and road cycling. Many of those injuries noted would have been mountain bikers, not road cyclists.

Also, pointing out some problems with AdventuresWithVoles link about the helmet law in NZ. The study uses bike rental schemes in Auckland, Palmerston North and Porirua failing as examples of why the helmet law doesn't work. This is flawed logic for the following reasons:

• If a cycle rental scheme failed in Auckland,it is more likely because it is a nasty city to cycle around
• Porirua and Palmerston North are not places where tourists visit, and locals would already own bikes. Of course rental schemes would fail. Bikes are also very cheap in NZ, so why would you rent one unless you are a tourist on a short term visit? Having lived in both places, I can say that they are not tourist destinations by any strech of the imagination. Porirua is hilly and straddles a motorway, not a place you would want to bike around in any case. Lots of people bike in Palmerston North, the majority of my classmates biked to school, but it was on bikes they owned, not rented.

Sorry about being a bit OTT with my disgreement with that study, but it really isn't a credible source for why the helmet law has failed in NZ.

I wouldn't wear one, it would put me off cycling.

People not wearing one means drivers give cyclists a wider berth.

I cycle and wear a helmet. My husband had an accident a few years ago - his helmet was cracked in 5 places and the doctors told me I'd be arranging his funeral or feeding him through a straw if he'd not been wearing it. Anecdotal evidence but enough to make me wear it.

I don't understand why you wouldn't wear one but would make your children though? Surely if you think it's not necessary you wouldn't make DC wear one, but if you deem it necessary for them then why not yourself? Honestly puzzles by that.

Is also query the research that suggests cars give cyclists kit wearing a helmet a wider berth. I'm a London-commuting cyclist. The vast, huge majority of cyclists who jump red lights, cut other people up and are generally dangerous on the road are NOT wearing helmets. Those wearing helmets, IME, tend to be much safer. Drivers don't seem to discriminate either way - they are either aware and considerate of cyclists or they're not.

Not sure about original question, I wear a helmet based on my direct experiences, don't understand why you wouldn't - and to say you wouldn't cycle at all if you had to wear a helmet sounds a bit OTT to me

There's no evidence that wearing a parachute reduces your risk of serious injury when jumping from a plane at altitude. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence that you can survive such a fall without one, together with anecdotal evidence that the use of a parachute is associated with major trauma.

The lack of evidence wouldn't stop me wearing one if I had to jump from a plane though. The same lack of unbiased evidence (plus a lot of personal experience of organ retrieval from brain dead cyclists who weren't wearing helmets) doesn't stop me insisting that my children wear them when cycling or on scooters.

If anyone's interested -

Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials
BMJ. 2003 December 20; 327(7429): 1459?1461

Can't link it but you should be able to find it.

I don't think it should be made law, it's their own safety they're putting at risk

"I need to reassess nothing this isn't a university debate"

But for a new law to be introduced that dictates compulsary behaviour in the public, it needs to be investigated/discussed beyond university debating levels.

The evidence that helmets make riding safer, doesn't exsist, for the UK, so we don't have the law.

Medical staff would like much more stricter laws around all children's safety equipment, including fireguards etc, but i doubt that parents would be happy about that.

Using the same risk assessment, rugby and most sports would be banned for under 16.

"Just as a parent it would be easier :D"

So because you find it difficult to enforce your own values with your child you think every other parent should be compelled by law to do what you want to do?

People who wouldn't wear a helmet, why is that? To me it's absurd to not want to protect yourself and wearing a helmet is a very easy, simple thing to do.

"People who wouldn't wear a helmet, why is that"

For the reasons stated, they don't mean that you are any safer.

We aren't all riding on the same roads, tbf. Until the research shows that they are safer, the judgement should be up to the individual.

There are a few deaths per year through strangulation from an incorrectly worn helmet.

It's a matter of civil liberties.

I wear a helmet when I cycle to work, but for just short trips to the shop I don't wear one, nor when I use a cycle hire scheme (eg Boris Bikes, Dublin Bikes). I see both sides of the argument but I prefer to wear one for anything more than a short trip, and certainly on a main road.

Saying that, pregnancy brain led to me getting half the way home from work the other day and wondering why my head felt so cool/breezy forgot my helmet.

Was in Melbourne recently and I defo think compulsory helmets mean ppl don't use the hire scheme (even though you can buy helmets for under a tenner in convenience stores), but it hasn't affected ppl riding their own bikes. There's been a huge uptake in cycling in just a few years there (mainly in trendy city areas though).

I'm from NZ and it's no longer law (I think) to wear a helmet. I heard it was near impossible for the police to enforce. I remember the lady who lobbied for it to be compulsory came and gave a presentation at my school. Her son had been killed or seriously injured in a cycle collision with a car. The images she showed us of his injuries were to say the least.

Krumbum I use them when they are around and convenient, but I'd rather cycle without a helmet than not cycle and sometimes that's the choice. For instance, I don't wear a helmet when I use a Boris bike because I don't have one with me.

From the studies I've looked at I tend to think that for any specific journey, wearing a helmet would overall make me safer, probably wouldn't make much difference for serious injury but quite effective against lesser head injuries (and they are more likely). The roads are safest for cyclists when there are lots of cyclists on them, so anything that lessens the number of people cycling (such as a law mandating helmets) is bad for cycle safety.