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?

as an aside - I really worries me when I see this

this is how it should be

oh yes, ivy. Fitting the helmet and wearing it is really really important. If it isn't protecting your forehead, and so frontal lobe, or is slipping around your head as you move it, then the protective function ( as adversed to the looking cool function....) is utterly undermined.

Pan & Ivy,

As far as I know, the only research done into the effect of how helmets were worn and their fit, was by the same people (Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, TRT) who came up with the most influential research paper about helmets, which claimed that they were 85% effective. Unfortunately, this research has been completely disproved on peer review, and when it was, rather than admit that they were wrong, TRT claimed that people weren't wearing them right, and did some more research to prove it.

When the only research showing something to be true is from researchers who have already been proved wrong, are biased and do research purely to justify their prejudices, you might want to ask whether that research is sufficiently objective.

What is the point of clinging to an opinion in the face of all the research? Why do people think they are so much cleverer than people who spend years becoming experts on these things? You aren't.

I don't wear a helmet, and I don't make my children wear them.

Are we all missing the point? Should we not be campaigning for proper cycle paths, proper separation of slow moving cycles and pedestrians is the only real solution; in towns they need a separate lane with a separate kerbstone to stop vehicles parking and driving on the path/cycle lane, and in the countryside , many footpaths should be hard surfaced and stiles replaced with cattle grids, also the law should be changed so that the bigger the vehicle has to give way to a smaller one , including pedestrians.
Helmets will help in the short term as will reflective clothing and lights. Make everyone take the full responsibility of own their actions.

Agree re missing the point. Proper cycle paths will make cycling safer and are worth investing in. Forcing people to wear helmets is a box-ticking to safety.

Let's assume that it is the case (which is unproven) that helmets reduce cycling deaths.

To what extent may we legislate against behaviours that only put the perpatrator at risk ? The only risk in not wearing a helmet is to the cyclist (as oppsed to bad cycling, which may injure third parties).

Before making helmets on bikes compulsory, logically smoking would have to be made illegal. Also all risky sports such as moutaineering.

For me compulsory seat belts is OK only because the unrestrained body can also cause injury to third parties.

You make it sound like a) cycle paths are safe (they aren't necessarily - they mean that drivers often ignore cyclists rather than pay attention to them so when they need to cross the cycle path they aren't as aware of them as they would be if they shared the road) b) that cycle paths are practical for communiting (they aren't) c) they are suitable for all cyclists (they are not - they have speed limits) d) that drivers respect cycle paths where they do exist (they do not - they drive in them and park in them).

Cycle paths are not a solution.

What need to do is change drivers attitudes to cyclist and improve both the skills of cyclists and drivers. The attitude in this country to cyclist and the respect they are shown on the road is very different to other countries who have a lot more cyclists. We could learn a lot from them...

Cycle paths are not the answer. Really?????

Someone had better tell the Dutch.

If you mean the pathetic hotch-potch of white lines, green tarmac that stretches 20 metres at a time before dumping you in heavy traffic, two way cycle tracks that are too narrow for two bikes to pass, family-friendly recreational tracks that give you an unexpected fast descent requiring you to stop dead before crossing an un-bridged A road.... cylce lanes which put you in the car-door opening zone of the parked cars.... etc.... etc. Then yes, they are woeful. But please don't confuse this with what could be achieved.

because they are not as safe as they could be

• they are relatively flimsy compared to motorcycle helmets for example so don't prevent neck or facial injuries
• strangulation risk. as long as my dc is only cycling with me in tow he (and I) will wear a helmet. as soon as he is off ot the playground on his own it will be without helmet as I can't trust him to take it off before going on the climbing frame
• they encourage reckless driving by some drivers who think they can go past closer than with helmetless people

in australia, after the helmets became mandatory, people cycling went down but accidents went up! (sorry no link to back it up, but it is well documented in cycling magazines)

Not sure why this got resurrected.

Well-designed cycle paths are good.

Poorly-designed cycle paths are rubbish.

I hadn't realised it was an old thread - but think it has been revived in response to Bradley Wiggins' comments following the death of a cyclist at the Olympic site yesterday.

From BBC:
Wiggins said making it illegal to cycle without a helmet would make the roads safer "because ultimately, if you get knocked off and you ain't got a helmet on, then how can you kind of argue".

He added: "[People] shouldn't be riding along with iPods and phones and things on and [they] should have lights and all those things.

"So I think when there's laws passed for cyclists, then you're protected and you can say, well, I've done everything to be safe."

He added: "It's dangerous and London is a busy city and a lot of traffic. I think we have to help ourselves sometimes.

"I haven't lived in London for 10 to 15 years now and it's got a lot busier since I was riding a bike as a kid round here, and I got knocked off several times.

"But at the end of the day we've all got to co-exist on the roads. Cyclists are not ever going to go away, as much as drivers moan, and as much as cyclists maybe moan about certain drivers they are never going to go away, so there's got to be a bit of give and take."

All of the top cyclists seem to wear helmets and Bradley Wiggins obviously feels that it is important.
here

It should be law absolutely.

The thing is, just because he cycles a lot (and fast) doesn't mean he is best placed to make that kind of decision.

He hasn't made the decision though, he has stated his opinion on the matter

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.

Errr, yes. If you are operating a tonne or more of heavy machinery in a public setting, it is definitely your responsibility to take care with it and not hit the soft squishy people. You were the one creating the majority of the risk in that situation by driving. They cyclist was protecting herself and doing you a favour, making it easier for you to do your job by making herself more visible. Possibly she also knew of the evidence which shows that not wearing a helmet makes her safer by causing drivers to give her a wider berth too?

Most of the salient points about helmet compulsion have already been made so I won't repeat them.

Obviously there are situations in which helmets have helped, lots of stories of horrific crashes and it's great that many people have been helped by them.

However, the plural of anecdote is not evidence.

And it's fine for him to state his opinion, but his opinion is not necessarily worth more than anyone else's opinion.

Just read the bus crash/Wiggins comment story.

One witness statement from the BBC report seems to suggest that the guy went up the inside of the bus, into its blind spot, and then got flattened as the bus turned left.

If this was the case then a plastic hat won't give much protection against being driven over by a bus!

Cycle helmets are designed to protect against low-speed impacts from standing height onto kerbstones, not the power and weight of a fully laden bus.

(I think it is possible that Wiggins' comments are being taken out of context/distorted to suit the helmet agenda: he's made a statement about how it is important for cyclists to take measures to protect themselves- which includes not putting themselves into the blind spots of HGVs.)

If wearing a helmet while cycling should be made the law, then so should children walking to school be made to wear one. For safety.

And then we can finish off the job of making the UK the laughing stock of the world.

Meanwhile, other more civilised countries introduced strict liability for car drivers involved in accidents with pedestrians, cyclists and other road users- automatically assumed to be responsible unless the contrary is proven. If safe driving were enforced by law then it would be safer for all of us on the roads.

I don't get this point about people driving differently around people not wearing cycle helmets. I give them all a wide berth. Am I odd?

No, you're just that rare breed - a good driver. I'm a good driver too, cycling makes me more road aware.

Strange phonomenon - not only does wearing a helmet seem to make some drivers come closer, but heavy rain does too. So many people drive faster and closer when it rains - WHY???

Just got asked by two teenage girls working for a local radio if I've heard of "the cyclist who got hit by a bus because he was not wearing a helmet"

vess - what a depressing misinterpretation of a tragedy.

I just look at those pictures of an HGV and a bike and think its like asking a lion to play with a mouse.

I think sorting the infrastructure is the primary route to saving lives. The helmets argument is just a distraction.