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?

I fully agree with Bradley Wiggins' comments about cyclists taking personal responsibility, not bombing around down the inside of large vehicles with headphones on and no lights (at night/in winter), but I don't think that mandatory helmets are the answer.

I wear a helmet beacause I understand that it may help me avoid injury if I fall over at low speed and hit my head on the pavement. I don't expect it to do anything for me if a car hits me at 40mph or if I go under the wheels of a bus.

Cycle paths are definitely a good thing, because they give cyclists a proper, legitimate place on the road. They also make drivers more aware - if there is a cycle path, you expect cyclists.
Cycle paths should be separate from the road werever possible, though.

I don't care if people wear cycling helmets or not- if they are willing to take the risk it is their life. I do and so does my family.
However, does any of this research differentiate between severe head injuries and minor ones. The latest acquaintance of mine to get knocked off his bike, whilst doing 30 mph by a car who didn't see him and landed on his head 20m in front of his bike, was told by the doctors wearing a helmet was the difference between a bit of concussion and a life changing head injury or death. Both would be recorded as a head injury.

Most of the bike accidents I know all come from being knocked off by motorists who didn't see them- never mind notice whether they were wearing a helmet or not.

No cyclist I know puts a helmet on and suddenly thinks they can ride like a loon. Most of them wear them because they know the road can be a dangerous place. I know a few refuseniks who have changed their mind after a few horrible experiences of their own.

Anyone who stops cycling because they have to wear a helmet probably wasn't that keen anyway- unless there is some physical reason why they can't wear them ie an enormous misshapen head.

I don't buy the obesity and helmet wearing argument. If you are so opposed to cycle helmets there are many other physical activities and sports you can do. None of which require a helmet. The choice is not cycling or being cut out of your livingroom and carted off for a gastric bypass.

A lot of these reasons all seem vaguely reminiscent about the debate in the 70's about compulsory seatbelts.

But as I said - I'm not sure it should be mandatory.

I was suprised to hear 100 cyclists were killed last year. Need more cycle lanes

Cycle paths are not the answer. Really?????
Someone had better tell the Dutch.

Yes really. The big difference between the Uk and Holland isn't the cycle paths. Its the law and how it makes drivers the responsible party in all accidents involving cyclists. It means that drivers give cyclists a wide berth at all times, whether it be crossing a cycling lane or sharing a road.

A study by Leeds and Bolton University found that cycle paths in the UK were MORE dangerous than cycling on the road. Why?

Two reasons.
They attached a camera to a bike and found that cars drove closer to cyclists when they were in cycle lanes than then did on roads. They had changed their behaviour due to the presence of the cycle lane.
Secondly most cycle lanes in the UK fall below the minimum width recommended by the Department of Transport.

This is the problem. Cycle lanes are designed and put in by people who are clueless and politicians automatically think it means the roads are safer for cyclists. In contrast to Holland, where their roads were originally built with cyclists in mind, we are trying to fit them into spaces they don't fit.

The idea that cycle lanes make things safer for cyclists is a complete fallacy. Indeed the study found that instead of building cycle lanes, reducing the speed of motor vehicles was more effective at reducing accidents.

The other problems with cycle lanes they divide the traffic. Which is fine until you come to a junction where cars have to cross the cycle lane. Cyclists automatically feel safer but are actually still at risk, and drivers don't consider the cycle lane to be part of the road so don't look at it properly. The presence of the cycle lane changes behavior.

In short, cycle lanes make cyclists more vunerable and can encourage less awareness of drivers, and drivers don't take cyclists are seriously as potential hazards.

Its worth remembering that most cycle fatalities occur when cyclists go up the inside of a vehicle (usually a lorry) at a junction in its blind spot and are hit as it turns. (which seems to sound like whats happened in this publicised crash).

In addition to this, cycle lanes are in the least maintained part of the road so very often they have to dodge obstacles and leave the cycle lane. Cycle lanes are also not built for two cyclists so overtaking becomes a problem.

Not forgetting cycle lanes on pavements which make you stop every two minutes at a junction are pointless and useless for commuters. Cycle lanes have a speed limit, which again makes them unsuitable for some cyclists.

Don't buy into the idea that a cycle lane is a magic solution. It really, really isn't and theres lots of evidence to support this.

The main issue is getting drivers to take the presence of cyclists on the road more seriously and making cyclist more aware of how to cycle on the roads safely.

A problem not solved by cycle lanes

I don't see the argument of 'wearing a helmet is not going to protect you from a bus' as a good one

How do you you know you would get hit by a bus, you could have a tiny knock and fall to the side and hit your head

Because you don't know what will happen, the extra security of a helmet is surely common sense?

You'd think right Kayano?

Have a look on google about Risk Homostasis and cycle helmets. There has been studies that suggest people behave differently with cycle helmets present. Drivers give less space to cyclists with cycle helmets and ironically cyclist seem more likely to take risks as they feel safer with a cycle helmet - so have more accidents than cyclists without a helmet...

To put it mildly, the jury is still out on what actually makes you safer.

Safety measures on paper look good, but they can change behaviour which negates the benefits...

All very ironic indeed. You therefore need to look deeper into the problem to make cyclists genuinely safer... and not rely on equipment or facilities.

this is an old thread - i don't know what i said to upset someone up the thread to get a post deleted i need to say sorry for that as it is not my intention to upset anyone.

Just to add into the mix: I know someone who was knocked off his bike a few years ago when not wearing a helmet. The hospital told him if he had been wearing one it is likely he would have been more severely injured as his head took the brunt of the impact and they would have been picking pieces of helmet out of his head.

Wiggins has come out today to emphatically deny that he called for compulsory helmet laws. He's all for taking personal responsibility, and personal choice.

^Cycle paths are not the answer. Really?????
Someone had better tell the Dutch.

Yes really. The big difference between the Uk and Holland isn't the cycle paths.^

I think you will find that it is! The Dutch have proper cycle paths completely separate from the road.

Its the law and how it makes drivers the responsible party in all accidents involving cyclists. It means that drivers give cyclists a wide berth at all times, whether it be crossing a cycling lane or sharing a road.

I have no idea about respective laws, but motorists in Holland do not have to give cyclist a wide berth most of the time because the cyclists are kept completely separate.

A study by Leeds and Bolton University found that cycle paths in the UK were MORE dangerous than cycling on the road. Why?

Because they are not proper cycle paths. Painting a white line down a road 2 feet from the edge does not a cycle path make. If 2 motorists cannot safely pass each other in the amount of road left in the middle, they either have to go into the cycle path or wait for the other vehicle to pass. It is ridiculous to say the lanes were designed. They are just a line in the road which smacks of tokenism to me.

I found dutch drivers have a different attitude to cyclists on the road when away from cycle paths - I nearly fell of my bike the first time I was waiting to cross a round abut and a motorist gave way to me

cycling in france I knew which were french cars and which were british beofre they had fully past me on the road - the reason was the distance they were away form me - the brits would drive close to me on the bike - the french would give me at least 6 foot berth.

This was my experiance, I prefer French or Dutch motorists when cycling

I think helmets should be made compulsary, they were after all forced on motorcylists which I agree with for obvious reasons as were seatbelts in cars. Cyclists should also pay compulsary insurance as other road users have to.

I cycle with my toddler. He wears a helmet, I don't.

We don't cycle on roads, dont go spectacularly fast and don't ride recklessly.

Maybe we're lucky our town has cycle lanes as part of the footpaths and most places are accessible from the amazing cycle route or tow paths we have without even seeing a busy road.

I dont consider a helmet necessary for me. To be honest, I don't consider a helmet necessary for my toddler as he rides between my arms on a seat in front of me. But I will expect him to wear one when he can ride himself so he needs to expect to wear one when on a bicycle with me.

Cycle lanes on footpaths? surely it is illegal to ride on the pavement?

I don't wear one, dd does. I told her that when she's been cycling for 30 years and never had an accident, then she's allowed to take hers off.

We don't need more laws telling grown adults what they can and can't do.

It's quite simple, if you think are quite likely to have an accident then wear one, if you think it's very, very unlikey then don't.

TittyWhistles how will you explain to your dc that his head is more important than your head?

Some pavements are split down the middle into bits for cyclists and bits for pedestrians.

As bureni just demonstrated, many pedestrians appear to not be aware of this (even though it is clearly marked on the path and with signs), so it's impossible to go much above walking pace in case someone steps out in front of you.

The trouble with that type of cycle path is they are completely unsuitable for commuters who reach averages of 20mph on the road. They don't want to start/stop at every junction.

They are fine for cyclists who want to saunter. But serious commuting. Just no.

And yes, go and put in cycle lanes like Holland in Central London or Manchester...

You can't. Physically impossible.

Ivy, I tell him, "no hat, no bike" he's 18 months and understands that. not sure of your point regarding the importance of our respective heads though.

No, bureni, most of our town is cycle friendly, no one as far as I know has been prosecuted for cycling on the footpaths its a regular, happy sight and most parts the footpath is divided into halves with the cycle path being one on side of a white line.

It works well and I'd love to see if the figures on road accidents involving cyclists are lower here than nationally.

well why will you not wear a helmet and yet enforce your dc to wear a helmet? Why is his head worth putting a helmet on to protect but your isn't?

Then when he asks why he has to wear a lid but you don't then what will you say?

I wear a helmet and a high vis all the time on my bike, so do the kids. I wouldnt go on my bike without them

YABU. I wear one, and will make DS wear one when he gets to cycling age, but don't think it should be a legal requirement for a number of reasons.

1. The thing that keeps cyclists safe is having lots of cyclists on the roads so that drivers expect to see us and are looking for us. Helmets put people off, so having a law actually makes the roads more dangerous.

1. They increase the risk of damage to your neck and spine from certain types of impact.

1. They won't stop a left-turning HGV overtaking me and crushing me under its back wheels.

1. The police don't enforce most of the rules of the road anyway - I get overtaken by drivers using their mobile phones all the time. I did actually get knocked off (in a classic "sorry mate I didn't see you" accident at a roundabout by someone who was clearly driving carelessly since she didn't see a cyclist approaching from the left in broad daylight and hi-vis kit), and the police weren't interested because I wasn't seriously hurt. I don't see any point in making unenforceable law.