[Politics] "We're cracking down on dangerous cycling".

[nicko31]

We don't need laws for everything! For goodness sake, brushing your teeth is good for you but we don't have to make it the law. The vast majority of cyclists now wear helmets because most decide that its in their interests to do so. What on earth good would new laws do except waste money and police time enforcing it.

Its poor comparison comparing cycle helmets with brushing you teeth. I have a friend who was the victim of a hit and run, he was wearing a helmet. He ended up with a pretty bad head injury but did make a full recovery, if he hadn't been wearing a helmet I don't think he would have survived.

 

[BBassic]

This feels like it's just about on topic but the cluster of traffic lights around St. Peters Church, near Easy Hours, is a great place to play "Dodge The Red Light Jumping Cyclist" in the mornings.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

We don't need laws for everything! For goodness sake, brushing your teeth is good for you but we don't have to make it the law. The vast majority of cyclists now wear helmets because most decide that its in their interests to do so. What on earth good would new laws do except waste money and police time enforcing it.

Are you also against the law that makes the wearing of seatbelt in a car, mandatory?

Seem exactly the same situation to me.

 

[McTavish]

This is absolutely awful logic and you seem to have backed it up by saying 'and I have no evidence to back up my awful point but...'. In fact, the only time you've used any evidence was in reference to an unnamed "study", where anyone with half a brain cell can clearly conclude from your own points that the helmets aren't the issue, but the helmets wearing the helmets who get even cockier than the usual cycling crowd and take additional risks on the road...

But seriously, if as a cyclist you can't see the benefit of wearing a hat when you're cycling at 10mph in a 60mph road, then I really can't help you. This stuff should be pretty damned self explanatory. Next you'll be telling horse riders not to wear helmets on the road or skiers not to wear helmets because they might get a bit too excited on the slopes...

The main point is that compulsory helmet wearing has been shown to reduce the rate of cycling and that this has an adverse effect on the health of the population as a whole.

I didn't realise that I had to provide citations...The study on cars riding further away from cyclists was written by Ian Walker at the University of Bath - is this the "helmets in helmets" fault as well? There are a number of studies on risk compensation in cyclists but you might try Mok et al, 2004. There are also many studies that show that drivers wearing seatbelts drive in a less safe way than drivers not wearing seatbelts - this is not about people being "helmets", it is about natural human behaviour.

The final point is to do with the potential benefit of compulsory helmet wearing - about 100 people a year die in accidents whilst cycling. Even if every single one of them died because they were not wearing a helmet and would have lived if they had been, in the grand scheme of things this number is dwarfed by the 85,000 people who die prematurely as a result of factors related to lack of excercise. As I said, whilst I didn't have data to back it up it seemed unlikely that all 100 or so died because they weren't wearing a helmet.

It may be self explanatory to you that people should wear helmets but there are several that show the benefit is neglible and there is even some evidence to show that wearing a helmet may result in more severe head injuries in an accident. (Rodgers GB. Journal of Products Liability, 1988 ,11:307-317. 1988.)

I do wear a helmet (and I haven't told anyone not to wear one, in fact I would encourage everyone to wear one, just not compel them) but rationally, if I wear a helmet when cycling I should also wear one when walking and especially when driving.

 

[McTavish]

Are you also against the law that makes the wearing of seatbelt in a car, mandatory?

Seem exactly the same situation to me.

Wearing a seatbelt has clear safety benefits - the evidence for helmet wearing is genuinely less clear cut (although it is probably best to wear a helmet).

There is clear evidence that compulsory helmet wearing can have an adverse effect on health at a population level - not the case for wearing seatbelts.

More pedestrians die from head injuries than cyclists. Are you against the idea of compulsory helmets for pedestrians? If so, why?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Wearing a seatbelt has clear safety benefits - the evidence for helmet wearing is genuinely less clear cut (although it is probably best to wear a helmet).

Less clear maybe, but clear nonetheless. A helmet will not make much difference in some circumstances, but will make all the difference in others. One of my lads had an off a few years back that could have ended very much worse than it did, had he not been wearing one. That alone is enough for me.

There is clear evidence that compulsory helmet wearing can have an adverse effect on health at a population level - not the case for wearing seatbelts.

This is seriously flawed logic. I accept the studies that you point to - that mandatory helmets affect cycling participation. What I don't accept is your conclusion to them. The answer is better education of the benefits - both of cycling, and of safety gear, rather than binning the headgear - surely?

More pedestrians die from head injuries than cyclists. Are you against the idea of compulsory helmets for pedestrians? If so, why?

Whilst I understand the tenuous point - no they don't - not by % of total pedestrians, nor even by % of pedestrians who are involved in an accident.

 

[Saunders]

Less clear maybe, but clear nonetheless. A helmet will not make much difference in some circumstances, but will make all the difference in others. One of my lads had an off a few years back that could have ended very much worse than it did, had he not been wearing one. That alone is enough for me.



This is seriously flawed logic. I accept the studies that you point to - that mandatory helmets affect cycling participation. What I don't accept is your conclusion to them. The answer is better education of the benefits - both of cycling, and of safety gear, rather than binning the headgear - surely?



Whilst I understand the tenuous point - no they don't - not by % of total pedestrians, nor even by % of pedestrians who are involved in an accident.

There are many countries that do not enforce helmet wearing because it reduces the number of cyclists on the road. The benefits of wearing a helmet are much overated.

As for protecting your child investing in a cycle course would be better than buying a helmet and hoping it protects them when they inevitably make a mistake and its usually going over the handlebars.

Cycle helmets are only designed and tested to withstand an impact equivalent to an average weight rider travelling at a speed of 12 mph falling onto a stationary kerb shaped object from a height of 1 metre. From this article - http://www.whycycle.co.uk/cycling-advice/safety-and-security/cycling-helmets/. This is not going to save your life in most accidents, it is also argued that cyclists that wear helmets may be less worried about protecting their head than someone without one.

You could argue then why not have helmets with better protection. Well they do exist but they are the full face off road type helmets and they are VERY expensive. To keep the weight light enough to wear without neck problems they cost a heap, they are much more expensive than motorcycle helmets and they reduce your vision.

I wear a helmet but its for insurance reasons and because of a blame factor against cyclists who don't. The first question I got asked after reporting an accident I was in last year was "Were you wearing a helmet" by the police. For this reason alone I would advocate you wear one unless you have very good personal injury insurance.

An interesting fact is that in the court case that lead to this law change drive the cyclist was wearing a helmet that protected him when he hit the pedestrian but she was not so lucky as she was not wearing one.

 

[SussexSeahawk]

Are you also against the law that makes the wearing of seatbelt in a car, mandatory?

Seem exactly the same situation to me.

I'm opposed to that. Encourage and educate people to wear seatbelts sure, but no need to make it a law.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Are you also against the law that makes the wearing of seatbelt in a car, mandatory?

Seem exactly the same situation to me.

Massively different in reality though. You could crash test a car and demonstrate that anything travelling over say 35mph would result in death if the person wasn't wearing a seat belt. The device that is mandatory provided next to the person's right ear anyway, that required no extra cost, inconvenience to wear was a no brainer to pass into law that at no cost to anyone, they click their belt in.

A cycle helmet on the other hand, a 1 inch thick bit of polystyrene clipped on with a flimsy plastic clip simply isn't a life saving device in the same way a seat belt is. Bikes don't travel that fast. The helmet is there because it might help, but in the majority of situations it isn't going to make a blind bit of difference if a motor vehicle hits you, if it does, you have been incredibly fortunate.

There is also the argument, which has been proven, that drivers give less space and will risk overtakes leaving a smaller gap to a cyclist wearing a helmet to one that doesn't. It is the same psychology that also means a driver will tend to leave as much space to the cyclist as the cyclist themselves has left to the road edge – hence the advice is to always ride a decent distance from that edge.

Take all that into consideration and couple it with a projected dramatic decline in cycling should you introduce mandatory helmet wearing, registrations / insurance, at a time when we need to increase it, and you have got a totally different situation to seat belt legislation.

Makes sense to wear a helmet, in the same way it makes sense to wear a life jacket in a kayak, doesn't mean it needs to be law though.

 

[Weststander]

I'm opposed to that. Encourage and educate people to wear seatbelts sure, but no need to make it a law.

Really?

Mandatory seatbelt wearing did the trick, and has saved countless lives. I've never heard that law challenged, although there's probably some moron somewhere who thinks it impinges on his/her liberties.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Really?

Mandatory seatbelt wearing did the trick, and has saved countless lives. I've never heard that law challenged, although there's probably some moron somewhere who thinks it impinges on his/her liberties.

When you consider it though, seat belts were already legislated to be installed in all vehicles, they were there, needing only a simple click by the person in the vehicle. And yet even though it came at no cost, no inconvenience really, it needed legislation to change people's habits to use them en masse. It is where the nanny state is required for the greater good.

 

[Stat Brother]

When you consider it though, seat belts were already legislated to be installed in all vehicles, they were there, needing only a simple clunk/click by the person in the vehicle. And yet even though it came at no cost, no inconvenience really, it needed legislation to change people's habits to use them en masse. It is where the nanny state is required for the greater good.

Disappointed in you Bold.

 

[Acker79]

This is, I think, an interesting article from Chris Boardman on cyclists using helmets and whether or not they should be compulsory. I first read it months ago, probably last march when it was published and haven't re-read, going from memory some of the interesting points are:

-people tend to be riskier (which obviously increases the risk of injuries) when wearing helmets because they feel safer
-drivers are less cautious around cyclists who are wearing helmets (again increasing risks)
-an increase in helmet use in a cycling population isn't matched by fewer head injuries

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/21/bike-helmet-cyclists-safe-urban-warfare-wheels

For what its worth, even after reading a pretty good argument against wearing helmets, I still wear a helmet when I cycle. I just feel more comfortable that way.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Cycling minister Jesse Norman issues an apology...

 

[McTavish]

Less clear maybe, but clear nonetheless. A helmet will not make much difference in some circumstances, but will make all the difference in others. One of my lads had an off a few years back that could have ended very much worse than it did, had he not been wearing one. That alone is enough for me.

And a helmet will make things worse in some situations. The benefits are so marginal that compulsory helmet wearing is, to me, a severe over-reaction. I wear a helmet, my children wear helmets but I don't want to force everyone else to wear a helmet.

This is seriously flawed logic. I accept the studies that you point to - that mandatory helmets affect cycling participation. What I don't accept is your conclusion to them. The answer is better education of the benefits - both of cycling, and of safety gear, rather than binning the headgear - surely?

No-one is suggesting binning headgear. Certainly better education for all road users would be great as would better infrastructure but those two things would actually reduce the need for helmets as can be seen in Holland where almost no-one wears a helmet for day-to-day cycling but death rates per km ridden are a quarter of the rate in the UK.

Whilst I understand the tenuous point - no they don't - not by % of total pedestrians, nor even by % of pedestrians who are involved in an accident.

By total number killed more pedestrians die from head injuries than cyclists and even if this were not the case, by your seatbelt analogy, all pedestrians should wear helmets anyway - why shouldn't they if it would save lives?

 

[giveusfalmerplease]

well just tonight an obnoxious cyclist crept up ST James Street left hand holding mobile phone right hand on handle bars and doing his best to talk and cycle at the same time. Completely oblivious to both people around him and the bus i was on right behind him. Merrily weaving from side to side and at one he swerves, forcing a pedestrian to jump out of the way to avoid getting hit by hi, Bus driver sensibly brakes and waits for the idiot who, upon reaching the traffic lights at rock gardens, goes straight through the red lights, somehow missing a car doing less than 30mph down rock gardens. He then has the nerve to stop and one-finger the car driver for having the gaul to beep at him for riding in front of the vehicle.

These are the sort of people who i sometimes think,."now theres someone who deserves to be in an accident"....

Oh and yes I too was a cyclist for 15 years and one of the few that got off his cycle when going over the Beacon to get out of cars' way rather than being an accident waiting to happen when they try and overtake the cyclist doing 1 mile an hour uphill..

Oh and yes Im also a driver...

 

[Stat Brother]

Its a shame only cycling attracts idiots.
Poor, anti social behaviour would never happen among car drivers or in, say, a group of like-minded away football fans...




...oh.

 

[vegster]

Sounds like the Knights of The Pavement are facing the humility of being forced to fit bells to their bikes and slow down occasionally near pedestrians in Brighton, how cruel.

 

[Bold Seagull]

well just tonight an obnoxious cyclist crept up ST James Street left hand holding mobile phone right hand on handle bars and doing his best to talk and cycle at the same time. Completely oblivious to both people around him and the bus i was on right behind him. Merrily weaving from side to side and at one he swerves, forcing a pedestrian to jump out of the way to avoid getting hit by hi, Bus driver sensibly brakes and waits for the idiot who, upon reaching the traffic lights at rock gardens, goes straight through the red lights, somehow missing a car doing less than 30mph down rock gardens. He then has the nerve to stop and one-finger the car driver for having the gaul to beep at him for riding in front of the vehicle.

These are the sort of people who i sometimes think,."now theres someone who deserves to be in an accident"....

Oh and yes I too was a cyclist for 15 years and one of the few that got off his cycle when going over the Beacon to get out of cars' way rather than being an accident waiting to happen when they try and overtake the cyclist doing 1 mile an hour uphill..

Oh and yes Im also a driver...

What difference does getting off your bike up the Beacon make, you probably take up more space pushing a bike up there as you do riding one!

 

[vegster]

Slow your Pace, Give some Space.... Sounds like cyclists are going to be forced to use common sense. Poor devil's..

Insurance and some form of licensing and taxation next ?