Safe Speed Forums

After the "bun fight" at Cycling Plus, I notice that they have constructed an argument against compulsory cycling helmets that bear some remakable similarities to our arguments about excessive speed enforcement. For example:

* They argue that "obvious" benefits are insufficient - instead we would need some compelling science.

* They argue that compulsory cycle helmets would come with a series of undesireable side effect.

* They argue that any actual benefit would be small enough that it would very likely be outweighed by the side effects.

* They argue that the science is hopelessly inadequate.

* They argue that individuals should be free to choose.

* They argue that most people haven't really thought it through.

I hesitate to post this over at Cycling Plus because I don't want to promote conflict - I'd rather build bridges. Is this a way to build bridges?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Although the benefits "should" be obvious there is also some evidence that helmets INCREASE accidents...sounds familiar...

The was the case with motorcycle hemlets....the debate is still going on in the US where 3 states have recently repealed helmet law making a total of 29 States now helmet free....


Other news from the US...
According to the latest casualty stats from the US fatalities have dropped to 1.48/100million vehicle miles traveled for the first time ever...!

Motorcycle deaths rose by 12% (total 3661) but this is explained buy the significant increase in ownership and miles ridden.

Also note that mind 247,000 accidents involved collisions with wild animals...and I don't mean rabbits..

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

We could try it out. Krissi is pro-helmets though ...but she does concede they have a point. She appears to be pedalling along better than I thought she would when Ted and I asked her to join in the fun and games there. Obviously .. she is in "enemy territory" as she admits to driving a 4x4, an Audi and a VW people carrier and when she mentioned the Capri classic and the motorbike..... ....and its top speed .. reactions were interesting

She reckons a lot of those posting on that site are very reasonably minded indeed and not all are car hating either - and these are the ones we can build bridges with as they are like-minded. Of course .. minority of the more militant ..and she is winding them up and how!

She is the family member who rides bicycles more frequently than the rest of us - and thus more recognising of the fears from a cyclist's point of view. But she also loves driving and I enjoy being a passenger in her car.

She actually contributes and is well respected as a keen cyclist on a French cycling site and a Swiss one. --

Ooo tricky this. I personally don't wear a helmet. Ive decended mountains doing 57mph without one This may appear reckless, but it's just my personall choice. I do own a helmet but to be honest can't stand the feel of the thing. If it were made compulsary then I would of course wear it.
I don't hold with some of the arguments I've heard i.e. 'wearing a helmet falsely increases confidence and makes you take more risks' or 'there is no data suggesting wearing a helmet during a high energy impact will help reduce injury'.

It seems pretty obvious, that if you have protective headgear on and you take a blow, it will protect you to some degree.
As for making it compulsary, um I'll sit this one out

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'

So you don't like wearing a helmet, yet if it were made compulsory you would not hesitate to do so - and then you're undecided as to whether you want it made compulsory or not?

I wonder how many people would respect it being compulsory - in a similar way to how many fox hunters are saying they will continue with that even when it's illegal, I'm sure you'd get many cyclists (children in particular? as they are a very social thing amongst the young'uns) deliberately flouting any law.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

If it were made compulsary, I would wear one because it's the law. I tend not to break the law.

As to me being undecided as to if it should be made compulsary. Yes I've allready said that. I'm not convinced either way. As to if people would wear them if they were made compulsary, simple, the good old fixed penalty (except for under 10's of course)

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'

I just had a worrying vision of a future where all parks have several 'helmet cameras' (funded by the taxpayer, of course) and 'helmet vans' sit outside schools waiting to catch unwary cyclists. This would all of course be done by an independent company, perhaps called '<insert county here> helmet partnership'.

Or something.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

Anything's possible with this government

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'

I can see it now ... the "Cumbria Helmet Usage Monitoring Pratnership" (or CHUMP) positions detection vans outside schools. Because bicycles aren't registered and don't have registration plates, the enforcers have no option but to jump out in front of bare-headed cyclists. Several startled children are killed or seriously injured as a result ...

... methinks they'd need to introduce compulsory registration and plates for bicycles before they could use helmet scameras.

_________________
Will

Cycling helmets have been compulsory in Victoria for many years and I for one think that this is a good thing.

I also agree that as an adult we should have the right to choose NOT to wear one.

Maybe the law should be that a minor (under 16) MUST wear a helmet and once they reach 16 they can choose not to. We have road laws that have age as a component, such as children under the age of 5 MUST sit in the back seat so why not do the same with helmets for cyclists.

Let's face it, children fall of bikes a lot more than adults and are therefore more likely to suffer from a head injury than an adult, so why not make it compulsory for them to wear a helmet? Seems like a reasonable compromise to me....

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

Indeed!

Maybe time for a change then.....

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

the science and reasoning behind the helmet legislation in Australia is flawed and unproven (or based on scant criteria and dubious research to say the least). Much like the speed camera thingy and saving lives.

Mandatory helmet use began in Aus in 1990. Since then, I think you'll find that the law has done little to reduce the severity or incidence of head injuries amongst cyclists. Hospital admissions for cyclists increased several percent in the years following the legislation. There are those who will maintain that helmets save lifes, but at the same time, others will claim that helmet legislation has other side effects that have reversed any benefits of helmet usage. Personally I always wear a helmet whilst cycling - both in Australia and the UK. But that's my choice. I can see both sides of the argument, but my preference is to wear one.

That's really very close indeed to some of what we say about speed cameras - which, of course, is where we came in.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Yes maybe, but who Ever since the irrepresible paddy left the libs have turned into a bunch of simpering wimps, the tories are the party of law and order, but are in all truth still a bit scarey Is there another option
PS, did 70 miles on my bike yesterday, and didn't wear a helmet.....off the fence now......stuff helmets

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'

You are such a bad ass......

I feel the same about motorcycle helmets...ride up to 5Kmiles a year in the US....mostly helmet free.

Some analysis has been done in the US. Injuries tend to be more serious but riders without helmets are less likely to be involved. The theory is..
1) riders without helmets are more aware or risks. Take fewer chances.
2) helmets restrict head movements and reduce vision.

There is growing evidence that helmets cause more neck damage.

As usual "bad" laws are never overhauled, just patched up.

Once helmet laws come in for cyclists..and it is only a matter of time...they will be with us forever....

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills