Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 05:59

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 19:50 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 21:15
Posts: 699
Location: Belfast
:gatso2: From the UTV News

http://www.u.tv/News/Debate-over-compul ... 9a615bf1d6

Debate over compulsory cycle helmet bill

There will be a "dramatic drop" in the number of people who cycle in Northern Ireland if compulsory helmet wearing is made law, cycling organisations have warned.

A Private Members' Bill to make it an offence to ride without a helmet is to be debated in the Assembly on Monday.

It has been tabled by the SDLP's Pat Ramsey, who said he hopes it will reduce the number of children and adults suffering head injuries after crashes.

A £50 fine would be imposed on parents if their children are caught without the safety gear, however this would be waived on the first offence if a new helmet is purchased.

Opposing the plan, charities and cycle organisations said it would lead to a significant fall in the number of cyclists.

"We want to make cycling as safe as possible, just like the supporters of this bill," said Tim Edgar, from campaign group CTC.

"But there's robust evidence that making helmets compulsory puts people off cycling in the first place.

"That would have a significant impact on the current levels of cycling which we've worked so hard to increase over the last few years."

Furthermore, Ross McGill from charity Sustrans adds, the law would be impossible to enforce.

"I was a teenager living in upstate New York when cycle helmet legislation aimed at children was introduced," Mr McGill said.

"No child I knew took any notice of the law. It was quite impossible for the police to enforce, even though there were more officers on patrol than you would see in Northern Ireland."

Pat Ramsey said figures from the Health Department have revealed that more than 600 people have been taken to hospital in the last five years with cycle-related head injuries.

He said he is surprised to see that the bill is meeting opposition.

"Head injuries can cause a range of debilitating conditions and of course can be fatal," Mr Ramsey said.

"Recent figures from the Department of Health show that 422 children and 213 adults over the five year period to 2010 were admitted to hospital suffering from head injuries following cycling accidents.

"I am surprised at some of the opposition to this bill. It is not my intention to discourage people from cycling in fact it is the opposite but in a safer manner. And I firmly believe that child protection issue over-rides any civil liberty concern."

Helmet-wearing rates across the UK have increased steadily since 1994 with up to a third wearing them on major roads.

According to the Transport Research Laboratory, helmets are effective in most accidents but that depended on the size of the injured person and the type of incident.

It said a helmeted head can fall at least four times as far for the same risk of injury as an unprotected head.

In Northern Ireland in 2009/10 2% of road casualties involved cyclists. A total of 32 were seriously injured and 164 slightly injured.

Sustrans said in Australia, New Zealand and Canada significant falls in cycle use were recorded after legislation was introduced.


©

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 21:19 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Why do the cycling lobbies think it's some big threat that less people will cycle if measures to save their lives are enforced? Cutting off the nose to spite the face? What will these people do instead? Take an alternative, safer, method of transport? Oh noes!!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 22:41 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9263
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Quote:
Furthermore, Ross McGill from charity Sustrans adds, the law would be impossible to enforce.

"I was a teenager living in upstate New York when cycle helmet legislation aimed at children was introduced," Mr McGill said.

"No child I knew took any notice of the law. It was quite impossible for the police to enforce, even though there were more officers on patrol than you would see in Northern Ireland."


No comment on whether good /bad ,but is it advisable to introduce laws when the odds on them being enforced is small . Might be better to spend the enforcement funds on EDUCATION

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 00:50 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
RobinXe wrote:
Why do the cycling lobbies think it's some big threat that less people will cycle if measures to save their lives are enforced? Cutting off the nose to spite the face? What will these people do instead? Take an alternative, safer, method of transport? Oh noes!!



At least three reasons why reducing the amount of people cycling (i.e by mandating helmet wearing) is a bad idea.

1. People think that cycling is good for the health of those that participate.The more do within a given group, the better for the health of the group (be it a household, company, borough, county or country), and by extension, less cost in maintaining the health of the group, less sickness, more energetic and more productive people.

2. The more cyclists there are the more money will be spent on cycling facilities, improving the cyclist's lot

3. More awareness of cyclists in general. I.e. if there was one cyclist in the whole of the UK then the drivers of motorised vehicles would very rarely see and have to deal with a cyclist on the road, the more cyclists, the more awareness, the safer the place gets for cycling


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 12:44 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
1. Is there any evidence to suggest that the dip in collective health of the proportion that choose not to cycle due to having to wear a helmet will be of greater detriment than the lives lost due to not wearing helmets, not to mention that groups lower exposure to risk on alternative transport? Is there any evidence to suggest that those who do not cycle will not exercise by other means?

2. So what?

3. Is there any evidence to suggest that the uptake of cycling would be so low, were helmets to be mandated, that cyclists would become a rarity in this way?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 19:09 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
RobinXe wrote:
Why do the cycling lobbies think it's some big threat that less people will cycle if measures to save their lives are enforced?


That would only be relevant if there was evidence that wearing a cycle helmet was a significant measure to save cyclists's life's. It is no more significant for cyclists than it is for motorists or pedestrians but no one would dream of mandating helmets for hem.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 20:52 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
dcbwhaley wrote:
It is no more significant for cyclists than it is for motorists or pedestrians but no one would dream of mandating helmets for hem.


Common sense and personal experience would suggest otherwise, can you substantiate this comment?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 22:49 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
RobinXe wrote:
dcbwhaley wrote:
It is no more significant for cyclists than it is for motorists or pedestrians but no one would dream of mandating helmets for hem.


Common sense and personal experience would suggest otherwise, can you substantiate this comment?


Head injuries are very common amongst motorists in crashes. Far more prevalent than head injuries amongst cyclists involved in crashes. Who should wear head protection?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 23:05 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
RobinXe wrote:
1. Is there any evidence to suggest that the dip in collective health of the proportion that choose not to cycle due to having to wear a helmet will be of greater detriment than the lives lost due to not wearing helmets
Quote:

Lives lost due to not wearing cycling helmets? Can probably count that on my thumbs.

Compulsory helmet wearing massively reduces the take up of cycling.

RobinXe wrote:
Is there any evidence to suggest that those who do not cycle will not exercise by other means?


Encouraging cycling is beneficial.

RobinXe wrote:
2. So what?


Well, if you thought about it a bit you'd realise that given the more cyclists the better then people who support cycling do not want to see policies that reduce the take up of it, e.g. mandatory helmet wearing.

RobinXe wrote:
3. Is there any evidence to suggest that the uptake of cycling would be so low, were helmets to be mandated, that cyclists would become a rarity in this way?


Plenty of evidence that helmet compulsion reduces the take up of cycling, google is your friend!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 00:51 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Zero questions answered there weepej, come along man, substance!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 13:35 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
weepej wrote:
Head injuries are very common amongst motorists in crashes. Far more prevalent than head injuries amongst cyclists involved in crashes. Who should wear head protection?

Rate!
The reason why motorists suffer more head injuries is because there are many more motorists than cyclists. If the numbers were levelled out (like you want them to be) then your argument would no longer apply.

However, I have to say (again) that mandated helmets would outright stop me from cycling. I can see the logic of enforcing this for minors, but for adults I would prefer to remain pro-choice. Unlike seatbelts-, helmets really can be a PITA.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 14:13 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 17:37
Posts: 702
Location: Whitby, North Yorkshire
weepej wrote:
RobinXe wrote:
Why do the cycling lobbies think it's some big threat that less people will cycle if measures to save their lives are enforced? Cutting off the nose to spite the face? What will these people do instead? Take an alternative, safer, method of transport? Oh noes!!


....reducing the amount of people cycling (i.e by mandating helmet wearing) is a bad idea.

The more cyclists there are the more money will be spent on cycling facilities, improving the cyclist's lot


Eh, just for one cyclist? :)

Best wishes all,
Grammar school lad.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 14:42 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
[Brake mode]

I'm quite keen that this should come in as soon as possible. If it saves one life...

Anything which keeps cyclists off the road would improve road safety. I can never understand why there is so much advocacy of such a dangerous activity. Best let children travel by safer public transport or in cars.

[/Brake mode]

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 23:40 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 13:54
Posts: 1711
Location: NW Kent
malcolmw wrote:
[Brake mode]

I'm quite keen that this should come in as soon as possible. If it saves one life...

Anything which keeps cyclists off the road would improve road safety. I can never understand why there is so much advocacy of such a dangerous activity. Best let children travel wrapped in cotton wool via lala land.

[/Brake mode]


EFA ;)

I tend to wear a helmet if cycling off road, but not very often when on the road, if it was a legal requirement it would be a pain.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 00:33 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Steve wrote:
weepej wrote:
Head injuries are very common amongst motorists in crashes. Far more prevalent than head injuries amongst cyclists involved in crashes. Who should wear head protection?Rate!
The reason why motorists suffer more head injuries is because there are many more motorists than cyclists.


Why would you think for a second I didn't mean rate.

Are you seriously suggesting that the percentage of car occupants who are injured in crashes that received head injuries is less that the percentage of cyclists who receive head injuries in crashes that involve injury?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 02:45 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Weepej, just before you go off on that, would you care to substantiate any of the unfounded assertions you made in response to my previous enquiries?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 03:15 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
weepej wrote:
Why would you think for a second I didn't mean rate.

You are right. I wrongly questioned it.


weepej previously wrote:
Head injuries are very common amongst motorists in crashes. Far more prevalent than head injuries amongst cyclists involved in crashes.
weepej wrote:
re you seriously suggesting that the percentage of car occupants who are injured in crashes that received head injuries is less that the percentage of cyclists who receive head injuries in crashes that involve injury?

Well......
Unlike cars, bikes aren't inherently stable. So during a crash event, chances are the rider will fall off, unlike the driver. There is a great chance that the head of the rider will impact something (like the ground) as there is no 'cage' surrounding the rider, and no belt to hold them in place.
Yes the driver's head could impact against the steering wheel, but the use of airbags has solved that.

Given that, I would be surprised if anyone agreed with your initial statement at face value.
Do you have numbers to support your claim?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:03 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 15:26
Posts: 117
RobinXe wrote:
1. Is there any evidence to suggest that the dip in collective health of the proportion that choose not to cycle due to having to wear a helmet will be of greater detriment than the lives lost due to not wearing helmets, not to mention that groups lower exposure to risk on alternative transport?

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info ... hp.0901747

RobinXe wrote:
Is there any evidence to suggest that those who do not cycle will not exercise by other means?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7056293.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7791820.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8524510.stm

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:26 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 15:26
Posts: 117
This article is interesting:

Three lessons for a better cycling future. Malcolm J Wardlaw, BMJ 2000; 321 : 1582 doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7276.1582 (http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7276/1582.full)

In the summary points, it says:
Quote:
Recent safety campaigns have destroyed faith in the bicycle as a safe means of transport, reducing participation, compromising public health, increasing the risks, and decreasing road skills
Deaths of cyclists have increased since the introduction of helmets
Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles

The section on "Safe Walking" is amusing.

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 15:08 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
MrGrumpyCyclist wrote:
RobinXe wrote:
1. Is there any evidence to suggest that the dip in collective health of the proportion that choose not to cycle due to having to wear a helmet will be of greater detriment than the lives lost due to not wearing helmets, not to mention that groups lower exposure to risk on alternative transport?

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info ... hp.0901747


A very interesting study, but despite appearances it does not answer the question I asked, go ahead and read it (the question) again for full understanding.

MrGrumpyCyclist wrote:
RobinXe wrote:
Is there any evidence to suggest that those who do not cycle will not exercise by other means?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7056293.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7791820.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8524510.stm


None of these have any relevance at all to the question I asked, again, I urge you not only to look at, but read and understand the question before jumping to answer.

MrGrumpyCyclist wrote:
This article is interesting:

Three lessons for a better cycling future. Malcolm J Wardlaw, BMJ 2000; 321 : 1582 doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7276.1582


Interesting that the author derides 11-19% reductions in head injuries as trivial, and is clearly impartial :roll:

BMJ Article Author wrote:
The assault on cycling has vandalised the appeal of the safest, cleanest, most efficient, healthy, and fun means of personal transport that exists—right at the time we most need it. Cyclists don't need helmets, they need priority.


Does he work for BRAKE? He attributes a rise in "the fatality of accidents" in the mid 90's to "the increased popularity of helmets", despite them being in no way mandated, and an increase in cycling fatalities in 1983 to the introduction of the law mandating seatbelt-wearing, with no hint of demonstration of the mechanisms by which he suggests these are linked. Someone ought to point out to him that correlation does not imply causation. In short he says an awful lot whilst demonstrating precious little.

Interestingly one of the studies he cites by footnote concludes that helmets are of benefit:

Mills NJ. Protective capability of bicycle helmets. Br J Sports Med 1990;24:55–60 wrote:
The conclusion is that a bicycle helmet to a recognised standard provides very valuable protection for the majority of accidents


In conclusion, there seems to be a large body of cyclists opposed to helmets out of principal, as there were motorists opposed to seatbelts and motorcyclists opposed to helmets, indeed some still claim that both do more harm than good. It would seem that the nature of those who cycle is more disposed to writing letters to make a stink, but the fact of the matter is that we must act on the best information we have, and not be afraid to act again when that information evolves.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.031s | 15 Queries | GZIP : Off ]