Anti cycling law

[JWestland]

Best ones here are kerb crawlers with a helmet on. Can't be too safe? 

In cars/pedestrians people die of head injuries all that time too...should they wear a helmet too? Pedestrians go quite slow yet death of head injuries is not uncommon.

If these people were hit by cars, should they wear a helmet cos the driver wasn't paying attention? Should the car not have an external airbag instead?

Motorbikes/mopeds goes way faster than pushbikes which increases the impact as energy = mass*speed(squared) so it's not an direct comparison with a pushbike either (unless you are a road cyclist and going for it, but even so if you get hit by a car...it's curtains)

What gets me a bit is that here in NI people wear helmets for two things:

A Massive Potholes/bad roads. Good, fair enough, a helmet is designed for low speed falls (though whose fault is it the roads are so bad?)
B To protect against cars. That's where I get irritated as they are not designed for such impact speeds/energy and if a car gets you, it won't just get your head. There's no proof that it will reduce deaths that much, or at all, while it takes away perceived responsibility of car drivers (hey they didn't wear a helmet, like it's some magic tool) and makes cycling look more dangerous that walking/driving which per mile in the UK it isn't.

Didn't help somebody nearly sideswiped me and I ended up getting a cycling helmet "just in case" lecture of a concerned motorist. Not going to help against legally blind drivers is it?

GRRRRRRR where's my tablets lol

[JWestland]

Hi Pete that's the issue with laws: They may help some, but hinder others.

So assuming the helmet helped you, say we MUST wear one: If on a country wide scale that reduces cycling and increases death rate due to lack of exercise, lack of critical mass of cyclists, or if it invites motorists to driving inconsiderately, and increases death rate the whole country may be worse of.

That's the snag, it's not just about you and me

[NZPeterG]

Hi Pete that's the issue with laws: They may help some, but hinder others.

So assuming the helmet helped you, say we MUST wear one: If on a country wide scale that reduces cycling and increases death rate due to lack of exercise, lack of critical mass of cyclists, or if it invites motorists to driving inconsiderately, and increases death rate the whole country may be worse of.

That's the snag, it's not just about you and me

Well I meet a Lady last week,
That is lucky to be alive! She was in the back seat of a s car! a on coming car crossed the centre lineinto there lane (lady was txting and died)
So that Lady was saved by her Seatbelt! But it also almost cut her in half!
Do you wear a seatbelt or Not?
Yes some cyclist may stop cycling if you have too wear a Helmet (like when Motorcyclist had to start wearing Helmets but atfer time there started riding again)
Why have My tax's pay for help to a cyclist that would have been ok if He/or She had a Helmet on?

Pete

[rualexander]

......
Why have My tax's pay for help to a cyclist that would have been ok if He/or She had a Helmet on?

Pete

Same reason your taxes pay for any number of things you might disagree with.

[JWestland]

Seatbelts are known to be very, very, very effective in car crashes in reducing death rate, injury to both wearer and passengers.
Cycle helmets are not proven to be reduce death rate atm, or injuries in car crashes.  They *may* but the jury is out. And it's better if there was no crash to begin with...

Just trying to point out that it's not as easy as saying one person saved so therefore they should be mandatory
...or one person is inconvenienced so they should not be mandatory, as motorbike helmets and seatbelts are mandatory.

The questions I guess can be: Do cycle helmets, in total, for the whole population, save lives/health?
Under what circumstances can these help?
What are the costs of these in monetary terms?
What are the costs in number of cycling terms?

[ZeroBike]

The questions I guess can be: Do cycle helmets, in total, for the whole population, save lives/health?

Yes

Under what circumstances can these help?

When someone falls off and hits their head.

What are the costs of these in monetary terms?

Very little, if you can afford a bike, then you can afford a helmet.

What are the costs in number of cycling terms?

Who cares?  It shouldn't be my responsibility to look after someone else's kids because they couldn't see the connection between wearing a helmet and being safer.

[JWestland]

Who cares?  It shouldn't be my responsibility to look after someone else's kids because they couldn't see the connection between wearing a helmet and being safer.

I find this a little insensitive TBH. While helmet threads always end up rather fierce (like Apple Macintosh VS PC, Should have a front brake on a fixed wheel, Tories VS Labour etc etc.) to blankly say about another human being "tough, not my problem" crosses the line a bit for me.

A society like that may not help you either, as it means if you make a mistake (didn't triplecheck coming out of a junction on your bike, a car hits you) the response of others may be in kind: Your fault, you pay.

Back on topic: http://cyclehelmets.org/1250.html:
Alberta's helmet law – children's cycling halved, injuries increased per cyclist

Anyhoo this is all on helmets, some members already posted tricks to prevent accidents from being considerate (always good advice, whether you cycle or drive) to road side position.

I tend to block a lane when not sure. This isn't always appreciated (some idiot woman driver nearly cutting into me and the kerb highway code anyone?) but I prefer this to being pushed into the "door zone" of parked cars, or the kerb which the result of trying to find my teeth.

I do try to be aware of car blind spots too and won't sit into cars on traffic lights etc. As there's no need to scare the heck out of people for a few seconds.

[ZeroBike]

I find this a little insensitive TBH. While helmet threads always end up rather fierce (like Apple Macintosh VS PC, Should have a front brake on a fixed wheel, Tories VS Labour etc etc.) to blankly say about another human being "tough, not my problem" crosses the line a bit for me.

You cant have it both ways.

You cant ignore what is blatant common sense and then turn on the water works when people dont want to help because you caused your own predicament.

Your question was what is the effect of a cycling helmet law on the numbers of people cycling and the response is simply who cares, I certainly do not care if such a law reduced the number of people cycling. Lets face it, a helmet law only negatively effects those people who are too stubborn to wear one.

[NZPeterG]

Well said and too the Point Zerobike.

As I said i'm Alive and with very little Brain Damage because of having on a Helmet!

Pete

[Danneaux]

[<ting-ting!> Goes the Admin's bell...<ting-ting!>]

Oh...crumb. The Great Helmet Debate has broken out.

Few topics are as divisive. I think the root of all Forum flame wars may be contained here.

Sigh.

A gentle reminder of ground rules to all, as we move inevitably forward:
• Spirited -- even passionate -- discussion and airing of opinions is fine, just don't descend to personal attacks.
• Before you press the "POST" button, think about how your words might be perceived without a realtime context. Emoticons may be your friend here.
• Don't be deliberately insulting. Remember, not everyone is as intelligent as you. Some of us need a patient explanation to get there. Patience helps when dealing with the ignorant (i.e. everyone with an opposing view).
• Play nicely. Don't run with scissors. It's all fun till someone gets hurt or loses an eye.
• Please keep any helmet discussions contained to the Muppets board.

If things stray too far from the original topic (Anti-Cycling Laws), I'll split the topic. Not to quell debate, but if a truly separate helmet topic breaks out, it deserves its own topic header so each topic can blossom and grow fully.
<ting-ting>

Things are going well at present and I have no desire to quell debate; just thought I'd offer some a priori cautions going forward since this topic often takes a sad turn in online discussions, leaving hurt feelings in its wake.

All the best,

Dan. (...a surviving veteran of the Great Listserv and USENET Helmet Wars of the Early '90s)

[JWestland]

"You cant ignore what is blatant common sense and then turn on the water works when people dont want to help because you caused your own predicament."

Did you read the links I posted? You would, common sense, think a helmet law reduces injuries. The link I posted show it doesn't always work that way when you make it mandatory to wear one.

"Your question was what is the effect of a cycling helmet law on the numbers of people cycling and the response is simply who cares, I certainly do not care if such a law reduced the number of people cycling. Lets face it, a helmet law only negatively effects those people who are too stubborn to wear one."

Again read the links. Mandatory helmet laws may make it worse for all of us. If the rate of accidents goes UP you may still end up getting injured as the helmet may reduce the severity of the injury, but not getting hit by a car in the first place is better

Just trying to point out that sometimes laws can have unintended consequences that's all. I am not talking about voluntary helmet use, I mean what you put on your head is your own choice

[ZeroBike]

So your saying that having a protective layer on your head is less safe than not having one.

I can guarantee that if someone was about to drop a brick on your head and offered you the choice of wearing a helmet, you along with any right-thinking person would take that helmet.

The reason you dont think helmets are necessary is that you dont think you will ever have an accident.  No matter how safely you ride, you cannot reduce the chances of having an accident to zero.  At the point that you have an accident the only thing you can rely on is safety equipment such as helmets.

As for the links you provided, the internet is a big place, you can find a study to prove anything.  There are millions of people using the internet and anyone is free to publish anything they like, and unlike traditional studies, they are not subject to peer review.  You are anti-helmets, so obviously you are going to look for studies that support your point of view (I dare say the point of view came before the research began). So the fact that you are able to post links is in itself meaningless as the links themselves have not gone through a peer review process.

[JWestland]

So your saying that having a protective layer on your head is less safe than not having one.
###In a whole population, yes.
Bear in mind I am talking about mandatory helmets for ALL. Not voluntary helmets.

I can guarantee that if someone was about to drop a brick on your head and offered you the choice of wearing a helmet, you along with any right-thinking person would take that helmet.
###But if it was a feather cushion would they? And do you wear one when walking? Cos they help too.

A cycle helmet is designed to absorb a certain amount of energy. This  means they have a sweet spot in which these work. They will not work when the energy is too high, low or when you break your neck *to put it bluntly*

For a very low speed fall: A helmet won't hurt, but won't help either as injuries are minimal anyway.
For falls at a certain speed: A helmet will reduce injury and is recommended, see for example cycle racing, downhilling.
For falls at a very high speed: A helmet may not help anymore as the impact energy is so high that the amount absorbed by the helmet makes no difference.

Note how the speed makes a difference. If a helmet invites you to riskier behavior OVER what it can absorb there is no benefit.

Now the next big thing: Crashes with cars.
That is where it gets problematic.
As stated above the impact energy the helmet can absorb is quite low, and only on the head. If a car/bus/truck crushes you, there's no help If you don't hit your head, it's no help either.

So the window where the helmet *may* help is if you hit your head in such a manner that the impact energy is not too high. This is where the jury is out.

Now looking at the above examples you would think "ok, helps against pot holes generally, might not work against cars, so surely there will be some benefit in mandatory helmet laws?".

The data doesn't support this. Now, there can be many reasons.
For example: Car drivers may take more risks. Cyclists may take more risks. The reducing in cyclists may mean more risks. There is however some countries where cyclists reported MORE injuries per mile cycled. Which is exactly what you don't want, you want the helmet to keep you safe.

The reason you dont think helmets are necessary is that you dont think you will ever have an accident.  No matter how safely you ride, you cannot reduce the chances of having an accident to zero.
###I agree that you can't reduce the odds of an accident to zero. However, in the style of cycle I do (commuting in town) the main risk is a car collision. There's no proof a helmet is going to do much at all there, there is some proof cars give helmet wearing cyclists less room, which increases the odds of an accident.

Would I do downhilling/road racing/snow cycling/cycling on really bad roads yes I'd wear a helmet as then the benefit is clear.

The internet is a big place, so is The Netherlands where accident/injury rates are much lower than the UK...and so is helmet wearing. In Australia accident rates also went UP after a mandatory helmet law.

Therein lies the snag.

[ZeroBike]

I hope you never end up in a situation where you realize you were wrong about all of this!

[Matt2matt2002]

Good point Zero
I am with you on this but my poor brain got lost on your logic.
Re the brick on the head / helmet issue. Shouldn't we all be wearing helmets all the time then?
Guess not - so perhaps silly of me to carry on with the analogy.

Whenever I ride without a helmet i feel I am being foolish.
So I don't often do it.
As for rules? I am generally agin 'em.

Matt