Should we be forced by law to wear a helmet when cycling?

[biotechpete]

As you may recall I once drove a landrover over a cyclist.

 

Had he been wearing hi vis I suspect I may have seen him and been able to take action to at least reduce the impact.

 

I didn't recall, no. And I'm not familiar with the pariculars in your case, nor am i seeking to direct comments at you specifically. But i guess there are actions you might take differently the second time around, perhaps some other actions you might have been able to take, like looking again/longer. Perhaps like most cycling accidents, the cyclist wearing hi viz would have changed nothing.

 

Nontheless I notice that you have taken my comments and decided to refine them purely to mitigating criminal actions. That's called moving goalposts and I thought better of you. I also never said that cyclist should wear hi vis - yet you falsely ascribe such a position to me. Are you being a little too hasty to scarify the evil car driver because that's what it looks like

 

I didnt intend to appear to scarify drivers. I was in the middle of something so attempying to be brief. Like most people I am also a driver myself. Nor did i aim to move the goal posts, I meerly took your definition of victim blaming and exemplified how it fits.

 

The fact remains that cycling isn't an inherently dangerous activity. The speed at which most cyclists go, the risks of injury are extremely low. The vast majority of cycling injuries are due to motorists at fault. About 6.5% are attributed to no lights, dark clothing, or dangerous cycling by police.

http://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/chris-peck/whos-to-blame-in-crashes-between-cyclists-and-motorists

 

So whether convictions are made or not, cyclists are overwhelmingly the victims of collisions which are not their fault. Added to which there is some indication that authorities are being unduly lenient when charging drivers with 'causing death' offences. Police most often cite 'lack of evidence'. This implies that the acts of dangerous driving and causing death by dangerous driving are more common than the conviction rates would suggest.

 

So, despite the fact i wear a helmet and hi viz, the idea that cyclists should be legally bound to do so is nonsense. It is based on a prejudice which refuses to look at the fact that in order to prevent cyclists being killed or seriously injured you need to concentrate on the problems. These are in the main, poor/negligent/dangerous driving and often woeful or downright dangerous road design.

 

More than 25% of cycling deaths are due to cyclists hit from behind, often when cars are passing. Therefore police are now starting to prosecute close passing offences as driving without due care. However I think a statutory minimum distance offence would significantly reduce cyclist KSI incidents.

 

---------- Post added 13-10-2016 at 18:56 ----------

 

So the two wheeled lunatics should be able to do what they want on the roads ?

 

---------- Post added 13-10-2016 at 18:18 ----------

 

 

Councils are the worst offender for health and safety cobblers.

 

When did you decide to change from a contributor to a simple troll Penistone? I remember the day you had some half sensible things to say, or perhaps I just imagined it.

 

I would advocate lunatics of any kind be prevented from cycling, driving or contributing to Internet forums. What do you think?

[Mr Bloke]

I didn't until you said that.....

 

I'll let you know how it goes. After I get let out for scaring people unnecessarily.

You'll be fine...

 

... as long as you remember to leave the clown mask at home!

[Obelix]

I didn't recall, no. And I'm not familiar with the pariculars in your case, nor am i seeking to direct comments at you specifically. But i guess there are actions you might take differently the second time around, perhaps some other actions you might have been able to take, like looking again/longer. Perhaps like most cycling accidents, the cyclist wearing hi viz would have changed nothing.

 

 

 

I didnt intend to appear to scarify drivers. I was in the middle of something so attempying to be brief. Like most people I am also a driver myself. Nor did i aim to move the goal posts, I meerly took your definition of victim blaming and exemplified how it fits.

 

The fact remains that cycling isn't an inherently dangerous activity. The speed at which most cyclists go, the risks of injury are extremely low. The vast majority of cycling injuries are due to motorists at fault. About 6.5% are attributed to no lights, dark clothing, or dangerous cycling by police.

http://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/chris-peck/whos-to-blame-in-crashes-between-cyclists-and-motorists

 

So whether convictions are made or not, cyclists are overwhelmingly the victims of collisions which are not their fault. Added to which there is some indication that authorities are being unduly lenient when charging drivers with 'causing death' offences. Police most often cite 'lack of evidence'. This implies that the acts of dangerous driving and causing death by dangerous driving are more common than the conviction rates would suggest.

 

So, despite the fact i wear a helmet and hi viz, the idea that cyclists should be legally bound to do so is nonsense. It is based on a prejudice which refuses to look at the fact that in order to prevent cyclists being killed or seriously injured you need to concentrate on the problems. These are in the main, poor/negligent/dangerous driving and often woeful or downright dangerous road design.

 

More than 25% of cycling deaths are due to cyclists hit from behind, often when cars are passing. Therefore police are now starting to prosecute close passing offences as driving without due care. However I think a statutory minimum distance offence would significantly reduce cyclist KSI incidents.

 

---------- Post added 13-10-2016 at 18:56 ----------

 

 

When did you decide to change from a contributor to a simple troll Penistone? I remember the day you had some half sensible things to say, or perhaps I just imagined it.

 

I would advocate lunatics of any kind be prevented from cycling, driving or contributing to Internet forums. What do you think?

 

Id appreciate it if you would acknowledge that I never said that cyclist must wear helmets or hi viz thanks.

 

You might want to read the landrover thread. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1367907&highlight=landrover It had about 17 pages of the usual cyclist apologists trying to blame me for doing absolutley nothing wrong whatsoever. Victim blaming? I was the big bad nasty man for doing nothing wrong and I was blamed for daring to suggest that the cyclist was even perhaps at fault - despite the police wishing to press charges, and winning in court... still my fault for having someone cycle into me.

 

---------- Post added 13-10-2016 at 19:14 ----------

 

You'll be fine...

 

... as long as you remember to leave the clown mask at home!

 

Must Not Give In To Temptation.....

Edited October 13, 2016 by Obelix

[Guest makapaka]

My post was perfectly on topic. That is unless you suggest any evidence against compulsory helmet law is off topic.

 

Put simply, there is almost no evidence that helmets prevent head injuries in cycling accidents.

 

It is also true that as a pedestrian on the pavement, you are more likely to be injured by a car than a cyclist. 98.5% of pedestrian fatalities and 95.7% of pedestrian serious injuries that happened in collisions on a footway/verge involved a motor vehicle. Which goes to show just how rare such incidents are.

 

It's not anti-car to say that if you want to stop people being killed you need to concentrate on the thing that kills them - the motor vehicle, instead of spurious 'safety' measures which imply it's somehow the cyclists that are dangerous, when all the evidence points to the opposite.

 

If you're hit by a car and land on your head with a helmet on - is that better than landing on your head without one on?

[LeMaquis]

I was once doing 85mph on there......

 

And just like using your mobile while driving and speeding it will be impossible to enforce . complete waste of time .

 

.....committing the heinous crime of not wearing a seatbelt.

 

Their doing it for red light jumpers too now.

 

Ive just been offered it instead of 3 points .

 

So the two wheeled lunatics should be able to do what they want on the roads ?

 

Just fancy that,

[altus]

If you're hit by a car and land on your head with a helmet on - is that better than landing on your head without one on?

It depends. If you hit the ground square on (linear impact) it's better wo wear a helmet. If you hit the ground and your head rotates they are worse than not wearing a helmet. Rotational impacts are far more common than linear ones. Helmets, because they effectively make your head bigger, are likely to make rotational impacts more likely and/or severe.

[Obelix]

Just fancy that,

 

Have a large pack of jellybabies

 

---------- Post added 13-10-2016 at 20:13 ----------

 

It depends. If you hit the ground square on (linear impact) it's better wo wear a helmet. If you hit the ground and your head rotates they are worse than not wearing a helmet. Rotational impacts are far more common than linear ones. Helmets, because they effectively make your head bigger, are likely to make rotational impacts more likely and/or severe.

 

A lot of motorcyclists apparantly polish their helmets to stop rotational effects.

 

How effective it is I have no idea.

[biotechpete]

If you're hit by a car and land on your head with a helmet on - is that better than landing on your head without one on?

 

You would imagine from the physics it would be beneficial, but even then the evidence is pretty inconclusive. Some studies suggest that in adults, helmets offer almost no benefit in preventing serious head injuries. I would guess that this us due to the forces involved in the collision being so great that the helmet is of little use. This was certainly the case for my family member who was killed by a driver. Some people hypothesise that helmets even increase facial and trunk injuries.

 

Helmet laws in Australia, New Zealand and parts of Canada (BHRF, 1096) have resulted in the great majority of cyclists wearing helmets, but there has been no reduction in rates of head injury relative to cycle use. An analysis of enforced laws in these countries found no clear evidence of benefit (Robinson, 2006).

 

---------- Post added 13-10-2016 at 20:20 ----------

 

Id appreciate it if you would acknowledge that I never said that cyclist must wear helmets or hi viz thanks.

 

You might want to read the landrover thread. http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1367907&highlight=landrover It had about 17 pages of the usual cyclist apologists trying to blame me for doing absolutley nothing wrong whatsoever. Victim blaming? I was the big bad nasty man for doing nothing wrong and I was blamed for daring to suggest that the cyclist was even perhaps at fault - despite the police wishing to press charges, and winning in court... still my fault for having someone cycle into me.

 

---------- Post added 13-10-2016 at 19:14 ----------

 

 

Must Not Give In To Temptation.....

 

I'm happy to acknowledge that Obelix, I am sorry if I implied that I thought you had, the subject of the thread is nevertheless about compulsory helmet use.

[El Cid]

You would imagine from the physics it would be beneficial, but even then the evidence is pretty inconclusive.

 

British brain surgeon says cycle helmets are too flimsy and can actually create more danger by creating the illusion of greater safety.

Dr. Henry Marsh, a neurosurgeon at St. George's Hospital in London, believes many cycling helmets are simply "too flimsy."

"I ride a bike and I never wear a helmet. In the countries where bike helmets are compulsory there has been no reduction in bike injuries whatsoever."

[monkey104]

As a council worker, I have to wear hi-vis and steelies, I believe they do not make me safer; but a hi-vis would make a cyclist safer.

 

The council must believe they make me safer, I bet they spend loads of money doing it.

 

It's just a personal thought but I believe that we have become immune to hi vis.

We seem to see them on every employee even people on shop floors! Which begs the question, if staff are wearing them in store, shouldn't customers?