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

[crookedspire]

I'm amazed that Cyclone hasn't posted on this yet that aside I think it should be made law that cyclists should be made to wear a helmet motorbike drivers are by law have to wear one. When posted in Northern Ireland I witnessed a bad cyclist accident were the victim landed on her head she didn't make it when the inquest was heared it became clear an helmet could have saved her life.

[El Cid]

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?

 

I can see the advantage on dark winter nights/mornings, but not 24/7 and indoors.

They are now seen as part of the uniform, which is a security risk, put on the right colour hi-vis and you are one of us.

[stifflersmom]

I can see the advantage on dark winter nights/mornings, but not 24/7 and indoors.

They are now seen as part of the uniform, which is a security risk, put on the right colour hi-vis and you are one of us.

 

Hi vis is NOT effective in the dark. Reflectives are far more effective in those circumstances and they can be incorporated into any colour of clothing. During daytime hi vis can be seen easily but I agree we are getting conditioned to it; neon yellow is very common, but orange and pink are seen leas often and can be more effective.

[Cyclone]

What do people think should it be made law too wear a cycle helmet when out on your bike ??? I think it should be made law my son has always wore his helmet ......

 

a) I think you should have used the search facility as this has been extensively discussed before.

b) No, because there is plenty of evidence to suggest that wearing a helmet increases the risk of an accident and of certain types of injury.

c) Why do you think it should be law?

d) I don't see how your son is relevant to the question.

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2016 at 08:44 ----------

 

Obviously a helmet on a head is better than no helmet on a head.

Rather than writing "obviously".

Could you actually say why?

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2016 at 08:45 ----------

 

I have a black car. Do you say I need to get this resprayed into some dayglo colour?

 

Just don't use it in the dark. Which given that winter is approaching will be for about 16hrs a day soon.

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2016 at 08:49 ----------

 

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.

 

In addition to this, compulsory helmets put people off cycling (demonstrated in Australia). And it's well established that the more cyclists there are, the safer the roads are.

Any barriers to cycling (like compulsory helmets, or registration, or VED or insurance) have an ongoing effect of making the road more dangerous.

 

So if 'safety' is the concern, then this idea is counter productive.

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2016 at 08:52 ----------

 

 

No they don't. Please stop with the absurd comments.

 

SOME clearly do. Not all though.

 

I agree with you, pedals should have reflectors, bikes should have front and rear reflectors, bikes should have lights when ridden in the dark. These should be enforced as necessary (in a proportionate way).

Things where the evidence doesn't support them, hi vis, helmets, etc, should not be required. (Which I think was the position you were taking).

 

BiotechPete is correct, some of the measures suggested can be seen as an attempt to make cyclists IN AN INCIDENT safer, rather than an attempt to reduce the number of incidents taking place.

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2016 at 08:54 ----------

 

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 do recall, and from what I understand the cyclist was entirely at fault. The only thing that would have avoided the incident would have been the cyclist not doing what they did.

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2016 at 08:55 ----------

 

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?

 

Is this supposed to be "evidence"?

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2016 at 08:57 ----------

 

I'm amazed that Cyclone hasn't posted on this yet that aside I think it should be made law that cyclists should be made to wear a helmet motorbike drivers are by law have to wear one. When posted in Northern Ireland I witnessed a bad cyclist accident were the victim landed on her head she didn't make it when the inquest was heared it became clear an helmet could have saved her life.

 

Sorry, no access to SF in my current workplace, and I was out all evening.

 

Making up for it now I hope.

 

The evidence contradicts your assertion (not the singular case, but on average helmets do not reduce injuries).

[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.

 

Emphasis mine.

 

That's victim blaming by the way that you are engaging in. I should have looked longer to avoid being a victim. Thanks for that.

 

Also - hi vis would probably have reduced the damage caused (although not stopped the accident) as I would possibly have seen him. A headlight would have had more effect.

 

And it wasn't an accident. The cyclist jumped a red light. It was a criminal act that resulted in a collision. It was no accident.

[crookedspire]

a) I think you should have used the search facility as this has been extensively discussed before.

b) No, because there is plenty of evidence to suggest that wearing a helmet increases the risk of an accident and of certain types of injury.

c) Why do you think it should be law?

d) I don't see how your son is relevant to the question.

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2016 at 08:44 ----------

 

Rather than writing "obviously".

Could you actually say why?

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2016 at 08:45 ----------

 

 

Just don't use it in the dark. Which given that winter is approaching will be for about 16hrs a day soon.

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2016 at 08:49 ----------

 

 

In addition to this, compulsory helmets put people off cycling (demonstrated in Australia). And it's well established that the more cyclists there are, the safer the roads are.

Any barriers to cycling (like compulsory helmets, or registration, or VED or insurance) have an ongoing effect of making the road more dangerous.

 

So if 'safety' is the concern, then this idea is counter productive.

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2016 at 08:52 ----------

 

 

SOME clearly do. Not all though.

 

I agree with you, pedals should have reflectors, bikes should have front and rear reflectors, bikes should have lights when ridden in the dark. These should be enforced as necessary (in a proportionate way).

Things where the evidence doesn't support them, hi vis, helmets, etc, should not be required. (Which I think was the position you were taking).

 

BiotechPete is correct, some of the measures suggested can be seen as an attempt to make cyclists IN AN INCIDENT safer, rather than an attempt to reduce the number of incidents taking place.

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2016 at 08:54 ----------

 

I do recall, and from what I understand the cyclist was entirely at fault. The only thing that would have avoided the incident would have been the cyclist not doing what they did.

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2016 at 08:55 ----------

 

 

Is this supposed to be "evidence"?

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2016 at 08:57 ----------

 

 

Sorry, no access to SF in my current workplace, and I was out all evening.

 

Making up for it now I hope.

 

The evidence contradicts your assertion (not the singular case, but on average helmets do not reduce injuries).

 

Hello my friend , well since I witnessed a cycling accident I firmly believe an helmet could have made an difference in that case can you back your claim about helmets not making any difference ? By the way Iv been watching more of YouTube videos very entertaining.

[Cyclone]

I'm sure you're correct that in one incident it might have made a difference. But that's an anecdote.

 

People already posted links to the evidence about whether helmets improve safety. It's not like I'm making a controversial statement, it's been well studied and analysed.

[spilldig]

It's not victim blaming unless you are looking for an excuse for your actions. Proportional measures like requiring lights, pedal reflectors etc and requiring cyclist not to "cycle furiously" and not to cycle on footpaths - these all enforce laws onto cyclists and are not victim blaming.

 

Requiring motorbikers to wear helmets is not victim blaming, even though many accidents they have are caused by others.

 

The same would be true for cyclists. However the evidence is such that helmets don't seem to have any real effect in head injury rates for normal cycling, so not requiring them to be worn is prudent. Otherwise it's an infringement on civil liberty and an unnecessary cost.

 

---------- Post added 13-10-2016 at 16:05 ----------

 

 

Do you think that we should stop requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets then?

We do now. They are called turbans and every motorcyclist should have the same choice.

[Berberis]

http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australia's-helmet-law-disaster

 

Enforcing laws on cyclists is just victim blaming. All the evidence shows that if you want to reduce cyclist casualties you need to change driver behaviour. That is why West Midlands police are delivering a campaign to prevent dangerous overtaking.

 

Its never the fault of the cyclists isnt it. So when a cyclist is crushed by a lorry when riding into their blind spot, it's the lorry drivers fault. When a cyclist jumps a red light and is hit by a car, it's the car drivers fault and when a cyclist hits a pedestrian, it's the pedestrian's fault.

 

Its exactly this lack of humility that causes the rest of those who use the roads to despise cyclists. You refuse to change anything and blame everyone else. There is no need for irrefutable evidence to back up a new law, just there is a chance that whatever the law is trying to stop, happening.

 

Get a helmet, get a high vis jacket and stop jumping onto the footpaths or jumping red lights and you will start to get some respect by other road users. Remember you are a squashy bag of meat that will never win in an accident involving other road users. Stop thinking you are invincible.

[willman]

I don't care either way personally, i cycle and don't wear one. But then again a 15 mile pootle on a man made trackway makes me a little blase.

 

I just wondered why all professionals wear helmets,road,MB,triathlon even indoors on tracks. In a sport of potential extremes wouldn't it be more streamlined not to wear one, so the wearing of one must be down to safety ?