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

[stifflersmom]

I still have not seen or read any evidence that cycle helmets are not beneficial, only evidence that the wrong type or design of helmets worn may not be as beneficial as they could be (but mostly inconclusive or too small a study to be relevant)

 

Motorcyclists do not seem to complain about the design/effectiveness of helmets, but cyclists are very rarely seen wearing that type of helmet, why?

 

It is compulsory to wear a lap type seatbelt in the back of some cars, these are known to cause broken spines in some types of collision. So scrap the wearing of seatbelts in cars? of course not, because a well designed seatbelt will help in most cases.

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2016 at 20:19 ----------

 

 

My bold

All cars sold in this country have a roll cage, side impact beams and front and rear crumple zones.

So yes is the answer to your question.

 

You need to Google "not even wrong". It applies to everything you write. You're not looking at all the data for the studies, you're applying incorrect assumptions about motorcycle helmets and you're not correct about car manufacturing.

[Bonzo77]

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 ......

 

Yes!!.....

[LeMaquis]

Yes!!.....

 

Anarchism... stands for the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government.

 

Just fancy that.

[Cyclone]

Can you explain in what way?

 

I can explain AGAIN I suppose.

 

The more cycles on the road, the safer everyone is (particularly cycles, but I think there is a link to generally increased road safety).

 

The more barriers you create to cycling (compulsory helmets, registration, insurance, high vis, any other thing made up by someone who doesn't cycle), the less people take up cycling.

 

Hence, compulsory helmets = more dangerous.

 

---------- Post added 15-10-2016 at 10:10 ----------

 

maybe some food for thought

 

 

Should I Wear a Bike Helmet?

http://www.bhsi.org/shouldi.htm

 

MIPS and Sliding Resistance of Bicycle Helmets

http://www.bhsi.org/mips.htm

 

We are helmet advocates, so you know our bias

 

They don't even try to make a balanced assessment of the evidence. They have an opinion and they set out to support it.

[andrejuan]

You need to Google "not even wrong". It applies to everything you write. You're not looking at all the data for the studies, you're applying incorrect assumptions about motorcycle helmets and you're not correct about car manufacturing.

 

Don't just tell me I am wrong, educate me with good quality information. I will listen and learn.

 

Here is a bit of stuff to read through about car regs./design.

 

http://www.whyhighend.com/passenger-safety-cell.html

 

http://www.globalncap.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/road-map-2020.pdf

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/184147.stm

 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R0661

 

---------- Post added 15-10-2016 at 15:47 ----------

 

Posted by Cyclone

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.

 

I have not finished reading the evidence so will for the moment stick with my opinion that this is more to do with poorly designed helmets rather than all helmets.

I agree that the safer we feel the more risks we take so it is reasonable that this applies to cyclists too.

Someone once said to me, just after airbags were first fitted to car steering wheels.

"It would be better to install a sharp 12 inch spike instead of an airbag, that would make

the roads much safer"

I bet it would too :-)

 

Also posted by Cyclone

They don't even try to make a balanced assessment of the evidence. They have an opinion and they set out to support it.

 

How many of us can honestly say we have not been guilty of that to some extent.

[apelike]

I can explain AGAIN I suppose.

 

The more cycles on the road, the safer everyone is (particularly cycles, but I think there is a link to generally increased road safety).

 

The more barriers you create to cycling (compulsory helmets, registration, insurance, high vis, any other thing made up by someone who doesn't cycle), the less people take up cycling.

 

Hence, compulsory helmets = more dangerous.

 

Still not convinced of that argument. I know several people and see many who already wear hi-vis vests and helmets. I also regularly see many cyclists around that also do not wear them. It would be interesting to know what proportion of cyclists at the moment use helmets. Registration and insurance seem to me to be a stupid idea but when it come to safety its a different matter.

[andrejuan]

""The more barriers you create to cycling (compulsory helmets, registration, insurance, high vis, any other thing made up by someone who doesn't cycle), the less people take up cycling.""

 

True to some extent, but insurance is morally needed where there is a chance/probability that

someone will damage someone else or their property. Perhaps this could be included in house policies?

 

It won't effect me much longer, I have been a cycling for 30+ years, the first 10 without an helmet !!!! and it's time to hang up my cycle clips. It is a totally different community

now.

So, if you see me and my trusty 1980s Claud Butler (used almost daily) give me a cheerie wave or the rods depending on what you think of my opinions.

[Cyclone]

There is a chance of damage to property as a pedestrian, are we to demand insurance before anyone is allowed to leave the house?

 

---------- Post added 15-10-2016 at 16:11 ----------

 

Still not convinced of that argument.

What are you not convinced about?

I know several people and see many who already wear hi-vis vests and helmets. I also regularly see many cyclists around that also do not wear them. It would be interesting to know what proportion of cyclists at the moment use helmets. Registration and insurance seem to me to be a stupid idea but when it come to safety its a different matter.

 

It's a personal choice, that's what it is and that's what it should continue to be unless you can prove unequivocally that helmets significantly improve safety.

[Becky B]

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.

 

Well done for the sweeping generalisation, and insulting the large proportion of cyclists who have some humility - maybe you just don't notice them?

 

I wear a helmet, high vis or reflective jacket (depending on time of day), bright lights, I don't ride on footpaths and I don't jump red lights. I also have insurance for riding on the road.

I know very well I'm not invincible (incidentally I think that whether I'm on the bike, in the car or on foot).

 

Do you respect me now?

[WestTinsley]

I can explain AGAIN I suppose.

 

The more cycles on the road, the safer everyone is (particularly cycles, but I think there is a link to generally increased road safety).

 

The more barriers you create to cycling (compulsory helmets, registration, insurance, high vis, any other thing made up by someone who doesn't cycle), the less people take up cycling.

 

Hence, compulsory helmets = more dangerous.

 

---------- Post added 15-10-2016 at 10:10 ----------

 

 

 

 

They don't even try to make a balanced assessment of the evidence. They have an opinion and they set out to support it.

your posts on here are baffling and make no sense.

why do you wear An helmet when you go on your bike... is it not to protect your head??

so there's yer answer.

If it's a legal requirement or not helmets will protect your head and cut down the risk of injury or even death.