Cyclist wins £2m compensation and calls for helmets to be compulsory

The “safety equipment” didn’t do what it was meant to do ( reduce energy transmitted to the brain to a level below that which would cause injury) , so he wants to now make them compulsory?

Run that one by me again , please...

Je suis Charlie

I defend your right to be offended, but I may still think you are an idiot.

STOP IT NOW. SHAME ON YOU ROAD.CC

Scoob_84 I am with you on wearing a helmet to train and commute; I do so in the faint hope it might help in the event of an accident. However my issue on the debate is that it should be flipped around. Doesn't it tell us that something is wrong with our attitude to road usage that people will look down on you for choosing not to wear one, particularly for a gentle tootle to the shops ? What kind of a monstrous world have we created whereby in choosing not to wear (dubious) armour, you are somehow at fault ? Why are we pandering to incompetent drivers who can not safely control the lump of steel they choose to protect themselves in and "sod anyone who chooses to put themselves on the road" ?
Think of the hysteria around the perceived risk of terrorism in the context of the fact you are many thousands of times more likely to die as a result of a badly driven vehicle, yet we divert attention away from cold grim facts so as to preserve the (untenable) status quo.
sorry to bang on about it but we have had our priorities wrong for far too long.

I've cycled for 30 years, and only recently started to wear a helmet when I bought a shiny new Scott Road bike. When I'm on it, I wear my helmet in the faint hope that if some inconsiderate bastard decides to pull out in front of me, or twat me from behind, it may help.

In all the years I've been riding, I can honestly say I've been really lucky and only had a handful of spills, mainly when I was a child and buggering about.

I wear a helmet because I choose too, not because I have to, and because I hope that it will help if I do go down, but I really do know that if I go down, its in the lap of the Gods.

All that said, it is only my opinion and my choice. I choose to smoke, but aren't going to campaign for smoking to become compulsary. Its all about freedom and choice.

When my 10 year old is on his bike, he wears a helmet because the missus insisted on it, and it makes them both feel safer, and I feel that the feeling of safety for some and their families is a good thing. Now its an automatic reaction when he gets his bike out. I haven't had the heart to tell them it may not help as then she wouldn't let the poor sod out!

Better driving and infrastructure would prevent many more accidents and deaths than helmets.

wow, every time somebody mentions a cycle helmet it really polarises opinion, then gets a bit shouty.

For my money, I wear one recreationally, as it might help in certain types of 'off' and it has done for me once before. I don't wear one for nipping down the shop though, nor for the half mile to the train station in the morning.

Its choice, plain and simple.

I recommend one, but if you don't want to then its your lookout. If it was legislated that you will wear a helmet each time you straddle a bike, then it places a big emphasis on the 'safety' equipment, and less on the care and attention you should pay as a cyclist, and as a driver - education not legislation!!

I'd be interested in any stats from states in America where motorcycle helmets are or wern't compulsory - are there any lessons to be learned from that?

I don't wear a helmet.

Why? I am a confident experienced cyclist who doesn't fall off very often. The use case a helmet is designed to protect against happens to me very very rarely. I have had more falls when on my feet than on my wheels.

I would not trust polystyrene packing to protect a TV which had been dropped of the back of a van, and have no faith in it protecting my head.

I however, respect other peoples personal decisions as to whether they choose to wear one or not.

I don't therefore expect people to try to impart their choice onto me either by trying to change the law or by evangelising.

What's needed is a safer road environment for all, with substantially segregated cycleways.

What is also needed is much more policing of the law and tougher sentences to try to stop this Mad Max hell that our roads are turning into.

NZ introduced compulsory helmets in '94. The resultant decrease in fit people populating the country (through giving up cycling rather than wear the cumbersome monstrosities available then) actually LOWERED the life-expectancy of Kiwis! There is data on the web somewhere about it.
I assume when cycling boomed in the late 00s that life expectancy once again rose or - judging by the size of my old school friends on FB - maybe not.
Just adding a bit more grist to a (hopefully)small mill.

Is this the most civilised debate we've ever had about helmets on this site?

I think this may be the most civilised debate full stop!

Since it is a proven fact that helmets are designed to protect during low speed impacts, perhaps all helmet wearers should be limited to a speed of four to five mph as speed well above these levels negates any protection from head injuries.

Have there been studies on why bicycle use reduces when compulsory helmet use is introduced - assuming that the assertion that it does is correct?

When I think of the activities for which helmets are not compulsory yet participants wear them I find this hard to understand.

I was an opening bat and close fielder for over 20 years without ever getting hit on the head, yet when I watch my old team now all the batters and close fielders wear helmets.

Then there are all the horse riders I see, surely the hats they wear are useless if the rider were to fall.

I hope this guy starts a campaign to make Star Wars stormtrooper suits compulsory in Australia. It would make their parliamentary sessions more entertaining, and the chaffing would give the nation's motorists something else to get annoyed by other than cyclists.

One of the things I really love about my cycle helmet is that I get to decide whether I wear it or not! Mostly I do, occasionally I do not.

One of the things I really love about my cycle helmet is that I get to decide whether I wear it or not! Mostly I do, occasionally I do not.

One of the things I really love about my cycle helmet is that I get to decide whether I wear it or not! Mostly I do, occasionally I do not.

Lots to say... so much to say... but, I'm going to save myself the bother as its all been said before.

However, I will say that after 25 years of avid cycling without a helmet, I am miraculously still here.

Its not a dangerous pastime... there is no need of legislation... lets move on and focus on better education of road users and better infrastructure.

Quote:

Also, why have we seen no campaigns for compulsory red dresses
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11318824/My-35-little-red-dress-s...

Looks quite aerodynamic - I would back a campaign for compulsory wearing of one of those whilst cycling

I was going to raise money for Headway when I did my LEJOG. They insisted that in any photos containing a bike I had to be wearing a helmet. I raised funds for RoadPeace instead.

I am glad that Mr Welbeck survived and that he was paid substantial compensation. But his "belief" that his helmet saved his life is an unlikely claim. If it were even credible the helmet manufacturers would be all over it and joining the campaign to make us all wear and therefore buy helmets. They aren't. And they aren't because the physics doesn't support claims like that. It can't claim that impact protection ratings of helmets protect you from anything more than cuts and scrapes. They can't and don't therefore claim that they protect you from serious head injuries because they just can't stand that up with science.

So good luck to Mr Welbeck as far as spending his compo is concerned and let's hope that epilepsy doesn't transpire. But I hope his campaign to impose voodoo science inspired helmet use on the rest of us is the miserable failure that it deserves to be.

http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-1...

Not many people are anti helmet, just anti compulsion. If you really want to stop people being hurt when they are hit by cars.

do you a) campaign to stop cars hitting people, ie better training of drivers, better infrastructure
or b) campaign that all non drivers, (this includes pedestrians) where hi viz, helmets, etc.

If there is a problem, it might be me, but don't you deal with the problem and not come up with a shit load of excuses and blame the victims for not taking enough precautions?

This week two cyclists have dies on the roads of my town, the later I don't know the circumstances, the former I can have a pretty good guess, what good is a piece of polystyrene when your hit by a HGV doing 60 then a number of cars following it? Wouldn't having a better route that meant you were no where near a motorway junction be a better way forward?

I still fail to understand why John Wellock, James Cracknell, Headway, and so on aren't campaigning and screaming out for measures like:

- safe space for cycling and walking, free from conflict with motor vehicles.
- lower speed limits for driving in urban areas.
- through routes closed to motor vehicles in city centres and residential areas.

All these...
a) ...benefit* everyone - not just just cyclists.
b) ...might avoid the collisions in the first place!

But no, the same tired old helmet rants, the same failure to see the big picture.

*by benefit, I mean lessen the risk of head injury.