Helmet debate: Chairman of brain injury charity wants Welsh Assembly to debate compulsory wearing

Head injuries are the leading cause of death for car occupants. Why aren't we debating a helmet law for them?

Cycling is safe, people are capable of deciding when to wear a helmet, a gentle 8mph pootle is very different from a day in the alps.

Fatalities in the main occur when involving vehicles, the advocates of compulsory wearing, are in imo focusing on the wrong target simply because it is easy. Car manufacturers could do so much more to make the exterior of cars safe, and the government could inject real revenue into cycle schemes and road safety.

By making things compulsory we strip away peoples freedom of choice, and their obligations of showing civility and respect for others, an ability to make judgement on risk and ownership.

As a species we are very good at preventing injury to the head, in fact I have done a lot in my life which could be considered dangerous, all of which without a government body telling me how to do it in respect to safety, each time you look at the situation and you make a decision, that's what keeps you alive, the worst head trauma I have suffered was walking through a door.

Think very carefully about making anything compulsory, it is a death by a thousand cuts, eroding your freedom, helmets today then where, one need only look at the stunted childhoods of today compared to the past, all in the name of perceived safety. Nations love control and would prefer all citizens to be as dependent as children, as does their bed partner of big business. What could be more dangerous than people of independent thought, who are self sufficient, where is the control or revenue stream in that. A far better route is real education, not scare mongering, and let people make a choice. There is as always an elitist approach to policy that only those at the top are somehow imbued with any level of intelligence to make decisions, that we are somehow deficient and need to cared for as we know no better.

I respect that sentiment Dave.

As both motorist and cyclist numbers increase, particularly in congested cities, it is clear that safety measures must continue to adapt to suit. What frustrates me is that many of the people who represent or support the various cycle-safety lobby groups have an exceptionally blinkered view and, as a result, offer nonsensical arguments which inevitably attract ridicule rather than serious consideration. Whether one believes that the solution lies in helmet compulsion, segregation, strict liability, or a combination of all such measures, matters not one jot if the arguments are as fundamentally flawed as some of the comments above.

Fair enough Dave, another well reasoned and well made point... if only everyone else was so sensible

I give up.

It's almost as if most posters leave the ability to reason as soon as they click onto a story about helmets.

Dave is pretty much the only person backing up argument with actual statistics and in the end I agree that being legally required to wear helmet's probably won't help. However helmets laws for children should be encouraged.

Dave, if the two main things that can help cycling safety in this country are:

1) strict liability laws that change driver habits and
2) better infrastructure

what is road.cc doing about it? I know that's probably an unfair question but if those are the two things that can really really help why not start a national campaign jointly with someone like CTC to try and get strict liability laws on the political agenda? Drafting up a letter than readers can print and sign and send to their local MP that outlines the benefits to everyone (not just cyclists) and asks them to consider the matter may help to move this from something a few charities talk about to something MPs talk about.

Likewise, why not campaign to the DfT for greater provision for alternative means of transport. At the minute having a dedicated portion of their budget for cycling provision is 'ok' at best, it means that all that money is filtered into a couple of token projects that don't benefit most of the people riding bikes. Why not campaign for a strict %age of the budget for a single project to be used for alternative transport provision? If every new road project had to use even 2% of it's budget for things like the provision of segregated cycle lanes wouldn't this mean a broadly similar spend on these things but a greater consideration for cyclists when planning new infrastructure?

I know it's not really down to single websites to fix all of our woes, but why not do something to help?

ermine wrote:

Both will take decades? That's your positive outlook? So until those decades have passed, we should just do nothing? Roadcc is asking today whether there should be a presumption of liability against motorists. So put the two together and we have a situation where cyclists accept that the streets are not cycling friendly and will not be for decades, cyclists are not required to take responsibility for their own wellbeing and motorists are assumed to be liable for the results of any collisions? Which part of that scenario is fair and equitable?

you're kind of missing my point here, which is that a helmet compulsion law won't make cycling safe and accessible. making cycling safe and accessible requires significant time and investment, and preferably a change in driving culture. we shouldn't 'do nothing', we should do the things that will make a positive difference, working towards the goal of making cycling safe and accessible. campaigning for helmet laws, as far as i'm concerned, isn't one of them. campaigning for strict liability is, as it would be an influence on driver behavour.

Quote:

The idea that building bike lanes will be some sort of panacea also troubles me. Bike lanes tend to be a bit like railway lines; one inevitably has to leave the safety of the lane at some stage in order to complete one's journey. As a result of the segregation, the areas of non-segregation tend to become even more dangerous, simply because motorists are less familiar with the presence and behaviour of cyclists.

that's not borne out in any accident statistics i've ever seen from countries with good segregated infrastructure. why not? i'm not sure. probably because most of the motorists are cyclists too.

Hands up ....who's from Wales then...?
It's your assembly that's being pushed to debate this issue not the English or Scottish Govs.
What's the collision stats for Wales then involving cyclists...?

Firstly ....no such thing as an 'accident'', it's an incident or collision that takes place.

In my line of work as a Forensic Collision Investigator... when a cyclist is involved its the norm for the trunk or leg to sustain the majority of trauma. So from the incidents that I've attended a helmet saves the person from secondary strikes or post impact injuries. Unfortunately the laws of physics are always going against the smaller mass in a collision, and that usually means the cyclist....unless he hits a pedestrian or another cyclist.

However, the cyclist will always be vulnerable as he has no metal shell to cocoon himself in ( or herself, sorry)....

But some don't help themselves as we all know...loads of quotes about red light jumpers etc but I see more of cyclists struck from behind or from the sides....now this stems predominately from the driver not being able to judge his vehicle width or just plain careless driving...
Not so long ago( February) I went to a collision on the A46 outside of Coventry at 5am...merc van hit a cyclist...cyclist, wearing a dark team Lycra outfit, dark carbon bike, no reflectors or lights wore a helmet....cyclist very poorly after being hit at 60mph...helmet perfect, not a scratch.
Wouldnt have made any difference.......

Make helmet wearing compulsory and tell me who is going to enforce it...? Don't look at the police...we don't even routinely patrol anymore and most forces have or will soon be losing their traffic cops.....

Touch paper lit....

Just wear the bloody things and stop being a bunch of childish selfish fools.Brain injury is shitty i have it and its no joke.Hay you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink!Just carry on about Holland etc perfect world and all that.When you wake up in intensive care as i did you will wish you had not been such a prat.Trust me all the shite will go out of the window and the fits memory loss will be with you always.I wish all you could walk in my shoes for a day.I know it would make you all wear a lid but carry on Bitching fools.Of course it will not happen to you so disregard all the above no problem.I still ride but waking up in an Ambulance after being found at the side of the road after a seizure is trying believe me.Carry on big boys i wish you the best and many years of cycling.

cavmem - I'm not sure who the anti-helmet brigade are. No one seems to be anti-helmet here. The issue is one of whether helmet wearing should be compulsory. That's a different thing altogether.

Pro team riders go very fast and ride close together. Accidents do happen under those competition conditions. That is why wearing a helmet is a good idea in competition.

As for glove wearing, I can testify that having had a few slides down the road at various times I know why wearing gloves is a good idea when cycling.

Regarding body armour and leg and arm protection, statistics do show that the greatest number of injuries to cyclists are of limbs. On that basis it seems to me that there is a greater case for compulsory use of hand, arm and leg protection than for helmets. And therefore anyone who says helmets are important for day to day cycling should place hand, arm and leg protection as an even higher priority. To do otherwise is to contradict the claims made for the use of helmets in day to day riding. I don't understand how anyone saying benefits are so important cannot say leg and arm protection is even more so.

Facts and statistics on the helmet debate are summarised here:
http://beta.ctc.org.uk/files/cycle-helmets-evidencebrf_1.pdf

There is a full online reference for helmet evidence here:
www.cyclehelmets.org

Roger Geffen
Campaigns & Policy Director, CTC

Seems that the mere action of being on a bike these days is enough to invoke a cry of "contributory negligence" should you have the misfortune to be hit by another road vehicle

i take it all those who do not wear a helmet also don't wear gloves either. as it has never been proven that wearing gloves protects your hands if you come off-its just accepted. i wear a helmet and personally do think they are worth while. to use examples of what other nations who have a cycling culture do is pointless; as there just isn't the same culture here. we currently live in a culture where cyclists are misunderstood and veiwed by a collective as inferior. although education is merited it will take a protracted period of time. i have read with interest the comments from the anti helmet brigade- quoting freedom of choice etc. i still cannot find a comprehensive argument fielded by them. but if this did become law do people seriously mean to say that they will stop cycling. i don't think so. if so can i get a pinerello dogma off one of them at a good price.

one final question- if there is no benefit to them why do they wear helmets in pro teams? am i to believe that the peleton is more dangerous than a city centre in rush hour? if that is the case why don't they wear full body armour?

oh, and strict liability.

I'm with paul, btw. helmets are just a red herring. if you want to know how to reduce cycling casualties you don't need a science degree or a mastery of statistics, it's pretty simple: go to the places where cycling casualties are lowest and look at what they do. what do they do? separate cyclists and give them high quality infrastructure, make cycling a traffic priority in cities and foster a culture of cycling as transport, not as sport.

people still ride on the roads over in the low countries, and we all know how fanatical they are about their racing over there. but most people who ride just ride bikes because it's safe and easy to do so. the self-selecting sample of people who'll comment on a website such as this one are massively unrepresentative of the people we want to reach here. let's not forget that. this isn't about people who'd describe themselves as 'cyclists' - it's just about bikes as a viable transport option, for everyone.

PaulVWatts wrote:

"Research has shown that cycle helmets can save lives, and can reduce the risk of head and brain injury by up to 88%." Says Mr Harding in the original article but no where does he give a reference to what research

Sounds like Thompson, Rivara and Thompson - not the world's greatest scientific study, by all accounts.

Paul J wrote:

often with a good dose of "think of the children!"

There's a stronger argument for compulsion among children, who account for a disproportionate number of the casualties and are more likely to be involved in accidents that helmets are designed to protect against, eg simply falling off. Plus, they're kids and we should be able to tell them what to do

Paul J wrote:

sportive organisers, who often hide behind the lame excuse that their insurance forces them to when challenged

It's not a cop out - event insurance for bike rides includes a helmet clause as a matter of course. If it helps, I have seen policy documents. Also worth considering that in a sportive you're more likely to be involved in the kinds of accidents that helmets are designed to withstand.

"Research has shown that cycle helmets can save lives, and can reduce the risk of head and brain injury by up to 88%." Says Mr Harding in the original article but no where does he give a reference to what research. In my experience anybody that does this is not worthy of notice as the research could be a total fiction dreamed up to support their auguments. Oh and I wear a helmet for protection if I come off when I hit a loose dog etc. But I object to the myth it will protect me from a car.

but compensation should be reduced because of the cyclist's failure to mitigate.

From the link above...

"Griffith Williams J in Smith v Finch found that the impact speed exceeded 12.3 mph and so he could not be satisfied that a helmet would have made any difference. This is a common theme in that no Court has yet found that a helmet would have made a difference in any particular case."

I've timed it; on average it takes me 4 seconds to put my helmet on and take it back off again. Can't see that being too off-putting.

If parents wear helmets, their children will see it as first-nature to wear them and will not be troubled by the vanity concerns that afflict some unfortunate folk.

Boris bikes are the anomaly.