French Senate debates mandatory helmets — €135 fine proposed for rule breakers

swldxer wrote:

What about magic plastic hats for car occupants?

I mentioned this to a friend of mine. He said, "but cars have got seat belts and airbags and stuff"

"Not doing a great job then, are they?" I replied

swldxer wrote:

What about magic plastic hats for car occupants?

I do wish people would realise that calling helmets "magic plastic hats" doesn't help the argument (and I believe there are good arguments on both sides) at all, it just sounds childish. The majority of motorcycle helmets are made of plastic, as are construction hard hats, considerable sections of car bodywork, many boats and other things we rely on for safety. Implying that cycling helmets being made of plastic undermines the argument for their use doesn't add anything to the case against.

What I want to know is was the plastic magic before it was made into a hat, or was the plastic hat made and then the magic imbued into it?

A very good question! Luckily thanks to some expert sleuthing BikeSnobNYC managed to uncover the real truth about helments - a tangled tale (but lavishly illustrated) involving basically everyone but the Illuminati.

So dinosaurs are magic - is that the takeaway here?

Rendel Harris wrote:

.....

I do wish people would realise that calling helmets "magic plastic hats" doesn't help the argument (and I believe there are good arguments on both sides) at all, it just sounds childish. The majority of motorcycle helmets are made of plastic, as are construction hard hats, considerable sections of car bodywork, many boats and other things we rely on for safety. Implying that cycling helmets being made of plastic undermines the argument for their use doesn't add anything to the case against.

Sorry Rendel, have been known to be guilty of that myself. 

The debate has long since ceased being useful, I think the derision that they receive is borne of frustration. Not least often from those who wear the bloody things themselves....

I think that the most that can be said about lids, either pro or anti, is they may have some marginal benefit regarding specific and limited forms of injury, and modes of use. So, no rider should be compelled to take a stand one way or the other.

The case for use as policy certainly makes no sense in a risk assessment/mitigation framework, as they do nothing to address the hazard, and only have marginal value in context of some very specific outcomes (eg maxilo, facial and skull injuries, but specifically not TBI. And not ribs either...)

Muddy Ford wrote:

83% of those injured on bicycles were not wearing an item of green clothing, therefore I recommend that it be made compulsory for all cyclists to wear something green. 

Also, 99% of injured cyclists were not dressed up as Ronald McDonald, ergo we should all dress as him when cycling and almost eliminate cycling injuries overnight! 🤡

Mungecrundle wrote:

Caveat: meddling in statistics is a hobby for fools. But if 69% of cyclists do not wear a helmet, yet represent only 62% of KSI then by those stats not wearing a helmet is a safer option.

That would be the obvious conclusion (assuming a causative link). But this is politics where you make the numbers sound as if they support your position. I.e. "Look, this number is bigger than that number so I'm right".

It's possible that the people wearing helmets are naturally more cautious so they are less likely to crash and get injured. But that doesn't suit the narrative, does it?

FrankH wrote:

It's possible that the people wearing helmets are naturally more cautious so they are less likely to crash and get injured. But that doesn't suit the narrative, does it?

It seems more likely that people wearing helmets may take more risks than if they weren't wearing one and there's various studies showing that effect. But yes, most adult helmet wearers make a choice on whether they wear one or not, so it could be considered a self-selected group.

or most likely that people who are taking risks, are more likely to choose to wear a helmet.

But regardless, with non wearers being under represented in head injuries there is nothing to suggest helmets are providing a benefit - in the numbers.

There's a mild benefit from helmets and if you suffer a head injury in a rural area, you will be better off with a helmet due to the response times to sparse areas.

I have no faith in protection in a collision with a 1.5+T vehicle or coming off at 25-30 mph.

Also I am very confident a helmet won't stop me breaking any ribs.

Or that PPE is the goto solution (especially if you cycle along a cliff edge and fall off).

Sriracha wrote:

As ever, if you only look at part of the picture you will get a partial answer. But the benefits of regular exercise are indisputable - the more people cycle the fewer people die. So any measures which tend to prevent people exercising will increase deaths. Taking measures which at the same time dissuade some people from cycling whilst failing to address the dangers visited upon those who persevere is doubly stupid, and can only result in increased mortality.

Exactly this.

Another example is He Who Shall not be named's favourite "Road Safety Expert" crusade on speeding cyclists and tabards

Both of which are only there to dissuade the uptake of cycling by meaning that cyclists have yet more costs to incur to buy tabards.  Which only penalises the law abiding cyclists.... because those who are not law abiding wouldn't wear a tabard or would have a fake registration etc. while those law abiding cyclists would wear them because they had to.

Same goes for speeding.  The only way that it would be possible for cyclists to be brought within the rules regarding speed limits would be to mandate that all cyclists MUST have a speedometer fitted to their bike.  Now admittedly many cyclists have their GPS devices etc, but a lot of family cyclists etc. wont.  Then you come to the subject of enforcement..... if the police cannot stop 85% of motorists speeding in 20mph zones do they really have the resources to stop cyclists?