More helmet debate - but this time sensible!
Discussion
Hi
I know we've all been here before a thousand times but I think this is an very well thought out piece especially the discussion of risk and cost to society and the relativity of that risk/cost compared to hefferlumps/smokers/drinkers etc.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/20...
However, I do still choose to wear a helmet....most of the time...
I know we've all been here before a thousand times but I think this is an very well thought out piece especially the discussion of risk and cost to society and the relativity of that risk/cost compared to hefferlumps/smokers/drinkers etc.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/20...
However, I do still choose to wear a helmet....most of the time...
From the the article..
"No one denies cycle helmets can protect cyclists from skull and brain injuries in some accidents. Instead, the debate focuses on how effective helmets are. Some researchers suggest that helmets reduce the risks of head and brain injury by as much as 63-88%. Others are less optimistic, claiming that the real figures are closer to 58-60%."
I'll take my chance with a helmet.
"No one denies cycle helmets can protect cyclists from skull and brain injuries in some accidents. Instead, the debate focuses on how effective helmets are. Some researchers suggest that helmets reduce the risks of head and brain injury by as much as 63-88%. Others are less optimistic, claiming that the real figures are closer to 58-60%."
I'll take my chance with a helmet.
Reading it, I kept on thinking when is it going to mention the the net health costs with between making helmet wearing mandatory and the decrease in people cycling....and it didn't. So IMHO, I don't think it's well thought out, or brings anything new to the table.
I read many of the comments, and they are all full of the usual debates when such articles are published. I'm sure we'll see them here too.
I read many of the comments, and they are all full of the usual debates when such articles are published. I'm sure we'll see them here too.
'The ethical problems associated with legislation prohibiting adults from cycling without helmets are relatively obvious. First, John Stuart Mill's "Harm Principle" suggests that we should not interfere with competent adults who wish take risks with their own health. Second, even if we do not always agree with the letter of Mill's "law" we still have sound liberal reasons to avoid paternalism unless the risks we wish to prohibit are significant and unless there is a highly effective way of reducing them with little infringement of liberty.
Of course, some will argue that cycle helmet legislation conforms to these latter requirements. However, it is not clear that helmets provide sufficient protection to warrant the claim that they are highly effective and, as a keen cyclist, I would argue that the right to cycle bare-headed is by no means trivial.'
I've not heard Mill brought into the debate about helmets before so think that is something new....
But I think a good comparison is with compulsory wearing of seatbelts. The infringement of liberty of wearing a seatbelt is, I would argue, negligible, but the safety impact has been great - I don't know the figures though. Apply the same criteria to compulsory helmets and its probably balanced differently - lower impact on overall safety, higher impact on liberty. Then throw in the effect on cycling participation (I doubt compulsory seatbelt wearing reduced the amount of divers and driving done!) and, to me, you've got a sound, thought through argument against compulsory helmet wearing, rather than a knee jerk response.
Of course, some will argue that cycle helmet legislation conforms to these latter requirements. However, it is not clear that helmets provide sufficient protection to warrant the claim that they are highly effective and, as a keen cyclist, I would argue that the right to cycle bare-headed is by no means trivial.'
I've not heard Mill brought into the debate about helmets before so think that is something new....
But I think a good comparison is with compulsory wearing of seatbelts. The infringement of liberty of wearing a seatbelt is, I would argue, negligible, but the safety impact has been great - I don't know the figures though. Apply the same criteria to compulsory helmets and its probably balanced differently - lower impact on overall safety, higher impact on liberty. Then throw in the effect on cycling participation (I doubt compulsory seatbelt wearing reduced the amount of divers and driving done!) and, to me, you've got a sound, thought through argument against compulsory helmet wearing, rather than a knee jerk response.
Its all down to personal choice I guess. When I was in my teens and MTB'ing a lot I had an off into a tree and cracked my helmet in two. Would have been my skull if I wasn't wearing one. Had a bit of a headache but no lasting damage. None that is obvious anyway 
Since then have always worn one even if popping round the shops on the Redways.
All arguments aside I cannot understand why people don't wear them. They cost approx £45, weigh almost nothing, once they are on you barely register them being there. Yes you look a tool wearing one but other than pro cyclists who doesn't look a bit special riding a bike anyway! If it only gives me a 5% better chance of survival that's worth it to me.
But like I say, personal choice. I don't want legislation interfering in cycling anymore than is totally necessary. I would rather see new legislation to improve the cyclability (word?) of most roads and to improve driver awareness. Also stiffer penalties for tossers who intentionally try and run you off the road because they think you should be on the path. Yes the knob in gold Astra I am talking to you!
Since then have always worn one even if popping round the shops on the Redways.
All arguments aside I cannot understand why people don't wear them. They cost approx £45, weigh almost nothing, once they are on you barely register them being there. Yes you look a tool wearing one but other than pro cyclists who doesn't look a bit special riding a bike anyway! If it only gives me a 5% better chance of survival that's worth it to me.
But like I say, personal choice. I don't want legislation interfering in cycling anymore than is totally necessary. I would rather see new legislation to improve the cyclability (word?) of most roads and to improve driver awareness. Also stiffer penalties for tossers who intentionally try and run you off the road because they think you should be on the path. Yes the knob in gold Astra I am talking to you!
I don't think they should be compulsory as I believe it would reduce bike usage and I'm sure the police have better things to enforce, however I always wear a helmet. I think things will change with time - as said, I always wear a helmet and my children always wear a helmet, eventually we will have generations of children who've worn helmets from the first time they ride a bike and it will feel odd not to be wearing one. I certainly feel strange if I'm on the bike and not wearing a helmet, similar to being in a car and not wearing a seatbelt - it just doesn't feel right.
Skiing is a good example of where attitudes have changed - 5 years ago none of us were wearing helmets, on this years trip 90% of us were wearing helmets and in general on the slopes those wearing helmets significantly outnumbered those that were not. 10 years ago helmets were virtually non existent. I think the same thing will happend with bicycle helmets as the current generation of children start riding as adults and see helmets as the norm. There'll always be people who don't wear helmets, but that's their personal choice, but better that they're actually doing exercise than sitting in a car eating donuts whilst they drive the 500 metres to their local Tesco Express.
Skiing is a good example of where attitudes have changed - 5 years ago none of us were wearing helmets, on this years trip 90% of us were wearing helmets and in general on the slopes those wearing helmets significantly outnumbered those that were not. 10 years ago helmets were virtually non existent. I think the same thing will happend with bicycle helmets as the current generation of children start riding as adults and see helmets as the norm. There'll always be people who don't wear helmets, but that's their personal choice, but better that they're actually doing exercise than sitting in a car eating donuts whilst they drive the 500 metres to their local Tesco Express.
Dan Friel said:
From the the article..
"No one denies cycle helmets can protect cyclists from skull and brain injuries in some accidents. Instead, the debate focuses on how effective helmets are. Some researchers suggest that helmets reduce the risks of head and brain injury by as much as 63-88%. Others are less optimistic, claiming that the real figures are closer to 58-60%."
I'll take my chance with a helmet.
This was the first thing I latched onto, if it was 20% I'd still wear one. There has never been one bit of credible evidence to suggest that wearing one somehow increases your chance of injury. "No one denies cycle helmets can protect cyclists from skull and brain injuries in some accidents. Instead, the debate focuses on how effective helmets are. Some researchers suggest that helmets reduce the risks of head and brain injury by as much as 63-88%. Others are less optimistic, claiming that the real figures are closer to 58-60%."
I'll take my chance with a helmet.
My Wife has nursed a few guys who've had really nasty bike accidents when she worked on a brain injury ward and judging by what I've heard I wouldn't fancy having a 'big one' without one, I also know from very painful first hand experience if you turn up to A&E all smashed up in the back of an ambulance after a cycle crash the first question your asked is "were you wearing a helmet" and you'll get asked it by every Doctor that comes to see you.
1. Of course anyone asked "in the event of a big crash would you want your helmet on or not?" is going to say yes.
2. Cycle helmets ae designed for low speed head/ground impacts. They will not save you in a car bike collision, unless your head subsequently hits the floor as you fall at much lower speeds (still a good reason to wear one)
3. rather than passing more laws, why not look at the actual causes of the 112 deaths in the last 12 months. Is it a lack of helmets ? No it is mostly crush and high speed factors...
4. Is the emotional investment in compulsion/enforcement really worth it, the trend line is for increasing use, how often do you see kids out with no helmet ?
5. Increasing participation plays a factor in the numbers
Don't get me wrong, I wear a helmet every day if I cycle on the commute. But I won't always wear one if nipping down the shops/pub.
I don't wear a helmet. Never have.
I understand the benefits of wearing one and understand it could potentially save my life, but at the same time, it could also do nothing and I would die anyway. A bit of plastic on my head is hardly going to stop a car crushing me to death at 70mph.
I know I should wear one but I don't and I doubt I ever will. Making it compulsory will change nothing. How would it be enforced? Bikes and riders are not registered in any way, you do not need a licence to ride on the road etc. Without any proper system in place to register cyclists on a national database, I can't see any way it could be made compulsory.
I understand the benefits of wearing one and understand it could potentially save my life, but at the same time, it could also do nothing and I would die anyway. A bit of plastic on my head is hardly going to stop a car crushing me to death at 70mph.
I know I should wear one but I don't and I doubt I ever will. Making it compulsory will change nothing. How would it be enforced? Bikes and riders are not registered in any way, you do not need a licence to ride on the road etc. Without any proper system in place to register cyclists on a national database, I can't see any way it could be made compulsory.
I didn't wear a helmet, didn't like the feel or the look and TBH I thought if I was knocked over by a big metal box then I'd have plenty of other injuries to worry about.
That was until I ws knocked off by a big metal box, thankfully my arse took the majority of the impact and apart from a very large comedy bump on the top of my head I was fine but do you know what, every single person I spoke to about the accident the first thing they asked was 'were you wearing a helmet?', I was always honest in saying that I hadn't and you could see the look on their face when I said it, even if they didn't comment directly.
For that reason alone it's worth it.
I know wear a rather snazzy Kask Mojito and get to ride out my Team Sky fantasies..
That was until I ws knocked off by a big metal box, thankfully my arse took the majority of the impact and apart from a very large comedy bump on the top of my head I was fine but do you know what, every single person I spoke to about the accident the first thing they asked was 'were you wearing a helmet?', I was always honest in saying that I hadn't and you could see the look on their face when I said it, even if they didn't comment directly.
For that reason alone it's worth it.
I know wear a rather snazzy Kask Mojito and get to ride out my Team Sky fantasies..
If the efficacy of the helmet is still in question, all they need to do is make compulsory for all helmets to perform to a minimum standard, just like all motorbike helmets have to do.
Does my cycle helmet protect my head like my motorbike helmet, no chance. However I've had a few offs in my time, cracked a cycle helmet in half, which to be fair, would have been my skull.
Does my cycle helmet protect my head like my motorbike helmet, no chance. However I've had a few offs in my time, cracked a cycle helmet in half, which to be fair, would have been my skull.
944fan said:
I had an off into a tree and cracked my helmet in two. Would have been my skull if I wasn't wearing one.
Might have been your skull, you can't possibly say with absolute certainty and this is where this kind of assumption muddies the waters of the debate, imho.I've been cycling on and off for over 40 years and have fallen off many times over that period. I have only once hit my head on anything with any force. I was wearing a helmet on that occasion and was thankful that I was (I was in the middle of rural Turkey with minimal back up) I often ride without a helmet even now.
I am strongly against compulsion in this and other scenarios (I am an active member of the Motorcycle Action Group, for instance - while I always wear a helmet while motorcycling it's more about complying with the law than safety on many occasions.) After all, I could kill myself tripping over the kerb while walking if I hit my head on the floor, couldn't I? ETA (*as I see the article touches on, now I've actually read it!)
Edited by Pothole on Wednesday 10th July 11:29
Birdthom said:
Pothole said:
Might have been your skull, you can't possibly say with absolute certainty and this is where this kind of assumption muddies the waters of the debate, imho.
I think he is in quite a good position to judge that, to be fair. This isn't a second form science test.Birdthom said:
Pothole said:
Might have been your skull, you can't possibly say with absolute certainty and this is where this kind of assumption muddies the waters of the debate, imho.
I think he is in quite a good position to judge that, to be fair. This isn't a second form science test.To be honest I imagine a law having any significant impact in the UK - reducing casualty rates or miles cycled. My best guess is:
- Those who already cycle with a helmet will be unaffected;
- Those who don't will mostly be unaware of the initial change, and since there are no police around to enforce it, they will be unaffected;
- The tiny minority who cycle without a helmet and are caught, will mainly be pissed off that they are now breaking the law despite nobody ever asking them. They might respond by buying one though.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff