Debate over compulsory cycle helmets
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
Could somebody please explain to me, why in the UK, which has the safest roads in the world just about, it seems necessary for cyclists to dress up like complete idiots what with helmets and body armour and hi-viz and the like, whereas in the Low Countries and elsewhere you can see millions and millions and *millions* (it seems, sometimes 
) of cyclists, *none* of whom are dressed like a complete tit.
You answered your own question.) of cyclists, *none* of whom are dressed like a complete tit.Since there are so many of them, drivers are plenty used to driving appropriately around them.
In the UK the numbers are far lower and drivers aren't as used to dealing with them.
So we dress like tits so that you have less of an excuse to run us over.
It is really a safety in numbers thing.
Also, you will probably find that if a greater proportion of the country is on a bike, there are fewer cars on the road, so less need to stand out.
Feel free to pop over to http://www.stop-smidsy.org.uk/
I am sorry that our need to stand out owing to driving incompetence has somehow offended you.
I can assure you that no matter what you wear up on your high horse I won't give a toss.
FWDRacer said:
Mine is in two pieces after potentially saving my life on Friday. Make your own choice as an adult - won't let my nipper cycle without her's on...
Totally agree. Unfortunately most think it will never happen to them because of course they are the best judge of everything, when clearly they aren't. The same in ski resorts.heebeegeetee said:
Could somebody please explain to me, why in the UK, which has the safest roads in the world just about, it seems necessary for cyclists to dress up like complete idiots what with helmets and body armour and hi-viz and the like, whereas in the Low Countries and elsewhere you can see millions and millions and *millions* (it seems, sometimes ) of cyclists, *none* of whom are dressed like a complete tit.
In a similar vein, how come in Belgium and Holland where there are no mountains nobody rides a mountain bike, but in England where there are also virtually no mountains almost everyone who rides rides a mountain bike of one sort or another (whilst often dressing like a tit).
The reason is that in the UK many want the latest and greatest gadget, all the accessories, by all the associated magazines etc. In countries such as Holland, Belgium, Germany etc people buy a bike to go from A to B and some pleasuer at the weekends. They won't waste their money on useless accessories such as bike computers, expensive cycling shoes, expensive 'bike' clothing etc. As long as the bikes pedals and the brakes work, that's perfectly adequate and they just get on with it.) of cyclists, *none* of whom are dressed like a complete tit.In a similar vein, how come in Belgium and Holland where there are no mountains nobody rides a mountain bike, but in England where there are also virtually no mountains almost everyone who rides rides a mountain bike of one sort or another (whilst often dressing like a tit).
chrisispringles said:
I understand that perspective, but it could be argued that in the end it is the taxpayer who is ultimatly responsible for the rider's injuries as they are going to have to be collected, treated and possibly cared for by the NHS, which is paid out of the taxpayers money. I can't see the NHS deciding to charge people for treatment if they were riding a bike without a helmet, imagine the precedent it would set for them to limit what they could cover.
well as a tax payer it means i have stumped up for my treatment already, so i will chose to carry on riding without a helmet and won't even if it becomes law, it should be my choice.also is this not just for northern ireland?
I do agree that it *shouldn't* be compulsory... people should be able to make their own decisions on these things. But I still don't understand the thought process that makes you decide against wearing one.
I'm not saying we should go out in BODY armour every time we go out on a bike - I mean where do you draw the line? But.. it just gives you that extra bit of a sporting chance in the event you end up interfacing with the tarmac. I'd never go out on my bike without one!
I'm not saying we should go out in BODY armour every time we go out on a bike - I mean where do you draw the line? But.. it just gives you that extra bit of a sporting chance in the event you end up interfacing with the tarmac. I'd never go out on my bike without one!
walm said:
You answered your own question.
Since there are so many of them, drivers are plenty used to driving appropriately around them.
In the UK the numbers are far lower and drivers aren't as used to dealing with them.
So we dress like tits so that you have less of an excuse to run us over.
It is really a safety in numbers thing.
Also, you will probably find that if a greater proportion of the country is on a bike, there are fewer cars on the road, so less need to stand out.
Feel free to pop over to http://www.stop-smidsy.org.uk/
I am sorry that our need to stand out owing to driving incompetence has somehow offended you.
I can assure you that no matter what you wear up on your high horse I won't give a toss.
Don't forget that the more people who cycle the larger the group that cycle and drive becomes, if 70% of the adult population drive and 70% drive then potentially all use both but at a minimum 40% use both.Since there are so many of them, drivers are plenty used to driving appropriately around them.
In the UK the numbers are far lower and drivers aren't as used to dealing with them.
So we dress like tits so that you have less of an excuse to run us over.
It is really a safety in numbers thing.
Also, you will probably find that if a greater proportion of the country is on a bike, there are fewer cars on the road, so less need to stand out.
Feel free to pop over to http://www.stop-smidsy.org.uk/
I am sorry that our need to stand out owing to driving incompetence has somehow offended you.
I can assure you that no matter what you wear up on your high horse I won't give a toss.
On the bike and gear front, cycling seems to be increasing in popularity, and is a hobby, so I may buy an expensive bike then use it for multiple purposes, we don't seem to have cheap basic "pub bikes" over here. The other thing to consider is that with petrol prices as high as they are some people have probably dragged their bike out of the shed to use as transport not just for leisure.
walm said:
heebeegeetee said:
Could somebody please explain to me, why in the UK, which has the safest roads in the world just about, it seems necessary for cyclists to dress up like complete idiots what with helmets and body armour and hi-viz and the like, whereas in the Low Countries and elsewhere you can see millions and millions and *millions* (it seems, sometimes ) of cyclists, *none* of whom are dressed like a complete tit.
You answered your own question.) of cyclists, *none* of whom are dressed like a complete tit.Since there are so many of them, drivers are plenty used to driving appropriately around them.
In the UK the numbers are far lower and drivers aren't as used to dealing with them.
So we dress like tits so that you have less of an excuse to run us over.
It is really a safety in numbers thing.
Also, you will probably find that if a greater proportion of the country is on a bike, there are fewer cars on the road, so less need to stand out.
Feel free to pop over to http://www.stop-smidsy.org.uk/
I am sorry that our need to stand out owing to driving incompetence has somehow offended you.
I can assure you that no matter what you wear up on your high horse I won't give a toss.
I don't want cyclists to have look like idiots. I think it's absolutely fantastic that in other countries (not very far from here and enjoying much the same weather) people have the freedom to just jump on a bike, indeed kids have the freedom to jump on a moped or scooter without the need to armour plate themselves. It's brilliant, and it's right, and it's what we should be trying to achieve, but it will never happen because it seems to be only mad people want to go into the field of governance in the UK.
I realise the OP referred to Northern Ireland, but there are people here too who would remove more and more of our freedoms too, and for some reason in the UK politicians make every law or regulation possible that pushes people into cars - and then blames us for creating pollution etc.
Yes, I *know* that if you drop two people on their heads from 6 foot high the one wearing a helmet will fare better, but i've also little doubt that if we had a blanket speed limit of 20mph for everybody casualties would also reduce. I dare say that if we were all banned from everything it would mean people live longer, but who wants to live like that?
I *hate* this type of legislation and it is utterly counter-productive, imo.
I mean, who the f
k wants to look like this?
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://i.dai...
In Holland they'd be wearing their suits and would have their brief cases in carriers by their back wheels.
k wants to look like this?http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://i.dai...
In Holland they'd be wearing their suits and would have their brief cases in carriers by their back wheels.
heebeegeetee said:
Er, I'm afraid it's you that has gotten on completely the wrong horse.
I don't want cyclists to have look like idiots. I think it's absolutely fantastic that in other countries (not very far from here and enjoying much the same weather) people have the freedom to just jump on a bike, indeed kids have the freedom to jump on a moped or scooter without the need to armour plate themselves. It's brilliant, and it's right, and it's what we should be trying to achieve, but it will never happen because it seems to be only mad people want to go into the field of governance in the UK.
Ooops sorry. I don't want cyclists to have look like idiots. I think it's absolutely fantastic that in other countries (not very far from here and enjoying much the same weather) people have the freedom to just jump on a bike, indeed kids have the freedom to jump on a moped or scooter without the need to armour plate themselves. It's brilliant, and it's right, and it's what we should be trying to achieve, but it will never happen because it seems to be only mad people want to go into the field of governance in the UK.
I agree.
It seems fairly clear that we should do everything in our power to encourage people to cycle.
- It's healthy.
- Less traffic.
- Less pollution.
- Safety in numbers.
- Cheaper for everyone.
The stats are pretty clear that as soon as you apply a helmet law, the numbers of cyclists drop.
Of course every cyclist should wear a helmet. But they shouldn't be forced to.
It is very different from a seat-belt law. No one refused to drive because of the seat-belt law.
The skiing analogy is a good one.
Of course we should all wear a helmet while skiing but you aren't going to see many ski resorts enforce compulsory helmets - why? Because lots of people would choose not to go there...
I wear a helmet when mtbing, competitive events/sportives, on track, commuting/heavy traffic & when road riding in the Alps or anywhere with high speed descents.
I don't wear a helmet when leisure riding on bridleways/forest tracks or road riding around country lanes. I find I am able to hear cars coming up behind me sooner and assess their road position more accurately without the insulating cocoon of a polystyrene helmet on quieter more open roads so prefer the trade off of sharpened senses. Perhaps a heightened feeling of my own vulnerability makes me ride with greater circumspection too.
I do try to avoid commuting by bike in rush hour traffic and riding in low light or times when the sun is low.
Two guys I used to compete against were killed (both hit head on by cars overtaking on blind corners) when wearing helmets in separate incidents. Obviously helmets have saved many a life but I think better training for cyclists and drivers would save more.
Beneficial as they are I would not wish them to be made mandatory. What next - compulsory roll cages & airbags retro fitted to all classic/sports cars? Maximum power limits & speed restrictors for cars & bikes? Banning all potentially dangerous sport or activities?
I don't wear a helmet when leisure riding on bridleways/forest tracks or road riding around country lanes. I find I am able to hear cars coming up behind me sooner and assess their road position more accurately without the insulating cocoon of a polystyrene helmet on quieter more open roads so prefer the trade off of sharpened senses. Perhaps a heightened feeling of my own vulnerability makes me ride with greater circumspection too.
I do try to avoid commuting by bike in rush hour traffic and riding in low light or times when the sun is low.
Two guys I used to compete against were killed (both hit head on by cars overtaking on blind corners) when wearing helmets in separate incidents. Obviously helmets have saved many a life but I think better training for cyclists and drivers would save more.
Beneficial as they are I would not wish them to be made mandatory. What next - compulsory roll cages & airbags retro fitted to all classic/sports cars? Maximum power limits & speed restrictors for cars & bikes? Banning all potentially dangerous sport or activities?
Silver993tt said:
The reason is that in the UK many want the latest and greatest gadget, all the accessories, by all the associated magazines etc. In countries such as Holland, Belgium, Germany etc people buy a bike to go from A to B and some pleasuer at the weekends. They won't waste their money on useless accessories such as bike computers, expensive cycling shoes, expensive 'bike' clothing etc. As long as the bikes pedals and the brakes work, that's perfectly adequate and they just get on with it.
Actually you have it the wrong way round mate. The average spend in Europe is £400-£500 per bike. In the UK it's around £350 per bike, the majority of people buy the cheapest one they can from Halfordshttp://www.cyclingactive.com/news/britain%E2%80%99...
itsnotarace said:
Silver993tt said:
The reason is that in the UK many want the latest and greatest gadget, all the accessories, by all the associated magazines etc. In countries such as Holland, Belgium, Germany etc people buy a bike to go from A to B and some pleasuer at the weekends. They won't waste their money on useless accessories such as bike computers, expensive cycling shoes, expensive 'bike' clothing etc. As long as the bikes pedals and the brakes work, that's perfectly adequate and they just get on with it.
Actually you have it the wrong way round mate. The average spend in Europe is £400-£500 per bike. In the UK it's around £350 per bike, the majority of people buy the cheapest one they can from Halfordshttp://www.cyclingactive.com/news/britain%E2%80%99...
Look at the average cost of the bikes actually being used regularly and I think we'd be much closer to the continental average.
Chicane-UK said:
I do agree that it *shouldn't* be compulsory... people should be able to make their own decisions on these things. But I still don't understand the thought process that makes you decide against wearing one.
I'm not saying we should go out in BODY armour every time we go out on a bike - I mean where do you draw the line? But.. it just gives you that extra bit of a sporting chance in the event you end up interfacing with the tarmac. I'd never go out on my bike without one!
Well, I posted a link on the previous page which outlines various reasons why bike helmets may not be as useful as intended, and may actually make things worse. I'm not saying we should go out in BODY armour every time we go out on a bike - I mean where do you draw the line? But.. it just gives you that extra bit of a sporting chance in the event you end up interfacing with the tarmac. I'd never go out on my bike without one!
In summary, its everything from the psychological aspects affecting the rider and motorist meaning that cyclists wearing helmets are actually more likely to be involved in an accident, to the actual design of the things, including their ability to absorb and spread forces (which may not be as great as required), and their propensity to turn minor rotational and some linear impacts into far worse injuries.
I choose to wear one anyway, but I'd rather not have the decision made for me.
Silver993tt said:
The reason is that in the UK many want the latest and greatest gadget, all the accessories, by all the associated magazines etc. In countries such as Holland, Belgium, Germany etc people buy a bike to go from A to B and some pleasuer at the weekends. They won't waste their money on useless accessories such as bike computers, expensive cycling shoes, expensive 'bike' clothing etc. As long as the bikes pedals and the brakes work, that's perfectly adequate and they just get on with it.
Or in my case, you start off with the bike you've had for 20 years, use it to cycle to work in a normal coat and clothing, nearly get knocked off 101 times in the first week of cycle commuting by the complete s we share the roads with and decide that you really do need some hi vis clothing to help these tts in cars spot a cyclist.I'd wear a lid if I had £50 to shell out for a half decent one. I haven't, ergo I don't.
heebeegeetee said:
I mean, who the fk wants to look like this?
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://i.dai...
In Holland they'd be wearing their suits and would have their brief cases in carriers by their back wheels.
Totally agree. I'd hate to look like a Tory toff.k wants to look like this?http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://i.dai...
In Holland they'd be wearing their suits and would have their brief cases in carriers by their back wheels.
Personally, as far as cycling atire goes, I don't give two s
ts what I look like. To the casual observer I probably look like a luminous tramp on a bike dragged out of a canal. In a perverse way, I rather like the way cycling and fashion have no business together. Whatever works; whatever's easiest; whatever's cheap.It's probably a bad sign that I read that post and saw the £140 figure and was nodding, thinking "that's a bit higher than I would have thought, but yeah..." and it was only when I got to the £500 part that I had to go back and re-read the post and realised that you were talking about bikes, not helmets!
Funkateer said:
Needs to be considered against the additional health benefits from cycling. I cycled thousands of miles as a kid without a helmet, and without landing on my head (though managed to slip off the pedals on to the crossbar once! Ouch!)
Having said that I would have had a fair few clouts on the head from branches in recent years had I not been wearing a helmet, plus the peak on the front helped prevent my face from meeting the ground head-on when I took a bad tumble a couple of weeks back. Mountain biking for you!
Leave it up to the individual, perhaps with the disclaimer that the rider is responsible for any injury sustained through not wearing a helmet.
I'm not decided on this issue, but your argument seems like an odd one to me. What you say above about ofsetting against health benefits etc only applies if wearing a helmet somehow put the rider at a disadvantage. As far as I'm aware, they just get a bit hot in summer and can be a bit uncomfortable - so there's nothing to offset against?!?Having said that I would have had a fair few clouts on the head from branches in recent years had I not been wearing a helmet, plus the peak on the front helped prevent my face from meeting the ground head-on when I took a bad tumble a couple of weeks back. Mountain biking for you!
Leave it up to the individual, perhaps with the disclaimer that the rider is responsible for any injury sustained through not wearing a helmet.
RobM77 said:
Funkateer said:
Needs to be considered against the additional health benefits from cycling. I cycled thousands of miles as a kid without a helmet, and without landing on my head (though managed to slip off the pedals on to the crossbar once! Ouch!)
Having said that I would have had a fair few clouts on the head from branches in recent years had I not been wearing a helmet, plus the peak on the front helped prevent my face from meeting the ground head-on when I took a bad tumble a couple of weeks back. Mountain biking for you!
Leave it up to the individual, perhaps with the disclaimer that the rider is responsible for any injury sustained through not wearing a helmet.
I'm not decided on this issue, but your argument seems like an odd one to me. What you say above about ofsetting against health benefits etc only applies if wearing a helmet somehow put the rider at a disadvantage. As far as I'm aware, they just get a bit hot in summer and can be a bit uncomfortable - so there's nothing to offset against?!?Having said that I would have had a fair few clouts on the head from branches in recent years had I not been wearing a helmet, plus the peak on the front helped prevent my face from meeting the ground head-on when I took a bad tumble a couple of weeks back. Mountain biking for you!
Leave it up to the individual, perhaps with the disclaimer that the rider is responsible for any injury sustained through not wearing a helmet.
So you have to do the math on "cyclists less injured because all wearing helmets" vs. "more fatties because they aren't cycling".
walm said:
RobM77 said:
Funkateer said:
Needs to be considered against the additional health benefits from cycling. I cycled thousands of miles as a kid without a helmet, and without landing on my head (though managed to slip off the pedals on to the crossbar once! Ouch!)
Having said that I would have had a fair few clouts on the head from branches in recent years had I not been wearing a helmet, plus the peak on the front helped prevent my face from meeting the ground head-on when I took a bad tumble a couple of weeks back. Mountain biking for you!
Leave it up to the individual, perhaps with the disclaimer that the rider is responsible for any injury sustained through not wearing a helmet.
I'm not decided on this issue, but your argument seems like an odd one to me. What you say above about ofsetting against health benefits etc only applies if wearing a helmet somehow put the rider at a disadvantage. As far as I'm aware, they just get a bit hot in summer and can be a bit uncomfortable - so there's nothing to offset against?!?Having said that I would have had a fair few clouts on the head from branches in recent years had I not been wearing a helmet, plus the peak on the front helped prevent my face from meeting the ground head-on when I took a bad tumble a couple of weeks back. Mountain biking for you!
Leave it up to the individual, perhaps with the disclaimer that the rider is responsible for any injury sustained through not wearing a helmet.
So you have to do the math on "cyclists less injured because all wearing helmets" vs. "more fatties because they aren't cycling".
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff