E Scooters soon to be allowed on UK roads?
Discussion
eldar said:
Evanivitch said:
They should be enforced on the parent. My personal view, it's neglect not to ensure your child has a helmet available, and ideally worn, if they're using a bicycle, scooter etc
The counter argument is that having to wear a helmet dissuades people from cycling and has a negative overall effect. No idea if that has any real data to support it.My view is the same as yours.
Lord Marylebone said:
The ‘grandfather rights’ thing is neither here nor there. The law could be changed tomorrow if the government decided to.
You can’t legislate for absolutely every eventuality or injury, and there often has to be a balance between practicality, convenience, and safety.
Look at countries that enforced helmet wearing such as Australia. It’s been 20 years and it’s still a massively hated law that actually reduced the numbers of people cycling.
Australian cyclists reduced by around 25-30% after the law was introduced.
In Denmark the numbers of cyclists, especially children, reduced by 30% after their helmet law was introduced.
The university of Bath produced a study that showed car drivers passed much closer to cyclists who wore helmets, and yet gave much more room, and were more careful, around cyclists who didn’t wear a helmet.
Helmets have been described by cycling safety groups and people like Chris Boardman as ‘not even in the top 10 of things that could make cycling safer’.
If we are trying to get as many people as possible out of cars and busses, and onto bicycles and scooters, then I would suggest that forcing people to wear helmets would be very much a backwards step.
Clearly it isn’t a massive issue anyway, otherwise the law would have been changed decades ago, along with seatbelts and other legislation.
Ref p4 para 10:You can’t legislate for absolutely every eventuality or injury, and there often has to be a balance between practicality, convenience, and safety.
Look at countries that enforced helmet wearing such as Australia. It’s been 20 years and it’s still a massively hated law that actually reduced the numbers of people cycling.
Australian cyclists reduced by around 25-30% after the law was introduced.
In Denmark the numbers of cyclists, especially children, reduced by 30% after their helmet law was introduced.
The university of Bath produced a study that showed car drivers passed much closer to cyclists who wore helmets, and yet gave much more room, and were more careful, around cyclists who didn’t wear a helmet.
Helmets have been described by cycling safety groups and people like Chris Boardman as ‘not even in the top 10 of things that could make cycling safer’.
If we are trying to get as many people as possible out of cars and busses, and onto bicycles and scooters, then I would suggest that forcing people to wear helmets would be very much a backwards step.
Clearly it isn’t a massive issue anyway, otherwise the law would have been changed decades ago, along with seatbelts and other legislation.
https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-service...
"The study concluded that cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85% and of brain injury by 88%.
Only 88% reduction. Hardly worth the effort
Evanivitch said:
Adults can make decisions for themselves and choose whether to buy and wear a helmet or not. A child doesn't have that ability. Basically, I'd consider it the same as seatbelt laws.
A child's safety is the highest priority. But we still need to find ways of satisfying Vision Zero. If that means mandatory helmets for all cyclists, so be it.
bigothunter said:
Evanivitch said:
Adults can make decisions for themselves and choose whether to buy and wear a helmet or not. A child doesn't have that ability. Basically, I'd consider it the same as seatbelt laws.
A child's safety is the highest priority. But we still need to find ways of satisfying Vision Zero. If that means mandatory helmets for all cyclists, so be it.bigothunter said:
Ref p4 para 10:
https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-service...
"The study concluded that cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85% and of brain injury by 88%.
Only 88% reduction. Hardly worth the effort
Yes, but how many head injuries occur per year from cycling? And how many people would stop cycling as a result of helmet laws, resulting in other illness from lack of exercise. You may laugh about the 'lack of exercise' comment, but it is a genuine concern when weighing up the introduction of helmet laws.https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-service...
"The study concluded that cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85% and of brain injury by 88%.
Only 88% reduction. Hardly worth the effort
It's all a balancing act. Slapping helmets on everyone is not as clear cut as you think.
Even RoSPA, who's slogan may as well be "Wrap everyone in cotton wool", don't campaign or ask for a mandatory helmet law.
RoSPA are very clear about that. They just 'strongly recommend' that a helmet is worn, and they go on to say "cycle helmets do not prevent crashes from happening. It is therefore vital that through infrastructure improvements, supported by education and training that we reduce the primary risk factors"
They don't place mandatory cycle helmets amongst their top priorities for reducing risk to cyclists.
Keep shouting for everyone to be wrapped in cotton wool if you want, and for 'dangerous' e-scooters to never be legalised, but it is a position I cannot support as I just don't see the need for it.
I think we have the balance correct with cycling and helmets, and my gut feeling is that helmets shouldn't be made mandatory for scooters either.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 13th August 14:05
Evanivitch said:
I think by mandating it on children then you effectively normalise the behaviour within a few generations. Without actually needing to impede on the rights of adults to make decisions for themselves.
Mandatory wearing of helmets for those born after a suitable cut-off date? 
bigothunter said:
Evanivitch said:
I think by mandating it on children then you effectively normalise the behaviour within a few generations. Without actually needing to impede on the rights of adults to make decisions for themselves.
Mandatory wearing of helmets for those born after a suitable cut-off date? Lord Marylebone said:
Keep shouting for everyone to be wrapped in cotton wool if you want, and for 'dangerous' e-scooters to never be legalised, but it is a position I cannot support as I just don't see the need for it.
You haven't read my Risk Averse v Risk Aware post above, have you? 
Evanivitch said:
Lord Marylebone said:
They don't place cycle helmets in their top categories for reducing risk to cyclists..
Because wearing a helmet isn't a risk to anyone. It's mitigation device, not a hazard cause.I have altered the wording of my post to help you understand it, as I can see you are struggling.
Lord Marylebone said:
bigothunter said:
Ref p4 para 10:
https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-service...
"The study concluded that cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85% and of brain injury by 88%.
Only 88% reduction. Hardly worth the effort
Yes, but how many head injuries occur per year from cycling? And how many people would stop cycling as a result of helmet laws, resulting in other illness from lack of exercise. You may laugh about the 'lack of exercise' comment, but it is a genuine concern when weighing up the introduction of helmet laws.https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-service...
"The study concluded that cycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85% and of brain injury by 88%.
Only 88% reduction. Hardly worth the effort
It's all a balancing act. Slapping helmets on everyone is not as clear cut as you think.
Even RoSPA, who's slogan may as well be "Wrap everyone in cotton wool", don't campaign or ask for a mandatory helmet law.
RoSPA are very clear about that. They just 'strongly recommend' that a helmet is worn, and they go on to say "cycle helmets do not prevent crashes from happening. It is therefore vital that through infrastructure improvements, supported by education and training that we reduce the primary risk factors"
They don't place cycle helmets in their top categories for reducing risk to cyclists.
Keep shouting for everyone to be wrapped in cotton wool if you want, and for 'dangerous' e-scooters to never be legalised, but it is a position I cannot support as I just don't see the need for it.
I think we have the balance correct with cycling and helmets, and my gut feeling is that helmets shouldn't be made mandatory for scooters either.
And the biggest cause full stop is falls in the home, so let's not forget the walking helmets...
Helmets are an inconvenience. E.g if I decide to go for a trip to the shop, and my helmet is in my room, I often don't bother. It's a short ride on a very low traffic residential road... not worth trudging up and down the stairs for.
If I'm doing a sports ride where I might e.g. be doing 50 mph down a hill? Well, maybe risk compensation is actually a thing
Edited by Solocle on Friday 13th August 14:12
Solocle said:
Let's not forget that the biggest single cause of head injuries on the roads is car crashes, so obviously everyone should drive around wearing a motorsport helmet
And the biggest cause full stop is falls in the home, so let's not forget the walking helmets...
What an odd line of argument And the biggest cause full stop is falls in the home, so let's not forget the walking helmets...
Lord Marylebone said:
Evanivitch said:
Lord Marylebone said:
They don't place cycle helmets in their top categories for reducing risk to cyclists..
Because wearing a helmet isn't a risk to anyone. It's mitigation device, not a hazard cause.I have altered the wording of my post to help you understand it, as I can see you are struggling.
- Some evidence that additional safety features increase risk taking by users and those around them.
bigothunter said:
Rudeness is an indication of losing the argument
We are having a discussion. No one is winning or losing any arguments, and as I said, it doesn't matter to me as I'm not a cyclist, nor do I own a scooter at present.It doesn't matter what we think, all that matters is what the government decide to do, and that is generally out of our control.
I don't think that it is worth making helmets a legal requirement, and neither do most cycling lobby groups.
You clearly feel that all cyclists and scooter riders should be forced by law, to wear helmets. I can't see it happening, but you are perfectly entitled to desire that change in the law.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff