Helmets Compulsory for Cyclists?
Discussion
I'm aware of most people's views on cyclists on this forum, but what do you think to the plans afoot to make wearing a helmet compulsory?
Personally I wouldn't ever get on a bike without one.
I had big crash a few years ago, and a helmet definitely prevented serious injury (or worse), however forcing people wear one is symptomatic of the nanny state that the UK seems to be developing into.
>> Edited by option click on Friday 1st July 12:55
Personally I wouldn't ever get on a bike without one.
I had big crash a few years ago, and a helmet definitely prevented serious injury (or worse), however forcing people wear one is symptomatic of the nanny state that the UK seems to be developing into.
>> Edited by option click on Friday 1st July 12:55
srebbe64 said:
My own view is that because many bikes are ridden by kids, that it should be compulsory while on the public highway, but not elsewhere.
What, like the pavement?
Cyclists are impossible to police at the best of times. Making helmets compulsory would be just another pointless law that is impossible to enforce. The bottom line is that if you want to head butt the tarmac without the protection of a helmet then go ahead. Lets face it you'd have to be slightly brain damaged already to venture onto the roads without some form of protective equipment.
MilnerR said:
Cyclists are impossible to police at the best of times.
I sometimes think it would be nice if Cyclists had to have number plates, insurance and licenses. That way next time a cyclist jumps a red light and runs one of my friends over, they can be caught, punished and a claim made for damaged clothes and 3 weeks of pain...
jimothy said:
I sometimes think it would be nice if Cyclists had to have number plates, insurance and licenses. That way next time a cyclist jumps a red light and runs one of my friends over, they can be caught, punished and a claim made for damaged clothes and 3 weeks of pain...
Spot on - go for helmets, lights, insurance, MOT, Road Tax and preferably a law that says if they ride two abreast you can run them over!
[I remember a programme about road rage some years ago which included a couple of tree-hugger types in Lycra, cycling along, two abreast, down a narrow lane recounting how they had been doing the same about a year previously and a motorist had followed them for "some time" and then forced his way past, stopped the car, got out, and beaten the sh*t out of one of them. At the time, I struck me that it would have taken great restraint for me not to do the same - sadly I'm past it now!]
Prof Beard
Prof Beard
option click said:Non-sense really, they have laws here requiring people to wear helmets when cycling and it does bugger all to the cycling death statistics. In fact on a per cyclist basis we have more deaths than countries that don’t have the law requiring you to wear a helmet.
I'm aware of most people's views on cyclists on this forum, but what do you think to the plans afoot to make wearing a helmet compulsory?
Some of us have thick enough skulls to take the blunt force of a high speed impact.
Cycle helmets are pretty innefectual TBH, they only absorb 12MPH of impact. Personally I've never worn one and probably never will. It will also probably cut down on the number of people just hopping on their bikes.
It's just another example of personal choice being eroded IMO. Helmets yes, compulsion NO.
It's just another example of personal choice being eroded IMO. Helmets yes, compulsion NO.
Seems to me that most of the respondents on this thread have a narrow point of reference regarding cyclists. Specifically, suicidal idiots racing through the town. These nutters deserve all they get.
However, I regularly go out cycling with my kids, 90% of which is across fields, through woods, by rivers, etc, etc..
The attitude that my wife and I have got is that they need to where a helmet if they're cycling on the roads, but not if it's the above.
However, I regularly go out cycling with my kids, 90% of which is across fields, through woods, by rivers, etc, etc..
The attitude that my wife and I have got is that they need to where a helmet if they're cycling on the roads, but not if it's the above.
Hmmm I'm not sure. If you ride into a tree you can do yourself a lot of damage. Best wear them all the time. But not law FFS.
Personally I hate wearing one, spoils the whole bike experience for me, but that said wouldn't venture out (ie feel naked) without one, like not putting on the seatbelt.
It's just occured to me that I'm in the wierd position of owning quite an expensive helmet but no bike.
I visit specialist websites you know...
>> Edited by yertis on Friday 1st July 14:07
Personally I hate wearing one, spoils the whole bike experience for me, but that said wouldn't venture out (ie feel naked) without one, like not putting on the seatbelt.
It's just occured to me that I'm in the wierd position of owning quite an expensive helmet but no bike.
I visit specialist websites you know...
>> Edited by yertis on Friday 1st July 14:07
BliarOut said:
Cycle helmets are pretty innefectual TBH, they only absorb 12MPH of impact.
I have come off at significantly more speed than that and clobbered the ground hard wearing a half shell helmet. It smashed into 2 bits saving my life. I walked away without a concussion.
I used to race downhill in a full face MotoCross lid for exactly the same reasons.
Mr E said:
Cycle helmets are pretty innefectual TBH, they only absorb 12MPH of impact.
I have come off at significantly more speed than that and clobbered the ground hard wearing a half shell helmet. It smashed into 2 bits saving my life. I walked away without a concussion.
I used to race downhill in a full face MotoCross lid for exactly the same reasons.
Pah, I've lost count of the number of concussions I've had....... Hang on a minute, maybe you're onto something here
WingChunDave said:
As road users they should pay tax.....
I pay enough tax via the joys of car ownership thanks, or would you like to be taxed for sitting on your backside in front of the TV just to even the score
Non-driving cyclists should be forced into some sort of compulsory test as they clearly have no idea of the "rules of the road".
>> Edited by monkeyhanger on Friday 1st July 14:27
monkeyhanger said:
As road users they should pay tax.....
I pay enough tax via the joys of car ownership thanks, or would you like to be taxed for sitting on your backside in front of the TV just to even the score
Non-driving cyclists should be forced into some sort of compulsory test as they clearly have no idea of the "rules of the road".
Yes. What he said.
Oh and I always wear a helmet, again one too many over the handlebars not to.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff