Anyone Who Watched the Giro Yesterday Still Think Helmets Don't Do Their Job!?!

[Mugshot]

Ok. I agree there. So if people simply seeing other cyclists wearing helmets puts some off, and introducing it as compulsory for those already not put off has no effect, then bringing in a law for compulsory use won't change anything?

The only thing that would change anything would be for people not to be seen wearing a helmet I assume?

I would say that making it compulsary would reinforce that cycling is dangerous, that would discourage some new riders whether they had thought about helmet wearing or not. I believe I'm right in saying that in particular this is relevant to young women who would not wish to take up cycling if it involved wearing a helmet, helmet hair and all that, I'm sure I've read that somewhere, somebody will correct me if not.
You still haven't told me if you think that cycling is dangerous.

 

[bpsmith]

I think we can reasonably imagine people being put off by the nuisance of having to cart a helmet round once you've arrived at your destination - and thus the biggest disincentive for casual cycling or cycling-as-transport, more than for leisure cycling. It must be said that Australia is a hot country and having to wear a helmet would make cycling pretty unbearable I'd have thought, so would be more affected than here perhaps

Most helmets allegedly create more airflow around the head than not wearing one at all. Who know how true this is mind. lol.

 

[Profpointy]

Most helmets allegedly create more airflow around the head than not wearing one at all. Who know how true this is mind. lol.

Mmm - I'd need a lot of convincing. At any rate an inch of polystyrene insulation (bar the holes) is likely to keep your head rather.warmer. I used to wear a climbing helmet which is a hard sheĺl with an air gap so don't have direct experience of cycle helmets which always looked too flimsy to me - albeit not as flimsy as the woolly hat I now wear instead (bare headed if hot of course)

 

[bpsmith]

I would say that making it compulsary would reinforce that cycling is dangerous, that would discourage some new riders whether they had thought about helmet wearing or not. I believe I'm right in saying that in particular this is relevant to young women who would not wish to take up cycling if it involved wearing a helmet, helmet hair and all that, I'm sure I've read that somewhere, somebody will correct me if not.
You still haven't told me if you think that cycling is dangerous.

Is that why ladies don't ride motorcycles then?

That's a tough question and depends on how you cycle and where and how fast. If pushed, then I would have to say that there clearly is an element of danger associate with cycling on busy roads and/or at speed. I can't say otherwise, when being a helmet advocate, can I?

For the record, I am not trolling and not saying it should be compulsory. I just enjoy a healthy educated discussion and this topic intrigues me. Not trying to prove any points ultimately and open minded to proper replies too.

 

[bpsmith]

Mmm - I'd need a lot of convincing. At any rate an inch of polystyrene insulation (bar the holes) is likely to keep your head rather.warmer. I used to wear a climbing helmet which is a hard sheĺl with an air gap so don't have direct experience of cycle helmets which always looked too flimsy to me - albeit not as flimsy as the woolly hat I now wear instead (bare headed if hot of course)

That vented inch of poly isn't totally enclosing your head and isn't touching all over either.

 

[Mugshot]

Is that why ladies don't ride motorcycles then?

That's a tough question and depends on how you cycle and where and how fast. If pushed, then I would have to say that there clearly is an element of danger associate with cycling on busy roads and/or at speed. I can't say otherwise, when being a helmet advocate, can I?

For the record, I am not trolling and not saying it should be compulsory. I just enjoy a healthy educated discussion and this topic intrigues me. Not trying to prove any points ultimately and open minded to proper replies too.

Cycling is seen as less of a viable means of transport than motorcycling, that may or may not be a whole different thread. Also, you can look kinda cool in a motorcycle helmet, less so in a cycle helmet.
Agreed, sad as it may be it's a topic I find interesting, or more correctly I find others point of view on it interesting. I think, despite the opposite getting shouted occasionally from the side lines that these threads can lead to a discussion which, if they're allowed to run, can get both camps thinking a little more about their choices.

 

[bpsmith]

Cycling is seen as less of a viable means of transport than motorcycling, that may or may not be a whole different thread. Also, you can look kinda cool in a motorcycle helmet, less so in a cycle helmet.
Agreed, sad as it may be it's a topic I find interesting, or more correctly I find others point of view on it interesting. I think, despite the opposite getting shouted occasionally from the side lines that these threads can lead to a discussion which, if they're allowed to run, can get both camps thinking a little more about their choices.

Agree on both counts.

 

[snorri]

Would getting rid of airbags, seatbelts, etc encourage more car drivers on the same basis that they weren't needed for most today?

Not necessarily, but it would encourage them to drive more safely if they thought they were more vulnerable, and that would be no bad thing for other road users.
Similarly cyclists getting rid of their helmets.

 

[Profpointy]

Not necessarily, but it would encourage them to drive more safely if they thought they were more vulnerable, and that would be no bad thing for other road users.
Similarly cyclists getting rid of their helmets.

there is a paper someone wrote - which argued plausibly that seatbelts hadn't reduced casualties overall, moved the risk from car users to the unprotected pedestrians and cyclists outside. In essence the argument was that car drivers exploited their own increased safety by.driving more recklessly increasing the risk to others. It was properly argued with numbers so wasn't just a thought experiment. I was inclined to think there was something in it

 

[swansonj]

there is a paper someone wrote - which argued plausibly that seatbelts hadn't reduced casualties overall, moved the risk from car users to the unprotected pedestrians and cyclists outside. In essence the argument was that car drivers exploited their own increased safety by.driving more recklessly increasing the risk to others. It was properly argued with numbers so wasn't just a thought experiment. I was inclined to think there was something in it

A guy called John Adams. I once, rashly, started a whole thread on it. One of the particularly cogent arguments is the absence of any real discernible change in injury rates accompanying the step change in seat belt use at the time of legal compulsion.

 

[bpsmith]

Not necessarily, but it would encourage them to drive more safely if they thought they were more vulnerable, and that would be no bad thing for other road users.
Similarly cyclists getting rid of their helmets.

So seatbelts never stopped potential drivers. Helmets surely the same logic.

Asked 3 ladies in my work team about why they don't cycle and would compulsory helmets put them off. They all said its down to busy traffic but that helmets should be compulsory. They all laughed at the messing the hair thing, but said it wouldn't be a factor.

Edit: good points about passing the buck though.

 

[bpsmith]

Read about Australia. After compulsion, roughly half the number of cyclists but with roughly the same number of head injuries. How do you explain it?

Will do tonight.

 

[snorri]

So seatbelts never stopped potential drivers. Helmets surely the same logic..

Not the same logic at all, seat belts are fitted in the vehicle unobtrusively, remain there when the vehicle is unattended and are "one size fits all".

 

[bpsmith]

Not the same logic at all, seat belts are fitted in the vehicle unobtrusively, remain there when the vehicle is unattended and are "one size fits all".

Seatbelts are uncomfortable and crease your clothes. Equally as important as messing your hair up.

 

[bpsmith]

Thanks

Found this. Fair points either way, but inconclusive. Had to post due to the reference to this website. lol.

http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/cycle-helmet-debate