Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[snorri]

at what cost ? over 50% of them end up the Seine every year

It just goes to show that if you throw enough money at any given issue, you will eventually get the stats you want to state to others...

Gentle reminder, the topic is cycle helmet wearing, not cycle theft from cycle hire schemes.

 

[ufkacbln]

No. They meet the standards. It's just the standards are appallingly low... and a helmet that actually offered a reasonable level of protection would be impractical and unsaleable.

Google Trek Anthem

These helmets were on general sale and passed CPSC (US) standards.

Until a consumer group tested them independently and they failed miserably to pass the tests Here is the CPSC statement:

Trek Recalls Anthem C Elite Bicycle Helmets for Failing Impact Standards

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Name of Product: Trek Anthem C Elite and Anthem C Elite WSD Model Bicycle Helmets
Units: About 4,500
Manufacturer: Trek Bicycle, of Waterloo, Wis.
Hazard: Product testing has demonstrated that these helmets do not comply with CPSC safety standards for impact resistance. Consumers could suffer impact head injuries in a fall.
Incidents/Injuries: No incidents or injuries have been reported.
Description: The recalled helmets are identified by the model name Anthem C Elite and Anthem C Elite WSD. A label inside the helmet identifies the helmet as "Trek Anthem C." The helmets are available in men's sizes in black/charcoal, blue/silver and blue/red, and in women's sizes in aqua blue/silver and white/silver. This recall includes all sizes of this helmet.
Sold by: Authorized Trek Dealers nationwide from October 2005 through May 2006 for about $129.
Manufactured In: China
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the helmets immediately and return their helmets to an authorized Trek dealer for a full refund
Consumer Contact: For more information, contact Trek Bicycle at (800) 373-4594 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday.

Another reason to go for Snell certification where random consumer samples are tested

 

[Red Light]

do you really think wearing cycle helmets has that level of effect? obesity is a massive problem in the UK we keep hearing and we have no compulsion.

Yes, The published studies have concluded that for every week the risks of cycling (with or without helmet) shorten your life expectancy, the health benefits of cycling lengthen it by 20 weeks.

 

[Red Light]

I am absolutely and unequivocally in favour of compulsory thongs!

... or maybe not:

Perhaps it should be an informed choice after weighing up the evidence.

That looks like pretty weighty evidence.

 

[StuAff]

do you really think wearing cycle helmets has that level of effect? obesity is a massive problem in the UK we keep hearing and we have no compulsion.

This is hardly complicated. The more hoops people think they have to jump through in order to do something, the less likely they are to give up and do a 'simpler' alternative. If that means getting in the car to get a pint of milk down the road because taking a bike involves wearing an unwanted helmet, unwanted high-viz, half a ton of body armour to try and protect you in all the situations where a helmet is of no use whatsoever...oh and they'll still have to put up with idiot drivers nearly killing them...they'll do it.

 

[david k]

I have no truck whatever with "common sense", which usually contains very little sense at all. I'll say it again - because helmets are irrelevant, it doesn't matter whether their decision is based on calmly evaluating all the research, keeping their mum happy, or not wanting to mess up their hair. It does matter if people see cyclists and what they see confirms or reinforces a belief that cycling is a dangerous activity (or simply one that requires a lot of special safety equipment), because it could make cycling less attractive in their eyes. This doesn't matter to Linf, because (as I said) he disapproves of cycling and doesn't want to see more cyclists enjoying themselves on the road. You'll just have to trust me on the last sentence.

so somebody wearing a helmet is making cycling more dangerous?

 

[StuAff]

so somebody wearing a helmet is making cycling more dangerous?

You seem to confuse the perception of a situation with its reality.

 

[david k]

I have and I didn't see.

post 1315 for a start
david k said: ↑

i get that, no problem with it either, but redlight said it was about helmet compulsion and suggested i started an alternative thread, if thats the case obesity shouldnt be referred to here​

Helmet promotion/compulsion => less cycling => higher obesity levels => increased premature deaths. i.e. increased obesity is a direct consequence of helmet promotion and probably a major reason behind Australia becoming the most obese nation 20 years after its mandatory helmet law was introduced. Now I know its convenient for the pro-helmet brigade to not to want to talk about the negative health consequences of helmet compulsion but its a perfectly valid topic in a thread on helmet compulsion. Car culture causing obesity is not a valid topic in a thread on helmet compulsion hence my suggestion you start a new thread on it.

 

[theclaud]

so somebody wearing a helmet is making cycling more dangerous?

Nuance is another thing you don't do, I see. That and reading. I didn't say that somebody wearing a helmet makes cycling more dangerous, I said that collectively, people wearing helmets help to create or reinforce the perception that cycling is dangerous.

 

[Norm]

Google Trek Anthem

These helmets were on general sale and passed CPSC (US) standards.

Until a consumer group tested them independently and they failed miserably to pass the tests Here is the CPSC statement:

And Which? this month rated the Met Camaleonte Executive adult helmet (£50) as a don't buy as they "judged it to have failed the European Standard". Met disputes the results and far from recalling the helmet, I believe that it's still on sale.

The Cratoni C-Air (£20) and the B'Twin Kiddy One (£8!!!) are also rated as Don't Buys as they failed Which?'s tests, even though they did judge them to have passed the European Standard.

 

[StuAff]

post 1315 for a start
david k said: ↑

i get that, no problem with it either, but redlight said it was about helmet compulsion and suggested i started an alternative thread, if thats the case obesity shouldnt be referred to here​

Helmet promotion/compulsion => less cycling => higher obesity levels => increased premature deaths. i.e. increased obesity is a direct consequence of helmet promotion and probably a major reason behind Australia becoming the most obese nation 20 years after its mandatory helmet law was introduced. Now I know its convenient for the pro-helmet brigade to not to want to talk about the negative health consequences of helmet compulsion but its a perfectly valid topic in a thread on helmet compulsion. Car culture causing obesity is not a valid topic in a thread on helmet compulsion hence my suggestion you start a new thread on it.

You don't get it, do you? Many of these people who could be using bikes but don't because they're thinking cycling is (i) dangerous (ii)expensive (ii) involves lots of safety equipment- which may be of little or no use depending on the situation in any case, and end up in cars or on public transport instead of making journeys under their own power and being much healthier for it. And making journeys for everyone, including those who still need/choose to use motor vehicles, simpler, less time-consuming and potentially safer as well. Most definitely relevant.

 

[david k]

It is entirely relevant because you are still stating that evidence is unnecessary

Not strictly true, I have made 2 different points considering evidence:

1- I do not need to study evidence before deciding to wear or not wear a helmet
2 - Any government wishing to consider compulsion should consider all available evidence

the posts illustrate why without evidence there is a real danger to giving advice from an uninformed position

Well, since I haven't offered advice anywhere on this thread I am in no 'real danger'.


Do you still maintain that somebody wearing a helmet without studying the evidence is not in a position to wear a helmet?
And that somebody wearing a helmet puts people off cycling and therefore contributes to obesity and this takes more lives?

 

[david k]

This is hardly complicated. The more hoops people think they have to jump through in order to do something, the less likely they are to give up and do a 'simpler' alternative.

opinion or fact?

If that means getting in the car to get a pint of milk down the road because taking a bike involves wearing an unwanted helmet, unwanted high-viz, half a ton of body armour to try and protect you in all the situations where a helmet is of no use whatsoever...oh and they'll still have to put up with idiot drivers nearly killing them...they'll do it.

high viz? body armour? thought we were referring to only helmets?

So with this logic and im not claiming it is right or wrong, a cyclist wearing a helmet contributes to shorter lives of the nation?

 

[theclaud]

Can we verify whether david k and Linf have ever been online at precisely the same time?

 

[david k]

Nuance is another thing you don't do, I see. That and reading. I didn't say that somebody wearing a helmet makes cycling more dangerous, I said that collectively, people wearing helmets help to create or reinforce the perception that cycling is dangerous.

But every person who wears a helmet is part of that collection

This reinforces the perception that it is more dangerous

Less people cycle

more people die of obesity

Therefore wearing a helmet contributes to this