Compulsory lid legislation?

Changes to car design in the 1950's wouldn't account for much difference. No such thing as crumple zones back then.
The things you can probably attribute most to safety improvements are the ones that don't get mentioned. For a start, more and more drivers would have had to actually pass a driving test to obtain a licence, rather than just pay their few shillings fee with no test.
Then you've got improvements to road surfaces, barriers to stop vehicles crashing down hillsides, better street lighting etc. Statistically minor rural roads are the most dangerous, so it makes perfect sense that as more higher quality roads, dual carriageways, then motorways were built, the accident rate per mile travelled would start to decline.
We have now pretty much got down to the level at which safety and accident rates are not going to get any better. From now on, expect the figures to more or less just bump along from year to year at a fairly constant level with a bit of apparently random variation.
Roadside breathalyzers and a legal alcohol limit were introduced in 1967, which made a difference. Also 3 point seat belts gradually became cumpolsory from 1968 onwards, first for drivers seats and then passengers.
 
Better quality cycle training would probably have prevented this cyclist from having a self inflicted crash that put her under the car. She was riding downhill on the pavement, braked hard, was unable to maintain control and came off hard, into the road,under a car, at which point the helmet may or may not have been helpful in reducing injuries.
I don't know about the UK, but that would certainly apply here. Cycle training is little more then "Know street signs, wear a helmet, and of course keep out of the way of Very Important Drivers."
 

SkipdiverJohn

Über Member
Location
London
Bottom line is the girl was going too fast for the conditions. No different to a car being driven downhill too fast, fails to stop in time, and crashes through a set of traffic lights. Bad judgement - operator error.
As far as compulsory helmets go, no. Helmet wearing compulsion = Nanny State interference. There's enough do-gooders trying to tell us what food to eat, how much alcohol to drink etc. We don't need yet more of this crap from the political classes. Do I think wearing a helmet is generally sensible in traffic? Yes, but it should be personal choice. Do I think a helmet is needed for a slow speed ride in the woods or on a quiet cycle path? No, not really.
 

Dave Davenport

Legendary Member
Location
Hampshire
Sorry, typo there. I should have written "Cycle training locally" ie. in Germany where we live is little more than this. I've had three children do cycle training here and the message didn't vary.

I can't comment on the UK as I've not lived there in 17 years.
Not surprised, when we've been touring in Germany the cycle path network is great but any time you use the road there's a distinct 'we have cycle routes, roads are for cars, get out of my way attitude'.
I'll admit to a bias as I work as a national standards instructor, but current UK training is pretty good IMO (pity about the funding cuts though).
 

FishFright

More wheels than sense
Just an observation and not research but it seems to me that the anti helmet thing seem to be an obsession of the white middle aged, middle class male road cyclists. Outside this group I find the attitude to helmet wearing to vastly different. The working class commuters who don't wear one mostly would if became mandatory in the same way they did after mandatory seat belts etc. The active MTBers wear one as it's deemed an sensible thing to do when riding techy trails and its use other places is normalised.
 

dave r

Dunking Diddy Dave Pedalling Pensioner
Just an observation and not research but it seems to me that the anti helmet thing seem to be an obsession of the white middle aged, middle class male road cyclists. Outside this group I find the attitude to helmet wearing to vastly different. The working class commuters who don't wear one mostly would if became mandatory in the same way they did after mandatory seat belts etc. The active MTBers wear one as it's deemed an sensible thing to do when riding techy trails and its use other places is normalised.
I'm one who would wear a lid if it became compulsory just to keep riding, I've been riding lidless for almost fifty years now and at the moment have no plans to change.
 

Julia9054

Veteran
Location
Knaresborough
I'm one who would wear a lid if it became compulsory just to keep riding, I've been riding lidless for almost fifty years now and at the moment have no plans to change.
Lots of us would on here because we are a subset of people who really like cycling.
It's people like my son who rides an old bike between his house and uni mainly because he is usually running late and it's quicker than walking. If he owned a helmet, he would have left it somewhere within weeks and would probably decide it was less hassle to run there instead.
 

YukonBoy

The Monch
Location
Inside my skull
A road a child does not feel safe cycling to school on, a junction with poor visibility lines. A junction where motorists pull out having seen a child come off their bike. If they want to campaign on a few things I would look at those for starters.
 

dave r

Dunking Diddy Dave Pedalling Pensioner
Lots of us would on here because we are a subset of people who really like cycling.
It's people like my son who rides an old bike between his house and uni mainly because he is usually running late and it's quicker than walking. If he owned a helmet, he would have left it somewhere within weeks and would probably decide it was less hassle to run there instead.
Your son sounds very much like mine, he moved away from home a while ago, lives in a bedsit and works as a factory cleaner, he commutes by bike because its convenient but he's not an enthusiast, though he does were a lid. I recon people like our sons are at a higher risk than old farts like me, being retired I'm not commuting anymore and only do a couple of rides a week out in the countryside.
 

mjr

Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
And ironically, in the picture of the girl fronting the beeb website piece, her helmet isn't even fitted correctly.
I strongly suspect that no-one involved in that sick pic is doing it to be ironic and they've done it because they don't understand helmets, how they're supposed to work or the potentially severe consequences of an ill-fitting one... Too many people seem to think helmets are magic hats and just plonking one on the head any old how is sufficient to save the wearer from head injury. :cry: These are the people who could ruin everything.
 

Jon George

Mamil and couldn't care less
Location
Suffolk an' Good
I think it was in The Seventies that there were a series of TV plays revolving around the theme of 'Against The Crowd' - people going against the prevailing view. I sometimes feel I have lived my life imitating that idea. (Don' get me started about isolating it was at the time to apparently be the only person in Ipswich who understood that the start of The Millennium would be in 2001 and not in 2000.)
Probably as a result of my interest in the truth, I stopped wearing a cycling helmet two/three years ago and have no end of arguments since from people who believe they know what the facts are. (Initially, I was reminding people of a Mark Twain quote: 'It is easy to fool someone, than it is to convince them they have been fooled', until I bothered to do my own research and found it's likely he didn't actually say that, at all. Oh, the irony.)
All things being equal, I expect that it will be made compulsory in my lifetime - I will not stop cycling, and I doubt I could be principled enough to face any prosecution for not wearing one, but I will find a way of protesting.
 
Top Bottom