I love helmets

[benb]

I'd worry about derailing or diverting this thread, but it's about helmets so, you know... :-)

First, for all of those worried about all those life changing injuries you'll get not wearing a helmet, I offer you Thrasher Hall of Meat the joy of skateboarding magazines and their helmetless bails (even if they were proved 100% efficient they wouldn't wear one because it's not cool). This is really just because talking in the car about this subject my 20 year old brought up the fact that heads are actually quite tough (as has been mentioned elsewhere.) nb I've not watched these videos, I have no idea if they are work safe, etc. I'd imagine there will be blood and probably loudly played music by popular beat combos.

Secondly, I'd be interested to know why the anti-compulsion side doesn't seem to be putting cycling's own house in order. I was at the NEC for the bike show, there was the option to try out bikes. If you wanted to do that, you had to wear a helmet (I think this was for all of them, it was definitely the case for the 'premium bikes' bit). My LBS does Sunday ride outs, allegedly no-one is dropped from the slow group (this is a lie, but we'll skim over that) we we're not talking all out on the rivet chain ganging here. They do have one rule though, all riders must wear helmets. It goes on, there are loads of areas within cycling itself that are pushing compulsion. If we want to see an end to the implied threat of compulsion, and maybe a lessening in the number of helmeted riders. I would be interested in stats on that, how big a survey would we need to do for it to be valuable? I'd sit on a chair for a day with a couple of clickers if it would help work out where we were with numbers. Presuming nobody already has. Wouldn't a sensible place to start things off be to do a serious push for the places that show off cycling to be less one track about helmets (I'm trying to think back to watching the cycle show, from memory it was pretty much 100% helmeted, no?). Just a thought.

You're blaming the anti-compulsionists for not stopping events from having mandatory helmets? Er, OK.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I thought, seeing as there is no actual evidence of them doing any good, that it shouldn't matter when it comes to litigation lawyers? What are they arguing successfully?

They don't have to be successful, they just need to argue. The spectre of spiralling costs does the rest.


GC

 

[ComedyPilot]

Lets just say, If you where lobbying against helmet law, and the law came in, the majority said right we are no longer going to cycle and gave it up, would you continue to cycle and wear a helmet to save cycling or give it up on principal along with the majority. Don't get me wrong, it's a great debate, but if it stays as we are with no law then everyone's happy

Continue to ride without one. Cycling is not dangerous. I have ridden thousands of miles incident free both here in the UK and in the Netherlands and Germany. @User13710 is right, the only people bleating about helmets are people already wearing them - although I prefer to think of them as gullible misguided souls that fell for the bullsh@t fed to them, and are now DESPERATE for others to join them so they don't feel as big an idiot for wearing a pudding bowl as they actually look wearing one.

 

[Big_Dave]

Being a motorcyclist I feel comfortable wearing a cycle helmet, I have my reasons as previously stated, but I don't expect everyone to wear one just because I do, I really do not care either way whether you do or don't (not you in particular but cyclists in general), everyone has a choice to wear one or not to wear one.
If one cycles, is he/she gullible and desperate for wearing cycling shorts/bibs and cycle jersey and not wearing a helmet??

 

[GrasB]

They don't have to be successful, they just need to argue. The spectre of spiralling costs does the rest.

^^ This. Basically a rider comes off without a helmet & suffers a head injury. A litigation lawyer could argue that the club was negligent in not preventing a rider without a helmet for participating in a ride. The likelihood of this succeeding is low* but the legal costs involved in fighting such a case would be very high. For this reason an insurance company don't want to cover the costs of getting into such a legal argument so simply refuse to cover an event unless helmets are mandatory.

* Let's not forget that people have been awarded damages for being coffee that's hot enough to scald them without warning it might be hot, so maybe not impossible.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

You're blaming the anti-compulsionists for not stopping events from having mandatory helmets? Er, OK.

I'm suggesting considering the battles there are to be fought, stopping premier cycle events from helmet compulsion would be a good target. A number of cycle action groups were at the cycle show (CTC, Sustran definitely) in a similar area to where the cycle testing was happening. I guess the message that 'helmets are needed' was pretty strong there. I just find it interesting that the arguments against needing them sound so strong here, but are insufficient to convince the people sending out the message of what cycling looks like.

 

[GrasB]

I'm suggesting considering the battles there are to be fought, stopping premier cycle events from helmet compulsion would be a good target. A number of cycle action groups were at the cycle show (CTC, Sustran definitely) in a similar area to where the cycle testing was happening. I guess the message that 'helmets are needed' was pretty strong there. I just find it interesting that the arguments against needing them sound so strong here, but are insufficient to convince the people sending out the message of what cycling looks like.

Problem is this isn't just a social problem it's also a legal problem. With the US leading the rest of the western world down the path of in sue everything in sight if anything goes wrong you need insurance at events & insurance companies are out to minimise their potential liabilities. These liabilities may include having to defend against stupid claims which were never going to succeed but would have been granted by default if they weren't demonstrated to be total BS.

You should see some of the c**p that's passed my desk on the legal side of H&S things. Apparently there's been a suggestion we need to put warning signs on all doors opening into a corridor to say the doors open into the corridor. The reason was that someone walked into an opening door in some department, they admitted, on their official accident form, to not be looking where they were going.

 

[Profpointy]

I'm suggesting considering the battles there are to be fought, stopping premier cycle events from helmet compulsion would be a good target. A number of cycle action groups were at the cycle show (CTC, Sustran definitely) in a similar area to where the cycle testing was happening. I guess the message that 'helmets are needed' was pretty strong there. I just find it interesting that the arguments against needing them sound so strong here, but are insufficient to convince the people sending out the message of what cycling looks like.

Really good and serious point. Although I enjoyed the piss-take riposte to your earlier post, creeping compulsion is particularly insidious when so many cyclists either can't see the issue, or are pro-compulsion, or at least pro-encouragement of helmets.
And the big question of why they don't seem to work in Australia or Ontario, is ignored, and it then gets angry and shouty.

 

[bianchi1]

And the big question of why they don't seem to work in Australia or Ontario, is ignored, and it then gets angry and shouty.

probably because (in Ontario) they were mostly not wearing them.

"only 34 of 129 cyclists (26%) sustaining a fatal injury were wearing a helmet. Of particular concern was that observation that, despite existing legislation, only 1 of 16 cyclists (6.25%) under the age of 18 who died were wearing a helmet".

 

[GrasB]

probably because (in Ontario) they were mostly not wearing them.

"only 34 of 129 cyclists (26%) sustaining a fatal injury were wearing a helmet. Of particular concern was that observation that, despite existing legislation, only 1 of 16 cyclists (6.25%) under the age of 18 who died were wearing a helmet".

Two questions.
1 - How many of the people sustained a fatal head injury?
2 - What's the % of the cycling population wearing helmets?

 

[bianchi1]

Two questions.
1 - How many of the people sustained a fatal head injury?
2 - What's the % of the cycling population wearing helmets?

In 71 of the 129 cases (55%), the cyclist sustained a head injury which caused or contributed to their death. In 43 of those 71 (60%), a head injury alone (with no other significant injuries) caused the death. Those whose cause of death included a head injury were three times less likely to be wearing a helmet as those who died of other types of injuries

 

[srw]

I'm suggesting considering the battles there are to be fought, stopping premier cycle events from helmet compulsion would be a good target. A number of cycle action groups were at the cycle show (CTC, Sustran definitely) in a similar area to where the cycle testing was happening. I guess the message that 'helmets are needed' was pretty strong there. I just find it interesting that the arguments against needing them sound so strong here, but are insufficient to convince the people sending out the message of what cycling looks like.

Well - here's what the CTC have to say:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/article/cycling-guide/cycle-helmets-overview-evidence

Here's what the CTC's Roger Geffen writes on the subject of the BMA's pro-helmet stance:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-ge...-usa-safety-authorities-drop-key-helmet-claim

And here's Geffen commenting on what's going on in government:
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/cycle-helmets-bill-nothing-hot-air-135782

Incidentally, as well as being an intelligent campaigner he has very good taste in music, too. We've met him two or three times at concerts and the opera.

 

[GrasB]

In 71 of the 129 cases (55%), the cyclist sustained a head injury which caused or contributed to their death. In 43 of those 71 (60%), a head injury alone (with no other significant injuries) caused the death. Those whose cause of death included a head injury were three times less likely to be wearing a helmet as those who died of other types of injuries

Which is meaningless without figures of people actually wearing helmets. If 10% of people are wearing helmets then this is a strong suggestion that not wearing a helmet is advantageous. If 90% of the cycling population are wearing a helmet then the reverse is true.

 

[srw]

I would be interested in stats on that, how big a survey would we need to do for it to be valuable?

You mean a bit like this?
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/the-incidence-of-bike-helmet-wearing-in-central-london.152678/

Statistically speaking, you need about 1000 observations to be sure your answer is within about 3 percentage points of the true population incidence, but unless you have a very geographically diverse set of observations all you'll be doing (like I did) is measuring the incidence in one specific location.

As it happens, I think that's valuable in itself.

And as it also happens, based on observations in London and a number of separate affluent commuter towns in the South-East of England I suspect the incidence of transport cycling, and helmetless transport cycling in particular, is growing.

 

[bianchi1]

Which is meaningless without figures of people actually wearing helmets. If 10% of people are wearing helmets then this is a strong suggestion that not wearing a helmet is advantageous. If 90% of the cycling population are wearing a helmet then the reverse is true.

As of February this year 47% helmet use in provinces with child-only legislation such as Ontario.