There is some new research on helmet compulsion which I thought some might find interesting. It seems that compulsion would result in greater health care costs....
Research into helmet compulsion
- Thread starter magnatom
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
MickL
Über Member
- Location
- Dudley by the Castle...
Think he makes a fair point.
""idiots who will not wear helmets."
What about the "idiots" who drive several tons of metal around at high speed???
Before I left the UK I used to cycle to and from work, and the bad attitude that drivers have to cyclists is both disgusting and extremely dangerous. The worst thing is that when drivers pull out infront of cyclists they often beep the horn like you shouldn't have been on the road in the first place. I was once followed up the road by someone who hung out the window cursing at me because he thought I shouldn't be in the middle lane on a bike (you had to be in the middle lane at that junction unless you were turning left).
Here in Holland no one bothers with helmets, because you don't need them for normal cycling. If someone hits a cyclist with their car here they are absolutely crucified, whereas in the UK it is just considered an unfortunate accident. If they took a harder line with careless motorists who hit cyclists it would do far more to reduce head injuries than forcing people to wear helmets, with the added bonus that MORE people would get out there and start cycling."
""idiots who will not wear helmets."
What about the "idiots" who drive several tons of metal around at high speed???
Before I left the UK I used to cycle to and from work, and the bad attitude that drivers have to cyclists is both disgusting and extremely dangerous. The worst thing is that when drivers pull out infront of cyclists they often beep the horn like you shouldn't have been on the road in the first place. I was once followed up the road by someone who hung out the window cursing at me because he thought I shouldn't be in the middle lane on a bike (you had to be in the middle lane at that junction unless you were turning left).
Here in Holland no one bothers with helmets, because you don't need them for normal cycling. If someone hits a cyclist with their car here they are absolutely crucified, whereas in the UK it is just considered an unfortunate accident. If they took a harder line with careless motorists who hit cyclists it would do far more to reduce head injuries than forcing people to wear helmets, with the added bonus that MORE people would get out there and start cycling."
I've never been convinced by the helmet safety issue allthough I do wear one, partly to assuage mrsGarrilla as she worries that a lorry will run over my head (when a helmet with do sweet FA) and to add to visibility.
I read a lot of material from the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ and essentially the academic research on the matter is unclear and there is little significant eveidence for use one way or another.
On this basis I think compulsion is unhelpful and people should make up their own minds whether they do so from ignorance or from a well researched position.
I read a lot of material from the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ and essentially the academic research on the matter is unclear and there is little significant eveidence for use one way or another.
On this basis I think compulsion is unhelpful and people should make up their own minds whether they do so from ignorance or from a well researched position.
Alembicbassman
Confused.com
Even a low speed head injury can be fatal, e.g. Natasha Richardson's skiing accident. A British Standard helmet is less than £20 (I got a Bell Venture from Amazon for £18.47) Granted, it will not protect in all accidents, but head injuries are very complex. I'd rather be safe than sorry.
andrew-the-tortoise
Swarfega Abuser
Should be a personal choice, made on how & where you ride i.e. assessing the risks.
My personal choice is to utilise the lid.
[I also now wear elbow pads, as the last & only knock I had resulted in a poorly arm!]
My personal choice is to utilise the lid.
[I also now wear elbow pads, as the last & only knock I had resulted in a poorly arm!]
HJ
Cycling in Scotland
- Location
- Auld Reekie
magnatom said:
Do pay attention Mag, I post that piece of research on a helmet thread a couple of weeks ago
Nice to see that New Scientist has final caught up as well... 
HJ
Cycling in Scotland
- Location
- Auld Reekie
Alembicbassman said:
But there is no evidence that if she had been wearing a helmet it would have made any difference. Donald Dewar tripped and banged his head while walking, but one goes around saying he wouldn't have died if had being wearing a helmet...
It is just irrational, to suggest that everyone who has suffered a head injury should have been wearing a helmet...
Alembicbassman
Confused.com
From a legal standpoint not wearing a helmet would be considered as contributory negligence in a personal injury claim against a driver who caused you a head injury unles you could produce compelling medical evidence to the suggest a helmet would have made no difference, such expert witnesses would be very expensive.
HJ
Cycling in Scotland
- Location
- Auld Reekie
Alembicbassman said:
Can you actually point to a single case where this has happened? Car insurance company lawyers have tried it on a few times but it has never been proved in court...
Hairy Jock said:
It hasn't. It's scaremongering and FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) which is one of the main reasons people decide to wear a helmet. That and the belief that it must only help prevent injuries and couldn't possibly make otherwise innocuous injuries worse (google: cycle helmet torsional neck injury).
Don't get me wrong, I'll never criticise someone for wearing a helmet. It's their choice and I'm pro-choice. Under most circumstances I'll chose not to, sometimes I do. I just hate (yes hate) people who blather on about someone being "stupid" for not wearing one.
Crankarm
Guru
- Location
- Nr Cambridge
MickL said:
Badge of honour more like it
.MickL said:
Yep 100% agree. It is my belief, correct me if I'm wrong, congraulate me if I'm not
, that in Holland when a car is incollision with a cyclist the presumption is that the driver was at fault/negligent and they have to prove they were not. Where as here in the UK the claimant, more often the cyclist, has to show that the driver was at fault/negligent. The driver doesn't have to establish anything merely rebutt what is put to him/her.If there were a massive attitudinal change in UK to match the Dutch model then we could all cycle without helmets, without clothes even
; but that is never going to happen . So in the meantime move to Holland .
Alembicbassman
Confused.com
Since most PI claims are settled out of court it's unlikely there'll be a imminent ruling on contributory neglignece regarding the wearing of helmets.
However, the Highway Code states you should wear a helmet and the Highway Code is used as persuasive evidence in many driving related court cases, although it in itself is not actually statute Law.
Rule 45:
You should wear
a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations
appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark
This excerpt is taken from the CDF website:
"If running the contributory negligence argument as a Defendant, support may be taken from Royal Mail who since October 2003 have required their 37,000 cycling postmen and women to wear helmets. This move was called for following the deaths of 5 cycling post workers in the 3 years up to 2001."
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-helmets-and-law
The amount of potential reduction for contributory negligence will be more than the cost of a £20 helmet.
Insurance firms employ expert legal personnel in this field, you would face an uphill battle arguing for 100% damages. If you lost you'd be liable for costs. Hence most PI claims are settled out of court.
However, the Highway Code states you should wear a helmet and the Highway Code is used as persuasive evidence in many driving related court cases, although it in itself is not actually statute Law.
Rule 45:
You should wear
a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations
appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark
This excerpt is taken from the CDF website:
"If running the contributory negligence argument as a Defendant, support may be taken from Royal Mail who since October 2003 have required their 37,000 cycling postmen and women to wear helmets. This move was called for following the deaths of 5 cycling post workers in the 3 years up to 2001."
http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-helmets-and-law
The amount of potential reduction for contributory negligence will be more than the cost of a £20 helmet.
Insurance firms employ expert legal personnel in this field, you would face an uphill battle arguing for 100% damages. If you lost you'd be liable for costs. Hence most PI claims are settled out of court.
SHOULD does not mean MUST. A bit like where the HC which says cyclists SHOULD use cycle lanes. Also shame you missed this bit out of that cut and paste job from the CTC site.
The problems arise because so few cyclists have insurance and so have limited access to legal advice. Many of the claims are relatively low in overall value. The pressure is therefore on to achieve a swift settlement at a low cost – the only chance of keeping the litigation cost effective. Such constraints inevitably lead to a measure of rough justice. A reduction in liability to reflect litigation risk and failure to wear a cycle helmet must often be taken to prevent the lengthy costly research required or the instruction of experts. The views of the experts are polarised. Studies support and condemn cycle helmets. Such conflicts lead to lengthy and expensive litigation. Each settlement reached in a low level case is then fed into the insurance industry statistics and over time an “industry standard” reduction arises. It is only in the very largest cases that a challenge to this standard can be raised. Yet it is these very cases when the argument in favour of wearing a cycle helmet is likely to be weakest.
The problems arise because so few cyclists have insurance and so have limited access to legal advice. Many of the claims are relatively low in overall value. The pressure is therefore on to achieve a swift settlement at a low cost – the only chance of keeping the litigation cost effective. Such constraints inevitably lead to a measure of rough justice. A reduction in liability to reflect litigation risk and failure to wear a cycle helmet must often be taken to prevent the lengthy costly research required or the instruction of experts. The views of the experts are polarised. Studies support and condemn cycle helmets. Such conflicts lead to lengthy and expensive litigation. Each settlement reached in a low level case is then fed into the insurance industry statistics and over time an “industry standard” reduction arises. It is only in the very largest cases that a challenge to this standard can be raised. Yet it is these very cases when the argument in favour of wearing a cycle helmet is likely to be weakest.
FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:
Yes, but that's not the point he was making.
From the HWC http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070236
"
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
"
Davidc
Guru
- Location
- Somerset UK
Crankarm said:Badge of honour more like it
Yep 100% agree. It is my belief, correct me if I'm wrong, congraulate me if I'm not
If there were a massive attitudinal change in UK to match the Dutch model then we could all cycle without helmets, without clothes even; but that is never going to happen
.
I was told that a few years ago when I hired bikes there, and also when I hired a car there. I was also told that there are a few exceptions - you are responsible for keeping out of the way of trams for example.
I've cycled around The Hague/ Delft/ Rotterdam and Amsterdam, and a few smaller places, and it's much more pleasant than here with a culture which sees cycling as a normal means of transport and cyclists as being superior beings to motorists! You even get motorists hooting and gesticulating at peds for walking in cycle lanes (which is also illegal I believe)
Don't think much of tram lines or speed bumps on cycle roads though.
Like the author of the report in the OP I didn't wear a helmet in the Netherlands but do in the UK