here in the uk it's not compulsory to wear a helmet whilst riding a cycle. it's a subject that crops up from time to time in the papers and cycling media but fortunately has never been implimented. the first thing that is asked when a cyclist is killed nowadays is 'was he/she wearing a helmet?'.

why legally is the onus put on cyclists to protect themselves? ok we're more vulnerable, but surely better education for car drivers would be better? ok sure not all accidents where a cyclist was killed or suffered head injuries was due to driver ignorance towards cyclists but the vast majority of drivers haven't a clue about cycling.

i read recently, i can't remember whether it was on these forums or in a cycling magazine, that it would be a good idea if as part of driving lessons/tests drivers should be made to ride a bike on the roads to give them greater awareness. probably practically impluasable but in theory a great idea....

what's the deal in your country/state?

do you think helmet wearing should be made compulsory?

in countries where the compulsory wearing of helmets has been implimented, governments and safety groups always say it has been a success due to less deaths or head injuries of cyclists in accidents.

however isn't it usually the case though that the decrease in deaths or head injury is due to the fact that less people actually ride bikes because they don't want to wear a helmet? this means less people on bikes which is what we don't want.

i do have a helmet but only ever wore it to race in and the majority of guys i ride with don't wear helmets. i personally wouldn't have a problem if it was made compulsory to wear a helmet but i wouldn't want to see it introduced and numbers of people on bikes decline.

what do you think?


cabledonut.

I would understand the logic of making helmet wearing compulsory in the UK - car drivers legally have to wear seatbelts and motorbike riders have to wear helmets.

Personally I always wear a helmet anyway - they're hardly that uncomfortable. I'm aware that if I'm hit by a car at speed I'll probably hit the ground too fast for the helmet to do much good, but if I'm hit at low speed, or come off through debris on the road etc. it will probably help minimise the risk of brain damage, fatal haemorage etc. It's not just drivers that cause us to come of our bikes. Yes better driver education is essential, but it's not a substitute for wearing a helmet.

I think the growth of mountain biking has helped with helmet acceptance amongst kids - image is everything with the young, having said that some of the local kids seem to think a woolly hat is the ideal headgear to wear whilst jumping off benches on their BMX's.

I seem recall that helmet laws may have led to an initial drop in bike use in Australia but then started to pick up again, but the folks down-under will be better placed to comment on that than me.

Personally I think if you don't wear a helmet you probably haven't got anything worth protecting anyway...

Richard

Ah, the ol' helmet debate.

I'll make a few bullet points and bow out.

1. Helmets don't do what they're advertised to do.

2. I wear a helmet because here in Australia the law requires it, but there are times when I'd prefer not to wear it.

3. There is some doubt that compulsory helmet laws have had an impact on saving lives. I'm certain Luke Harrop was wearing a helmet, to cite a recent example.

4. Sunscreen has proven health benefits, certainly more so than helmets, yet it isn't compulsory. Perhaps helmets could be subject to the sort of public health campaign that sunscreen was. Leave the final choice up to the individual. Give people some credit in being able to figure out when a helmet is useful or not for themselves. Those not smart enough to do this we're probably better off without anyway. You can't legislate for stupidity - that assumes everyone is stupid, and personally I find that insulting.

5. I don't care enough about the subject to be bothered stepping into the political ring to try and revoke the laws, nor to enter into a long tired debate on the subject.

I find myself in total agreement with Richard D


I'm not keen on compulsion to do anything, but must admit I do wear my helmet probably 99% of the time (I sometimes don't wear it if it's extremely hot- not a common problem here). I also motor cycle and wear a helmet all the time on the bike.

I am fanatical about my wife wearing her helmet, even though she hates it, and indeed refused to cycle with her if she wouldn't. She puts that down to me being a control freak, say it's because I love her. If I had kids, there would be no question but that they would wear a helmet (even until my daughter became the best looking nun in the convent)

It's got nothing to do with safety following a hit by a car. You get hit by a car hard enough and you aren't going to survive anyway, but any accidents I've had on the bike have tended to be colliding with other cyclists' back wheels , panniers bouncing into a wheel (once in front of a car-boy was that scary), or slipping on a loose surface. The helmet does help prevent soft tissue injury and skull fractur from these low speed type accidents.

The other factor is that, while it's an argument to allow people to choose themselves what to do, in the event of a preventable injury we all pick up the tab, by way of our taxes etc.


it is a longstanding argument, but eventually I'm sure helmets will be compulsory (which is unfortunate)

California law, which mandates helmet use only for cyclists under age 18 (legal adulthood for most purposes), makes sense to me. The three cogent anti-helmet arguments I have heard are that mandatory helmet laws discourage cycling, that many people compensate for a helmet's protection by cycling less cautiously when wearing one, and that a motorist striking an unhelmeted cyclist may receive a reduced sentence, even if a helmet would not have made any difference.

My strongly-held personal opinion is to wear a helmet BY CHOICE, but to ride as though it will not do any good. Thirty years ago, I lost a valued friend to a low-speed, survivable bike-to-bike collision, when his unhelmeted head struck a curb.

Originally posted by John E
Thirty years ago, I lost a valued friend to a low-speed, survivable bike-to-bike collision, when his unhelmeted head struck a curb.

I've been cycling around town since I was about 10, and I always used to wear my helmet on my handlebars. Y'know, get to the corner and out of sight, take the helmet off, and cycle the rest of the way to school.

I've heard too many stories like John's now. We even had a girl on our cricket team who was doing a PhD on people with crash-damaged brains, who used to suggest to people who cycled with no helmet that they should damage their left lobe, because she was short on them. I now always wear a helmet! But I definitely think it should remain a personal choice for as long as possible.

Ellie

These helmet arguments are similar to the smokers arguments.

Helmets should be worn! They are cheap, light, comfortable and do work.

The stupid situations we can find ourselve in such as stopping with look cleats, clipping the other guy's back wheel, the odd dog etc are not high speed jobs but can result in unnecessary head injury.

Don't be foolish.

These arguments are dangerous.

R

I agree with Allister's point number 4:
4. Sunscreen has proven health benefits, certainly more so than helmets, yet it isn't compulsory.
On the other hand, I'm not sure it's fair to say that they do not do what they are advertised to do. They are advertised to protect your head from injury in certain kinds of accidents. Admittedly, there are many kinds of injuries that will not be prevented by wearing a helmet. Spinal cord injuries, joint injuries, torso injuries, leg injuries -- what have you -- will not be prevented by helmet wear. Moreover, there is no helmet in the world that will make the kind of high-speed impact that killed Fabio Casartelli survivable.

On the other hand, a helmet will prevent many, if not most, head injuries caused by direct impacts at low speeds and indirect impacts at moderate speeds [20-40 km/h]. Incidentally, these make up the vast majority of bicycle-related injuries in North America.

Helmet wear is about the minimization of risk. Risk cannot be totally eliminated in this, or any sport, but it can be somewhat reduced by responsible behaviour and preparation. These include responsible riding and helmet wear when necessary.

I say when necessary because I do believe that there are situations and contexts where the risk of injury is so low that helmet wear would be superfluous. On the other hand, most of the time, the risk of injury is substantially higher, and I think it is responsible and reasonable to wear a helmet in these contexts.

But I'd like that to be a choice, not a legal obligation. The only person a non-helmet-wearing cyclist will injure is himself and I'm not convinced that the cost of caring for people with cycling head injuries would put anywhere near as much stress on the health care system as caring for un-belted motorists or un-helmeted morocyclists.

Besides, until cloning technology is sufficiently advanced, we will still have a need for organ donors.

Originally posted by Ellie
I've been cycling around town since I was about 10, and I always used to wear my helmet on my handlebars. Y'know, get to the corner and out of sight, take the helmet off, and cycle the rest of the way to school.

People do this out here, too. I've often wondered why. Surely if one goes to the trouble of getting a helmet they might as well use it! It's kind of like when I was a kid and all my friends wouldn't wear a helmet except for the magpie season.

Like John E, I too wear a helmet by choice. I was one of the dorky kids who wore one BEFORE it became law in this country. Indeed, it was only a couple of months ago that one saved me from a potentially serious head injury (I really didn't want to have to re-learn the alphabet just before graduating from university thankyouverymuch).

Having said that, I don't necessarily believe it should be law, but I don't care enough either way to make a big fuss of it. In Australia the law is here to stay, so just get over it.

Originally posted by velocipedio
... I'm not sure it's fair to say that they do not do what they are advertised to do.

Allow me to clarify. All I meant was that they are supposedly designed to crush and absorb impact. It even says this in the little booklets you get with them. I have never seen a helmet do this. They ALWAYS crack, and are therefore transmitting some of the impact they should be absorbing.

Originally posted by velocipedio
...
Helmet wear is about the minimization of risk. Risk cannot be totally eliminated in this, or any sport, but it can be somewhat reduced by responsible behaviour and preparation. These include responsible riding and helmet wear when necessary.

The trouble with these discussions is that the distinction isn't made between the benefits or otherwise of wearing a helmet, and the legal compulsion to do so. These are entirely different subjects.

It is not a contradiction to be pro helmet (with qualifications) but anti helmet law.

vis:Originally posted by velocipedio
... I'd like that to be a choice, not a legal obligation. The only person a non-helmet-wearing cyclist will injure is himself and I'm not convinced that the cost of caring for people with cycling head injuries would put anywhere near as much stress on the health care system as caring for un-belted motorists or un-helmeted morocyclists. ... or caring for someone with heart or lung problems brought about by a sedentary lifestyle.

I totally agree that helmets should be mandatory. I am still walking today because I was wearing a helmet in a serious cycling accident.

I will not ride with anyone who does not wear a helmet just as I will not kayak whitewater with anyone who does not wear a helmet or a PFD.

In Ontario where I live it is only mandatory for people 16 years of age and under to wear them. I wish it was everyone and I also wish that someone would start policing the offenders.

Helmets do save lives and they can also help minimize or save people from other injuries including spinal trauma if worn correctly.

No compulsory helmet wearing, except for kids.

I endorse compulsory speed limit enforcement and motorist adherence to all traffic rules, especially concerning awareness of all bicycle operators.

I always wear a helmet. I will not wait for an act of Congress to
tell me what is the smart thing to do.

Last time I crashed, I fell smack on my head, because a pedestrian (mind you) clotheslined me (stuck his straight arm in my path.)

I am sold on helmets.

I reckon they should make cycling compulsory.

Originally posted by Captain Crunch
I totally agree that helmets should be mandatory. I am still walking today because I was wearing a helmet in a serious cycling accident.


In Ontario where I live it is only mandatory for people 16 years of age and under to wear them. I wish it was everyone and I also wish that someone would start policing the offenders.


I will wear a helmet until the day I die. However, I don't want to see it made mandatory. I think society expends far too many resources on protecting people from their own stupidity and not enough protecting people from the stupidity of others. Hence I don't believe we should waste resources on things like making people wear helmets.

Originally posted by Allister

I reckon they should make cycling compulsory.

Nah, bugger them. If they wanna save all the fun for us, it's fine by me :D

One time my rear cluster locked up and I crashed and my helmet took a direct hit to a curb. This happened at under 5 mph. The helmet was ruined. That could have been my head.
My rule, no helmet, no ride. My cycling group. Someone shows up without a helmet, he/she is not a part of the group. Whether the state should make it the law, I don't know. As to someone I am riding with, I don't want to see their bloody head all bloodied.

Considering that the likelihood of an accident increases with every person in a group ride, requiring helmets on group rides [by custom, not law] is probably just a good idea.

You'd be much safer if you drove a car...

Helmets are designed primarily for one type of accident - being hit from behind by a car at slow speed. These are the predominant cause of major head injuries (cos cars have like, brakes y'know ?)
These are not common with adults, only with children as they have very limited peripheral vision and have difficulty locating sound - but helmet laws are effectively unenforcable against children.

Once you start with the belief that bike riders need helmets (they would be of better use in cars, BTW), it is not a long road before you start saying
- bikes are too dangerous to use on roads.
- bikes are more risky than cars. Now we don't let children drive cars, so why do we let them use bikes ?
- bike riding requires a lot of skill (it doesn't - but truth always loses to belief), and can be quite dangerous. So bike riders should have to do government approved training, and should have licences.
- We need to protect dangerous bike riders from themselves - so we need registration, and insurance (imagine how much that would cost !), and number plates.

>>Helmets are designed primarily for one type of accident - being hit from behind by a car at slow speed. These are the predominant cause of major head injuries (cos cars have like, brakes y'know ?)
These are not common with adults, only with children as they have very limited peripheral vision and have difficulty locating sound - but helmet laws are effectively unenforcable against children.

Can you back that claim up with any reference? Being shunted will spill you forward, but you will slide along the road. What hurts your head is sudden deceleration , usually by impact against a curb. Helmets are designed to decrease the rate of sudden deceleration.

Im not at all sure that shunts are a major cause of head injuries. They may be a minor cause of head injuries, but, like you say, they are rare.

I saw a national newspaper in the UK claim once, that 90% of all the head injury deaths in hospital emercency rooms were cyclists.
A simple piece of arithmatic showed that this was thousands more then the total 300 cycling deaths per year.

Originally posted by john999
1) You'd be much safer if you drove a car...

2) Helmets are designed primarily for one type of accident - being hit from behind by a car at slow speed. ...

3) Once you start with the belief that bike riders need helmets (they would be of better use in cars, BTW), it is not a long road before you start saying
- bikes are too dangerous to use on roads.
- bikes are more risky than cars. Now we don't let children drive cars, so why do we let them use bikes ?
- bike riding requires a lot of skill ... So bike riders should have to do government approved training, and should have licences.
- We need to protect dangerous bike riders from themselves - so we need registration, and insurance (imagine how much that would cost !), and number plates.

1) The injury/fatality statistics for adult lawful vehicular cyclists do not support this assertion. The cycling injury rate is greatly inflated by the idiots who ride on the wrong side of the road, without lights at night, through red lights, across intersections along nonvehicular trajectories, etc.
2) I strongly dispute the second point as well, as there are many other scenarios under which a helmet can reduce the severity of head trauma.
3) I also dispute the third point, because many (most) of us are pro-helmet, but also pro-choice on helmets.

Originally posted by john999
You'd be much safer if you drove a car...


I disagree. I ride in excess of 15,000km per annum under a variety of conditions. By your reasoning, given the number of deaths of car drivers who don't even drive that volume of km, I should really be dead by now.

Originally posted by john999

Helmets are designed primarily for one type of accident - being hit from behind by a car at slow speed. These are the predominant cause of major head injuries (cos cars have like, brakes y'know ?)


Sorry, dude. My crash of a couple of months ago involved no automobile whatsoever. Just a roundabout and an oil slick. My helmet hit the ground first and got a massive crack in it. That could easily have been my skull. It must have done a pretty good job at the accident it wasn't designed for! And I don't have a clue what "cos cars have like, brakes y'know?" means.

Originally posted by john999

Once you start with the belief that bike riders need helmets (they would be of better use in cars, BTW), it is not a long road before you start saying
- bikes are too dangerous to use on roads.
- bikes are more risky than cars. Now we don't let children drive cars, so why do we let them use bikes ?
- bike riding requires a lot of skill (it doesn't - but truth always loses to belief), and can be quite dangerous. So bike riders should have to do government approved training, and should have licences.
- We need to protect dangerous bike riders from themselves - so we need registration, and insurance (imagine how much that would cost !), and number plates.

We've had mandatory helmet laws in Australia for over 10 years. I haven't seen any major political move toward any of these other things you have listed here. I don't necessarily agree with mandatory helmet laws (for different reasons), but I honestly cannot understand what it is about helmets that seems to upset you so much.

I won't go on a ride without a helmet. Period. That being said, I have no wish for compulsory helmet laws. Aside from the whole trying to legislate stupidity thing, I believe we need to give Darwinism a little room to breathe. Don't want to wear a helmet? Don't bother with it - your species will thank you for it!

As some one who has worked in health care for almost 20 years I can attest first hand that helmets save lives and brains.

Yes there are going to be people that are killed with helmets on and there will be people who survive without them but statistics have proven that they do decrease the chances of serious head trauma or death. I don't want my friends dead or veggied because of something as simple as not wearing a helmet.

I just do not understand what is uncool about helmets. The Giro Pneumo, I'd like to have. My red/white Bell goes well with my Cofidis gear. And think how many aspirins it would take to get rid of a headache after hitting head-on, concrete at 15 mph.

What I don't understand is why people get so worked up about the helmet issue...

Non-helmet wearers: The people who advocate helmet laws are generally motivated by the best intentions. They are not part of a conspiracy to deprive you of your rights or to institute a helmet dictatorship. They are not pawns of the helmet industry. Cut 'em a little slack already.

Helmet advocates: Just because someone choses not to wear a helmet does not mean that he is a bad person, miscreant or criminal. More often than not, he or she has probably made an informed decision about wearing a helmet. Respect that.

I don't think helmet wear, or even helmet laws are ,uch of an issue one way or another. I generally wear one, but that decision would not be reinforced by a law, and my decision to sometimes ride with the thing on the handlebars probably wouldn't change either. Most serious cyclists wear helmets most of the time. Some don't. BFD.

I just don't see why anyone should get worked up about it one way or another.

The federal government has just enacted laws encouraging children to ride on footpaths. This was on the basis that roads are too dangerous for children to ride on.
When helmet laws were introduced, they were *primarily* aimed at children - because of tunnel vision and the fact that most bike riders were(are) children. But then they said, we have to introduce it for everyone because police can't tell whether they're underage and adults need to show that it's ok to wear helmets.

Now they say - ride on the footpath because it's safer : where's the trend ?

The other thing about laws and that was not a conspiracy theory thing. The point is that bicycles are *inherently* unsafe, compared to cars.
Think about this - if the bicycle was invented today would it be allowed on roads ? would children be allowed to ride them on roads ? without insurance ?
If you are are worried about safety YOU SHOULDN'T RIDE A BIKE.

Helmets have not made any difference to the head injury rate - the head injury rate now is *higher* than before the law was enacted.

Helmets have not made any difference to the head injury rate - the head injury rate now is *higher* than before the law was enacted.

But have the numbers of cars on the road also increased in that time?

Has the number of cyclists increased?

Are you suggesting that wearing a helmet increases your risk of head injury, or could other factors be involved?

I'd be interested in your source.

Richard

Originally posted by john999
Helmets have not made any difference to the head injury rate - the head injury rate now is *higher* than before the law was enacted.

I wonder if the injury rate seems to have risen because more people are surviving what would have been fatal accidents to non helmet wearers.

Also as the volume of traffic on the road has increased, and as cycling (via the mountainbike) has increased again in popularity, I don't think we would be comparing like with like.

The Ontario Coroners report on cycling accidents says that 55% of cycling fatalities are from head injuries. The majority of accidents with vehicles are sideswipes, then improper turns, being hit from behind by a car was down the list.
As for your helmet cracking that is the way it is designed.It ABSORBS the impact.
I agree a law is not the way to go but it forces people to use good sense in some cases.
When our kids were small there were no helmets for them to wear ,when put them in bike carriers behind my seat ,so we bought hockey helmets (what would expect from a Canadian).We were afraid if we fell they would strike their heads on the curb especially if they are strapped in at the time.
Now I don't care if someone joins the Darwin Awards by not wearing a helmet ,being an adult, but our childrens helmet law protects kids from the parents.

The coroners report covers an 11 year period in the city of Toronto but I would say some of findings would be of interest to all you. It can be accessed at this site www.city.toronto.on.ca/cycling/reports.htm

Interesting that over half of fatalities due to head injury, but only 3 out of 35 recorded as wearing helmets. I note that recording seems to have been a problem.

Originally posted by john999
The federal government has just enacted laws encouraging children to ride on footpaths. This was on the basis that roads are too dangerous for children to ride on.
When helmet laws were introduced, they were *primarily* aimed at children - because of tunnel vision and the fact that most bike riders were(are) children. But then they said, we have to introduce it for everyone because police can't tell whether they're underage and adults need to show that it's ok to wear helmets.

Now they say - ride on the footpath because it's safer : where's the trend ?

What exactly do you mean by encouraging exactly? Virtually ALL Australian states have allowed children under 12 to ride on the footpath for as long as I can remember. This is not a new phenomenon at all. I would even suggest it has been around longer than the helmet debate. Forgive my ignorance, but I still don't see the trend.

Originally posted by john999

Think about this - if the bicycle was invented today would it be allowed on roads ? would children be allowed to ride them on roads ? without insurance ?
If you are are worried about safety YOU SHOULDN'T RIDE A BIKE.


By your reasoning I should be dead. It was only a couple of months ago that I had a 40km/h crash and landed head first. Hey, I'm still here, and since then I've got pretty reasonable results in university examinations. I think the helmet did it's job on that occasion. If you are ' not worred about safety' (as your last sentence above would suggest) why are you getting so worked up about a helmet law?

Originally posted by john999
Helmets have not made any difference to the head injury rate - the head injury rate now is *higher* than before the law was enacted.

When you've got a credible source for that one, I'll take it seriously.

Originally posted by john999
The other thing about laws and that was not a conspiracy theory thing. The point is that bicycles are *inherently* unsafe, compared to cars.[1]
Think about this - if the bicycle was invented today would it be allowed on roads ?[2] would children be allowed to ride them on roads ? without insurance ?
If you are are worried about safety YOU SHOULDN'T RIDE A BIKE.[3]

Helmets have not made any difference to the head injury rate - the head injury rate now is *higher* than before the law was enacted.[4]

My responses:
1 and 3) Transportation is inherently unsafe; living itself can be dangerous to one's health, and is always fatal. Driving a car will not magically render one invincible and immortal (albeit perhaps immoral) on the road. The per-distance fatality and injury statistics for responsible, experienced adult cyclists are comparable to those of motorists.
2) We will soon have a real-world contemporary scenario test with Segway/Ginger and laws to permit or forbid its use on travel lanes, road shoulders, bike lanes, bikepaths, and/or pavements/sidewalks/footpaths.
4) That's because of "risk compensation," practiced by amateur cyclists, but not by experienced, lawful club riders and commuters. If today's kids are raised to wear helmets out of habit, legal complicance, fashion, and PARTIAL protection, they should be fine. I greatly resented BellSports' advertising campaign, "Courage for your head," which I think sends the wrong message.

Interesting topics on these forums.

I don't think helmets are that big of a deal. Of course they provide some increased protection, but not a whole lot. Less than estimated by many who will say things like, "anyone who would ride without a helmet has little to protect", or "it's stupid not to ride with a helmet", etc.

The chance of suffering a serious head injury while cycling on public roads is roughly in the ballpark of suffering a head injury while driving a car. Is it stupid to drive a car without a helmet? After all, the pros do it. Would you want to hit your head on the car frame at 30 mph? Etc.

At any rate, you don't hear moralistic preaching about _that_ behavior, and no, it's just because a lot of cars now have airbags.

Sometimes I wear a helmet, sometimes not. In my own case, at least, I think my risk of crashing _and_ hitting the top of my head at a speed helmets will benefit me is low enough that not wearing a helmet isn't a crazy risk. But, admittedly, it is a risk.

I can't see that helmet wearing should be mandatory, however. I don't see any principled reason to distinguish between riding without helmets and a host of other slightly-less-than-optimal behaviors. And surely we simply to have permit a large range of less-than-optimal-behaviors if we're to preserve liberty in ordinary life choices.

For example, it's a risk to get into a public pool without water wings. In the U.S. more serious brain injuries result from swimming each year than from unhelmeted cycling. As many others have pointed out, the effects of sedentary living are much worse than unhelmeted cycling, as well. But who wants the government to put us on a coercive diet?

Most children I see riding with helmets have badly fitting ones. One young boy I saw braked sharply, then raised his hand to straighten his helmet, which had fallen over his eyes. Of course he couldnt control the braking bike with one hand, so crashed.

There have also been cases of children wearing helmets whilst climbing on trees and climbing frames. THe helmet has become lodged on a small gap and the child is left hanging by the strap around his neck. The latest playground equip guidlines specify bike-helmet clearance for holes.

I always wear mine because I can't tell when Im going to be unlucky.

Originally posted by MichaelW
I always wear mine because I can't tell when Im going to be unlucky.
You must look real goofy sitting at your desk in a helmet, and how do you wash your hair?

Ill have to dig out the Steve Bell article on household and domestic safety. About every activity he writes " ..and wear a bicycle helmet"

I read an article in Bicycling magazine in the early 80's, written by a neourologist, graphically describing what the brain goes though in a fall, when there is head contact... I had bean wearing a helmet before that, back when the old plastic Bell helmets felt like a bowling ball on your head.

DAH... it is a "no brainer" for me.


YOU can do what you want... but if you are riding with me, or you are part of my circle of friend, or family...
Wear a helmet, or get off the bike.:thumbup: