cabledonut

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.

Richard D

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

Allister

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.

chewa

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)

John E

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.

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.

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

Harry

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

velocipedio

I agree with Allister's point number 4:
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.

Chris L

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.

Allister

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.

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: ... or caring for someone with heart or lung problems brought about by a sedentary lifestyle.

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.

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.

LittleBigMan

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.

Allister

I reckon they should make cycling compulsory.

Chris L

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.

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

cyclezealot

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.

velocipedio

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.

john999

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.

MichaelW

>>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.

John E

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.

Chris L

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.

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.

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.

blissfulsteak

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!

Captain Crunch

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.

cyclezealot

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.

velocipedio

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.

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 ?

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.