http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: No helmet = contributory negligence en Sat, 01 Aug 2026 19:23:34 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=5#post-41253 Sun, 18 Sep 2011 21:22:54 +0000 chdot 41253@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"How badly fitted car seats threaten child safety"</p> <p><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/sep/18/children-using-car-seats-at-risk" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/sep/18/children-using-car-seats-at-risk</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=5#post-41210 Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:13:50 +0000 Instography 41210@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Perhaps we can argue about whether it's lying to extract only the statistics on child bike use from a paper to make claims about child bike use another time... for now, I think this has just about run its course.</em></p> <p>Yes, let's. I enjoyed that. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=5#post-41204 Sat, 17 Sep 2011 19:09:15 +0000 Dave 41204@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>"No one here Dave. On this forum. Perhaps I should have been more specific."</em></p> <p>I wasn't aware that it was necessary for someone on the forum to personally champion a position before the rest of us could express a view on it :D<br /> <em><br /> "You really can't complain about the 85% being repeated when the opposition camp are repeating their own versions of the same lies."</em></p> <p>I don't know - I find your criticism of the BHRF to be just a little less convincing than their criticism of "helmet establishment" - although I suppose that's no surprise in a little corner of the internet.</p> <p>Perhaps we can argue about whether it's lying to extract only the statistics on child bike use from a paper to make claims about child bike use another time... for now, I think this has just about run its course. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=5#post-41202 Sat, 17 Sep 2011 18:53:01 +0000 custard 41202@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>proof!</p> <p>helmets are stopping people riding ;)</p> <p><a href="http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mans-bike-WA7-/130574600334?pt=UK_Bikes_GL&amp;hash=item1e66da488e" rel="nofollow">http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mans-bike-WA7-/130574600334?pt=UK_Bikes_GL&amp;hash=item1e66da488e</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=5#post-41200 Sat, 17 Sep 2011 18:11:37 +0000 Instography 41200@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I just had a look at that link Dave. I suppose you know where they're getting all their references from? They're quoting (misquoting?) word perfect from bicyclehelmets.org and linking back to it. You really can't complain about the 85% being repeated when the opposition camp are repeating their own versions of the same lies. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=5#post-41197 Sat, 17 Sep 2011 17:03:48 +0000 Instography 41197@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>No one here Dave. On this forum. Perhaps I should have been more specific. Maybe you think you're addressing an audience wider than this little corner of the internet. My point is that you're arguing against points that no one in this discussion has made. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=5#post-41182 Sat, 17 Sep 2011 11:11:04 +0000 Dave 41182@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"No one's arguing that it wouldn't or that mandating helmets for cyclists would be the best way to reduce road injuries. No one's even arguing for mandatory helmets."</p> <p>Hmm. Obviously we live in a different country. There are endless examples of the march towards compulsion here (we're discussing one now - if we get to the stage where no compensation is given to a cyclist in ordinary clothes after they're hit by a car, then that is de-facto compulsion although using a different sanction to the police notice you'd get with a traditional law).</p> <p><em>"No one's arguing that helmets would prevent all or most or even many injuries. I've already described Snell rated helmets as a shoddy compromise that give an unjustified sense of security."</em></p> <p>Au contraire - chances are your local bike shop, like mine, will tell you that helmets prevent 85% of all head injuries. Look at any of the judgements following the deaths of cyclists hit by cars. Whether or not they wore a helmet, and despite evidence that it would have done do good either way, there is always an admonition that all cyclists should always wear one from the bench. </p> <p><em>"There is no campaign to impose helmets on everyone else so a campaign against them is quixotic.</em></p> <p><a href="http://www.wrongheaded.org.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.wrongheaded.org.uk</a> for instance, seems to be opposing a specific campaign of imposition? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=5#post-41181 Sat, 17 Sep 2011 11:04:48 +0000 Dave 41181@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>"IF roads were 'safe' due to some infrastructure changes and massive change of attitudes by motor vehicle users, there would be less of case for helmets, unless it was to reduce the chance of injuries in random falling off cases. "</em></p> <p>But this is where it would make most sense. The vast majority of bike incidents are single vehicle (i.e. "random falling off"), including the vast majority (90%, I read somewhere) of hospitalisations.</p> <p>Vehicle 'interactions' account for a large proportion of deaths, of course, as you might expect. But against the impact of a vehicle bike helmets as we know them do very little good. The most recent study by the government's Transport Research Laboratory suggested they would be effective in 10-15% of fatal head injuries. When you consider that half of all deceased cyclists have fatal non-head injuries anyway, that means a real-terms decrease of 5-7.5%, which isn't much to shout about.</p> <p>On the other hand, helmets probably are quite effective at preventing the usual cuts and bruises from 'single occupancy' crashes, so if the roads became "safe" vehicle wise, then might be the most sensible case for introducing helmets. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=5#post-41177 Sat, 17 Sep 2011 09:24:40 +0000 wee folding bike 41177@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Even if worn for random falling cases it would mean the government mandating something which could increase serious injury. There is even a causal link. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=5#post-41172 Sat, 17 Sep 2011 08:56:14 +0000 chdot 41172@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"but I still don't see how helmet compulsion can be acceptable."</p> <p>Presume that's in response to my -</p> <p>"Helmet compulsion might be acceptable as a tiny element in a masive programme of harm/danger reduction aimed at ALL road users. But..."</p> <p>IF roads were 'safe' due to some infrastructure changes and <em>massive</em> change of attitudes by motor vehicle users, there would be less of case for helmets, unless it was to reduce the chance of injuries in random falling off cases. </p> <p>In this new world of reduced risk, presumably pedestrians would accept compulsory helmets too(?) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=5#post-41170 Sat, 17 Sep 2011 08:44:26 +0000 wee folding bike 41170@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I left that one all night to think about it but I still don't see how helmet compulsion can be acceptable. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=4#post-41155 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:45:43 +0000 chdot 41155@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"There is no campaign to impose helmets on everyone else"</p> <p>That's not really true. </p> <p>There are various campaign/er/s for compulsory helmet use - at least by children; recently in the Northern Ireland Assembly and by various MPs over the years. </p> <p>So a certain amount of vigilance and low level 'resistance' had been used by individuals and cycling organisations. </p> <p>Periodically 'influential' groups like the BMA change their minds. </p> <p>As this thread demonstrates (again...) there are different views and more and less and less reliable statistics. </p> <p>Most 'evidence' is hard to prove either way. </p> <p>It's certainly a valid observation that using 20 year old stats/evidence may have little relevance in today's world of different attitudes and expectations. </p> <p>Helmet compulsion <em>might</em> be acceptable as a <em>tiny</em> element in a masive programme of harm/danger reduction aimed at ALL road users. But...</p> <p>Lots more here - <a href="http://www.rdrf.org">Road Danger Reduction Forum</a>. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=4#post-41151 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 18:53:02 +0000 wee folding bike 41151@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>More an observation than an insult. That's what kids in school say to me. They don't understand that I've already factored in the crumple zones. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=4#post-41150 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 18:49:20 +0000 Instography 41150@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Of course helmets on pedestrians and motorists would save more lives but so what? No one's arguing that it wouldn't or that mandating helmets for cyclists would be the best way to reduce road injuries. No one's even arguing for mandatory helmets. I'm not even arguing that anyone should wear a helmet although they can if they want to. </p> <p>No one's arguing that helmets would prevent all or most or even many injuries. I've already described Snell rated helmets as a shoddy compromise that give an unjustified sense of security.</p> <p>I'm just against the position of being against helmets, especially when it's argued using the kind of phoney and dishonest stats that we see on bicyclehelmets.org. It's a choice made by rational adults for themselves and their children. There's no argument against it since it's they who need to decide to suffer any discomfort or inconvenience and they don't impose it on anyone else. There is no campaign to impose helmets on everyone else so a campaign against them is quixotic. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=4#post-41139 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:02:03 +0000 wingpig 41139@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><blockquote><em>" The best we can expect from bike helmets is that they'd prevent all cycling injury..."</em></blockquote></p> <p>That's rather optimistic. The most I'd ever expect would be that they <strong><u>might</strong></u> reduce or prevent or help prevent <strong>some</strong> <em>head</em> injuries. They're not magic, after all. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=4#post-41137 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:53:29 +0000 Dave 41137@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I pointed out many ways in which both pedestrians and car drivers are protected."</p> <p>But isn't the point that helmets on pedestrians would save a large number of lives despite the fact that they are already protected - far more than bike helmets could ever save, in truth. </p> <p>The best we can expect from bike helmets is that they'd prevent all cycling injury, but in absolute terms that's still a trivial number (around five deaths a year) - very little compared with the number of OAPs who fall and terminally bang their heads, to give just one example.</p> <p>Similarly, all the protection that modern cars provide doesn't prevent a very high (absolute) number of head injuries, many of which could be prevented by the same sort of helmets that are already cheaply available for motorcyclists. If society wants to save X lives a year, there are very much lower fruits to pluck than ours. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=4#post-41132 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:18:39 +0000 Instography 41132@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Yes, I realise that drivers and pedestrians still get head injuries. I'm not actually a school child. You said</p> <p><em>If cycling is dangerous enough to need protection then so is walking and being in a car.</em></p> <p>And I pointed out many ways in which both pedestrians and car drivers are protected. They're not protected by helmets although much of the protection in cars - I'm thinking crumple zones and air bags and side curtains - is aimed at the same sort of controlled deceleration and impact dissipation that helmets offer. Just not so directly. Why that warrants the comparison to a school child escapes me. It seems like a fairly gratuitous insult. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=4#post-41118 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:46:55 +0000 wee folding bike 41118@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Insto,</p> <p>No, the school kid point is that even with all the crumple zones people in cars still get head injuries. It's possible that these could be reduced if they wore a big hat. in a car you don't need to do anything which might make you hot and you could wear a bigger, more effective, hat than a cyclist might. Driving hats are available, not surprisingly they come from. Austrailia You can see a photo on Copehnhagenize. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=4#post-41113 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 12:36:05 +0000 Roibeard 41113@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><strong>winpig</strong> <em> life-threatening injuries are not likely to be incurred by the same person on a daily basis</em></p> <p>&lt;grin&gt;</p> <p>Thanks for that! Whilst delighted that a (re-)post of mine has created such interest, I think the original point that a court considering a helmet necessary under certain conditions has now been superceeded by the general debate.</p> <p>I've not observed these before, not really being a "cyclist" as such, so I've found it very enlightening - despite the risk that it might have descended into heat rather than light!</p> <p>Thanks for fleshing things out so well folks.</p> <p>Robert </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=4#post-41108 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 12:22:09 +0000 wingpig 41108@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><blockquote><em>"Never let me near a real survey design"</em></blockquote></p> <p>Well, no; pointed/leading questions are a certain way of getting biased responses.</p> <p>Concerns about speed/volume/considerateness/roughness of cars and roads do not link directly (and solely) to "so I'd have to wear a helmet at the very least to even begin feeling safe". There are other types of injury available besides those to the head. As well as anticipating their potential for resulting in injury, too much/too fast/too impolite/too bumpy othertraffic and surfaces could be being anticipated as causes of journeys resulting in no physical harm but lots of stress and upset. Lots of stress could be incurred on every journey, whereas life-threatening injuries are not likely to be incurred by the same person on a daily basis. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=4#post-41106 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 12:17:33 +0000 chdot 41106@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Were you sitting on a stationary bike when you took this?"</p> <p>Yes, wheels against kerb and foot on pavement. It looked like a 'bunch' I was glad I wasn't in the middle of!</p> <p>Don't think I've actually seen 5 bikes in a bunch there before. </p> <p>Presume all 5 know the (random) state of the road surface and the imminent encounter with the van at the Post Office and the 'fast' left turn where it's possible to get taken out by cars AND the pedestrian island just past that. Last thing you want is to have to worry about inconsiderate cyclists!</p> <p>"wot no panniers?"</p> <p>Yes that was a bit surprising.</p> <p>Clearly this is literally a snapshot. All male (I think). 4 helmets (this is more typical among commuters than general 'people on bikes' so skews all sorts of perceptions). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=4#post-41104 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:59:56 +0000 Dave 41104@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Insto - surely all of the following are, by definition, about the perception that cycling is dangerous (dangerous enough, for instance, that one should wear a helmet):</p> <p>* there's too many cars<br /> * cars are too fast<br /> * concerns about safety on dark or lonely roads<br /> * inconsiderate drivers<br /> * the state of the roads</p> <p>Yet in reality, all of the above are largely a perception. I think the luminous suit and body armour play a big role in the way cycling is perceived, whether or not you'd have to tailor survey questions to find out what ordinary people thought. </p> <p>Here's a genuine survey question for you:</p> <p><em>"<strong>If you do not regularly cycle:</strong> would you consider doing so if the government made it safe for ordinary people to do without needing to wear a helmet and high visibility clothing?"</em></p> <p>And of course:</p> <p><em>"<strong>If you do not cycle regularly:</strong> do you think that looking sweaty and vaguely silly in a cycle helmet is one of the things that puts you off?"</em></p> <p>Never let me near a real survey design ;-) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=4#post-41101 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:31:42 +0000 gembo 41101@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>chdot - wot no panniers? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=4#post-41100 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:30:59 +0000 Instography 41100@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>The only way that cycling will become normal and accepted (as it is on the continent) is if it is seen to be safe. While enforcing helmet use is neither here nor there for people who already ride (with helmets), it's not much help converting the 99% who don't because they are scared off the roads.</p> <p>In other words, opposition to helmets is a necessary (but sadly not sufficient) precondition to having a cycling society.</em></p> <p>I don't disagree with the first paragraph but I can't agree with the second. It implies that helmets are an important factor in making cycling appear unsafe to non-cyclists. Helmets need to be opposed because they're putting people off cycling. I'm sitting here looking at data from just over 12,000 Scottish adult non-pensioner, non-cyclists giving their reasons for not cycling (Scottish Household Survey 2009/2010). I won't claim it's the definitive answer although it reflects the types of responses given in years of much smaller Scottish Government surveys of people's attitudes to cycling. The important thing is that not one of those people mentions helmets or lights or funny clothes as a barrier to cycling. </p> <p>The main reasons they give are, in this order of frequency:</p> <p>* distance - it's too far to cycle<br /> * the weather - it's often too cold, too wet or too windy<br /> * there's too many cars<br /> * cars are too fast<br /> * concerns about safety on dark or lonely roads<br /> * inconsiderate drivers<br /> * needing to carry luggage or shopping<br /> * can't be bothered<br /> * showering changing when they get there<br /> * fitness<br /> * hills<br /> * the state of the roads<br /> * no safe place to lock a bike<br /> * can't ride a bike<br /> * nowhere to store a bike at home<br /> * a health problem<br /> * pollution from traffic<br /> * too many bikes stolen<br /> * inconsiderate pedestrians</p> <p>This says to me that there are a host of practical and attitudinal reasons (and excuses) that are keeping people off a bike but a helmet isn't one of them. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=4#post-41098 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:29:39 +0000 Morningsider 41098@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>chdot - I'm part of your rush hour (yellow jacket)! Were you sitting on a stationary bike when you took this? </p> <p>I was going to start a thread on dangerous cycling after being a part of this convoy - a couple of these guys pulled vary dangerous manoeuvres to squeeze past me on the way home, one who insisted on overtaking me as I passed you and then bellowing at me to get out of the road (polite version). </p> <p>Instography - I salute your indefatagability! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=4#post-41096 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:21:23 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 41096@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<em>That said - if legislation was passed I would take the car for many journeys I currently cycle.</em>"</p> <p>"Why?"</p> <p>I'm in the 'why' camp as well. I'm completely and utterly pro-choice, ride without a helmet every day, couldn't really care less if someone else dons a helmet to cycle, and if a law came in? Well, if it was enforced, I'd wear a helmet. And if the 'why' is posed to that, because I'm not giving up the bike and all the benefits I get from that to sit in a metal box getting frustrated at the world and losing my daily stress relief over the sake of having to put a bit of plastic on my head that has been mandated.</p> <p>Would I agree with the law? No, and I'd probably campaign against it, but there are many other laws that I don't necessarily agree with and comply with.</p> <p>Maybe other people are more easily put off the things they love. I think that might only happen with me and cycling if it was made law that your saddle had to be replaced with a hot poker. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=4#post-41093 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:12:03 +0000 chdot 41093@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Head apparel debate is a distractor, we have all been duped. Petrol prices going up may lead to more cycling tho"<br /> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chdot/6150040873/in/photostream"><br /> <img src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6177/6150040873_d6d142bf2e.jpg"><br /> </a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=4#post-41089 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:05:09 +0000 gembo 41089@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>OMG I so wish this had stopped before it started up again. Helmets is a cul de sac to draw the fire away from cars. Head apparel debate is a distractor, we have all been duped. Petrol prices going up may lead to more cycling tho </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=4#post-41084 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:38:25 +0000 SRD 41084@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"That said - if legislation was passed I would take the car for many journeys I currently cycle."</p> <p>Why? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3862&page=4#post-41082 Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:20:39 +0000 Dave 41082@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>"Even if it were true 20 years ago that helmet laws affected cycling participation it seems very unlikely that it would now."</em></p> <p>As I commented a page or two ago. The only people who cycle now are the ones who are willing to face death on the roads, whether or not their response to that is choosing to wear a helmet or go bareheaded. In that respect, I'm certain that helmet legislation here would have a much smaller effect* than 20 or 30 years ago when comparable laws were introduced. </p> <p>Nevertheless this is not a reason to relax on the helmet front. The only way that cycling will become normal and accepted (as it is on the continent) is if it is seen to be safe. While enforcing helmet use is neither here nor there for people who already ride (with helmets), it's not much help converting the 99% who don't because they are scared off the roads.</p> <p>In other words, opposition to helmets is a necessary (but sadly not sufficient) precondition to having a cycling society.</p> <p>* That said - if legislation was passed I would take the car for many journeys I currently cycle, and at up to 800 miles a month, I am a "fairly" keen cyclist. I wonder whether the loss of a few enthusiasts who ride a disproportionate amount, or the casual users who don't think of themselves as cyclists at all is more to the point. </p>