CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
"Compulsory cycle helmets"
(30 posts)-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
USUALLY WARNING ABOUT NOT RE-RUNNING 'THE DEBATE' ON HERE...
"
Doctors are applauding members of the Northern Ireland assembly for voting in favour of a bill to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory
"Doctors are as divided as people on CCE on merits of helmets v not taking exercise.
HOWEVER
To the current 'situation'.
This vote in NI has attracted remarkably little coverage.
I believe that a private members bill has been approved for further consideration. There is therefore NOT helmet compulsion in NI.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Didn't / hasn't Northern Ireland got a compulsory cycle bell law? I seem to remember that from my "eye spy book of the highway code" from when I was wee.
Maybe they've just got a bit more of a luddite attitude to bicycles.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Although not law yet, it seems likely that we'll have compulsion in the UK in short order, as there are assembly elections in NI on May 5th - not much time for anyone to do much campaigning. From there it's only a short hop across the Irish sea, Headway have got a good head of steam now.
I didn't vote in the poll because there's not a suitable option. I'm opposed to scaremongering helmet promotion and therefore especially to compulsion, BUT my position is not fixed and could certainly be changed by compelling evidence that helmets would have a large public health benefit (I believe the balance of evidence now shows a strong disbenefit, YMMV).
Sadly I think we've demonstrated an inability to debate here (although this is hardly unusual in a cycling forum). Fundamentally people do not like to have "common sense", and the decisions they make based on it, to be challenged.
And fair enough - but as you sow, so shall ye reap etc. Our car finances will look a bit better amortised over more miles anyway :)
Posted 13 years ago # -
I'm honestly not convinced the Torries would vote this through anyway, more government intervention is not really what they are aiming for at the moment.
Plus whilst i'm not convinced it will make a difference to current cycling levels it would likely kill the Borris bikes dead in the water which would raise the resistance to compulsory usage in the UK, as we all know the UK stops out side London.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I for one am in favour of wearing a helmet but by choice only.
This is primarily down to a helmet saving my nogging twice whe I was younger (I hit a car and my head went into the the screen) and on a second occasion I went over the bars and my head hit the corner of a fence.While bmx'ing I always wore my helmet and I was thankful for that when I was almost knocked out even with it on.
Being new to commuting in the city I got a new lid straight away. Not because I think I am going to fall but because of a certain percentage of idiot drivers that are out there. (Friend of mine in cupar got hit and lost half a leg and the use of an arm).
I agree with you Steveo there. It would seriously limit the usuage of the Barclays bikes which seem to be a fantastic and well used scheme.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"Plus whilst i'm not convinced it will make a difference to current cycling levels it would likely kill the Borris bikes dead in the water"
I'm not sure how to reconcile this. You think that it probably won't make a difference to utility cycling but will simultaneously "kill it dead"?
Boris bikes make it possible to cycle around London without having to own a bike but (just as with people who own their own bike) there's no reason you can't buy a helmet.
Remember Boris bike journeys are not that spontaneous - you need to sign up with TfL and bring your Boris bike keyfob in order to make a journey, and you need to ride from one dock point to another. That being so, what sort of reason might cause Boris bikes to die off preferentially when helmets are enforced, something that doesn't also apply to anyone jumping on to ride to the shops, or work, or whatever, on a bike they own?
Posted 13 years ago # -
Incidentally, some of the debate comments during the passage of this NI act were very interesting. For example, the CTC's representation that helmets should not be compulsory was dismissed out of hand because "when they go out for a ride, most of them wear helmets themselves".
It was asked why people wanted protection for themselves but to "deny it to the children" (yes, yes, I know).
I was actually quite impressed by the quality of the debate, in that there were no shortage of people saying that it didn't make sense. I was just depressed by the way the vote went.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I'm honestly not convinced the Torries would vote this through anyway, more government intervention is not really what they are aiming for at the moment.
I have not the slightest idea of what the Tories are interested in other than self promotion. Yesterday the ConDems voted to sell off our forests, and it will not take long before access to Forestry Commission land will be a thing of the past, with a direct impact on cycling activities and this debate will be spurious as access to large tracts of Britain become redundant. They may not get around to having any vote in this parliament's lifetime about helmet use as it is not a money spinner.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I would be very surprised if compulsion happens in the UK.
I would be fairly surprised if it happens in NI.
IF it does, I'm confident there will be no Westminster rush to 'catch up'.
It would certainly be a 'useful' experiment to allow firm data to be collected on changes in cycle use, reduction in deaths/injuries, savings to the NHS etc.
This would probably need to happen for at least 10 years in order to estimate other (possible) effects of (possibly) reducing general exercise and (perhaps) increased vehicle use/mileage.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Yesterday the ConDems voted to sell off our forests, and it will not take long before access to Forestry Commission land will be a thing of the past
Not that this is anything but a stupid plan and I may just be splitting hairs but this affects England and Wales only I think and we have legislation in Scotland (absent in England) to guarantee outdoor access unless it's across Ann Gloag's croquet lawn (paid for by all the public bus and train subsidies that Stagecoach got fat off of).
Posted 13 years ago # -
"paid for by all the public bus and train subsidies"
Not forgetting all the money made by selling some conveniently sited city centre bus stations.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"That being so, what sort of reason might cause Boris bikes to die off preferentially when helmets are enforced, something that doesn't also apply to anyone jumping on to ride to the shops, or work, or whatever, on a bike they own?"
Possibly simply that people generally keep the helmet they own near the bike they own? People who suspected they might need a Boris bike at some point in their day would either need to keep a hat in the office whence they would be travelling or remember to leave the house with their helmet and carry it around with them until it was required. It might conceivably reduce the number of Boris bike journeys undertaken spontaneously (ignoring the scheme's initial need for advance registration), unless vending machines selling flat-pack legal-minimum cardboard hats were installed near all cycle stations.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"I'm not sure how to reconcile this. You think that it probably won't make a difference to utility cycling but will simultaneously "kill it dead"? "
Whilst you have to sign up for it you don't have to book it so its still fairly spontaneous if your already out and about. Having to take a lid with you on the off chance you take a bike instead of the tube would be just enough inconvenience to kill it. I don't know about you but when i go out with the bike i always go from my house (where my bike is) and thus where any gear i choose to take is stored.
Bah ninja'd by wingpig.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Worth pointing out that the Northern Ireland Bill is not yet law. It is at an early stage of consideration by the NI Assembly and has yet to be considered by Committee and go through two further votes of the full Assembly. As a non-Executive Bill, which only got through it's second stage (i.e. first vote in the Assembly) by 20 votes to 18 there is a good chance it will not become law - not least because the NI Department of Justice and the Police Service of Northern Ireland both oppose it.
I will be quite happy to chomp down on a helmet of anyone's choice (full face included) if helmet wearing is ever made compulsory in Scotland.
Posted 13 years ago # -
@morningsider... the Forestry Commission HQ is in Edinburgh, job losses will affect that, if it does not go altogether. Forestry land has already been sold off in Scotland in the Borders and one way of getting around the right to roam is to institute regular shoots thus cutting off access to the public for safety reasons and this is already happening. Sorry for going "off-track".
Posted 13 years ago # -
"Having to take a lid with you on the off chance you take a bike instead of the tube would be just enough inconvenience to kill it."
Yes, and I think that this applies equally to all sorts of bike use (even when the bike is owned).
Imagine for a moment the average sort of cyclist who we need to encourage - not the CCE five-times-a-day road warrior, but the guy with a bike in the cupboard from five or ten years ago, or the student who picked one up for £15 from a second hand shop to leave on the drainpipe outside. (Or even the guys in my office who bought bikes last summer to ride to work, and have shut them away for the last 6+ months).
Passing a law that says "cycling is so dangerous that we will prosecute you if you do it bareheaded", quite apart from the obvious consequence of fearmongering, means that these people need to have their helmet handy at all times if they are ever going to reach for their bike instead of the car keys.
I often struggle to find my helmet and I *do* wear it relatively regularly, especially in summer. If I actually *couldn't* go to the shops without finding it and putting it on (and wouldn't leave it locked up for fear that someone would steal or break it and I'd have to walk home) then I'd be in the car a lot more often.
And I *am* a keen cyclist. Draw your own conclusions about Joe Public.
Posted 13 years ago # -
The big question is:
can more lives be saved with helmet compulsion than without it?
Without having figures to hand, this could be finely balanced. If there is any dip in cycling due to compulsion, this could affect a vast number of people. But the health benefits tend to be long term. On the other hand, the number of people that might be saved by helmets (assuming that they are effective) is limited since the proportion of people that have relevant accidents on bikes is sure to be very low. However the effect is abrupt.
I did hear somewhere that wearing of helmets can raise one's risk tolerance (similar to seatbelts) so that can increase the risk of having an accident.
Posted 13 years ago # -
My big grumble though is the picking on cyclists. Pedestrians and motorists also have head injuries (more or less??) so why not pick on them? Isn't the home & garden meant to be seriously dangerous as well, so shouldn't we be made to wear fireproof protective clothing there?
Posted 13 years ago # -
"not the CCE five-times-a-day road warrior"
Maybe this highlights our different perspectives. 18 Months ago i was joe public, i hadn't ridden in a decade. I remember the excuses etc. You know why I didn't ride, i couldn't be arsed all the other "reasons" are just excuses for that, I'm not a particularly lazy person so I don't think i'm that unusual.
Nothing an external entity can do will encourage a person to ride more or use their car less and even if you could raise all the "barriers" another excuse would materialise cycling doesn't fit their times or its too far etc. Adding new barriers also wouldn't make much difference 3 years ago had they brought in helmet laws i'd have shurgged and thought well it doesn't matter because i can't be bothered any way. When I did decide to start riding and had actually made that choice the fact i had to wear a helmet would just be another factor after deciding i was going to cycle.
The only way to get people to change and for it to stick is for them to want to. Either that is the bus/fuel getting too expensive, health reasons, taking up a new hobby etc.
Posted 13 years ago # -
So long as the courts that are meant to enforce the law carry on handing out pathetic, slap-on-the-wrist sentences for people who are determined to flout the law and use their cars as lethal weapons, you could mandate that all cyclists cover their entire person in a protective shield of helmets and and still see no appreciable benefit for it.
Posted 13 years ago # -
OOps pressed the wrong button!! Should have read the question before voting. I thought it said compulsory helmets yes or no so I clicked no.......
Posted 13 years ago # -
steveo - I wish that you were right.
It can be hard to visualise why people behave in the way they do. For example, within reason I couldn't care less what the price of fuel is - when I want to take the car I take it.
So the idea that I might not drive, just because the cost of fuel went up by 1p really does not compute. Yet, reliable as clockwork, the amount of miles driven by people who are just like me does go down when fuel goes up 1p, and it does go up when fuel comes down 1p.
Similarly, many cyclists can't understand the fuss about compulsion because as you illustrate, it seems incomprehensible that people decide whether to ride or not just based on one extra bit of equipment (and the posters and TV ads reminding us all that it's too dangerous to do bareheaded, of course).
Even the promotion of helmet wearing is associated with falling levels of cycle participation, while compulsion is really bad - between 35% and 50% drop in Australia and New Zealand depending on the group you look at.
I think it's fine to speculate on why this effect exists but the evidence that it does exist is unfortunately solid.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Well, I'm currently sporting 4 stitches on my forehead from playing hockey. That's four more stitches and one more head injury from playing hockey for 8 years or so than I have ever received from 30-odd years of cycling, the first 20 of which did not feature a helmet.
Clearly, for the good of all hockey players we need a law that requires us to wear helmets when playing the sport. But the dark forces at work in the British establishment are clearly anti-hockey and will happily see us self-harm and maim ourselves unto extinction...
Posted 13 years ago # -
Pass me the AK47, imma shoot myself.
Posted 13 years ago # -
My apologies for misquoting the wrong person with my response to the Forestry Commission land sell off. The sell off does affect England mostly, as Wales like Scotland has it's own parliament. I note that no-one has actually voted... is the second option just a little over the top?
Posted 13 years ago # -
@Liz - if you've not voted, you won't see the results unless you press the "show me" button...
All debate about the Forestry Commission diverts attention from the "H" word!
Posted 13 years ago # -
Thanks Liz - publicly owned forests for all the UK I say.
Hel**ts - nooooo, its happening again...
Posted 13 years ago # -
"Being new to commuting in the city I got a new lid straight away. Not because I think I am going to fall but because of a certain percentage of idiot drivers that are out there. (Friend of mine in cupar got hit and lost half a leg and the use of an arm)."
Really terrible thing to happen, especially when it's someone you know, but (and please, this isn't being flippant) a helmet wasn't going to save his leg and arm.
There was a similar jump in logic last year with a woman on the tv calling for all children to have to where helmets after her son tragically lost his life. His head, of course, was unscathed, it was massive internal injuries.
That said. Pro-choice. I sometimes wear, I sometimes don't, depending on what I do, and I don't think any better or worse of anyone else just by reason of their headgear or lack thereof. What I hate (on both sides) is fundamentalism. Which this debate so often breaks down to.
Posted 13 years ago # -
For whatever it's worth, the DfT looked at this recently and their best guess for "what proportion of dead cyclists would still be dead even if they wore a helmet" was about 85%.
Not that it makes any difference really. Even if all ~100 annual cyclist deaths could be guaranteeably prevented by helmet use, there would still be a net disbenefit to society (because ~250,000 deaths from sedentary disease is such a lot more than ~100).
The funny thing is that in Northern Ireland, there were no cycling deaths in 2009 or 2010 and no child cycling deaths since 2005. To take people to court for riding round the park (or a field) bareheaded seems... almost religiously disproportionate.
There's some fantastic spin going on too. For example Headway say that chasing and prosecuting bareheaded cyclists "will provide [those] in Northern Ireland with the same level of protection as cyclists in other jurisdictions across the world."
Wait, what?
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
