Cycle helmets compulsory?

PBC_1966

Here's the latest from the road-safety gestapo in the U.K. For the sake of what little liberty is left, let's hope this proposal gets thrown firmly in the trash can where it belongs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/3623089.stm

If this goes through, would anyone like to bet how long it will be before your law-makers in Dublin decide to follow suit? And how long before both sides decide to extend this to adults as well?

(And before those who attacked my seat-belt stance jump on me again, let me point out that I don't ride a bicycle....;))

Merrion

I do ride a bicycle and was tipped off it by a sodding great pothole in Booterstown. Massive gash in my helmet (which I had to replace) but saved a massive gash in my head (which I can't easily replace).

I suppose it's the choice of the individual but they way roads (and some dirvers) are in this country it is a sensible choice.

mike65

Its worse here - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=162069

Mike.

PBC_1966

Sheesh....:rolleyes: I see what you mean. Surely some hot-shot lawyer could get onto this and complain that it's a violation of kids' rights to try to ban them from the road or something like that?

Strange as it may seem, I have this old-fashioned idea that a better approach would be to get drivers of motor vehicles to behave more responsibly toward cyclists and other road users.

Victor

That is an old article PBC, the proposal in the UK was defeated.

The National Safety Council have withdrawn their proposals here.

PBC_1966

Ah, thanks.

This came up on a news program a few days ago, but they made no mention of the bill's defeat, nor had I seen any further mention of it.

Common sense prevails for once!

Fendervendor

Why shouldn't cyclists, perhaps the most vulnerable group of road users, now be expected to take some pro-active action to protect themselves!? They are after all the only road users who require NO training, NO licencing, NO insurance cover and seemingly NO minimum age limitation.
As for any argument that compulsory wearing of helmets would put kids off riding, well that's just BS, if everyone has to wear a helmet then the only problem there maybe is 'who's got the coolest'.
If you include children, and as they use the roads i think you should, they are proportionately the WORST behaved group of road users.

the evil belly

Originally posted by Fendervendor
They are after all the only road users who require NO training, NO licencing, NO insurance cover and seemingly NO minimum age limitation.

lets not forget people who ride horse on public roads. big awkward fecking things that do nothing but damage road surfaces with their big steel shoes and leave big piles of crap in the middle of the road (which the owner/rider should be made clane up the same as those of us with dogs, there are fines for littering) i'd like to see tax and insurance disks on a horse, it'd make my day

Victor

Originally posted by Fendervendor
They are after all the only road users who require NO training, NO licencing, NO insurance cover and seemingly NO minimum age limitation.

Ever hear of a pedestrian?

And of course cyclists killed 500,000 people worldwide every year.

blobert

I suppose the most common objection to wearing a helmet is that it makes one look very foolish/deeply unpopular. Perhaps if it were mandatory it would remove this...

Victor

No, no, no.

Compulsory helmet wearing in a cars and other motorised vehicles would make eminently more sense than compulsory cycle helmets. Motoring is more dangerous than cycling.

A cycling helmet has never prevented an accident, yes it can mitigate one, but the "invincible" factor also kicks "I'm wearing a helmet, I can do anything".

jlang

Not to mention that motorists think they can go closer and faster by helmet wearing cyclists thinking that the helmets make the cyclists immune to any effects.

Fendervendor

Originally posted by the evil belly
lets not forget people who ride horse on public roads. big awkward fecking things that do nothing but damage road surfaces with their big steel shoes and leave big piles of crap in the middle of the road (which the owner/rider should be made clane up the same as those of us with dogs, there are fines for littering) i'd like to see tax and insurance disks on a horse, it'd make my day

True, true, i did forget the nags didn't i.

Originally posted by Victor
Ever hear of a pedestrian?

Road users, not crossers, doesn't it annoy YOU when pedestrians put themselves and others at risk, when they insist on crossing a busy road, twenty feet away from a controlled crossing?

Originally posted by Victor
Motoring is more dangerous than cycling

For whom? the Motorist or the Cyclist? This attitude of 'It's your resposibility to avoid endangering me!' may very well be valid, but we have to (try and) LIVE in the real world. If that means cyclists wearing protective gear, then so be it.

Originally posted by jlang
Not to mention that motorists think they can go closer and faster by helmet wearing cyclists thinking that the helmets make the cyclists immune to any effects.

Not to mention cyclists who take to the pavement to avoid stopping at a red light, or the cyclist who rides across a pedestrian crossing!

tribble

Motorists are forced to wear seatbelts to protect not just themselves but OTHERS in an accident.

They help keep a motorist in control of the car during a crash therby saving lives outside of the car.

If you are going to force cyclists to wear helmets to protect themselves (and only themselves) then surely it would make sense to do the same for motorists, what with head and neck injuries being the most common.


tribble

/edit
Personally I think this state has really started to intrude on aspects of our lives which should be left to our own personal choice. This is how the Sweeds seem to prefer it but then again they have honest polititions and responsible police.

Doodee

Originally posted by Victor
No, no, no.

Compulsory helmet wearing in a cars and other motorised vehicles would make eminently more sense than compulsory cycle helmets. Motoring is more dangerous than cycling.

A cycling helmet has never prevented an accident, yes it can mitigate one, but the "invincible" factor also kicks "I'm wearing a helmet, I can do anything".

err, Motorcyclists have to wear helemts, they aren't a 100% guarantee that you wont damage your head, they are simply there to absorb the initial impact.

I think it should be compulsory for all road users to wear some form of protection.
e.g Seat Belts, Helmets, Illuminated yellows.

Protect people from themselves etc.

prevention is better than cure.

Fendervendor

Originally posted by tribble
Motorists are forced to wear seatbelts to protect not just themselves but OTHERS in an accident.

They help keep a motorist in control of the car during a crash therby saving lives outside of the car.

Seat belts are designed to work 'on impact'. Upon impact you are not in 'control' of the vehicle wether you are 'hitting' or 'being hit'. The 'OTHERS' you refer to would be the front seat occupants being clobbered by the rear seat occupants who are not wearing their seat belt.

PBC_1966

To those claiming that helmets should be compulsory, may I ask at what point you would draw the line and shout "Enough already!" then?

How about cyclists falling off and scraping knees or arms? Surely there must be a law to prevent that, so let's make leather jackets or other protection a legal requirement.

Let's see, pedestrian vs. car collision, it's a pretty safe bet the pedestrian will come off worse. So why not make it a legal requirement for pedestrians to wear a helmet? Why not force them to wear padded suits or body-armor as well?

Do you have any idea how many people trip over and hurt themselves on those hard paved streets? Better force them to wear knee pads too.

Some people get stuck in burning vehicles. How about making it a requirement to wear an asbestos-lined suit while traveling in a car? And a flame-proof helmet, of course, just in case.

Then when nobody can go anywhere or do anything without the health & safety gestapo pouncing on them for not protecting themselves, we can all be happy in the knowledge that we're protected as well as can be.

We'll have completely lost our freedom at that point, but who cares, we're safe right? :rolleyes:

Fendervendor

Originally posted by PBC_1966
To those claiming that helmets should be compulsory, may I ask at what point you would draw the line and shout "Enough already!" then?

How about cyclists falling off and scraping knees or arms? Surely there must be a law to prevent that, so let's make leather jackets or other protection a legal requirement.

Let's see, pedestrian vs. car collision, it's a pretty safe bet the pedestrian will come off worse. So why not make it a legal requirement for pedestrians to wear a helmet? Why not force them to wear padded suits or body-armor as well?

Do you have any idea how many people trip over and hurt themselves on those hard paved streets? Better force them to wear knee pads too.

Some people get stuck in burning vehicles. How about making it a requirement to wear an asbestos-lined suit while traveling in a car? And a flame-proof helmet, of course, just in case.

Then when nobody can go anywhere or do anything without the health & safety gestapo pouncing on them for not protecting themselves, we can all be happy in the knowledge that we're protected as well as can be.

We'll have completely lost our freedom at that point, but who cares, we're safe right? :rolleyes:

Taking the view that this would be the 'thin end of the wedge' is IMHO a little paranoid.

Motorcyclists are required to wear a crash helmet, but that is all. The fact that most choose to wear some or all of the other protective equipment available (leather jacket/suit, gloves, boots, armour), i think speaks volumes in safety awareness and attitude.

PBC_1966

As far as I'm concerned, ordering motor-cyclists to wear a helmet under penalty of law is also unjust. The same arguments that I applied in another thread about seatbelts are just as valid here.

By the way, you'll find a few U.S. states which did introduce motorbike helmet laws some years ago have since repealed them.

At risk of incurring the wrath of the bikers among you, if we're going down the road of ordering people what to do "for their own good," you could look at car vs. motorbike statistics and make a pretty good argument for banning motorbikes entirely.

Victor

Debunking the helmet issue

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

PBC_1966

It seems that anything to do with supposed safety these days gets rushed through on a government whim and on little real evidence. Somebody in government (e.g. in New Zealand) thinks cyclists must be protected so they decide the state must force its will upon them by making them wear a helmet, because one flawed study showed that they might be beneficial. THen it's discovered that far from being protective in some cases the things can actually be harmful.

We've seen just that scenario with air-bags in cars.

daggeredge

I'd have to say I'm completely in favour of helmets....I cycle sometimes myself and would never dream of leaving the house w/out one on.If it makes the experience safer , whats the harm?...(I really am sorry if it messes up your ShockWaves, really!)
. A lot of people are going to start using the opression argument ...but that could be applied to the other rules of the road designed for your safety as well....

for example:
whats the story with only bein able to drink a certain amt...having to wear seatbelts....having to go certain speeds etc, etc?

(by the way the above is rhetorical, i am merely highlighting that the oppression on rights argument could be applied to all the other rules on safety)

Seth Brundle

Originally posted by Victor
Debunking the helmet issue

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

Just looking at this site, there a few factors that are not included in the graph statistics.
It mentions how the Netherlands has a low fatality rate per trip or per km of cycle pathway compared to the some other countryie such as the UK or the USA.
This is in part to the fact that these countries have an advanced cycle network which is well used. Like Ireland the UK has sweet fa!
Another factor is the frequency of cyclists. In countries such as Ireland, where we cyclists are not as common as the Netherlands, motoists aren't expecting them.
Another factor is the law. In Ireland or to a lesser extent the UK the law is frequently broken. In Holland, motoring laws are much more rigorously enforced.

PBC_1966

Originally posted by daggeredge
for example:
whats the story with only bein able to drink a certain amt...having to wear seatbelts....having to go certain speeds etc, etc?

(by the way the above is rhetorical, i am merely highlighting that the oppression on rights argument could be applied to all the other rules on safety)

Sorry if that was meant to be rhetorical, but it begs a response.

The difference is that if you drive 70 mph through town, run a red light, or drive while blind drunk you are endangering other people by your actions.

The helmet, on the other hand, raises exactly the same arguments as I put forward elsewhere against compulsory seatbelts. If you don't buckle up, or you don't wear a helmet, you are not directly endangering anyone else, and it is therefore none of the government's business.

Merrion

As long as we're not being rhetorical: It is the government's business because when you puree your brains on the public highway they have to pay to clean it up.

Seth Brundle

Originally posted by PBC_1966
If you don't buckle up, or you don't wear a helmet, you are not directly endangering anyone else, and it is therefore none of the government's business.

what if you are a rear seat passenger and go through the head of the person sitting beside/in front of you?
What about your family when they have to deal with identifying the body, coping with funerals, loss, etc.
Furthermore, it is estimated that each road crash fatality costs the state about €1 million. Why, then, is it not the govts business?
Don't be a cretin!

PBC_1966

If you're going to factor in indirect things like that, you could make an argument for the government legislating for almost anything.

Govt. statistics show that smoking-related diseases kill far more people every year than automobile accidents. So why do they not do something to cut the huge costs associated with treatment and the ease the suffering of friends and family? Surely smoking should just be made completely illegal?

These days we also have the govt. telling us how obesity is becoming a huge problem (excuse the pun), and that something needs to be done. So would you accept laws telling you what you may or may not eat? It's for your own good, of course, not to mention the indirect effect it has on health costs and the distress it may cause family and friends.

Where exactly are you going to draw the line and say enough?

Seth Brundle

The govt are tackling the smoking issue - & doing quite well IMO.
WRT obesity, they are also about to target this.

PBC_1966

What is there to "tackle" about smoking? It's been known for decades that it's harmful.

If you're defending compulsory seat-belts and compulsory helmets on the grounds that the government should legislate "for our own good," then the correct course of action on smoking is perfectly clear -- It should be banned entirely and immediately. The manufacture, import, and sale of cigarettes should be illegal.

On the obesity angle, let me put forward a scenario. Let's say that the government does "tackle" this problem and decides that in the interests of our own well-being that there should be regulations about what and how much food we eat.

What if every fast-food diner had to check ID and report to a central database run by the "Food Police" every time you buy a Big Mac or a Whopper. What if you were then visited by the police and given a ticket and a fine or a summons for daring to exceed the maximum allowable number of burgers in a week?

Would you just accept this as being necessary, for your own good, of course, or would you be screaming about how such laws are unconstitutional and that the government has no right to tell you what you can eat and in what quantities?