Helmet debate: Chairman of brain injury charity wants Welsh Assembly to debate compulsory wearing

ermine wrote:

That's a lovely utopic view. However, I recall that the groundwork (literally) for the creation of safe cycling conditions in the major cities of the lowlands was done by their neighbouring country in the late 1930s and early 1940s. It has proven difficult to convince landowners in UK cities to set about a similar demolition and rebuilding effort. Attempts have been made at making London safer, but many commentators and users of measures such as cycle lanes are concerned that they have, in fact, made matters worse by fooling cyclists into believing that they are immune to danger because they are cycling on blue tarmac.

most of the groundwork was actually done in the 1970s, long after the cities had been rebuilt with no great regard for cyclists. the catalyst wasn't the war but the inexorable rise of the motor car in living spaces, a rise which certain countries chose to counter with better infrastructure and more provision for other modes of transport. this was pretty unpopular at the time, 40 years on it looks far sighted.

so yes, it doesn't happen overnight. and yes, it can be unpopular and cost a lot of money. but it doesn't require scores of landowners to sign their property away, it just takes will and significant investment. Look at crossrail: if the political will is there, the money can be found.

Attempts have been made at making London safer? Not really. not real efforts, in line with best practice guidelines from the countries where it's been done well. not efforts that actually re-allocate space, as opposed to marking out 'shared space' that motorists ignore, including the majority of the cycle superhighway system. go to any of the London cyclist blogs to see any number of new road developments proceed with absolutely no thought for cycling at all. here's just one example:

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/the-utter-tragedy-of...

where's the space issue? there is none. the issue is with perception and provision, the political will to make cycling a proper alternative. and it's the same all over london, and throughout cities all over the UK. Bath has some of the widest streets in the country. do you think there's any cycle lanes on them?

you can't make cycling popular and safe by forcing people to wear helmets. there's two things that will help: change the driving culture and habits of the UK's 30 million motorists, or build some proper bike lanes. both will take decades. I say building bike lanes is easier. your mileage may vary.

badbadleroybrown wrote:

So, YES, it's an activity which presents much more risk than walking or those other activities where a helmet wouldn't be considered. That's also before you consider the statistics of it all...

I'm sorry: it presents more risk before you consider the statistics?

The statistics quantify the risk. that's what the the risk is. you're talking about the perceived risk, which is different. cycling is perceived as risky because of all those factors you describe. however, in purely statitical terms it isn't any more risky than walking.

if i'm riding fast i wear a helmet, that makes sense to me. if i'm riding to the shop down the road i don't wear one. horses for courses, i say.

dave_atkinson wrote:

I'm sorry: it presents more risk before you consider the statistics?

The statistics quantify the risk. that's what the the risk is. you're talking about the perceived risk, which is different. cycling is perceived as risky because of all those factors you describe. however, in purely statitical terms it isn't any more risky than walking.

if i'm riding fast i wear a helmet, that makes sense to me. if i'm riding to the shop down the road i don't wear one. horses for courses, i say.

Yes... it's obviously more risky based upon the nature of the activity undertaken. Once you get to the statistics of it, it IS more dangerous statistically... add to that the frequency with which people walk day to day compared to how often people cycle and trying to compare it to walking is miles beyond foolish.

I do agree that there are times a helmet isn't called for, I don't wear one if I'm just talking the dog for a quick spin around the block for example... but, if I'm going for an "actual ride" a helmet is a must.

dave_atkinson wrote:

there's two things that will help: change the driving culture and habits of the UK's 30 million motorists, or build some proper bike lanes. both will take decades. I say building bike lanes is easier. your mileage may vary.

Both will take decades? That's your positive outlook? So until those decades have passed, we should just do nothing? Roadcc is asking today whether there should be a presumption of liability against motorists. So put the two together and we have a situation where cyclists accept that the streets are not cycling friendly and will not be for decades, cyclists are not required to take responsibility for their own wellbeing and motorists are assumed to be liable for the results of any collisions? Which part of that scenario is fair and equitable?

The idea that building bike lanes will be some sort of panacea also troubles me. Bike lanes tend to be a bit like railway lines; one inevitably has to leave the safety of the lane at some stage in order to complete one's journey. As a result of the segregation, the areas of non-segregation tend to become even more dangerous, simply because motorists are less familiar with the presence and behaviour of cyclists.

@cavmem1:

a) No one is trying to force anyone to wear gloves.

b) Yes, the pro peloton is in fact *much* more dangerous than a city centre. They *cruise* along at a speed that most common-garden cyclists would struggle to maintain for more than a short sprint. Just look how frequently pro cyclists get serious injuries, and compare to it UK statistics or your own experience.

Presumably you think this will apply to pedestrians, car drivers (there's evidence that even with airbags helmets would reduce car occupant head injuries), people who fall over in their home, etc. Its never going to happen for this reason : It just doesn't stand up to any rational scrutiny to single out cyclists as requiring helmets.

imaca wrote:

Presumably you think this will apply to pedestrians, car drivers (there's evidence that even with airbags helmets would reduce car occupant head injuries), people who fall over in their home, etc. Its never going to happen for this reason : It just doesn't stand up to any rational scrutiny to single out cyclists as requiring helmets.

Interesting presumption! Obviously a troll post.
I'm not aware of anyone, anywhere, ever suggesting that people in their homes or drivers, other than race drivers, should wear helmets. Rarely do people in their homes find themselves moving at speeds of around 20mph at a distance of less than a metre from moving cars, trucks, etc. I understand that the mantra of the anti-compulsion lobby is that cycling is not dangerous and this, presumably, is the point of this post. However, as pointed out by someone above, the complete inability of such lobbyists to recognise any weakness in their argument is harmful to that argument. The tone of this post is clearly that being inside one's home is as dangerous as cycling through London! I'll be sure to wave at you as you are tucked up to sleep on the hard shoulder of the M1.

drheaton wrote:

I give up.

It's almost as if most posters leave the ability to reason as soon as they click onto a story about helmets.

Dave is pretty much the only person backing up argument with actual statistics and in the end I agree that being legally required to wear helmet's probably won't help. However helmets laws for children should be encouraged.

Dave, if the two main things that can help cycling safety in this country are:

1) strict liability laws that change driver habits and
2) better infrastructure

what is road.cc doing about it? I know that's probably an unfair question but if those are the two things that can really really help why not start a national campaign jointly with someone like CTC to try and get strict liability laws on the political agenda? Drafting up a letter than readers can print and sign and send to their local MP that outlines the benefits to everyone (not just cyclists) and asks them to consider the matter may help to move this from something a few charities talk about to something MPs talk about.

Likewise, why not campaign to the DfT for greater provision for alternative means of transport. At the minute having a dedicated portion of their budget for cycling provision is 'ok' at best, it means that all that money is filtered into a couple of token projects that don't benefit most of the people riding bikes. Why not campaign for a strict %age of the budget for a single project to be used for alternative transport provision? If every new road project had to use even 2% of it's budget for things like the provision of segregated cycle lanes wouldn't this mean a broadly similar spend on these things but a greater consideration for cyclists when planning new infrastructure?

I know it's not really down to single websites to fix all of our woes, but why not do something to help?

A law changing the burden of proof in road collision cases such that there would be strict liability on the motorist is pie in the sky thinking.

I can't be bothered digging out my texts, but a quick wiki search proves a decent enough summary of strict liability. In short, "strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault ... The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous". The anti-compulsion lobby would be somewhat torn in having to argue that cycling was, in fact, inherently dangerous after all! Good luck with that!

Moreover, were motorists to be made subject to a strict liability law, the defences and mitigation arguments available to them would rapidly be further explored in courts and would, as a result expand. Mitigation factors such as failure to wear helmets, as already accepted in Smith v Finch, would be expanded upon. Those arguing that body armour is the next logical step on from helmets may see this becoming an actuality, as lawyers defending motorist work harder to overcome the burden of strict liability. That doesn't sound like a forward step at all to me.

drheaton wrote:

I give up.

It's almost as if most posters leave the ability to reason as soon as they click onto a story about helmets.

Dave is pretty much the only person backing up argument with actual statistics and in the end I agree that being legally required to wear helmet's probably won't help. However helmets laws for children should be encouraged.

Dave, if the two main things that can help cycling safety in this country are:

1) strict liability laws that change driver habits and
2) better infrastructure

what is road.cc doing about it? I know that's probably an unfair question but if those are the two things that can really really help why not start a national campaign jointly with someone like CTC to try and get strict liability laws on the political agenda? Drafting up a letter than readers can print and sign and send to their local MP that outlines the benefits to everyone (not just cyclists) and asks them to consider the matter may help to move this from something a few charities talk about to something MPs talk about.

Likewise, why not campaign to the DfT for greater provision for alternative means of transport. At the minute having a dedicated portion of their budget for cycling provision is 'ok' at best, it means that all that money is filtered into a couple of token projects that don't benefit most of the people riding bikes. Why not campaign for a strict %age of the budget for a single project to be used for alternative transport provision? If every new road project had to use even 2% of it's budget for things like the provision of segregated cycle lanes wouldn't this mean a broadly similar spend on these things but a greater consideration for cyclists when planning new infrastructure?

I know it's not really down to single websites to fix all of our woes, but why not do something to help?

a couple of things:

1) these are my views. they're not road.cc's views. road.cc is comprised of a number of people of whom i'm one; we differ in our opinions about stuff. we're broadly in agreement that helmet compulsion is a bad thing and strict liability would be a good thing. as an aside, on strict liability:

ermine wrote:

I can't be bothered digging out my texts, but a quick wiki search proves a decent enough summary of strict liability. In short, "strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault ... The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous". The anti-compulsion lobby would be somewhat torn in having to argue that cycling was, in fact, inherently dangerous after all! Good luck with that!

cars are inherently dangerous when in proximity to cycles, and cycles are inherently dangerous when in proximity to pedestrians. that's what the 'inherently dangerous' means there: it means that even when done properly, driving carries an inherent risk towards others due to the nature of the activity, and the same is true of cycling in a lesser sense. it doesn't mean 'cycling is dangerous', it means 'cars are dangerous' or, in the case of bikes and peds, 'bikes are dangerous'

anyway, onwards. we have different views on segregation and infrastructure here, and different habits when it comes to helmets. i wear one nearly all the time; tony hardly ever does. we don't really have a tightly formulated road.cc stance on all this. which is fine, because...

2) road.cc is a consumer website. it's not a lobbying body. there are plenty of lobbying bodies for cycling already; some (me included) would argue too many. we're here to highlight what's going on and give people a forum to discuss the issues. we do, and have, get behind causes and campaigns that we believe benefit cyclists in the UK and we do, and have, highlight legal decisions/commments/campiagns that we feel are detrimental, such as the comments of the chap that started this thread off. that's not to say we won't ever run our own campaign, or one in association with someone else, in the future, and your suggestions are worth thinking about. but as you can see above, we don't all agree on this stuff and it's good to have somewhere to discuss it. as soon as road.cc is firmly pro-this or anti-that, people might feel that their views aren't valued, which they are.

ermine wrote:

A law changing the burden of proof in road collision cases such that there would be strict liability on the motorist is pie in the sky thinking.

I can't be bothered digging out my texts, but a quick wiki search proves a decent enough summary of strict liability. In short, "strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault ... The law imputes strict liability to situations it considers to be inherently dangerous". The anti-compulsion lobby would be somewhat torn in having to argue that cycling was, in fact, inherently dangerous after all! Good luck with that!

Moreover, were motorists to be made subject to a strict liability law, the defences and mitigation arguments available to them would rapidly be further explored in courts and would, as a result expand. Mitigation factors such as failure to wear helmets, as already accepted in Smith v Finch, would be expanded upon. Those arguing that body armour is the next logical step on from helmets may see this becoming an actuality, as lawyers defending motorist work harder to overcome the burden of strict liability. That doesn't sound like a forward step at all to me.

My understanding was that strict liability was about fault for causing the accident (driver has assumed fault unless proven otherwise) and not necessarily a guarantee that the driver was at fault for all of the injuries. That way if the cyclist was not explicitly at fault then the driver is deemed responsible for the accident but then mitigating factors such as helmet use may come into play on claims of injury etc.

Am I wrong?

That way the driver has to prove they were not at fault protecting the cyclist and perhaps encouraging safer driving but to get full compensation for their injuries a cyclist would still have to take reasonable action to protect themselves (high-vis clothing, helmet, lights).

Seems like common sense but as most of the above proves, no-one cares about common sense when they can argue the toss over something.

Ermine wrote:

That's a lovely utopic view. However, I recall that the groundwork (literally) for the creation of safe cycling conditions in the major cities of the lowlands was done by their neighbouring country in the late 1930s and early 1940s.

I just noticed this. This isn't true. The country saw very little fighting or bombing, besides Rotterdam (parts of which were nearly completely levelled by German air raids prior to the dutch capitulation), and Arnhem (which didn't suffer significant damage). The overwhelming majority of the Netherlands was untouched, property wise at least, by WWII.

Around where I grew up, much of the housing stock was actually from the 1930s and 1950s (before the dutch started to work on engineering safety into roads). Indeed, a lot of town and city centres date back hundreds of years, and have narrow streets.

Lack of space / need for land to make roads bigger is definitely not a credible reason for why the UK has crappy cycling conditions.

cavmem1 wrote:

i take it all those who do not wear a helmet also don't wear gloves either. as it has never been proven that wearing gloves protects your hands if you come off-its just accepted.

I wear gloves - I take it you mean padded mitts - to prevent vibration from the road sending my hands to sleep. It works for the first 100k or so.

Mitts are comfortable and provide a continual benefit. Helmets are not and do not.

Paul J wrote:

Lack of space / need for land to make roads bigger is definitely not a credible reason for why the UK has crappy cycling conditions.

In some areas, maybe, but please explain where the space is here:

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&safe=off&q=central+london&ie=UTF-8

How difficult/costly was Crossrail? That development is absolutely minute compared to a city/country wide cycle segregation scheme.

ermine wrote:

Paul J wrote:

Lack of space / need for land to make roads bigger is definitely not a credible reason for why the UK has crappy cycling conditions.

In some areas, maybe, but please explain where the space is here:

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&safe=off&q=central+london&ie=UTF-8

How difficult/costly was Crossrail? That development is absolutely minute compared to a city/country wide cycle segregation scheme.

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/the-physical-constra...

some london streets are narrow. many are very wide indeed. certainly you cant put decent infrastructure everywhere. but that's hardly an argument for not putting it anywhere.

crossrail is costing what, £8bn? I wonder how much sustainable transport in the UK's cities could be improved for that kind of money? Bristol had 'cycling city' status for what kind of investment? £23m? 0.2% of the cost of crossrail.

Ermine: Probably best if I direct you to David Hembrow's excellent blog, which goes into this into great great detail.

Basically, on narrow urban streets, bicycles and cars share the road, and the road is engineered to discourage cars hitting high peak speeds (cars average speed through dense urban areas is little faster than bicycles anyway), as well as there being 30 km/h or lower speed limits.

dave_atkinson wrote:

anyway, onwards. we have different views on segregation and infrastructure here, and different habits when it comes to helmets. i wear one nearly all the time; tony hardly ever does.

Your impartiality and objectivity on this is duly noted and appreciated. It makes a nice change from some of the vitriol.

drheaton wrote:

However helmets laws for children should be encouraged.

This despite the fact that it appears that helmets would need to be considerably redesigned in order to offer significant benefits to children?

Is there any evidence that helmets prevent largely prevent traumatic brain injury in children, and how much does this preventive effect stack up against the injuries caused to children by helmets?