Live blog: Porn Pedallers' kit launch; Dumoulin to miss the Tour de France; Good Morning Britain guests ‘discuss’ whether we treat cyclists badly (descends into helmet row on Twitter); Mathieu Van Der Poel to race Tour of Britain; The 'Rowe-hawk' + more

lllnorrislll wrote:

In some ways I don't understand why they don't just make wearing a helmet law. The whole helmet debate gets wheeled out all the time and it just deflects from the fact that motorists, the law, media and tin pot keyboard warriors can avoid the real issue of how vulnerable a cyclist is on the road and how they need to be given the infrastructure and space to go about their lawful business. The whole debate about the ped Vs cyclist had nothing to do with helmets, but the disproportionate levels of justice in the UK court when comparing it to other 'motoring offences'. To add I don't personally care if someone wears a helmet or not - fining someone for doing something that has a degree of risk with out protection, could lead to a very sticky situation.

Problem is ... as demonstrated in countries like Australia ... where wearing a helmet is made a legal requirement it actively discourages people from cycling, when the statistics show that the level of risk in cycling is inversely proportional to the number of people doing it. Ergo reducing the number of cyclists by enforcing more safety equipment actually make all cyclist less safe not more.  

Kind of counter-productive. 

Jetmans Dad wrote:

lllnorrislll wrote:

In some ways I don't understand why they don't just make wearing a helmet law. The whole helmet debate gets wheeled out all the time and it just deflects from the fact that motorists, the law, media and tin pot keyboard warriors can avoid the real issue of how vulnerable a cyclist is on the road and how they need to be given the infrastructure and space to go about their lawful business. The whole debate about the ped Vs cyclist had nothing to do with helmets, but the disproportionate levels of justice in the UK court when comparing it to other 'motoring offences'. To add I don't personally care if someone wears a helmet or not - fining someone for doing something that has a degree of risk with out protection, could lead to a very sticky situation.

Problem is ... as demonstrated in countries like Australia ... where wearing a helmet is made a legal requirement it actively discourages people from cycling, when the statistics show that the level of risk in cycling is inversely proportional to the number of people doing it. Ergo reducing the number of cyclists by enforcing more safety equipment actually make all cyclist less safe not more.  

Kind of counter-productive. 

This is the problem, it's used as a way to be seen to be acting to protect cyclists while doing basically nothing. A simpler and more effective way to protect people would be to lower speed limits across the uk, if they were all lowered by 10mph and enforced it would very likely save a lot more lives than forcing people to wear a helmet for when they get hit by a box of metal at 40mph. Not to mention the environmental benefits it would bring.

I'd be prepared to wear a helmet for every journey (I don't when cycling around town etc) if it meant that in turn car drivers who injur or kill pedestrians and cyclists etc are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I'd suffer the inconvenience of it for that, but as that's never going to happen I don't want a helmet law brought in either.

Jetmans Dad wrote:

lllnorrislll wrote:

In some ways I don't understand why they don't just make wearing a helmet law. The whole helmet debate gets wheeled out all the time and it just deflects from the fact that motorists, the law, media and tin pot keyboard warriors can avoid the real issue of how vulnerable a cyclist is on the road and how they need to be given the infrastructure and space to go about their lawful business. The whole debate about the ped Vs cyclist had nothing to do with helmets, but the disproportionate levels of justice in the UK court when comparing it to other 'motoring offences'. To add I don't personally care if someone wears a helmet or not - fining someone for doing something that has a degree of risk with out protection, could lead to a very sticky situation.

Problem is ... as demonstrated in countries like Australia ... where wearing a helmet is made a legal requirement it actively discourages people from cycling, when the statistics show that the level of risk in cycling is inversely proportional to the number of people doing it. Ergo reducing the number of cyclists by enforcing more safety equipment actually make all cyclist less safe not more.  

Kind of counter-productive. 

You could also argue the treatment of cyclists by car drivers and media is just as bad if not worse in Australia so removing the Helmet side of the debate would not improve or allow for better discourse on the real issues.  

lllnorrislll wrote:

In some ways I don't understand why they don't just make wearing a helmet law. The whole helmet debate gets wheeled out all the time and it just deflects from the fact that motorists, the law, media and tin pot keyboard warriors can avoid the real issue of how vulnerable a cyclist is on the road and how they need to be given the infrastructure and space to go about their lawful business. The whole debate about the ped Vs cyclist had nothing to do with helmets, but the disproportionate levels of justice in the UK court when comparing it to other 'motoring offences'. To add I don't personally care if someone wears a helmet or not - fining someone for doing something that has a degree of risk with out protection, could lead to a very sticky situation.

There's probably better evidence that mandatory helmet laws decrease cycling than there is about helmets providing significant protection, so I can't see the benefit to making it mandatory. It'd also be tricky to enforce and I can't see that police would want to devote any budget to something so utterly pointless.

hawkinspeter wrote:

lllnorrislll wrote:

In some ways I don't understand why they don't just make wearing a helmet law. The whole helmet debate gets wheeled out all the time and it just deflects from the fact that motorists, the law, media and tin pot keyboard warriors can avoid the real issue of how vulnerable a cyclist is on the road and how they need to be given the infrastructure and space to go about their lawful business. The whole debate about the ped Vs cyclist had nothing to do with helmets, but the disproportionate levels of justice in the UK court when comparing it to other 'motoring offences'. To add I don't personally care if someone wears a helmet or not - fining someone for doing something that has a degree of risk with out protection, could lead to a very sticky situation.

There's probably better evidence that mandatory helmet laws decrease cycling than there is about helmets providing significant protection, so I can't see the benefit to making it mandatory. It'd also be tricky to enforce and I can't see that police would want to devote any budget to something so utterly pointless.

in addition to that, someone proposing laws to protect adults 'for their own good' needs to demonstrate why legislating for cycle helmets is a higher priority than legislating for other activities that harm people far more than cycling without a helmet ever did, such as smoking, drinking alcohol, eating bacon sandwiches, having unprotected sex and straining while trying to defecate.

Sometimes all at the same time.

ConcordeCX wrote:

smoking, drinking alcohol, eating bacon sandwiches, having unprotected sex and straining while trying to defecate.

Sometimes all at the same time.

Why the need for a helmet? If someone can do this they're probably immortal anyway. 

numbskull wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

smoking, drinking alcohol, eating bacon sandwiches, having unprotected sex and straining while trying to defecate.

Sometimes all at the same time.

Why the need for a helmet? If someone can do this they're probably immortal anyway. 

they need something to defecate into.

I've watched the interview but without sound for some reason. Just by looking at the two participants I wonder how we can tell which one is the reckless cyclist who has no regard for his own health, safety and well-being, and which one is lecturing other people about how best to live a long and healthy life? 

lllnorrislll wrote:

In some ways I don't understand why they don't just make wearing a helmet law.

Have you been living under a rock for the past thirty years?

cyclehelmets.org

burtthebike wrote:

lllnorrislll wrote:

In some ways I don't understand why they don't just make wearing a helmet law.

Have you been living under a rock for the past thirty years?

cyclehelmets.org

I don't mind you qouting a select piece of my post, but I actually agree that an evidence based discussion should be had, but it's always one of the first things dragged out whenever a barrier to cycling is used.

Interesting point about Australia and maybe it wouldn't make much difference.

lllnorrislll wrote:

In some ways I don't understand why they don't just make wearing a helmet law. The whole helmet debate gets wheeled out.

Because all we have to do is wheel out the examples of the Netherlands, Denmark etc where helmet use is low, death by head injuries is low, but trips by bicycle are far higher than in the UK. The kids in the Netherlands cycle to school safely, and they have low obesity rates. Loads of people cycle to work in their cities.

The helmet debate is a smoke screen, more deaths by head injuries in cars than by riding a bicycle.

Educating people how to co-exist on the roads, actually punishing disrespectful wastes of oxygen  who are at fault for cyclist injuries or death and including cycling within the very fabric of this culture and society will do much more than putting a band-aid over the problem.  Shame that this society is too stupid or incapable of producing a majority which is reasonable and respectful, essentially the problem being much bigger than bikes, helmets and hi-vis vests...