Cyclists in Jersey aged under 14 will now be forced to wear helmets or risk a £50 fine, after the law was changed by politicians.
The country has long lobbied for tighter laws but previous attempts to make helmets mandatory for all riders have failed.
The change in the law was brought by transport minister Deputy Kevin Lewis and voted through by States Members.
Deputy Lewis said it was unlikely that fines would be enforced but told the BBC: "It is my wish and desire that once young people get into the habit of wearing a cycle helmet for a number of years, they would wish not to take them off later on."
The proposition was first mooted in 2010 by Deputy Andrew Green MBE, Minister for Housing.
Deputy Green, whose nine year old son received a brain injury when he was knocked off his bike said: “I am delighted that this vital piece of legislation has been passed and I congratulate my fellow Members in the Assembly for taking this bold but necessary decision.”
In 2010, politicians on the island rejected by a solitary vote a proposal to make it compulsory for all cyclists, including adults, to wear a helmet, although they approved by a margin of two to one similar measures for children aged under 18.
The move was welcomed by the brain injury association, Headway Preston & Chorley.
Liz Bamber, Headway Development Officer told the Lancashire Evening Post: “Being a keen cyclist… I am staggered by the number of people still not wearing helmets.
“It is hoped that the UK will follow Jersey’s example very soon.”
67 thoughts on “Jersey finally passes mandatory helmet law – for under 14 year olds”
Deputy Green, whose nine year
Deputy Green, whose nine year old son received a brain injury when he was knocked off his bike said: “
Ah the classic victim blaming, rather than tackle the cause because Politicians are too spineless to do take the more difficult options ~X(
“Liz Bamber, Headway Development Officer told the Lancashire Evening Post: “Being a keen cyclist… I am staggered by the number of people still not wearing helmets.
“It is hoped that the UK will follow Jersey’s example very soon.”” – When you have ensured that every driver in the UK, is driving as per the Highway Code, then we won’t need to wear helmets. As an adult I can make my own decisions thank you.
martib wrote:When you have
It’s a pity that posts cannot be down-voted, because I would surely down-vote this, and others that solely aim at ‘ignorant drivers’ as being the cause of cyclists’ problems.
I don’t disagree that there are a lot of ignorant drivers (and cyclists) out there.
But two cases from my own (direct and indirect) experience might highlight why cyclists need to look out for themselves, irrespective of ‘ignorant drivers’!
CASE 1
A friend and I were cycling around the NL/DE border around 15 years ago. We remarked on the few locals who red with helmets. My friend and I were both wearing helmets. At one point my friend went across road-level tramlines at an angle, his wheel lodged and he fell off, hitting his head on the ground.
No drivers were involved in this incident!
Anyway, we got him to the local hospital. The doctor examined him and asked him if he was wearing a helmet. When he replied that he and been, the doctor replied that he thought that was the case…and that they get a lot of head injury cases among cyclists!
CASE 2
A well-respected scientist (i.e. not ‘that stupid’) was cycling with his sons. They were wearing helmets, but he was not (immmm!). One of his sons was in front and wobbled into his father’s path, sending his father into a ditch. Broken head, death
And his son has to live with that for the rests of his life!
MORAL
Shit can (and probably will) happen. If you don’t look out for yourself, no one else will. And if they’re your kids, you have to look out for them.
My children ALWAYS wear helmets. And I do too, as much to set an example. What kind of parent would not want to do all they can to protect their children while they have fun?
truffy wrote:martib
It’s a pity that posts cannot be down-voted, because I would surely down-vote this, and others that solely aim at ‘ignorant drivers’ as being the cause of cyclists’ problems.
I don’t disagree that there are a lot of ignorant drivers (and cyclists) out there.
But two cases from my own (direct and indirect) experience might highlight why cyclists need to look out for themselves, irrespective of ‘ignorant drivers’!
CASE 1
A friend and I were cycling around the NL/DE border around 15 years ago. We remarked on the few locals who red with helmets. My friend and I were both wearing helmets. At one point my friend went across road-level tramlines at an angle, his wheel lodged and he fell off, hitting his head on the ground.
No drivers were involved in this incident!
Anyway, we got him to the local hospital. The doctor examined him and asked him if he was wearing a helmet. When he replied that he and been, the doctor replied that he thought that was the case…and that they get a lot of head injury cases among cyclists!
CASE 2
A well-respected scientist (i.e. not ‘that stupid’) was cycling with his sons. They were wearing helmets, but he was not (immmm!). One of his sons was in front and wobbled into his father’s path, sending his father into a ditch. Broken head, death
And his son has to live with that for the rests of his life!
MORAL
Shit can (and probably will) happen. If you don’t look out for yourself, no one else will. And if they’re your kids, you have to look out for them.
My children ALWAYS wear helmets. And I do too, as much to set an example. What kind of parent would not want to do all they can to protect their children while they have fun?— martib
And anyone who really thinks that “when…every driver in the UK, is driving as per the Highway Code, then we won’t need to wear helmets” is a bloody idiot!
truffy wrote:truffy
It’s a pity that posts cannot be down-voted, because I would surely down-vote this, and others that solely aim at ‘ignorant drivers’ as being the cause of cyclists’ problems.
I don’t disagree that there are a lot of ignorant drivers (and cyclists) out there.
But two cases from my own (direct and indirect) experience might highlight why cyclists need to look out for themselves, irrespective of ‘ignorant drivers’!
CASE 1
A friend and I were cycling around the NL/DE border around 15 years ago. We remarked on the few locals who red with helmets. My friend and I were both wearing helmets. At one point my friend went across road-level tramlines at an angle, his wheel lodged and he fell off, hitting his head on the ground.
No drivers were involved in this incident!
Anyway, we got him to the local hospital. The doctor examined him and asked him if he was wearing a helmet. When he replied that he and been, the doctor replied that he thought that was the case…and that they get a lot of head injury cases among cyclists!
CASE 2
A well-respected scientist (i.e. not ‘that stupid’) was cycling with his sons. They were wearing helmets, but he was not (immmm!). One of his sons was in front and wobbled into his father’s path, sending his father into a ditch. Broken head, death
And his son has to live with that for the rests of his life!
MORAL
Shit can (and probably will) happen. If you don’t look out for yourself, no one else will. And if they’re your kids, you have to look out for them.
My children ALWAYS wear helmets. And I do too, as much to set an example. What kind of parent would not want to do all they can to protect their children while they have fun?— truffy
And anyone who really thinks that “when…every driver in the UK, is driving as per the Highway Code, then we won’t need to wear helmets” is a bloody idiot!— martib
Your two stories make you want to wear a helmet. Fine, wear one and make your kids wear one. But do you really think they are adequate evidence for a law compelling everyone else to wear one?
CASE 1, CASE 2, etc. MORAL.
CASE 1, CASE 2, etc. MORAL. Most humans haven’t the first clue about science and stats and look for narrative based upon individual cases. Doctors and surgeons included.
The effect of helmets on death rates (NB. Death rates not minor injury scratch rates involving stitches) as claimed by various medical professionals, vanishes when looked at on a population level. Unlike cancer and smoking etc. Conclusion. They are wrong about the death stuff and are basing their opinion upon personal experience and gut feeling not evidence based science. Like most humans do.
There’s lies and damn statistics, but those statistics are still better than human confirmation bias. I don’t want to be made to wear a helmet to save my life when it won’t. I might choose to wear a helmet to help prevent minor injury and avoid a trip to A&E. There’s a difference.
truffy wrote:martib
It’s a pity that posts cannot be down-voted, because I would surely down-vote this, and others that solely aim at ‘ignorant drivers’ as being the cause of cyclists’ problems.
I don’t disagree that there are a lot of ignorant drivers (and cyclists) out there.
But two cases from my own (direct and indirect) experience might highlight why cyclists need to look out for themselves, irrespective of ‘ignorant drivers’!
CASE 1
A friend and I were cycling around the NL/DE border around 15 years ago. We remarked on the few locals who red with helmets. My friend and I were both wearing helmets. At one point my friend went across road-level tramlines at an angle, his wheel lodged and he fell off, hitting his head on the ground.
No drivers were involved in this incident!
Anyway, we got him to the local hospital. The doctor examined him and asked him if he was wearing a helmet. When he replied that he and been, the doctor replied that he thought that was the case…and that they get a lot of head injury cases among cyclists!
CASE 2
A well-respected scientist (i.e. not ‘that stupid’) was cycling with his sons. They were wearing helmets, but he was not (immmm!). One of his sons was in front and wobbled into his father’s path, sending his father into a ditch. Broken head, death
And his son has to live with that for the rests of his life!
MORAL
Shit can (and probably will) happen. If you don’t look out for yourself, no one else will. And if they’re your kids, you have to look out for them.
My children ALWAYS wear helmets. And I do too, as much to set an example. What kind of parent would not want to do all they can to protect their children while they have fun?— martib
I call bullshit. *Which* well-respected scientist? They are all traceable by virtue of being published authors.
truffy wrote:
My children
This kind.
We want our kids to grow up with a healthy regard for risk and consequences. As such we let them climb things that could kill them if they fell (i.e. anything over about three meters), swim beyond their depth (i.e. deeper than 1.2m), and specifically ride their bikes fast enough that the energy dissipation design limits of any approved cycle helmet would be greatly exceeded.
Having been such grossly irresponsible parents the last 13 years, the only time one of our kids required hospitalisation and a general anaesthetic was for a hand injury sustained walking along a completely flat footpath in a cul-de-sac.
Please do keep your patronising, condescending passive-aggressive ‘I’m a better parent than thou’ BS for your own circle-jerk of hyper-safety-conscious helicopter parents.
The rest of us love our kids just as much as you do, we just don’t buy into the same level of ‘safety’ hysteria.
KiwiMike wrote:truffy
Hmm, when my 9 year old son lead climbs the walls at our climbing centre, I insist on making him use a rope in case he falls. I never realised I was being so over-protective. Next time I’ll just send him up there with a “you fall, you die” – that’ll motivate him!
Sarcasm aside, there’s a balance between managing risk and being irresponsible. I’m sure that you are responsible parents, as am I, but we all apply different -and subjective – criteria to risk. Some Americans think it’s fine for twelve year olds to play with firearms. Am I hyper-safety-conscious for not thinking that’s a good thing?
We know that there’s a risk from cycling. A ‘safety hysteria’ parent wouldn’t permit them to do it. Allowing them to do it but mitigating some of the risk through the use of a helmet is simply precautionary.
Having said all that, I don’t agree helmets should be mandatory even though personally I almost always wear one.
JeevesBath wrote:
Hmm, when
…glad you added that JeevesBath. Of course you understand the difference between an extreme sporting activity requiring significant skill, strength and equipment where improvement is predicated on pushing limits (‘falling off’) as opposed to, say, climbing an apple tree or playfort.
That said, I’m sure Truffly has called NSPCC on yo’ ass – we’ve all seen the first 5 minutes of Cliffhanger, that so-called ‘climbing equipment’ isn’t worth a pile of old rope.
Or maybe it is 🙂
martib wrote:Deputy Green,
Yes, I’m sure that he blamed his own son for being run over….
A tad insensitive thing to suggest don’t you think?
Yeah, hardly victim blaming.
Yeah, hardly victim blaming. More likely Deputy Green want’s to do “something” “anything” to make some sense of the tragedy. It’s not surprising he wouldn’t be objective, it is surprising and depressing that a whole island went along with a flawed premise.
PS. I agree that CASE 2 is clearly rubbish, a story like that with such tragedy and pathos would have made the nationals and/or be quoted with a proper source and named victim by the pro-compulsion campaign till everyone was sick of it. The classic urban myth phrases give it away for what it is, hearsay repeating a fiction. Prove me wrong…
martib wrote:
Ah the classic
Not trying to be argumentative, how would you propose that every driver be made to follow the Highway Code at all times?
Just to point out that having punishment for crimes doesn’t always seem to work – just look at the number of murders, thefts etc that still happen despite there being laws in place to deal with these things and the number of people in prison who have broken them.
Everyone on here, myself included, is good at saying “someone should do something..” without actually knowing what should be done.
If you have an answer that doesn’t involve turning the country into a Police state (more than it is already) or rebuilding the entire road network, then perhaps you should share it with us and run for Parliament yourself – I’m sure that everyone here would vote for you if you have a sensible/workable solution.
Ridiculous namby-pamby
Ridiculous namby-pamby nonsense. Why don’t they actually examine the evidence before passing such laws?
“Fines won’t be
“Fines won’t be enforced”
Another piece of legislation that will just gather dust then. Children under 10 can’t commit a criminal offence. How are they going to enforce it?
One has to ask the question, if Deputy Lewis is so keen on helmets, why didn’t he make sure his son wore one then?
Total bonkers legislation brought in by politicians who probably last rode a bike 40 years ago. God help us all.
I’m nether pro or anti helmet
I’m nether pro or anti helmet wearing (I like the option either way but mostly wear a helmet when riding) and I’d make a kid wear a helmet because low speed crashes not involving vehicles are common for kids, but generally I’m very much anti compulsion.
Not sure that a vehicle vs child impact has much to do with helmets when you consider how a tonne of metal and a plastic and a polystyrene box on top of a fragile child square up.
Stick a helmet law in and you can depend that the courts will use it to defend negligent drivers if they sideswipe a cyclist not wearing one and that’s ridiculous. I guarantee at some point this will be used in mitgation/defence when a child under 14 is hit by a car in Jersey regardless of fault. #o
Wrongfoot wrote:Stick a
+ lots. Am instinctively pro choice – I wear one when bombing around off road/MTB courses, not for road/utility riding/commuting.
Also on balance, supportive of kids wearing them – they tend to be less skilled and come off their bikes more often, even without the [cough] help of cars. A little bit anti as well – they reduce uptake of cycling amongst the young. With a large proportion of kids coming out of school obese, we want to encourage more physical activity, not less. Not sure I would have been cycling now if I hadn’t been doing my paper round on my Grifter and kicking up sparks with my BMX pedals on the way to school.
List of places I want to take
List of places I want to take my kids on holiday:
….
…..
[s]Jersey[/s]
….
…
Well done!
Edit: that’s meant to have Jersey crossed out but can’t get the formatting to work on my phone. Rather spoils the effect, but you get what I mean!
Anecdotal evidence winning
Anecdotal evidence winning over scientific evidence
Well done Jersey you backward, inbred, tax avoider shelterers you.
“The country has long lobbied
“The country has long lobbied for tighter laws”, says the article.
Can this be true? I thought they had their own laws. Who did they lobby?
39% of deaths in Jersey in
39% of deaths in Jersey in 2012 were caused by circulatory or respiratory diseases.
I suppose people are pretty inactive over there if it’s too dangerous to cycle without the helmets.
http://www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=1060
I suggests the cyclists of
I suggests the cyclists of Jersey organise a petition calling on all politicians to wear helmets whilst in office, especially for any TV appearance on photo opportunity.
*kids of Jersey continue to
*kids of Jersey continue to play Xbox and get fat and stressed…more future adults of Jersey die of sedentary diseases*
And on and on it goes,
And on and on it goes, (helmet debate what if’s) at 76 and a near lifetime of riding my bike helmetless, racing (track excepted) and leisure, I must be the equivalent of Dickens’s artful dodger.
nuclear coffee wrote:I call
You doubt my word?
Consider yourself proven wrong:
http://www.scienceinthebox.com/tff/
(it happened in Belgium, so it may not have appeared in the grotty rag you read)
This may or may not be the
This may or may not be the case referred to in the earlier post (urban myth investigation not my speciality). Google pops up a reference (in french) which rather indicates that the cause of the accident was poorly-secured netting from a construction site (the company failed to remedy after multiple reports)
http://www.forum-auto.com/les-clubs/section7/sujet326953.htm
Surely claiming “And his son has to live with that for the rests of his life!” sets a new low for victim-blaming.
Given the man himself was described as “a passionate champion for the use of science-based risk assessment in environmental decision-making”, the fund set up in his memory doesn’t appear to be lobbying for any kind of compulsory helmet laws.
truffy wrote:nuclear coffee
You doubt my word?
Consider yourself proven wrong:
http://www.scienceinthebox.com/tff/
(it happened in Belgium, so it may not have appeared in the grotty rag you read)— nuclear coffee
Fair enough, it checks out, although the report I found states things occurred differently, but not significantly so.
nuclear coffee wrote:truffy
You doubt my word?
Consider yourself proven wrong:
http://www.scienceinthebox.com/tff/
(it happened in Belgium, so it may not have appeared in the grotty rag you read)— truffy
Fair enough, it checks out, although the report I found states things occurred differently, but not significantly so.— nuclear coffee
Why is it important that he was a scientist?
Oh wait found it. Scientist = not dumb. Still not sure what point you’re trying to make though.
Always glad to get a
Always glad to get a reference. I presume it was in all the Belgian grotty rags because the fund understandably doesn’t dwell on the detail? I apologize to you for assuming you had an fictional source.
I guess I should also apologize to people who have looked at the evidence for engaging with the fallacy that individual cases mean anything. V’ interesting that a fund based upon a tragedy happening to a scientist in a Pharma Co has concluded counter to the sort of statistical studies and results that are bread and butter to Pharma Cos when gauging effectiveness of their products.
I find that depressing even if much of it may be due to admirable loyalty to an ex employees family.
Unusual to see a helmet
Unusual to see a helmet evangelist getting shouty and opinionated, even a dollop of trying to pull heart strings.
The biggest causes of head
The biggest causes of head injury in Under 14s are ;
i. accidents in the home
ii. accidents in playgrounds
iii. motor vehicle accidents (as passenger)
Cycling is only a very small percentage.
Funny how uninformed politicians always round on cycling for their doing a good deed for the community bit.
Lets have mandatory helmets in the home, it makes total sense.
What bull truffy. You’re
What bull truffy. You’re probably making this stuff up. Who was this scientist? Give us a link to the news coverage of this tragic story. As for your story about your “friend”, there of course will be no way for anyone else to validate it, conveniently.
Even if your stories aren’t fiction, why do your two sketchy anecdotes beat the *vast* amounts of data that say:
* The safest countries for cycling do so without helmet use
* The highest helmet use countries have worse cycling safety.
Now, there’s many entangled reasons for this, but two things are unquestionably true:
1. Helmets most definitely are not a pre-requisite for safe cycling.
2. Even assuming that high helmet use tends to indicate the environment is more dangerous, helmets clearly do NOT fix the problem of cycling safety not being as good as the best countries!
To disagree with these things is to disagree with widely observed reality.
Once again, anecdote triumphs
Once again, anecdote triumphs over evidence.
New Zealand passed manadtory cycling laws what happened:
KSI rates increased
Cycling rates decreased
The only difference was the law. Hmm, so what does it tell us, well obviously they are safer, well no because the KSI rate has increased and the participation rates have decreased meaning those fewer cyclists that last are suffering more KSIs.
It is simple. But, ho-hum we are stuck in our post-scientific society where everyone and his dog think that they are entitled to have an equally weighted opinion.
It’s wrong, certainly you can have your opinion, but it should be worth nought when compared with evidence.
Ah, I missed Truffy’s link to
Ah, I missed Truffy’s link to the scientist. That link doesn’t report on what happened though. Did Truffy know the scientist perhaps?
Anyway, again, just because 1 cyclist dies of a head injury from a bicycle accident still is not evidence that helmets are the answer.
Oh, and using anecdotes about
Oh, and using anecdotes about the death of a *SCIENTIST* – someone whose life’s work revolved around basing conclusions on hard, sound data & logic – to argue your pet case does the memory of that person quite a disservice.
@truffy
Case 3 – when running
@truffy
Case 3 – when running round the school playground as a child I tripped over a wall and landed on my head, getting severe concussion
Ergo all children in playgrounds should wear helmets
case 4 – a friend tripped down the stairs and broke her leg – ergo everyone should wear full kevlar body armour when walking down stairs
case 5 – someone somewhere suffered fatal head trauma in a car crash (such car crashes being the main cause of such trauma so pick any case you like). Ergo everyone should wear driving helmets.
This ‘proof by anecdote’ lark is pretty easy, I must say. Though sadly its worthless. Its probably because you know, at some level, that its worthless that you throw around insults to try and bolster your point.
The most infuriating thing is that making an unnecessary car journey has far greater negative health effects (via pollution, risk of RTAs and physical inactivity both for the driver and indirectly in its effects on everyone else) than does cycling without a helmet, yet those who favour compulsory helmet laws never say a word about banning such journeys.
That double-standard makes it impossible to take them seriously or to take at face value their claim to want to reduce deaths. Given that compulsory laws suppress cycling and thus increase mortality, I can only assume that the compulsory helmet crowd (by which I don’t mean those who merely suggest people voluntarily wear them, I specifically mean those who favour legal compulsion) actually like death.
Bergerac enabling toss pots.
Bergerac enabling toss pots.
Try the following
Try the following experiment.
Part 1 Adult.
Stand next to and sideways on to a wall. Tilt your head sideways and try to touch the wall with your head.
Part 2 Child
Take a pre-pubescent child (either sex will do) and repeat the actions in part 1.
Result
Due to the fact that a pre-pubescent child as not developed the shoulder width to head size ratio of an adult they find it easier to touch their head to the wall.
Conclusion
If a pre-pubescent child falls over there is a greater likelihood of them striking their head on the ground.
That’s it. That’s the facts, cycling doesn’t come into it and as was pointed out by SeanBolton above
“The biggest causes of head injury in Under 14s are ;
i. accidents in the home
ii. accidents in playgrounds
iii. motor vehicle accidents (as passenger)
Cycling is only a very small percentage.”
Now make your own mind up!
As a side note on point iii. Nearly all occupants of cars involved in RTA’s suffer head trauma. This is why Motorists Helmets were nearly made compulsory in Australia.
http://www.copenhagenize.com/search/label/helmets%20for%20motorists
For anybody interested in
For anybody interested in what happens when mandatory helmet laws are passed, take a look at http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/17/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law/ and the explanation of these effects here http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/27/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law-the-evidence-and-what-it-means/ .
Just read this and as usual
Just read this and as usual there are the “yes brigade” and the “no brigade” each being typically arsey with each other.
Why doesn’t the site, when reporting on helmet stories, do like they do with fatals and not allow comments because to be honest i think everyone who comes on this forum already has a firm opinion set in stone in relation to helmet use and all that happens is that we go round and round and round in abusive / sarcastic circles.
stumps wrote:Just read this
=D>
stumps wrote:Just read this
…I used to be very pro-helmet – growing up in NZ probably had a lot to do with it. Then I read comments like the above, the references they cite, the ‘references’ cited by pro-helmeteers (usually including the 1998 Thompson-Ravera ‘88%’ publication) and decided for myself that on balance and taking population-level effects into consideration, I had been completely wrong. Presented with evidence or lack thereof, minds can and do change.
Debate is good. And when one side of the argument hasn’t got a leg to stand on and regularly gets its arse handed it by rational debate, that too is A Good Thing.
KiwiMike wrote:stumps
…I used to be very pro-helmet – growing up in NZ probably had a lot to do with it. Then I read comments like the above, the references they cite, the ‘references’ cited by pro-helmeteers (usually including the 1998 Thompson-Ravera ‘88%’ publication) and decided for myself that on balance and taking population-level effects into consideration, I had been completely wrong. Presented with evidence or lack thereof, minds can and do change.
Debate is good. And when one side of the argument hasn’t got a leg to stand on and regularly gets its arse handed it by rational debate, that too is A Good Thing.— stumps
Nothing wrong in rational debate and i agree people will have their minds changed by such debate, however what i find distasteful is forum users basically slagging off another user purely because they dont agree with them, debate and argue yes, abuse no.
I reckon the contributors to
I reckon the contributors to the comments on this thread are either 1) retired miserable old gits with too much time on their hands or 2) the work shy or 3) the sick lame or lazy.
Who gives a monkeys about helmets! Just do what’s right for you.
Airzound wrote:
Who gives a
Whilst I agree with the sentiment, go and tell politicians that the solution to cyclists getting hurt isn’t helmets or hi viz, but dealing with drivers and cars.
Airzound wrote:I reckon the
Which one are you…? 😉
700c wrote:Airzound wrote:I
I’m on holiday ……… which is 4) which I forgot. Ooops. 🙂
I wear a helmet. Does it
I wear a helmet. Does it make me feel safer? No. Do I think it makes me safer? No.
The three times I have come off, I’ve broken a rib and twisted my shoulder and my wrist, and cut my shin (did you know that road muck seems to make for a perfectly black scar?). My head never hit the road in any case, and I’m pretty sure a helmet doesn’t protect shoulders or ribs or legs.
But my wife said she’d kill me if I got hurt riding and wasn’t wearing a helmet. So I wear a helmet 😉
brooksby wrote:I wear a
Sounds like you should be wearing a helmet (and possibly body armour) around your wife rather than on the bike. :))
Airzound: I would love to be
Airzound: I would love to be able to not have to talk about helmets. However, the UK seems to be full of people who seem to think I and/or my children must be made to wear them. Some of these people are well-meaning but simply misinformed, and potentially may be swayed by evidence. Others are simply anecdote obsessed idiots who just don’t give a flying fuck about reality.
So long as those people exist, spreading their misinformation and lobbying for compulsory helmet laws for the young or all, the rest of us must counter that crap. Yes, it’s highly tedious and annoying, but otherwise the misinformed and the idiots may well win, and then I’ll have to risk fines most times I or my kids cycle.
Plus compulsory helmet laws would be the death knell for any hope of mass cycling. And without higher rates of cycling, there will never be the political will to do any of the things that *really* can improve cycling safety.
Paul J wrote:Airzound: I
I really don’t give a monkeys about the helmet issue, you or your family so it’s no good ranting at me =)) . As I say do what you want but leave me out of your crusade. Btw critical mass rides always seem to be well attended so helmets cannot be that much of an issue. I think you over state your case.
Oh, and I *never* talked
Oh, and I *never* talked about helmets, until a cycling club I had joined decided to bring in a rule requiring them (because someone had crashed and hurt their fucking leg). They brought in this rule by fiat – some inner clique just updating the rules by themselves, which was against the constitution of the club.
After that I realised I needed to fight the anecdote lovers with the facts.
Paul J – you said
“Plus
Paul J – you said
“Plus compulsory helmet laws would be the death knell for any hope of mass cycling”
I did a short survey over a 5 week period, not scientific by any means, basically i just counted the bikes on the road i saw and whether they were wearing a helmet or not. I found that of over 900 cyclists i saw it was about 98% were wearing a helmet.
EDIT: this is the second time i’ve done this and the figure remained the same.
stumps wrote:
I did a short
Huh? Did you happen to be doing your little ‘survey’ whilst watching the TdF by any chance?
I sometimes do the same exercise whilst out on my rides and it is almost always about 50/50.
There’s absolutely no way that 98% of cyclists in this country wear helmets … or any figure remotely like it. That’s probably a higher proportion than car drivers who actually wear seat-belts!
Of course it *might* be that 98% of cyclists wear helmets … because there’s been absolutely no recorded reduction in KSI’s since it happened.
stumps wrote:Paul J – you
Though obviously the result would depend on location and time of day. There are places here where I’d estimate just about nobody wears a helmet (I’d also say that in those same places a majority ride at speed on the pavement like annoying knobheads – it would be unfair to decide from that that a majority of cyclists are knobheads).
But the real point is that what existing cyclists do has no bearing at all on the question of whether compulsory helmet laws would be yet another disincentive for the vast majority who don’t cycle to take it up, so the accuracy or otherwise of your figures doesn’t really matter.
Airzound: Bit strange for
Airzound: Bit strange for someone who wants to stay out of the helmet debate to spend time commenting repeatedly on a helmet debate.
I don’t think I’m over-stating my case. MPs have tried to table private bills for UK wide legislation to make helmets compulsory, and more regional assemblies have also tried. Further, various other bodies have brought in helmet rules, including schools and sportive organisers.
Stumps: Your figures are way off from what I observe. I suspect some bias has crept into your methodology. E.g., the place(s) you’re doing the observing from.
Update: A TFL study for Stumps, http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_road_user_safety/report_cycle_helmet_wearing_in_2008.htm – 34%, not 98%.
Paul J wrote:
Stumps: Your
Don’t forget Stumps is or was a police officer. In an informal survey that I undertook I found that 98% of serving police officers, out of about 900 that I spoke to, claim to have personally witnessed Andrew Mitchell calling their colleagues “plebs” at Downing St. Maybe that’s where he gets his numbers from?
Joeinpoole wrote:Paul J
Don’t forget Stumps is or was a police officer. In an informal survey that I undertook I found that 98% of serving police officers, out of about 900 that I spoke to, claim to have personally witnessed Andrew Mitchell calling their colleagues “plebs” at Downing St. Maybe that’s where he gets his numbers from?— Paul J
I feel you may be being a trifle unfair here.
1) As a cyclist we have outsiders taking the specific actions of the individual and extrapolating these actions to all cyclists. The actions of those officers and officials of the Police Federation involved in “Plebgate” Affair should not be used to tar & feather all serving Police Officers in the same way that one RLJ cyclist should not be used against all cyclists.
2) Over the period that I have been a member of Road.cc I have found that Stumps’ posts have been informative, relevant and often show the other side of the coin in discussion threads that have touched upon either the law of the administration of justice.
3) I cannot remember any post by Stumps that has been needlessly offensive or derogatory.
I am not and have never been a Policeman (before anyone thinks I am).
ooh dear joeinpoole, paul j,
ooh dear joeinpoole, paul j, you didnt like that did you, someone actually giving an unbiased account of positive helmet wearing.
Come upto where i work, inner city, and count them yourself but i wont hold my breath. Paul J i’ve found you always produce good points in your forum responces so why try and belittle what i have stated.
If you look at my previous posts about helmets its always been about personal choice and not mandatory so why should i now change tack and support something else. All i can tell you is what i found to be the case, if you dont like that thats fine.
joeinpoole – “yawn” pleb pleb blah blah blah, grow up.
Stumps: I wasn’t trying to
Stumps: I wasn’t trying to belittle you. Just saying my experience is very different from yours. Mine is based on Glasgow city. I’ve never seen 98% helmet wearing rates, outside of racing/sportives. Nowhere near in cities.
It’s not just me either. TRL found the same, and they’ve likely done a much wider study. This suggests your observations are not representative, for some reason (e.g. where you’re observing).
Disagreeing is not belittling. If it came across that way to you, I apologise – sorry.
Paul J wrote:Stumps: I wasn’t
Apology accepted and i also apologise for getting the wrong end of the stick, dont want to fall out over helmet use mate.
Lots of people have anecdotal
Lots of people have anecdotal evidence about the benefits of wearing helmets. They tend to wear helmets.
Lots of people quote published reports to help protect their right to ride without a helmet. They tend not to wear helmets.
Wear or don’t wear a helmet based on your opinion. It really is that simple.
I love this debate….
I
I love this debate….
I think the reality is that very few of us will change our opinion either way as to helmets use.
I say wear what you like on your head, there is plenty of evidence either way that your choice is the wrong one, so do what is right for you.
However, what I will figh,t and fight all day long against, is legislation forcing people to wear helmets.
Even if helmets saved every head every time, the risk of hitting that head in the first place is so small it negates the need for legislation… of criminalising people who are simply looking to utilise a healthy, sustainable and frankly fun means of transport.
I’ve hit my head a few times
I’ve hit my head a few times now falling off and am glad I’ve been wearing a helmet. Certainly will be having my children wear one. I deal with people post-head injury and even a small reduction in risk is worth squiffy hair for.
I’m sure that if you pro-skills style-gods crash at all you fall into a perfect tuck and spring back to your feet undaunted. We are not all like that.
Slow clap for Jersey.
THE
Slow clap for Jersey.
THE IDIOTS ARE WINNING….
My last couple of offs have
My last couple of offs have resulted in my helmet surviving unscathed, it didn’t make contact with the ground at all.
Has anybody noticed who the Chairman of Headway is?
https://www.headway.org.uk/jersey-introduces-cycle-helmet-law.aspx
Redvee wrote:My last couple
Andrew Green? I don’t know who that is.
I do notice that the page you linked to contains hilarious misrepresentation of what the introduction of helmet legislation in Australia did for cycling there. It quotes there being “rapid growth” in cycling, ignoring the substantial decline that happened at the point that helmet legislation came in, and ignoring the very significant population growth (58% in population over 9 years old between 86 and 2006, compared to 21% increase in cycle trips over the same period) that Australia experienced.
It also ignores that head injuries rates had been declining continually in the period before the helmet law went in. There was a small drop in rates immediately after the introduction of the law, though they reach a 6 year high in 95 three years after the start of enforcement, but the rates had already dropped by around 40% between 1985 and 1990.
Bah. Much better information is available here. http://www.cycle-helmets.com/results.html
I went to a Green Party
I went to a Green Party traffic infrastructure meeting a few months ago here in small town NZ. Our town is a major mountain biking and road cycling area which hosts one of the two Southern Hemisphere UCI Golden Rides.
A friend of mine who teaches at one of the local schools surprised me when he said that at his school you can see on an average day around 11 bikes in the bike sheds. When I was at school these would have been full.
Maybe compulsory bicycle helmets is a good way to get kids to take a scooter to school.