Jersey finally passes mandatory helmet law - for under 14 year olds

Redvee wrote:

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

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'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.

Paul J wrote:

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.

Apology accepted and i also apologise for getting the wrong end of the stick, dont want to fall out over helmet use mate.

Paul J wrote:

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_r... - 34%, not 98%.

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 wrote:

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_r... - 34%, not 98%.

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?

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).

stumps wrote:

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.

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 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.

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.

Paul J wrote:

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.

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.

brooksby wrote:

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

Sounds like you should be wearing a helmet (and possibly body armour) around your wife rather than on the bike.

Airzound wrote:

Who gives a monkeys about helmets! Just do what's right for you.

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 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.

Which one are you...?

700c wrote:

Airzound wrote:

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.

Which one are you...?

I'm on holiday ……… which is 4) which I forgot. Ooops.

stumps wrote:

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 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.

...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 wrote:

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.

...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.

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.