Conservative MP cites "safety" and attempts to reignite cyclist helmet debate

Wearing a helmet should be your choice !
I wear one everyday

Looking at the specifics of this, if someone can demonstrate;

1. that cycling has a head injury problem (statistically higher risk than other methods of transport / activity)

2. that this problem is impacting quality of life / is a significant burden to the public

3. that cycling helmets will effectively mitigate against that head injury problem 

...then I am happy to concede that manditory helmet legislation would be a good idea.

However, from where I am sitting, it all falls down on point 1, we don't even need to go down the rabbit hole of helmet effectiveness. 

If you look at the stats for injury it will show that more head injuries occur to occupants of cars. Therefore if you extrapolate the argument anyone travelling in a motor vheicle needs to wear a helmet.

As a politician, they never let facts get in the way of a sound bite, or a desperate attempt to try and get some voters are not swayed by the crazy policies of The Sunak.

I googled Oliver Dibsdale and came across this petition that he started in 2021.

"My name is olly and I sustained a TBI (traumatic brain injury) in 2015 due to not wearing a helmet while riding my bike. Right so, Google states that there is no British law to compel cyclists, of any age, to wear helmets when cycling, google also states that wearing a cycle helmet reduces risk of serious head injury by almost 70% and fatal head injury by 65% and 33% for face injury. And that's why I as many others strongly believe that the UK government should make helmet wearing a mandatory requirement. Yes, they are not 100% reliable but they are more than 50% reliable, and it would save a lot of our amazing NHS's time and the taxes of us British people.

Yes, they say many traumatic brain injuries would have not been prevented by a  helmet, as your brain can shake in the skull causing lots of little bleeds all over the brain (like my own).  However, all cars are fitted with working seatbelts by law, which are only 60% effective in reducing the likelihood of death and serious head injury, but you would not consider changing this law due to the amount of lives that are saved by them everyday. But the same amount of lives would be saved by enforcing bicycle helmets as law!

The only argument provided by the UK Government for not making helmets law is that it would discourage people from riding bikes and staying fit. Although, this is obviously very important it is not as important as the 45,000 people who sustain serious head injuries annually after crashing their bicycles without wearing a helmet. There are plenty other solutions for people to stay fit, which do not require the use of a helmet to stay safe such as running, using an exercise bike, swimming or plenty of other things.

It should be made a finable offence, so the first time you are caught without one you get a warning, the second time A £25 pound fine and then it keeps going up by £25 each time and all the profits go to rehab like C.E.R.U, where I recovered.

This law will save a lot of unnecessary tears from families like my own. I don't think my sister will ever forgive me for taking mum away from her at a vital point in her life, and I know there's no way I can turn back the clock, so I just want to change it now, so other family's don't have to go through what mine has been through."

The misunderstanding, misinformation and misrepresentation is clear and obvious, and the flaws in his arguments are plain to anyone with any knowledge of road safety.  While I don't doubt his sincerity, he really does need to look at the evidence, not base everything on his own personal experience, but sadly, I think that's unlikely.

It got 1,574 signatures.

"No one now suggests that wearing seatbelts should be a matter of individual choice , , , "

I do, for drivers only though and only if the drivers airbag is deactivated by not plugging in the seatbelt. Let them experience the consequences of their selfishness that the rest of us have to deal with.

The most dangerous ones would be gone quickly and there would be less headlines like 'Driver kills passengers in crash but survives'.

Dibsdale? Anagram of Disabled. Is this story for real?

There we are then - 1 day, 100 posts and I'm sure that's now solved the questions of head-worn PPE for cycling to everyone's satisfaction.

Great stuff!

Hopefully this dolt of an MP will lose his seat at the next election. Even better if he then gets caught having had his fingers in the till when the new government starts investigating all the dodgy contracts awarded during Covid.

Never underestimate the depths of ignorance a politician will stoop to, in the pursuit of votes. Plan For Drivers is the green light for legitimate Carnage From Drivers. When they can move outside of the inevitable self-inflicted traffic jams. For cyclists, horse riders, mobility scooter users and pedestrians, the next step in the Plan For Drivers is the mandatory requirement for those not driving, to wear body armour. This armour should meet the requirements of being hit by a driver at 30mph, who has lost concentration due to the demands of a 20mph zone. Not wearing body armour and helmet will lead to contributory negligence claims from the driver's insurers, to further increase their profits within a failed 'free market' economic system. 

Whilst this might be a sincere and heartfelt campaign based on the tragedy of one of Mark Pawsey, MP's constituents, the reality is that enforcement of this will be carried out by lazy police forces to meet their targets whilst demonstrating no leniency whatsover. 

Meanwhile myriad much more serious driving offences that we all witness or experience daily will continue to be ignored by the police or are treated with extreme leniency at the roadside and yet further leniency in the rest of the justice system should they even get that far, despite the existence of the points system which itself is a way of treating motorists more leniently.

He should spare a thought for what to do about all the existing laws that don't get enforced before trying to add yet another one to the statute that will just be used by police and others to harass cyclists who already face continual harassment on the roads with little or no legal protection.

I don't believe in government either banning things or making things mandatory. I do know the evidence points to helmets being a sensible precaution for cyclists to take and I wear one and I approve of encouraging other cyclists to wear them. For those who point out that per mile travelled pedestrians are more likely to be injured I would say quite true but per 15 minutes cyclists are more likely to be injured. That is one mile of walking and what 3-5 miles on a bike, If you quote numbers you can often make them say what you want. The UK stats show that over a period where helmet wearing increased by 6% it saw a reduction in people admitted to hospital with head injuries of 7%. Equally while there was a reduction in pedestrian head injuries over that time period it was not of the same order as the reduction in cyclist admissions. Of course it could be better brakes came in or some other factor causing a change. Testing of helmets has improved but ultimately whether they protect you or not will come down to the specific collision they are involved in. I personally wear a helmet and have reason to be grateful that I do and I would always recommend others did. However I would never seek to force them to wear one.

"To this, those who oppose mandatory wearing of cycle helmets respond that there is a health benefit from using a bicycle, and that there should not be any discouragement of cycling. Oliver replies to this that, if people wish to exercise, there are many ways of doing so that present less risk; he points out that people can walk, run, take up a sport or go to the gym."

No, no and something else, ah yes, no!

My only exercise that is somehow cardio is my commute to work. My other exercise is walking for errands. I find it super boring having to do exercise just for exercise. So the above claim is kind of false and the long-living walking japanese are a good proof, that you can stay fit without losing precious time to work out.

P.S. I ride with helmet for 99% of my miles and as a guy who falls frequently, I find it super necessary. But if (inexplicably to me) a helmet law stops people cycling, then the small safety benefits will be offset by losses in riders health, air quality, climate change, money sent to Emirs etc, etc.

How many head injuries occur for activities other than cycling? why is the MP not calling for helmets for these?

Cycling is not the top cause of head injuries presenting in A&E but is uniquely identified as the one where helmets are esential for "safety"