Cycling group 'strongly oppose' making wearing a helmet mandatory; Brooks releases statement addressing 'misleading claims' about post-Brexit sales; Olympic Champion delivers Tesco shopping to the elderly; Driver rams LTN planter + more on the live blog

The current situation makes it less of a hassle to wear a helmet - cold temperatures make you want to wear something on your head and it's not like helmet hair is a big issue when you're avoiding other people anyway.

Why not? Not much of a change in speed for the ones who follow the current limits and more chance of saving life in any accidents. And during rush hour you would struggle to get 30 anyway. 

Well, it never has, and there's the thing - yours is not the only experience.

So maybe consider the wider picture than your own misadventure and read Boardman's argument which he makes very well.

https://chrisboardman.com/blog/index_files/e67d4b8aac0c709c5801ce466bdcd...

Just to argue... Mopeds being so much more fuel-efficient than cars would save thousands of lives due to reduced air pollution if the majority of car drivers switched.

But people could possibly be dissuaded away from riding a moped in the pissing rain and freezing cold because they would be forced to wear a helmet, more likely for people to switch from car>motorbike than car>bicycle.

Additionally, correlation vs causation argument, Western Australia took 4 years to reach that 30% reduction in cycling after it became law, is that the only thing that affects those cycling numbers

Subsidising public transport? Tax or fuel price cut for motor vehicles, the fact that there was a recession in the early 90's in Australia where 11% of people were unemployed at its peak in 1992/1993 so may more people HAD to cycle for transportation?

Just to state do think making it law is maybe a little heavy but do think people really should invest in a helmet.

andyp363 wrote:

Just to state do think making it law is maybe a little heavy but do think people really should invest in a helmet.

And that's perfect, because in the main it is the compulsion to wear, rather than the act of wearing, that deters people from cycling.

vthejk wrote:

I’m sorry, but as someone who’s crashed twice this year and been saved from a nasty knock both times by my helmet - they SHOULD be mandatory. Sure, road reform and dedicated cycling lanes might help in specific instances of car - cyclist impact. But both of my crashes had nothing to do with a car, rather slippery roads and even a faulty chain. Who’s to say that won’t happen to you in a dedicated cycling lane?

I've got an idea; let's use science to analyse what happens when helmets are made mandatory.  Wow!  Those kind Aussies and Kiwis did it for us, and the results were a disaster.  Not only did cycling not become safer, it actually became more dangerous, and huge numbers of people gave up cycling entirely, losing the massive health benefits, getting sick and being a burden on the health service.

First post eh?  Socrapi? is that you?

"I'm sorry...."  You should be.

I wear a cycling cap, and haven't fallen off or crashed my bike for years. And I ride some "challenging" roads and off road routes.

Just a suggestion - if you want to reduce the likelihood of injury, learn to maintain and ride your bike safely. Bikeability or other bicycle training courses might be available in your area.

Argos74 wrote:

I wear a cycling cap, and haven't fallen off or crashed my bike for years. And I ride some "challenging" roads and off road routes.

Just a suggestion - if you want to reduce the likelihood of injury, learn to maintain and ride your bike safely. Bikeability or other bicycle training courses might be available in your area.

There are arguments for and against helmets which it's not worth rehashing, but "I'm not going to fall off" is not one of them. Nobody can legislate for the actions of other road users or even animals (I once came off on an off-road ride trying to avoid hitting a wild boar that ran across my path in the Forest of Dean, and years ago I was knocked off my motorcycle by a car driver who ran straight into the back of me whilst I sat stationary at a red light because, "I thought it was going to change so you'd move."). Not wearing a helmet because you think the protection they offer isn't worth it is logical (although I personally don't subscribe to that school of thought), not wearing one because you think your experience and skills will prevent you being involved in an accident isn't.

However, most people use some variation of the "I'm not going to hit my head, so I don't need to wear a helmet" argument every day. It's why people don't wear them in the shower or walking downstairs even though those activities can easily lead to a head injury.

hawkinspeter wrote:

However, most people use some variation of the "I'm not going to hit my head, so I don't need to wear a helmet" argument every day. It's why people don't wear them in the shower or walking downstairs even though those activities can easily lead to a head injury.

True, but then again I know only one person amongst a fairly wide circle of friends and acquaintances who's ever injured themselves falling down stairs, whereas not a single one of my cycling mates hasn't injured themselves in a crash at some point.

Were they all head injuries, though?

It's just a question of balancing the perceived risk against the inconvenience of wearing a helmet. Personally, I've bumped my head more often inside my own home than when out cycling and when I have fallen off my bike, I've luckily avoided any head injury.

Argos74 wrote:

I wear a cycling cap, and haven't fallen off or crashed my bike for years. And I ride some "challenging" roads and off road routes.

Well that seals it for me - casquettes should be mandatory for all cyclists.

You're right.

There's also the issue that some of the cyclists may have been wearing helmets and it simply not have been recorded.

Found this little analysis which puts the helmet wearing rate in Ireland at approximately 35-40% and clarifies the numbers to show 6 cyclists did not actually have their helmet wearing recorded.

If those 6 were wearing helmets then the referral rate for helmeted and non helmeted cyclists is about equal with their wearing rate.

If the non recorded weren't wearing helmets then the difference between the two groups may be significant.

Unfortunately on such a small dataset with such a large amount of uncertainty you can't really draw any conclusions.

There's good UK hospital data on injuries suffered by cyclists however. Helmeted cyclists seem to spend less time in hospital and are less likely to die. That's probably the best evidence for helmet wearing at the moment.

Irish data analysis:
https://irishcycle.com/2019/10/01/bicycle-helmets-the-irish-media-and-li...).

Not a good analogy - masks do nothing to protect you (except possibly from being sued for assault), they are entirely about protecting others, from you. The argument for helmets is the other way around.

And for the avoidance of doubt, there is scant evidence that helmets protect you from contracting covid either.

Well, the risk-compensation is one argument. More persuasive I find is the logic that we should work to eliminate the risk of injury at source instead of condoning it through accommodation:

https://chrisboardman.com/blog/index_files/e67d4b8aac0c709c5801ce466bdcd...

Nigel Garrage wrote:

...that's because I have enough common sense to still maintain the same risk profile.

Risk compensation is entirely unconscious and you can't consciously eliminate it, yet you claim to be able to do so, which shows that you don't understand risk compensation.  Might be best if you stopped lecturing the rest of us.

Deleted

Seems a bit self-defeating - surely by painting it all white he's turned it into a (very) solid white line, which just means that no vehicles are now allowed to enter it?

Online link to the story. (Just watch out for the 10,000 adverts etc).

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/caught-white-handed-police-arrest-19563474

Reported by a spoof account.  Not accurate.

Well I don't. It's not something like Santa Christ or Adolf Biene is it?