Bolton Council asks UK government to make helmets compulsory

[mjr]

I'm sorry but I am a driver, first and foremost and I would never consciously or unconsciously consider a cyclist with a helmet a safer risk than any other road user. That is starting to sound a little silly now.

This is part of the problem. People think that the idea that motorists take less care near armoured people sounds silly, but somehow this isn't ridiculously OTT:

while this is:

[cliffyboy1962]

A cyclist wearing a helmet is ridiculously OTT ? This thread just gets weirder and weirder.

[cliffyboy1962]

Armoured people ? People in a cycling helmet are armoured people ? Just getting weirder.

[mjr]

A cyclist wearing a helmet is ridiculously OTT ? This thread just gets weirder and weirder.

The point I was trying to make is that it is ridiculously OTT but not seen as such. People don't wear a helmet for riskier activities, but it's somehow seen as unremarkable if you wear one for cycling. This country is in a very strange place.

[bluemootwo]

On Thursday last week I had the misfortune to witness a death due to a head injury. A 40ish year old man tripped and fell backwards, and he died where he fell. Another death that could have been avoided with a helmet? Well - yes. Make it compulsory to wear helmets the moment we get out of bed? No.

Of course there is risk to our heads when we walk downstairs, make breakfast, drive a car, walk into the office, play tennis, go shopping, like that poor man last week watch badminton in a sports centre, and yes ride a bike. The risks to our heads don't change much between each of those activities. So why pick out cycling for special attention? Why pick the one activity of all those from which society has the most to gain from 'normalisation', and the most to lose from giving it the appearance of being dangerous?

[[XAP]Bob]

Is there anywhere you wouldn't ride without one, but will ride with one?

That's risk compensation...

Additionally it doesn't have to be you doing the compensation, motorists passing closer because you are "safer" is risk compensation over which you have no control...

I'm sorry but I am a driver, first and foremost and I would never consciously or unconsciously consider a cyclist with a helmet a safer risk than any other road user. That is starting to sound a little silly now.

Sorry, but your assertion isn't backed up by empirical research.

And even if you were somehow aware of your unconscious bias then you are assuming that all drivers act the same way, and that is easily disproved.

[cliffyboy1962]

On Thursday last week I had the misfortune to witness a death due to a head injury. A 40ish year old man tripped and fell backwards, and he died where he fell. Another death that could have been avoided with a helmet? Well - yes. Make it compulsory to wear helmets the moment we get out of bed? No.

Of course there is risk to our heads when we walk downstairs, make breakfast, drive a car, walk into the office, play tennis, go shopping, like that poor man last week watch badminton in a sports centre, and yes ride a bike. The risks to our heads don't change much between each of those activities. So why pick out cycling for special attention? Why pick the one activity of all those from which society has the most to gain from 'normalisation', and the most to lose from giving it the appearance of being dangerous?

I am definitely going to leave this thread alone because, when you suggest that I am as much at risk of head injury making breakfast, as I am cycling, I know I am trying to make sense of a world of denial.

Enjoy your helmet free cycling.

[[XAP]Bob]

On Thursday last week I had the misfortune to witness a death due to a head injury. A 40ish year old man tripped and fell backwards, and he died where he fell. Another death that could have been avoided with a helmet? Well - yes. Make it compulsory to wear helmets the moment we get out of bed? No.

Of course there is risk to our heads when we walk downstairs, make breakfast, drive a car, walk into the office, play tennis, go shopping, like that poor man last week watch badminton in a sports centre, and yes ride a bike. The risks to our heads don't change much between each of those activities. So why pick out cycling for special attention? Why pick the one activity of all those from which society has the most to gain from 'normalisation', and the most to lose from giving it the appearance of being dangerous?

I am definitely going to leave this thread alone because, when you suggest that I am as much at risk of head injury making breakfast, as I am cycling, I know I am trying to make sense of a world of denial.

Enjoy your helmet free cycling.

You are more likely to die when walking a mile than cycling a mile - you are massively overestimating the risk faced when cycling (as is typical by people who are used to the helmet propaganda)

Why do you think a head injury is likely when cycling?

[Mick F]

For what it's worth, I do wear my lid for one reason only. It helps keep the rain off my head and the peak keeps it out of my eyes.

I was a helmet user, but not now ......... for various reasons.
I'm now wearing one of these:
http://www.sealskinz.com/UK/hats/belgia ... ycling-cap

[Tangled Metal]

Is there anywhere you wouldn't ride without one, but will ride with one?

That's risk compensation...

Additionally it doesn't have to be you doing the compensation, motorists passing closer because you are "safer" is risk compensation over which you have no control...

I'm sorry but I am a driver, first and foremost and I would never consciously or unconsciously consider a cyclist with a helmet a safer risk than any other road user. That is starting to sound a little silly now.

Cyclist apparel and other factors do change driver behaviour. I can attest to that through experience. I live 2 miles from my parents along a road that runs from my small.town to their village. The road is a fast country road, straight and over a hill. Cars mostly drive 50 to 60mph, like I do when in the car.

I ride that stretch on my own on the bike and cars drive very close despite there being plenty of space in each carriageway to overtake with space, without entering the other side. However, if I have my child seat on, with or without child, the cars give me a very wide berth. When I use the child trailer they even exaggerate this overtaking manoeuvre with most cars driving completely on.the other side. This happens universally when using the child trailer. My change in carriage changes their behaviour.

This is why I completely believe the research carried.out that showed a more positive driver behaviour for a blonde even if that's a guy in a blonde wig!

[pjclinch]

I am definitely going to leave this thread alone because, when you suggest that I am as much at risk of head injury making breakfast, as I am cycling, I know I am trying to make sense of a world of denial.

Whether you as an individual are more or less in danger doing different things depends on a lot of factors. The figures for risks being bandied about are for population averages, not necessarily the right thing for an individual. You may be well above average for household safety (for example, if you live in a bungalow you'll have a lot lower chance of a stair accident) or bike safety, or below, or whatever. What the average figure isn't necessarily the same as your risk... but it will often be a pretty good guide.

So roughly 100 people are killed cycling per year in the UK, so at some level it's clearly dangerous. But about 1,000 are killed falling down the stairs, so clearly at some level that's dangerous too. So do you think it's reasonable to wear crash helmets to use the stairs? This isn't a suggestion you should, just an illustration that your perception of risk and your reaction to it is not the cold, linear, logical thing most of us would like to think.

If your idea of a good day's cycling is top-level bonkers BMX then you've a pretty sizeable chance of a nasty injury. If it's riding to the supermarket and getting some groceries in, despite the potentially killer traffic a few feet from you, the accident rate is actually lower per mile than if you went on foot. If you're a careless cyclist it might be worse, if you're careful and skillful probably better still.

I'm sorry but I am a driver, first and foremost and I would never consciously or unconsciously consider a cyclist with a helmet a safer risk than any other road user. That is starting to sound a little silly now.

It does, but it really happens. An online discussion I had once the other chap told a story about he'd had a motorist pull up to him at a traffic light and wind the window down to tell him he should have been wearing a helmet. And a reason was given too, that had he been wearing a helmet it would have been safe enough to squeeze past him before the lights. You might drive very well around any cyclists, but that doesn't scale to everyone. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

Pete.

[AlaninWales]

On Thursday last week I had the misfortune to witness a death due to a head injury. A 40ish year old man tripped and fell backwards, and he died where he fell. Another death that could have been avoided with a helmet? Well - yes. Make it compulsory to wear helmets the moment we get out of bed? No.

Of course there is risk to our heads when we walk downstairs, make breakfast, drive a car, walk into the office, play tennis, go shopping, like that poor man last week watch badminton in a sports centre, and yes ride a bike. The risks to our heads don't change much between each of those activities. So why pick out cycling for special attention? Why pick the one activity of all those from which society has the most to gain from 'normalisation', and the most to lose from giving it the appearance of being dangerous?

I am definitely going to leave this thread alone because, when you suggest that I am as much at risk of head injury making breakfast, as I am cycling, I know I am trying to make sense of a world of denial.

Enjoy your helmet free cycling.

Indeed it is a worrying thing to have your basic assumptions challenged, especially when those challenges come with evidence!

[Bicycler]

I am definitely going to leave this thread alone because, when you suggest that I am as much at risk of head injury making breakfast, as I am cycling, I know I am trying to make sense of a world of denial.

Enjoy your helmet free cycling.

Hi Cliff, welcome to the forum

As you might have discovered there are many complex issues at hand and unfortunately people start to get a bit heated and terse rather than repeat the same complicated arguments time and again. There have been times in this forum section where all facets of the debate have been gone into in a detailed and more considered manner. If you wish to do so at any point you could explore these or the links Vorpal provided.

In truth though, whether you choose to wear a helmet is not important to most of us on here. What is important is that you accept that other people make informed personal decisions not to wear helmets and also that you understand why many cyclists and cycling organisations don't think that heavily promoting helmets or requiring them by law is a good idea. I'll provide some short links from the biggest national cycling organisations:
A summary of the National Cycling Charity CTC's views on helmets: http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views ... le-helmets
British Cycling's Policy Director Chris Boardman on why he refused to wear one whilst talking about cycle safety: https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/artic ... reakfast-0
CycleNation's FAQ on the subject of laws requiring helmets: http://www.cyclenation.org.uk/faq#helmetlaw

At the bare minimum, all I or most non-helmet wearing cyclists ask is that you respect our views and do not support campaigns to restrict the choice of others.

And, yes, please do enjoy your cycling whatever you wear

[cliffyboy1962]

On Thursday last week I had the misfortune to witness a death due to a head injury. A 40ish year old man tripped and fell backwards, and he died where he fell. Another death that could have been avoided with a helmet? Well - yes. Make it compulsory to wear helmets the moment we get out of bed? No.

Of course there is risk to our heads when we walk downstairs, make breakfast, drive a car, walk into the office, play tennis, go shopping, like that poor man last week watch badminton in a sports centre, and yes ride a bike. The risks to our heads don't change much between each of those activities. So why pick out cycling for special attention? Why pick the one activity of all those from which society has the most to gain from 'normalisation', and the most to lose from giving it the appearance of being dangerous?

I am definitely going to leave this thread alone because, when you suggest that I am as much at risk of head injury making breakfast, as I am cycling, I know I am trying to make sense of a world of denial.

Enjoy your helmet free cycling.

Indeed it is a worrying thing to have your basic assumptions challenged, especially when those challenges come with evidence!

This hits the nail right on the head. My basic assumptions have been challenged and I am not handling it at all well. [emoji23]

[AlaninWales]

Indeed it is a worrying thing to have your basic assumptions challenged, especially when those challenges come with evidence!

This hits the nail right on the head. My basic assumptions have been challenged and I am not handling it at all well. [emoji23]

We've (mostly) all been there! Whether with helmets or with other (more important) things. Which is why so many posts are simply pointing out that there's more to consider, that 'common sense' generally isn't, and asking for some respect for those who have looked into the evidence and decided to avoid the polystyrene caps - or not. Each to their own decision (and an email please, to the Bolton Bully who is trying to make them compulsory).