helmets from Why wear black?

[reohn2]

That's a good point, i'm surprised no-one has posted it already.

So I guess this could work like motor-racing helmets; you only wear them in known "dangerous" areas. Would it be ok to prevent people wearing helmets in cars on the road? (I think this may already be illegal, but I'm not sure... )

I'm not being led into car safety issues that's for another thread.
The subject is cycling safety and whether the wearing of H/Hv makes that situation better or worse,which IMO should be in the hands of cyclists to decide.
Unfortunately all too often it isn't it's in the hands drivers with prejudiced views on whether cyclists should even be on the road at all or dozy phone using driving loonies,etc.
The cycle safety problem for the most part isn't a cycling issue,it's a motorists issue,in light of the prejudice cyclists experience daily from motorists you can't blame any cyclist for trying to protect themselves however misguided there efforts may be.

EDITED for clarity.

[Vorpal]

That's a good point, i'm surprised no-one has posted it already.

So I guess this could work like motor-racing helmets; you only wear them in known "dangerous" areas. Would it be ok to prevent people wearing helmets in cars on the road? (I think this may already be illegal, but I'm not sure... )

It has been discussed in various threads over the years.

TUC is convinced that requiring helmets has increased the number of fatalities in cycle racing. IMO, although he may very well be correct, we do not have sufficient data to draw that conclusion. The only body that does, the UCI, is vigourously protecting it.

I have a helmet that I wear for a couple of events I do that require helmets. I don't really mind so much, even if I think the rule is silly.

I do understand TUC's point, but I don't think it would actually help.

My biggest problem with helmets & hi viz is that they are just a big *¤#&%?% red herring. They distract so much attention from the real issues.

But I don't think that would change if we banned them. Helmets & hi viz have too many proponents to ever go away at this point. The best we can do is try to refocus the discussion.

[mjr]

But I don't think that would change if we banned them. Helmets & hi viz have too many proponents to ever go away at this point. The best we can do is try to refocus the discussion.

Refocus it on what?

I would support banning them for road use because I believe they distract people from more effective measures and mislead cyclists into thinking that drivers must have seen them, rather than waiting for vehicles to stop.

[mattheus]

Is this like the French banning long swim-shorts?

[RickH]

In my more militant moments I would consider supporting a helmet ban if one was proposed. Generally I just get mildly irritated by the regular "You don't wear a helmet!" (in a shocked voice) comments. Although in group rides it amuses me that they've often ridden alongside me for maybe 20 miles & only notice at a cafe stop.

Maybe we could just have it like with cigarettes where you can't promote, advertise or display them. If you want to buy them you have to ask a member of staff to get one out an unmarked stock cupboard & they would be in plain packaging!

[Wanlock Dod]

Does anybody think that a ban would result in worse outcomes than the current situation?

[mattheus]

Maybe we could just have it like with cigarettes where you can't promote, advertise or display them. If you want to buy them you have to ask a member of staff to get one out an unmarked stock cupboard & they would be in plain packaging!

Excellent! I feel this is really gaining momentum now.


(My only worry with this - following the ciggie exemplum - is what would be the warning messages on the packaging?

"May result in helmet hair?" "Tree strangulation risk?" tricky ... )

[Oldjohnw]

Does anybody think that a ban would result in worse outcomes than the current situation?

Here's a possibility: parents up and down the land would not let their children go out on their bikes.

Freedom of choice would have been eroded

[Vorpal]

But I don't think that would change if we banned them. Helmets & hi viz have too many proponents to ever go away at this point. The best we can do is try to refocus the discussion.

Refocus it on what?

I would support banning them for road use because I believe they distract people from more effective measures and mislead cyclists into thinking that drivers must have seen them, rather than waiting for vehicles to stop.

Refocus on the cause of danger.

I think that banning hi vis & helmets would just get people talking about how stupid it was to ban them, instead of how important it is to wear them. Maybe the police would use their anti-cyclist initatives to issue more FPNs or tell more cyclists off for riding on the 'pavement'. I donæt think it would change anything substantive about the road safety debate.

[mattheus]

Does anybody think that a ban would result in worse outcomes than the current situation?

Here's a possibility: parents up and down the land would not let their children go out on their bikes.

Do you have data supporting this from before decent kids helmets were available?


Of course, if everyone does agree that your concern is well-reasoned, we could add an exemption for kids. (but it would say that no parent - or other body such as a school - could FORCE wearing, as that would be eroding freedom of choice, Human Rights, etc etc … )

[Oldjohnw]

Does anybody think that a ban would result in worse outcomes than the current situation?

Here's a possibility: parents up and down the land would not let their children go out on their bikes.

Do you have data supporting this from before decent kids helmets were available?


Of course, if everyone does agree that your concern is well-reasoned, we could add an exemption for kids. (but it would say that no parent - or other body such as a school - could FORCE wearing, as that would be eroding freedom of choice, Human Rights, etc etc … )

Of course I have no evidence. I wrote in response to a question, "Here's a possibility.

[mattheus]

It's all good - we're just exploring the details.

[Wanlock Dod]

Does anybody think that a ban would result in worse outcomes than the current situation?

Here's a possibility: parents up and down the land would not let their children go out on their bikes.

Freedom of choice would have been eroded

Given that as far as I can tell an awful lot of kids aren’t allowed to cycle anyway, presumably because it is at least perceived as too dangerous the numbers affected might not be all that great. They would also need to be balanced against any kids whose parents decided it was OK to cycle as a result of the changes.

Whilst currently we have the freedom of choice to be able to choose to ride on busy roads I expect that few would argue that freedom itself hasn’t been severely restricted for anybody without private motorised transport as a direct result of motorisation. What is worse, restricting freedom or restricting freedom of choice?

[Smudgerii]

What is worse, restricting freedom or restricting freedom of choice?

Restricting freedom of choice.

[Wanlock Dod]

Because....?