Call for Parliamentary Inquiry into helmet advice

For all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmet usage will be moved here.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Call for Parliamentary Inquiry into helmet advice

Post by Steady rider »

The issue of if to wear one or not can be left to the individual.

The problem is that the Highway Code is worded in such a way as to cause those not wearing to encounter legal problems in obtaining full compensation in accidents involving head injuries and in not providing suitable warnings.

The Code could say,
On average riding a bicycle improves your health, increases your lifespan, and delivers benefits to society. The societal benefits of promoting and wearing bicycle helmets, are disputed, therefore the choice of whether to wear one is left to the individual. Children should remove their helmets when not actually cycling.
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11009
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Call for Parliamentary Inquiry into helmet advice

Post by Bonefishblues »

In the case of an accident where it could be demonstrated that a helmet would have had a protective effect, then it would still be open to that claim though, notwithstanding your proposed wording.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Call for Parliamentary Inquiry into helmet advice

Post by Steady rider »

It would not involve the Highway Code and 'should' being used as a legal element.

A person not wearing has reasonable grounds, the reasons provided at the start of this topic, plus convenience and the relative low risk of serious head injury when cycling. Judging after the event, to say some injury may have been prevented, disregards the overall circumstances applying prior to an accident. A pedestrian or car occupant sustaining head injuries could be said to have failed to wear a helmet.
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11009
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Call for Parliamentary Inquiry into helmet advice

Post by Bonefishblues »

Steady rider wrote: 4 Dec 2021, 10:50am It would not involve the Highway Code and 'should' being used as a legal element.

A person not wearing has reasonable grounds, the reasons provided at the start of this topic, plus convenience and the relative low risk of serious head injury when cycling. Judging after the event, to say some injury may have been prevented, disregards the overall circumstances applying prior to an accident. A pedestrian or car occupant sustaining head injuries could be said to have failed to wear a helmet.
Indeed they could, but it's not prevalent in those scenarios, so a distinction can be drawn between those scenarios and this one, where it is.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Call for Parliamentary Inquiry into helmet advice

Post by Steady rider »

The Code could say,
On average riding a bicycle improves your health, increases your lifespan, and delivers benefits to society. The societal benefits of promoting and wearing bicycle helmets, are disputed, therefore the choice of whether to wear one is left to the individual. Children are advised to remove their helmets when not actually cycling.

I have removed 'should' from the suggestion.
I do not see any circumstances regarding normal cycling on the roads where compensation should be reduced if not wearing a helmet, regardless of if a helmet could have reduced a head injury. There are reasonable grounds for not wearing a helmet and compensation should be paid in full for accidents due to others being at fault. No excuses.
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11009
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Call for Parliamentary Inquiry into helmet advice

Post by Bonefishblues »

Steady rider wrote: 4 Dec 2021, 11:03am The Code could say,
On average riding a bicycle improves your health, increases your lifespan, and delivers benefits to society. The societal benefits of promoting and wearing bicycle helmets, are disputed, therefore the choice of whether to wear one is left to the individual. Children are advised to remove their helmets when not actually cycling.

I have removed 'should' from the suggestion.
I do not see any circumstances regarding normal cycling on the roads where compensation should be reduced if not wearing a helmet, regardless of if a helmet could have reduced a head injury. There are reasonable grounds for not wearing a helmet and compensation should be paid in full for accidents due to others being at fault. No excuses.
I understand your point of view. I don't think it's likely to prevail, that's all.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Call for Parliamentary Inquiry into helmet advice

Post by thirdcrank »

thirdcrank wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 8:24am What's to say such an inquiry would reach your desired conclusions? Don't underestimate the strength of the lobbying by vested interests or the extent of prejudice. In the unlikely event of an inquiry being launched, it might easily lead to compulsion.
I'm glad this topic has remained separate from the current discussion on the science rather than the political realities. This lunchtime I ended up in a discussion in a boozer with a group of chaps from somewhere "down South." They were convinced that an inch of froth on a pint of beer was a Yorkshire tradition. The reality is that it originated with the sale of draught Guinness and powerful brewing interests turned into the norm. In case anybody is wondering what on Earth I am on about, IMO, there's a lot of money to be made by selling expanded polystyrene at inflated prices, as there is with froth on draught beer. Big money = vested interests.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Call for Parliamentary Inquiry into helmet advice

Post by Steady rider »

Last edited by Steady rider on 9 Jan 2022, 8:06pm, edited 1 time in total.
drossall
Posts: 6115
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Call for Parliamentary Inquiry into helmet advice

Post by drossall »

thirdcrank wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 10:23pmI'm glad this topic has remained separate from the current discussion on the science rather than the political realities.
I see your point to some extent, although reading first the politically-commissioned report and then the response just cited by Steady Rider gave me pause for thought about the process that feeds research into decision making. I've commented more fully in the other thread. In essence, and without wanting to spread discussion across threads, I'm humbly questioning whether assessing as much as possible of the published literature can ever be a sound approach.
User avatar
CJ
Posts: 3413
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 9:55pm

Re: Call for Parliamentary Inquiry into helmet advice

Post by CJ »

Thehairs1970 wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 8:38pm
axel_knutt wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 5:34pm
Thehairs1970 wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 6:45amWhy do you want the advice changed? If you don’t want to wear a helmet, don’t. It’s your head. But don’t persuade me not to.
Why do you want the advice to remain? If you want to wear a helmet, wear one. It’s your head. But don’t persuade me to.
I have not tried to persuade you. Why do I want to wear one? Because my experience has been a helmet as protecting, not harming.
You have though. Twice. By adding this unnecessary anecdote to your first reply...
I have landed smack on my head when falling off a bike and I didn’t enjoy it so I’ll continue to wear mine.
...and referring to it again in your second reply.

Nobody here has asked you why you wear one. You have no need to justify that decision. The only point in trotting out that anecdote is to promote helmet wearing. Please don't. Because if you think falling smack on one's head happens often enough to justify special headgear, we're just as likely to think there must be something specially risky about the way you ride a bike!
Chris Juden
One lady owner, never raced or jumped.
Carlton green
Posts: 3645
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: Call for Parliamentary Inquiry into helmet advice

Post by Carlton green »

thirdcrank wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 8:24am What's to say such an inquiry would reach your desired conclusions? Don't underestimate the strength of the lobbying by vested interests or the extent of prejudice. In the unlikely event of an inquiry being launched, it might easily lead to compulsion.
Retailers and manufacturers would love compulsory helmets and commercial factions have a long history of greasing the palms of our politicians. Of course the builders and sellers of cars are delighted to see using a bike being made more difficult and so are the makers and sellers of fuel.

There should never have been the helmet addition to the Highway Code; helmet use needs to be taken out of subsequent issues and be left as a personal choice to a complex issue. The important thing is to get people exercising on bikes and using them instead of motor vehicles rather than putting obstacles and costs in the way of cyclists and cycling.
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 5469
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Call for Parliamentary Inquiry into helmet advice

Post by pjclinch »

drossall wrote: 2 Jan 2022, 12:31pm
thirdcrank wrote: 7 Dec 2021, 10:23pmI'm glad this topic has remained separate from the current discussion on the science rather than the political realities.
I see your point to some extent, although reading first the politically-commissioned report and then the response just cited by Steady Rider gave me pause for thought about the process that feeds research into decision making. I've commented more fully in the other thread. In essence, and without wanting to spread discussion across threads, I'm humbly questioning whether assessing as much as possible of the published literature can ever be a sound approach.
In this case, where the literature is all over the shot, I think all you can really glean from it is the S/N ratio is so poor that one shouldn't try and inform policy on anything from it bar the uncertainty.

Reviews generally look for "is it good or is it bad or is it indifferent?" but here we just get a rather damp "not proven". Which is not a sound basis for implementing policy.

This is really more of a job for empirical improvement science, not trawling academia and extrapolating. Spot a problem, propose a change that may help, design a small test of change, see if the proposal helps, if it does spread it. That was, as it happens, tried for pedestrian helmets for a group of Japanese school children. It didn't help, they called it a day (sorry, don't have the cite to hand and on Jan 2nd CBA to dig it up).

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
SA_SA_SA
Posts: 2360
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: Call for Parliamentary Inquiry into helmet advice

Post by SA_SA_SA »

Long ago, in the CTC Cycle magazine, a helmet tester stated that he always tightened the straps around the metal headform as tight as possible to give the best result while feeling that cycle helmet retention systems could be better.....

Which makes me suspect it may be impossible for an nonmetal headed human to stand wearing a correctly worn helmet for any length of time ie cycle helmets are ill fitting by default.....
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)
Post Reply