Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

[Phil_Lee]

KTM690 Said:

Nothing of any value

Shove off, troll.

[[XAP]Bob]

Wearing a helmet doesn't prevent you from operating a bicycle!

It can - I can't ride my original trice with a helmet on... The headrest would mean that my chin was an inch into my chest

I see some have "sucked up" arguments that it will reduce the amount of people choosing to use a bicycle.

And it would - it's not a "suck up". Look at the results of most studies (according to the BBC there is one where no significant effect was noted) and you see a catastrophic collapse in cycling numbers.
Cycling is attractive because of it's convenience, it is an everyday activity that does not require additional protection.

Deciding not to cycle to work and use the car/motorbike/bus isn't going to result in a stroke/infarct/chronic cake retention.

Yes it is. I put on a significant (for me) amount of weight when I had to drive to work, and my health overall suffered significantly. Had I continued for 30 years I'd be a wreck.

Of all cycle journeys how many are for getting to work?

Pretty much all of mine - but more to the point, how many more journeys to work could be made by cycle?

I cycle to have fun, trailer my daughter about, build up fitness for enduro motorbiking and as a cheap alternative to a taxi when going for a night out.

I cycle as a primary mode of transport, other people choose to bring danger to the party. To reduce the danger to cyclists we should increase road policing (all classes of road user have a significant minority who flout the law and increase the risk of a collision (note that the danger is always brought almost entirely by the motorist))

These reasons fit in with a large proportion of people that cycle. Choosing not to commute to work on a pushbike doesn't mean your not a "cyclist"

No - but it does mean you're causing congestion, and increasing the danger on the road.

Like my view or not they are the ones of a layman cyclist as opposed to the ones of a self appointed hardcore puritan cyclist so anointed because they commute to work on a pushbike.

Not puritanical at all, just practical. It's much quicker to commute by bike for MANY people. I used to lose a few minutes to my motoring colleagues over 10 miles, unless of course it snowed, in which case I was well over an hour quicker (80 minutes+).
Now I am significantly quicker over 5 miles than I am in the car.

I suspect the general public, like myself, will welcome helmet cycle law.

The only people whose opinion counts is that of those it affects (i.e. those who do not wear a helmet)
If you want to wear one then I'll support you - I'll even campaign with you for a better standard.
I will not support any attempt to compel their use.

Some will welcome the aspect of accountability that it imparts on cyclists.

Accountable for being hit? Get real - most people on here already carry third party insurance, and stop for red lights etc.

As for enforcement - that'll be a joke. Can't even get cyclists to use lights let alone helmets!

That's not even an argument - the real joke wrt enforcement (and it' not very funny) is cars and red lights, speed limits, safe overtaking etc.

I do agree that current cycle helmet design needs improvement - they're a long way off motorcycle helmets.

But they have to be somewhat different. Cyclists are very significant thermal radiators - I find ski goggles too hot above about -2C, a motorbike helmet is impractically heavy and hot.
Current helmets are tosh, but they are protecting against something insanely unlikely.

[KTM690]

I cycle to have fun, trailer my daughter about, build up fitness for enduro motorbiking and as a cheap alternative to a taxi when going for a night out..

Hopefully your nights out are alcohol free or you may need your helmet. I'd suggest the increased risk from cycling after a few pints far outweighs any benefit from a helmet.

As I've previousy said the great thing about cycling is the freedom it allows - hardly any rules and of the few there are you very unlikely to be held accountable for them.

pottering back from the pub on a bike isn't something I consider risky - not something I see as needing a cycle hat either.

Elsewhere on this forum there's threads about travelling 40mph downhill - something I do see as needing helmet use.

All about general public perception.

Problem is how to ensure cyclists wear helmets at 40mph - difficult to do without imposing helmets on the low risk journey back from the pub or whatever.

[KTM690]

Interesting.


INot sure if you're arguing naively from a position of ignorance or trolling for fun.

Please bring yourself up to speed on the debate, (there are dozens of previous threads on here) and come back when you have yourself considered at least a representative sample of the evidence. This is the best place to start... http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html

This thread is for the discussion of how to tackle the threat of compulsion in Northern Ireland. No-one who believes in evidence-based policy-making, and who has properly studied the matter can contend that, on balance, compulsion is a good idea or has positive health outcomes for the population as a whole. Like me, they might still choose to wear a helmet depending on how and where they are riding, but there is simply no rational case for forcing people to wear them.

Graham

PS - Like many people I took the 'commonsense' view on helmets until I did some proper reading. Please do the same.

My observations are from what I've witnessed at work (in A+E) and from the perspective of a motorcyclist.

http://motorcycleminds.org/virtuallibra ... TRL581.pdf

A TRL study12 found that approximately 75% of motorcycle accidents occur at impact speeds of up to 48km/h (30 mph) and 96% at up to 64 km/h (40 mph). The study also found that almost all (93%) of the serious and fatal head injuries occur at speeds of up to 64km/h (40 mph).

It doesn't take much to relate the 93% of all serious and fatal head injuries in motorcyclists to cyclists. After all up to 40mph is well within cycling territory.

A lot depends on where you source your research from - "science" is losing some credibility of late.

This isn't a scientific process it's a political one and those driving it through will pick the "science" that suits them.

That's evident in the issue of motorcycling in bus lanes!

I totally support the argument that it's best to prevent the accidents in the first place. That's not a motorist only responsibility though.

In response to the suggestion that I cause congestion by not cycling. I don't. Travelling by motorbike to work causes less congestion as I move faster than a bicycle, take up less road space and slow up other users less.

Regarding motorists as "the enemy" won't help your cause. Many, if not most, motorists cycle as well. This is reflected in the consideration given to cyclists for the majority of the time.

Motorists get irked when radical policies that are primarily anti car as opposed to pro bicycle are imposed.

No one likes to see a cycle lane in a perfectly good parking space!

[[XAP]Bob]

I cycle to have fun, trailer my daughter about, build up fitness for enduro motorbiking and as a cheap alternative to a taxi when going for a night out..

Hopefully your nights out are alcohol free or you may need your helmet. I'd suggest the increased risk from cycling after a few pints far outweighs any benefit from a helmet.

As I've previousy said the great thing about cycling is the freedom it allows - hardly any rules and of the few there are you very unlikely to be held accountable for them.

pottering back from the pub on a bike isn't something I consider risky - not something I see as needing a cycle hat either.

Elsewhere on this forum there's threads about travelling 40mph downhill - something I do see as needing helmet use.

All about general public perception.

Problem is how to ensure cyclists wear helmets at 40mph - difficult to do without imposing helmets on the low risk journey back from the pub or whatever.

Why do you need to?
cycling at 40 isn't inherently dangerous.

[meic]

Interesting.


INot sure if you're arguing naively from a position of ignorance or trolling for fun.

Please bring yourself up to speed on the debate, (there are dozens of previous threads on here) and come back when you have yourself considered at least a representative sample of the evidence. This is the best place to start... http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html

This thread is for the discussion of how to tackle the threat of compulsion in Northern Ireland. No-one who believes in evidence-based policy-making, and who has properly studied the matter can contend that, on balance, compulsion is a good idea or has positive health outcomes for the population as a whole. Like me, they might still choose to wear a helmet depending on how and where they are riding, but there is simply no rational case for forcing people to wear them.

Graham

PS - Like many people I took the 'commonsense' view on helmets until I did some proper reading. Please do the same.

My observations are from what I've witnessed at work (in A+E) and from the perspective of a motorcyclist.

http://motorcycleminds.org/virtuallibra ... TRL581.pdf

A TRL study12 found that approximately 75% of motorcycle accidents occur at impact speeds of up to 48km/h (30 mph) and 96% at up to 64 km/h (40 mph). The study also found that almost all (93%) of the serious and fatal head injuries occur at speeds of up to 64km/h (40 mph).

It doesn't take much to relate the 93% of all serious and fatal head injuries in motorcyclists to cyclists. After all up to 40mph is well within cycling territory.

A lot depends on where you source your research from - "science" is losing some credibility of late.

This isn't a scientific process it's a political one and those driving it through will pick the "science" that suits them.

That's evident in the issue of motorcycling in bus lanes!

I totally support the argument that it's best to prevent the accidents in the first place. That's not a motorist only responsibility though.

In response to the suggestion that I cause congestion by not cycling. I don't. Travelling by motorbike to work causes less congestion as I move faster than a bicycle, take up less road space and slow up other users less.

Regarding motorists as "the enemy" won't help your cause. Many, if not most, motorists cycle as well. This is reflected in the consideration given to cyclists for the majority of the time.

Motorists get irked when radical policies that are primarily anti car as opposed to pro bicycle are imposed.

No one likes to see a cycle lane in a perfectly good parking space!

Nobody hates that as much as cyclists do!

[kwackers]

In response to the suggestion that I cause congestion by not cycling. I don't. Travelling by motorbike to work causes less congestion as I move faster than a bicycle, take up less road space and slow up other users less.

Space taken on road is a function of size and velocity - essentially swept volume. Motorcycles are bigger and faster, the amount of space they require is a lot more on top of that most cars run along side bicycles so for the most part they occupy no appreciable space. On the upside motorcycles occupy that space for less time but even on my relatively uncongested route the time taken to cycle is only twice that of the motorcycle (at worst).

When bicycles do actually cause holdups it's invariably for no more than a few seconds and frequently all that happens is the vehicle overtakes and catches up with the vehicle it was originally behind anyway.

Of course, if you're an impatient git in a car then that's all immaterial.

[kwackers]

What I find bizarre about helmets is we allow people to do all sorts of crazy stuff that's dangerous and don't say a word!
But ride a bicycle at jogging speed and suddenly a whole host of do gooders suddenly pop out of the wood work to not only tell us what to wear but try and insist it be made a legal requirement!

There's a whole range of stuff out there that do gooders could do that would actually do some good, wouldn't surprise me if their motives weren't more political than they let on.

[KTM690]

In response to the suggestion that I cause congestion by not cycling. I don't. Travelling by motorbike to work causes less congestion as I move faster than a bicycle, take up less road space and slow up other users less.

Space taken on road is a function of size and velocity - essentially swept volume. Motorcycles are bigger and faster, the amount of space they require is a lot more on top of that most cars run along side bicycles so for the most part they occupy no appreciable space. On the upside motorcycles occupy that space for less time but even on my relatively uncongested route the time taken to cycle is only twice that of the motorcycle (at worst).

When bicycles do actually cause holdups it's invariably for no more than a few seconds and frequently all that happens is the vehicle overtakes and catches up with the vehicle it was originally behind anyway.

Of course, if you're an impatient git in a car then that's all immaterial.

Not quite that straightforward for motorbikes.

Due to its agility, size and speed/acceleration it's often possible to travel by the centre line which is space little used by others.

Plus they can use bus lanes which rarely have any traffic in.

Anyway...we digress...back to crash hats

[Nutsey]

On the bright side, even IF we end up with a helmet law, it won't be enforced like the rest of the road laws.

[meic]

Edit: This was following a comment by Kwackers but we got separated


Yes, I used to be a 100% motorcyclist. Then I went out cycling with my son.
I loved the fact that I didnt have to wear all that tiresome clobber, especially the helmet.
Also my son is a lot safer on his cycle than on the back of my motorbike.

So if they make helmets compulsory, I might as well stick to the motorbike and take my son with me and I lived with the danger before, so I can do it again.

Headway will have scored a victory as we will both be safely wearing helmets (and I mean proper helmets, not token good luck charm helmets).

Then we set up the chip pan and make some chips when we get home from a long ride.

[meic]

On the bright side, even IF we end up with a helmet law, it won't be enforced like the rest of the road laws.

Oh so Wrong, it is the same penalty £50 as the motorcycle helmet offence, despite this being one of the most minor offences possible for a licence holder, it is the most zealously enforced. Just try it and you will have normally apathetic police officers doing a Starsky and Hutch car chase after you!

[Graham]

On the bright side, even IF we end up with a helmet law, it won't be enforced like the rest of the road laws.

The £50 fine would be a minor inconvenience compared to the lethal behaviour of the vigilante motorists who would have a further excuse to "teach the cyclist a good lesson".

A close equivalence would be the behaviour of some motorists when one chooses not to cycle on a designated cycle path.

In my experience this has sometimes been near-homicidal. i.e vehicle used as a potentially lethal weapon.
i.e. the risk of my death or injury is considered insignificant against their need to convey that I should get off the road and use the cycle path.

[irc]

I cycle to have fun, trailer my daughter about, build up fitness for enduro motorbiking and as a cheap alternative to a taxi when going for a night out..

Hopefully your nights out are alcohol free or you may need your helmet. I'd suggest the increased risk from cycling after a few pints far outweighs any benefit from a helmet.

As I've previousy said the great thing about cycling is the freedom it allows - hardly any rules and of the few there are you very unlikely to be held accountable for them.

pottering back from the pub on a bike isn't something I consider risky - not something I see as needing a cycle hat either.

So why do you think "compulsory wearing of helmets is a good idea."

[drossall]

Elsewhere on this forum there's threads about travelling 40mph downhill - something I do see as needing helmet use.

This is where people lose sight of the physics. The efficacy of helmets at 12mph is debated. The important things tend to go as the square of the speed. 12mph to 40mph is like 12^2 to 40^2 or 144 to 1600. You're talking about something ten times outside its design parameters as being needed?