Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?

Postby Bicycler » 22 Sep 2014, 6:59pm

I think we're safe from EU legislation mandating helmets. The prospect of the Dutch being required to wear helmets could start a revolution. Luckily much of Europe still has enough of an everyday cycling culture to ensure a lot of voting power for cyclists and very low levels of helmet wearing. Most of the worrying precedents are from our fellow Anglophone countries: Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada, Jersey (2014), Northern Ireland (proposal defeated). Ironically most of these countries (Jersey excluded) have much higher cycle casualty rates than much of Europe despite their high rates of helmet wearing but obviously they know best :roll:

Steady rider
Posts: 2189
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?

Postby Steady rider » 22 Sep 2014, 8:44pm

Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?

Table 5 Robinson DL; Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws; Accid Anal Prev, 28, 4: p 463-475, 1996 http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-head-injuries.pdf provides risk details, 2.2 HI admissions per million hours.

If a person cycles say 300 km per yr at 15 km /hr, 20 hours per year - for 50 yrs - 1000 hrs. say 1000 people do the same, 1 million hours, 2.2 admissions may occur on average, one per 454 people who have cycled for 50 yrs each. so for the average assumed typical person would have a 0.2% chance of admission for a head injury in a life time of cycling.

The risk level is fairly low and to wear them means buying, fitting, carrying, and incurring a higher accident rate, 14% per km according to;
Erke A, Elvik R, Making Vision Zero real: Preventing Pedestrian Accidents And Making Them Less Severe, Oslo June 2007. page 28
https://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikas ... 8-nett.pdf

A person may fall off their bike, say on average every 6 years, in 50years, 8 falls say, with a helmet this may be 9 falls.

The risk to benefit ratio is negative, may be one reply. For a typical cyclist, helmet use is more likely to lead to an accident than prevent them from incurring a hospital admission for head injury, lifetimes risk 1.0 extra fall, lifetimes advantage possibly 0.2%, ratio 500 to 1 in favour of not wearing one. Over to the stats experts to show another view?

http://yorkshiretimes.co.uk/article/A-C ... -Harmful-3
Last edited by Steady rider on 23 Sep 2014, 7:34am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15051
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?

Postby mjr » 22 Sep 2014, 9:02pm

Lance Dopestrong wrote:That said, there is one risk that it might, and that's the unelected EU lawmakers. [...] These lawmakers are unelected and unaccountable. They're the Agent Smith of legislation.

Please, learn about Europe before you criticise it. There are three major groups involved in its lawmaking: 1. MEPs, directly elected; 2. the council of ministers, elected by their national governments according to their own electoral systems; 3. the commission, elected by the council, supposedly with regard to the last MEP election results. All of these parts are elected, although the commission is elected by the council who are elected by the national governments who are elected by the people, which has several steps of indirection.

So you see it's particularly rich when national governments rant about laws "forced" on us by the EU because they elect two of the three major lawmaking parts! With nations like the Netherlands and Denmark involved, it would be pretty bizarre if they try to make a helmet law.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
Lance Dopestrong
Posts: 1227
Joined: 18 Sep 2014, 1:52pm

Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?

Postby Lance Dopestrong » 22 Sep 2014, 10:27pm

The Commisions are unelected by the public, there is no public accountability for either their appointment or their actions.

The public can not vote to appoint them, and can not remove them by voting for someone else. They are unelected, and by any sensible definition of the term are undemocratic.

Have a good read of Annex VI of the EU Parliament rules and procedures.

And then there's one more very big, extremely powerful body, unelected by the public, with an appointed membership that also have the power to create legislation, who are answerable to no one whatsoever, elected or otherwise. No clues, have a think. If you're going to knock people for not knowing about Europe you should also learn about it yourself.
https://themediocrecyclist.home.blog
Self employed MIAS L5.B Instructor.
Warwickshire Lowland Rescue Bike lead.
IPMBA certified member.
Cyctech C2 hammer and crowbar bodger.
Lapsed CTC Ride Leader, amateur hour stuff from the fun old days.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15051
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?

Postby mjr » 22 Sep 2014, 11:49pm

Replace "commission" with "council" and what's written is still true, as we don't have recall in many countries and we only elect the MPs who elect the PM who appoints them. All we can do is wait. Does that make Cameron's government undemocratic, too?

I think you're probably ranting about the court, another favourite target of Europhobes, but that's more a function of our case law system compared to the code law system of most other European countries. The European court mainly takes cases referred to it by our courts. The European judges don't legislate directly but our odd system turns it into almost as good as legislation once they get the ruling back.

That's even less likely to create a helmet law, isn't it?
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3875
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?

Postby pjclinch » 23 Sep 2014, 8:51am

mjr wrote:That's even less likely to create a helmet law, isn't it?


You're going and letting facts get in the way of a good rant, aren't you. No fun :(
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

User avatar
Spinners
Posts: 1677
Joined: 6 Dec 2008, 6:58pm
Location: Port Talbot

Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?

Postby Spinners » 3 Nov 2014, 6:32am

Nice to see Chris Boardman on the BBC this morning on a pre-recorded feature on the difficulties faced by cyclists and nice to see him not wearing a helmet on a five-mile urban commute because he doesn't feel it necessary.
Cycling UK Life Member
PBP Ancien (2007)

Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?

Postby Tonyf33 » 3 Nov 2014, 7:10am

Spinners wrote:Nice to see Chris Boardman on the BBC this morning on a pre-recorded feature on the difficulties faced by cyclists and nice to see him not wearing a helmet on a five-mile urban commute because he doesn't feel it necessary.

From 6:21 onwards.
And annoyingly the presenters meekly state about how Louise Minchin WAS wearing a helmet but Chris wasn't..presuming to avoid the usual idiots from contacting the BBC :roll:
She stated she was a regular/keen cyclist but those gloves, jacket and helmet all looked harry spankers :roll: :roll:

fatboy
Posts: 3369
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 1:32pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?

Postby fatboy » 3 Nov 2014, 7:56am

Tonyf33 wrote:
Spinners wrote:Nice to see Chris Boardman on the BBC this morning on a pre-recorded feature on the difficulties faced by cyclists and nice to see him not wearing a helmet on a five-mile urban commute because he doesn't feel it necessary.

From 6:21 onwards.
And annoyingly the presenters meekly state about how Louise Minchin WAS wearing a helmet but Chris wasn't..presuming to avoid the usual idiots from contacting the BBC :roll:
She stated she was a regular/keen cyclist but those gloves, jacket and helmet all looked harry spankers :roll: :roll:


You should look at the Breakfast Facebook page. Pretty much only thing that is being shouted about is the no helmet, no hi-viz. Nothing about the substance. Sad truth is that for this he probably should have dolled himself up as the message is being drowned probably by the idiots who'll squeeze you when overtaking.
"Marriage is a wonderful invention; but then again so is the bicycle puncture repair kit." - Billy Connolly

Thermostat9
Posts: 268
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 5:38pm

Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?

Postby Thermostat9 » 3 Nov 2014, 8:43am

fatboy wrote:You should look at the Breakfast Facebook page. Pretty much only thing that is being shouted about is the no helmet, no hi-viz. Nothing about the substance. Sad truth is that for this he probably should have dolled himself up as the message is being drowned probably by the idiots who'll squeeze you when overtaking.

Isn't it astonishing that the message is being missed by people who would rather criticise his (entirely legal) choices than listen to the argument about riding? :(

(I do wonder if the 'helmet' topic will be addressed later in the week?)

Thermostat9
Posts: 268
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 5:38pm

Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?

Postby Thermostat9 » 3 Nov 2014, 8:57am

Thermostat9 wrote:I do wonder if the 'helmet' topic will be addressed later in the week?

They have addressed it already!

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=974497519231053

fatboy
Posts: 3369
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 1:32pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?

Postby fatboy » 3 Nov 2014, 9:25am

Thermostat9 wrote:
Thermostat9 wrote:I do wonder if the 'helmet' topic will be addressed later in the week?

They have addressed it already!

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=974497519231053



Hasn't helped much judging by the verbiage on Facebook! The helmet lobby are definitely winning aren't they?

I am usually an helmet wearer but not exclusively. I see no clear evidence that helmets make any difference however they are good for protecting from irrational "safety advice"! I think that I get passed closer when not wearing a helmet (as if to say " you aren't being "safe" so I won't!) but am not certain.
"Marriage is a wonderful invention; but then again so is the bicycle puncture repair kit." - Billy Connolly

Thermostat9
Posts: 268
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 5:38pm

Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?

Postby Thermostat9 » 3 Nov 2014, 9:30am

fatboy wrote:Hasn't helped much judging by the verbiage on Facebook! The helmet lobby are definitely winning aren't they?

The stupids are out in force as usual.

fatboy wrote:I am usually an helmet wearer but not exclusively. I see no clear evidence that helmets make any difference however they are good for protecting from irrational "safety advice"! I think that I get passed closer when not wearing a helmet (as if to say " you aren't being "safe" so I won't!) but am not certain.

I don't know because, at the age of 53, I have never owned or worn a bicycle helmet. Ever. :wink:

Stradageek
Posts: 678
Joined: 17 Jan 2011, 1:07pm

Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?

Postby Stradageek » 3 Nov 2014, 1:08pm

I know this is a random straw poll but here are two photos from risk-averse Japan, they seem to see walking as far more hazardous than cycling and don helmets accordingly:

https://www.travelblog.org/Photos/1221986
http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... n-has.html

Phil Fouracre
Posts: 817
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 12:16pm
Location: Deepest Somerset

Re: Why Are You Not Wearling a Helmet?

Postby Phil Fouracre » 3 Nov 2014, 4:45pm

Anyone know where I can find this interview? Can see his comments on riding, but, programme not on Iplayer for 'rights reasons'! Would like to see it as I'm amazed at the amount of abuse on Facebook
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity