Mandatory Helmets and hi-vis to be considered in government eview

[Wanlock Dod]

...there doesn't seem to be any obvious organised anti lobby...

I have a feeling that this is partly due to the fact that if one presents an anti-helmet stance, however factual it's basis, some people will take offence at it. Consequently, I tend to think that the most appropriate stance to take is one of moving the discussion directly on to the provision of high quality segregated infrastructure given its proven ability to facilitate safe cycling.

[Cunobelin]

Hit 'em with facts. Even a helmet can't protect against those. Sidelining/navigating's all well and good, but a Headway rep found his way onto the Stephen Nolan Shop a couple of weeks ago, unopposed, to spout the most errant nonsense as fact.

This is the big issue, the sneak attacks.

I was at a training day and a young lad made the error of cycling in..... without a helmet

The tutor had a right go at him over the coffee break, and I could not resist siding with him.

When asked what her evidence was, she "had worked in Casualty"

She hadn't heard of Rivara and Thompson, she wasn't aware that pedestrians suffer more head injuries, she wasn't aware that helmets could cause injury, that helmets are only tested to low speeds, nor provide any evidence to support her harangue.. it all boiled down to "you will die unless you wear one so it is common sense".

The biggest irony was that the study day, and her subject.......Evidence Based Practice"

[Bonefishblues]

Hit 'em with facts. Even a helmet can't protect against those. Sidelining/navigating's all well and good, but a Headway rep found his way onto the Stephen Nolan Shop a couple of weeks ago, unopposed, to spout the most errant nonsense as fact.

This is the big issue, the sneak attacks.

I was at a training day and a young lad made the error of cycling in..... without a helmet

The tutor had a right go at him over the coffee break, and I could not resist siding with him.

When asked what her evidence was, she "had worked in Casualty"

She hadn't heard of Rivara and Thompson, she wasn't aware that pedestrians suffer more head injuries, she wasn't aware that helmets could cause injury, that helmets are only tested to low speeds, nor provide any evidence to support her harangue.. it all boiled down to "you will die unless you wear one so it is common sense".

The biggest irony was that the study day, and her subject.......Evidence Based Practice"

The irony was strong that day!

[pjclinch]

...there doesn't seem to be any obvious organised anti lobby...

I have a feeling that this is partly due to the fact that if one presents an anti-helmet stance, however factual it's basis, some people will take offence at it. Consequently, I tend to think that the most appropriate stance to take is one of moving the discussion directly on to the provision of high quality segregated infrastructure given its proven ability to facilitate safe cycling.

Yes, but...

The "but" being well illustrated by Chris Boardman's heroic attempts to do exactly that sort of thing on TV. CB presents a well researched, evidence based piece on what will actually help, and the studio chair then derails the whole thing by ignoring everything he's said and banging on about helmets.

Another "but" is there isn't an organised "anti-lobby" but plenty of people are characterised as "anti-helmet zealots". Some people really are against helmets themselves, but not many and they're not in a themed campaigning organisation, unless it's a well kept secret. What there is a lot of is "pro-choice", but much like the antagonists of the pro-life movement aren't the pro-death or anti-life movement, that's not a clear opposite of the pro-helmet brigade. However, pointing this out in public doesn't get you anywhere, because it's as dumb as if you're not with us you must be against us.

So I think it's the case that talking about the stuff that really matters may be seen as a distracting tactic, until such time as the public at large (including a great many cyclists) realise that helmets are not a significant issue in cyclist safety.

Pete.

[Phil Fouracre]

Similar to the religion 'argument'! Religionists calling people 'militant atheists' when there is no such thing, and, no 'organisation', just normal people!! How can disinterest/disbelief be defined in militant terms?

[thirdcrank]

...there doesn't seem to be any obvious organised anti lobby...

I have a feeling that this is partly due to the fact that if one presents an anti-helmet stance, however factual it's basis, some people will take offence at it.

The government is holding a review which it says will be evidence-based. As we've seen on here, there's a huge body of evidence - especially with regard to helmets and helmet compulsion - but it may go unheard in the review by default. I presume you mean something along the lines that in an organisation like the CTC used to be, the membership was said (eg by Kevin Mayne IIRC) to be split on these issues, especially helmets and so could not easily take a stance for or against, which is why it ended up as "pro-choice." Put another way, I can't imagine you are saying that those with principled anti-helmet views are more concerned about causing offence to the supporters of compulsion. I fear that CUK may not even be strong supporters of freedom of choice, but who knows? The pro-helmet lobby has the financial support with the organisations already in place, as well as the current of "common sense."

Consequently, I tend to think that the most appropriate stance to take is one of moving the discussion directly on to the provision of high quality segregated infrastructure given its proven ability to facilitate safe cycling.

The time could be ripe for at least part of this: the imminent and inevitable introduction of driverless / autonomous / whatever you like to call them vehicles is going to increase the pressure to separate cyclists from other traffic, whether cyclists like it or not. The "high quality" will be the hard part, whatever the evidence. The biggy here is the £££ especially at a time of increasing austerity, cut-backs etc.

[Cunobelin]

Similar to the religion 'argument'! Religionists calling people 'militant atheists' when there is no such thing, and, no 'organisation', just normal people!! How can disinterest/disbelief be defined in militant terms?

On the bright side I have never had somebody knocking on my door on a Sunday morning asking me to wear a helmet!

[SmilerGB]

Even if a rule of such came to pass, law enforcements are stretched thin & it would be near impossible for them to enforce.

It’s a personal preference, the governments should leave it that way & concentrate on improving city cycling networks .


The bicycle is a simple solution to some of the world’s most complicated problems.

[tatanab]

Even if a rule of such came to pass, law enforcements are stretched thin & it would be near impossible for them to enforce.

Disagree. Unlike seat belts, phones etc the lack of plastic headgear is easily visible so easily enforced. Then of course there would be the know it all vigilante public.

It’s a personal preference, the governments should leave it that way

Agreed.

[The utility cyclist]

Even if a rule of such came to pass, law enforcements are stretched thin & it would be near impossible for them to enforce.

It’s a personal preference, the governments should leave it that way & concentrate on improving city cycling networks .


The bicycle is a simple solution to some of the world’s most complicated problems.

They manage to target people not wearing helmets, having a bell or ID in Australia all the time, criminalising/penalising them far more by comparison to those that kill and maim (breaking their sworn oath/attestation in the process). Only just recently they had Operation Pedro that specifically targeted people on bikes and they handed out mre fines in one day than they've done for close passes in a year
people on bikes are a soft/easy target so I really do not want any law to be brought in, not only does it break human rights law but also my inalienable/common law right to go about my lawful business unencumbered.
I am absolutely anti helmet and if the charity does not fight against this/present a strong case/facts then I will remove my funding as this is the most important thing in cycling since being forced to use a rear light.

[ianrobo]

Today here in Birmingham we had 6 people die because of speeding and recklessness (yes you may say do not speculate but the damage shows it is clear).

Two days ago a cyclists on a close by Island was seriously hurt but unreported (check out Protect Brum Cyclists FB for details) by people. So in the essence of this thread a single incidence in a car kills multiple people and no one calls for drastic changes to motoring law etc ...

Maybe CTC should change the way things are perceived and campaign for stricter car laws, including speed limiters ?

Just a thought on how we have to change the conversation and stop being so defensive ?

take this for example, no action taken by the police so maybe we need a fighting fund to take on cases like this ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz_c6UH ... verified=1

[ianrobo]

and here we are, I got hit today at an big island in Birmingham, wearing Hi vis, two rear lights etc and still did this. Not serious but thats NOT the point is it ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkyDfCk ... e=youtu.be

[Cyril Haearn]

I read that the cops in Australia deflated the tyres of riders without helmets, - 1!
There are substantial fines too

[mjr]

Today here in Birmingham we had 6 people die because of speeding and recklessness (yes you may say do not speculate but the damage shows it is clear).

But the BBC TV news this morning said clearly it was an accident!

[ianrobo]

Today here in Birmingham we had 6 people die because of speeding and recklessness (yes you may say do not speculate but the damage shows it is clear).

But the BBC TV news this morning said clearly it was an accident!

ah best not let anyone think drivers are to blame eh ?

Like amazing when they report car flips over, as if no human interaction and it is these form of words that HAVE to change