Helmet compulsion as a deterrent

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
One solution to that is of course rather than a quad,a motorised trike

You can't really single out one particular group!

[mattheus]

If it's not clear, the reason I posted this and on this board in particular was that the proposer thought that compulsory helmets would deter the use of quad bikes and by extension it seemed like an acceptance that compulsory helmets would deter the use of pedal cycles

Makes sense.

[thirdcrank]

Makes sense.

Be careful what you say. The next comment may be along the lines that helmet compulsion does not make sense.....

[reohn2]

Hi,
One solution to that is of course rather than a quad,a motorised trike

You can't really single out one particular group!

See my post on page one.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

Hi,
One solution to that is of course rather than a quad,a motorised trike

You can't really single out one particular group!

I see I'll come to this a bit late

But we probably need to add horseriders in the equation?
Struggling to copy and paste the information from the link but it appears that horse riding is four times more dangerous than motorcycling per hour in done riding
https://graduateway.com/dangerous-hobbi ... se-riding/

[mjr]

If it's not clear, the reason I posted this and on this board in particular was that the proposer thought that compulsory helmets would deter the use of quad bikes and by extension it seemed like an acceptance that compulsory helmets would deter the use of pedal cycles

Makes sense.

But would it deter the reckless and unsafe quad bike users? I doubt it. I expect they would simply ignore another law.

[mattheus]

If it's not clear, the reason I posted this and on this board in particular was that the proposer thought that compulsory helmets would deter the use of quad bikes and by extension it seemed like an acceptance that compulsory helmets would deter the use of pedal cycles

Makes sense.

But would it deter the reckless and unsafe quad bike users? I doubt it. I expect they would simply ignore another law.

I agree.
I'm not actually too interested in quad-bike legislation, TBH! But the same would apply to cyclists: even without MHL - but with peer pressure, parent pressure, and school rules - the serious miscreants aren't going to wear helmets (well, not much, anyway).

All this shows that MPs - and other self-appointed know-it-alls in power - are very poor judges of safety, and of wise legislation.

[reohn2]

......All this shows that MPs - and other self-appointed know-it-alls in power - are very poor judges of safety, and of wise legislation.

But mainly useless at providing a police service fit for use!

[RickH]

Are quads & other vehicles classed as quadricycles legally the sam? I'm thinking of the Renault Twizzy &, recently launched, Citroën Ami (both small EVs).

If they are the same legally, compulsory helmets would probably kill them off in the UK. I don't see how they could leave out 3 wheelers either as 2 wheelers already have compulsory helmets. That would hit models like the venerable Morgan as well as several EVs at various stages of design/launch.

[reohn2]

Are quads & other vehicles classed as quadricycles legally the sam? I'm thinking of the Renault Twizzy &, recently launched, Citroën Ami (both small EVs).

If they are the same legally, compulsory helmets would probably kill them off in the UK. I don't see how they could leave out 3 wheelers either as 2 wheelers already have compulsory helmets. That would hit models like the venerable Morgan as well as several EVs at various stages of design/launch.

Legislation in this instance should hinge on seatbelts,in that generally vehicles requiring a driving licence,MOT and insurance fitted with seatbelts should be exempt from helmet wearing,others such as trikes and quads should come under the same legislation as motorcyles.
That seems a logical and safe approach to me

Obviously cycling should be helmet exempt due to it's unproven protection and slow transport mode,obviously if people choose to wear a helmet whilst cycling it's their choice.

[RickH]

Are quads & other vehicles classed as quadricycles legally the sam? I'm thinking of the Renault Twizzy &, recently launched, Citroën Ami (both small EVs).

If they are the same legally, compulsory helmets would probably kill them off in the UK. I don't see how they could leave out 3 wheelers either as 2 wheelers already have compulsory helmets. That would hit models like the venerable Morgan as well as several EVs at various stages of design/launch.

Legislation in this instance should hinge on seatbelts,in that generally vehicles requiring a driving licence,MOT and insurance fitted with seatbelts should be exempt from helmet wearing,others such as trikes and quads should come under the same legislation as motorcyles.
That seems a logical and safe approach to me

Obviously cycling should be helmet exempt due to it's unproven protection and slow transport mode,obviously if people choose to wear a helmet whilst cycling it's their choice.

The problem is (could be) unintended consequences. That's why I asked the question - is a quad bike (sic) the same in law as a Renault Twizzy? They are both 4 wheel motorised light vehicles but I don't know if there any distinctions in UK law (I know in France the speed restricted quadricycles can be driven without a car licence & at a younger age - the modern day equivalent of their old moped rules). The covered BMW bike with a seatbelt suggests there isn't currently any such distinction. That makes a seemingly simple "solution" much more complicated in terms of legislating & more likely to impact responsible users without really having much effect on the law breakers. Rather like supposedly anti motorbike barriers on cycle routes that aren't very effective against their target but prevent users of many bikes from using them, as this short light-hearted "silent movie" illustrates.

[reohn2]

Rick
That's why I mentioned seatbelts and vehicles needing MOT,third party insurance and a driving licence,outside of that remit vehicles vehicles don't come under any helmet laws AFAIA.
I think a Twizzy needs seatbelts by UK law,I stand corrected about the BMW C1 I didn't think it had a seatbelt but after googling it appantly has

[cycle tramp]

Deleted

[cycle tramp]

Would it be anymore difficult to enforce than present motorcycle helmet law?

Not more difficult to enforce, but potentially difficult to introduce due to resistance from the motorcycle world.

I don't really know one way or the other,but I've always held the opinion that quads and trike riders should be wearing helmets for the reasons given in my first post.
That said the compulsory motorcycle helmet law was met with a bit of resistance at the time as I recall but it was passed,trikes and quads being of an even smaller number the resistance wouldn't make as much noise IMO.

The helmet law was very clear, that it was only legally required when riding a motorcycle or motorcycle and sidecar..
..trikes, are different. After all many morgans and kit cars are officially trikes. During my younger years, a friend of my rode an alternative trike, a vw phoenix which comprised of a motorcycle front half and the rear running gear of a vw beetle.. all the inconvenience of a car, with none of the benefits of a motorcycle as Billy Connelly once said,
But legally speaking no requirement to wear a helmet..

I note that Motorcycle Action Group still campaigns to repeal the helmet act

[reohn2]

There's a huge difference between a Morgan 3 wheeled car and sit astride motorcycle based trike,the former needs seatbelts(if built after a certain year) the latter has no such safety "benefit" so it's rider and passenger(s) need some sort of protection however small.The trike get out clause is an anomaly of law that's never been addressed.

As for MAG's campaign against the helmet law,which BTW I was unaware of,is a long lost cause.