Helmet compulsion as a deterrent

[thirdcrank]

Quad bikes: MPs warned of "menace on our streets"

Quad bike riders should be forced to wear helmets on public highways because their "reckless and unsafe use on our streets is a menace", an MP has said. (Emphasis preserved)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-60757299

The thinking behind the proposal seems to be that compulsory helmets would deter the use of quad bikes

Edited to remove the word "logic"

[mjr]

The logic of the proposal seems to be that compulsory helmets would deter the use of quad bikes

Bestowing the title "logic" on it is being entirely too kind. Reckless and unsafe use is already illegal and I expect many scofflaws would also ignore any helmet law. Most of the people punished by such a law would be the safe and careful riders, as usual.

The real problem is that there are not enough police to catch the reckless and unsafe. If anything, this proposal would further reduce the numbers of police doing that, by tying up police issuing tickets for safe-but-unhelmetted riders, but it would make for good-looking numbers of quadbike crimes punished.

I note Ms Cummins MP says "These are vehicles designed for herding animals in fields, not tearing up Tarmac in our towns and cities." There are far more big 4x4s that do far more damage to town tarmac, as well as town residents who they collide with, if that's really something she cares about.

[mattheus]

Did we really let another Cummins into Government?

Good grief ...

[Stevek76]

Pointless as thirdcrank notes, not enough police to enforce. Most of the quadbikes used antisocially were already being used illegally anyway, not just as generic careless/inconsiderate usage but due to other more concrete violations such as lack of front numberplates, this seems to stem from a misunderstanding that those genuinely used for light agri purposes and only driven for short distances on public roads between fields only need a rear plate. They need both, and certainly ones driven around town do.

A real annoyance in bristol last year but not heard any for ages, have to see what the summer brings.

[reohn2]

AFAIC riders on quads and trikes should come under the same law as motorcycle legislation,because riders aren't wearing seatbelts and as a result,in a collision would be thrown from the machine with more chance of head injury.


It's a good law for all the wrong reasons IMO which bears no relation to possibility of compulsory cycle helmet wearing.

EDIT:- I agree there aren't enough police to enforce the laws we currently have but it's a rarety to see anyone riding a motorcycle without a helmet,those that are,are illegals.

[tatanab]

As reohn2 has pointed out, this would probably have repercussions in the motorcycle wold where, at present, the law only requires helmets on motor bicycles. i.e the motor tricycle rider is not compelled. I think a law compelling users of quads would be more difficult to introduce than many people expect.

The seatbelt thing is a bit of a red herring because the enclosed C1 BMW scooter had seat belts, but the rider was still compelled to use a helmet under UK law.

[reohn2]

As reohn2 has pointed out, this would probably have repercussions in the motorcycle wold where, at present, the law only requires helmets on motor bicycles. i.e the motor tricycle rider is not compelled. I think a law compelling users of quads would be more difficult to introduce than many people expect.

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

The seatbelt thing is a bit of a red herring because the enclosed C1 BMW scooter had seat belts, but the rider was still compelled to use a helmet under UK law.

Not a red herring at all the BMW C1 was an abject failure as a vehicle which proved that enclosed motorcycles are just a deadend.

[tatanab]

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.

[reohn2]

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.

[thirdcrank]

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

[reohn2]

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

It didn't escape my attention what you were eluding to,I don't think there's a conection in this instance.

[kylecycler]

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

I think we all know that helmet compulsion in Australia caused a big downturn in cycle use, but it was a while before I properly thought through why that might have been - it would be the temperature, especially in Oz - a cycle helmet, even in spite of its vents, is a pretty efficient insulator.

Absolutely no question that helmet compulsion would deter cyclists and cycling in this country but maybe not so much. I just can't see it ever happening, though - I mean, the government might eventually try, but the resistance would be such that they'd just as eventually back down.

(I think... )

[pjclinch]

The logic of the proposal seems to be that compulsory helmets would deter the use of quad bikes

Bestowing the title "logic" on it is being entirely too kind.

As mjr suggests, treating this as a logical argument is perhaps not the best idea.
I'd suggest it's a kneejerk reaction based on "road safety not in a car equals helmets". That's as far as the thinking tends to go, it's classic Something must be done!; this is something; this is what we'll do! territory.

Pete.

[thirdcrank]

I've edited my op to remove the word "logic" which seems to have distracted from what I was trying to say which was this:

Here's a proposal to impose helmet compulsion in order to deter an activity. (My reason for posting was that a fair bit of the acres (hectares if preferred) of debate devoted to helmets concerns their negative effect on levels of cycling.)

[Jdsk]

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

I think we all know that helmet compulsion in Australia caused a big downturn in cycle use, but it was a while before I properly thought through why that might have been - it would be the temperature, especially in Oz - a cycle helmet, even in spite of its vents, is a pretty efficient insulator.

Absolutely no question that helmet compulsion would deter cyclists and cycling in this country but maybe not so much. I just can't see it ever happening, though - I mean, the government might eventually try, but the resistance would be such that they'd just as eventually back down.

I don't think that we do all know that.

But the idea that mandation might deter use is reasonable even without that unanimity and certainty.

Jonathan