Negative View of Cycle Helmets

AnnaStezia

I cannot find a source now but I thought that the BMA had a negative view a few years back on the wearing of cycle helmets. It may have been disapproval of certain types of helmets ?

Incidentally, I see some kids wearing skateboarding type helmets on the bicycles. I suspect that it looks "cool" but are they adequate for cycling purposes ?

Cycling in Dublin is safe except for idiotic drivers who will cut you in due to fogged up windows, mobile telephone calls, lousy judgment and so on. Mind you the local authorities do their bit to make cycling very interesting as where you have roadworks or repairs across the lane and it is badly reinstated !!

Generally, you are better to wear a proper cycling helmet if only to minimise the impact of a head injury. However, wearing a helmet is not a 100 % guarantee of safety as it will not prevent certain injuries. Remember the unfortunate hurling player a few years ago who was wearing the right headgear but who got hit through a vulnerable point on the side of the head. He died.

As far as personal injuries claims are concerned I reckon that failure to wear a helmet could constitute contributory negligence if the failure to wear one meant that the injury could have been wholly avoided or at least reduced. I know the helmets are not compulsory but this is a civil law issue. All that you need to argue contributory negligence is to show that a claimant has demonstrated a want of care for their own safety. That might apply to a head injury case where no helmet was worn.

Mucco

AnnaStezia wrote:

As far as personal injuries claims are concerned I reckon that failure to wear a helmet could constitute contributory negligence if the failure to wear one meant that the injury could have been wholly avoided or at least reduced. I know the helmets are not compulsory but this is a civil law issue. All that you need to argue contributory negligence is to show that a claimant has demonstrated a want of care for their own safety. That might apply to a head injury case where no helmet was worn.

This has not been the case for claims in another place:
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/helmets/helmets.html

M

cyclopath2001

AnnaStezia wrote:

As far as personal injuries claims are concerned I reckon that failure to wear a helmet could constitute contributory negligence if the failure to wear one meant that the injury could have been wholly avoided or at least reduced.

This victim-blaming logic could be quite dangerous as it could apply to anyone who sustains a head injury in any activity.

rubadub

cyclopath2001 wrote:

This victim-blaming logic could be quite dangerous as it could apply to anyone who sustains a head injury in any activity.

yep.

AnnaStezia wrote:

Generally, you are better to wear a proper cycling helmet if only to minimise the impact of a head injury.

There are many protective garments you are "better" to wear, these could protect you in just about any activity you are taking part in. I don't really understand why some people are so extreme in their views of head protection yet seem to have no fear or suggestion of protection of other body parts.

cerebus

AnnaStezia wrote:

I cannot find a source now but I thought that the BMA had a negative view a few years back on the wearing of cycle helmets. It may have been disapproval of certain types of helmets ?

This was sort of covered slghtly earlier in this discussion (back on page 5 I think). See this post. Summary was that the BMA have had a re-think (in 2004) and are recommending that compulsory helmet legislation be introduced in the UK. Lots of caveats about the need for properly certified helmets and a good fit.

rubadub

This debate sort of reminds me of all these drug debates on forums where people are simply blind to the facts presented to them, or logical comparisons and reasonings. They just go with what they see people doing on the street, presuming the majority must be correct, and that anything not in place must be wrong or useless.

20-30 years ago I NEVER saw commuter cyclists wearing helmets. The tendency did start to come in 10-15 years back. Now imagine if the tendency was for motorists to wear non-mandatory helmets, and cyclists still wore none. I could imagine this thread in the motoring forums with people calling others absolute idiots for not wearing car helmets. If people then said, "well why shouldnt cyclists wear them then", it would be the same, "ah shut up ya eejit, sure no cyclists wear them, this has nothing to do with this topic."

The mandatory helmets help the vanity factor that kids may have, like school uniforms, if they all have to wear them nobody will slag them. So are there any cyclists with helmets here, who have cars, and who now wear their helmet in the car after reading these stats? if not why not? could it be that nobody else does and you would look odd?

Metrobest

Amsterdam: massive numbers of cyclists, nobody wears helmets.
Dublin: smaller number of cyclists of which a small portion wear helmets.
Sydney: cyclists forced to wear helmets. Nobody cycles.

"if it's saves one life it's worth it" is a deviant ideology and could be applied to any scenario or situation in life. Next thing she'll be calling for people to walk around with gas masks on their faces in case of a chemical attack :rolleyes:

Ghost Rider

AnnaStezia,

I use a skater helmet. It conforms to the EN1078 safety specification, which is the standard prescribed by EU law for cycling helmets. The usefulness of that standard may be debated, but that is a separate issue.

Many people adopt a skeptical attitude in relation to the use of skateboard helmets on bikes, not for any good reason but precisely because they look "cool", as you put it. The idea that something to do with safety might look "cool" arouses suspicion.

But in the context of the widespread decision by many not to wear a helmet, it seems to me that it is unhelpful to assume that being safe somehow excludes the possibility of being "cool", whatever that might mean. You can tell cyclists how unsafe they're being until you're blue in the face but the fact will remain: if a person feels very self-conscious in the regular, pineapple-style helmet which he/she has just bought, he/she may end up not wearing it, and that is where the risk creeps in. (I am a believer in the wisdom of wearing a helmet, obviously.)

I realise that this observation is likely to incur the opprobium of the league of decency, as it has done before on this forum, but I still believe it's a point worth re-stating. So let me be as clear about it as possible: people are more likely to wear a helmet if they don't feel self-conscious while wearing one.

And yes, before anyone replies, I know, I know: there are any number of pat replies to that. E.g. "Head injuries make you even more self-conscious" etc., etc.

But if we can just put the sermonising aside, few disagree that wearing a helmet helps reduce the risk of serious head injury. And few people that many people refuse to wear helmets because of how they look. So let's be pragmatic about it: so long as all helmets conform to a safety spec (the agreement of which is, as I said, a completely separate issue), we should be encouraging the purchase of ones that look good.

AnnaStezia wrote:

I cannot find a source now but I thought that the BMA had a negative view a few years back on the wearing of cycle helmets. It may have been disapproval of certain types of helmets ?

Incidentally, I see some kids wearing skateboarding type helmets on the bicycles. I suspect that it looks "cool" but are they adequate for cycling purposes ?

Cycling in Dublin is safe except for idiotic drivers who will cut you in due to fogged up windows, mobile telephone calls, lousy judgment and so on. Mind you the local authorities do their bit to make cycling very interesting as where you have roadworks or repairs across the lane and it is badly reinstated !!

Generally, you are better to wear a proper cycling helmet if only to minimise the impact of a head injury. However, wearing a helmet is not a 100 % guarantee of safety as it will not prevent certain injuries. Remember the unfortunate hurling player a few years ago who was wearing the right headgear but who got hit through a vulnerable point on the side of the head. He died.

As far as personal injuries claims are concerned I reckon that failure to wear a helmet could constitute contributory negligence if the failure to wear one meant that the injury could have been wholly avoided or at least reduced. I know the helmets are not compulsory but this is a civil law issue. All that you need to argue contributory negligence is to show that a claimant has demonstrated a want of care for their own safety. That might apply to a head injury case where no helmet was worn.

cyclopath2001

Ghost Rider wrote:

few disagree that wearing a helmet helps reduce the risk

Sometimes but not always, depending on circumstances. After all, the helmets are principally designed to offer protection in simple, low-speed falls.

Fashion may be a deterrent, or just inconvenience. It's something extra to carry & the effeort must be weighed against the expected level of risk.

I believe that the colour of helmets is very important as the best choice will greatly improve visibilty to others. The right colour and shape will accentuate head-movements, helping other road users to interpret a cyclist's intentions, especially when it's not always safe to indicate. I'm amazed that so many helmets are of dull colours with no form of reflectivity.

In fact I suggest that the greatest benefit from wearing a helmet (if one chooses to do so) is from enhanced visibility to other road-users.

Ghost Rider

Visibility is a factor - fair enough - but if I had to choose between a fluourescent headband and a shock-absorbent head-covering that resembled a pineapple, I'd go for the thing that made me look less like Mark Knopfler (i.e. the pineapple).

cyclopath2001 wrote:

Sometimes but not always, depending on circumstances. After all, the helmets are principally designed to offer protection in simple, low-speed falls.

Fashion may be a deterrent, or just inconvenience. It's something extra to carry & the effeort must be weighed against the expected level of risk.

I believe that the colour of helmets is very important as the best choice will greatly improve visibilty to others. The right colour and shape will accentuate head-movements, helping other road users to interpret a cyclist's intentions, especially when it's not always safe to indicate. I'm amazed that so many helmets are of dull colours with no form of reflectivity.

In fact I suggest that the greatest benefit from wearing a helmet (if one chooses to do so) is from enhanced visibility to other road-users.

daymobrew

Ghost Rider wrote:

Visibility is a factor - fair enough - but if I had to choose between a fluourescent headband and a shock-absorbent head-covering that resembled a pineapple, I'd go for the thing that made me look less like Mark Knopfler (i.e. the pineapple).

I'm one big pineapple with my bright yellow jacket, hi-viz vest, yellow ankle bands (with leds) and a reflective band around my helmet. My helmet also has 4 red led lights stuck inside the rear vents. And I've just ordered a pair of yellow gloves.

On Monday night a woman said "I didn't see you" when I confronted her about trying to overtake me as we both were turning left at a small roundabout in Laurel Lodge (Dublin 15). :rolleyes:

Ghost Rider

She must have meant that she'd been blinded by the light emanating from your person.

daymobrew wrote:

On Monday night a woman said "I didn't see you" when I confronted her about trying to overtake me as we both were turning left at a small roundabout in Laurel Lodge (Dublin 15). :rolleyes:

Metrobest

The number of cyclists in Sydney has declined by 49% since the introduction of mandatory helmet-wearing, according to a story in the Sydney Herald today.

A researcher in New England studied countries where cycle helmets were legal and made comparisons with Australia. Her conclusion was that cycle helmets create a perception that cycling is more dangerous than it actually is, thereby discouraging people from doing it.

I would agree with this conclusion because I am too scared to use a bicycle in the six-lane Sydney traffic and looking at the tiny number of helmet-wearing exercise junkies cycling around on their mountain bikes, It seems this is a viewed shared by most people here.

If you want to encourage people to cycle, the only way is to take positive action. More cycle lanes, better-designed junctions, less cars.

The solution is not nanny state laws making cycling seem more dangerous than it actually is. The fact is, statistically speaking, you're more likely to be murdered in your home than killed by a car while cycling in the streets.

Ghost Rider

Are you suggesting helmets should be mandatory in homes?

Metrobest wrote:

The fact is, statistically speaking, you're more likely to be murdered in your home than killed by a car while cycling in the streets.

rubadub

Ghost Rider wrote:

Are you suggesting helmets should be mandatory in homes?

Probably not a helmet, maybe a bullet proof jacket or something! Point is that if you feel so at risk that you wear a helmet cycling, then logically you should be wearing all sorts of protection in many activities since you are also at risk of injury in everything you do. Go around in one of those big bubbles!

ciaranr

I've been reading about every second page of this lengthy debate and, forgive me if I'm wrong, the subject of active safety has had little or no mention. I'm in college in Galway and do a 15 minute commute twice or more each day. I know there's not as much traffic this side of the pale and I'm fortunate not to have gotten any serious injuries. I don't wear a helmet.

What my four years cycling here is that it's all very well wearing a helmet, and there is no doubt that wearing a helmet is a positive step anyone can take to reduce their chance of serious injury, but if cycling injuries are to be reduced, there should be increased focus on cycling skills and the accessories to help this. The minor falls I have had resulted either in me landing myself on my ass by doing something stupid or else another cyclist cutting me off or me running into them. I have had little trouble with motorists because I am constantly watching where I'm going and anticipating car movements.

Taking the car analogy developed earlier further, there are very few crap cars on our roads but what proportion of bikes don't have working brakes or lights? No one inspects bikes.

Admittedly, I am probably talking to people who know way more about cycling than I ever will. Also in areas where there is heavier traffic, the cyclist becomes much more of an innocent victim of motorists' mistakes.

My point is that there is a general lack of awareness among cyclists and this, combined with poor or no active safety equipment (brakes, lights and rear-view mirrors - anyone have one of these?) should be tackled by anyone interested in making cycling safer. Passive safety is only a second line of defense. If you're not involved in a crash, you won't be injured.

Mucco

ciaranr wrote:

and there is no doubt that wearing a helmet is a positive step anyone can take to reduce their chance of serious injury

Maybe you should read the other half of the thread because there are doubts.

Having said that, I agree with the main point of your post re: cyclist education.

Civilian_Target

I have to admit, I'm an overly safe cyclist. I've got a florescent jacket, helmet, rear-view mirror, good brakes, two rear lights and a front spotlight.

I don't care if other cyclists wear helmets or not, their problem, I think they're thick not to, and would recommend it, but enforcing it would be pointless.

However, crap or ill-prepared cyclists are something I do object to, especially the ones that cycle on the pavement. Granted, we all have to learn at some point, but I think there should be a free or subsidised cycle training course available with every bike purchase.

ciaranr

Agree with subsidised training. I think a lot could be learned about attitudes to cycling in a basic course. When so much is being spent (justifiably) on motorist safety, that couldn't hurt the government coffers too much.

Also a free/subsidised bicycle safety inspection/advice session in shops? Maybe during a cycling week, if there is such a thing ( )

cyclopath2001

ciaranr wrote:

Agree with subsidised training. I think a lot could be learned about attitudes to cycling in a basic course. When so much is being spent (justifiably) on motorist safety, that couldn't hurt the government coffers too much

I think this would be helpful not just for cyclists but for motorists too.