Plans to make cycle helmets compulsory in the North.

Run_to_da_hills

A £50 (€61.05) penalty may have to be paid by parents of young cyclists in the North who do not wear safety headgear, it was revealed today.

It will only be a matter of time before this spreads down here or across the EU and made compullsory to all riders. It was introduced in Victoria Australia in 1991 and made federal two years later. Perhaps no harm but I could see this being a real headache for Dublin Bikes if it is to be introduced here.

http://news.eircom.net/breakingnews/18424425/?view=Standard

el tel

This hare-brained scheme has been hatched by two SDLP twats from Derry who know fook all about cycling. I think that consensus has been sought from cycling clubs/bodies but as far as I can tell the opinion formed is that they can shove their legislation. Those against it seem to be far more vocal and informed than those nominally for it.

tomasrojo

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It will only be a matter of time before this spreads down here or across the EU and made compullsory to all riders. It was introduced in Victoria Australia in 1991 and made federal two years later. Perhaps no harm but I could see this being a real headache for Dublin Bikes if it is to be introduced here.

I'm not sure it's inevitable. Australia also pioneered seat belt legislation, which spread globally very quickly, but cycle helmet laws haven't spread in the same way. The only country that has brought in an identical law is New Zealand.

According to Wikipedia:

The following countries have mandatory helmet laws, in at least one jurisdiction, for either minors only, or for all riders: Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, Iceland, Israel,[110] Slovakia, Sweden, USA, and New Zealand. Spain requires helmets on interurban routes.[111] In the U.S. 37 states have mandatory helmet laws,[112] and nearly 9 in 10 adults support helmet laws for children.[113] Israel's helmet law was never enforced or obeyed, and the adult element has been revoked; Mexico City has repealed its helmet law.[114]

The European Cycling Federation has positioned itself firmly against
mandatory helmet laws.
http://www.ecf.com/3500_1

The only national cycling body in Europe that isn't hostile to MHLs is the Danish one, as far as I know.

As for the bike-share schemes, Israel and Mexico both repealed or modified their MHLs so that the bike-share schemes could prosper.

This business in Northern Ireland seems to be due to pressure from Headway, who perceive cycling on normal roads to be the greatest threat to head integrity that we face. They will certainly put a great deal of pressure on any government with Fine Gael in it. They will probably get a warm reception, but I still would not bet on all-age MHL here.

Beasty

Politicians in the North are unlikely to lose many votes over something like this, whereas down here they could. The lobbying that would almost certainly take place would, I suspect, kill any such proposals here.

Lumen

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A £50 (€61.05) penalty may have to be paid by parents of young cyclists in the North who do not wear safety headgear

If there's one activity which genuinely requires protective headgear, it's parenting.

Those little feckers can be really nasty.

Jawgap

Lumen wrote: »

If there's one activity which genuinely requires protective headgear, it's parenting.

Those little feckers can be really nasty.

I never hit my kids.........

........except in self-defence!

Smaller (and some larger kids) should be made wear helmets all the time - with velcro on the outside to make it easier to get them to stay in one place:)

billy.fish

No harm in it.

Nothing gets my goat up more than daddy cycling along on a main road with kids and no lids on.

Not an issue for me, wear one all the time. Get used to it for racing so it makes no difference for training.

Issue with Dublin Bikes could be over looked i bet

jimbo32123

should be the law and fineable to everyone no matter of age or location, its essential in my view i came off the bike on a downhill around 2 years ago and banged my head on the crash barrier, it would be some mess only for the helmet...

Lumen

billy.fish wrote: »

Nothing gets my goat up more than daddy cycling along on a main road with kids and no lids on.

Why? In my experience (of observing whilst driving) drivers give these unhelmeted convoys much more space.

An impact with a car on a main road will almost certainly be fatal regardless of headwear.

Also, the expression is "gets my goat" or "gets my hackles up".

billy.fish

Not a case of getting hit by a car will kill you no matter what. Its a case of oodds. If you can go from100% of death to 95% of death thats a 5% less chance of death.

I dont get the whole 'no lids' argument.

Lumen

billy.fish wrote: »

Not a case of getting hit by a car will kill you no matter what. Its a case of oodds. If you can go from100% of death to 95% of death thats a 5% less chance of death.

I dont get the whole 'no lids' argument.

The argument is that if you cycle without a helmet cars give you more space and you are more likely to be cautious.

It's the difference between having a marginally lower risk of an accident (helmetless) compared to a marginally better accident outcome (helmeted).

For cases where the accident risk is largely out of your control (e.g. racing) it makes complete sense to wear a helmet.

billy.fish

Personally i dont think people give enoough room to a cyclist helmeted or not. So i dont see that side of the argument.

I'll happily wear my lid racing/training and look scornfully at those who don't simple as.

As a driver i make no more effort to move away from cyclists with helmets than i would those without. I give them ample room.

seamus

billy.fish wrote: »

Personally i dont think people give enoough room to a cyclist helmeted or not. So i dont see that side of the argument.

A study has been done on it and found that drivers do drive closer to cyclists who are wearing helmets.

There are more solid arguments in it too:

Compulsory helmet wearing has been shown to reduce the number of cyclists on the road, either because they can't be bothered complying with the law, for fashion reasons, or because it gives the impression that cycling is more dangerous than it actually is.

It has been shown that as the number of cyclists on the road increases, then the number of accidents proportionally decreases as motorists are more aware of cyclists and give them more due regard. Likewise as the number of cyclists decreases, the number of accidents shoots up.

Thus, even if helmets do reduce the risk at an individual level, enacting compulsory helmet use will result in an increase in cyclist injuries and fatalities in general.

Additionally, studies with children have shown that children who wear helmets are less risk-averse than those who don't. This is obviously because they feel more protected when wearing a helmet. Children who wear a helmet are *more* likely to end up injured than children who don't because they take greater risks.
You can logically extend this to adults and an adult who wears a helmet is more likely to take risks than one who doesn't.

Basically, compulsory helmet use would result in a whole pile of net losses for cycling in general. More people will be killed and injured.

Jawgap

jimbo32123 wrote: »

should be the law and fineable to everyone no matter of age or location, its essential in my view i came off the bike on a downhill around 2 years ago and banged my head on the crash barrier, it would be some mess only for the helmet...

.....or let's ban hills and crash barriers.....

....given you're idea to make it compulsory regardless of age or location, would I need to be wearing my lid when I'm on the turbo.....

And for clarity's sake I wear a helmet any time I'm on a bike out of the house - it's the compulsory element of any proposed law that I find objectionable.

billy.fish

I do worry about you people sometimes.

Goodbye.

seamus

There's some sand over there billy, for you to bury your head in.

Jawgap

Look - there needs to be an evidence based approach to this.

The evidence that helmets provide an additional protective effect is disputed, therefore the case for a compulsory helmet law has not been made.

However, it has been conclusively shown that wearing a blond wig encourages motorists to give you more space, therefore we should agitate for all cyclists to be forced to wear blond wigs:)

Stark

Plenty of reports of kids getting strangled by helmet straps when playing in countries with mandatory helmet laws.

Chips Lovell

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It will only be a matter of time before this spreads down here or across the EU and made compullsory to all riders. It was introduced in Victoria Australia in 1991 and made federal two years later. Perhaps no harm but I could see this being a real headache for Dublin Bikes if it is to be introduced here.

It's a bit of a stretch to say that draft legislation from an obscure MLA will lead to Europe wide mandatory helmet use. Or do you know something about the influence of this political heavyweight that we don't.

billy.fish wrote: »

Not a case of getting hit by a car will kill you no matter what. Its a case of oodds. If you can go from100% of death to 95% of death thats a 5% less chance of death.

I dont get the whole 'no lids' argument.

Apply the logic that any legislation is warranted because of minimal risk reduction and you'll end up in some very strange places.

Chips Lovell

Jawgap wrote: »

Look - there needs to be an evidence based approach to this.

There rarely is. It's usually emotive. Accidents are bad, helmets can reduce injuries in some circumstances, so let's make everyone wear one.

Canis Lupus

I propose making a cycling suit out of tied together helmets. Should make me pretty much immune to all forms of danger except perhaps being shot at.

tomasrojo

Stark wrote: »

Plenty of reports of kids getting strangled by helmet straps when playing in countries with mandatory helmet laws.

The Cycling Federation in Copenhagen, who, as I mentioned above, is in a phase of promoting helmets strongly, encourage parents to remove helmets right away after cycling, presumably for this reason.

I was wrong to state that they support MHLs. They don't, but they very strongly promote their use.

EDIT: I read recently that another Scandinavian body is now of the opinion that children should not be left unsupervised if wearing helmets. Not sure who it was though. I think it may have been a children's charity.

monument

Helmets for everybody everywhere.

This website says that in the US, the main causes of acquired brain injury are:

Falls (28%);
Motor vehicle-traffic crashes (20%);
Struck by/against events (19%); and
Assaults (11%).

Helmets for people going out drinking! Helmets for getting out of bed! It might be the wrong side! Helmets for everybody doing DIY! Helmets for all car users! Helmets in the bath and shower! Baths and showers are very dangerous places! Helmets for pedestrians! Helmets for anybody walking the streets! You may get assaulted!

Research shows that helmets would benefit car drivers and passengers! Why are we not debating this?

Cabaal

The main cause for cyclists being killed is a HGV, until a helmet will incase your body that helmet is extremely unlikely to stop the HGV from crushing your body last time I checked.

Making helmets compulsory is a very bad idea, it makes cycling seem more dangerous then it is and will only enforce that view which is often taken by non-cyclists

Lumen

Won't someone please think of the children?

manwithaplan

Evolution will eventually take care of this. The thick-headed will prevail (as usual).

monument

Lumen wrote: »

Won't someone please think of the children?

And adults too!

If adults don't follow Headway's "common sense" they should be all forced to do so.

Jawgap

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I propose making a cycling suit out of tied together helmets. Should make me pretty much immune to all forms of danger except perhaps being shot at.

..... and water melons

Helmets are a good idea, but compulsion isn't. I wear a helmet, the kids wear them too unless it's races around the local roads with their mates!

The most dangerous thing I've seen them attempt on a bike (jumping off the garage roof) wouldn't have had a better outcome if they'd been wearing a helmet.

Chips Lovell

I'm unsure as to the extent of what he's proposing. Is he saying that parents will be fined if kids ride a bike with stabilisers on the path without a helmet?

tunney

seamus wrote: »

A study has been done on it and found that drivers do drive closer to cyclists who are wearing helmets.

Reference.

Jawgap

el tonto wrote: »

I'm unsure as to the extent of what he's proposing. Is he saying that parents will be fined if kids ride a bike with stabilisers on the path without a helmet?

No - they'll just be fined for letting their brats ride on the path - the road is the proper place for bikes - cyclists shouldn't be on the paths - start them young and in 20 years we'll see an end to the scourge of path cylcing cyclists.

So what if we have a spike in the child mortality rates - there's already too many of us on the planet!

tunney

Lumen wrote: »

Why? In my experience (of observing whilst driving) drivers give these unhelmeted convoys much more space.

An impact with a car on a main road will almost certainly be fatal regardless of headwear.

Also, the expression is "gets my goat" or "gets my hackles up".

Someday you'll post something sensible. Until that day.

Jawgap

tunney wrote: »

Someday you'll post something sensible. Until that day.

....that's the day he stops being a mod.......:)

Lumen

tunney wrote: »

Someday you'll post something sensible. Until that day.

Your attitude is starting to get my goat up.

tomasrojo

tunney wrote: »

Reference.

Ian Walker, University of Bath. It's a small study-- just Ian Walker cycling around with helmet, without, and wearing a blond wig.

Edit:
Walker, I. (2007). Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent gender. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 417-425.

seamus

tunney wrote: »

Reference.

http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/
http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf

tomasrojo

My new-found interest in Google as a unit converter just received a fillip from visiting Ian Walker's blog.

http://bamboobadger.blogspot.com/2009/06/public-advice-we-need-more-information.html

Finally, big cheers to Google. When I searched for "five a day" its top result was "five a day = 5.78703704 × 10-5 hertz". Superb!

doozerie

If they bring in a mandatory "wear yer helmet ye reckless feckers" law, will they also employ someone to check and make sure that everyone wears their helmet correctly, that everyone replaces their helmet after it has had a bad knock, etc. After all, if we are so stupid that we ride our bikes without helmets despite knowing that we will apparently die from doing so, can we be trusted to ensure that our helmets are actually in good enough condition, and fitted correctly, to make the slightest difference in a crash?

My father always wore a helmet when he used his battered old Honda 90 to get to and from work. That helmet lasted him well over a decade. The helmets inner padding disintegrated after a few years, but he replaced it with newspaper (well known for it's ability to absorb the shock of a collision). Never let it be said that he went out without his helmet, sure that would have been reckless... He is still alive too, which I'm sure could be twisted by the deluded into some kind of proof that helmets save lives.

Canis Lupus

Jawgap wrote: »

..... and water melons

Helmets are a good idea, but compulsion isn't. I wear a helmet, the kids wear them too unless it's races around the local roads with their mates!

The most dangerous thing I've seen them attempt on a bike (jumping off the garage roof) wouldn't have had a better outcome if they'd been wearing a helmet.

haha. Awesome. Jeez I wanna go back to that age of near invincibility when jumping off something stupidly high was: Fun and if it all went wrong resulted in a scraped knee.

DaveyDave

I've had my fair share of falls and crashes and have never worn a helmet and never suffered a head injury because I do a little thing with my hands to protect myself. You know, putting your hands out instead of landing on your head.

A helmet isn't going to stop me breaking my hand/wrist or crushing my balls, and they look gay. Except full face helmets they look deadly. I don't feel the need for a helmet for recreational cycling on wide, empty cycle paths. Obviously, when I go mountain biking I'll wear a helmet.

Rob A. Bank

Jawgap wrote: »

.....

Helmets are a good idea, but compulsion isn't....

.

I really wonder if they are such a ‘good idea’…

(1) Statistics show that in countries where helmet wearing is the norm cycling is more lethal. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/index.html

There is a very good reason why boxers hit the chin when trying to knock someone out.. it is the farthest point from the center of the head. A blow there has more leverage to produce significant rotational brain injury… thus rendering the recipient unconscious.

Severe rotational brain injury is the factor which causes death or disability in many road traffic head injuries.

The cycle helmet effectively makes the head into one BIG chin.

(2) Cycle helmets have been around since the mid 1970’s and as yet there is no good evidence that they reduce cyclist deaths (in fact the opposite seems the case).

If they were any good at all, the evidence for their use should be overwhelming by now.

niceonetom

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

The cycle helmet effectively makes the head into one BIG chin.

QED helmetmongers! Q. E. D.

SerialComplaint

DaveyDave wrote: »

A helmet isn't going to stop me breaking my hand/wrist or crushing my balls, and they look gay.

Are you 13 years old?

Dandelion6

Stark wrote: »

Plenty of reports of kids getting strangled by helmet straps when playing in countries with mandatory helmet laws.

Any links?

Jawgap

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

I really wonder if they are such a ‘good idea’…

(1) Statistics show that in countries where helmet wearing is the norm cycling is more lethal. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/index.html

There is a very good reason why boxers hit the chin when trying to knock someone out.. it is the farthest point from the center of the head. A blow there has more leverage to produce significant rotational brain injury… thus rendering the recipient unconscious.

Severe rotational brain injury is the factor which causes death or disability in many road traffic head injuries.

The cycle helmet effectively makes the head into one BIG chin.

(2) Cycle helmets have been around since the mid 1970’s and as yet there is no good evidence that they reduce cyclist deaths (in fact the opposite seems the case).

If they were any good at all, the evidence for their use should be overwhelming by now.

Apologies - I should've made clear that when I was stating that helmets are a good idea, I was expressing a personal opinion rather than an objective fact.

I think it's really up to people to inform themselves and then make a decision and if someone doesn't want to wear a helmet, then that's up to them.

doozerie

Dandelion6 wrote:

Any links?

These links don't necessarily support the view that plenty of children have died as a result of strangulation by helmet straps, but they do support the claim that it has happened and is therefore a known risk:

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Strangulation_by_helmet_straps
* Evaluating bicycle helmet use and legislation in Canada (Word document], or the same document in HTML form

More generally, there are a lot of resources available online which discuss helmets and the measurement of their effectiveness, or not, and at least some of these touch on associated risks such as strangulation too. This page gives a timeline of significant events along the route of helmet development and promotion. It is an interesting read generally but also mentions that 1988 was the first report in Sweden of a child being strangled by their helmet straps. The same guy who put together that page has this page of links to further info on helmets.

There is a wealth of information on the topic of helmet safety, covering both sides of the argument for and against helmet use. Some of the info is clearly contradictory, on both sides, some of it is clearly just insane and completely uninformed, and some of it is very informative. All of it should be read with an open mind, which obviously means not swallowing it all wholesale and actually questioning some of the claims that are made on both sides. What seems clear though is that neither extreme of "wear your helmet or you will die" or "wear your helmet and you will die" has ever conclusively proven their case, despite both of those extremes being able to point at anecdotal evidence to support their stance. As such, introducing mandatory helmet usage laws seems ill-informed at best and downright stupid at worst, and would be on a par with any attempt to make helmet usage illegal. At least in this country right now it's up to the individual to decide for themselves whether a bike helmet offers them useful protection, and that's as it should be, in my view.

It's difficult to have a meaningful discussion about the merits, or not, of mandatory helmet usage laws though. Instead of the implications of the law itself being discussed any such debate very quickly descends into an argument over whether helmets are useful or not and the whole thing goes round in circles. Which just highlights the fact that there is no conclusive evidence to support the argument that helmets are necessary to keep you safe while cycling, so there is no compelling reason to make their usage mandatory.

galwaycyclist

Hi

Whatever about the cycling lobby in the South having limited resources and swimming against the tide the situation is arguably worse in the North.

We have been asked to help our Northern counterparts fight this idiocy.

If you think you can help PM me.

People with contacts in Sinn Fein might be particularly useful. Contacts within the DUP may be too much to hope for, but are just as vital - if difficult to exploit with a Southern accent!

Regards

gman2k

Why is there such a bias here against wearing helmets???
Of course there is no difference if you get a smack from a car or HGV at high speed!

It might be macho to not want to wear a helmet (in case it makes one look gay - nice one daveydave:rolleyes: )
In the case of a brain injury, it's not you who has to pick up the pieces, it's your family.
It's the same in all sports when mandatory use of protective gear is introduced, the usual spiel is trotted out about it increasing risk etc.
There was huge opposition to seatbelts in cars, air bags, helmets in hurling etc etc
I don't know of anyone who has taken a fall from a bike who was wearing a helmet and said - 'I wish i wasn't wearing a helmet'

SerialComplaint

gman2k wrote: »

Why is there such a bias here against wearing helmets???

There is a difference between being against helmets, and being against mandatory helmet use.

Rob A. Bank

gman2k wrote: »

Why is there such a bias here against wearing helmets???....
In the case of a brain injury, it's not you who has to pick up the pieces, it's your family.

There is evidence to suggest that a helmet may actually exacerbate brain injury rather than preventing it.

Helmets may turn what would have been a nasty bang on the head into severe rotational brain injury which leads to diffuse axonal injury (DAI) and subdural haematoma (SDH). These are the most common brain injuries sustained by road crash victims that result in death or chronic intellectual disablement.

The head is a sphere perched on a universal joint at the top of the neck (the atlanto occipital joint). It is practically impossible to hit it without causing some rotation. Making the head bigger with a helmet gives more mechanical leverage to the bang and thus causes more severe rotational brain injury.

This bicycle helmet fad started in the USA in the 1970s when the powers that be didn’t want cycling to go the same way as soccer in the USA…. and become virtually a ‘women only’ sport.

In order to pander to the peculiar white American male fetish for sports where helmet wearing is necessary (American Football, Baseball), cycle helmets were introduced to increase the ‘macho’ image of cycling. This effort was (and is) gleefully supported by the polystyrine lobby and those with an interest in selling useless gadgets to cyclists.

They have been grubbing around in vain for 35 years now, trying to find evidence that helmets actually work.

Never mind the FACTS… that cycling is more lethal in countries where helmet wearing is common… that the only thing mandatory cycle helmet laws are proven to do… was not to encourage cyclists to wear helmets, but to discourage cycling.

Dura Ace

From Cycling Weekly

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/496725/controversy-over-helmet-law-proposal-in-northern-ireland.html

Helmet compulsion is back in the news. Who wants it? An MP in Northern Ireland does. Who doesn't? Britain's largest cycling organisation, the CTC, doesn't want it and is on permanent standby to speak against compulsion whenever the issue arises.

Melbourne cyclists don't want it. There, in the State of Victoria, the helmet law is said to be killing off the new cycle hire schemes in Melbourne and Sydney. Mexico recently revoked their helmet laws fearing it would deter people from hiring bikes.

And on mainland Britain, a report by the Department of Transport, after a review of the available research, says there is no clear evidence to support the view that helmets protect from serious injury.

To wear a helmet or not to a wear a helmet - let the individual, parent or guardian decide. That remains the stance of the CTC - the national cyclists' organisation. One good reason is that the health benefits far outweigh the risks.

Notwithstanding this position, the island of Jersey recently passed a helmet law, and now Northern Ireland MP Pat Ramsay's Private Members bills seeks to do same.

There is a connection. It's called Headway, the brain injury charity, acting with the best of intentions but, according to cycling safety experts, exaggerating the risks and being selective in the use of statistics.

The gospel according to Headway was at work in both Jersey and Northern Ireland.

Ramsay refers to 42 serious incidents of children falling off their bikes and being rushed to A&E.

"It is clear and obvious from brain injury group Headway that there is an increasing number of young people having serious accidents on their bikes," says Ramsay. "We must legislate for this at the Assembly, particularly when some accidents sustained by young people can easily ruin their lives permanently, then every effort must be made."

CTC's campaigns and policy director Roger Geffen says that the viewpoint behind proposals for a helmet law in Northern Ireland rests on three unfounded hypotheses:

"The first is that cycling is a particularly 'dangerous' activity. You are as unlikely to be killed in a mile of cycling as a mile of walking. Pedestrian helmets anyone?"

The second, says Geffen, is that helmets are ineffective at preventing the risks which cyclists face. In fact, cycle helmets are (and can only be) designed to withstand minor knocks and falls, not being hit by moving traffic.

The third is that helmet use cannot be promoted, let alone enforced, without reducing cycle use,
with all the health, environmental and other benefits it brings. "In fact there is good evidence that enforcing helmet laws substantially reduces cycle use," says Geffen.

John Franklin, author of How to be a better cyclist, and a cycling expert in court cases, says that the recent Department for Transport study showed there was no clear evidence of benefit from helmets in serious crashes.

"It's also a paradox that most people seem to know of someone 'saved' by a helmet although very
few people know of anyone badly hurt through not wearing one. The claims and the hard evidence just don't add up."

The one thing proponents of helmet legislation seem to ignore is that the fact that helmets do nothing to improve road safety, say the CTC.

What Helmets have done for cycling's image, however, is to create the perception that cycling is inherently dangerous, which it was never considered to be before the arrival of the ubiquitous shiny hard hat.