Plans to make cycle helmets compulsory in the North.

Rob A. Bank

gsxr1 wrote: »

This subject has been done to death on other forums with overwhelming proof that in a 25mph impact your chance of survival is greatly increased with a lid...

any dangerous sport involves armor. From cycling to skydiving.

Where is the 'overwhelming proof' that bicycle helmets improve your chance of survival in a 25mph impact ?

Are you referring to motorcycle helmets... which offer a completely different level of protection ?

And cycling is no more dangerous than walking !

Blowfish

CramCycle wrote: »

Incorrect ( I even have an example):

http://www.kctv5.com/news/18750792/detail.html

QED

Wait, her ex boyfriend professed his love for her....by shooting at her? o.0

CramCycle

Blowfish wrote: »

Wait, her ex boyfriend professed his love for her....by shooting at her? o.0

At least he didn't require her to wear a cycling helmet

Bunnyhopper

Gophur wrote: »

It does seem the rotational argument is just being used as an excuse to not wear a helmet.

So a point that supports your position is an argument and one that opposes it is an excuse? Explanation ≠ excuse.

Gophur wrote: »

Common sense

Also known as anecdotal (i.e., not very reliable) evidence.

Gophur wrote: »

As for telling a cyclist to not wear a helmet because you may hit your head so hard a rotational injury will damage you? One has to wonder the effect such an impact would have on the un-helmeted head.

I thought Tonyandthewhale's post was a pretty answer to that.

tomasrojo

Under-16 laws are probably less controversial than all-age laws. Certainly far more jurisdictions have such laws than all-age laws. However, it seems unfair to me to criminalise small children (or their parents) for riding in the park bare-headed, for example. It also seems that a parent would be perfectly justifiable in not wanting a small child to wear a helmet while cycling unsupervised, given the well-documented cases of hanging that have occurred when children move on from playing on bikes to climbing games.

The wearing of helmets would be better left to the parents' discretion.

Stark

gsxr1 wrote: »

any dangerous sport involves armor. From cycling to skydiving.

Going for a cycle round town is not a "dangerous sport" though. No-one's argued against requiring helmets for racing and the like. Recreational cycling has more in common with walking and jogging than it has with extreme adventure sports.

Rob A. Bank

Legislating for universal helmet use by cyclists is akin to tackling knife crime by making everyone wear a stab-proof vest.

Gophur

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

Legislating for universal helmet use by cyclists is akin to tackling knife crime by making everyone wear a stab-proof vest.

What a peculiar analogy!

Gophur

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

..........

I thought Tonyandthewhale's post was a pretty answer to that.

Pretty is the word to describe it, all right. :rolleyes:

Bunnyhopper

Gophur wrote: »

Pretty is the word to describe it, all right. :rolleyes:

I meant to call it "a pretty good answer", which it is.

doozerie

gsxr1 wrote: »

In a proper helmet there is the outer shell. the hard bit. But the inside is lined the a proper man made shock absorbent martial which compresses in the event of impact. This cushion can be the lifesaver. This subject has been done to death on other forums with overwhelming proof that in a 25mph impact your chance of survival is greatly increased with a lid...

Specifically in relation to your reference to "overwhelming proof" that helmets offer "greatly" increased chances of survival in certain circumstances, I've yet to see anyone present overwhelming evidence either in favour of, or against, helmets. The most considered studies that I have read tend to fall in the middle, stating that it remains unclear whether helmets actually help or hinder your chances of avoiding serious injury or death. It could very well be that I've just not come across well-researched reports that do provide the proof that you refer to though, in which case I'd appreciate you providing links/references to such reports.

In the meantime though, I linked to it in an earlier post in this thread but here again is a link to a (Word) document that discusses Evaluating bicycle helmet use and legislation in Canada (in HTML format here). There are some interesting statistics in there. The long and the short of it is that in provinces where helmet use was made mandatory the rate of injury and death did not reduce in comparison to provinces where such laws were not introduced. In fact, given that levels of cycling dropped in areas where the laws were introduced, the adjusted statistics may even suggest that the levels of injuries and deaths increased as a result of mandatory helmet usage, though the main thrust of the report is to raise questions rather than to provide such generalisations. And it is a particularly interesting report because it raise questions in a number of areas which often tend to be neglected when helmet laws are being argued for (e.g. health benefits of cycling, infringement of civil liberties, the affect on compensation culture, etc.).

As for this topic being done to death, that's in no small part due to the use of such sweeping generalisations as "overwhelming proof that [helmets kill/save people]" without providing any actual data to support such a claim.

CramCycle

Another life saving example (taken from another thread) from JawGap:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/07/cyclist-shot-for-riding-with-kid.php

tomasrojo

Another Australian bike share scheme is starting up, in October.

It'll be interesting to see whether it fares any better than the Melbourne scheme.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/court-battle-turns-focus-on-helmet-laws-20100904-14vgo.html

The Brisbane City Council last week introduced subscriptions for a bike hire scheme, CityCycle, due to start in October.

The scheme will have up to 2000 bikes at 150 stations across the city with annual subscriptions costing $60.50, quarterly $27.50 or casual $11.

But as with other states’ bike schemes, the uptake is expected to be slow because cyclists don’t want to carry around helmets.

In a bid to save Melbourne's troubled scheme, the Victorian Government is considering providing collapsible helmets that could fold up and be carried in a briefcase or handbag.

EDIT: according to Google, 60.50 Australian dollars = 43.0579238 Euros

tomasrojo

But as with other states’ bike schemes, the uptake is expected to be slow because cyclists don’t want to carry around helmets.

Does this quote show a limited understanding of bike share schemes? A user of the Dublin Bikes scheme isn't necessarily "a cyclist", but someone who wants to get from one part of the city centre to another as quickly as possible for free. Such a person probably doesn't think of himself or herself as a "cyclist" per se. "Customer" or "client" would probably be a better word here.

Maybe I'm parsing this a little finely.

CrankyCod

In Colorado, helmets are compulsory for 17 year olds and younger, for both motorbikes and cycling. It must be nice to live in a place where you're treated like a grown up, and allowed to make your own choices.

Rob A. Bank

tomasrojo wrote: »

Does this quote show a limited understanding of bike share schemes? A user of the Dublin Bikes scheme isn't necessarily "a cyclist", but someone who wants to get from one part of the city centre to another as quickly as possible for free. Such a person probably doesn't think of himself or herself as a "cyclist" per se. "Customer" or "client" would probably be a better word here.

Maybe I'm parsing this a little finely.

I think you are definately splitting hairs...

If a DB Bike scheme user were knocked down (God forbid) they would be recorded as a cycling casualty.

Does your definition of a cyclist include lycra or shaved legs and a snotty attitude to 'Freds' ?

;-))

tomasrojo

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

I think you are definately splitting hairs...

If a DB Bike scheme user were knocked down (God forbid) they would be recorded as a cycling casualty.

Does your definition of a cyclist include lycra or shaved legs and a snotty attitude to 'Freds' ?

;-))

I guess I didn't express myself very well.

I'm a utility cyclist who doesn't have a car. All my journeys are made in the same clothes as I wear off the bike. I don't do any training or racing or anything like that. So my perception of what a cyclist is a person who travels at least occasionally by bicycle or tricycle.

But the point I was getting at is that cyclists in Australis DO carry helmets around with them. That is, people who get around on bikes habitually HAVE to carry helmets around with them. Bike-share schemes are not really for such people, since habitual cyclists generally have a bike with them already -- they're for people who are in town without a bike. So they're not cyclists, as such, until they're on the bike.

So, what I'm getting at is that to say "cyclists don’t want to carry around helmets" is misleading. "Cyclists" aren't the target of such schemes. It would be better to say something like "The legal obligation to wear bicycle helmets means that people who might otherwise be spontaneous users of the scheme are unable to particpate. People are unwilling to carry around helmets all the time, on the off chance that they'll want to use the scheme."

Though that's a bit long.

SerialComplaint

tomasrojo wrote: »

But as with other states’ bike schemes, the uptake is expected to be slow because cyclists don’t want to carry around helmets.

In a bid to save Melbourne's troubled scheme, the Victorian Government is considering providing collapsible helmets that could fold up and be carried in a briefcase or handbag.

Something like this perhaps?

tomasrojo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12330639

Northern Ireland Assembly members have voted in favour of a bill to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory.

Is it for all ages? I thought it was only for children, but that article gives the impression that it's a universal law.

Anyone know what obstacles remain for this before it becomes law?

Lumen

tomasrojo wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12330639

Northern Ireland Assembly members have voted in favour of a bill to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory.

"The legislation has been proposed in a Private Member's Bill tabled by the SDLP's Pat Ramsey. "



Won't somebody think of the children.

De-evolution indeed.

doozerie

tomasrojo wrote:

Anyone know what obstacles remain for this before it becomes law?

The surgical removal of any sense of reason or common sense amongst those with the power (if any) to stop this (i.e. no, I don't know, but I despair that it has got this far).

CramCycle

Lumen wrote: »

"The legislation has been proposed in a Private Member's Bill tabled by the SDLP's Pat Ramsey. "



Won't somebody think of the children.

De-evolution indeed.

You can vote on his web page at http://www.patramsey.ie/

results there speak for themselves,

monument

I was planning a cycling holiday or at least a weekend up north in the summer but I won't be cycling up there now.

It seems to be everybody: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12319938

dited

It applies to all cyclists. Full draft text is here: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/legislation/primary/2010/niabill9_10.pdf

tomasrojo

Yes, all ages.

http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/legislation/primary/2010/niabill9_10.htm

Cyclists (Protective Headgear) Bill
Requirement to wear protective headgear

1. -(1) No person aged 16 years or over shall without reasonable excuse ride a cycle -

(a) on a road, or

(b) in any open space,

unless the person is wearing protective headgear of such description as is specified in regulations, in such manner as is so specified.

(2) No person who has responsibility for a child shall without reasonable excuse cause or permit the child to ride a cycle -

(a) on a road, or

(b) in any open space,

unless the child is wearing protective headgear of such description as is specified in regulations, in such manner as is so specified.

Cookie_Monster

dited wrote: »

It applies to all cyclists. Full draft text is here: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/legislation/primary/2010/niabill9_10.pdf

FFS, does the state have to hold you hand while cycling too
:rolleyes:

monument

Edit #2: Any open space is parks and public open space.

[edit: large quote and link removed, I was busy reading it! ]

tomasrojo

Headway behind this again, apparently. 85/88% blah blah blah, don't look at the whole-population data, etc.

Chips Lovell

Sigh. I guess it's only a matter of time then before some bright spark thinks that it would be a good idea down here. "They have it up the North, after all".

monument

el tonto wrote: »

Sigh. I guess it's only a matter of time then before some bright spark thinks that it would be a good idea down here. "They have it up the North, after all".

It was Irish acquired brain injury groups who backed it, so they will likely be pushing it down here too after this win.