Plans to make cycle helmets compulsory in the North.

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support helmet laws for children.[113] Israel's helmet law was never enforced or obeyed, and the adult element has been revoked; Mexico City has repealed its helmet law.[114]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As for the bike-share schemes, Israel and Mexico both repealed or modified their MHLs so that the bike-share schemes could prosper.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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

Won't someone please think of the children?