Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
16-08-2010, 20:20   #1
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,799
Plans to make cycle helmets compulsory in the North.

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/...?view=Standard

Last edited by Run_to_da_hills; 16-08-2010 at 20:22.
Run_to_da_hills is offline  
Advertisement
16-08-2010, 20:29   #2
el tel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,926
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.
el tel is offline  
16-08-2010, 21:43   #3
tomasrojo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Run_to_da_hills View Post
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:

Quote:
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.
tomasrojo is offline  
17-08-2010, 08:41   #4
Beasty
Administrator
 
Beasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 32,524
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.
Beasty is offline  
17-08-2010, 09:22   #5
Lumen
Registered User
 
Lumen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 24,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Run_to_da_hills View Post
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.
Lumen is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
17-08-2010, 10:11   #6
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 19,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumen View Post
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
Jawgap is offline  
17-08-2010, 10:11   #7
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 668
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 :/
billy.fish is offline  
(3) thanks from:
17-08-2010, 10:14   #8
jimbo32123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 304
Send a message via MSN to 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...
jimbo32123 is offline  
Thanks from:
17-08-2010, 10:18   #9
Lumen
Registered User
 
Lumen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 24,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by billy.fish View Post
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".
Lumen is offline  
Advertisement
17-08-2010, 10:27   #10
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 668
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.
billy.fish is offline  
Thanks from:
17-08-2010, 10:32   #11
Lumen
Registered User
 
Lumen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 24,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by billy.fish View Post
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.
Lumen is offline  
17-08-2010, 10:35   #12
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 668
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.
billy.fish is offline  
17-08-2010, 10:49   #13
seamus
Dental Plan!
 
seamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 60,566
Send a message via MSN to seamus
Quote:
Originally Posted by billy.fish View Post
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.
seamus is offline  
17-08-2010, 10:50   #14
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 19,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo32123 View Post
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.
Jawgap is offline  
17-08-2010, 10:51   #15
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 668
I do worry about you people sometimes.

Goodbye.
billy.fish is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet