I had accident on my bike, no other vehicle involved, my front light strap failed and it came off flying in front of my front wheel sending me over the handle bars. I landed on the side of my head and face. I had 19 stitches to my face but my head was ok thanks to my helmet.
A helmet is not going to help if something hits you( unless a lorry wing mirror) but if you come of at any speed you can hurt your head if not wearing a helmet.
They should be compulsary by law.
Steelie - 11 years ago
By far the bigger danger is lack of visibility. This might include some foolish cyclists not using lights from dusk onwards, but it also includes an alarming number who do use lights but do not bother with relectors. A rear reflector can be more effective in headlights than a week lamp. The most effective way to stay visible night and day is by the use of a yellow reflective band or jacket. I would sooner this was made compulsory than the wearing of helmets.
Anon - 12 years ago
And there we have it... there are people who would argue against anything for the sake of it. They will find statistics & twist them into anything that suits their point. The fact that there are people like Pete on our roads presumably without a helmet, thinking they are so superior and above injury making such utterly ridiculous comments proves to me that a Law is absolutely required. Pete & others clearly value their own safety very low however I do pity their family and friends who may find their lives changed for ever because guys like Pete were too much of a clever dick to wear a simple safety device.
Helmets without any question do save some people from brain injury - some commentators below attest to that. People that make these anti-helmet comments clearly have never met anyone with a brain injury.
So make your ridiculous comments, pretend you are being persecuted by motorists if that fulfills your life but don't ever ever encourage anyone else NOT to wear a helmet - or on your head be it.
Pete Owens - 12 years ago
So Sharos, since you think helmets are such a good idea for road users presumably you
always set a good example and wear your driving helmet when your are in your car. After all vehicle occupants constitute the majority of head injury victims at A&E .
And also I hope you also wear your pedestrian helmet when you are walking - after all, mile for mile, cycling is marginally safer than walking .
Presumably you would support a law requiring motorists and pedestrians to wear helmets - "Surely, we should be doing whatever makes us and our children safe on the road!"
And actually no, seatbelt compulsion did not result in a reduction in road deaths - indeed following the introduction of the law there was an interruption in the long downward trend in deaths. What happened is that drivers compensated for the increased protection offered by seatbelts and drove slightly less carefully - this resulted in a sharp spike in the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed.
Louise, Headway supprter etc, while I am touched at your concern for my safety as a cyclist, I am still perplexed at your callous indifference to the safety of pedestrians and motorists. You claim to believe that helmets offer protection yet have repeatedly failed to clarify your position on mandatory helmets for other road users.
Sharos - 12 years ago
We all have our opinions, and there are some good explanations of why helmets shouldn't be become law, but frankly there are some really stupid comments as to why it shouldn't!
I am a mum of two and always want them to wear their helmets when on their bikes. (even have my own to encourage them). One child is not confident on the bike whilst the other is too confident, so if they ever come off it, due to their own lack of ability or stupitidy, I would like to think they have the protection of a helmet which could save them from either death or brain damage!!!
If we all wear the helmets, we will look the same and whilst it will not reduce the number of accidents (whether caused by the cyclist themselves or other forces), it could reduce the number of fatalities. Surely this is the important bit.
Did we stop driving because we had to wear seatbelts? NO. Have wearing seatbelts reduced the number of accidents on the roads? NO. However, they have reduced the number of fatalities. Which is what wearing a cycle helmet could do for you!
My children don't like wearing helmets, because their friends don't. If it became law there wouldn't be this problem!!!
And I certainly don't drive anyless carefull around cyclists wearing helmets than those not!!!! Not all accidents are caused by cars, it can be they just lose balance, hit a pot hole and come off!
I am shocked at the responses against making it law!!! Surely, we should be doing whatever makes us and our children safe on the road!
A. Main - 12 years ago
Perhaps if cyclist were to pay road tax there would be money to make more cycle lanes. I do not like wearing a helmet, but I do for safety reasons. When the seat belt was made compulsory, people didnt want to wear them but how many lives has that saved? When crash helmets for motor cyles was made compulsory, how many lives has that saved? Anything that might save one life, surely is well worth doing. Cars and lorries are sometimes dangerous to cyclist, but how many times do you see cyclist going through a red traffic light, weaving in and out of traffic and giving the incorrect or no had signals. Please think about the safety of your children too.
Tony - 12 years ago
Headway Supporter: So based on tour anecdote you think drivers should wear helmets? As a supporter of Headway can you tell us how many head injured cyclists Headway has on its books and how many head injured motorists and pedestrians?
Headway supporter - 12 years ago
"I'm not gonna wear a helmet coz drivers don't have to".... is what he said shortly before hitting the tarmac & having a cranioscopy to save his life , in a coma for weeks, but then left dependent on others for the rest of his life, to feed him, bathe him, make all decisions for him, whilst he doesn't recognise his own family, swears at his children, and has no memory of life before his accident.
There is no helping some people !!
AC - 12 years ago
A smashed helmet hasn't done it's job. A crushed helmet has.
Cycling is not dangerous - cars are dangerous. Tackle the problem, not a small part of the symptom.
Jane - 12 years ago
If like Wiggins I was habitually cycling in excess of 25 miles an hour I would wear a helmet. At the speed I cycle I am unlikely to sustain a head injury if I fell off my bike. The major danger for me as a cyclist is from motorists. Why should I wear protection for the danger they present? And if cyclists are to be required to wear protective clothing why not pedestrians, who are equally at risk of being killed by motorists? The helmet issue distracts from the fact that the kind of commuter cycling most people engage in is not dangerous in itself and is only made so by the behaviour of motorists. The focus needs to be on the provision of safe cycling infrastructure to protect cyclists from the danger of motorists.
Andrew - 12 years ago
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but having first hand experience of a devastating accident (I was hit by a car), I can honestly say that I find it hard to empathise with anyone not wearing a helmet. My back was broken in 2 places, severe internal bleeding, and my lower right leg was brougth up an inch and a half to reattach it to my right knee. I was wearing a helmet and would surely not be here still if i wasn't.
During my time spent immobile I wrote a small diary which you can read for free at http://www.myebook.com/index.php?option=ebook&id=86057 .
Anon - 12 years ago
Wow to the person who said "It (a helmet) will not give protection with any form of collision with a vehicle.". Absolutely crazy. I have a friend whose helmet smashed into pieces when he was hit by a car and doctors say the damage to his head if he hadn't been wearing a helmet could have been fatal and his fractured vertebrae could have been far worse too. I also know of someone who's life could have been saved if his helmet was worn correctly. To say that they make no difference is a big mistake. Personally, I think everyone should wear a helmet as there is no sensible reason not to, however, if people chose not to take a simple precaution like that then it's up to them to deal with the consequences.
TonyF, can you contact us via the publicity link on our homepage please (click my name above)
Cheers,
John
Tony4F - 12 years ago
I am anti compulsion rather than anti helmet. In my opinion the EN safety standard that is used in the EU is a very poor substitute to the SNELL standard that is used in the USA and until I see clear evidence that a helmet will save my life I am prepared to contine riding without one as I have for the past 48 years.
I know of one friend who's parent died and the cause of death was put down to the vent of their helmet snagging causing rotational damage to their neck so if you look closely you can find arguments for both sides.
For me the risk of cycling and a head injury is the same as if I was walking or driving a car and having given consideration to any perceived risk I have decided that the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the risk of possible head injury.
In *this* case it appears that it could have made a crucial difference.
At the moment however the highways engineers still paint "cycle lanes" up the inside of left turning traffic to ASLs - so any inexperienced cyclist (like this one) can be forgiven for thinking that that's what they should do.
Whilst it might not be sensible cycling it is certainly not a crime punishable by death.
Louise (and others in the same camp, this isn't a personal comment),
There will always be individual cases where a helmet might have made a difference. I can't possibly say whether the person you know falls into that category.
But let's be sensible. There were ~100 cyclist deaths on the road last year.
Many of those were "crushed by large vehicle" type injuries - A helmet cannot help.
A good proportion of the others involved fatal non head injuries - A helmet cannot help.
Some of the few remaining will have been wearing helmets - A helmet doesn't always help.
The total number of lives that could be saved can probably be counted on one hand. If we start trying to compel cyclists to wear helmets then many more lives will be lost as a result of the sedentary lifestyle that seems to be the UK default.
If we think that "all head injury must be avoided at all costs" (which seems to be a theme in pro compulsion campaigns) then we should start with driver/passenger helmets in cars, then drinking helmets etc. When we get to "getting out of bed helmets" we can start looking at cycling helmets.
NB :
I am NOT anti helmet. I wear one on some journeys, not on others.
I AM anti-compulsion, even anti promotion to an extent.
The effects of promotion/compulsion are well documented, and are primarily to stop people taking part in what is essentially a very safe activity (as safe, per mile, as walking) - that then increases the risk for those who remain, despite the increased (proportion of) helmet usage.
If we protect cyclists by law (presumed liability, 20 mph limits) and by Dutch style infrastructure (which will take time to build here, as it did there, but can fit in our cities) then we might have a chance of improving our safety. If people continue harping on about a single piece of marginally effective equipment then we ignore the elephant in the room - large motor vehicles are not safe (even at the hands of professional drivers), our cities were not designed for them. "Private" motor vehicles are not safe, but improved driver training and awareness would go a long way with many motorists.
I passed my driving test 15 years ago and yet I'll still be allowed to drive in 20 years time with no further training on the changing road conditions/laws. Even if I never drive in the mean time. That's one crazy system!
Tony - 12 years ago
Louise, it's understandable if you have had a personal tragedy that you would want to try to do something about it. But please divert your drive into things that will make a real difference. Cycle training for example is far more effective at preventing accidents and injury. The problem there is that the increasing requirement to wear a helmet during training is putting off and preventing many from taking part. Better road layouts is another. In London more than half of the cyclists killed were hit by a large vehicle against which a helmet will do nothing (including this latest Olympics death). Cyclists have now won a review of all major junctions and there is heavy pressure on the operators to do something about blind spots. These will make real differences but all the experience shows from Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc that mandatory cycle helmets do nothing to reduce the risk of a head injury and are a major distraction from dealing with the things that will make a difference.
Louise - 12 years ago
All I want is to try to ensure as few people as possible have to go through what my family have & continue to go through every day. I have tried but my life is hard enough dealing with the consequences of brain injury with a family member to take insults. I have not lied !! I wish you all the very best.
Tony - 12 years ago
Louise, that's not evidence, its anecdote. And given the very small number of cyclist head injuries I doubt very much that you got to know lots of brain injured cyclists and their families during your father's stay. They are very rare on neurosurgical wards which are mainly full of patients with illnesses and the odd patient with traumatic head injuries from car accidents, trips and falls and assaults. And you clearly haven't spoken to many neurosurgeons. If you speak to some of the people involved in some of the Court cases that follow some of these accidents, the expert neurosurgeon witnesses can rarely if at all be persuaded to say that a helmet would have made a difference.
But you clearly are convinced that they will make a difference irrespective of the evidence that they have never reduced head injuries overall. And feel free to exercise your own free choice on the matter with you and your family.
But if you are going to try to force me to wear a helmet you had better do your proper research and come up with more than you know a cyclist with a head injury. I've seen lots of pedestrians and drivers with very serious head injuries but very very few cyclist (and many of those had been wearing a helmet, not that it helped them).
Meanwhile Boris Bikers have completed about 15 million journeys in central London with rarely a helmet to be seen and with no head injuries. So it's a virtually non- existent problem you are trying to solve anyway.
So please, less of your "You must because I say so" lecturing and please give those of us who have looked at the published research evidence some credit for doing the work you have not been prepared to do before you pronounced. I repeat health and safety policy must be evidence (not anecdote) based. It's too important to leave to uninformed personal beliefs.
Louise.
In Australia cycling got more dangerous when helmets were made compulsory. This pattern is not unique.
In the Netherlands, which has the best cycling safety record in the world, virtually noone wears a helmet.
In Cambridge research shows that motoorists take less care around a cyclist wearing a helmet (increasing the likelihood of a crash).
The issue isn't even clear cut in protection terms (at least not when a motor vehicle is concerned) - rotational injuries are, I believe, more common and more serious amongst helmet wearers.
There are a tiny number of people killed/injured cycling each year - the benefits of cycling (even without a polystyrene lid) outweigh the risks by around 20:1. We need to deal with the elephant in the room - driving standards are very poor in this country, and we have vehicles in our towns that are far too big.
This incident (and others like it) would be better used to campaing for bus conductors, standing on the open step at the back of the bus they would see the cyclist, warn both them and the driver, and provide customer service.
Louise - 12 years ago
Tony I have very clear evidence, my father & the brain injured cyclists & their families i got to know through his many months in hospital & rehab & since. There are lots of other road safety issues & debates to be had, but I still have not heard a single justification for not wearing a helmet. If the whole cycling community was pro helmet (and i believe the vast majority are - wearing one that is) then there would be no discussion of a law as it would be the norm anyway. My understanding is evidence is very inconclusive and there are lots of factors which can distort the results. However there us absolutely no doubt that a helmet will provide better protection in an accident than no helmet. Every neurosurgeon i have met is very pro helmet. In the meantime i really worry that all this anti-helmet sentiment from a few cyclists will give people particularly younger cyclists the belief that a helmet doesn't need to be worn. I can't believe anyone aware of the horrific injuries that can arise and the difference that a simple helmet could (not in every case but definitely in some) prevent would chose to gamble with brain injury. I whole heartedly support Headway & the fantastic support they give victims & their families & for increasing awareness of head injury & for calling for cycle helmets to be worn. They more than anyone see the consequences.
Tony - 12 years ago
Louise. I am a firm believer in evidence based health and safety policy and I would hope you would be too. And if you look at the research evidence for countries that have made cycle helmets mandatory two things happened. The numbers of people cycling fell dramtically, particularly teenagers, and the risk of a head injury stayed the same or went up compared to the prediction that they would fall by 85%. Several of those countries have now repealed their helmet laws and the rest are thinking seriously of doing so with the exception of New Zealand.
If there was evidence there that they did prevent head injuries then it might be worth doing something but there is no evidence they do anything other than put people off cycling.
May as well use this accident to suuggest carrying a rabbit foot.
He was crushed by a bus - no helmet would have made any difference.
Helmet compulsion reduces cyclist safety - individuals should be free to choose. Sometimes I wear a helmet, sometimes I don't, it depends what I am riding and where.
Louise - 12 years ago
Dave, I am not singling out cyclists. You may have noticed that this poll is specifically about cycle helmets!! Hence that is what i am concentrating on. I am in favour of all sensible measures to help reduce brain injury in all aspects if life eg head protection for workers on roofs, forms of protection for drivers etc. You seem to be using the old " why don't we make people showering wear helmets" kind of argument again which is clearly ridiculous. I still have not seen even 1 sensible justification for NOT wearing a cycling helmet designed to protect cyclists !!! Anyone would think
I was suggesting a mass cull of kittens rather than simply dare to suggest (!!!) that people should use something simple that might just save you from horrific injury !!! I would have thought a very easy sell.
Louise - 12 years ago
Dave, I am not singling out cyclists. You may have noticed that this poll is specifically about cycle helmets!! Hence that is what i am concentrating on. I am in favour of all sensible measures to help reduce brain injury in all aspects if life eg head protection for workers on roofs, forms of protection for drivers etc. You seem to be using the old " why don't we make people showering wear helmets" kind of argument again which is clearly ridiculous. I still have not seen even 1 sensible justification for NOT wearing a cycling helmet designed to protect cyclists !!! Anyone would think
I was suggesting a mass cull of kittens rather than simply dare to suggest (!!!) that people should use something simple that might just save you from horrific injury !!! I would have thought a very easy sell.
Dave Williams - 12 years ago
Lets accept some of the statements on here for a moment, then ask why it is necessary to wear a helmet?
Take this prime example:
Your head is hurtling towards the Tarmac. Would you prefer to be wearing a helmet or not. For me a helmet every time. A member of my family has severe head injury as a result of an accident. Anything that can reduce the risk or damage done by head injury should be done to prevent the catastrophic consequences for victims & their families. To me there is no argument against it.
Given that professionally I see many more pedestrians, car drivers and children from playgrounds than I do cyclists, surely all of the above points are relevant to these groups taht are suffering head injuries?
Or is it somehow less painful, less traumatic, or has less effect on the family if the victim is a non-cyclist?
Surely there can be no argument against pedestrian helmets?
Louise - 12 years ago
So according to Mike I am a do gooder hell bent on preventing brain injury. In that case I am extremely proud to be so, I cannot imagine why anyone would not want to try & reduce brain injury, it is hardly a cause for celebration. When I got into this debate a few days ago I just thought my story might help the cause for helmet wearing (see earlier comments) never did I expect the aggressive backlash from non helmet wearing cyclists here & in other social media. My cyclist friends are nice folk & they wear helmets. None of the no helmet brigade seem to be able to come up with any sensible justification for not wearing one, they just resort to insults or saying ridiculous things like why don't you make people wear helmets in the shower !!! that is because there is no sensible justification for not wearing a simple inexpensive basic piece of equipment designed with your safety in mind. I thought this debate would lead to a wide consensus that helmets should be worn with maybe a law for kids. It is now clear to me from the comments from cyclists like Mike & others that a Law is absolutely necessary as these people need to be protected from themselves. I think the vast majority of the cycling community who do wear & support the wearing of helmets need to see what damage these people are doing to their vocation. if the no hemet brigade ever have the misfortune to know someone who is affected by brain injury I think they will be very regretful of their attitude & I guarantee every time they step onto a cycle again they will be the first to reach for a helmet. To those choosing not to wear a helmet maybe you don't care whether you get brain injury or not, I wonder how your wife, husband, mother, father, children would feel about feeding you and wiping your bum for the rest of your life when you might not even recognise who they are. This could happen just because you don't protect your head. It won't save everyone but absolutely it will save some. go & check out some neuro wards & rehab centres, check out headway's website. Isn't it just a no brainer to wear a helmet?
Mike Behelt - 12 years ago
Over 60% of people admitted to hospital with head injuries have a direct relationship with alcohol - Any do gooders hell bent on preventing head injuries should be calling for drinkers to wear helmets first. Whether its a night out with the boys or a bottle of red with a meal at home, a helmet should always be worn.
Olly - 12 years ago
In the last 5 years I have fallen off my bike sideways. Each time my helmet has saved me from a head injury. Perhaps if cyclists in town were compelled to use a helmet and this carried a visible number plate on the back it would enable drivers and pedestrians to identify the lawbreaking pests who routinely jump red lights and cycle on pavements. Then, these dangerous cyclists could be prosecuted and removed from our roads. Cyclists who experience head injuries when cycling bareheaded should be denied insurance cover in any form. If they suffer injury as a result of their stupidity they should also suffer the consequences. The anti helmet brigade are a tiny vocal minority. The vast majority of cyclists wear helmets. The fools who don't are usually the ones endangering pedestrians by cycling on the pavement, weaving around dangerously in dense traffic and jumping reds. From now on just look and see what I mean.
Tony - 12 years ago
Louise & others. Which countries have the lowest cyclist head injury rate in the world? The Netherlands & Denmark. How many wear helmets there? Virtually none. If you want to reduce head injuries then there are many things far better than helmets to look at. In fact there seems to be a direct link between the level of helmet wearing in a country and the level of head injuries that says you are better off without helmets and focussing on other aspects of cycling - motorist behaviour, cycle routes etc.
Tony - 12 years ago
Isn"t this poll about exactly the sort of point scoring the Times article said the family asked the media and others not to do?
Vivian - 12 years ago
YES helmets should be the law, but just as important is for people to receive cycling training.
People should be aware of and make use of high-visibility equipment as well as road signage..
So long as you are aware of both things, maybe this one topic would not cause such controversy.
I am a cyclist and all too often i see grown ups cycling in full cycling gear on the pavement or running red lights.. Just as i often see how little motorists value the life and safety of a cyclist on London roads.
This is a never ending topic as there is much to be said for/againist cyclists and non-cyclists alike.
If the government did a little bit more to educate the masses, then maybe cyclists would obey traffic lights and leave pavements to pedestrians, whilst motorists wouldnt feel it is their god-given right to ignore and/or direct most of their road-rage at cyclists..
Like i said, a never ending argument, but for now, YES, helmets shuould be made compulsory.
Louise - 12 years ago
Clive, you make a well reasoned argument & yes I am passionate about this because I have 1st hand experience of the trauma that can ensue. However, I see so many cyclists without helmets and shockingly so many kids. If the cycling community doesn't want a law why don't they do everything they can to promote helmet wearing because if helmet wearing was the norm then there would be no need for a debate on helmet law. I understand you all have a far wider agenda & there are lots of other issues such as road safety that I don't feel I have the expertise to comment on. I'm pretty certain the law won't come in anyway but I IMPLORE cyclists to wear helmets and I IMPLORE them to do everything they can to make helmet wearing the norm in their sport/mode of transport/leisure activity. Please don't push this debate into encouraging people to think it is ok not to wear a helmet or that it won't provide them with any protection. A helmet won't save everyone but it will absolutely save some. When it comes to head injury and brain damage please do not underestimate how horrifically this can affect your fellow cyclists lives. If you all wear helmets I will be happy, there will be no need for a law and at least some people will be saved from brain injury, that is all I want to see. I hope no one has to go through what my family have gone through & continue to on a daily basis.
Colin Clarke - 12 years ago
Clarke 2012 concluded, “This evaluation of NZ’s bicycle helmet law finds it has failed in aspects of promoting cycling, safety, health, accident compensation, environmental issues and civil liberties. It is estimated to cost about 53 lives per year in premature deaths and result in thousands of fines plus legal aspects of discrimination in accident compensation cases.”
.
Erke and Elvik (Norwegian researchers) 2007 stated: “There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand, the increase is estimated to be around 14 per cent.” Clarke, CF, Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle law, NZMJ 10 February 2012, Vol 125 No 1349;
http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/125-1349/5046/
Clarke 2007 provides a detailed report showing how helmet use and legislation has reduced both health and safety in general terms. Many reports are included plus extra information in the appendix.
.
European Cycling Federation 1998 reported , “The evidence from Australia and New Zealand suggests that the wearing of helmets might even make cycling more dangerous.”
Robinson 1996 report, Table 2 shows data for children in NSW. The equivalent number of injuries for pre law level of number of cyclists increased from 1310 (384 head + 926 other injuries) in 1991 to 2083 (488 head + 1595 other injuries) in 1993. For NSW the helmet laws discouraged cycling and reduced children’s safety. The increased injury rate was 59%, from 1310 to 2083.
.
The UK’s National Children’s Bureau (NCB) provided a detailed review of cycling and helmets in 2005, stating that the case for helmets is far from sound and the benefits of helmets need further investigation before even a policy supporting promotion can be unequivocally supported.
.
Curnow 2008 concluded, “Compulsion to wear a bicycle helmet is detrimental to public health in Australia but, to maintain the status quo, authorities have obfuscated evidence that shows this” and “Cycling declined after the helmet laws by an estimated 40% for children, with loss of the benefits of the exercise for health. As serious casualties declined by less, the risks to cyclists, including death by head injury, increased.” A link to the paper is at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18481926
.
In tests on helmets by the consumer magazine Which?, they reported that only 9 from 24 passed all tests and therefore even new helmets may not be reliable.
.
Talk to Clarke for detailed information.
Refs
Clarke, CF, Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle law, NZMJ 10 February 2012, Vol 125 No 1349;
http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/125-1349/5046/
Erke A, Elvik R, Making Vision Zero real: Preventing Pedestrian Accidents And Making Them Less Severe, Oslo June 2007. page 28 http://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikasj ... 7-nett.pdf
Clarke CF, The Case against bicycle helmets and legislation, VeloCity Munich, 2007. http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuais/colin_clarke_cycle_helmet.pdf
IMPROVING BICYCLE SAFETY without making helmet-use compulsory
http://www.ecf.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/060131_ECF_Helmet_brochure_13.pdf
Robinson DL; Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws; Accid Anal Prev, 28, 4: p 463-475, 1996 http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-head-injuries.pdf
Gill T, Cycling and Children and Young People, A review, National Children’s Bureau, 2005. http://www.cycle-helmets.com/cyclingreport_timgill.pdf
Curnow WJ. Bicycle helmets and public health in Australia, Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 2008 Apr;19(1):10-15.
Which?; Get a head start, p 28 – 31, October, UK, 1998.
Clive - 12 years ago
Louise - Thanks for sharing your story. It's clear to see why you feel so strongly about this issue.
However - Laws and public guidance should be based on facts and science, not on emotion - no matter how powerful those emotions are. It's a shame to read your words "I am not interested in statistics". Because it's statistics that count.
You say "Everyone is entitled to their view" but then you also say "a helmet law is essential". Would it be fair to point out that this is a stark contradiction? How can I have my own view if you would like the government to enforce your view upon me?
Every day, around 6 or 7 people are killed on UK roads, in cars, and around half of those die of head injuries. Seatbelts didn't help them, so why stop there? Maybe helmets would help. Should we campaign for car occupants to wear helmets? Why not? As you say: "If it saves 1 person's life etc. etc."
The fact appears that for every head injury (potentially, possibly, unprovably) prevented by mandatory helmet laws, there is a much greater damage done to public health through greater inactivity, more cars on our roads, fewer children playing outside, more obesity and more cost to the health service. This isn't guesswork - studies have indicated this effect in Australia and Canada.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17032-bicycle-helmet-laws-could-do-more-harm-than-good.html
Mandatory helmets will not help the situation. They will make it worse. let's talk instead about things that will help: tougher penalties for bad driving, better road layouts, different attitudes among road users, more easily available cycle training.
At the moment, people are given the impression that purely by putting a helmet on their heads, they have done their bit. This is a dangerous assumption.
As I say, I'm not unsympathetic towards your situation (two people I know have suffered similar-sounding injuries), but I don't believe the best response from us is to reach for an over-simplified and ultimately damaging idea, just for the feeling that we're 'doing something'.
Louise - 12 years ago
Mike am so sorry to hear your story but so glad you are speaking out. Anyone who has experience of severe head trauma within their family & is aware of the devastating impact it has not just to the victim but for the family & carers around them. Can you imagine coming out of a coma & not recognising your family, not being able to feed yourself, thinking you are 21 when actually you are 65, spending months in hospital & rehab & leaving with a totally different personality incapable of making decisions, totally dependant on others for everything. Every brain injury story is different but every 1 is life changing & not in a good way. Any cyclist who had any kind of first hand experience of someone close to them with brain injury would NEVER even contemplate not wearing a helmet. You get 1 brain, it is precsious. Why would you not take reasonable sensible precautions like something as simple as wearing a helmet. I am truly shocked that anyone would be against this and the fact that they are convinces me even more that a helmet law is essential to protect people who are not aware of the risks. That any parent would allow their child to cycle without a helmet is shocking. I wear a seatbelt when driving, I wear a helmet on a bike & I am very aware of how fragile our heads are. Everyone is entitled to their view, I am not interested in staristics. If my contribution to this debate makes 1 more person wear a helmet & potentially prevent a head injury I would be delighted and I'm sure my Dad would too if he was capable of understanding what I am saying, unfortunately a very intelligent man who no longer knows what day of the week it is or even what year.
mike ayres - 12 years ago
Wear a Helmet already! I hit a pot hole 10 years ago crashed and now i am epileptic from the brain injury.I used to race motorcycles and took no hurt of course wearing a Helmet.I crashed lots of times and never even marked the paint.I had the same cock sure line as most people seem to have.Mine was i can't get hurt on a push bike.How wrong i was.Would you drive a car without a seatbelt?Just wear one its better than going through the things me and my family have been forced to trust me.
@Louise - You are entitled to your opinion just as we all are. What is wrong with your attitude is that you want to impose your beliefs on others by creating a new law. No one is wanting to stop you wearing a helmet. Others not wearing a helmet does not affect your life, so why is it so important to you to take away other people choice to know what is best for them.
There is positively no prove anywhere that a helmet has saved one single persons life. Despite the fact that some will say "If I hadn't been wearing a helmet I would be dead". They don't know that. That is only their opinion.
Children fall off of climbing frames, off of trampolines, and when my young Granddaughter did gymnastics she didn't wear a helmet. Ill fitting and improperly wearing of a helmet by a child is far more dangerous than them not wearing a helmet. But once again, it needs to be a parent's choice, and the parent must be prepared to know the facts and get their child fitted properly and at all times know their child is wearing it correctly.
For some reason the ill informed seem to think that a cycle helmet will at all times save a head injury and that it will save someone from death when being hit by a motorised vehicle. It wont.
If you, and others genuinely worry about other peoples lives when cycling, you would not be screaming for mandatory helmet wearing, but would instead be shouting from the roof tops for segregated cycling. That is the only thing that will save cyclists lives, as has been proven in other European countries such as The Netherlands. The ordinary person cycling there never wears a helmet because with their infrastructure cycling is as safe as walking.
Mandatory helmets has been proven to raise the percentage of cycling deaths, as in Australia. Mandatory helmets mean less people cycling. The fewer cyclists on the road, the more danger they are in. Many countries that tried mandatory helmets have now reversed that law because of this.
Can you honestly say you have actually read up on articles from all corners on the pros and cons? By reading your post I would bet not.
But the question really isn't whether one should wear a helmet or not, but whether it is right to enforce and criminalise people by taking away their right of choice.
I personally think that there is a better argument for making smoking illegal than for making cycle helmets mandatory, and I am a smoker. Likewise for alcohol. Both smoking and alcohol kill thousands a year, yet the taking away the choice of either of those has not ever been considered, and quite rightly so.
Where does it all stop? Should it be law to wear a face mask in a flu epidemic. Should it be law to wear a life jacket on a cruise ship? After all one might fall over board when in ones cups. Should it be law to not be over weight, obesity kills the individual. The discussion on cycle helmets is basically ridiculous. It's not law in this country and I very, very much doubt it ever will be.
Instead let's concentrate on fighting to separate cyclists from motorists, just as pedestrians are separated from motorists by being given pavements.
John Balmoral - 12 years ago
Sadly in all the news reports about Dan's death and all the comments about people saying that helmets should be compulsory seem to have overlooked the fact the Dan was wearing a helmet when he was killed. He always wore one.
Andy R - 12 years ago
There is no good evidence that making bareheaded cycling a criminal offence leads to reduced head injuries for those who continue to cycle. This is because cycling is not particularly dangerous, and a piece of foam on your head is not particularly effective.
If people like Louise are really "upset and sickened" by the sight of me riding bareheaded (as I have for 40 years) then they need to get out more. It's a dysfunctional society that takes that kind of sentiment and turns it into laws.
Furthermore, if "Anything that can reduce the risk or damage done by head injury should be done", then we should focus on the major sources of head injury - helmets in cars, helmets in the shower, helmets in bed. Cycling is a tiny contributor to the stats.
Louise - 12 years ago
Your head is hurtling towards the Tarmac. Would you prefer to be wearing a helmet or not. For me a helmet every time. A member of my family has severe head injury as a result of an accident. Anything that can reduce the risk or damage done by head injury should be done to prevent the catastrophic consequences for victims & their families. To me there is no argument against it, every cyclist should wear one & especially children. I am upset & sickened by the number of cyclists who dont wear helmets and gamble with brain injury. Brain injury is life changing in a horrifically cruel way. I would not dream of getting on my bike without one. Yes there are other road safety issues but I while heatedly support legal enforcement and if that saves 1 person from severe brain injury then it is worth it. I truly hope Headway, an amazing charity are successful in their campaign.
Emma Lawrence - 12 years ago
This is a distraction from the issue of road safety. Car culture has gotten out of hand so that now motorists think the own the road and it's acceptable blame the victim rather than the perpetrator. More pedestrians are killed by cars than cyclists, so maybe we should also be wearing body armour when walking around? Please spend money on functional cycle infrastructure and focus on reducing car-dependence. Cities and streets need to be safe for everyone. Introducing strict liability would do more for the survival chances of cyclists and pedestrians than a law enforcing polystyrene hat wearing.
I am not against helmets. There is a time and a place for them in the cycling world, but it should remain a choice.
If helmets became mandatory one of two things would happen to me personally.
1) I would get a criminal record because I will not wear a helmet.
2) I would give up cycling.
The reason for this is because I am a rural rider. I do not weave in and out of traffic as city riders have to do. I ride steady and slowly, I do not race. When one is riding with a helmet in rural areas motorists do not give as wide an over taking space. For some reason sub-consciously they feel a cyclist is less invulnerable when they have a helmet on, which of course isn't true because even helmet manufacturers say that a helmet will only give some protection if a cyclist falls off their bike and hits the crown of their head. It will not give protection with any form of collision with a vehicle.
I personally feel I am safer without a helmet than with.
Björn Abelsson - 12 years ago
To legally require cyclists to wear helmets would lead to more deaths, not to fewer. The health benefits from cycling are far bigger than the health risks associated with cycle accidents. Even in a city like London. And a helmet law would decrease the number of cycling, as has been seen in Australia and other countries that have introduced such laws.
Fewer cyclists also mean increased risks for those who continue to ride. There is a "safety in numbers", meaning that when more people ride, car drivers become more observant on cyclists and the rate of severe accidents decreases.
Thus, a law on the compulsory use of helmets would be a serious setback for public health, as it would discourage people from cycling. This does not mean that you should not wear a helmet, if you like to. Myself, I almost always wear my helmet when riding. It might not save my life if I am hit by a bus, but there are several kinds of accidents when a helmet might give that extra protection that makes the difference between a small bruce and a serious injury.
Colin - 12 years ago
Cycle Helmets are effectively useless against life-threatening impacts. It is nothing short of scandalous that they are promoted more than any other cycle safety intervention.
It is also scandalous that drivers can turn into roadspace that they cannot see to be empty, and not be found guilty of dangerous driving. Drivers need to be accountable for the danger their heavy machinery imposes on others.
DC - 12 years ago
This incident is so desperately sad for someone who had chosen to make a healthier, more sustainable, better personal travel choice. Apparently he'd only been commuter cycling for a week; was he new or returning to cycling ... did he understand the risks and dangers, and how to manage those?
I think this tragic incident demonstrates the importance of promoting cycle training for people new to / returning to cycling, not just but especially for those commuting in busy urban areas. This teaches riders about how to ride safely, avoid the dangers that kill or seriously injure riders, proper road positioning and how to negotiate junctions, roundabouts etc to help keep you and other road users and pedestrians safe. Much good work is ongoing in this area, including where I live in Manchester. It may be this poor chap was not properly aware of the risk and danger of the manouvre he apparently made - attempting to pass a bus on the inside before or during its left turn.
The emphasis must be on cycle training, not on helmets. There are far more killed or seriously injured through crushing injuries than head injuries, where a helmet is irrelevant. Cycle training might prevent you having the incident in the first place.
Further, enforcing the wearing of helmets would only serve to deflect responsibility for safety and risk, and blame, onto bike riders and away from other road users and pedestrians. If it was enforced, in the event of an injury or death of a cyclist, some people would use the rule to fully attribute blame on the cyclist. "He/she would be alive today, if they had been wearing a helmet!' etc. Even if the injuries sustained were irrelevant to helmet wearing.
I myself always chose to wear a helmet though, in case I fall off, and it might offer some protection in the event of an accident and my head being struck.
I would happily support a ban and enforcement of wearing headphones while cycling (depriving yourself of one of your senses while undertaking an activity that involves risk, to yourself and other people, though low risk - is complete madness and irresponsibility).
Also, as cycling levels grow, there will be a need for enforcement against illegal riding on the footway. A growing problem, and danger for pedestrians.
Lindley Owen - 12 years ago
Many more people sustain head injuries as pedestrians and car occupants than as cyclists, yet there is no serious suggestion that they have to wear helmets. Professor John Adams demonstrated the 'risk-compensation' effect (why compulsory seat-belts displaced, rather than cut road casualties). Wearing protective or high-visibility clothing indicates you are taking risks. We want to make cycling a normal everyday activity, so it should be possible mainly in normal, everyday clothing. In Northern Europe this has been achieved by designing public space for all road users to share safely, and by putting the onus on the driver of the potentially lethal vehicle to prove his/her innocence in the case of harm from collision. The result is much higher rates of cycling, less obesity, and longer, happier lives.
Chris Walker - 12 years ago
I remember well the 1960's (I am not Keith Richards) when I was a motor scooter rider, before helmets became compulsory. Sometimes I wore a helmet, sometimes I didn't and when I didn't I was a much more careful rider. I came off my scooter several times when I was wearing my helmet but never when I wasn't.
NO
The priority is to make the vehicle driver accountable for any cycling incident and/or injury. Then watch the injury incidents drop.
A helmet will put the onus on the innocent cyclist and not reduce incidents & injuries.
Ole Larsen - 12 years ago
Rule #1 when you are cycling, NEVER go inside any bus/truck/car which is about to turn. Size does matter.
Anon - 12 years ago
ABSOLUTELY NO !
I certainly don't disagree with anyone that chooses to wear a helmet. It is irrelevant what 'cyclists themselves' think in terms of coming to the correct conclusion about whether it is safer and whether to include it in legislation. Anecdotal reasoning from cyclists, e.g. " If I hadn't been wearing my helmet it would have been my skull that cracked and it saved my life" is often wrong, and in any case irrelevant, as is anecdotal reasoning from doctors, e.g " I see a lot of head injuries and.... blah blah " . There is also anecdotal evidence suggest the opposite e.g. films showing the reduced distance car drivers leave cyclists who are wearing compared with those who are. Now, of course this alone is not enough to determine whether you are indeed less safe wearing a helmet. Far from it. But it may provide one reason for the offset in the statistics related to accident rates/head injuries, which DO NOT DECREASE with increased use of helmets ..... Given there is no REAL evidence that wearing a helmet is safer, it is madness to make it compulsory. Especially when there are so many drawbacks: It would unfairly promote commuting by bike as a dangerous activity and also as a hassle. This is very damaging to the health of the nation, and to the environment.. And it is yet another thing that shifts the emphasis of safety onto the cyclist rather than the driver when most serious accidents are the fault of the driver... Already, without such legislation in place, you see cases form insurance companies where they try to avoid the compensation payout for death by dangerous driving on the grounds that cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet!!! It is very dangerous for cyclists/people to promote the compulsory use of helmets. Shame on Wiggins.. Not sure why he was asked though...
Jon Hancock - 12 years ago
I personally think that in a built up area and in traffic a helmet should be worn. In the case of Dan Harris - we're not informed as to whether he was or wasn't wearing a helmet. IF he was then even that didn't help last night- it was a bus! If he was not- then it's stupid as he was travelling around London, which is a very, very dangerous place for cyclists.
In this case I think also that Dan Harris wasn't being the smartest cyclist as there was another next to him who said that he held back upon seeing that the bus was turning left and said that Mr Harris was in it's blind spot. The fact that he'd only been cycling for a week could explain this accident in that he wasn't very traffic savvy?
Don't get me wrong I think that this is a tragic accident and this accident and ensuing news stories should not discourage people from venturing out on a bike. BUT please be aware and do realise that you're tiny both visually and in actuality when drawn alongside a large vehicle.
The more people who get onto a bicycle and ride around in towns etc. the more aware motorised traffic will be. Hopefully?
When I cycle I ride on quiet roads and cycle paths. IF I have to travel on roads alone, rather than in a group, then a helmet is worn.
I had accident on my bike, no other vehicle involved, my front light strap failed and it came off flying in front of my front wheel sending me over the handle bars. I landed on the side of my head and face. I had 19 stitches to my face but my head was ok thanks to my helmet.
A helmet is not going to help if something hits you( unless a lorry wing mirror) but if you come of at any speed you can hurt your head if not wearing a helmet.
They should be compulsary by law.
By far the bigger danger is lack of visibility. This might include some foolish cyclists not using lights from dusk onwards, but it also includes an alarming number who do use lights but do not bother with relectors. A rear reflector can be more effective in headlights than a week lamp. The most effective way to stay visible night and day is by the use of a yellow reflective band or jacket. I would sooner this was made compulsory than the wearing of helmets.
And there we have it... there are people who would argue against anything for the sake of it. They will find statistics & twist them into anything that suits their point. The fact that there are people like Pete on our roads presumably without a helmet, thinking they are so superior and above injury making such utterly ridiculous comments proves to me that a Law is absolutely required. Pete & others clearly value their own safety very low however I do pity their family and friends who may find their lives changed for ever because guys like Pete were too much of a clever dick to wear a simple safety device.
Helmets without any question do save some people from brain injury - some commentators below attest to that. People that make these anti-helmet comments clearly have never met anyone with a brain injury.
So make your ridiculous comments, pretend you are being persecuted by motorists if that fulfills your life but don't ever ever encourage anyone else NOT to wear a helmet - or on your head be it.
So Sharos, since you think helmets are such a good idea for road users presumably you
always set a good example and wear your driving helmet when your are in your car. After all vehicle occupants constitute the majority of head injury victims at A&E .
And also I hope you also wear your pedestrian helmet when you are walking - after all, mile for mile, cycling is marginally safer than walking .
Presumably you would support a law requiring motorists and pedestrians to wear helmets - "Surely, we should be doing whatever makes us and our children safe on the road!"
And actually no, seatbelt compulsion did not result in a reduction in road deaths - indeed following the introduction of the law there was an interruption in the long downward trend in deaths. What happened is that drivers compensated for the increased protection offered by seatbelts and drove slightly less carefully - this resulted in a sharp spike in the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed.
Louise, Headway supprter etc, while I am touched at your concern for my safety as a cyclist, I am still perplexed at your callous indifference to the safety of pedestrians and motorists. You claim to believe that helmets offer protection yet have repeatedly failed to clarify your position on mandatory helmets for other road users.
We all have our opinions, and there are some good explanations of why helmets shouldn't be become law, but frankly there are some really stupid comments as to why it shouldn't!
I am a mum of two and always want them to wear their helmets when on their bikes. (even have my own to encourage them). One child is not confident on the bike whilst the other is too confident, so if they ever come off it, due to their own lack of ability or stupitidy, I would like to think they have the protection of a helmet which could save them from either death or brain damage!!!
If we all wear the helmets, we will look the same and whilst it will not reduce the number of accidents (whether caused by the cyclist themselves or other forces), it could reduce the number of fatalities. Surely this is the important bit.
Did we stop driving because we had to wear seatbelts? NO. Have wearing seatbelts reduced the number of accidents on the roads? NO. However, they have reduced the number of fatalities. Which is what wearing a cycle helmet could do for you!
My children don't like wearing helmets, because their friends don't. If it became law there wouldn't be this problem!!!
And I certainly don't drive anyless carefull around cyclists wearing helmets than those not!!!! Not all accidents are caused by cars, it can be they just lose balance, hit a pot hole and come off!
I am shocked at the responses against making it law!!! Surely, we should be doing whatever makes us and our children safe on the road!
Perhaps if cyclist were to pay road tax there would be money to make more cycle lanes. I do not like wearing a helmet, but I do for safety reasons. When the seat belt was made compulsory, people didnt want to wear them but how many lives has that saved? When crash helmets for motor cyles was made compulsory, how many lives has that saved? Anything that might save one life, surely is well worth doing. Cars and lorries are sometimes dangerous to cyclist, but how many times do you see cyclist going through a red traffic light, weaving in and out of traffic and giving the incorrect or no had signals. Please think about the safety of your children too.
Headway Supporter: So based on tour anecdote you think drivers should wear helmets? As a supporter of Headway can you tell us how many head injured cyclists Headway has on its books and how many head injured motorists and pedestrians?
"I'm not gonna wear a helmet coz drivers don't have to".... is what he said shortly before hitting the tarmac & having a cranioscopy to save his life , in a coma for weeks, but then left dependent on others for the rest of his life, to feed him, bathe him, make all decisions for him, whilst he doesn't recognise his own family, swears at his children, and has no memory of life before his accident.
There is no helping some people !!
A smashed helmet hasn't done it's job. A crushed helmet has.
Cycling is not dangerous - cars are dangerous. Tackle the problem, not a small part of the symptom.
If like Wiggins I was habitually cycling in excess of 25 miles an hour I would wear a helmet. At the speed I cycle I am unlikely to sustain a head injury if I fell off my bike. The major danger for me as a cyclist is from motorists. Why should I wear protection for the danger they present? And if cyclists are to be required to wear protective clothing why not pedestrians, who are equally at risk of being killed by motorists? The helmet issue distracts from the fact that the kind of commuter cycling most people engage in is not dangerous in itself and is only made so by the behaviour of motorists. The focus needs to be on the provision of safe cycling infrastructure to protect cyclists from the danger of motorists.
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but having first hand experience of a devastating accident (I was hit by a car), I can honestly say that I find it hard to empathise with anyone not wearing a helmet. My back was broken in 2 places, severe internal bleeding, and my lower right leg was brougth up an inch and a half to reattach it to my right knee. I was wearing a helmet and would surely not be here still if i wasn't.
During my time spent immobile I wrote a small diary which you can read for free at http://www.myebook.com/index.php?option=ebook&id=86057 .
Wow to the person who said "It (a helmet) will not give protection with any form of collision with a vehicle.". Absolutely crazy. I have a friend whose helmet smashed into pieces when he was hit by a car and doctors say the damage to his head if he hadn't been wearing a helmet could have been fatal and his fractured vertebrae could have been far worse too. I also know of someone who's life could have been saved if his helmet was worn correctly. To say that they make no difference is a big mistake. Personally, I think everyone should wear a helmet as there is no sensible reason not to, however, if people chose not to take a simple precaution like that then it's up to them to deal with the consequences.
TonyF, can you contact us via the publicity link on our homepage please (click my name above)
Cheers,
John
I am anti compulsion rather than anti helmet. In my opinion the EN safety standard that is used in the EU is a very poor substitute to the SNELL standard that is used in the USA and until I see clear evidence that a helmet will save my life I am prepared to contine riding without one as I have for the past 48 years.
I know of one friend who's parent died and the cause of death was put down to the vent of their helmet snagging causing rotational damage to their neck so if you look closely you can find arguments for both sides.
For me the risk of cycling and a head injury is the same as if I was walking or driving a car and having given consideration to any perceived risk I have decided that the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the risk of possible head injury.
Oops - missed cycle training off my list.
In *this* case it appears that it could have made a crucial difference.
At the moment however the highways engineers still paint "cycle lanes" up the inside of left turning traffic to ASLs - so any inexperienced cyclist (like this one) can be forgiven for thinking that that's what they should do.
Whilst it might not be sensible cycling it is certainly not a crime punishable by death.
Louise (and others in the same camp, this isn't a personal comment),
There will always be individual cases where a helmet might have made a difference. I can't possibly say whether the person you know falls into that category.
But let's be sensible. There were ~100 cyclist deaths on the road last year.
Many of those were "crushed by large vehicle" type injuries - A helmet cannot help.
A good proportion of the others involved fatal non head injuries - A helmet cannot help.
Some of the few remaining will have been wearing helmets - A helmet doesn't always help.
The total number of lives that could be saved can probably be counted on one hand. If we start trying to compel cyclists to wear helmets then many more lives will be lost as a result of the sedentary lifestyle that seems to be the UK default.
If we think that "all head injury must be avoided at all costs" (which seems to be a theme in pro compulsion campaigns) then we should start with driver/passenger helmets in cars, then drinking helmets etc. When we get to "getting out of bed helmets" we can start looking at cycling helmets.
NB :
I am NOT anti helmet. I wear one on some journeys, not on others.
I AM anti-compulsion, even anti promotion to an extent.
The effects of promotion/compulsion are well documented, and are primarily to stop people taking part in what is essentially a very safe activity (as safe, per mile, as walking) - that then increases the risk for those who remain, despite the increased (proportion of) helmet usage.
If we protect cyclists by law (presumed liability, 20 mph limits) and by Dutch style infrastructure (which will take time to build here, as it did there, but can fit in our cities) then we might have a chance of improving our safety. If people continue harping on about a single piece of marginally effective equipment then we ignore the elephant in the room - large motor vehicles are not safe (even at the hands of professional drivers), our cities were not designed for them. "Private" motor vehicles are not safe, but improved driver training and awareness would go a long way with many motorists.
I passed my driving test 15 years ago and yet I'll still be allowed to drive in 20 years time with no further training on the changing road conditions/laws. Even if I never drive in the mean time. That's one crazy system!
Louise, it's understandable if you have had a personal tragedy that you would want to try to do something about it. But please divert your drive into things that will make a real difference. Cycle training for example is far more effective at preventing accidents and injury. The problem there is that the increasing requirement to wear a helmet during training is putting off and preventing many from taking part. Better road layouts is another. In London more than half of the cyclists killed were hit by a large vehicle against which a helmet will do nothing (including this latest Olympics death). Cyclists have now won a review of all major junctions and there is heavy pressure on the operators to do something about blind spots. These will make real differences but all the experience shows from Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc that mandatory cycle helmets do nothing to reduce the risk of a head injury and are a major distraction from dealing with the things that will make a difference.
All I want is to try to ensure as few people as possible have to go through what my family have & continue to go through every day. I have tried but my life is hard enough dealing with the consequences of brain injury with a family member to take insults. I have not lied !! I wish you all the very best.
Louise, that's not evidence, its anecdote. And given the very small number of cyclist head injuries I doubt very much that you got to know lots of brain injured cyclists and their families during your father's stay. They are very rare on neurosurgical wards which are mainly full of patients with illnesses and the odd patient with traumatic head injuries from car accidents, trips and falls and assaults. And you clearly haven't spoken to many neurosurgeons. If you speak to some of the people involved in some of the Court cases that follow some of these accidents, the expert neurosurgeon witnesses can rarely if at all be persuaded to say that a helmet would have made a difference.
But you clearly are convinced that they will make a difference irrespective of the evidence that they have never reduced head injuries overall. And feel free to exercise your own free choice on the matter with you and your family.
But if you are going to try to force me to wear a helmet you had better do your proper research and come up with more than you know a cyclist with a head injury. I've seen lots of pedestrians and drivers with very serious head injuries but very very few cyclist (and many of those had been wearing a helmet, not that it helped them).
Meanwhile Boris Bikers have completed about 15 million journeys in central London with rarely a helmet to be seen and with no head injuries. So it's a virtually non- existent problem you are trying to solve anyway.
So please, less of your "You must because I say so" lecturing and please give those of us who have looked at the published research evidence some credit for doing the work you have not been prepared to do before you pronounced. I repeat health and safety policy must be evidence (not anecdote) based. It's too important to leave to uninformed personal beliefs.
Louise.
In Australia cycling got more dangerous when helmets were made compulsory. This pattern is not unique.
In the Netherlands, which has the best cycling safety record in the world, virtually noone wears a helmet.
In Cambridge research shows that motoorists take less care around a cyclist wearing a helmet (increasing the likelihood of a crash).
The issue isn't even clear cut in protection terms (at least not when a motor vehicle is concerned) - rotational injuries are, I believe, more common and more serious amongst helmet wearers.
There are a tiny number of people killed/injured cycling each year - the benefits of cycling (even without a polystyrene lid) outweigh the risks by around 20:1. We need to deal with the elephant in the room - driving standards are very poor in this country, and we have vehicles in our towns that are far too big.
This incident (and others like it) would be better used to campaing for bus conductors, standing on the open step at the back of the bus they would see the cyclist, warn both them and the driver, and provide customer service.
Tony I have very clear evidence, my father & the brain injured cyclists & their families i got to know through his many months in hospital & rehab & since. There are lots of other road safety issues & debates to be had, but I still have not heard a single justification for not wearing a helmet. If the whole cycling community was pro helmet (and i believe the vast majority are - wearing one that is) then there would be no discussion of a law as it would be the norm anyway. My understanding is evidence is very inconclusive and there are lots of factors which can distort the results. However there us absolutely no doubt that a helmet will provide better protection in an accident than no helmet. Every neurosurgeon i have met is very pro helmet. In the meantime i really worry that all this anti-helmet sentiment from a few cyclists will give people particularly younger cyclists the belief that a helmet doesn't need to be worn. I can't believe anyone aware of the horrific injuries that can arise and the difference that a simple helmet could (not in every case but definitely in some) prevent would chose to gamble with brain injury. I whole heartedly support Headway & the fantastic support they give victims & their families & for increasing awareness of head injury & for calling for cycle helmets to be worn. They more than anyone see the consequences.
Louise. I am a firm believer in evidence based health and safety policy and I would hope you would be too. And if you look at the research evidence for countries that have made cycle helmets mandatory two things happened. The numbers of people cycling fell dramtically, particularly teenagers, and the risk of a head injury stayed the same or went up compared to the prediction that they would fall by 85%. Several of those countries have now repealed their helmet laws and the rest are thinking seriously of doing so with the exception of New Zealand.
If there was evidence there that they did prevent head injuries then it might be worth doing something but there is no evidence they do anything other than put people off cycling.
May as well use this accident to suuggest carrying a rabbit foot.
He was crushed by a bus - no helmet would have made any difference.
Helmet compulsion reduces cyclist safety - individuals should be free to choose. Sometimes I wear a helmet, sometimes I don't, it depends what I am riding and where.
Dave, I am not singling out cyclists. You may have noticed that this poll is specifically about cycle helmets!! Hence that is what i am concentrating on. I am in favour of all sensible measures to help reduce brain injury in all aspects if life eg head protection for workers on roofs, forms of protection for drivers etc. You seem to be using the old " why don't we make people showering wear helmets" kind of argument again which is clearly ridiculous. I still have not seen even 1 sensible justification for NOT wearing a cycling helmet designed to protect cyclists !!! Anyone would think
I was suggesting a mass cull of kittens rather than simply dare to suggest (!!!) that people should use something simple that might just save you from horrific injury !!! I would have thought a very easy sell.
Dave, I am not singling out cyclists. You may have noticed that this poll is specifically about cycle helmets!! Hence that is what i am concentrating on. I am in favour of all sensible measures to help reduce brain injury in all aspects if life eg head protection for workers on roofs, forms of protection for drivers etc. You seem to be using the old " why don't we make people showering wear helmets" kind of argument again which is clearly ridiculous. I still have not seen even 1 sensible justification for NOT wearing a cycling helmet designed to protect cyclists !!! Anyone would think
I was suggesting a mass cull of kittens rather than simply dare to suggest (!!!) that people should use something simple that might just save you from horrific injury !!! I would have thought a very easy sell.
Lets accept some of the statements on here for a moment, then ask why it is necessary to wear a helmet?
Take this prime example:
Your head is hurtling towards the Tarmac. Would you prefer to be wearing a helmet or not. For me a helmet every time. A member of my family has severe head injury as a result of an accident. Anything that can reduce the risk or damage done by head injury should be done to prevent the catastrophic consequences for victims & their families. To me there is no argument against it.
Given that professionally I see many more pedestrians, car drivers and children from playgrounds than I do cyclists, surely all of the above points are relevant to these groups taht are suffering head injuries?
Or is it somehow less painful, less traumatic, or has less effect on the family if the victim is a non-cyclist?
Surely there can be no argument against pedestrian helmets?
So according to Mike I am a do gooder hell bent on preventing brain injury. In that case I am extremely proud to be so, I cannot imagine why anyone would not want to try & reduce brain injury, it is hardly a cause for celebration. When I got into this debate a few days ago I just thought my story might help the cause for helmet wearing (see earlier comments) never did I expect the aggressive backlash from non helmet wearing cyclists here & in other social media. My cyclist friends are nice folk & they wear helmets. None of the no helmet brigade seem to be able to come up with any sensible justification for not wearing one, they just resort to insults or saying ridiculous things like why don't you make people wear helmets in the shower !!! that is because there is no sensible justification for not wearing a simple inexpensive basic piece of equipment designed with your safety in mind. I thought this debate would lead to a wide consensus that helmets should be worn with maybe a law for kids. It is now clear to me from the comments from cyclists like Mike & others that a Law is absolutely necessary as these people need to be protected from themselves. I think the vast majority of the cycling community who do wear & support the wearing of helmets need to see what damage these people are doing to their vocation. if the no hemet brigade ever have the misfortune to know someone who is affected by brain injury I think they will be very regretful of their attitude & I guarantee every time they step onto a cycle again they will be the first to reach for a helmet. To those choosing not to wear a helmet maybe you don't care whether you get brain injury or not, I wonder how your wife, husband, mother, father, children would feel about feeding you and wiping your bum for the rest of your life when you might not even recognise who they are. This could happen just because you don't protect your head. It won't save everyone but absolutely it will save some. go & check out some neuro wards & rehab centres, check out headway's website. Isn't it just a no brainer to wear a helmet?
Over 60% of people admitted to hospital with head injuries have a direct relationship with alcohol - Any do gooders hell bent on preventing head injuries should be calling for drinkers to wear helmets first. Whether its a night out with the boys or a bottle of red with a meal at home, a helmet should always be worn.
In the last 5 years I have fallen off my bike sideways. Each time my helmet has saved me from a head injury. Perhaps if cyclists in town were compelled to use a helmet and this carried a visible number plate on the back it would enable drivers and pedestrians to identify the lawbreaking pests who routinely jump red lights and cycle on pavements. Then, these dangerous cyclists could be prosecuted and removed from our roads. Cyclists who experience head injuries when cycling bareheaded should be denied insurance cover in any form. If they suffer injury as a result of their stupidity they should also suffer the consequences. The anti helmet brigade are a tiny vocal minority. The vast majority of cyclists wear helmets. The fools who don't are usually the ones endangering pedestrians by cycling on the pavement, weaving around dangerously in dense traffic and jumping reds. From now on just look and see what I mean.
Louise & others. Which countries have the lowest cyclist head injury rate in the world? The Netherlands & Denmark. How many wear helmets there? Virtually none. If you want to reduce head injuries then there are many things far better than helmets to look at. In fact there seems to be a direct link between the level of helmet wearing in a country and the level of head injuries that says you are better off without helmets and focussing on other aspects of cycling - motorist behaviour, cycle routes etc.
Isn"t this poll about exactly the sort of point scoring the Times article said the family asked the media and others not to do?
YES helmets should be the law, but just as important is for people to receive cycling training.
People should be aware of and make use of high-visibility equipment as well as road signage..
So long as you are aware of both things, maybe this one topic would not cause such controversy.
I am a cyclist and all too often i see grown ups cycling in full cycling gear on the pavement or running red lights.. Just as i often see how little motorists value the life and safety of a cyclist on London roads.
This is a never ending topic as there is much to be said for/againist cyclists and non-cyclists alike.
If the government did a little bit more to educate the masses, then maybe cyclists would obey traffic lights and leave pavements to pedestrians, whilst motorists wouldnt feel it is their god-given right to ignore and/or direct most of their road-rage at cyclists..
Like i said, a never ending argument, but for now, YES, helmets shuould be made compulsory.
Clive, you make a well reasoned argument & yes I am passionate about this because I have 1st hand experience of the trauma that can ensue. However, I see so many cyclists without helmets and shockingly so many kids. If the cycling community doesn't want a law why don't they do everything they can to promote helmet wearing because if helmet wearing was the norm then there would be no need for a debate on helmet law. I understand you all have a far wider agenda & there are lots of other issues such as road safety that I don't feel I have the expertise to comment on. I'm pretty certain the law won't come in anyway but I IMPLORE cyclists to wear helmets and I IMPLORE them to do everything they can to make helmet wearing the norm in their sport/mode of transport/leisure activity. Please don't push this debate into encouraging people to think it is ok not to wear a helmet or that it won't provide them with any protection. A helmet won't save everyone but it will absolutely save some. When it comes to head injury and brain damage please do not underestimate how horrifically this can affect your fellow cyclists lives. If you all wear helmets I will be happy, there will be no need for a law and at least some people will be saved from brain injury, that is all I want to see. I hope no one has to go through what my family have gone through & continue to on a daily basis.
Clarke 2012 concluded, “This evaluation of NZ’s bicycle helmet law finds it has failed in aspects of promoting cycling, safety, health, accident compensation, environmental issues and civil liberties. It is estimated to cost about 53 lives per year in premature deaths and result in thousands of fines plus legal aspects of discrimination in accident compensation cases.”
.
Erke and Elvik (Norwegian researchers) 2007 stated: “There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand, the increase is estimated to be around 14 per cent.” Clarke, CF, Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle law, NZMJ 10 February 2012, Vol 125 No 1349;
http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/125-1349/5046/
Clarke 2007 provides a detailed report showing how helmet use and legislation has reduced both health and safety in general terms. Many reports are included plus extra information in the appendix.
.
European Cycling Federation 1998 reported , “The evidence from Australia and New Zealand suggests that the wearing of helmets might even make cycling more dangerous.”
Robinson 1996 report, Table 2 shows data for children in NSW. The equivalent number of injuries for pre law level of number of cyclists increased from 1310 (384 head + 926 other injuries) in 1991 to 2083 (488 head + 1595 other injuries) in 1993. For NSW the helmet laws discouraged cycling and reduced children’s safety. The increased injury rate was 59%, from 1310 to 2083.
.
The UK’s National Children’s Bureau (NCB) provided a detailed review of cycling and helmets in 2005, stating that the case for helmets is far from sound and the benefits of helmets need further investigation before even a policy supporting promotion can be unequivocally supported.
.
Curnow 2008 concluded, “Compulsion to wear a bicycle helmet is detrimental to public health in Australia but, to maintain the status quo, authorities have obfuscated evidence that shows this” and “Cycling declined after the helmet laws by an estimated 40% for children, with loss of the benefits of the exercise for health. As serious casualties declined by less, the risks to cyclists, including death by head injury, increased.” A link to the paper is at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18481926
.
In tests on helmets by the consumer magazine Which?, they reported that only 9 from 24 passed all tests and therefore even new helmets may not be reliable.
.
Talk to Clarke for detailed information.
Refs
Clarke, CF, Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle law, NZMJ 10 February 2012, Vol 125 No 1349;
http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/125-1349/5046/
Erke A, Elvik R, Making Vision Zero real: Preventing Pedestrian Accidents And Making Them Less Severe, Oslo June 2007. page 28 http://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikasj ... 7-nett.pdf
Clarke CF, The Case against bicycle helmets and legislation, VeloCity Munich, 2007. http://www.ta.org.br/site/Banco/7manuais/colin_clarke_cycle_helmet.pdf
IMPROVING BICYCLE SAFETY without making helmet-use compulsory
http://www.ecf.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/060131_ECF_Helmet_brochure_13.pdf
Robinson DL; Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws; Accid Anal Prev, 28, 4: p 463-475, 1996 http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-head-injuries.pdf
Gill T, Cycling and Children and Young People, A review, National Children’s Bureau, 2005. http://www.cycle-helmets.com/cyclingreport_timgill.pdf
Curnow WJ. Bicycle helmets and public health in Australia, Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 2008 Apr;19(1):10-15.
Which?; Get a head start, p 28 – 31, October, UK, 1998.
Louise - Thanks for sharing your story. It's clear to see why you feel so strongly about this issue.
However - Laws and public guidance should be based on facts and science, not on emotion - no matter how powerful those emotions are. It's a shame to read your words "I am not interested in statistics". Because it's statistics that count.
You say "Everyone is entitled to their view" but then you also say "a helmet law is essential". Would it be fair to point out that this is a stark contradiction? How can I have my own view if you would like the government to enforce your view upon me?
Every day, around 6 or 7 people are killed on UK roads, in cars, and around half of those die of head injuries. Seatbelts didn't help them, so why stop there? Maybe helmets would help. Should we campaign for car occupants to wear helmets? Why not? As you say: "If it saves 1 person's life etc. etc."
The fact appears that for every head injury (potentially, possibly, unprovably) prevented by mandatory helmet laws, there is a much greater damage done to public health through greater inactivity, more cars on our roads, fewer children playing outside, more obesity and more cost to the health service. This isn't guesswork - studies have indicated this effect in Australia and Canada.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17032-bicycle-helmet-laws-could-do-more-harm-than-good.html
Mandatory helmets will not help the situation. They will make it worse. let's talk instead about things that will help: tougher penalties for bad driving, better road layouts, different attitudes among road users, more easily available cycle training.
At the moment, people are given the impression that purely by putting a helmet on their heads, they have done their bit. This is a dangerous assumption.
As I say, I'm not unsympathetic towards your situation (two people I know have suffered similar-sounding injuries), but I don't believe the best response from us is to reach for an over-simplified and ultimately damaging idea, just for the feeling that we're 'doing something'.
Mike am so sorry to hear your story but so glad you are speaking out. Anyone who has experience of severe head trauma within their family & is aware of the devastating impact it has not just to the victim but for the family & carers around them. Can you imagine coming out of a coma & not recognising your family, not being able to feed yourself, thinking you are 21 when actually you are 65, spending months in hospital & rehab & leaving with a totally different personality incapable of making decisions, totally dependant on others for everything. Every brain injury story is different but every 1 is life changing & not in a good way. Any cyclist who had any kind of first hand experience of someone close to them with brain injury would NEVER even contemplate not wearing a helmet. You get 1 brain, it is precsious. Why would you not take reasonable sensible precautions like something as simple as wearing a helmet. I am truly shocked that anyone would be against this and the fact that they are convinces me even more that a helmet law is essential to protect people who are not aware of the risks. That any parent would allow their child to cycle without a helmet is shocking. I wear a seatbelt when driving, I wear a helmet on a bike & I am very aware of how fragile our heads are. Everyone is entitled to their view, I am not interested in staristics. If my contribution to this debate makes 1 more person wear a helmet & potentially prevent a head injury I would be delighted and I'm sure my Dad would too if he was capable of understanding what I am saying, unfortunately a very intelligent man who no longer knows what day of the week it is or even what year.
Wear a Helmet already! I hit a pot hole 10 years ago crashed and now i am epileptic from the brain injury.I used to race motorcycles and took no hurt of course wearing a Helmet.I crashed lots of times and never even marked the paint.I had the same cock sure line as most people seem to have.Mine was i can't get hurt on a push bike.How wrong i was.Would you drive a car without a seatbelt?Just wear one its better than going through the things me and my family have been forced to trust me.
@Louise - You are entitled to your opinion just as we all are. What is wrong with your attitude is that you want to impose your beliefs on others by creating a new law. No one is wanting to stop you wearing a helmet. Others not wearing a helmet does not affect your life, so why is it so important to you to take away other people choice to know what is best for them.
There is positively no prove anywhere that a helmet has saved one single persons life. Despite the fact that some will say "If I hadn't been wearing a helmet I would be dead". They don't know that. That is only their opinion.
Children fall off of climbing frames, off of trampolines, and when my young Granddaughter did gymnastics she didn't wear a helmet. Ill fitting and improperly wearing of a helmet by a child is far more dangerous than them not wearing a helmet. But once again, it needs to be a parent's choice, and the parent must be prepared to know the facts and get their child fitted properly and at all times know their child is wearing it correctly.
For some reason the ill informed seem to think that a cycle helmet will at all times save a head injury and that it will save someone from death when being hit by a motorised vehicle. It wont.
If you, and others genuinely worry about other peoples lives when cycling, you would not be screaming for mandatory helmet wearing, but would instead be shouting from the roof tops for segregated cycling. That is the only thing that will save cyclists lives, as has been proven in other European countries such as The Netherlands. The ordinary person cycling there never wears a helmet because with their infrastructure cycling is as safe as walking.
Mandatory helmets has been proven to raise the percentage of cycling deaths, as in Australia. Mandatory helmets mean less people cycling. The fewer cyclists on the road, the more danger they are in. Many countries that tried mandatory helmets have now reversed that law because of this.
Can you honestly say you have actually read up on articles from all corners on the pros and cons? By reading your post I would bet not.
But the question really isn't whether one should wear a helmet or not, but whether it is right to enforce and criminalise people by taking away their right of choice.
I personally think that there is a better argument for making smoking illegal than for making cycle helmets mandatory, and I am a smoker. Likewise for alcohol. Both smoking and alcohol kill thousands a year, yet the taking away the choice of either of those has not ever been considered, and quite rightly so.
Where does it all stop? Should it be law to wear a face mask in a flu epidemic. Should it be law to wear a life jacket on a cruise ship? After all one might fall over board when in ones cups. Should it be law to not be over weight, obesity kills the individual. The discussion on cycle helmets is basically ridiculous. It's not law in this country and I very, very much doubt it ever will be.
Instead let's concentrate on fighting to separate cyclists from motorists, just as pedestrians are separated from motorists by being given pavements.
Sadly in all the news reports about Dan's death and all the comments about people saying that helmets should be compulsory seem to have overlooked the fact the Dan was wearing a helmet when he was killed. He always wore one.
There is no good evidence that making bareheaded cycling a criminal offence leads to reduced head injuries for those who continue to cycle. This is because cycling is not particularly dangerous, and a piece of foam on your head is not particularly effective.
If people like Louise are really "upset and sickened" by the sight of me riding bareheaded (as I have for 40 years) then they need to get out more. It's a dysfunctional society that takes that kind of sentiment and turns it into laws.
Furthermore, if "Anything that can reduce the risk or damage done by head injury should be done", then we should focus on the major sources of head injury - helmets in cars, helmets in the shower, helmets in bed. Cycling is a tiny contributor to the stats.
Your head is hurtling towards the Tarmac. Would you prefer to be wearing a helmet or not. For me a helmet every time. A member of my family has severe head injury as a result of an accident. Anything that can reduce the risk or damage done by head injury should be done to prevent the catastrophic consequences for victims & their families. To me there is no argument against it, every cyclist should wear one & especially children. I am upset & sickened by the number of cyclists who dont wear helmets and gamble with brain injury. Brain injury is life changing in a horrifically cruel way. I would not dream of getting on my bike without one. Yes there are other road safety issues but I while heatedly support legal enforcement and if that saves 1 person from severe brain injury then it is worth it. I truly hope Headway, an amazing charity are successful in their campaign.
This is a distraction from the issue of road safety. Car culture has gotten out of hand so that now motorists think the own the road and it's acceptable blame the victim rather than the perpetrator. More pedestrians are killed by cars than cyclists, so maybe we should also be wearing body armour when walking around? Please spend money on functional cycle infrastructure and focus on reducing car-dependence. Cities and streets need to be safe for everyone. Introducing strict liability would do more for the survival chances of cyclists and pedestrians than a law enforcing polystyrene hat wearing.
I am not against helmets. There is a time and a place for them in the cycling world, but it should remain a choice.
If helmets became mandatory one of two things would happen to me personally.
1) I would get a criminal record because I will not wear a helmet.
2) I would give up cycling.
The reason for this is because I am a rural rider. I do not weave in and out of traffic as city riders have to do. I ride steady and slowly, I do not race. When one is riding with a helmet in rural areas motorists do not give as wide an over taking space. For some reason sub-consciously they feel a cyclist is less invulnerable when they have a helmet on, which of course isn't true because even helmet manufacturers say that a helmet will only give some protection if a cyclist falls off their bike and hits the crown of their head. It will not give protection with any form of collision with a vehicle.
I personally feel I am safer without a helmet than with.
To legally require cyclists to wear helmets would lead to more deaths, not to fewer. The health benefits from cycling are far bigger than the health risks associated with cycle accidents. Even in a city like London. And a helmet law would decrease the number of cycling, as has been seen in Australia and other countries that have introduced such laws.
Fewer cyclists also mean increased risks for those who continue to ride. There is a "safety in numbers", meaning that when more people ride, car drivers become more observant on cyclists and the rate of severe accidents decreases.
Thus, a law on the compulsory use of helmets would be a serious setback for public health, as it would discourage people from cycling. This does not mean that you should not wear a helmet, if you like to. Myself, I almost always wear my helmet when riding. It might not save my life if I am hit by a bus, but there are several kinds of accidents when a helmet might give that extra protection that makes the difference between a small bruce and a serious injury.
Cycle Helmets are effectively useless against life-threatening impacts. It is nothing short of scandalous that they are promoted more than any other cycle safety intervention.
It is also scandalous that drivers can turn into roadspace that they cannot see to be empty, and not be found guilty of dangerous driving. Drivers need to be accountable for the danger their heavy machinery imposes on others.
This incident is so desperately sad for someone who had chosen to make a healthier, more sustainable, better personal travel choice. Apparently he'd only been commuter cycling for a week; was he new or returning to cycling ... did he understand the risks and dangers, and how to manage those?
I think this tragic incident demonstrates the importance of promoting cycle training for people new to / returning to cycling, not just but especially for those commuting in busy urban areas. This teaches riders about how to ride safely, avoid the dangers that kill or seriously injure riders, proper road positioning and how to negotiate junctions, roundabouts etc to help keep you and other road users and pedestrians safe. Much good work is ongoing in this area, including where I live in Manchester. It may be this poor chap was not properly aware of the risk and danger of the manouvre he apparently made - attempting to pass a bus on the inside before or during its left turn.
The emphasis must be on cycle training, not on helmets. There are far more killed or seriously injured through crushing injuries than head injuries, where a helmet is irrelevant. Cycle training might prevent you having the incident in the first place.
Further, enforcing the wearing of helmets would only serve to deflect responsibility for safety and risk, and blame, onto bike riders and away from other road users and pedestrians. If it was enforced, in the event of an injury or death of a cyclist, some people would use the rule to fully attribute blame on the cyclist. "He/she would be alive today, if they had been wearing a helmet!' etc. Even if the injuries sustained were irrelevant to helmet wearing.
I myself always chose to wear a helmet though, in case I fall off, and it might offer some protection in the event of an accident and my head being struck.
I would happily support a ban and enforcement of wearing headphones while cycling (depriving yourself of one of your senses while undertaking an activity that involves risk, to yourself and other people, though low risk - is complete madness and irresponsibility).
Also, as cycling levels grow, there will be a need for enforcement against illegal riding on the footway. A growing problem, and danger for pedestrians.
Many more people sustain head injuries as pedestrians and car occupants than as cyclists, yet there is no serious suggestion that they have to wear helmets. Professor John Adams demonstrated the 'risk-compensation' effect (why compulsory seat-belts displaced, rather than cut road casualties). Wearing protective or high-visibility clothing indicates you are taking risks. We want to make cycling a normal everyday activity, so it should be possible mainly in normal, everyday clothing. In Northern Europe this has been achieved by designing public space for all road users to share safely, and by putting the onus on the driver of the potentially lethal vehicle to prove his/her innocence in the case of harm from collision. The result is much higher rates of cycling, less obesity, and longer, happier lives.
I remember well the 1960's (I am not Keith Richards) when I was a motor scooter rider, before helmets became compulsory. Sometimes I wore a helmet, sometimes I didn't and when I didn't I was a much more careful rider. I came off my scooter several times when I was wearing my helmet but never when I wasn't.
NO
The priority is to make the vehicle driver accountable for any cycling incident and/or injury. Then watch the injury incidents drop.
A helmet will put the onus on the innocent cyclist and not reduce incidents & injuries.
Rule #1 when you are cycling, NEVER go inside any bus/truck/car which is about to turn. Size does matter.
ABSOLUTELY NO !
I certainly don't disagree with anyone that chooses to wear a helmet. It is irrelevant what 'cyclists themselves' think in terms of coming to the correct conclusion about whether it is safer and whether to include it in legislation. Anecdotal reasoning from cyclists, e.g. " If I hadn't been wearing my helmet it would have been my skull that cracked and it saved my life" is often wrong, and in any case irrelevant, as is anecdotal reasoning from doctors, e.g " I see a lot of head injuries and.... blah blah " . There is also anecdotal evidence suggest the opposite e.g. films showing the reduced distance car drivers leave cyclists who are wearing compared with those who are. Now, of course this alone is not enough to determine whether you are indeed less safe wearing a helmet. Far from it. But it may provide one reason for the offset in the statistics related to accident rates/head injuries, which DO NOT DECREASE with increased use of helmets ..... Given there is no REAL evidence that wearing a helmet is safer, it is madness to make it compulsory. Especially when there are so many drawbacks: It would unfairly promote commuting by bike as a dangerous activity and also as a hassle. This is very damaging to the health of the nation, and to the environment.. And it is yet another thing that shifts the emphasis of safety onto the cyclist rather than the driver when most serious accidents are the fault of the driver... Already, without such legislation in place, you see cases form insurance companies where they try to avoid the compensation payout for death by dangerous driving on the grounds that cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet!!! It is very dangerous for cyclists/people to promote the compulsory use of helmets. Shame on Wiggins.. Not sure why he was asked though...
I personally think that in a built up area and in traffic a helmet should be worn. In the case of Dan Harris - we're not informed as to whether he was or wasn't wearing a helmet. IF he was then even that didn't help last night- it was a bus! If he was not- then it's stupid as he was travelling around London, which is a very, very dangerous place for cyclists.
In this case I think also that Dan Harris wasn't being the smartest cyclist as there was another next to him who said that he held back upon seeing that the bus was turning left and said that Mr Harris was in it's blind spot. The fact that he'd only been cycling for a week could explain this accident in that he wasn't very traffic savvy?
Don't get me wrong I think that this is a tragic accident and this accident and ensuing news stories should not discourage people from venturing out on a bike. BUT please be aware and do realise that you're tiny both visually and in actuality when drawn alongside a large vehicle.
The more people who get onto a bicycle and ride around in towns etc. the more aware motorised traffic will be. Hopefully?
When I cycle I ride on quiet roads and cycle paths. IF I have to travel on roads alone, rather than in a group, then a helmet is worn.