All About The Bike RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


All About the Bike

The Great Helmet Debate


IT HAS been reported in the news today that the Channel Islands have just made it compulsory for children to wear cycle helmets; the question being asked is whether this should apply to the rest of the UK.

This is a topic that gets discussed on a regular basis and, as I have stated in the past, I choose to wear a cycle helmet. However, I also defend the rights of those who choose not to wear one. In the event that you want to come out on a ride with me then I expect that you will wear a helmet but what you do on your own is up to you. There are plenty of studies that will tell you that wearing a helmet is a good thing and also plenty of studies that will tell you that there is no benefit in wearing one, so I'm not going to get into that debate again.

Helmet wearing has been compulsory in New Zealand for some years and one of the effects when it was introduced was to reduce the number of cyclists. This is my biggest concern; we shouldn't introduce a law that discourages people from cycling. My daughter is four years old and she has always worn a helmet when cycling, it's now one of the first things she reaches for when getting ready to go out on her bike. However, at four years old she doesn't care what other people think about how she looks - she's started wearing odd socks in the last week! - but when she reaches an age where it's important to be "cool" then maybe the helmet won't be something she wants to wear.

There was a very interesting letter in Saturday's Echo submitted by Steve Evans - read it here . He makes a good point about how intimidating it can be to cycle on the road surrounded by large vehicles whizzing past only inches away. This is why I choose to avoid busy roads, I don't like the way lots of motorists will deliberately use their vehicle as a weapon and barge their way through without considering the potential consequences just to save themselves a couple of seconds.

Steve's final point about using pavements is a very contentious one and even the national cycling bodies are very against shared use paths and cycleways. Any solution has to be a compromise and until we have more understanding in society and general respect for your fellow man (or woman) then the debates and battles will rage on!

Finally for this week, a response to a question from Mikey2gorgeous - yes I do have some statistics regarding incidents along the seafront.

Without getting too specific, during July and August in 2009 there were 875 recorded incidents in one particular spot along the seafront during the cycling restrictions. Out of these 70% of cyclists stopped when asked and caused no issue. So that's about 15 cyclists per day being stopped, but unfortunately I don't have figures for the total number using the seafront.

Comments(7)

mikey2gorgeous says...
11:36am Mon 15 Mar 10

Hi David - recent research has shown that drivers will overtake closer to helmeted cyclists! This is part of the risk-compensation problem that plagues pedestrians and cyclists.
.
Once again - the 'blame' for being hit by a car is being shifted onto vulnerable road users. Nothing is being done by the Jersey authorities to tackle the problem at source. Most of this road safety 'advice' comes from organisations sponsored by the car & road building lobbies.
.
I urge anyone interested in cycling safety to read about the Road Danger Reduction Forum (http://www.rdrf.org
/) which sets about debunking the claims made by these lobbies and their puppet (ROSPA).
.
The government has tasked local authorities with increasing the number of journeys by public & sustainable transports. Helmet compulsion will only get in the way of this. It's not going to save lives - in fact it will end up killing more people.
.
On your response to my question - When I asked for figures about the prom, I was referring to the number of actual recorded injuries (I'll presume for now there have been no deaths!). There is never any balance to these stories from the Echo. How dangerous IS prom cycling? Why are we spending £££s on policing something that doesn't cause a problem?

nodder1 says...
7:00am Tue 16 Mar 10

does seem a bit strange dosent it?,
we wear helmets, in case of potential impact by vehicles,
we wear hi-viz to avoid potential collisions,
where is the responsibility with that.

new campaign could be,
"no helmet, no hi-viz"

Dorset_Born_n_Bread ! says...
11:35am Tue 16 Mar 10

Being an experienced and 'safe' cyclist in Bournemouth and Poole for many years after TWO collisions with vehicles (on my way to work) ....
Both I assumed not being my fault because ...1) being already ON a roundabout at Horsehoe Common heading forward and a car pulled out in front of me knocking me off from his driver wing/doorside because he pulled out seeing a space behind me and not the cyclist! More damage to his vehicle than me, thanks to my HELMET!

2) Before the Frizzel lights heading straight onto Westbourne a car tries to navigate past me to wessex way across the solid white line again knocking me onto his hood of the car again if it were not for my HELMET I would have had more serious injuries.

I would like to point out at both times (rush hour traffic) I wanted to stay and wait for the police to report the incident. ON BOTH OCCAISIONS the drivers were happy to see I could stand up and got back into the car and drove off!

Helmets should be made compulsory to all ROAD USING CYCLISTS and strongly advised to every parent to get thier child a good one too! If they value a childs good health! Accidents will happen, but they happen more in the daily commute to work also! Drivers cant always be so attentive to the road! After all, they will be late for work, doing the make up, changing the CD, answering the phone, shouting at the kids in the back, trying to find the cigarette lighter or worse the lighted cigarette they just dropped! But god forbid, its not work a life of a cyclist. Just as the price of a safety helmet is every penny worth the life of a child! Good helmets are expensive, but what is a life worth?

ps
I live in Finland now where there are many many more cycle safe paths away from traffic, but people still wear Helmets it is meant to be compusory here but the police do not uphold this rule its too difficult and time consuming. Who would bother to uphold this compulsory law and at what cost if they dont even bother with stupid people cycling at night with no lights on the pavement?

(also : sometimes un-informed foreign students who in thier own country its safer and the cyclists are more abundent)

Lewcee says...
4:24pm Tue 16 Mar 10

Compulsory Helmets, compulsory "fully comp" insurance, compulsory lights on at all times....regardless of age of rider or whether on the road/pavement/cycle path etc. Law to include skateboards/roller blades? skates, etc., etc.. Oh, and no mobile phones, "plug in music", smoking, eating, or talking. Pedestrians, push-chairs, wheelchairs and "invalid mobiles" to be included after the next election. (All the above to apply). New legislation to be enected to include anyone in their own homes or gardens. (Signed) George Orwell, Aka Elf of Safety.

Lewcee says...
4:28pm Tue 16 Mar 10

Oh. And if you EVER ask me to complete a "Survey" (on every blooming page) I shall personally stick my mouse where the sun doesn't shine on the Editor's er... bike.

mikey2gorgeous says...
9:14am Wed 17 Mar 10

@Dorset_B&B: No-one is saying you shouldn't have the CHOICE to wear a helmet. I don't wish to play down the accidents you had but when we're talking about saving lives, helmets are of little use:
1. The accidents you describe were 'minor'. In the sort of accident that kills or seriously injures (where there would be other injuries too like broken bones), most brain damage is caused by rotational injury which helmets do nothing to mitigate and may even exacerbate. The helmets available are only designed to deal with slow (<12mph) impacts - not dangerous RTAs.
2. Most cycling groups will agree - you can get more people cycling OR more people wearing helmets - it's impossible to achieve both. We desparately need to get more people on bikes. The 'Safety in numbers' effect means that cycling is safer the higher the usage. Helmet promotion & compulsion reduces usage. In Aus, cycling numbers dropped by 30-40% after helmet laws - head injury rates dropped only 16%. Australia has now overtaken USA as the world's most obese nation.
3. Why do we put up with dangerous car use? Our society has been shattered by roads. OAPs are afraid to go out. Accident rates have only fallen because so few people walk & cycle now. In the 70s, 80% or 7-8 yr olds got themselves to school. Now it's nearer 5%. We don't even walk past our neighbours' houses anymore. Then we wonder why the streets have feral youths roaming them.
4. While it would be nice to have lot of segregated paths - the fact we haven't invested in them over the last 40 years means they will never be substantial here.
.
We MUST deal with the danger at source. We MUST stop cars being so dangerous.

peter hurt says...
1:46am Fri 19 Mar 10

sorry mikey2, we have not overtaken the yanks as the most obese (yet) we are still second, otherwise you're spot on.
P.S.don't you all hate the "hood" and "trunk" in place of bonnet and boot? We can't even buy biscuits now, they're all cookies, and cyclists ride on the sidewalk, not footpath. Resist!


Most popular






Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses