Cyclists totally opposed to compulsory wearing of helmets

by R. Isible Tue May 18, 2004 20:44

Steve wrote: "but I doubt it is part of some sinster scheme to rid the road of cyclists."
Well, the promottion of compulsory helmet usage may not be, but it does go hand in glove with the attempt to degrade the vehicle status of bicycles and force them into special "bike lanes". I have no doubt that there are concerned safety wonks that would like to ban bicycling, skateboarding and rollerblading in order to save us from ourselves. These people happen to act as cat's paw's for the pro-motoring lobby which _does_ want to see cyclists off the roads.
I'd take the NSC much more seriously if they were to also advocate reducing automobile speeds to a maximum of 25 km/h in highly populated areas.
If they are concerned about head injuries this would do a lot to reduce them. There are stories every week about some dolt in charge of a car that smashes themself and other people. It's fairly obvious that the car-driving population is causing the majority of deaths and maimings and that irrespective of the excellence of most motorists there's a measurable negative affect of current motoring laws.

" Poor research and justification of existence come to mind."
This is undoubtedly an element, but don't neglect the possibility that although the NSC may be incompetent they are a poltically steered body that exist in a nexus of other political interests. No, I'm not saying that some motoring interests turn up with brown-paper bags: I'm saying that the loud shouting of organisations like AA Roadwatch exercises a disproportionate influence on regulators through the media.

by Rory Tue May 18, 2004 20:31

Being a Dubliner who didn't see much of the country until the last few years, I used to read the paper and think 'another pedestrian dead, why weren't they looking where they were going?' Then I saw the country roads...it really is horrible, pedestrians are prisoners in their towns or villages...HGVs that leave not an inch between themselves and the hedgerows...makes me sick.

by steve Tue May 18, 2004 16:36

but I doubt it is part of some sinster scheme to rid the road of cyclists. Poor research and justification of existence come to mind.

Why be so against helmets when you have no problem with tin-foil hats :)

http://web.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/Cycle+helmets+-+%28m%29%5CScience+-+Cycle+helmets+-+Recommendations?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,helmet

http://web.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/CyclingPU?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,helmet

by Woz Tue May 18, 2004 15:58

I believe the National Slaughter Council does in fact want to reduce death and injury to cyclists. They intend to achieve this by eliminating cycling altogether.

The NSC's problem is it is supposed to reducing death and injury, but has a vested interest in increasing the number of motor vehicles on the road. How do you get out of that? Find a scapegoat.

They have made no effort at all to reduce the risk posed by motor vehicles to cyclists - eg by increasing motorists' awareness, limiting urban HGV's, promoting public transport etc. Instead they want to penalise the cycling community for a danger presented by others. They'll be banning hedgehogs next.

They really are daft buggers. Infamously, they noted that children cycling to school are at risk from motor vehicles (true enough). But rather than tackling the motorists in any way, they recommending banning kids cycling. Then the kids get driven to school and the problems worse.

The more cyclists are on the road, the safer each individual cyclist is, so compulsory helmets would directly endanger me.

by Ray Tue May 18, 2004 11:27

Just wondering - when you say car helmets would save more lives than bike helmets, how is this affected by seat belts? If people are wearing seat belts, would a car helmet make them any safer?

by P! - None Tue May 18, 2004 10:47

Kokomero, you need to just re-read point 1 in the original post (assuming this is a true reflection of the contents fo the referenced report - I haven't read it). This report is being used by the NSC as an argument for bringing in compulsory helmets. It appears however that the report refers to one portion of a wider road safety campaign where the increased safety may not be related to the wearing of helmets. The study did not set out to quantify the increased safety that might be achieved by wearing helmets. The original poster is making the point that the increased safety arose from other aspects of the safety campaign.

The imposition of helmets has to be balanced against its likely contribution to people deciding to give up or reduce their cycling activitiers.

Finally, this is part of an ongoing campaign to get cyclists off the road. If safety was the primary motivation then the mandatory wearing of helmets by all car occupants would be far more sensible since you are at greater risk of a head injury every time you travel by car compared to travelling by bicyclce. Follow the logic of that and if you aren't prepared to do that then don't criticise cyclists if they don't want to wear helmets either.

BTW I do wear one and follow the link to more info at: www.cyclehelmets.org

by kokomero Tue May 18, 2004 10:07

how helmets have a negative effect on cyclist safety.

By your own account 60% of the cyclists had a 48% reduction in the number of head injuries, this means there was an approximate 30% reduction in terms of head injuries as calculated on the 100% of cyclists pre the introduction of helmets.

Are you suggesting that a 30% reduction in head injuries is a bad thing?

Undoubtedly a percentage of these injuries would have resulted in death or permanent disability are you against that?

Given that you seem to want to roll the clock back would you be in favour of the abolition of compulsory seat-belts, or the re-introduction of corporal punishment in schools?