Should The Use Of Bicycle Helmets Be Made A Legal Requirement In The UK?

The cost of motor vehicle accidents is borne by all of us. As I have said, it is the single common activity we do where we have the power to kill others and ourselves in large numbers. We are also terrible at assessing risks. These things combine to make this an area where legislation (seatbelts, speed limits, drink-driving laws, vehicle crash-worthiness etc.) can bring about significant benefits that might go un-realised if it was simply left to individual decisions.

My lack of support for helmet laws is not motivated by a "big brother" paranoia, but because I belive that helmet laws discourage cycling. I don't like things/people that discourage cycling. But I like cycling helmets.

Winky, I totally agree with you. The cost to the public purse of a road death exceeds £1m in the UK, and to suggest that the wearing of seat belts should not be compulsory is reckless, foolish or both.

I'm always popping out on my bike to the shops, and never wear a helmet. As you say, if a helmet was compulsory, I'd probably just walk instead, or maybe take the car if time was short.

Couldn't agree more.

I think the debate about motorists, speed limits etc is a bit of a distraction from the original question. The use of a cycle helmet reduces the chances of serious head injury if the cyclist falls off. The cause of the fall might have nothing to do with a motor vehicle. Hitting a pot hole can do it and there are plenty of those around.  It's just common sense to where a helmet.  

Dear MDS,

It is hard to argue that if you ride a cycle in such a way that you are likely to fall off then wearing a helmet is arguably a sensible safety precaution. In your opinion is that enough reason to legislate to make it compulsory?

ATB from George

IMO the wearing of a helmet whilst cycling should be a legal requirement.

I commute daily in central London and at peak times the sheer volume of cyclists having to 'mix it' with vehicular traffic and other cyclists is frankly beyond the safe capacity of the road network.

At risk of targeting stereotypes, one of the most dangerous/ endangered sub-species, is the fixed/ single speed bike rider (often couriers weaving through traffic and running red lights).  They feel compelled to dress 'just so', the style uniform more often than not including a cloth cycle hat (the type often now worn under a helmet).  Plain placebo in my opinion.  As we move into summer, the fair weathered brigade take to the highways, and very welcome they are too.  Except that there is a kind of 6th sense you develop when riding in London and it takes time to learn spatial awareness of what's going on around you.  The fair weathered brigade don't have this and tend to be much more unpredictable.  They need helmets as does anyone cycling within their zone of influence!

I have come off my bike a couple of times involving my head smacking the ground.  Both times I was saved by my helmet.  Both times they were binned afterwards due to impact damage.  The first time my rear wheel whipped from under me with no notice (road was wet and I suspect oil was to blame). The second time a friend was day dreaming and didn't hear my shout to slow - he hit another friend who banged into the back of me and flipped me over!

Riding through town at peak times without wearing a helmet is pure madness IMO.  The dangers from other road users and simple 'user error' is very high and the consequences of either being run over or, I suspect more likely, your head coming into contact with a kerb stone beyond most people's contemplation.  Sadly it happens all too often.

One of the other consequences arising from an accident involving cyclists with no helmet (and I admit to guessing here) is the impact on the other parties involved.  If you were a driver and an accident resulted in a severe head injury to a cyclist, I don't imagine for one moment that you would find any comfort in the short, medium or long term from the knowledge that had they been wearing a helmet, they may have been okay.  Irrespective of whose actions were deemed to be the cause of the accident.  This is not just a point of sympathy for others, but potential long term mental health problems.

I was out for a long-ish ride today and we stopped for coffee in a bike shop.  They had some fantastic old photos including one from 1964 with two riders looking very dapper - one was wearing a proper hat from the period!  Looked fantastic for all you fashion gurus, but that was then and this is now.

As I mentioned at the beginning, the wearing of a helmet should, IMO, be a legal requirement.

Peter

No, George. As I said earlier in this thread, I don't think legislation is appropriate here.  Disproportionate, 'nanny state', and impractical for the already hard-press police to enforce.  I'd be in favour of education and awareness campaigns.  Fining people (civil action) or worse, prosecuting them (criminal) just doesn't feel right to me.

MDS 

Would that be push-bikes or motorbikes? I count a moped as a motorised bike, so a motorbike for the sake of the question.

ATB from George

Sorry Adam I don't agree with you. Imaginable? No, more than likely probable. 

Steve

Bear in mind as we fearfully spiral down into a fully risk-eliminated boring existence that a self selection bias exists. The kids that were killed in motor vehicle accidents due to not wearing proper restraints didn't grow up to be posting on this board.

Sentiments like "When we were growing up we never worried about seatbelts, drink-driving, helmets, guard rails, etc etc...and we're just fine" will only ever be uttered by those for whom it was indeed, "just fine".

Adam

Independence Day was on tv last evening and perhaps they set out part of the future - each of the alien fighter craft had their own protective force field.  Might not be too long before we can all have our own version of this (without the weaponry!) and we can revert to wearing whatever hat takes our fancy!

Incidentally, I don't condone the blanket introduction of a new law with money grabbing councils/ police viewing it as a new revenue source whilst central government introduce more stringent funding cuts!  I'd much rather see a 'summer of love' with the Wombles targeting areas for a week and stopping people to advise them of the implications of no helmet, should they decide to persist. This was done recently in my area to actively discourage cyclists from running red lights first thing in the morning, no fines were handed out, and I think it was pretty effective.  More about trying to bring about a behaviour change than penalising them.

Peter

Winky,

I don't think Adam or myself were commenting specifically about seat belts or cycle helmets per se but the kind of nanny state Britain is becoming.

I know this is only anecdotal but I wouldn't be here today if the seatbelt law had been in force when I had a serious accident in my car, back in the '70s, which was hit by another car and rolled crashing into a concrete pillar. The engine was pushed back into the main compartment but I was luckily thrown from the car with relatively minor injuries. In addition, from memory, the death rate of motorcyclists in States with no helmet laws is less than in those that introduced it. This was some years ago and I haven't re-referenced it.

Today I saw something quite disturbing. A mother was cycling on a busy road, wearing a helmet, with a child who was less than a year old sat in a basket on the front of the bike with no restraint or helmet. Now I feel that the choice of wearing a helmet should be down to the cyclist but there should be some sort of rule regarding the transport of very young children in that manner.

Steve

Steve

In a similar vein I feel that drivers shouldn't wear seat belts but that every car should be fitted with a steel spike fixed centrally to the steering console. Drivers would be certainly drive in a more careful manner then.

George, its no more than a simple concept of mine (nobody else will agree with me on this point, so you will be in good company when you express your outrage !)  that people who knowingly and beligerantly do something without taking simple, recognised and effective safety precautions, shouldn't expect the rest of society to spend their time assisting with the recovery of said people. Society (including myself) WILL assist with their recovery, but as I said, I don't think such people should expect it - hence the headline note.

Please feel free to express your outrage, but remember, I am merely expressing a point of view, amd I am not proposing that we deliberately shoot you when you next fall of your bike and hurt your head !

....so do I........the paramedics might otherwise dither in their confusion...........

I am not proposing that we deliberately shoot you

Well that is good news then!

Or else I'd have to make sure I avoided ever meeting you!

Dear Don,

Your idea is simplistic to a fault. If you start down your road, then you would legally ban contact sports, skying, mountaineering, parachuting, in fact any physical activity that carries any risk of major injury, or even death.

I hope never to live long enough to see this over-protected, sanitised world. 

ATB from George

No, no George, youv'e got it all wrong.

I am not proposing that we ban cycling. Nor am I proposing that we ban any or all the activities you have listed. For example, sky-divers usually wear a second parachute. Skiers usually wear a helmet.

I am simply talking about people who knowingly and beligerantly demand their "right" to make their own choices in a society that will have to share the (almost inevitable) consequences.

Perhaps George has swallowed the Daily Mail. Either that or he's being deliberately obtuse.

I believe the future is "carcling". Everyone is a winner"

As a non-driver I can agree with this.

It's worth reading, briefly, about risk compensation. http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/7/2/89.full seems short and to the (two) points.

As a motorcyclist I knew the 'mark to mind' was Volvo. Driven by the often incompetent their aura of occupant safety gave confidence to those who might possibly have relied on public transport. Very much a reverse Darwin Effect.

The spike I like.

(... and, yes George, I know you drove a Volvo)

I did, and in twelve years never bumped anything with it! I was terrified of its potential capacity for mayhem!

Like a domesticated Panza!

ATB from George

We had a very similar debate about wearing helmets for skiing - while on the coach from Grenoble to Val d'Isere earlier this year.

I still believe that debate normally reinforces opinion - and there's nothing that you can say that will change my view on that 

 I also saw something disturbing today. A mother strapped her helpless infant into a steel cage and then piloted it along a strip of bitumen at a high speed and in complete disregard of the legislated speed limit. She then rolled through numerous stop signs designed to prevent accidents. She did this whilst distracted by drinking coffee, checking make-up, telephone calls and texts; and by her habit of staring at her child in the rear view mirror - just to "check that they were OK".

All the more disturbing was that the route was absolutely infested with other steel cagers, also playing fast and loose with the law, about whom she knew nothing. She didn't know if they were drunk, drugged, talking on their phones, had working brakes or in any way gave two hoots about her infant's safety. She chose to expose her child to these risks in spite of being well aware that similar behaviour kills and maims millions of people worldwide every year.

What the hell was she thinking?

In other news, a cyclist without a helmet also rolled through a stop sign placing no-one but themselves in danger.

the cyclist was also using the highway..........

Whether helmets are compulsory or not is secondary to whether any law is enforced or not.

It is rare in York to see a cyclist with a light at night.  Also most seem to prefer to ride on pavements instead of the road.

Don overcast downtown York