"Helmets are required for E-Bikes"

[flecc]

I love bicycle helmet debates. Always seem so polarised!

It might seem that way superficially, those for and those against, but in fact they never are so polarised.

The truth is that those for wearing often believe in compulsion (while frequently pretending they don't) and very frequently insult those who don't wear them, inferring stupidity.

Those against compulsion never want to prevent the wearers from wearing them.

That makes it completely one-sided rather than polarised, only the "for" people creating the argument.
.

 

[Mike63]

Laws are passed for a reason...a lot of young people may think that they wear a seat belt or a motorcycle crash helmet through choice.
That's not the case, before it became law very few wore a seat belt, fewer still wore a helmet...still don't in countries where it is not obligatory.

When you are nipping down to the shops at a safe speed without your helmet, you may wish to give thanks for the drink / drive laws which hopefully save you from the guy in the huge 4x4 who's drunk 6 pints and drives better for it...that law may have saved your life.

As for the silly arguement about shoe laces, I think that if you were in an accident and found to have 2 foot shoe laces wrapped round the controls, you may quite rightly be prosecuted....you've 'gotta use common sense but unfortunately we sometimes don't.

I think that there should be a law making cycle helmets compulsary, then, instead of my helmet being hung up and often forgotten, or not bothered with for short trips, It'd be hung on my bike and used every trip.

.....Mike

 

[flecc]

I think that there should be a law making cycle helmets compulsary, then, instead of my helmet being hung up and often forgotten, or not bothered with for short trips, It'd be hung on my bike and used every trip.

.....Mike

Surely that says it all Mike, you want to make life inconvenient for everyone simply because you admit you are not able to apply your own preferred precautions adequately and reliably.

Having cycled for 64 years, 48 of those in London boroughs and never getting a single mark on myself from an accident, I object to such arrogance.

Any deficiencies you might suffer in providing your own welfare precautions are yours alone, nothing to do with me.
.

 

[rog_london]

Laws are passed for a reason...a lot of young people may think that they wear a seat belt or a motorcycle crash helmet through choice.
That's not the case, before it became law very few wore a seat belt, fewer still wore a helmet...still don't in countries where it is not obligatory.

.....Mike

That's not quite as I remember it having been a motorbike rider since well before helmets became compulsory. I think even back then most riders wore a helmet. Once we moved away from the rather basic 'lid' and jet-style open face helmets became available they were considered more fashionable and definitely a part of the 'uniform' of the serious biker.

Seatbelts - can't say for sure, but I think a significant proportion of drivers used theirs even though their passengers probably didn't.

Rog.

 

[jbond]

That's not the case, before it became law very few wore a seat belt, fewer still wore a helmet...still don't in countries where it is not obligatory.

I did. And even in the USA where there are a few places left where M/C helmets are optional, most people wear them. Although I admit, driving without seat belts is still common.

Except of course, as above, we're not talking about wearing real helmets on M/C that do >50mph. We're talking about wearing relatively ineffectual helmets on bicycles doing <15mph.

the benefits of avoiding those accidents in the first place.
.

That'll be the zero f**k-up approach to life. One I can subscribe to. Don't always manage it though.

 

[Jimod]

You can do what you want, but dont expect me to pick up the tab.....sign a waver that if you have a head injury while cycling you will pay the bill yourself?

I am struggling with my 17 year old son to get him to wear a Hi Vi cycling to and from school, he wears a lid so not entirely daft. but trying to get him to understand that a lot of car drivers simply do not "see" cyclists until it is to late is difficult...I am not going to try with you, as your paranoia is obviously beyond reason.

Get a grip. Will you sign a waiver that if you get hurt doing anything then you will pay the bill yourself? Why do you want things made compulsory? You've been spoonfed health and safety by the last Labour Government so much that you actually believe it. How has the human race survived so long.

 

[Jimod]

As for the silly arguement about shoe laces, I think that if you were in an accident and found to have 2 foot shoe laces wrapped round the controls, you may quite rightly be prosecuted....you've 'gotta use common sense but unfortunately we sometimes don't.

.....Mike

The shoe lace argument wasn't silly, it was proving a point. You don't think velcro should be made compulsory so you think it's silly. Also, I wasn't talking about shoe laces when driving, I was talking about walking. A few years ago, the fashion was for youngsters NOT to tie shoe laces when they wore big boots. Some had accidents MOST didn't. Just like useless cycle helmets which you and a couple of others seem to think make you safe.

BTW why do you need a law to make you remember to wear your helmet since you seem to think they are essential to a cyclists life?

 

[Mike63]

Sorry Flecc...didn't mean to sound arrogant and it's not just about me, many cyclists are killed and injured every year, you think it's inconvenient to use protection, everyone is not as lucky or skillfull as you appear to be.

Is it just a law about cycling helmets that you don't like or is it any law you disagree with ?... you think everyone should be allowed to make their own mind up about everything ?

What about seat belts ? what about the use of mobile phones while driving ?
...what about rules on parking ? do you think everyone should be allowed to park where they wish useing their common sense, 'cos I'm telling you, it doesn't work.

I suspect that you youself do indeed wear a helmet but you object to a law that could save the lives of many others including lots of young people who think it is not cool to do the same.

Whether you like it or not there will eventually be a law makeing the wearing of cycle helmets compulsary

Oh and your rudeness cuts no ice with me Flecc...been tried by better men than you

....Mike

 

[Mike63]

BTW why do you need a law to make you remember to wear your helmet since you seem to think they are essential to a cyclists life?

I didn't say it was essential to a cyclists life, obviously if a juggernaut runs over you, a helmet is not 'gonna be much help

I was pointing out that we cannot be relied upon to do what we really know that we should.

.....and don't say it's just me because it isn't.

....Mike

 

[flecc]

Seatbelts - can't say for sure, but I think a significant proportion of drivers used theirs even though their passengers probably didn't.

Rog.

Lees than 3% of drivers wore them Rog, even the long expensive advertising campaign hardly altered that.

The refusal to use carrying on after compulsion forced the authorities to flood the road junctions with all available police for a couple of weeks giving advisory verbal warnings of future prosecution. Even so, the near universal opposition to the law forced the government to abandon plans to make it an endorsable offence, so to this day no points on licences are incurred by not wearing and it is a minor fixed penalty offence.

I remember the government propaganda attempts before compulsion, one mythical survey reported that a third of all drivers wore seatbelts for all trips, quickly abandoned after ridicule.

None of these measures are really about safety, they are just about control by busybodies, as witness the fact that neither m/c helmets or seatbelts actually are universally compulsory.

Sikhs don't have to wear helmets and there are at least two classes of persons exempted from seatbelt wearing. If they were essential for safety or other reasons, those exemptions wouldn't exist.
.

 

[flecc]

I suspect that you youself do indeed wear a helmet but you object to a law that could save the lives of many others including lots of young people who think it is not cool to do the same.

I've never worn a cycle helmet and never will Mike. Never even tried one on! Spent 23 years motorcycling without helmets before they were made compulsory, with helmets not even on the market for many of those years so no option to do otherwise.

Whether you like it or not there will eventually be a law makeing the wearing of cycle helmets compulsary

No there wont. Governments are very keen for cycling to increase greatly and are aware of how much compulsion reduces it, all noting with concern how it collapsed in Australia with compulsion, it now having the lowest rate of cycling in the world. Reinforcing that is the way our UK governments of both persuasions have stamped on all attempts at introducing compulsion law, that even extending to blocking an attempt to make it compulsory for children only. Yet a third reason why compulsion wont happen is the European project under which the intention is harmonisation of laws between member states. This is primarily about transport matters initially, hence the effect it's having on our e-bike law, and this means helmet compulsion is a matter for all states. There is no way non-helmet wearing Netherlands with it's largest cycling rate of all member nations will agree to it. These are all facts, so opinion is best based on those.

Oh and your rudeness cuts no ice with me Flecc...been tried by better men than you

Unusually for me the rudeness was deliberate, intended to match the rudeness implicit in your desire to interfere with my private life.

I wont bother to respond in detail to the the irrelevancies of the other matters you raised, just observing that each issue has unique specifics which demand they be kept separate for responsible judgement.
.

 

[rog_london]

Lees than 3% of drivers wore them Rog, even the long expensive advertising campaign hardly altered that.

I'm more than happy to take your word for that. I was certainly part of the 3% as in the past I was a high mileage commercial driver (I've never owned a powered vehicle with more than two wheels!) and I was too well aware of the consequences of NOT wearing one. I might suggest that the benefits of seatbelt wearing are generally well accepted as, indeed, is the wearing of motorcycle helmets. Having comprehensively wrecked a couple of motorcycle helmets in my long riding career (47 years now) I can't say for sure I wouldn't be around had I not been wearing one but it seems likely.

Cycle helmets - getting back to something slightly more relevant - well, I don't know. I always wear one, but I'm glad it's a matter of free choice and likely to remain so. They don't seem to offer much protection compared to the average motorcycle helmet but I don't see any way to offer much more without a serious weight penalty. They are at best an uneasy compromise, I think. The assumption seems to be that the impact speed in an accident would be much lower, but that's clearly not necessarily the case especially if the impact were with an oncoming vehicle or one were tearing down Sanderstead Hill and the front wheel collapsed as a result of hitting a pothole....

Did I say that most cyclists have thick skulls? - Noooo, I would never say that.

Rog.

 

[flecc]

I was referring only to seatbelts with that 3% information Rog. The helmet compulsion situation was very different, it seemed to me that at least half wore m/c helmets in the latter years just before the 1973 compulsion and there was no widespread rebellion as there was with car seatbelts.

The acceptance of any benefit of compulsory seatbelt wearing is mainly age related, older drivers often aware of some uncomfortable truths related to them. As the Roads Research Laboratory reported a couple of years after compulsion, driving speeds rose by a very clear degree due to feelings of security and no overall benefit was seen, just a swap of some kinds of death for others. Their report did show the madness of compulsion for drivers only for a long time, the increased speeds bringing a rise in accidents with passenger risk therefore increased. Clearly compulsion should have been for all occupants or none.

Once again this is another law that's not universal. Apart from the exempt driver classes, cars made without original anchorages are exempt, despite added anchorages being possible. All these exemptions make the oft repeated "No man is above the law" a bit of a nonsense.
.

 

[lectureral]

I think that there should be a law making cycle helmets compulsary, then, instead of my helmet being hung up and often forgotten, or not bothered with for short trips, It'd be hung on my bike and used every trip.

.....Mike

I think that is an amazing insight into the "make rules for everyone" crowd - those of us who make our own risk assessment and take responsibility for ourselves and our families end up being subject to rules because of this arrogant and selfish mindset. I think if there were a lot less rules and criminal offences we would have a better-functioning society in which people took responsibility for their own actions.

 

[Patrick]

I was pointing out that we cannot be relied upon to do what we really know that we should.

Wearing a helmet whilst cycling isn't an example of something that "we really know we should" do. There are people who do indeed believe they should wear a helmet when cycling, but there others who believe that it is not essential or possibly even not desirable.

Many pedestrians are injured when crossing the road or when they fall on the pavement, do you think that pedestrians should wear helmets as well?

If not, then what is the difference between a pedestrian risking head injury by going out without a helmet and a cyclist doing the same?

Patrick

 

[Mussels]

I was referring only to seatbelts with that 3% information Rog. The helmet compulsion situation was very different, it seemed to me that at least half wore m/c helmets in the latter years just before the 1973 compulsion and there was no widespread rebellion as there was with car seatbelts.

The law for wearing motorcyle helmets was much better recieved than the one about dark visors on those helmets, the latter is widely ignored as stupid and unnecessary. It's even illegal to sell dark visors in the UK, it's like making sunglasses in cars illegal in case the driver forgets to take them off at sunset.

 

[carpetbagger]

They wear cycle helmets in the tour de france and other races it would be interesting to find out if the number of head injuries has reduced significantly since there introduction. Ok ,so they travel at speeds from 30-65mph..but how many of us have reached 45-50 going downhill ? I wear a cycle helmet although i doubt it will help much at those speeds. I do intend investing in one of better quality. Until proven that cyclists suffer a lot of head injuries then it should be personal choice. I bet we suffer more injuries in the privates !!! Reflecting boxes with lights next

 

[flecc]

The law for wearing motorcyle helmets was much better recieved than the one about dark visors on those helmets, the latter is widely ignored as stupid and unnecessary. It's even illegal to sell dark visors in the UK, it's like making sunglasses in cars illegal in case the driver forgets to take them off at sunset.

Yes, that really is daft legislation Mussels. It applies to car tinted windows too, the police enforcing the removal of tinted coatings. I think that tends to give the game away, it's not about safety, it's about people being seen and recognisable to authority figures, cameras etc. Big Brother strikes again.
.

 

[eddieo]

Do you really think so? I dont like blacked out windows because its impossible to tell if the driver has seen you or not.......

 

[flecc]

Do you really think so? I dont like blacked out windows because its impossible to tell if the driver has seen you or not.......

That is a disadvantage at times Eddie, but in many circumstances reflections prevent seeing the driver's face anyway. Tinting does help their safety in adverse lighting conditions, and I don't think I have the right to prevent another deciding on their measures for safety just to enhance my own. That's uncomfortably close to me saying my life is worth more than theirs.
.