My fundamental objection is reinforced by each recounting of a personal experience, these having the opposite of the effect the recounter desires.

 

For example, the fact that John saw a child hit a kerb has no relevance, since it's not a reason for enforcement of helmet wearing on all our fifteen million children.

 

If it were, my experience of being very painfully struck in the eye by a large flying beetle causing an injury would be a reason for forcing John and all cyclists to wear goggles when cycling.

 

As this is a process without end, it should not be started.

 

And I'm opposed to a policy of strongly recommending. My lifelong experience of this is that when people don't act on the strong recommendation, it's treated as an excuse to move on to enforcement legislation. Why is that so? It's because the underlying arrogance that makes some think they know best for others means they cannot accept rejection.

.

Flecc,

 

As you spotted, I was not in favour of making the wearing of helmets compulsory - I'm with you on that count. However, the experience of my son's friend was intended as an example of the advantages of helmets in relatively low speed accidents.

 

As 'experienced' adults we have gone through the learning curve of bicycle riding / road use but just as we make sure they are protected from their environment when they learn to walk, recommending protection for them while they learn about bicycles seems the responsible course of action.

 

Again, I'm not suggesting making helmets compulsory for anybody but encouraging the wearing of protective gear whilst our children are still moving relatively slowly but on the early section of the learning curve (despite their assurances that they know what they are doing ) is surely a responsible thing to do.

I accepted that you were sincere John, and I'm of course in favour of parental rights to require that their children to wear helmets. That's an area that is nothing to do with me of course.

 

When it extends beyond that, to all children for example, is when I become concerned, and that's what I was referring to.

 

I repeat that others experience only has relevance to them.

 

It doesn't concern me, since my personal decisions are mine and mine alone based upon my own knowledge and experience.

 

I've expressed my opinions about the useless aspects of helmets, but I haven't used that as the basis for strongly recommending that others shouldn't use them, it would be impertinent.

 

Why is it right that someone with an opposite view should "strongly recommend" their use to those who indicate by words or by their actions that they do not wish to use them?

 

If someone does that, it is arrogant, implying that they know better and that their knowledge and experience is superior and should overrule the dissenter.

 

Such attitudes lead to the person who impertinently buttonholed me when he saw me helmetless at a bike stand and started spinning the usual irrelevant yarn about how a helmet saved his life.

 

He didn't get a chance to finish.

.

Edited October 29, 200718 yr by flecc

There is an expert veiw that over protecting children and eliminating all risk is doing more harm than good, something that many of us have long suspected.

 

I would say that compulsory helmet wearing definitely falls into the over protecting category, the next step would be protective clothing while using swings, roundabouts etc. As as child it was painful experiences on bikes and play equipment that taught me that some things should be treated with respect, not to mention painful experiences that taught me that adults should be treated with respect.

Edited October 29, 200718 yr by Ian

last autumn my front wheel slid on wet leaves and I came off. My helmet was well damaged, three years ago I was knocked off the road by a motorist with similar results. (Two days in hospital). I have to say that after my experiences I would recommend it is well worth wearing a helmet. I agree with you Flecc in as much as I do not want a nanny state telling me what I can do can't do or have to do but I do think wearing a helmet is wise given the fact that it is only a small percentage of your body but the noggin controls all !!!!!

richard

I slipped on some wet mud whilst exiting the 'dangerous' road turning right onto a 'safe' cycle path last week and was thrown off the left side of my bike when the front tyre rapidly and violently regained traction. I hit the nice soft grass with my left shoulder and the momentum rolled me all the way over onto my feet where I surveyed my fallen steed. My head didn't hit the floor at all but had I been wearing a helmet no doubt it would have done, my head being effectively twice the size. This sort of incident is one where a cycle helmet can do far more harm than good since the helmet striking the ground whilst I was rotating could well cause a rotational injury to the soft tissues of my neck. Such rotational soft tissue injuries cause some of the worst head/neck injuries suffered by cyclists.

 

I wear a helmet only whilst cycling off road in order to protect against low-speed tree root type impacts. On the road I don't bother.

 

The poster who hit his head on a tree branch and was thankful for the helmet might not have actually hit his head at all if he wasn't wearing one!

There is an expert veiw that over protecting children and eliminating all risk is doing more harm than good, something that many of us have long suspected.

 

 

Exactly right Ian, and I view those who promote safety in all it's aspects as doing far far more harm than good. The do not seem to realise just how far their damage goes.

 

The baby in it's surround walker finds bumping into things is huge fun. Later as a child they enjoy falling off their skateboards, wearing kneepads, elbowpads, reinforced back gloves and helmets, they experience no fear. After a childhood life of overprotection they finally reach something really dangerous, hurtle off down the road in a car and we end up with another carload of dead teenagers, all blissfully unaware of their vulnerability. Then the tearful parents start calling for more safety measures, equally unaware of how they could have been the cause of their children's deaths

 

In an associated area, the gross overprotection against germs together with an obsession with absolute cleanliness has led to the highest incidence ever of child allergy related conditions and possibly even leukaemia.

 

The safety freaks are in fact needlessly putting their children at risk from disease, injury and death.

 

The time to learn the effects of injury is at the earliest stage in life, continuing through development to adulthood. That breeds adults who know the value of personal primary safety, instead of those who are obsessed with secondary safety measures and think primary safety is a detached impersonal thing, as in speed cameras.

 

The time to develop a strong immune system is at the earliest stage in life through exposure to every risk.

 

And what makes me maddest of all is that those who do not have the knowledge and intelligence to appreciate all this think they are fitted to advise me.

.

Sorry but I disagree.

 

If to say that encouraging children to think of safety first is actually putting them at risk is not only ludicrous, its also dangerous. I encourage my little boy to wear a cycle helmet as I am trying to get him to think of safety whilst doing anything, and I think thats a lesson many adults should learn as well.

 

The problem we have is that too many give little or no regard to safety because they are lazy, irresponsible, or simply extremely negligent.

 

Going further in this hypothesis means that you shouldnt enforce putting a seatbelt on your child in the car, and if you crash, "That'll teach 'em".

 

Its a nonsense IMHO.

The poster who hit his head on a tree branch and was thankful for the helmet might not have actually hit his head at all if he wasn't wearing one!

 

Possibly, but using this analogy, I shouldnt wear shoes if I dont want to stub my toe.

 

Accidents can happen anywhere at anytime. All we can do is use our experience and knowledge and learning to try to protect against them. Whilst I agree that in some situations wearing a helmet makes it more likely that you will hit your head, if I do hit my head, I'll be glad I was wearing a helmet!

John

Sorry but I disagree.

 

If to say that encouraging children to think of safety first is actually putting them at risk is not only ludicrous, its also dangerous. I encourage my little boy to wear a cycle helmet as I am trying to get him to think of safety whilst doing anything, and I think thats a lesson many adults should learn as well.

 

The problem we have is that too many give little or no regard to safety because they are lazy, irresponsible, or simply extremely negligent.

 

Going further in this hypothesis means that you shouldnt enforce putting a seatbelt on your child in the car, and if you crash, "That'll teach 'em".

 

Its a nonsense IMHO.

 

And so is that a nonsense John.

 

I didn't say that one should not encourage children to think of safety first, quite the contrary since thinking of safety is the very personal primary safety that I advocate. But thinking of safety means avoiding the danger, not avoiding the consequences of not avoiding the danger as in using a helmet. That's where the safety brigade so often get muddled.

 

I also didn't say one should go out of ones way to place a child in a very dangerous situation. What I did say was that a child should gradually learn through pain it's own experience of the risks during natural activity.

 

That is what our sense of pain is for, it's physical immunisation during the growing process, teaching us how to be safe through life. Over protective parents who bypass that natural process can do their children harm.

.

Edited October 29, 200718 yr by flecc

This argument reminds me of an uncle. He never wore a seatbelt because once upon a time he had a car crash and was thrown from the car. The car rolled down an embankement, hit a tree, burst into flames and ended up in a river. Of course had he been wearing a seatbelt he wouldn't have been around to tell me the story...

 

What is odd is that whenever I have an incident with a car driver (running me off the road, not seeing me etc.) 9 times out of 10 they are not wearing their seatbelt. You would have thought that being more vulnerable in a crash would make these idiots safer but it seems the opposite is true. Anecdotal I know, but interesting.

The thing about falling off your bike is that most injuries tend to be to the arms and hands as you instinctively put your arms out to protect you. I don't believe the head actually takes the brunt of most cycle accidents.

 

Here is an interesting link to cycle helmet related research.

 

Cycle Helmets: an international resource

 

What is odd is that whenever I have an incident with a car driver (running me off the road, not seeing me etc.) 9 times out of 10 they are not wearing their seatbelt. You would have thought that being more vulnerable in a crash would make these idiots safer but it seems the opposite is true. Anecdotal I know, but interesting.

 

The Road Research Laboratory would dispute this Harry.

 

Their report, supported by a lot of evidence, is that people drove faster after seat belt wearing enforcement than before. This was interpreted as them perceiving they were safer.

 

I think it's likely they are right, since it was a repeat of the experience with compulsory motorcycle helmet wearing, leading to higher speeds, greater risk taking and an increase in accidents.

 

My emphasis though isn't on whether helmets are a good thing, it's primarily on how safety should be approached. It's a matter for personal judgement since it's demonstrable that the safety that matters is the avoidance of harm, not the alleviation of harm, that being secondary.

 

The fact that those who promote secondary safety measures rarely focus on the avoidance of harm means that they should be ignored.

 

Illustration?

 

All the helmet wearers (secondary safety) who hardly ever have a mirror (primary safety) and therefore often get knocked off their bikes simply because they had no advance warning of the approaching idiot.

 

That makes two idiots.

.

I completely agree about the likely hood of injuries being to your hands/arms/legs. Its precisely because of that that I always cover up my hands arms and legs whatever the weather (and this is sometimes very uncomfortable, esp. in summer).

 

For example, in the summer, I often followed the sus-trans route A62 into work, riding in shorts. Its a very pretty route along the side of the Mersey and through Didsbury. But after having my legs lashed repeatedly for a couple of weeks by stinging nettles where the path encrouches, I decided that experience had taught me to wear pants whatever the weather.

 

I suppose in a way, I am agreeing that painful experience leads to learning as Flecc mentioned. But if I was to explain that to someone who was thinking of riding that route in shorts, I would expect that they would probably consider my 'safety advice' before making their decision on what to wear too.

 

I dont see safety as being 'nannied' by others, I just see it as common sense tactics based on advice from people with painful experiences.

 

Unfortunately, there is so much research into this, there are numerous sites advocating either stance, for or against helmets. For me its simply a matter of common sense based on the question, do I think I could fall off my bike and bang my head?

 

And knowing my luck..... :o

The Road Research Laboratory would dispute this Harry.

 

Their report, supported by a lot of evidence, is that people drove faster after seat belt wearing enforcement than before. This was interpreted as them perceiving they were safer.

 

I think it's likely they are right, since it was a repeat of the experience with compulsory motorcycle helmet wearing, leading to higher speeds, greater risk taking and an increase in accidents.

 

My emphasis though isn't on whether helmets are a good thing, it's primarily on how safety should be approached. It's a matter for personal judgement since it's demonstrable that the safety that matters is the avoidance of harm, not the alleviation of harm, that being secondary.

 

The fact that those who promote secondary safety measures rarely focus on the avoidance of harm means that they should be ignored.

 

Illustration?

 

All the helmet wearers (secondary safety) who hardly ever have a mirror (primary safety) and therefore often get knocked off their bikes simply because they had no advance warning of the approaching idiot.

 

That makes two idiots.

.

 

 

Yes you make a lot of sense about the primary/secondary safety issue. A good point as well about risk and children. I have a couple of nippers and was amazed to see in playground a child playing on a climbing frame complete with helmet but no bicycle in sight. I realise that he was wearing the helmet for the climbing frame! In general parents hang around their children stopping them coming to any harm while we would do the opposite as that is what a playground is for. It didn't do the grandparents nerves much good though!

 

As I say, purely anecdotal about the seatbelts and I can well believe that when they were first introduced people drove faster. However I do get driven around in minicabs fair bit and can say exactly the opposite is true - the faster/crapier drivers are far less likely to wear seatbealts. Another view would be that if they don't value their own life then why should they value anybody elses.

 

But if I was to explain that to someone who was thinking of riding that route in shorts, I would expect that they would probably consider my 'safety advice' before making their decision on what to wear too.

 

I dont see safety as being 'nannied' by others, I just see it as common sense tactics based on advice from people with painful experiences.

 

But it is nannying John, for several reasons.

 

Firstly it's based on one experience which isn't common to another.

 

Secondly, those advising have no right to assume they know better how to live another's life.

 

Thirdly, how rare it is for the advocates of secondary safety to adequately practice primary safety.

 

And fourthly, how rare it is that they even appreciate the difference between primary and secondary safety.

 

Since I do understand the difference and understand that not having the accident is a more sensible option than ignoring that and focusing on alleviation, I resent being advised or ordered by those who clearly do not know better.

.

 

However I do get driven around in minicabs fair bit and can say exactly the opposite is true - the faster/crapier drivers are far less likely to wear seatbealts. Another view would be that if they don't value their own life then why should they value anybody elses.

 

That's certainly true Harry, white van man sometimes being another example of the same sort of driver.

.

Nigel

 

well its certainly a intresting disscussion on to wear or not;) helmets. When i bought a bike with baby seat for my daughter i didnt think twice about a helmet for my grandson it just seemed common sense and the right thing to do. But for me i dont wish to wear a cycle helmet and i hope that never changes.

Here in New Zealand it is compulsory for all cyclists to wear helmets, and 99% of cyclists comply with this. It becomes second nature after a while to put on a helmet as part of getting ready for a cycle (like seat belts in cars)

Given that NZ drivers are among the worst in the world, every bit of extra safety helps!

Paul

I agree with those who think we have enough compulsion imposed by legislation. I thought you might like to see the response of the MP who proposed the Bill to an email of mine (BONEP@parliament.uk - it would be interesting to see if anyone else emailing got exactly the same response) (a Conservative by the way - I guess none of the parties does less government)

 

Dear

 

Thank you very much for your email.

 

There has been some criticism regarding my 10 minute rule bill to make it mandatory for children of the ages of 14 and under to wear a safety helmet when cycling on a public highway. Parliament gave leave to bring in the Bill on Tuesday 16 October 2007 without anyone speaking or voting against the Bill.

 

One of the issues I had to decide on before introducing the Bill was that we did not want yet another piece of nanny state legislation. As I am often regarded as a Conservative from the right of the Party, I was once labelled a son of Thatcher, and am a member of the Cornerstone Group, I certainly would not have introduced this Bill if I thought this was a piece of nanny state legislation. I made it clear in my speech that this legislation would not apply to adults or children over the age of fourteen who I believe are able to make their own decisions relating to this matter.

 

However there were a number of reasons why I thought it should be brought in for younger children. First whilst wearing a cycle helmet has increased by nearly 50% from 1994, increasing from 16% to 28%, for children in the same period the wearing of cycle helmets has actually fallen by over 20% to just 14%. Clearly whilst adults are understanding the need to protect themselves, this is actually not being extended to children.

 

Secondly there were 1600 children either killed or seriously injured over a three year period when riding their bikes. It is a fact that a child's skull depth is half of that of an adult and does not fully develop until their late teens so their natural protection is not there.

 

Thirdly, we have a duty to protect our children against dangers that they can not fully appreciate and I am sure if my Bill became law, children's lives would be saved and serious injuries woudl be reduced.

 

Yours sincerely

Peter Bone MP

Once again the favourite ploy of those who argue for more legislation on a road safety issue, the combining of deaths and serious injuries as one figure, in this case 1600.

 

In fact the grand total of annual child deaths on the roads from all causes is extremely small, around 0.0007% of our children which is virtually no risk at all. The number of those deaths from cycling is a tiny fraction of that, and the proportion of that tiny fraction which are due to head injuries is too low to sensibly express.

 

Add to that the fact that "serious injury" is classified as all those taken for treatment, including very minor scrapes and bumps which didn't need anything more than a plaster, and it can be seen that the 1600 is a completely worthless number.

 

In other words, this proposed legislation answers a problem that virtually doesn't exist. If we have a problem with child cycling, it's how to get them to ride bikes in the first place.

.

Once again the favourite ploy of those who argue for more legislation on a road safety issue, the combining of deaths and serious injuries as one figure, in this case 1600.

I totally agree flecc. We see this everywhere from the Health and Safety brigade. Using their methods I dare say that several thousand deaths or serious injuries occur whilst doing almost anything. I think they bandy these stats around when they know they haven't got a case.

What is disappointing to see that this MP is such a bad loser and can't take on board the arguments that were presented against his proposal. I'm afraid that he diminishes himself by writing a mail like this, protrayinig himself as the victim of irrational opponents who wouldn't listen to his gosple. I believe a bigger person would have used the email to explain why the decision was taken to go against his proposal.

 

Frank

It's always been my experience that campaigners on safety issues ignore facts that don't fit their agenda, though never missing a chance to selectively quote anything that does. They also often use exaggerations as in Peter Bone's use of a three year number rather than the accepted standard of one year.

 

No amount of opposing them with verifiable fact ever seems to deter them.

 

Fundamentally I think those who have an excessive perception of danger and the need for a protection are emotionally driven people, something which is clearly evident in so many of today's parents. They judge intuitively by their instincts regardless of reality.

 

I noticed the latest bit of lunacy in one school is that the children can no longer play football in football boots in case the studs hurt them.

 

In another case a few days earlier, a youngster sent to a local cricket coaching session returned dejected saying they were "chucked out". It was because the child turned up without full protection, helmet, full face guard, full pads and groin protection etc, the cost of which later found to be at least £150, a sum which the mother couldn't afford.

.

Edited October 31, 200718 yr by flecc