The contentious subject of cycle helmets Options

[GMR]

They should make it compulsary for cyclists to wear them. Why should people on cycles be allowed to choose when those of us on motorcycles can't?

The simple reason is that they are two different sorts of instruments (motorbike and cycle). One you can go hundreds of miles an hour so the collision would be a lot more fatal, while the bike is a lot, lot slower and would course less damage. If you are comparing the motorbike and cycle together then using your same argument/ logic a cyclist could compare a pedestrian with themselves; i.e. they should wear safety helmets if cyclists have to. If cyclists can compare pedestrians with themselves then pedestrians could – in theory - compare themselves to people who sleep in beds; i.e. there is a good argument to say that people who sleep should wear helmets. Your logic has faults and doesn’t make sense.

[Andy]

They should make it compulsary for cyclists to wear them. Why should people on cycles be allowed to choose when those of us on motorcycles can't?

Fair point, hadn't thought of that

[JeffG]

I cycle on the roads and apart from a few V signs I am quite happy cycling on the roads.

Why the V-signs? You seem to be one of the very few law-abiding cyclists these days.

[GMR]

Why the V-signs? You seem to be one of the very few law-abiding cyclists these days.

Is that sarcasm?

I use cycle lanes but I won't use cycle paths and car drivers don't like it so give me the V sign. And before you ask; you can't mix pedestrians with cyclists, it doesn't work. You get a lot of abuse if you cycle on the paths. Not only that but roads are regularly cleaned, while paths are not. I used to get punctures every week... now I hardly ever do. Also; my son uses cycle paths and one day a car was half parked on the cycle side of the path and the road. As he as going by she opened her door and my son was seriously injured. They are a death traps.

[Iommi]

I think you may look silly if you received some brain damage and were incapacitated for the rest of you days with someone having to wipe your a**e and dribbling all day.

That is true, but that wasn't the only reason I gave. I'd also say that this is likely to be one of the big reasons some people don't wear them.

[JeffG]

Is that sarcasm?

Not at all. I was referring to the growing number of cyclists who illegally ride on pavements. Seems like nearly all of them. Pavements are for feet: roads are for wheels.

[GMR]

Not at all. I was referring to the growing number of cyclists who illegally ride on pavements. Seems like nearly all of them. Pavements are for feet: roads are for wheels.

I totally agree. However, do you also accept cycle paths in your remarks about footpaths? It was a bad idea to turn half of footpaths into cycle lanes, they where never going to work. If you want them to work you have to educate the pedestrians.

[JeffG]

I totally agree. However, do you also accept cycle paths in your remarks about footpaths? It was a bad idea to turn half of footpaths into cycle lanes, they where never going to work. If you want them to work you have to educate the pedestrians.

In an ideal world, there would be completely separate routes for cyclists and other traffic, like they have in the Netherlands. (Well, they do have an advantage, since the country was designed for cyclists!) You are never going to educate pedestrians, unless the Government decides to bring in a licence to walk, with a test (not an impossibility with this government ). So you have to separate pedestrians and cyclists: ergo I agree with you.

[GMR]

In an ideal world, there would be completely separate routes for cyclists and other traffic, like they have in the Netherlands. (Well, they do have an advantage, since the country was designed for cyclists!) You are never going to educate pedestrians, unless the Government decides to bring in a licence to walk, with a test (not an impossibility with this government ). So you have to separate pedestrians and cyclists: ergo I agree with you.

Don't get me started on the government thing....

[Road User]

The simple reason is that they are two different sorts of instruments (motorbike and cycle). One you can go hundreds of miles an hour so the collision would be a lot more fatal, while the bike is a lot, lot slower and would course less damage. If you are comparing the motorbike and cycle together then using your same argument/ logic a cyclist could compare a pedestrian with themselves; i.e. they should wear safety helmets if cyclists have to. If cyclists can compare pedestrians with themselves then pedestrians could – in theory - compare themselves to people who sleep in beds; i.e. there is a good argument to say that people who sleep should wear helmets. Your logic has faults and doesn’t make sense.

It makes perfect sense. Cycles and motorcycles both share the road and are vehicles in the eyes of the law. Pedestrians are not vehicles they are humans walking. Cycles traveling down steep inclines can reach extremely high speeds I know I have done this and if I had been clocked would have gotten a speeding ticket if there had been a speed camera and can kill you just as easily as a crash on a motorcyle. I am not arguing the protection helmets do or don't provide simply that if a person is operating a two wheeled vehicle on a public road then they should have one law for all not one for cyclists and one for motorcycles. Lets face it if a person is going to ride like an a*** then a helmet isn't going to save them no matter what they are riding.

[GMR]

It makes perfect sense. Cycles and motorcycles both share the road and are vehicles in the eyes of the law. Pedestrians are not vehicles they are humans walking. Cycles traveling down steep inclines can reach extremely high speeds I know I have done this and if I had been clocked would have gotten a speeding ticket if there had been a speed camera and can kill you just as easily as a crash on a motorcyle. I am not arguing the protection helmets do or don't provide simply that if a person is operating a two wheeled vehicle on a public road then they should have one law for all not one for cyclists and one for motorcycles. Lets face it if a person is going to ride like an a*** then a helmet isn't going to save them no matter what they are riding.

That is true my friend. The trouble is if people behave that way they usually take somebody with them; i.e. injure somebody else. Maybe education might be better than helmets. As for motorbike riders wearing helmets. I got my first motorbike when the crash-helmet law came in; 1st June 1973. Thirty nine years ago this month.

[Guest_NNo_*]

Well, they do have an advantage, since the country was designed for cyclists!

Yes, but as I understand it, it has taken them time to get to that position. It was a deliberate decision. According to what I've read, they even had the same car boom in the 50 and 60s as us, but in the 70s decided to prioritise bikes.

speeding ticket

Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles. Though there are laws such as "cycling furiously" if you are that out of control.

[GMR]

Speed limits only apply to motor vehicles. Though there are laws such as "cycling furiously" if you are that out of control.

Jesus! I wish I was that fit to cycle that fast.

[cyclist]

I've fallen off my bike and broken my helmet instead of my skull. That was from what felt like a light tap on the road after my arm and shoulder took most of the impact. They do work!!

[Simon]

"any form of head protection is better than none" - if so, why not wear one when, say, walking since cycling is as safe as walking

Um......Sorry but how is cycling as safe as walking?

Cycling is on a road with cars driving past, walking is on a path away from the cars (as long as care is taken crossing roads)

Cycling is much faster than walking, meaning that there is a greater chance of injury. If you fall over walking, 99% of the time you will be fine with just a couple of scrapes or bruises as you have time to soften the fall, on a bike it happens too quickly

If your beliefs are to not wear head protection then that's your choice, but why are you trying to persuade others not to wear it? I just completed the London to Brighton bike ride, where 27,000 people happily wore head gear (good thing to, as there was a couple of nasty accidents)

[GMR]

Um......Sorry but how is cycling as safe as walking?

Cycling is on a road with cars driving past, walking is on a path away from the cars (as long as care is taken crossing roads)

Actually that is not totally true; Cycling is on a road or path (along with pedestrians). As cyclists cycle for many different reasons - such as cycling fast to keep fit or training - this could put the pedestrian in danger (in fact it has done). I have seen many collisions between cyclists and pedestrians on the foot path; in one incident a pedestrian child went over and banged his head. If the government insist that pedestrians’ should share the same walkway with cyclist then maybe it would be prudent to issue helmets to kids and adults who wish to walk on the paths.

What he should have said "Walking can be just as dangerous as cycling."

[AmieB]

I think its fair to say a cyclist is more likely to be involved in an accident then a pedestrian. Only the other day a cyclist went straight into the back of a parked lorry on Hambridge Road because he wasn't paying attention. And im sure he never had a helmet on.....

[GMR]

I think its fair to say a cyclist is more likely to be involved in an accident then a pedestrian. Only the other day a cyclist went straight into the back of a parked lorry on Hambridge Road because he wasn't paying attention. And im sure he never had a helmet on.....

To be honest I very rarely ever see a cyclist wearing a helmet; young or old. The only times I've ever seen a cyclist wear a helmet is usually a professional cyclist.

[Guest_NNo_*]

I think its fair to say a cyclist is more likely to be involved in an accident then a pedestrian. Only the other day a cyclist went straight into the back of a parked lorry on Hambridge Road because he wasn't paying attention. And im sure he never had a helmet on.....

Except that does appear to be true from the government stats.