Safe Speed Forums

It's not poppycock though; helmet compulsion reduces the takeup of pushbike use.





http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 4c7a3cf0f5

Seatbelt wearing compulsion: demonstrably on a system wide scale compulsion shows huge reduction in deaths and injuries of the occupants of cars (and therefore saves money in treating them and dealing with the after effects).

Cycle helmet compulsion: no such effect, in fact studies show it can, on a system wide scale, increase injuries and death. Also due to the demonstrable reduction in take up of cycling in areas that implement helmet compulsion there is therefore an overall detremental effect on the health of the population (and therefore costs money in dealing with a more unheathly population).

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 4c7a3cf0f5

Please note, I'm undecided so I'm not entrenched one way or the other, but I wish to point out some things:


Unfortunately, the abstract within the link you gave didn't show this; in fact it accepted there were other convoluting factors at play. Just like with the claimed effectiveness of speed cameras, nothing can be taken from this (at least not from the abstract anyway).


The fact that it can doesn't mean that it does!


I do agree it will reduce take-up of cycling. If I was forced I would likely cut back on my cycling, especially my leisure cycling.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Opening up a side to this but your point, and also making helmets compulsory, is aimed in the hope that people won't change how they act. If you feel safer with the helmet/seat belt its likely you take more risk, risk homoeostasis theory.
http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter08.html#8.2

For the record I used to wear a helmet (for about a month) but stopped as I wasn't as comfortable and had more close calls (and a more than close call) with it on.

Oooh, Dusty would want to know why.

If compulsion came in it wouldn't stop me commuting on the bike, but certainly on hot summer days I might think twice about going out for a spin.

I actually acnowledged that possibility with refrence to OZ, and indeed, I have on my own jaunts found that steep hills can be trying on hot summer days (and I am talking about hills somewhat steeper than those found "On road")

But this has never put me off leisure cycling. (It takes rain to do that )

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

Though of course a helmet is not an accident prevention measure, so this is wholly irrelevant.

What they are in a position to directly experience is the difference in average severity of injuries of those who pass through their doors who have worn helmets compared with those who haven't. Your engineer can only hypothesise.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

CW has now picked up this story in this week's issue. I think that the CTC are guilty of biased and misleading reporting from CW's version.


Per their article within the "weekly News Review" pages - they are quick to state that it is the CTC's view that the High Court judge as



The judge had perhaps heard a very difficult case and was justifying his reason for awarding full compensation against the arguments put forth by the defence in this particular case which means as per usual - CTC open gobs and burst their lycra without applying their shared brain cell. (I can make such comment given the amount of hot misleading farts from them about this case now I have read the more accurate version from CW)



The reason why Judge Mr Justice Griffith Williams awarded the full compo?


Because th impact speed was over 12 mph and the injury was to the back of the head - at an area which would not be protected by the helmet.

The cyclist was hit from behind by an out of control motorcyclist. The cyclist suffered severe brain damage which has affected his speech, cognitive abilities and caused post -traumatic epilepsy He needs assistance in all routine tasks as a esult of this accident.


The judge will have been taking into account the witness staement and claims put forward by the defence in his conclusion. For all we know the defence may have been suggesting the cyclist made an error which contributed toi the accident - and he was perhaps remarking on the fact that had the plaintiff made such a mistake - or behaved in any manner which helped cause the accident - then there would be a contributoruy factor as exists in all Laws of Tort - and if this had been proven to him to be the case - then he would have to take into account. But he will have said the immortal HOWEVER ,, to conclude why he was awarding full compo and preferrred the plaintiff's case.


The judge will not have alluded to seatbelt law - but to the facts of the case as presented to him. despite claims to the contrary by the CTC . I have been in enough courtrooms over the years .. in the witness box for the CPS.


As for criticising the judge for passing the comments as alleged without reading up on all the lore and legend on each side of the coin - he has not got the time to do so. He goes off the facts/arguments/points of law/actual law as presented to him in that court hearing that case.
As already mentioned - DfT have commissioned a full report into helmet effeiciency with a view to making these compulsory for children up to age 14 years at least.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.