by SouthLondonDaddy » Mon Oct 23, 2023 7:04 am
It really is very, very simple.
There are very good reasons to oppose mandatory helmets, like in Australia. That puts people off cycling, makes them think it's more dangerous than it is, and doesn't distinguish between a 10 minute ride in the park vs 2 hours of bombing down country lanes at full speed.
There are very good reasons to say that recommending helmets must not come at the cost of conveying the message that responsibility should be shifted entirely from drivers to cyclists.
There are NO good reasons not to recommend helmets, without making them compulsory, while at the same time campaigning for safer roads harsher penalties etc. The two need not be in contradiction.
Helmets will not protect you in every circumstance but will protect you in some, and that's good enough for me.
Also, any kind of protective gear is a balance between comfort cost protection and practicality. Well, bicycle helmets are an excellent balance: they don't cost a fortune, they are lightweight, and they don't hinder riding. Cyclists cannot wear a full face motorcycle helmet and a leather suit with impact protectors, but they can certainly wear a bicycle helmet.
The studies on drivers taking more risks if cyclists wear helmets must be taken with truckloads of salt: first of all they are irrelevant to all those situations where drivers simply didn't see cyclists, helmet or no helmet. Then many of these studies are quite old and/or relate to countries which are very different. Any study on the US, which is car centric, has terrible road design, and where getting a driving licence is all too easy, is simply irrelevant: it's no coincidence that, even normalising for miles driven, their roads are much more dangerous than ours.
Lastly, a lot depends on the kind of cycling: alternating cycle lanes and some urban roads at 20 mph is very different from bombing down country roads at 40+ mph. The latter exposes cyclists to motorcycle levels of danger, without the motorcycle gear that protects motorcyclists from impact (helmet, elbos and knee protectors, etc) and abrasion (if you fall and slide, the tarmac is a cheese grater and your flesh is the cheese).
It really is very, very simple.
There are very good reasons to oppose mandatory helmets, like in Australia. That puts people off cycling, makes them think it's more dangerous than it is, and doesn't distinguish between a 10 minute ride in the park vs 2 hours of bombing down country lanes at full speed.
There are very good reasons to say that recommending helmets must not come at the cost of conveying the message that responsibility should be shifted entirely from drivers to cyclists.
[b]There are NO good reasons not to recommend helmets, without making them compulsory, while at the same time campaigning for safer roads harsher penalties etc. The two need not be in contradiction.[/b]
Helmets will not protect you in every circumstance but will protect you in some, and that's good enough for me.
Also, any kind of protective gear is a balance between comfort cost protection and practicality. Well, bicycle helmets are an excellent balance: they don't cost a fortune, they are lightweight, and they don't hinder riding. Cyclists cannot wear a full face motorcycle helmet and a leather suit with impact protectors, but they can certainly wear a bicycle helmet.
The studies on drivers taking more risks if cyclists wear helmets must be taken with truckloads of salt: first of all they are irrelevant to all those situations where drivers simply didn't see cyclists, helmet or no helmet. Then many of these studies are quite old and/or relate to countries which are very different. Any study on the US, which is car centric, has terrible road design, and where getting a driving licence is all too easy, is simply irrelevant: it's no coincidence that, even normalising for miles driven, their roads are much more dangerous than ours.
Lastly, a lot depends on the kind of cycling: alternating cycle lanes and some urban roads at 20 mph is very different from bombing down country roads at 40+ mph. The latter exposes cyclists to motorcycle levels of danger, without the motorcycle gear that protects motorcyclists from impact (helmet, elbos and knee protectors, etc) and abrasion (if you fall and slide, the tarmac is a cheese grater and your flesh is the cheese).