Goodbye Toronto's Bike Culture

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1052.html

Tons of info here!

While most studies has not shown a decrease in head injuries after imposing a helmet law, we do not see the accidents that does not get reported where the there might have been a head injury if not wearing a helmet.

Absolutley, agreed.

The study - as far as I remember - was not based on collated injury figures, but on projections.

And as you always say Tynan, where is the evidence of your claims ;)

Absolutely ! As stated above I will try and dig out the studies !

I do not understand how these laws will kill the cycling culture.

I think it would be good if there was a law to wear a helmet. Will probably save lots of lives!

I shouldn't really bite, but... from your link

Helmet mechanics
One of the world's most prominent helmet test experts has stated that most helmets are physically incapable of sustaining impacts of the type associated with serious crashes; helmets provide protection only in low impact crashes under favourable circumstances [31]. Consumer tests of cycle helmets have shown that many helmets do not meet the standards to which they are accredited and only a very few helmets meet the higher standards most relevant to real-life crashes [32].

Adverse effects of helmets
Helmeted cyclists have been shown to be more likely to hit their heads if they crash and may be more likely to crash in the first place [34]. The disproportionate number of helmet wearers who believe that a helmet has saved their life (see above) is further evidence that helmet use might adversely affect crash involvement or outcome.

yada yada,

^ +1

Cycling at 25mph while wearing a helmet is not going to save your life if a car hits you at 40mph

blame Canada

But cycling at 5 mph and falling over and hitting the curb might.

....cos we all do that don't we??!

See your point though for kids

I've got no problem with it, I always wear a helmet.

yeah heard aboot this.

look at australia, cycling gone down the moment they introduced helmet law, and with licensing/regisation for your bike just to cycle, I highly doubt this will encourage people to cycle.

nah, it won't kill it, but severally hindered cycling in general.

as for helmet saving lives, I'll says this - safety in number, not equipment.

Australia: If you were a long-locked surfie, would you be seen dead with your hair all matted under a helmet? Different country, different response, just because they behave one way, doesn't mean Britain would follow the same way.

Registration for bikes: This one I'm in two minds about. Everyone complains that the police aren't interested in their stolen bike but when you break it down, expecting every Met copper to look for your bike because "it's the only Bert Scroggins track frame sprayed metallic purple in the whole of London" is actually a bit much. To most police, a bike is just a bike and they can't be stopping every purple bike for the next three weeks, hoping it's yours. Even if it's "really easy to tell a Bert Scroggins frame because of the line of the chain stays". If bikes had registration (depending on how they do it) then it might make the Five-0 more interested in tracking your ride down and make it harder to sell on stolen bikes. Downside: We'll have start paying road tax, to pay for the organisation that administrates our licences.

+1 Tea_Bee

Whenever licensing comes up in conversation with my none cycling buddies, I always have to agree with most of their points... in London.

I think this kind of thing is inevitable in major cities where traffic rules need to be enforced so that everybody plays nice and we don't have fatalities and injuries caused by a few idiots without consideration for their fellow man.

This said, I'd like to put it off as long as possible. The DVLA still have my driving license over a fucking technicality, and working for a car club without a license is a hindering to say the least. But I'd REALLY hate not to be able to ride just because of bureaucracy fail.

Ed has a good point.

Overall societal health drops with the introduction of mandatory helmet use through a reduction in cycling uptake.

The drop in head injuries is eclipsed by the over all drop in societal health from casual cyclists being discouraged by legislation.

This is the very reason many countries have not imposed helmet usage.

In addition it is know that a helmeted, elbow padded, knee padded, hi-viz jacketed cyclist might take on board - with the safety apparel - an unwarranted sense of safety.

It really is not a simple case of simple extrapolation - more helmets - stronger heads - less injury - so many other factors have to be weighed up.

exactly, ^ these are the reasons that Sustrans have a 'pro- choice anti-compulsion policy on helmet use and will be unlikely to ever change.

Personally I dont consider myself invincible, if some twat takes me out completely having a helmet on could mean the difference between teaching me to talk again, or cuts and bruises,therefore no debate for me.

+1 Tea_Bee

Whenever licensing comes up in conversation with my none cycling buddies, I always have to agree with most of their points... in London.

I think this kind of thing is inevitable in major cities where traffic rules need to be enforced so that everybody plays nice and we don't have fatalities and injuries caused by a few idiots without consideration for their fellow man.

This said, I'd like to put it off as long as possible. The DVLA still have my driving license over a fucking technicality, and working for a car club without a license is a hindering to say the least. But I'd REALLY hate not to be able to ride just because of bureaucracy fail.

Ideally, I'd WAY prefer not having licenced bikes, I mean it could be a fwiggin nightmare - would the licence be yours and you had to clip it to the back of every bike you ride, or would every bike be licenced individually? And would you have to pay road tax for every one of them! Aaaargh! That's gonna HURT my wallet. And what about kiddies bikes? Exemption for the under-16's? Under 12's maybe?

I guess the best option would be to have the number stamped into the frame and then display it on the back, so if your bike got stolen, they couldn't sell it with mismatched plate/frame stamp. But that means every bike being liable for some kind of vehicle tax.

On the silver lining side, that would make bike theft a much less attractive option for the thieves. And it would mean the end of having to point out to nobheads who say "pay some road tax" that road tax pays for the operation of the DVLA - and as my bike doesn't have a licence why would they expect me to pay a tax that doesn't apply to me. Building and maintaining the roads gets paid out of income tax as far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong) and reckon I pay far more towards the upkeep of the roads than any dickeads in an old Sierra who's said that to me. And I cause so much less wear and tear too.

When we get threads where cyclists take D-lock justice to cars who piss them off and then disappear in the traffic, every one of those incidents is a nail in the coffin of licence-free cycling. Sooner or later, the insurance companies who pay for the replacement of wing mirrors, the police who are fed up of the bad stats of unsolved crimes on their books and so on will outweigh the difficulty in making licences for bikes happen. If it has to happen, then we need to at least make sure it works in our favour in some ways. And enjoy the freedom we have while it lasts.

Cycling declined when the law was introduced while I was in primary school. It bounced back though and cycling is bigger than ever now. Lots of roadies. More commuters etc. It helps that fuel and cars are a black hole for cash. Scousers are still cunts and helm-t debates are still shit.

Adverse effects of helmets
Helmeted cyclists have been shown to be more likely to hit their heads if they crash and may be more likely to crash in the first place [34]. The disproportionate number of helmet wearers who believe that a helmet has saved their life (see above) is further evidence that helmet use might adversely affect crash involvement or outcome.

The helmets not meeting their claimed standards, that may well be true. But ^^^^^ this paragraph sounds like complete dogshit to me. Hang on, let me get this straight...

I may (I'm always mistrustful of reports that have "may" in them) be more likely to crash, because I'm wearing a helmet, because I think it protects me more than it does?

OK, so who exactly is so terminally fucking thick that they fall of their bike more easily because they think all the cut knees and elbows and banged ankle bones (those ones really sting) that they'll get from grinding up the tarmac will be protected by having a helmet on their head?

In the split second of "oh shit that car isn't stopping", you'll surely still try to GTF out the way - if only to protect your lovely bike!

Or are they suggesting helmet wearers are potentially more likely to take risks / be reckless because of the extra safety they feel?

Cycling declined when the law was introduced while I was in primary school. It bounced back though and cycling is bigger than ever now.

I hear the argument, but never rule out an offset effect to a rising value - the rising value can appear to overcome a dip in cycling uptake whilst hiding the lowered uptake . . .

A simple concept which I have conveyed in a very shit way :(

Not sure how to express it any clearer than that, oh language, you are a cruel mistress.

I shall, draw a graph . . . yes a graph, that will show you.

Jesus wore a helmet. Hitler sucked off helmut. Shark jump god win's law. God wins. Law.

"Cycling declined when the law was introduced while I was in primary school. It bounced back though and cycling is bigger than ever now."

Here you go . . . (graph shows hypothetical - time horizontal - cycling uptake vertical - illustrative only.)

Cycling is generally rising, which leads to an increase in cycle accidents.

Due to the increase in cycling accidents - a mandatory helmet use law is introduced [A].

Cycling uptake declines - but then from [B] onwards starts to recover (the 'bounce back') and then goes on to become bigger than ever (point [C] onwards).

You could read this as - an initial rejection of the mandatory helmet use law . . . then it's eventual acceptance, after which point it has no meaningful impact on cycling uptake - or even a positive effect ('bigger now than ever').

but . . .

You would have to factor in where cycling might have been without the introduction of the new legislation - (you would need to have some good long term figures to extrapolate a decent projection).

If we put in a hypothetical general upwards direction in cycling uptake (red line) - without the introduction of the new law - we might see the that the figures in a new light.

There very may well be a permanent offset of cycling uptake (from [B] onwards) - long term damage to the numbers taking up cycling - even though it is bigger now than it was before - the figures still may be XX% lower (the offset) than they would be without the mandatory cycle helmet use law.

lol!

I'll back Pistonator up on that.I can remember that as well.

I am going to the fucking pub.

I can't see your shizzle on cackberry but I'm sure it"s shot hot. Anyways.. I wear one and you are all satan's bitches.. And stuff.. What was the question? Oh there were lots of aussies here watching le tour and the poms are watchinbg bumby.. Why don't theu ewrae helnets fotr thid high ompact ssport.... My bereeeerrs and pi£llllls are licking oin now

IMO, the interesting thing about the australia numbers is not so much the impact on the number of people cycling, but the complete failure of the sudden increase in helmet wearing to impact on the rate of head injuries among the people still cycling. So cycle helmet use went up drastically, but the rate of head injuries per 100 cyclists stayed pretty much the same.

This makes it sound like helmets are not too effective at reducing the rate of head injuries among a population.

(this doesn't touch the 'what if a car hit me' arguments - but those are crap anyway)

If you want to be safe, buy a motorcycle helmet, they're designed for high speed impact, whether bicycle helmet are merely designed for a few knock around the park.