Remember kids... always wear a helmet. (The almighty bikeradar helmet thread)

That's not really a fair reflection of the debate. Of course, there are dickheads in parliament, as there are outside it, who think helmet compulsion is a good idea, but the debate contained both the opposing views* on helmet compulsion and plenty of comment on the points you raise.

*Obviously, as this was parliament where every discussion is weighed down by the dogma that government can solve problems, only the statistical public benefit counterarguments were put. The thing which always seems to be conspicuous by its absence in parliamentary debate is what one might call the Cato viewpoint - individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace.

Individual liberty - helmet choice is a matter for the individual,
Limited government - there is no public good to be had by compulsion because the effect of helmet choice bears principally on the individual,
Free markets - the costs and benefits of helmet use can be priced individually by each market actor without state intervention,
Peace - compulsion degrades society because all impositions of government invoke dispute.

Good contribution fro Lilian Greenwood mentioning the decline in cycling in countries where helmet laws have been introduced.

God, that debate is even worse than this thread.

"Many parents tell me they'd let their children cycle if there was some kind of helmet law" <- what?! Many parents are so shit they've got to rely on telling their kids what to do because the government says they need to, rather than "I am your parent so you will do what you're told, you little brat, or you'll get your arse reddened and be grounded for the next 6 weeks" like they did in the olden days?

"young bothwell, don't you let me catch you throwing stones at the neighbour's window ever again as a new Bill has been introduced by Parliament that specifically focuses on the compulsion of young children to not throw stones at windows, and if you do it then you may be liable to pay a £30 fixed penalty notice"

Nobody said "grounded" in the olden days. Not in the UK anyway.

I once got sent to bed early for telling one of my bothers to fuck off, But it was so early they let me get up again a little while later.

Parents need legal guidance and support on this important safety issue and the government is just the thing to provide it. I wonder if any research has been done on the safety benefits of not telling your siblings to fuck off during fights. It seems so obvious that doing it will increase the rate and severity of injuries to both parties. We need laws! Many more laws!

http://www.bikebiz.com/index.php/news/read/helmet-compulsion-jemmied-into-parliamentary-debate-about-cycle-safety/013976

Quoted on Hansard

"Your coalition minister, Norman Baker, has publicly voiced his negative views on helmets and their use. Mr Baker’s personal choice and opinion have been widely used by cycling trainers and organisations to legitimise opposition to helmets. The attached document used by the UK’s largest provider of Bikeability training, Cycle Training UK, demonstrates this. This organisation also uses your picture to support its stance. We understand that Mr Baker has set up and leads a forum of selected cycle stakeholders. This is not open to all, but only a selected few who appear to us to be of a similar opinion. Mr Baker appears to be using his ministerial position to support his personal preference not to wear a helmet.
I assume this (PdF)is the doc referred to.
Cycle Training orgs do NOT oppose helmets, just oppose compulsion

I'm kind of interested in what's going to happen if more cycling orgs refuse to take part in campaigns that only or mostly show high-vised helmeted cyclists. Cambridge and somewhere else have done this I think.

Only just seen this... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20363060

Only just seen this... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20363060

"It's a personal thing.. it's like a bike.. you buy a particular kind of bike.. a particular kind of helmet.. but for me.. it saved my life."

Err..... what

he certainly speaks as if he has had a blow to the head,

just read this, quite good:-
http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/helmets-expectation-and-inconsistency/

It is, Australia tried to encourage motorists to wear helmet back in the 90's (or 80's).

You need to bear in mind that Australia is fucking stupid.

Knowledge of that never left our superior minds for a second.

The thing which always seems to be conspicuous by its absence in parliamentary debate is what one might call the Cato viewpoint

http://www.cato.org/blog/bike-advocates-oppose-mandatory-helmet-laws

[url]
Cycle Training orgs do NOT oppose helmets, just oppose compulsion

In what way do you speak for all "cycle training orgs"?

I don't think he is speaking for them. Do you know of any cycle training organisations the support helmet compulsion?

He's also a director for the association for bikeability schemes so should have a pretty good idea of the various training organisations and their policies toward helmets.

I was referring to the view of the National Standard for cycle training which exists to get people riding. The standard is pro choice on helmets (even though some schemes decide to impose choice). On being trained instructors are informed the view of the the National Standard and told to abide by the view of their employing scheme or the client.

I reckon theres a whole module of level 3 N.S needs writing based on how I survive in queues every day, and a level5 smidsy last year.
gonna start putting some words down.ideas around my brain at mo.
Skydancer is right on helmets we just do as client/ provider is requesting.
oh one more typing thing, bearing in mind I nearly left this mortal coil last year after being totalled, I saw a doctor with more letters after his name than I could count last week for a medico legal report, this doctor said to me (the crash was a local road trip I was helmetless) "you may have been better off with one on(a helmet), you may equally have been worse off at 25 mph"
so the smartest people like this have read the evidence,
and dont get sucked into the enforcement argument.

He's also a director for the association for bikeability schemes so should have a pretty good idea of the various training organisations and their policies toward helmets.

yes, which I pay my hard-earned cash into. So, helmet debate aside, I was wondering how those who are taking my money are using/quoting/implying the organisation as a mandate for "wider" agendas.

Not sure what you mean casens.
There is a thread for The Association of Bikeability Schemes (TABS) http://www.lfgss.com/thread78345.html
and a thread about cycle training and cycle helmets
http://www.lfgss.com/thread83237.html
Should you wish to discuss training and helmets or suggest that TABS has 'wider' agendas
My comment was about the view of National Standards for cycle training which is pro choice.

The research jury is also still very much out. You'd need a big set of comparable data for people having similar accidents as similar speeds, one group wearing a helmet and one not to draw conclusions on head injury.

Helmets are not designed for collisions with cars but falls under your own steam. They're not like motorcycle helmets which can absorb a lot more energy but are also very heavy and not suitable for use on a vehicle with no mirrors (headturning...)

As cars are the major commute risk for me and cycling a mile is as safe as driving a mile I refuse to wear a helmet for commuting. It makes cycling look like some extreme sport which it isn't. And the helmets give an illusion of safety against car crashes.

I nearly get sideswiped by a car then a women at the traffic light pulls up and advices me to wear a helmet just in case. Yeah, that would've improved his driving on a give way to me t-junction would it?

BTW rant applies to commuting, I would wear one with a high fall risk though eg mountain biking on holiday, very bad paths cycling, icy roads etc.

motorcycle helmets which can absorb a lot more energy but are also very heavy and not suitable for use on a vehicle with no mirrors (headturning...)

If you're not turning your head on a motorbike, you're going to die. It's called a "lifesaver" for a reason.

True (blindspots)

I did understand though that the extra weight makes them less suitable for cycling where you don't have any mirrors so you have to look/turn head all the time.

Also, weight and no vents.

In a way motorcyclist have similar issues that cyclist have, bad roads/legally blind drivers affect them much more than cars drivers. Maybe there's room for cooperation?