Cycle Lights

You concluded your post with.".It is more dangerous to not cycle, than to cycle without a helmet".

You say I've made a mistake by assuming the numbers I posted did not represent the whole story. My post #22..last Sunday. We're talking at cross-purposes here. My point was about avoiding head injuries as well as reducing the seriousness of one by cyclists wearing a helmet. It wasn't about someone choosing not to cycle, after Australia made it compulsory to wear a helmet, because they didn't want to wear a helmet and consequently got less exercise and thus increasing the chances of premature death as a result of those conditions associated with a lack of exercise . eg heart problems, diabetes associated with being overweight etc. You mentioned some.
I covered avoiding head injuries with alcohol-helmets.
It's clearly safer..re head injuries, to cycle wearing a helmet which is why the lycra brigade wear them and parents I see with young children on bikes have them wearing helmets,too.
"The lycra brigade" - no bias there then...
plus there are particular reasons why helmets on young children is not a bad thing. So not comparable.
I see adults riding their bikes wearing them and I did ask you why you thought that was the case which is what I'm in support of . You haven't challenged the data I posted you just said that those figures don't tell the whole story. Can we agree that, from avoiding a potential brain injury aspect, wearing a cycle helmet is a sensible thing to do ?
"Potential brain injury" so - how does that happen? How often does it happen?
I take onboard the points raised by the research results in Australia and the debate, really is, whether a government should mandate the wearing of cycle helmets or not. The same laws apply in New Zealand.

You did say that head injury rates in Australia increased after the legislation was rolled out across the whole of Australia. Several states already had laws to that effect. This is what I read. "The legislation increased helmet-wearing from 30-80% but was coupled with a decrease in cycling from 30-40% For motor cyclists the same legislation was a success so they thought the same would go for cyclists. Rates of head injuries among cyclists, which had been dropping through the 1980s, continued to fall before levelling out in 1993. A sharp reduction was expected but that could have been down to the 30-40% reduction in people cycling.
Helmets on motorcycles are nothing like helmets on cyclists.
I have to say that I was surprised that you wrote this. It's not like you.

"If the country is worried about heads being struck on things, then there should be helmet wearing in cars, on stairs and in showers."

The risk to life and limb on the roads is far greater than someone walking downstairs..there are handrails..or someone taking a shower..there are anti-slip matts.
It's a numbers game. The risk of pointing a gun at yourself and pulling the trigger is very high. But very, very few people do it. If you want to prevent head injuries, take a look at the numbers. Where do most head injuries occur? (it isn't cycling, btw)
Both in Australia and here in the UK, you have to wear a seat belt in a car and children have to be strapped into a special seat conforming to a certain standard ...in the UK..until they are 12 years old or 135cm in height. I had to check that. In Australia the same seat belt laws apply and children under 7 must be in a special seat..one that is 'approved'..ie a certain standard. A bit more re ages but you get the picture. So...just to make sure you know what my position is. I strongly support the wearing of cycle helmets both on and off public roads. I noted what Toni said re 'off road' and that his son experienced a fall off his bike that caused his helmet to break. He'd possible that he would have sustained a serious head injury had he not been wearing a helmet and the same goes for cyclists who are involved in bad roads accidents. It doesn't even need to involve a vehicle..I've seen some bad potholes around.

All that data from Australia is food for thought but about the consequences of compulsion and that is a different discussion. Out of interest I read this re the Netherlands which, as we know, is a keen cycling nation. It's dated 2024.

https://swov.nl/en/nieuws/fact-sheet-bicycle-helmets-effectiveness-use-and-measures. It's the national road safety institute and it's independent. It's interesting to see that the public there think that introducing legislation would discourage cycling.

"SWOV's updated fact sheet on bicycle helmets provides an up to date overview of the available research on bicycle helmets. The fact sheet includes research results that state that widespread bicycle helmet use in the Netherlands could prevent 100 to 110 traffic fatalities and 1,700 to 1,900 serious injuries annually. Helmeted cyclists are 60% less likely to sustain serious head injuries and 70% less likely to suffer fatal head injuries in a crash or fall.Currently, helmet usage among Dutch cyclists remains notably low by international standards, with only 5% of men and 3% of women wearing them. The main barriers to helmet adoption in the Netherlands include perceived discomfort, a belief that helmets are unnecessary, and inconvenience in carrying them. For children, parents indicate that peer pressure plays a major role, as their friends don't wear helmets either.While no Dutch organisations oppose voluntary helmet use, there is little support for mandatory helmet laws. The main concern is that mandatory helmets could significantly reduce cycling activity, although the available evidence for this is limited and not conclusive."
Most injuries from cycling crashes are not head injuries...

If cycling without a helmet is so dangerous, yet only 5% of men and 3% of women wear them in The Netherlands, it must be absolute carnage over there. Oh, the figures above don't appear to show that...

I also return to my question earlier - why are we discussing cycle helmets in a thread about lights?
 
Last edited:
I asked because I wondered if you were opposed to the 'nanny state'.
really?

quite apart from the Public Health question,

Do you carry seatbelts with you when you leave your vehicle? No
Do seatbelts increase the size and weight of your body, making it more likely that you hit it on a part of the car, and with a greater impact? No
Do seatbelts make you sweaty and uncomfortable when expending more energy? No.
Do you have to replace seatbelts regularly? Only after a crash...
Do you have to be very careful when fitting and using a seatbelt, so that it is the proper size and is done up right? Not really - modern seatbelts don't normally need much adjusting, and one size fits almost all.
 
Last edited:
You 'say' you didn't read my post. That's very disappointing . It took some time to write it. I even left the door open about whether compulsary helmet wearing was the right way to go after you highlighted the data from Australia. There's an ongoing big debate about it. Don't be surprised if I don't respond to you again as you are now on my ignore(ant) list.
 
Wearing a cycle helmet should be a personal choice. Based on proper, unbiased information.

The debate is often fuelled by bias, such as input from helmet manufacturers, the motor industry, the fossil fuel industry. It isn't a level playing field.
 
Back
Top