Definitely should not be made compulsory. Its completely personal choice. Personally I wear a helmet, dont want to risk bashing my head and spending the rest of my life a vegetable. If others arent particularly bothered about this then so be it.

Wearing a helmet is proven to save lives and should be made compulsary, the same way seatbelts were and motorcycle helmets were. Neither of these stopped people from driving their cars or riding their bikes.

If you don't wear a helmet, you are at greater risk of injury and would not get much sympathy or payout from insurance if you are involved in a collision.

The helmets also now look the part and are so light you don't even notice your wearing one.

When they outlaw smoking,then i'll wear a helmet.

Nuffield said.

I hate spellcheck,should read, nuff said.

It should be made compulsory to wear a helmet, just as it is compulsory to use a seat belt in cars. The whole argument that it is a personal choice is invalid as a serious injury due to not wearing a helmet affects friends/family and also all tax payers.

If completely selfish people continue insisting on not wearing a helmet they should be disallowed to have children, and be automatically disqualified from NHS services and disability benefits!

I don't agree with being forced to wear a helmet ... I do agree that wearing a helmet is a good idea ... but, on really hot days, or when I don't want to have a helmet to carry around when shopping. I would choose not to wear one. I own a helmet, but seldom wear it, except in winter, as it helps keep my head warm.

I remember almost exactly the same points being raised on both sides of this argument 35 years ago when it became compulsory to wear a crash helmet on a motorbike. I would have been against it up until about a year ago, but now that I'm in the habit of wearing a helmet because I enter sportives it wouldn't trouble me too much. It is nice to not wear a helmet, however, if you're just out for a tootle about.

I personally won't get on a bike withouht one however sometimes its nice to have a cool head on an ascent so will take it off, would be frustrated if I would receive a fine for this...

It should be compulsory for under 13s like Ski Helmets are in Italy though and most definetly if riding on a main road.

It should be a matter of choice but people need more education. After having a cycle related head injury that resulted in life long consequences and also me having to re-learn to walk, talk, read and write, I can tell you it's not just those who have an injury that suffer it's the whole family.

My view is people should be educated then take responsibility for their actions, if you are involved in an accident without taking appropriate care you should bare the cost and not expect others to pick up the bill.

Wear a helmet, believe me I know

A cyclist would give up cycling for anything, just shows that 10% of the people responding aren't cyclists. Lies, Damn lies and statistics

@Ad4m

"If you don't wear a helmet, you are at greater risk of injury and would not get much sympathy or payout from insurance if you are involved in a collision."

Wrong, so wrong. There is no legal obligation to wear a helmet and therefore should be no contributory negligence to reduce a damages claim if you don't wear one. Nothing but ill-informed scare mongering. (yeah yeah, I know one district judge think's differently but it's not binding on other cases).

BTW - I think helmets do sometimes save lives, but they aren't a panacea and dont think they should be compulsory, despite one saving some damage to my noggin when punted off my bike by a motorist last September.

I think there is truth in reserch suggesting that motorists take comfort in cyclists wearing helmets and will often drive closer to you when passing than cyclists without a lid on.

was there this much outcry when it was made compulsory to wear a seatbelt?

ad4m wropte:

"Wearing a helmet is proven to save lives".

This is not actually true. A cycle helmet is constructed to do no more than reduce the level of de-acceleration in a crash to no more than 400G in an impact that generates no more than 90 Joules of energy. This is equivalent to a simple fall at a speed of no more than 12.5 Mph. Such impacts are highly unlikely to be life threatening. In a genuinely life-threatening impact, which may generate many hundreds or even thousands of joules of energy, a helmet is about as much use a chocolate teapot. Given that the energy generate in an impact rises with both the mass involved and the square of the speed, by 30 Mph a cycle helmet can only reduce the impact by the equivalent of going around 1.5 Mph slower, too small to make any real difference, and this is based on the 5kg mass a helmet is tested with, never mind an impact involving a 2000kg car.

Another issue is that modern cycle helmets are so full of ventilation holes that in many crashes they simply fail to work as intended, instead failing due to a brittle fracture of the polystyrene, which absorbs next to no energy.

Given that pedestrians suffer more fatalities than cyclists and are over 1.5 times as likely to be killed as a cyclist per km travelled, there is a stronger case for making helmets compulsory for pedestrians than there is for cyclists. To put it another way, if the risks faced do not justify making helmets for pedestrians compulsory, then there is even less of a case for making them compulsory for cyclists.

"Another issue is that modern cycle helmets are so full of ventilation holes that in many crashes they simply fail to work as intended, instead failing due to a brittle fracture of the polystyrene, which absorbs next to no energy."

Really?!?!

Are you claiming that well known manufacturers don't test their helmets to ensure they provide suitable protection and that they don't meet safety standards? Are you also claiming that as helmets become more "modern" they become less safe?

A fracture in a helmet is not a bad thing at all, in fact it's probably a good thing, the more the helmet deforms the better, as long as it doesn't shatter into pieces leaving you head unprotected, this is why almost all helmets are laminated in plastic, it allows them to break while keeping the pieces together. It's the same reason car bumpers are not made from solid steel but deformable plastic.

Come on people, it's fine to argue about whether it shoud be compulsory or not but how can anyone deny that helmets provide some finite level of protection?

was there this much outcry when it was made compulsory to wear a seatbelt?

Yes

But the public healt issue is different for helmets and seatbelts.

There is evidence that cycling reduces in countries where helmet use becomes compulsory, which leads to more accidents per cyclist-km.

Also as far as public health is concerned cycling is beneficial, so reducing that is not good.

I do wear a helmet for all commutes, but don't want it to be made compulsory, as reducing the numbers of other cyclists will put me more at risk.

m1t35h

You clearly don't understand the way a helmet is supposed to work and a brittle fratures is certainly not a good thing from the energy absorption point of view. You probably have no understanding of the mechanism of brain injury either, and the central role rotational forces play - forces that can be increased as a result of wearing a helmet. And no, no manufacturer produces a helmet that can be said to offer 'suitable protection', if by that you mean giving a meaningful level of protection in a high-impact crash. In fact helmets tend to have stickers in them effectively admitting that the 'protection' they offer is marginal at best.

You might benefit from reading the statement below, written by Brian Walker of Head Protection Evaluations 'the principal UK test laboratory for helmets and head protection systems of all kinds'.

-------------------------------

All forms of safety helmet manufacturers' have to sell their goods in a brutally competitive global market. With very few exceptions, safety helmets are made down the lowest standard permitted within a given 'local' market.

Due in the main to the introduction of the weak EN1078 standard present day cycle helmets generally, offer a lower level of protection than those sold in the early 1990's. In the early 1990's market research suggested that in excess of 90% of the cycle helmets sold in the UK were certified to the Snell B-90 standard, at that time the most stringent cycle helmet standard in the world. In 1998 Head Protection Evaluations (HPE) my safety helmet laboratory, conducted a test program for the Consumers Association's assessment of cycle helmets available in the UK. By that year all of the helmets were manufactured to the EN1078 the European harmonised standard for cycle helmets. The results showed that with one or two exceptions all of the helmets tested were totally incapable of meeting the higher Snell B-90 standard, to which many of the models had been previously certified. Some tests suggested that certain helmets were even incapable of meeting the weak EN1078. standard.

...In a recent Court case, a respected eminent materials specialist argued in court against me, that a cyclist who was brain injured from what was essentially a fall from their cycle without any real forward momentum, would not have had their injuries reduced or prevented by a cycle helmet. This event involved contact against a flat tarmac surface with an impact energy potential of no more than 75 joules, his estimate, with which I was in full agreement, and the court found in favour of his argument. So in at least one case now, a high Court decided cycle helmets do not prevent injury even from when just falling from a cycle onto a flat surface, virtually without any forward momentum.

Cycle helmets will almost always perform much better against a flat surface than any other. In every other legal case that I have studied where there is a cyclist in collision with a motorised vehicle the impact energy potentials generated were of a level which outstripped those we use to certify Grand Prix drivers helmets. In some accidents at even moderate motor vehicle speeds, energy potential levels in hundreds of joules were present.

...Briefly referring back to the Court case mentioned early, the very eminent QC under whose instruction I was privileged to work, tried repeatedly to persuade the equally eminent neurosurgeons acting for either side and the technical expert opposing me, to state that one must be more safe wearing a helmet than would be the case if one were not. Interestingly all three refused to so do, claiming that they had seen both severe brain damage and fatal injury both with and without cycle helmets being worn. Thus making cycle helmets in their view too complex a subject for such a sweeping claim to be made.

I wear a helmet but dont feel it should be enforced , it should be a matter of choice. Am i being a cynic to think that it is the start of the slippery slope that will require registration/numberplates&insurace and probably some form of exise duty.

A llittle expert opinion on the significance of rotational injuries - the sort that can be made more severe by the wearing of a helmet. The following is taken from TRL Project Report PPR213 'Assessment of current bicycle helmets for the potential to cause rotational injury' (2007).

------------------------

Concern has been expressed that current bicycle helmets may increase the risk of brain injuries from rotational motion. A range of child and youth bicycle helmets have therefore been tested to evaluate their linear and oblique impact performance.

... in both low speed linear impacts and the most severe oblique cases, linear and rotational accelerations may increase to levels corresponding to injury severities as high as AIS 2 or 3, at which a marginal increase (up to 1 AIS interval) in injury outcome may be expected for a helmeted head.

...Rotation of the head was identified as a potential mechanism for, and a significant cause of, brain injury in the literature review of TRL Report PPR213. Tests using disembodied headforms showed that, for a 15 degree oblique impact at 19.6 miles/hr (vertical speed 4.7 miles/hr, horizontal speed 18.4 miles/hr) rotations could have a greater injury potential than direct impact forces.

...TRL report PPR213 also presents some interesting and useful results showing that helmets actually provide very limited protection against linear accelerations. For side impacts at 12.1 miles/hour, half the helmets had peak linear accelerations in excess of 200 g, corresponding, according to Table 4.7 of the report, to severe, critical or unsurvivable head injuries

If more people knew and understood these results, were aware that the vast majority of seriously debilitating head injuries are caused by bike/motor vehicle collisions often involving forces outside the design limit for bike helmets, and knew about the Dutch research showing that a reduction in vehicle impact speed from 40 to 30 km/hr halves maximum head acceleration [2], there might be more emphasis on measures to prevent high impact car/bike crashes (e.g. by education, enforcement of traffic laws and random breath tests) rather than on secondary measures such as cycle helmets, for which the benefits are much less certain.

P.s. The concluding paragraph from that TRL reports reads as follows:

---------------------

New helmet standards could improve protection in low-impact crashes. Unfortunately, the vast majority of seriously debilitating brain injuries result from car/bike collisions and involve forces considerably greater than the absorption capacity of a lightweight helmet. It is therefore important to educate cyclists on the limitations of helmets. Many people have an exaggerated faith in the ability of helmets to offer adequate protection in most circumstances. A false sense of security is likely to increase injury rates. Education programs should therefore explain the limitations of helmets, and that impacts to the helmet at only12.1 miles/hour may produce severe or unsurvivable head injuries

I think adults need to step up and set an example to young people and wear a helmet.

If every professional road cyclist can manage to wear one for several hours a day, day in day out, cannot see a problem for other cyclists really.

If you don't care about your own safety then dont expect others to either.

Dont wear a helmet, dress all in black and dont use lights on dark days!

You cannot get brain injury if you don't have a brian in the first place!

The guys who dont wear helmets, look the fools that they are!

Can anyone give me a good reason why car occupants shouldn't wear helmets?

@ad4m

professional cyclist wear one because their are subject to more far risk in their riding, also UCI demands they wear one. at least reason properly before calling others idiots.

in my opinion, if the impact was strong enough to have killed me, a helmet is unlikely to save my life. if i were to survive however, i'm sure the helmet would have reduced any head injury by a measurable amount.

tx14 wrote:

'...if i were to survive however, i'm sure the helmet would have reduced any head injury by a measurable amount.'

On what grounds is your certainty based? If the helmet failed due to brittle fracture (highly likely in a high-impact crash), wearing a helmet would, in all likelihood, have done you no good at all. It might have actually made any rotational had injuries worse.

ad4m. There speaks someone who clearly hasn't read any credible research on the topic, or come that the research findings posted in this very thread.

Some probably wear helmets because they are taken in by all the misleading guff circulated by people like the AA, who want to do everything possible to shift the responsibility for ‘road safety’ onto cyclists and away from motorists. However, I think that the main reason helmets remain so popular with cyclists, despite all the evidence (and the laws of physics) that show the level of ‘protection’ they offer is largely illusory, is that cyclists feel threatened on the road, and wearing a helmet helps people to feel that they are doing something to regain control of the dangers they face. A sort of ‘rabbit’s foot’ in the shape of a polystyrene hat…

Chris87

"was there this much outcry when it was made compulsory to wear a seatbelt?"

No, it was far far worse (or better depending on your perspective).

Cycling should be as free from red tape as possible, it should be a truly affordable and accessible form of transport for all.

If there is a issue concerning safety then address the problems at source, mainly motorists failing to comply with numerous regulations that place cyclists at risk.

Tackle the appalling driving standards and you will minimise risk to cyclists.

BTW I own 5 helmets, mainly to carry a camera and lights.

Hmm...How about these?

http://www.goaliemonkey.com/vaughngoalmasks.html

A thread with some real science. Well in the comments.

I question the stat "one in ten would give up cycling if helmets were made compulsory" as I see so many cyclists in helmets.

Do cycling helmts help? Its a recurring debate and an interesting one. I think that its correct that like most I see the helmet as a sort of comfort blanket, I feel just a bit better with it. I have also had a crash were I am really convinced that the helmet helped. As I've lost all memory of the event I can't say exactly what happened. But I'm sure that I was riding on a level gravel path and my forks sheared off in the lower head set race. I had no marks or injuries but the ends of both bar ends were covered in mud and the front of my helmet crushed.

My first memory is carrrying the bike with the forks dangling free, about an hour later. Some one directed me to a phone were I eventually remembered my phone number.

I'm sure the helmet reduced the force on my brain (perhaps only by a tiny amount) but I'm very glad it did as the force crearly was enough to do something to my brain and I'm glad it didn't do any more

So yes I always wear a helmet now

I think that it is a worrying trend that cycking safey is seen as an issue for cyclists, not all road users

Finally I think the rotation issue is a big one and if you fix lights or cameras to your helmet make sure that they will rip free. I can see how a camera rigidly fixed to the side of you helemt could turn a minor fall into a neck wrenching brain twisting nightmare

I wear a helmet. I feel safe with one. I don't take extra risk, I just feel a bit more reassured. I accept that assurance may be misplaced, but I take a good deal of comfort from the fact that I have taken as much responsibility as I can for looking after myself.

Ideally I am pro choice, and accept Bernie's post and science and the implications that my fancy helmet may do little to help stop me getting hurt or killed if the worst was to happen. But, my argument is that to enforce helmets would require a change in the law and a change in judicial attitude toward the cyclist as a victim of dangerous driving. Such change would likely integrate the cyclist as a road user, from a legal point of view, with other motorised vehicular road users and mean that rulings would have a point of law by which to judge the life of the person riding the bike if they were a potential victim of injury through dangerous driving.

That change in judicial attitude should eventually find it's way into the mindset of the vehicular road user and in time, I'd hope make them see the cyclist as another vehicle which needs to be treated with the same amount of respect as any other fossil fuel burning one. Thus having the potential to make the roads safer for cyclists.

Yes it is an idealistic viewpoint, but I feel that segregating road users, both in term of physical space and perception, is a really bad thing. It creates factionalism, and factionalism leads to confrontation. Enforcing helmet use puts the line in the sand and says to the road users the law is currently written toward governing 'this road user has equal rights as you and you must recognise that'. Currently the law doesn't really recognise the cyclist as either a road user or a pedestrian.

It doesn't matter that the recognition by others would be begrudging, making helmet use the law is a useful starting point in loudly stating 'this group of road users have the same legal right of use and level of legal recognition as you. So behave and be careful'.

It's a legal requirement done for entirely the wrong reasons of course, but it's a step toward integrating cyclists as road users into the mindset of motorists AND the judiciary. It's a necessary evil I would argue.

I,m pretty sick of this debate!, every person with an iQ larger than their shoe size realises at the very least a helmet would reduce damage, probably/ possibly save your life.......I know this! and regardless I left the club when they decided to make it compulsory to wear one on all outings.

In my 'free' time I'd just like to decide for myself, if, on a hot day i'd rather not wear a helmet.

Why don't they just make the entire front section of all motor vehichles from foam and limited to 25mph.....eco and safe!

This will not deter some clowns from throwing things at me whilst minding my own business on my bike. The sentences passed to some drivers as i'm sure has been mentioned in the forums is utterly scandalous.

I do wonder why a supposed advanced motorists organisation is so obsessed with helmets.