Wearing cycle helmets and the law

If the smoking ban is anything like Scotland – everyone will be wondering what the fuss is all about.

It seems to work very well in the countries I’ve visited that already have a smoking ban in bars and restaurants. The smokers just go outside and everyone’s happy. 🙂

Paul

If the smoking ban is anything like Scotland – everyone will be wondering what the fuss is all about.

Why? It’s another case of the nanny state dictating on a matter that should really down to freedom of choice.

As for the argument that smokers run up huge costs for the NHS – then they should be forced to pay for treatment they need for any smoking-related illnesses, thus leaving them to pursue their habit, but not at cost to anyone other than themselves – or duty on each tobacco product sold should be sufficient to cover a suitable proportion of likely cost of illnesses it will contribute to.

I don’t smoke (and never have), and I can choose not to go into public places such as pubs or restaurants if it means I will emerge stinking of stale cigarette smoke.

However, is it not down to the people managing the pubs etc to decide if they want to permit smokers to light-up on their premises? I undertand the argument that people who work in pubs are forced to inhale smoke – however, they have the choice of seeking jobs elsewhere, they are not forced to work in smoky pubs. The law of supply and demand would surely result in the right balance of smoking and non-smoking pubs being provided to suit the population split between smokers and non-smokers -and thus would also provide employment opportunities in the right proportions for smoking and non-smoking pub-staff too?

I have no problem with publicans and restauranteurs being obliged to provide a non-smoking/smoke free zone by law, but to ban smoking from their premises all together seems a step to far – akin to forcing people to wear cycle helmets (and yes, being risk (and pain) adverse I do wear one myself).

paul F

Hmm. I’ve never heard of Person A not wearing a helmet and Person B suffering because of it. I have heard of Person A smoking and Person B suffering. Yes, of course we all have a choice whether we go into pubs and other places where people smoke, but why should it be the case that I as a non-smoker have to endure some else belching their harmful pollutants into my airspace? (No pun intended). I also, with the greatest respect, consider you saying people working in smokey pubs could simply find work elsewhere to be a little narrow minded. I’m sure for many people that isn’t the case.

If smokers want to wreck their insides that’s absolutely fine, but non-smokers shouldn’t have to put up with it. I don’t understand your logic in firstly, to all intents and purposes saying it’s fine for people who smoke to damage those around them with their vile exhaust, and secondly, bringing this up as an analogy to the helmet discussion. They’re two completely different situations!

I have to say though, as I’m possibly one of the worlds biggest anti-smokers (and I don’t mean biggest because I ate all the pies, although there’s a large element of truth in that), you would pick this topic just to get me going wouldn’t you, dammit!? 🙂

Paul

There’s something a bit fishy about that final sentence of Moggy’s…….. :diablo:

It’s rather a no-brainer.

Children have not the information / awareness / experience to make an objective judgement and so decide to take the risk or not.

And their road sense is generally pretty carp too.

Moggy

Err… Slightly different concept to the helmet discussion I think!

Paul

Why? It’s another case of the nanny state dictating on a matter that should really down to freedom of choice.

As for the argument that smokers run up huge costs for the NHS – then they should be forced to pay for treatment they need for any smoking-related illnesses, thus leaving them to pursue their habit, but not at cost to anyone other than themselves – or duty on each tobacco product sold should be sufficient to cover a suitable proportion of likely cost of illnesses it will contribute to.

I don’t smoke (and never have), and I can choose not to go into public places such as pubs or restaurants if it means I will emerge stinking of stale cigarette smoke.

However, is it not down to the people managing the pubs etc to decide if they want to permit smokers to light-up on their premises? I undertand the argument that people who work in pubs are forced to inhale smoke – however, they have the choice of seeking jobs elsewhere, they are not forced to work in smoky pubs. The law of supply and demand would surely result in the right balance of smoking and non-smoking pubs being provided to suit the population split between smokers and non-smokers -and thus would also provide employment opportunities in the right proportions for smoking and non-smoking pub-staff too?

I have no problem with publicans and restauranteurs being obliged to provide a non-smoking/smoke free zone by law, but to ban smoking from their premises all together seems a step to far – akin to forcing people to wear cycle helmets (and yes, being risk (and pain) adverse I do wear one myself).

paul F

Well, I’d rather see my grandkids in cycling helmets than see them in Intensive Care.

Anyone disagree?

No, not me. The scary thing is there will be parents and grandparents out there who will start spouting the ‘human rights, kids choice, nanny state’ rubbish and should their child be killed immediately look for someone to sue!

At risk of causing “thread drift” ….

Anyone care to discuss the impending UK ban on smoking in public places?

And with the blue touch-paper safely lit, I’ll get my coat and retire to a safe distance….. :diablo:

Err… Slightly different concept to the helmet discussion I think!

But if you want a quick opinion, I can’t wait until it comes into force!

Paul

What about Smoking whilst riding a bike?

At risk of causing “thread drift” ….

Anyone care to discuss the impending UK ban on smoking in public places?

And with the blue touch-paper safely lit, I’ll get my coat and retire to a safe distance….. :diablo:

That’s because there isn’t one.

I am perfectly happy for every other cyclist in the world to wear helmets if they so wish. I am not running a campaign against them in any way.

But I’ve been cycling for over fifty years now, have never worn a helmet, and simply don’t want to.

As noted above this is mostly just an illogical anti-nanny state thing, nothing more. Totally indefensible, but it is my CHOICE.

I rail against petty bureaucrats telling me what risk I can take and what risk I can’t down to the minutiae of wearing largely ineffective (see above) helmets to cycle the deserted lanes of Norfolk as I do every other night through the summer.

If I cycled in town my attitude could well be different, modified by my perception of the risk.

Moggy

The helmet I cracked against a large stone wasn’t ineffective!

So your problem is having a law saying you must wear a helmet, and not helmets themselves? That’s fair enough, Sir. 🙂

Paul

Not me.

Moggy

Well, I’d rather see my grandkids in cycling helmets than see them in Intensive Care.

Anyone disagree?

An ex work collegue of mine was seriously injured whilst doing some off road cycling. Despite wearing a helmet he was in a coma for several weeks and suffered brain damage to the extent that he could no longer walk unaided or look after himself. 2 things saved his life a) wearing the helmet b) being found after the accident by a neurosurgeon (luck or what) who was able to get him to the right place for the best treatment very quickly. OK so his quality of life is less than it was before the accident but it is better than being dead. With physio and proper long term care his condition is slowly improving (he can now walk again)

…. you still haven’t come up with a single good reason for not wearing one on a bike!
Paul

That’s because there isn’t one.

I am perfectly happy for every other cyclist in the world to wear helmets if they so wish. I am not running a campaign against them in any way.

But I’ve been cycling for over fifty years now, have never worn a helmet, and simply don’t want to.

As noted above this is mostly just an illogical anti-nanny state thing, nothing more. Totally indefensible, but it is my CHOICE.

I rail against petty bureaucrats telling me what risk I can take and what risk I can’t down to the minutiae of wearing largely ineffective (see above) helmets to cycle the deserted lanes of Norfolk as I do every other night through the summer.

If I cycled in town my attitude could well be different, modified by my perception of the risk.

Moggy

That is your choice to make, just as it is mine to cycle without a helmet.

Then cycle without a helmet. Like you say, it’s your choice. I’ve been out on my bike tonight, as always wearing my helmet, but that’s my choice. I’ve fallen off wearing a helmet and it’s cracked the liner and scratched the shell quite impressively, and that was all it took to convince me wearing one was a good thing. If you don’t want to, fair enough.

Has to be said though, for all your talk of wearing a helmet in cars (and I can see perfectly where you’re coming from), you still haven’t come up with a single god reason for not wearing one on a bike!

Paul

Plenty of stats out there – google brings up some interesting arguments for and against the compulsory wearing of helmets for cyclists.

What I find really interesting is that cycle helmets are not designed, nor give adequate protection, to withstand the type of impacts encountered with moving vehicles. To be frank cycle helmet standards are pretty shocking.

Taking head protection a step further, there was research that pointed out that more lives would have been saved if all road users wore helmets (pedestrians, vehicle occupants).

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/effectiveness.pdf

The Darling Princess of All Our Hearts :rolleyes: might have been alive today if only….
Moggy

There lies the problem.
You can pass laws for seatbelts, hi-vis jackets, lights, helmets and there will always be some who won’t do it.
Too busy to buckle, too cool to wear a helmet…or just to be obstinate.

Saying that you are highly skilled or that you have never had an accident before as a reason to not wear a helmet is unwise and immature, period. Many drivers never have a major accident, does that mean we shouldn’t have to wear a seatbelt? Most planes never crash, shall we take out all the oxygen masks and inflatable slides etc? Helmets might not look great, but who really cares?

So why are you not advocating helmets in cars? It is no use pretending that airbags and seat belts on their own provide as much protection as they would combined with a really good quality racing helmet.

The Darling Princess of All Our Hearts :rolleyes: might have been alive today if only….

Every time you step into a car without a helmet you are accepting a level of risk greater than were you wearing one. That is your choice to make, just as it is mine to cycle without a helmet.

Moggy

I came a cropper last year, fell off my bicycle and hurt myself. It was nothing serious thankfully, but i cut my hands painfully and i noticed a small rock had embedded itself in the side of my helmet, would have given me stitches at least if i had not been wearing it.

Saying that you are highly skilled or that you have never had an accident before as a reason to not wear a helmet is unwise and immature, period. Many drivers never have a major accident, does that mean we shouldn’t have to wear a seatbelt? Most planes never crash, shall we take out all the oxygen masks and inflatable slides etc? Helmets might not look great, but who really cares?

Should be law. No two ways about it.
I too have seen what head injuries can do.
As for rear lights, that should also be enforceable by law if on a road.
I dont think this is a “nanny” issue, more a case of common sense. I wonder what the stats are on this in Aussie since it became law there?