Bicycle helmets Are they mandatory in Europe?

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, gpope wrote:

Here in Canada it is mandatory to wear a bicycle helmet. (only when
riding a bike of course).

Just to be precise, the situation in Canada varies by province.

--
Yves Bellefeuille

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

I'll settle for anecdotal evidence:

I prefer statistics, peer-reviewed academic research and
rational risk appraisal. But hey, each to his own, vive
la difference, etc.

You didn't give any of that, and I have access to anecdotal evidence
which I prefer over unsubstantiated assertion, which is all that you
did give.

No, I gave you this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm

snip

You gave the link after I had expressed a preference for anecdotal
evidence over assertion.

I gave the link after "I'll settle for anecdotal evidence", at the
same time as "I prefer statistics, peer-reviewed academic research"
and before "You didn't give any of that".

To carry on about *my* "unsubstantiated assertion" after *your*
"anecdotal evidence" *after* I've given you a link to real
scientific research: bizarre.


There is plenty of evidence that the sky is blue.

Forgive me if I leave that statement as "unsubstantiated assertion".

I have no doubt that you have anecdotal evidence of it being orange
on more than one occasion.

--
"Checking identity papers is a complete waste of time. If anyone can
be counted on to have valid papers, it will be the terrorists".

Mary Pegg wrote:

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

You gave the link after I had expressed a preference for anecdotal
evidence over assertion.

I gave the link after "I'll settle for anecdotal evidence", at the
same time as "I prefer statistics, peer-reviewed academic research"
and before "You didn't give any of that".

To carry on about *my* "unsubstantiated assertion" after *your*
"anecdotal evidence" *after* I've given you a link to real
scientific research: bizarre.

Anybody else who is interested can check back through the thread and
make a judgement. I'm not interested in continuing with this.

There is plenty of evidence that the sky is blue.

Forgive me if I leave that statement as "unsubstantiated assertion".

I have no doubt that you have anecdotal evidence of it being orange
on more than one occasion.

Sarcasm and a pretence at science do not do much to convince me of
anything.

Goodbye.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

On 22 feb, 04:14, Padraig Breathnach wrote:
Mary Pegg wrote:
Padraig Breathnach wrote:

Mary Pegg wrote:

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

I'll settle for anecdotal evidence:

I prefer statistics, peer-reviewed academic research and
rational risk appraisal. But hey, each to his own, vive
la difference, etc.

You didn't give any of that, and I have access to anecdotal evidence
which I prefer over unsubstantiated assertion, which is all that you
did give.

No, I gave you this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm
which contains both anecdote:
"Dr Ian Walker was struck by a bus and a lorry during the experiment.
He was wearing a helmet both times."
and also real research:
"drivers were twice as likely to get close to the bicycle, at an
average of 8.5cm, when he wore a helmet."
in the first five short paragraphs.

You gave the link after I had expressed a preference for anecdotal
evidence over assertion.

It covers limited aspects of the issue. I see that you gave a
Wikipedia link to DFM which, to me, seems inconclusive (indeed,
incomplete).

But really, this one has been thrashed to death all over Usenet.

I don't range all over usenet.

Me neither, but as a cyclist I ranged over this bit.

The argument, as I understand it, is that while a helmet will tend to
save your noggin in a given nasty situation, the likelihood of ending
up in a nasty situation is increased because:
a) other road users are less careful of you
b) you are less careful of yourself. Indeed, I think this risk-
compensation effect is well documented in other aspects of road use.
It has a fancy name, which I've forgotten.

This is borne out by statistics from places with compulsory helmet
use, like Oz.

I exercise my freedom by wearing a helmet when I'm MTB'ing and likely
to crash, but not when riding in Holland, as mostly I'll be on bike
paths and going at low speed.

My brother exercised his freedom by not wearing a helmet while riding
on the road in Wales and ended up in hospital for 6 weeks with
fractured vertebrae after a white van driver exercised his freedom to
be stupid. If you ever meet him (my brother) you'll notice that he has
hair like a crop circle, as his scalp got scraped down the road
follwing the collision.

B;

Mary Pegg a écrit :
Martin wrote:

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 22:58:53 GMT, Mary Pegg wrote:

Padraig Breathnach wrote:

Forget the legal requirements, and think about your personal
well-being. Wear one. If you are hiring a bike, you can probably hire
a helmet. If you don't care to, or none is available for hire, buy
one. When you are finished, find a bare-headed kid on a bike and give
it to him or her.
Phooey. There's plenty of evidence that says they don't help (overall).
I've seen evidence of at least one helmet, that saved somebody from
cracking his skull on the edge of a curb stone.

Sample of one. I said "overall".

This is one of these things that has been thrashed to death on various
newsgroups - so shall we leave it at that?

My daughter went over the handle bars and landed on her head. Luckilly she had a helmet on.
The same thing happened to the daughter of some friends. She also had a helmet on.

cpmac
http://normandy-tour-guide.cpmac.com

Am Wed, 21 Feb 2007 22:02:28 GMT schrieb :

Here in Canada it is mandatory to wear a bicycle helmet. (only when
riding a bike of course).

Is this the case in the European countries?

Here in Germany it is not required to wear one.

Regards,

Frank

Am Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:53:25 +0100 schrieb Deeply Filled Mortician:

Yeah, great. Show us the evidence that protective helmets don't
protect.

They did drop a helmet from a tall bilding, and a wool-hat. The helmet did
break.

SCNR,

Frank

wrote:

[]
The argument, as I understand it, is that while a helmet will tend to
save your noggin in a given nasty situation, the likelihood of ending
up in a nasty situation is increased because:
a) other road users are less careful of you
b) you are less careful of yourself. Indeed, I think this risk-
compensation effect is well documented in other aspects of road use.
It has a fancy name, which I've forgotten.

This is borne out by statistics from places with compulsory helmet
use, like Oz.

Which statistics are those?

I exercise my freedom by wearing a helmet when I'm MTB'ing and likely
to crash, but not when riding in Holland, as mostly I'll be on bike
paths and going at low speed.

Where you can still fall of course. What is irrefutable is that _if_ you
fall off a bike, you're less likely to sustain serious damage when
wearing a helmet than when you're not. The last time I fell of a bike, I
wasn't wearing a helmet. It's one of those things that I don't always
do, but on reflection I probably should- given that wearing a helmet
doesn't impede my enjoyment of cycling much.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

On 22 feb, 11:20, (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
(*)) wrote:
wrote:

[]

The argument, as I understand it, is that while a helmet will tend to
save your noggin in a given nasty situation, the likelihood of ending
up in a nasty situation is increased because:
a) other road users are less careful of you
b) you are less careful of yourself. Indeed, I think this risk-
compensation effect is well documented in other aspects of road use.
It has a fancy name, which I've forgotten.

This is borne out by statistics from places with compulsory helmet
use, like Oz.

Which statistics are those?

I don't want to get into a big debate about this - it's one of the
perennial topics on cycling groups, and as much use as a PC vs Mac
discussion. Google'ing on uk.rec.cycling.misc or even alt.mountainbike
will give loads of references (I'm not trying to be obstructive :-).

I exercise my freedom by wearing a helmet when I'm MTB'ing and likely
to crash, but not when riding in Holland, as mostly I'll be on bike
paths and going at low speed.

Where you can still fall of course. What is irrefutable is that _if_ you
fall off a bike, you're less likely to sustain serious damage when
wearing a helmet than when you're not. The last time I fell of a bike, I
wasn't wearing a helmet. It's one of those things that I don't always
do, but on reflection I probably should- given that wearing a helmet
doesn't impede my enjoyment of cycling much.

Fair enough. I don't look good with "helmet hair", and I estimate the
chance of my falling off as so low as to be not worth bothering about.
By the same token I don't wear one while walking around, or driving. I
know of two people who have been killed falling down stairs, and I
don't wear a helmet on stairs. Maybe I should.

B;

wrote:

On 22 feb, 11:20, (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
(*)) wrote:
wrote:

[]

The argument, as I understand it, is that while a helmet will tend to
save your noggin in a given nasty situation, the likelihood of ending
up in a nasty situation is increased because:
a) other road users are less careful of you
b) you are less careful of yourself. Indeed, I think this risk-
compensation effect is well documented in other aspects of road use.
It has a fancy name, which I've forgotten.

This is borne out by statistics from places with compulsory helmet
use, like Oz.

Which statistics are those?

I don't want to get into a big debate about this - it's one of the
perennial topics on cycling groups, and as much use as a PC vs Mac
discussion. Google'ing on uk.rec.cycling.misc or even alt.mountainbike
will give loads of references (I'm not trying to be obstructive :-).

It's not an issue I worry about a lot, I admit. But the BMA certainly
thinks it's an important enough issue to encourage legislation on, and I
tend to see them more as an organisation with a genuine interest in
public health, than just being interfering busybodies. There was a time
when people made impassioned arguments that there was no need to wear a
seatbelt, and resented it becoming law. Indeed, there are still a few
libertarian loonies who still get upset about it, in some US states for
example.

I exercise my freedom by wearing a helmet when I'm MTB'ing and likely
to crash, but not when riding in Holland, as mostly I'll be on bike
paths and going at low speed.

Where you can still fall of course. What is irrefutable is that _if_ you
fall off a bike, you're less likely to sustain serious damage when
wearing a helmet than when you're not. The last time I fell of a bike, I
wasn't wearing a helmet. It's one of those things that I don't always
do, but on reflection I probably should- given that wearing a helmet
doesn't impede my enjoyment of cycling much.

Fair enough. I don't look good with "helmet hair", and I estimate the
chance of my falling off as so low as to be not worth bothering about.
By the same token I don't wear one while walking around, or driving. I
know of two people who have been killed falling down stairs, and I
don't wear a helmet on stairs. Maybe I should.

Does that mean you've never actually fallen off a bike? I've fallen off
several times at different points in my life. I know my partner has too.
I've never fallen down stairs on the other hand.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk