- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
White cycle helmetCTC and Sustrans launch online petition to fight helmet compulsion
Sustrans and the CTC are have launched an online petition in their continuing efforts to fight a bill that would make cycling with a helmet compulsory in Northern Ireland by launching a petition and presenting evidence to the committee of the NI assembly that is currently scrutinising the bill as part of the legislative process. The online petition can be signed by anyone living in the UK.
Last month the Northern Ireland assembly passed The Cyclists (Protective Headgear) Bill by two votes which if it becomes law will make it an offence to ride a bicycle in public in the province without wearing protective headgear.
The bill was backed by the Northern Irish council of the BMA and its passing lead to calls for similar legislation to be passed in both the UK and the Republic of Ireland. One reason no doubt that both Sustrans and the CTC are asking people from across the British Isles to sign the petition.
In this latest stage of their campaign against the bill both organisations, which work to promote cycling are careful to explain that they are not “anti-helmet”. Instead, they point to a catalogue of evidence showing that Northern Ireland would see a sharp reduction in the number of people who would cycle if the bill became law. This would have serious consequences for public health, quality of life, congestion and the environment.
Explaining his organisation's stance, Roger Geffen, campaigns and policy director at the CTC, said: “Cycling for day-to-day journeys is a relatively safe activity and it gets safer the more people there are cycling. This bill may be well-intentioned, but it will deter vast numbers of people from cycling, while increasing the risk for those who remain. At a time of mounting concern about obesity and climate change, scaring people into car-dependence is bound to shorten more lives than helmets would possibly save. I’d recommend our petition to everyone who enjoys cycling. With their support we can defeat this fundamentally flawed bill.”
Sustrans’ position was set out by its Northern Ireland Director Steven Patterson who said: “We share the wish of the supporters of this bill to improve the safety of cyclists but there are many better ways of doing this, such as giving every child on-road cycle training or reducing speed limits to 20mph in residential areas.”
The Cyclists (Protective Headgear) Bill was proposed by Sinn Fein assemblyman and ex-Mayor of Derry Pat Ramsey who during the Assembly debate himself acknowledged the concerns of the CTC and Sustrans.
“I am not for one minute dismissing claims that cycling incidence reduces after the introduction of helmet legislation,” he explained. “In fact, it is out of concern for any negative impact that I have proposed a three-year introductory period, if the legislation were approved, during which there would be a publicity campaign and time for schools, the Department and other parties to enter into a full awareness campaign. That full three years would allow ample opportunity for those groups and other cycling groups to come on board and to become aware of the regulations.”
Mr Ramsey, a former Mayor of Derry, added:
“It surprised me that some cycling organisations are opposed to the Bill. The reason why it surprises me is that in organised cycling events, even informal rides out, cyclists are invariably helmeted. It also surprised me because the main governing body for cycling racing, the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), has made helmets compulsory in all racing events.
The UCI does not as far as we are aware have an position on the wearing of helmets outside of close road cycling events and certainly Mr Ramsey's comments could be said to show a distinct failure to grasp the relative risks involved in riding a road race and popping down to the shops on your bike or riding to work a fact not lost on those who opposed his bill both within and outside of the Assembly.
You can read the CTC's briefing paper on the NI helmet bill on the CTC website.
road.cc's founder and first editor, nowadays to be found riding a spreadsheet. Tony's journey in cycling media started in 1997 as production editor and then deputy editor of Total Bike, acting editor of Total Mountain Bike and then seven years as editor of Cycling Plus. He launched his first cycling website - the Cycling Plus Forum at the turn of the century. In 2006 he left C+ to head up the launch team for Bike Radar which he edited until 2008, when he co-launched the multi-award winning road.cc - finally handing on the reins in 2021 to Jack Sexty. His favourite ride is his ‘commute’ - which he does most days inc weekends and he’s been cycle-commuting since 1994. His favourite bikes are titanium and have disc brakes, though he'd like to own a carbon bike one day.
Latest Comments
- HoarseMann 42 min 18 sec ago
might be another reason it's too much trouble for the police to trace the volvo driver...
- ktache 49 min 52 sec ago
The proximity to the Transport Research Labs at Crowthorne means that the area often gets weird new stuff.
- chrisonabike 55 min 56 sec ago
No great mystery in either case, surely? Both US politician and the motor trade say "choose us and your life will be better and easier!" And other...
- S.E. 3 hours 3 min ago
1. It's obviously more aerodynamic, even a small backpack or hydration pack can help, there are studies about this....
- stonojnr 3 hours 7 min ago
theres an attitude I encounter alot locally, and demonstrated in bucket loads by drivers on my commute home tonight, that cyclists shouldnt be on...
- Keesvant 4 hours 27 min ago
If the chains snap that is lack of build quality or material.....
- Hirsute 5 hours 23 min ago
"Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner destroys much good."
- Jaijai 5 hours 48 min ago
His life was only worth shy of 7 years ,that's too lenient in every book .Let alone drugged up and leaving him to die
- webbierwrex 5 hours 53 min ago
I came here to basically write the same thing, the floating bus stop near me has a very narrow cycling lane between a very narrow pavement and a...
Add new comment
52 comments
If this idiocy spreads I shall start wearing a fez with the words 'this is a helmet' painted on. After all, unless the legislation clearly defines what a helmet is, how it should be worn and what standard it should conform to, one magic hat is as good as another.
@mowatb - if I had young kids I would spend time and money training improving their road skills before I misled them into placing their faith in a polystyrene hat.
I suspect that Mr Ramsey does not have much experience of riding in a bunch. I think cycling helmets are quite good at preventing minor head injuries which you get from bunch crashes where someone touches wheels. You see fewer pictures of pros with bloody heads these days. (Maybe there would be even fewer if they had their chin straps done up properly.)
So Pat Ramsey is surprised at the cycling organisations responses to compulsion ? Does that mean that he proposed a new law on cycle helmets without bothering to consult ? I am not sure about Sustrans but the CTC has been vocal pro-choice, anti-compulsion for at least 2 decades, and a quick look at their website will show this.
And the reason the UCI enforced helmets was to keep the manufactures happy: it had nothing to do with safety.
2. -(1) The Department shall by regulations -
(a) prescribe for the purposes of section 1 (by reference to shape, construction, appropriateness for wearer and such other qualities as the Department thinks fit the descriptions of protective headgear to be worn; and
(b) prescribe for those purposes the manner in which such headgear is to be worn.
(2) Before making any regulations under this section the Department shall consult such representative organisations as it thinks fit.
Even putting aside the for and against arguments, the police don't have the ability to determine whether a helmet actually offers any worthwhile protection, just that it is being worn and appears reaonably helmet-like, which is a totally pointless exercise.
If it came to organising a protest, I would suggest cyclists turn up attired in all sorts of inappropriate helmets & headgear and ask the MPs to determine what meets the standards of 'appropriateness'.
Great Idea. I quite like the idea of a collinder. I could then have a picknic and wash my sald at the same time
I wear a helmet as that is my choice,I am against making it law as this is personal choice.If not where will this stop, pedestrians wearing hi-vis and body armour ! Or maybe car drivers need helmets too as there is a high instance of head injuries when crashing.
We seem to do this to protect car drivers, in court you will hear about how the cyclist killed was not wearing a helmet, hence the driver that hit him at 80mph is not to blame.
If they feel the need to pass a law how about some protection for cyclists from bad and irresponsible drivers,or stiffer penalties that stick for a change.
Right , how do i get off this horse its rather taller than i expected
and next after that would be the compulsion to not cycle at all, since it's so 'dangerous'
Cycling in Australia seems to be heaving to me. Slightly too many in the lycra brigade on a weekend, but can't complain.
What I find odd is that it's compulsory even though, here in Perth, there are so many cycle paths away from motor vehicles. Which in my opinion also means motorists don't know how to cope with cyclists on the road, which causes more accidents.
Maybe someone should make it compulsory for cars to be made of big soft sponges
I'm sure I read somewhere that incidence of injury increases with compulsory helmet usage, not least because cars drive closer if we're helmeted (is that a word) and give us a wider berth if we aren't. However, I could be imagining that. Does that ring a bell with anyone?
not exactly - the incidence of head injury is lowest in countries with the lowest helmet usage. some people put that down to the 'safety in numbers' argument which i'm sure is a factor, but i'd mainly put it down to the fact that those countries with high cycle usage invariably have their infrastructure sorted.
Yes, I wear a helmet, yes it has saved my head from damage. No to compulsion, for all the obvious reasons stated by those that oppose. Next up would be compulsion to wear fluorescent/reflective clothing.
I agree cycling does appear safer in many other countries but in the uk drivers, police & councils have a completely different attitude to cyclists. Until that changes the last line of defence is a helmet, I'm 90% sure I wouldn't be writing this right now if I didn't have one.
It won't be changing in a hurry if we approach the problem by putting the onus on potential victims to wear saftey gear rather than on the people in charge of the hazards to take more care.
I don't see what the issue is here, I wore a helmet, got hit ny a car. The helmet saved my life.
Ask yourself this, if you have young children like me, would you happily let them cycle without a helmet?
mowatb
Look at Australia. Compulsory helmet laws have caused a reduction in cycling. The safest thing for cyclists is more cyclists. Look at Holland and Denmark - people cycling in clothes, not cycling clothes and safetly gear. Why? Because cycling is not dangerous there. Why not? Because so many people are cycling.
I have cycled since a very young age, most of the time without a helmet. Yes, I would let my children if/ when I have some cycle without helmets because I would want them to enjoy it.
@mowatb, I have young children (9 months and 2.5 years), and they won't be getting up in piles of day-glo orange and sodding great helmets just to make their way to school, or wander round a park. If they start using major roads competitively, or at speed, I may well think again, but I don't see many compelling statistics telling me that they're so badly at risk from head injury while cycling compared to (for example) walking on a pavement.
(I cycle very day, an easy 4.5 mile commute, which I do in work clothes with no helmet or high-viz - it's made me acutely aware of how easy it is to look very, very stupid on a bicycle once you start adding all these largely ineffective safety devices.)
Indirectly you've reinforced the point that vanity is the reason that prevents or discourages some people from cycling, forcing helmet wearing isn't going to help.
It also shows the problem with selling bikes and cycling as a fashionable lifestyle choice, which is the main thrust of marketing in this country, as opposed to just a practical method of transport as you have in countries like Holland. If you try and appeal to people's vanity by telling them something is on-trend or the in-thing then it makes it vulnerable to fickle changes in taste or the fact that'll just react against that marketing push and reject it
Your story is a lovely anecdote and I'm pleased for you
However for every person avoiding injury through helmet use there are *many* others who are injured or die as result of head injuries too powerful for a poxy bit of poly or from injuries to other parts of the body.
I wear a helmet every day for my commute - because it makes my non-cycling wife a bit happier - NOT because I believe it'll make a jot of difference if some half-awake eejit in 2 tonnes of metal doesn't look at a junction.
NO to compulsion
Has the impact you suffered damaged your reading ability?
CTC & Sustrans are against compulsion.
I am quite capable of deciding whether my kids should wear helmets on their bikes or anywhere else, I don't need a bloody law (based on contradictory research) to tell me they have to. Experience tells me I also shouldn't take the opinion of doctors at face value. The medical profession aren't always right.
Emotion clouds the issue and stifles rational discussion. Those working in A&E, for instance, see lots of distressing cases come through the door but those that possibly could be averted by helmet wearing are a very small number. They only see the bad news (it must be a bit like reading the Daily Wail), not the many good things that happen every day.
If I was a doctor I'd call for cigarettes to be banned before anything else, that would save many more lives.
Read http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ first, if you can be bothered.
Don't worry, you can look perfectly stupid without hi-viz clothing, though your comments do suggest you are somewhat insecure. What does your shrink say?
Seriously, I'm not pro hi-viz because if drivers were paying attention you wouldn't need it. They need to see people, not merely watch out for bright yellow clothing. However, I wouldn't advocate wearing black or dull colours either if riding on the road, especially in the darker months, as I still want to be visible. On country lanes I use I find dark green and dark brown shades are dreadful colours for camouflage. I don't care what is the 'in' colour this season, I avoid wearing them as I want to be alive next year.
It has been demonstrated that being lit up like a Christmas Tree and wearing hi-viz does not prevent SMIDSY or other dangerous driver behaviour. I'd be quite happy to wear a jersey with a big logo that said "Warning: Police Cyclist Carrying Firearm", which I'm sure would focus their minds!
Well, I get to see mad dress even without hi-viz, admittedly! No, I'm just going from the general principle that getting to work / getting around by bicycle should be little different to taking a walk. It's great to see more and more people cycling, but every now and again I fight back the urge to be mean about the strange clothing combinations people choose. (And every now and then I see somone happily getting along looking really smart, so I guess I shouldn't complain!)
@mowatb
I do have children, though whether they are like you I cannot be sure. I do not make them wear a helmet when cycling, just as I don't make them wear a helmet when walking, running, climbing trees, playing football, watching TV, playing with the dog, swimming or a variety of other activities.
@andykk
That's precisely the problem with these laws, they reduce cyclists to only the "Lycra-brigade" (of which I'm a fully paid up member incidentally) when what we need are more ordinary cyclists using the bike to get around. Cycling can only be accepted as normal in this country if ordinary people do it, instead of just the weekend warriors.
Pages