Viewing 38 posts - 1 through 38 (of 38 total)
  • Helmet Debate – Seconds out, Round 3
  • wwaswas
    Full Member
    benji_allen
    Free Member

    I've often thought a big problem in this country is a lack of respect towards cyclists. On the continent cyclists don't seem to get the hassle they do over here. I sold my road bike because I nearly got knocked off so many times. Cycle paths are generally pretty useless as well as you have to stop every time there's a junction. I'd say they should be copulsory for kids, but beyond say 16, you take your life in your own hands.

    It does make me angry when people ride around with no lights on at night though.

    MrSalmon
    Free Member

    I'd say they should be copulsory for kids, but beyond say 16, you take your life in your own hands

    I'm with the CTC on this. Make them compulsory for kids and I think you'd be virtually guaranteeing most of them will not grow up to ride bikes.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    Is it just me, or are the CTC are starting to sound like Climate Sceptics?

    Spankmonkey
    Free Member

    yawn.. same argument different report, its like ground hog day

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    The researchers said in the report that it is “impossible to definitively quantify the effectiveness or otherwise of cycle helmets based on the literature reviewed,” but conclude that bike helmets “should be effective at reducing the risk of head injury,”

    Is this just not the position of most of us? Surely it does work to some degree?
    I am willing to hit any dissenter very hard with a rubber mallet twice. First they wear a helmet and then without one on and they can say which hurt the most? I can escalate this to breaking a cricket bat over there head if they are still uncertain?

    thisisnotaspoon
    Free Member

    I (on very windy days) used to wear a helmet when sailing, nothing to hit on water is there, except that big metal pole that swings about a tad unpredictably?

    Similarly on the mountainbike, I don't intend to hit the ground, but every so often I missjudge a tree or low branch and the helmet shrugs it off, just for protection form that I'm happy to wear one.

    I've smashed 2 helmets on sharp pointy rocks and had plenty of other bumps which at best would have left me woozy, on ballance I think I'll keep wearing them for that reason as well.

    glenp
    Free Member

    The key phrase is "effectiveness at reducing the risk of head injury". Which would include any factor affecting the likelihood of being in an incident in the first place.

    So – if wearing a helmet tends to slightly increase the odds of being in an incident (drivers may give you less room (I tend to think this is true, going by personal experience) and rider may be naturally more risk averse if they are wearing a lid) then that might mitigate to a degree against wearing a helmet, even though a helmet would obviously tend to be helpful if you do actually have a spill.

    Before anyone gets irritatingly pedantic – note that I use "tend to" and so-on. These are effects that can only really be measured across thousands of samples.

    Interesting statistic buried in that story – only around 6% of cycle injuries are caused by dangerous cycling – contrary to what you might expect if you believe the endless media negativity.

    MostlyBalanced
    Free Member

    Pedestrians and cyclists would all be a lot safer if cars had 8 inch spikes instead of airbags……

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    Have sat there and read through the report

    impossible to definitively quantify the effectiveness or otherwise of cycle helmets based on the literature reviewed

    However, they then go on to perform a fresh piece of research, based on reviewing the police reports and post mortems of cyclist fatalities, that when combined with the literature review leads to the conclusion that helmets would reduce fatalities by 10-16 percent.

    The CTC really are going for the "yeah, but, no but…" defence!

    shedfull
    Free Member

    The government should spend time reading another report they commissioned.

    glenp
    Free Member

    The CTC are not doing anything of the sort – but you are determined to not see their point!

    10 to 16 per cent reduction in fatalities is obviously worth having, but if the consequence of (for example) helmet compulsion was a reduction in the number of cyclists there would be an increase in fatalities for other reasons, for example obesity. The increase might be a much bigger number than the decrease. And that is (part of) the CTC's point.

    spanishbarry
    Free Member

    pulls up a seat and waits for TJ's take on the subject

    Kit
    Free Member

    pulls up a seat and waits for TJ's take on the subject

    You expecting him to change his mind? 😀

    BigEaredBiker
    Free Member

    With an average of 5.4 road deaths per 100,000 people in this country and cycling related deaths just 5% of that why does this argument get such attention? More effort should be spent on getting people to use lights on their bikes, wearing a helmet is not going to help you when you can't be seen by drivers whizzing past at 50mph. (Yes you the bloke on the A414 at 6.45am last week)

    juan
    Free Member

    Lets face it CTC seems to be more concern about its number of members than the safety of cyclist.
    We spend a whole week ping ponging with TJ about making helmet compulsory through peer reviewed article.

    At the end we did agree on a few things
    Helmet is hardy going to help you if hit at 50 by a car. New helmet are much better than older ones (shockers). It's up to you to have an opinion about the compulsory of the helmet. No one can predict for sure what will happen if helmet are made compulsory not even using a rather incomplete australian study

    glenp
    Free Member

    God knows, B E B.

    As you point out it is a tiny proportion of road deaths, and 10-15% of that tiny proportion would be saved with a helmet. Furthermore only about 6% of the cycling serious injuries were caused by the cyclist, whereas something over 50% were caused by vehicle drivers – seems pretty obvious where the attention needs to go.

    The current Daily Mail/Jeremy ****t Clarkson rage against cyclists is giving most people the impression that cyclists only have themselves to blame (categorically NOT backed up in fact) and this negative thought is probably feeding back into the psyche of the average driver and making him more beligerent and resentful of cyclists, thus making the whole situation much more dangerous.

    glenp
    Free Member

    Juan – you are another one making little or no effort to understand the CTC's argument. As is amply well explained here and in many other places, helmet wearing is a very very small factor in protecting cyclists and we should be prioritising the other factors first.

    We could have 100% helmet usage, and 100% rules of the road obeyance for cyclists and the number of deaths and serious injuries would reduce by a very small amount compared to fixing driving behaviour.

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    glenp – Member
    The CTC are not doing anything of the sort – but you are determined to not see their point!

    10 to 16 per cent reduction in fatalities is obviously worth having, but if the consequence of (for example) helmet compulsion was a reduction in the number of cyclists there would be an increase in fatalities for other reasons, for example obesity. The increase might be a much bigger number than the decrease. And that is (part of) the CTC's point.

    Which all relies on the data for reduced participation from the Australian study…

    Its like saying that we don't know how much global warming is down to cosmic ray formation on clouds – its not a quantifiable variable – we know it's part of the equation, but we cannot quantify it – what's known is that the evidence shows that the fatality level is going to be lower for helmet wearers versus non helmet wearers.

    The reason its not quantifiable is that you cannot map all the variables – for example advertising/education programs, changes in helmet design since the australian study (no longer all white melons) cycle paths, congestion charging, suicide bombings on the tube, cycle lanes, parking, petrol prices, Co2 paranoia – all these things have an effect on cycling participation that did not effect the australian experience which makes it impossible to draw conclusions.

    glenp
    Free Member

    OK, Zulu-11

    Read my point above – we are talking about the wrong safety factor! If helmet wearing was at 100% and cyclist behaviour was 100% perfect it would still leave the vast majority of deaths and injuries because they are overwhelmingly caused by cars/trucks/buses and the injuries are only part-way mitigated by helmets.

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    But the research in the paper specifically excluded cases where there were multiple extensive injuries where death would probably have occurred anyway – and it took account of the different types of vehicle – I suggest you go and read the TRL paper.

    backhander
    Free Member

    So, people will stop riding because they have to wear a helmet?
    they must LOVE cycling!

    We could have 100% helmet usage, and 100% rules of the road obeyance for cyclists and the number of deaths and serious injuries would reduce by a very small amount compared to fixing driving behaviour.

    I dispute this, I reckon that if some cyclists didn't ride through red lights (an idiot did this to me today in Cardiff), drivers wouldn't hate them so much and would be less aggresive. If they wore hi viz ALL THE TIME and were well lit up, they would be seen more and hit less.
    It's all a bit "well a helmet and hi-viz would ruin my image" it seems to me.

    glenp
    Free Member

    What?

    My point is vastly more general, and is the same as the general CTC point.

    To be really plain (I suspect you'll never even read it properly anyway but here goes) – relatively speaking whether or not helmets are worn makes very little difference, because the behaviour of drivers is a much bigger factor.

    RepacK
    Free Member

    This thread is pointless without TJ

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    relatively speaking whether or not helmets are worn makes very little difference, because the behaviour of drivers is a much bigger factor.

    Which directly translates as "the sun is responsible for most of the global warming, Humans are only responsible for a small part of it, its all a fuss over nothing"

    glenp
    Free Member

    backhander

    The resentment of drivers towards cyclists is important – and it is amplified by the exaggeration of the prevalence of bad cycling.

    How many car drivers never break the speed limit, always keep a safe distance, always indicate before they turn (not as they turn, before)? Virtually none.

    As for being seen – the biggest problem is cyclists being so fearful they cower in the gutter of the road, where they may as well be stationery lamp-posts as far as car drivers are concerned. If riders stopped inviting cars past and actually rode as the Highway Code suggests this problem would be drastically reduced.

    Active safety is better than Passive.

    backhander
    Free Member

    I agree with the point that there are bigger factors to limit injuries than helmets. But helmets will help and hopefully make the NHS nurses job a bit easier when trying to patch you up.
    I reckon at the same time that

    100% rules of the road obeyance for cyclists

    and

    fixing driving behaviour

    are interlinked and if the rules were obeyed by cyclists that the attitude of drivers would improve.

    glenp
    Free Member

    It doesn't translate as that at all. Why are you talking about global warming when the example is so poor?

    bananaworld
    Free Member

    This octopus collects coconut shells. How cool is that??

    Olly
    Free Member

    wtf?
    what does it matter?

    your in one of two camps, one of which believes that wearing a lid makes you less likely to be dead if you get hit.

    the other doesnt

    if you believe it and consider it a worry, put a lid on, if you dont, dont.

    we are SUPPOSED to be adults,

    i dont think they should "enforce" seatbelts too.

    if you have a crash, and go through the windscreen, your fairly likely to be going home in a bag. its your decision, and wont hurt anyone else*.
    it keeps the bloke who mops you up off the back of the truck you hit in a job too!

    *if your sitting in the back, the driver should take responsability if they are worried about thier passenger headbutting them in a crash

    backhander
    Free Member

    Olly do you know what a discussion is?

    HoratioHufnagel
    Free Member

    reccomended but not compulsory sums up my view.

    MrSalmon
    Free Member

    your in one of two camps, one of which believes that wearing a lid makes you less likely to be dead if you get hit.

    the other doesnt

    Er, no. I don't see anybody on here saying that helmets don't make you less likely to be dead.

    The point is that in the big picture of cycling safety, not the very small picture of an individual cyclist in the few seconds after they've already been in an accident/hit by a car it is pretty clear that wearing helmets is not any sort of solution.

    FWIW I always wear one but wouldn't like to see them become mandatory.

    wwaswas
    Full Member

    my view is that CTC shoudl be worried about the safety of people already cycling, not the fact that it woudl put people off if they were mandatory.

    The evidence appears to show that for people who cycle is is safer to wear a helmet.

    It may be that for the population as a whole makign a helmet mandatory woudl increase deaths but that is people makign a choice not to cycle and therefore suffering from poor health.

    That's not me and it's not relevant to my lifestyle – I want to know if wearing a helmet makes me safer whilst I'm doing it and the answer appears to be 'yes'.

    MrSalmon
    Free Member

    The evidence appears to show that for people who cycle is is safer to wear a helmet.

    It may be that for the population as a whole makign a helmet mandatory woudl increase deaths but that is people makign a choice not to cycle and therefore suffering from poor health.

    That's not me and it's not relevant to my lifestyle – I want to know if wearing a helmet makes me safer whilst I'm doing it and the answer appears to be 'yes'.

    Depends what you mean by 'safety'. If you take that to mean 'potentially reducing injuries when you are in an accident', then yes. Personally I take 'being safe' to mean that I'm less likely to be in an accident in the first place.

    So the CTC are worried about the safety of people already cycling, because there is some evidence that this is increased when more people cycle, and enforced helmet use may make less people cycle.

    Olly
    Free Member

    Olly do you know what a discussion is?

    i do, and thats where im falling down here
    is it not, trying to squeeze a discussion out of nothing?

    "the sky is blue"

    "no it isnt its blue"

    "well it is, yes, but tbh, i dont know you and your weird opinion doesnt reeeally affect me so you go with that you fruit loop"

    "it is blue, im telling you"

    "bye then"

    I feel i am TOTALLY missing a deeper meaning.

    5thElefant
    Free Member

    Interesting that they mention the likelihood of making helmets compulsory. How? Surely you have to have a cycling licence to do that wouldn't you?

    Or is this just another pointless law that can't be enforced?

    thisisnotaspoon
    Free Member

    Or is this just another pointless law that can't be enforced?

    no, just enforced inthe same way every other bit of cycling legislation is, caution and/or on the spot fine.

    Whether the police bother you for not having pedal reflectors and CE lights is another matter.

Viewing 38 posts - 1 through 38 (of 38 total)

The topic ‘Helmet Debate – Seconds out, Round 3’ is closed to new replies.