Forum menu
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Why would you want to wear earphones and make one of your senses less effective? You wouldn't ride with one eye closed, would you?
So we have to do this one again as well....
It really is hard to believe this is a cyclists forum sometimes. It's like Daily Mail island on here.
1) Would you ban deaf/hearing impaired people from cycling?
2) Cyclists with headphones in can hear more than motorcyclists or drivers (motorcyclists often wear earplugs due to the noise on their bikes) so hearing obviously isn't a particularly important sense on the road.
3) Electric cars and other cyclists are almost silent - you can't trust your hearing. You MUST look
4) Even with headphones on I can feel/hear/sense vehicles
5) if it's an issue of distraction then by rights we should ban all in-car entertainment and ban use of telephones whether hands free or not.
All of this comes back to blaming the victim rather than making the roads safer.
4) Even with headphones on I can feel/hear/sense vehicles
You've been bitten by a spider.
You've been bitten by a spider.
Definitely have the cycling bug.... (groan). Was speaking to a motorcyclist the other day about the '6th sense' of nervousness you get about some vehicles. You don't know what is making you nervous (road speed/position in lane/position relative to other vehicles?) but your cycle-senses are tingling.
[s]You'[/s][b]Ha[/b]ve [b]you[/b] been bitten by a spider[b]?[/b]
1) Would you ban deaf/hearing impaired people from cycling? [b]Not their choice[/b]
2) Cyclists with headphones in can hear more than motorcyclists or drivers (motorcyclists often wear earplugs due to the noise on their bikes) so hearing obviously isn't a particularly important sense on the road. [b]I imagine they use their other senses and the rear view mirrors more effectively[/b]
3) Electric cars and other cyclists are almost silent - you can't trust your hearing. You MUST look [b]Which I think is why electric car manufacturers are introducing noises to their silent cars[/b]
4) Even with headphones on I can feel/hear/sense vehicles [b]AWESOME[/b]
5) if it's an issue of distraction then by rights we should ban all in-car entertainment and ban use of telephones whether hands free or not. [b]Agreed and clearly you agree with the earphone argument[/b]All of this comes back to blaming the victim rather than making the roads safer.
You haven't done anything to expalin why dulling one of the senses could be seen as a positive move when you have the option, except to show me that as you do it, and you are clearly AWESOME, that it should be seen as acceptable.
When i ride I listen to the traffic as I find feeling it is a bit difficult and not something I desire.
You keep riding with earphones and carrying your opinion, I'll keep riding without and mine. OK?
FYI I don't read the Daily Mail, and in fact quite a bizarre thing to say. 😕
But still inconsistent that cyclist could be considered 'negligent' or 'contributing' to an accident through use of headphones when a driver could not.
Equal treatment. Not discriminating against victims. Your call obviously but not illegal, my own assessment of risk - in all the times I've cycled with headphones on I've never had a near miss as a result. I don't reckon that's going to be the thing that gets me (hence I consider it an irrelevant distraction)
OK, now that I've gone away and had some lunch let me lay out my thinking when I say I want to get the message to drivers that helmets do sweet **** all in an RTC.
Please note I'm only talking about RTCs here. Not slipping on ice, forgetting to unclip or anything like that. I'm also not talking about taking defensive cycling into account. Just the RTCs where we have no control of the outcome.
A helmet is designed to protect the head in falls from a stationary position. That's the design spec. The effectiveness of helmets drops off dramatically as the force of impact increases. [i]Therefore, in low speed RTCs in a particular set of circumstances a helmet may provide some small level of protection.[/i]
Motorcycle helmets have a different design spec and they can protect your head in impacts with a greater force so the range of RTCs where it might protect you is much much greater. It would be great if we could design practical bicycle helmets that provide a similar level of protection but we can't.
Even though your brain is very important it's not the only part of you that you need to live. In fact, you need pretty much every one of your internal organs and your spinal cord to survive. You also need a circulatory system that is closed loop and not spurting blood all over the place. There are any number of ways your organs, spine, or circulatory system could be damaged in an RTC and it's much more likely to be one of these that is damaged in any RTC than your head.
The proportion of RTCs where a helmet would have helped is tiny. 99% of the time wearing a kitten would be just as effective.
This is the message that I think we as a cycling community should be trying our hardest to get across to non-cyclists.
Everytime Nigel Mansell or Bradley Wiggins or you or I say that cyclists should be wearing helmets, in the minds of non-cyclists we're increasing the proportion of RTCs where a helmet would be useful from 1% to 99%.
It moves the debate in completely the wrong direction.
We should be should be talking about advertising campaigns, cyclist training, driver training, infrastructure, but the debate always comes back to helmets.
Saying that we need to get our own house in order then we can start demanding better standards won't work because we don't have a house. We're not cyclists, we're a bunch of people who ride bikes some of whom include excellent riders, OK riders, psychopaths, idiots, arseholes, and everything in between. We are not a group and we have no leaders.
Anyway, that's what I meant when I said that helmets do SFA in an RTC.
Equal treatment. Not discriminating against victims.
Only those victims that choose to make it more dangerous for themselves, no? It's more a case of taking responsibility for your own actions.
I've been caught out by relatively silent cars, you've got no chance of hearing them with earphone. If you've managed to hone your spidey senses or use mirrors then that's excellent and I wish you luck.
well said BruceWee
so would you class helemts as unreasonable for cars?In cars some reasonable steps have been taken - car safety, NCAP etc.
what's been done for bikes? so far a bit of green paint. I've had 2 incidents in recent months one lorry hit me and one car very nearly did, former in a mandatory cycle lane, latter in a bus lane, that paint isn't helping much, a helmet [i]may*[/i] have mitigated some damage but driver education and cracking down on crap driving might be better steps.For pedestrians, steps have also been taken - pavements and crossings.
I'd rule cyclist accidents on a 3 tier system
1 silly stuff not unclipping at redlights or get a bit of a wobble on and you hit the deck. Inattention, tired, whatever this is the same sort of stuff that you can do while walking around. A little slip/trip/fall could turn into a big problem in certain circumstances, again no one is arguing for helmets for pedestrians
2 Rider going faster than his abilities allow, happens to plenty here offroad so I should imagine it's reasonably common on road too. Here is where, if you really want, you can say "haha you should have been wearing a helmet you muppet" Riders discretion, you can't prevent everyone from doing every possible stupid thing, check the darwin awards for stuff you might have to legislate against.
3 this is the biggy, motor vehicles ploughing into a cyclist, in some instances a helmet will help in others there will be so much force or other injuries meaning the helmet is naff all use. Again what would really help here is not having a helmet law it's protecting vulnerable road users from crap drivers. Be that driver education, proper punishment for careless dangerous driving, segregated facilities or whatever.
*yes I was wearing one
<edit> brucewee said it a lot better than me
captain danger it will only be a true monster if Tandem Jeremy graces us with his presence.
Good display by some big hitters though, congratulations 😉
i personally believe helmets give users a false sense of secuirity and may ride in a manner less likely without one.
The proportion of RTCs where a helmet would have helped is tiny. 99% of the time wearing a kitten would be just as effective.
I'm going to need some evidence for that, I'm afraid.
in others there will be so much force or other injuries meaning the helmet is naff all use
Can't see how this is anything other than guessing or imagining.
If you get thrown over the bonnet of a car or knocked flying, you're going to hit the floor. If your arms or legs get broken, then it hurts but you'll survive. If your head hits the deck (or a wing) then you're in deep trouble.
I can't see why you have a problem with this. I've seen people being helped off the road after a car has nudged them off at low speed or almost stopped before impact - otherwise unhurt, but with a head injury.
I honestly cannot see how a helmet does not help when your head hits the tarmac. Really.
Doens't matter how they are designed or how you might be crushed under the wheels. It's padding for your skull. Padding helps impacts.
a helmet may* have mitigated some damage but driver education and cracking down on crap driving might be better steps
THEY ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE FFS!
brucewee said it a lot better than me
No, he didn't, there was not much substance in his post!
We should be should be talking about advertising campaigns, cyclist training, driver training, infrastructure, but the debate always comes back to helmets.
No, it doesn't. There are teams of people (or should be) in councils all over the place looking at cycling facilities. They're not very effective often, but they don't just spend all their money on helmet campaigning and nothing else, do they?
ASLs all over the place, signposted cycle routes, cycle crossings, SOME decent cycle paths, all these things have had some money spent on them (not nearly enough of course). I've never seen a single ad or billboard telling me to wear a helmet.
You haven't done anything to expalin why dulling one of the senses could be seen as a positive move when you have the option, except to show me that as you do it, and you are clearly AWESOME, that it should be seen as acceptable.
When i ride I listen to the traffic as I find feeling it is a bit difficult and not something I desire.
You keep riding with earphones and carrying your opinion, I'll keep riding without and mine. OK?
FYI I don't read the Daily Mail, and in fact quite a bizarre thing to say.
One thing, if I don't hear a car its much much much more to do with the sound of wind passing my ears (I think such noise is slightly reduce with headphones tbh), wind and traffic noise (not just engine but tyres on road a pretty load) occupy the same part of the sound spectrum and are both a broad whitish noise. There for they blur into one another. Music tends to be diffinitive sounds and higher in pitch.
Obviously that's doesn't change the fact that music must not be load, and when taking in a road section and going faster, I often can't really here much of my music.
But if you really believe traffic is such a soft delicate noise that it can be lost under tunage. Do this. Go somewhere away from traffic, put your mp3 player on, set it to a comfortable (not loud - just comfortable) volume. Now walk to a busy road...
Headphones or no you should be looking often, and look them in the eye too.
NB - needless to say I don't use fancy seinheisser earphones that block ambient noise when out riding, I use cheap crappy ones cos sooner or later sweat kills them. Nor am I saying you must wear headphones. Just that it really makes piss all difference.
and yet hundreds of car occupants die from head injuries every year, why aren't you arguing for helmet compulsion in car occupants?
The last report I saw showed a direct correlation between the two biggest fatal injuries for car occupants - head & chest injuries - and the number of accidents where the occupants were not wearing their seatbelts.
lorry wheel rolling over your head helmet won't help, crushed chest, perforated lungs, broken neck, lots of life threatening injuries where a helmet won't help. I only said some I didn't claim to have the stats.Can't see how this is anything other than guessing or imagining.
I know helmet use and promoting better driving aren't exclusive but there downsides to compulsion hence my stance.
so not wearing a seatbelt in a car is dangerous? who knew?The last report I saw showed a direct correlation between the two biggest fatal injuries for car occupants - head & chest injuries - and the number of accidents where the occupants were not wearing their seatbelts.
Seriously tho do you have the stats for head injuries KSIs among seatbelt wearers?
I've avoided this thread. I struggle with long sentences, but has the whole helmet thing been resolved then? Put to bed once and for all? Everyone in agreement?
Oh good 😀
lorry wheel rolling over your head helmet won't help,
Obviously, but you don't know what kind of accident you're going to have before you set off, do you?!! FFS!
Seriously tho do you have the stats for head injuries KSIs among seatbelt wearers?
Of course not, not relevant either. Drivers have numerous safety features, motorcyclists do too, and yet you're saying that cyclists don't need them?
sorry bored myself
Donk, you are arguing against helmets based on crush injuries yet the helmet is designed to help protect against impact injures. Most cycling accidents will be impact by their nature so having an helmet would help your chances of avoiding serious head injuries.
Definitely have the cycling bug.... (groan)
Well I am not sure spiders qualify as bug
I have three helmets in my cupboard all damaged because I had crashes. In one instance, my bike landed on my head when I went over the bars on a steep drop. The bike cracked my helmet in three places.
My helmets have saved my life and I am very grateful to them 😀
My helmets have saved my life and I am very grateful to them
No! Your lack of skills put you in danger.
Helmets save lives the same way seatbelts save lives ... err ... do they?
[url= http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/09/16/seat-belts-again-2/ ]http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/09/16/seat-belts-again-2/[/url]
[img] 
[/img]
so not wearing a seatbelt in a car is dangerous? who knew?
Seriously tho do you have the stats for head injuries KSIs among seatbelt wearers?
What I was getting at is that motorists already have a compulsion which, if ignored, leads to the head injuries you referred to.
Been looking for the report I mentioned but the ABI have taken it down - they never leave stuff up too long. [url= http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/3494/1/3494.pdf ]THIS [/url] is pretty informative though & does give quite a few stats that are relevant.
don - yep, i am a complete idiot on a bike, couldnt even bunnyhop a kerb, hence why I wear a helmet which saved my life.
Molgrips/craig, I'm arguing against helmet compulsion for cyclists. I'm also highlighting other areas where compulsion might help but there's very very few people recommending it, why is that?
There's other reason against compulsion we can switch to one of those is you want.
Again, I do wear a helmet whilst riding so no need to worry unduly about my safety.
Nobby yeah I'd had a look at that, poor people more likely to die was a strange one. (my point was that even wearing a seatbelt some car users still suffer fatal head injuries, but there's no helmet compulsion argument for drivers)
I'm going to need some evidence for that, I'm afraid.
Obviously it's difficult to get figures that will catagorically prove it one way or the other but [url= http://cyclehelmets.org/1078.html ]this is what I've found so far[/url]
Plus a few other sources that would back up a similar assumption but all found on cyclehelmets.org so I know that won't satisfy most folk.
What do you think a reasonable percentage would be?
Nobby yeah I'd had a look at that, poor people more likely to die was a strange one.
It's almost Daily Mail! I'd have guessed the correlation would be the fatality rate in older vehicles rather than anything else but the inference in there is otherwise.
Click this [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/biggest-hitter-ever-to-join-helmet-debate/page/2#post-4038560 ]link[/url]
Important [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/wiggo-on-helmets/page/6?replies=209#post-4038568 ]link[/url]
I have no idea on the percentage, I'm not the one throwing 99% about.
That link says 10% of all CHILD cycling injuries, which appears to include cuts and scrapes, are on the head.
Doesn't seem at all relevant to this debate about serious accidents involving adults in traffic.
😯 (matiz driver)Drivers of small cars, especially the superminis, are four times more at risk of death
in a collision with a larger car than drivers of the largest type of car. The increasing
divergence in mass is estimated to have increased the number of car occupants
killed by about 1%, or 30 extra deaths
Whahhh, whhhhhaaaaaah, whail....whahhhhhahhhh..
Mummy I can stand it any more..
Please make the nasty men stop whining..
Please...
Whahhhah..whahhhh...
I have no idea on the percentage, I'm not the one throwing 99% about.That link says 10% of all CHILD cycling injuries, which appears to include cuts and scrapes, are on the head.
Doesn't seem at all relevant to this debate about serious accidents involving adults in traffic.
OK, do you agree that helmets are designed to protect you in a fall from standing while stationary?
Mods, please can you re-open SpecialKnees 'out of my way, thoughtless roadies, I'm driving a motor car dontcherknow' thread as a distraction from this oh so tired old debate?
Helmets do offer some protection obviously.
But none at all against cars/motorbikes/lorries/busses ...
It would be a sad day if they ever made them compulsory.
I fear there is more chance of this government taxing cyclists though .. if it gets more popular, they will smell money to be made.
[i]taxing cyclists[/i]
Even less enforceable than legalising helmet use.
The proportion of RTCs where a helmet would have helped is tiny. 99% of the time wearing a kitten would be just as effective.I'm going to need some evidence for that, I'm afraid.
Control group volunteer prepares for molgrips new helmet testing research
[img] 
[/img]
Uneforcable, yes. But that wouldn't stop Them from trying. First a bike registration plate/tag system. Then the annual renewal fee/tax...
Helmets do offer some protection obviously.
But none at all against cars/motorbikes/lorries/busses ...It would be a sad day if they ever made them compulsory
Nothing could protect you against being run over by a bus or lorry or motorbike....therefore we should not have brakes or lights ..its a pointless argument as no one is arguing that helmets will make it impossible to injure you.
The same argument was used about making motorbike helmets compulsory and still is in the US of A
But none at all against cars/motorbikes/lorries/busses ...
Do all RTC with cars/motorbikes/lorries/ busses(sic) involve the cyclist having their head run over?
Junkyard - MemberNothing could protect you against being run over by a bus or lorry or motorbike....therefore we should not have brakes or lights
You gotta explain this one to me ...
How does not having brakes or lights compare??
Just a thought, how do people figure out all this guff about what helmets do and don't do?
Presumably accident statistics are just that and only record what happens when someone has in fact hurt themselves. So how do they come upon all the info about when folk have clumped themselves severely and not hurt themselves? Is there a special number we need to ring or something? I've got about 20 or so head/solid object interface reports to file where my head has not in fact exploded or been damaged if that is the case.