Wiggo on helmets

Death Data stats, When a cyclist is in collision with another vehicle, 71% chance of head injury being the COD when not wearing a helmet, 30% when wearing a helmet.

And what do the same stats say for car occupant deaths or pedestrian deaths? I’m going to guess that head injuries feature fairly high there too.

glitch bump

How the twattyfuck is riding without a helmet more comfortable?

It’s simple really. When I am cycling without a helmet it feels more comfortable than when I’m cycling with one. Particularly in hot weather. If you don’t understand that I don’t think I can find many shorter words to explain it.

you aren’t trying nearly hard enough and should give your bike to someone more deserving.

Well gee, that’s me told. Guess I’ll have to give up cycling as I’m obviously just some sort of beginner/wimp/slob.

It’s all down to perceived risk. We wear safety equipment to minimise the risk of injury. If you don’t think there’s any risk then you don’t wear any safety equipment. It’s your choice and responsibility to protect yourself appropriately, but riding on roads you can’t always know all the risks.

On another note I’m sick of hearing the motorist getting it in the neck. I ride a bike and drive a car and there are complete idiots partaking in both disciplines. Ive just got back from London and some of the cycling I witnessed while walking the streets was nothing short of suicidal. Weaving in between buses, texting while riding (wtf!!!?), runnin red lights at junctions as well as crossings. If you carry on like that you are going to get into trouble and death is a very possible outcome.

If you have a fight against an HGV or a car or a bus on a bike you will lose, everytime. You may possibly even lose everything that is important to your entire existence. Do what you need to do to survive such a fight, it’s your call.

On the whole London is not a safe place to ride bike, helmet or no helmet.

I do agree with the fact that there are idiots on both forms of transport, and that people should be cycling more safely than they do. I also don’t know statistics on causes of cyclist/motorist accidents, however, having cycled in London for 6 or 7 years, and followed the safety campaigns, and therefore the cyclist fatalities, which are generally fairly small in number (8-20 a year), it seems, anecdotally at least, that the vast majority are one: women, and two: cycling as directed on the right hand side, often waiting at traffic lights, and are then crushed by turning HGVs/Buses.

I have never once heard of a cyclist being killed after being hit by a car having jumped a red light, although I don’t doubt that it could happen, it’s clearly nowhere near as common as being killed when an HGV turns across your path. Maybe an example where your perceived risk affects your judgement?

P.S. I should point out that I don’t jump red lights, some people seem to espouse that it is ‘safer’ to get ahead of the traffic, I think you can be pretty safe while still waiting at the lights, although several friends have been hit from behind doing just that, it’s never been very serious. I don’t think jumping lights is particularly dangerous if done properly, of course it could be extremely dangerous if done improperly, but fortunately the vast majority of cyclist in London who do it, seem to do it safely (as in they don’t get hit, it may not look safe to you or I). I choose not to do it because I know it annoys motorists and is used against us in arguments for better protection for cyclist and better cycling infrastructure.

It’s simple really. When I am cycling without a helmet it feels more comfortable than when I’m cycling with one

Get a helmet that fits? I find riding with a helmet in hot weather much more comfortable. But then what would I know about riding in hot weather 😉

I do love “scientific” proof that compare pedestrian with cyclist with car. As both the numbers and the mileage of the three part is so different.

Death Data stats, When a cyclist is in collision with another vehicle, 71% chance of head injury being the COD when not wearing a helmet, 30% when wearing a helmet.

Just to check, the missing 41 percent still die yes? Just of other stuff, possibly slow and and more painfull… These are death stats not death and injury stats. There’s a hole in these numbers.

We need (and yes I’m being lazy I have no idea where to find them) numbers per 1000 of killed, injured, when in collision for both with and without a helmet.

If a cyclist is flung to the ground and then crushed, then a helmet may stop them receiving head wounds serious enough to kill them before they bleed to death… but it hasn’t saved their life.

I do love “scientific” proof that compare pedestrian with cyclist with car. As both the numbers and the mileage of the three part is so different.

If you look at the scientific studies in detail they will nearly always take this into account by providing accident statistics by ‘billion miles travelled’ or sometimes statistics ‘per trip’. It’s an interesting point, in that air travel is probably the safest by ‘miles travelled’ and probably the most unsafe ‘per trip’. It’s important to know what measure a study uses, and the study will say which they use and why they chose it, but essentially, they realised your point a long time ago, and it is accounted for in scientific studies, so that’s not a reason to dismiss them.

Get a helmet that fits? I find riding with a helmet in hot weather much more comfortable. But then what would I know about riding in hot weather

Be careful not to confuse hot weather with sunny weather. Assuming he is talking about the UK which is seldom hot or sunny, the wearing of a helmet can produce a lot of sweat which might be uncomfortable. A helmet under the sun is very useful for prevention of over heating and boiling the brain.

If a cyclist is flung to the ground and then crushed, then a helmet may stop them receiving head wounds serious enough to kill them before they bleed to death… but it hasn’t saved their life.

the study only looked at cases where a helmet could have made a difference. Being crushed under the wheels of a hgv would have been disregarded.

Did any one here Chris Boardman on this subject on the news last night? Very impressed with what he said. Look it up on the beeb. Or maybe I will and then post it up here

Indeed Klunk – even the CTC have to rely on convoluted straw man arguments such as “more people will die of heart disease because less people ride bikes” to prove that compulsory helmet laws are negative.

Bike Snob makes a good point:

But then I thought about it more, and I realized I shouldn’t be angry at Bradley Wiggins. Instead, I should place the blame where it almost always belongs, which is on the journalists. Journalists are cycling’s worst enemy. It’s not reasonable make a competitive cyclist suddenly don an ill-fitting bike advocacy hement in the wake of a tragedy. Competitive cycling and bike advocacy really have very little to do with each other, apart from the fact that bikes are involved. Why do they need to ask Wiggins about it at all? If someone had drowned in the Thames would they hunt down Michael Phelps? A bus was involved in this collision too, but they don’t go interviewing a professional monster truck driver–and if they did, I’m sure the monster truck driver would say something inane about how all buses should have gigantic tires so they can ride over everything in their path.

And Zulu I think you’re being rather obtuse there, the CTC’s point is that mandatory helmet laws reduce the number of people cycling which does have health implications – they’re just making it juicy.

In the story linked to in the North Wales thread it says Wiggin “demanded” blah blah… 🙄

On the helmet stats, if the study only looked at cases where a helmet could have made a difference, then what proportion of all accidents is that? Not having a go (i know it seems I am), just very aware stats without context can be misleading.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/aug/02/bradley-wiggins-helmet-cyclist-death?newsfeed=true

Sums it up for me. This debate should not be about helmets, whether they work or not, whether they’re worn or not, whether they’re compulsory or not. That’s a red herring. It’s about preventing cyclist from getting hit and driven over in the first place, about redesigning the roads so that they’re safe for syslists to use, about changing attitudes and providing adequate training for all road users.

even the CTC have to rely on convoluted straw man arguments such as “more people will die of heart disease because less people ride bikes” to prove that compulsory helmet laws are negative.

So, pretty much exactly the same reasoning used by the British Medical Assoc (before they caved to political pressure).

It’s not convoluted – it is pretty much the main thrust of the anti-compulsion argument: compulsory helmets = less people cycling due to cost, comfort and greater perceived risk = lower public health to the extent that the loss outweighs any gains made for protecting individual heads.

No, its not Obtuse – the statistics clearly show that cyclists who are involved in a crash are significantly safer wearing a helmet.

You can muddy the waters by saying that cyclists are more likely to have a crash if they’re wearing a helmet, but there appears to be very little proof of this, only circumstancial evidence, such as a study that cars might drive a little closer (but no evidence that this actually means the cyclist is more likley to be involved in a crash) or that people take more risks wearing a helmet (well, thats down to them, isn’t it)

To actually come out with a result that helmets are less safe requires you to make a link between reduction in cycling participation in Australia in the 1980’s and an increase in heart disease – Well frankly I think thats convoluted and that the CTC care more about increasing the number of people cycling than they do about increasing the safety of those who already do.

I don’t really care much about the outcomes of people who don’t ride bikes, and in fact were clearly unlikley to anyway, I’m more concerned about the outcomes of the people who do ride bikes, and the ability of us as a cycling community to make an argument for more protection from the law and more facilities, and to do that we absolutley need to argue from the moral high ground by saying “we’ve done everything we can to make ourselves safe, now its over to you” – and if that means that we as a cycling community have to wear helmets, have to stop running red lights, and have to stop riding around at night without lights on our bikes and on pavements, then so be it – because every time one of us does that, it weakens our argument.

Wiggins cleqrly zqnts to see the reduction in bicycle use theyve seen in Austrqliq. Id be more interested in how he explqins rqcers going faster since labs have developed tests for steroids, cortisone, EPO, growth hormone and a host of sti;ulqnts thqn his views on hel;ets>

Anyone got qn azerty keyboqrd to lend ;e<

I2ve ridden qbout fiv ehundred ;iles on uk roqds in the lqst week or so qnd reckon the ;qin proble; is the lqck of cqre drivers tqke qround cyclists qnd pedestriqns. I hope the oly;pic spectqting to;orroz is worth the risks I£ve tqken.

On the helmet stats, if the study only looked at cases where a helmet could have made a difference, then what proportion of all accidents is that? Not having a go (i know it seems I am), just very aware stats without context can be misleading.

read it for yourself appendix H page 115

@pleaderwilliams

. It’s an interesting point, in that air travel is probably the safest by ‘miles travelled’ and probably the most unsafe ‘per trip’.

Really? British airlines have had zero fatalities in the last 10 years. How many road deaths have there been in that time?

UK 10 year fatality rates per billion passenger km.

UK Airlines – zero
Rail 0.2
Bus and coach 0.3
Car 2.4
Motorcycles 104

UK Parliament Briefing Paper

So there are 10% or so of cases where a helmet would “probably” have helped. How many more qccidents would there have been if the cyclists had been wearing helmets and therefore more likely to be hit? (Bath uni) And how many more would die of heqrt diseqse because they stopped commuting due to the unacceptability of helmet hair in their job (a doctor in the Irish medicql times).

French stats say that not jumping red lights is the single most importqnt thing cyclists should do to stqy qlive. In most other cqses they qre the victim rqther thqn the cquse.

No, its not Obtuse – the statistics clearly show that cyclists who are involved in a crash are significantly safer wearing a helmet.

You can muddy the waters by saying that cyclists are more likely to have a crash if they’re wearing a helmet, but there appears to be very little proof of this

Well the fact is that on a population basis there is no evidence of helmets hsving a protective affect. Risk compensation is the most likely explanation though drivers taking less care around “protected” riders might play a part. Look at the fatality trends for cyclists V peds from 1985 – 2004. They track each other despite helmet use increasing over that time period. There is no helmet affect.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1071.html

Really? British airlines have had zero fatalities in the last 10 years. How many road deaths have there been in that time?
UK 10 year fatality rates per billion passenger km.
UK Airlines – zero
Rail 0.2
Bus and coach 0.3
Car 2.4
Motorcycles 104

To be clear, I’m not trying to say that airline travel is dangerous, just that stats can be misleading. Data from a different source that supports what I said (air travel least dangerous by billion miles/km, among most dangerous by billion journeys) is here.

N.B. DETR (where the data is from) is now known as the Department for Transport.

Maybe cycling should allow helmets to become compulsory for political reasons. This issue isn’t going to go away. We live in a world where people with little knowledge on a subject can have a big impact on what gets done.
Getting this out of the way will allow the focus to move onto other aspects of road cycle safety, which will have a much bigger impact.

Data from a different source that supports what I said (air travel least dangerous by billion miles/km, among most dangerous by billion journeys) is here.

Fair point. Though in the decade to 2010 UK airline fatalities were zero. Can’t get safer than that.

I think the real message from the numbers though is that travel (apart from motorbikes arguably) is safe. Even cycling. around 100 cyclists killed per year is fairly low. Then it is possible to reduce our personal risk well below the average as many if not most cycling fatalities are avoidable.

Route choice. – Some roads like fast dual carriageways are inherently unsafe due to high volume high speed traffic. There is a disproportionate number of cyclists killed on these roads.

Traffic awareness. Don’t undertake buses or other large vehicles even when stopped unless you are certain you can get past and well in front before they move. Use a mirror. Anticipate what other road users might do and have an escape option planned.

Helmets are a sideshow other than for times when there is a high risk of crashing – technical off road, road racing etc. The risk of crashing for a good rider in normal road riding is tiny.

At the very best the research is inconclusive

http://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/all-those-helmets-posts-in-one-place/%5B/url%5D

Helmets in the Netherlands

Make cycling safe and the helmet argument becomes irrelevant

This issue isn’t going to go away. We live in a world where people with little knowledge on a subject can have a big impact on what gets done.

People only don’t know much because there’s not enough decent research.

Well I wouldn’t discriminate motorcycles and cars, as both have to adibe the same rules share the same space.

Just a point on this when I go out on mountain bike or road bike always wear a helmet. Just been out for a quick ride on the bikes with the wife. She’s confident enough now to raise the saddle a little. Pulled up in front of the house after the ride she forgot about the hight of he saddle and only being 4 ft 11. Got unbalanced and fell into the road. Cut her arm and bounced her head of the kerb doing damage to the back of the helmet.it was quite a thump and she still has a headache. If she hadn’t been wearing it it would have been a trip to A&E . it’s an accident any of us could do no matter how good a cyclist you are. By all means don’t make helmets compulsory but the wife was damn pleased that I refused to take her out on the bike unless she put the helmet on .her excuse was don’t need it as only a short ride. And it showed her what the most innocuous accident can cause.