Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[GrumpyGregry]

Any campaign in favour of adult helmet compulsion will founder on its inability to prove, objectively, using existing products and standards, that helmets make a significant difference.

 

[jonesy]

Any campaign in favour of adult helmet compulsion will founder on its inability to prove, objectively, using existing products and standards, that helmets make a significant difference.

Unfortunately that assumes that the success of any such campaign is dependent upon its ability to provide objective evidence...

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Unfortunately that assumes that the success of any such campaign is dependent upon its ability to provide objective evidence...

I don't think it is an assumption.

 

[jonesy]

Was Thompson, Rivera and Thompson a Cochrane review? (checks) Blimey - it was. I was thinking of their earlier stuff and hadn't realised they'd snuck a review in...

There's a nice demolition of the Thompson, Rivera and Thompson review here.

Here's the review:
http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001...n-a-crash-even-if-it-involves-a-motor-vehicle

It was indeed, as you point out, widely criticised.

 

[Kizibu]

....There is a very high proportion of HGVs invovled in London cycling fatalities and I can't see helmets making much difference to any of those.

Less than 5% of the accidents resulting in cyclists being killed or seriously injured in UK involve HGVs.

 

[jonesy]

Less than 5% of the accidents resulting in cyclists being killed or seriously injured in UK involve HGVs.

In London it is more than half:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/microsites/freight/hgvs_and_road_safety.aspx

Edit, should have added that nationally, 18% of fatal accidents involve a HGV. See this TRL report: http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/r..._britain_s_roads_establishing_the_causes_.htm

 

[Kizibu]

I ride (mostly) helmetless next to my middle child who wears a helmet. He'd rather I didn't.

.

That's kids for you. I don' think mine would like me riding next to them either....or did you mean he'd rather you didn't wear a helmet?

 

[srw]

I am certain that my injuries would have been more severe with one on.

Thanks to the helmet I now have permanent nerve damage in both arms and in my neck.

Im failry convinced that if I didnt have a lid on I would have definitely been an insurance nightmare.
Hes convinced that if he had a helmet on, the injury would have been nowhere as severe.

Or, to be all boringly factual for a moment (unless you're all willing to undergo control experiments), it's unknowable whether the opposite decision would have made a difference.

Head and brain injury is a horribly emotive subject. Personal anecdote and head injury go together like Linford and making sense.

 

[srw]

Unfortunately that assumes that the success of any such campaign is dependent upon its ability to provide objective evidence...

You mean that PR (that's public relations) might have more impact on the public's reaction to a controversial subject* than the science? Well, strike me dahn wiv a fevver.

*(such as, ooh I don't know, hydrogen powered cars)

 

[ufkacbln]

Because Cunobolin is a professional cyclist having had and seen many many crashes and personally cycled tens of thousands of miles per year his entire life..

Oh, wait....

Not actually that inaccurate!

I have cycled at least 5- 6000 miles year over the last 50 years and have in fact seen many crashes both on the road and in A and E for many of my professional years ........ I have also raced in World Championships!

How did you know?

 

[Kizibu]

In London it is more than half:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/microsites/freight/hgvs_and_road_safety.aspx

Edit, should have added that nationally, 18% of fatal accidents involve a HGV. See this TRL report: http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/r..._britain_s_roads_establishing_the_causes_.htm

You seem to be referring to fatal accidents only. My post referred to killed and seriously injured cyclists.

If I read it correctly, this report suggests less than 1.5% of the accidents in Greater London resulting in cyclists being killed or seriously injured involved HGVs in 2010. The figures given are 13 accidents involving HGVs out of the total of 938 accidents in which a cyclist was killed or seriously injured. This suggests cyclists are less at risk from HGVs in the capital than the rest of the country - perhaps because HGV movements in London are restricted.

I based my 5% figure on the TRL report you cite in your edit. It says that of the 6,114 reported accidents in which cyclists were killed or seriously injured between 2005 and 2007, 295 involved HGVs which I make 4.8%.

It certainly seems true that if a cyclist is hit by a lorry the cyclist is more likely to die as a result compared with other vehicles. But relatively few cycling accidents actually involve HGVs. The vast majority (83%) of accidents resulting in deaths and serious injuries for cyclists involve cars and taxis.

 

[theclaud]

Not actually that inaccurate!

I have cycled at least 5- 6000 miles year over the last 50 years and have in fact seen many crashes both on the road and in A and E for many of my professional years ........ I have also raced in World Championships!

How did you know?

Ha! Pwned, Smeglington!

 

[dellzeqq]

I was wearing a helmet when I was hit. Thanks to the helmet I now have permanent nerve damage in both arms and in my neck.

different Greg, same deal. Are they cursed?

 

[jonesy]

You seem to be referring to fatal accidents only. My post referred to killed and seriously injured cyclists.

If I read it correctly, this report suggests less than 1.5% of the accidents in Greater London resulting in cyclists being killed or seriously injured involved HGVs in 2010. The figures given are 13 accidents involving HGVs out of the total of 938 accidents in which a cyclist was killed or seriously injured. This suggests cyclists are less at risk from HGVs in the capital than the rest of the country - perhaps because HGV movements in London are restricted.

I based my 5% figure on the TRL report you cite in your edit. It says that of the 6,114 reported accidents in which cyclists were killed or seriously injured between 2005 and 2007, 295 involved HGVs which I make 4.8%.

It certainly seems true that if a cyclist is hit by a lorry the cyclist is more likely to die as a result compared with other vehicles. But relatively few cycling accidents actually involve HGVs. The vast majority (83%) of accidents resulting in deaths and serious injuries for cyclists involve cars and taxis.

Well yes, that's why I specifically used the word "fatalities" in the post you first responded to! And I was also specifically referring to London as well.


I'd agree that if you look at KSIs the proportion drops, not surprisingly. But I'm not sure that gets us very far.

NB, if you are referring to Table 13 in the TfL report I think you may have double counted the number of accidents, because this table is for the number of vehicles, so in an accident in which a cyclist is hit by a lorry or car there are two vehicles, the bicycle and the lorry or car for each fatality. Also, note that:

"In two fatal collisions (20%) the pedal cyclist was in collision with a heavy goods vehicle
(HGV) over 7.5 tonnes. In addition two cyclists (20%) were fatally injured in collisions with
a concrete mixing lorry and a skip lorry. Under STATS 19 these vehicles are coded as
‘other motor vehicles’ rather than goods vehicles, so are not included in the HGV total.
Four cyclists were killed in collisions with cars, one with a bus or coach and one with a
taxi."

TfL certainly believes heavy vehicles are over-represented in cycle accidents in London, which is why they are funding research and industry initiatives to do something about it.

 

[dellzeqq]

Dont know?

So they only work in a very narrow set of circumstances and in other narrow sets of circumstances (such as Gregs and Users), they could have caused more harm than good?

Two personal anecdotes to balance it out....

1. Coed Y Brenin - in my young and foolish days. Came off, broke a shoulder and cracked the helmet. The blow to the head was still big enough to cause a fairly large lump and a black eye. Whats his face, Dave (famous amongst MTB circles) wouldnt let me back on site (visitors centre) as head injuries are an insurance nightmare. Im failry convinced that if I didnt have a lid on I would have definitely been an insurance nightmare.

2. Cambridge. Friends little brother. Wasnt wearing a lid. Front wheel came out on a speed bump. Blam. Weeks and weeks in Addenbrookes and missed two years of Uni. Touch and go brain damage for ages. Hes convinced that if he had a helmet on, the injury would have been nowhere as severe.

and............

Helmets may work sometimes and may not work other times. Sometimes they might make things worse. I've crashed with a helmet on and I'm convinced it saved me a nasty head injury. So what? I don't wear one these days, because riding a bike without a helmet is more fun (and they mess my hair up). That's my choice.