Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[Biglad82]

Like I give a **** how you, the non cycling public see it.

Is there really non cycling public on here ?..........why !

 

[Biglad82]

I really don't know, perhaps I could join a forum for owners of Tonka Toys to gain some insight into this.

Then you'd only have an argument about wearing safety helmets on a construction site...lol

 

[Linford]

Like I give a **** how you, the non cycling public see it.

That is not what you implied a couple of posts back Adrian. You wanted everyone to see how safe cycling is -

There is however a disproportionate bias that sees cycling as dangerous and needing helmet compulsion. This is bad for cycling and bad for societies health.

or do you just like preaching to the converted ?

 

[captainhastings]

Make sense too me too wear one. If you punch a wall with your bare fist it is going too hurt. If you do it wearing a boxing glove it will hurt less if at all ( not tried it )
So I feel safer with one on. I had the pleasure once as a kid of going straight through a wind screen off my moped. Was glad I had a helmet on that day.
As for being forced too wear one well it is nice too have a choice some days if I am just going for a bimble too the shop in casual clothes it is nice too just wear a normal hat rather than look like mario. But if I am going on a good ride I wear me helmet

 

[mcshroom]

Moving things from thread to thread I know, but this post by lejogger sums up things pretty well for me: -

I found this post by Roger Geffen the Campaigns & Policy Director of CTC on a thread on an NHS cycling website. I think it makes some interesting points:

It is well established that, if you weigh up the life-years gained through cycling (due to increased physical activity) versus the life years lost (due to injury), the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks involved. One widely quoted figure for the UK, acknowledged by Government, puts the benefit:disbenefit ratio for the UK at 20:1. Other ratios for other countries are higher still. (N.B. some of the academic references reduce the ratio by including the negative effects of pollution - however that's obviously irrelevant to the helmet debate. If you remove the pollution effect, the other references all come out with ratios above 20:1). But let's take 20:1 for the sake of argument.

From this, recent research shows that, if you tell people to wear helmets (whether by law or simply through promotion campaigns) and this reduces cycle use by more than 1 unit of cycling (e.g. one cyclist, or one km cycled) for every 20 who continue, this is absolutely guaranteed to shorten more lives than helmets could possibly save - even if they were 100% effective at preventing ALL cycling injuries (i.e. leg, arm, shoulder injuries as well as head injuries) for the remaining cyclists. That maximum threshold, beyond which you would be doing more harm than good, then drops further still - down to c2% - once you take account of the proportion of cycling injuries which are non-head injuries. And this is still assuming that helmets are 100% effective at preventing head injuries.

In fact, the evidence on the effectiveness of helmets has become increasingly sceptical over time. A recent literature review by Rune Elvik, an internationally recognised authority on road safety, found that the estimates of helmet effectiveness have progressively decreased over time, with the most recent studies showing no net benefit. In this same report he documents evidence that helmets increase the risk of neck injuries. In a separate report, Elvik has also found that helmet-wearers suffer 14% more injuries per mile travelled than non-wearers. The reasons for this are unclear, however there is good evidence that (at least some) cyclists ride less cautiously when wearing helmets, and that drivers leave less space when overtaking cyclists with helmets than those without.

The only clearly documented effect of enforced helmet laws (e.g. in Australia, New Zealand or parts of Canada) is to substantially reduce cycle use, typically by about a third. Reductions in cyclists' head injury have been similar to the reductions in cycle use, suggesting no reduction in risk for the remaining cyclists, and in some cases this appears to have worsened. In addition to the possible explanations in the para above, this may also be becuase reductions in cycle use undermine the "safety in numbers" effect for the cyclists who remain - see see www.ctc.org.uk/safetyinnumbers. A clear relationship has been shown between cycle use and cycle safety - cycling is safer in places where cycle use is high (e.g. the Netherlands or Denmark - or within Britain, in Cambridge or York). Telling people to wear helmets, instead of creating safe cycling conditions, is contrary to the aims of encouraging more, as well as safer, cycling.

From this, I hope it is clear that the effectiveness or otherwise of helmets is not the main point. As explained above, even if helmets were 100% effective, you would still be doing more harm than good if you deter more than c2% of cycle use by telling people to wear them. That's because the risks of cycling are not especially high, and the health benefits are SO much greater. You are about as unlikely to be killed in a mile of cycling as a mile of walking - do we also need walking helmets? - no, of course not! The idea that you need helmets to cycle is both a symptom of our massively exaggerated concern about the "dangers" of cycling, which results in such pitifully low cycle use in Britain.

In short, if we want to maximise the health, environmental and other benefits of cycling, we need to focus on creating safe conditions, and thus increasing cycle use. Resorting to helmets simply tackles the symptoms of the problem, not the causes, and thus deters people from cycling. This is pretty much guaranteed to shorten more lives than it could possibly save. Faced with both an obesity crisis and a climate crisis, the last thing we should be doing is driving people into increasingly car-dependent, obesogenic lifestyles.

References supporting every claim in the text above can be found in CTC's review of the evidence: http://beta.ctc.org.uk/files/cycle-helmets-evidencebrf_1.pdf. There is also a (shorter) CTC policy statement on the subject here: http://beta.ctc.org.uk/file/public/cycle-helmetsbrf_0.pdf
Thoughts?

 

[Linford]

I really don't know, perhaps I could join a forum for owners of Tonka Toys to gain some insight into this.

I've no doubt they'd give you a better welcome than you offer....

 

[snorri]

This b***** Wriggly Bradens has a lot ot answer for, that's all I'm going to say.

 

[Dan B]

The safer cycling is seen to be, the more will partake in it. better protection will do that.

Yes, that's why places like the US with its high level of helmet use are so much better and safer to ride bikes in than Holland

 

[Wobblers]

[QUOTE 1970831, member: 45"]Possibly. They would likely be travelling at close to 25mph when they make contact with the ground, but the vertical impact speed would not be 25. That would be the case if, for example, the cyclist rode into a wall while travelling at 25mph.

Drop a bullet from 30 feet while firing one horizontally at the same time. They'd impact the ground with a very similar vertical speed.[/quote]

But the horizontal velocity will introduce a - quite possibly extremely large - rotational component on impact with the ground. Not merely are helmets not able to mitigate these sort of forces, but their bulk increases the moment over which those forces act, thereby increasing the rotational forces experienced by critical structures and organs. These forces cause some of the most severe injuries such as diffuse axonal injury or spinal injuries.

Horizontal speed is most certainly relevant.

 

[Wobblers]

78km are driven in car journeys for each single kilometer cycled in the UK . 835 people were killed in cars as opposed to 107 on cycles in 2011 (65% of the car deaths would have been preventable had they been using seat belts). 75% of the cyclists were killed through a head injury.

Does that figure include passengers?

It must also be pointed out that many of those 75% of cyclists killed by a head injury also had other fatal injuries - a helmet, even were it effective (and there's rather little evidence for meaningful protection) wouldn't have saved them.

 

[Wobblers]

you are so foolish. If you're travelling at speed then your head hits the tarmac a glancing blow and either slides or bounces. When I hit the ground travelling at 22mph I went down sideways with a bang, my shoulder hitting the ground first and my head, pivoting vertically, bounced, causing the helmet to split, which is all to the good. An advertisement for helmets if ever there was one. Greg's head, travelling at a faster horizontal rate, and meeting the ground at the same time as his shoulder, slid, and his cap swivelled around his head and scored a deep line in to his scalp and forehead. Had he been wearing a helmet the helmet would have rotated, and the strap of the helmet would have taken his head with it. Cue neck damage.

Now..........it's easy to theorise about this stuff from the security of your own sofa, but, it's disrespectful, dishonest and downright stupid to theorise when competent eyewitness accounts and that of the crashee tell you what's happened.

Dell, if that helmet split, then it failed in a brittle fashion, meaning it didn't actually absorb much impact energy. In short, it failed. You most likely got much less benefit from it than you think...

 

[ufkacbln]

The number of cyclists on the road is a tenth of the number of motorists, you are bound to get more accident with motorists because of this simple fact. What you are avoiding is the point that many more cyclists as a ratio get seriously injured in comparison with people in cars. People use cars because they are convenient and comfortable. The occupants are also substantially better protected when they use their seat belts than 2 wheeled users.

I guess you are going to argue the toss on that one as well......

Back to goldfish hamsters etc?
I quite enjoy watching your squirming around and avoiding the point that there are simply three times as many drivers admitted to casualty than cyclists.

Why can you not understand that tis is reality?

You can waffle, squirm, avoid as much as you like, but it won't change reality.
Once again....


You are still avoiding the question, but I suspect we all know why.

1. Two people are admitted to A and E
2. They have similarly serious head injuries
3. One is a cyclist
4. One is a Motorist

Q1. Does one hurt less than the other?
Q2. Is one less traumatic than the other?
Q3. Is the effect on the family less for one than the other?

What excuse are you going to use next?

 

[ufkacbln]

I still dont see the logic of not wearing a helmet, because a less vulnerable group (motorists) have more head injuries. It just doesnt stack.

Its about hypocrisy rather than helmets.

Helmets should be a personal choice given that they are unproven to work on a population scale, or for compulsion to reduce head injuries, and in some cases may cause or worsen head and neck injury.

Then we get those who want compulsion to save the poor cyclists from themselves.... despite the fact that with all the airbags etc vehicle occupants are still a far higher number of hospital admissions for head injury

If you accept that helmets work then we could save three times as many victims by making helmets compulsory for drivers..... yet we then find out that these head injuries don't need preventing at all and are quite acceptable!

It's a bit like having a whooping cough epidemic but only vaccinating a randomly chosen number of those affected (for instance;the children who were breast fed and not those who were bottle fed as new born infants). If vaccination works why not prevent whooping cough in all these affected by vaccinating all children.




That is why the very simple questions that Linford is performing contortions to avoid answering


1. Two people are admitted to A and E
2. They have similarly serious head injuries
3. One is a cyclist
4. One is a Motorist

Q1. Does one hurt less than the other?
Q2. Is one less traumatic than the other?
Q3. Is the effect on the family less for one than the other?

Either we are interested in reducing head injury admissions in which case we should be looking at the more common admission causes - amythingh else is sheer hypocrisy

 

[lukesdad]

If you want to lower head injuries in motor vehicles why don't you just remove windscreens and make em wear glasses ?

 

[lukesdad]

The majority of head injuries in motor vehicle come from impacts with side pillars / windows.

If you really want to increase road safety, remove the driver's seatbelt and put a bloody big spike in the centre of the steering wheel.

Yeah and if you want to improve cycle safety remove them from the highway too !