Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[Flying_Monkey]

No disrespect to anyone in here and I never thought Id say this, but what this thread needs is an FM, someone used to looking at academic evidence, assessing whats relevent and whats not, and neatly summarising the pros and cons, although Im not saying no one has an axe to grind.

It's very nice of you to suggest it, but like the Professor quoted by Michael Hanlon in the Daily Mail (of all places) in the first few pages of this thread, I try to stay out of helmet debates. I'm also not a statistician, however I can see flaws in almost all the studies that get quoted by both sides - actually, it is more that few people seem to consider the limits of any particular study when it supports their pre-decided position but most will spend plenty of time highlighting the limits of those that don't. Almost no-one applies the same rationality to what they believe as they do to what others believe, hardly anyone actually listens to each other and the arguments descend into name-calling and never get anywhere.

BTW, that Michael Hanlon piece is about the most sane thing I have ever seen in the Daily Mail, and its probably the best publicly-digestible summary I have read of what is known. Of course in pleasing the anti-helmet people it will also disappoint the anti-dedicated cycle lane people...

The question we all should be asking, anyway, is not 'helmet or no helmet?' (or variations thereof) but 'what approaches, of all the possibilities, in combination or individually, would best protect cyclists, and more vulnerable road users, of all ages and abilities?' and 'which of these approaches is most feasible given current and future environmental, economic, political and social conditions?' and I would suggest that, in the bigger picture, helmet debates are a rather irrelevant side issue.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Cmon FM that's an easy one. Traffic speed and volume reduction.

and it is starting to happen.

 

[benb]

With emphasis on the bolded bit you wont find me disagreeing with you.

Pint?

Go on then. I'll have a lager, as it's a hot day. Something continental.

I'll just add that I'm quite sure that a helmet would save me from a bump, scrape, or cut if I bashed my head at a slow speed.

That, for me, is not worth it. I'm not too bothered if I get a scrape. I find cycling without a helmet so much more enjoyable, the vanishingly unlikely prospect of protecting against a superficial injury is simply not worth it.

 

[Tunster]

The question we all should be asking, anyway, is not 'helmet or no helmet?' (or variations thereof) but 'what approaches, of all the possibilities, in combination or individually, would best protect cyclists, and more vulnerable road users, of all ages and abilities?' and 'which of these approaches is most feasible given current and future environmental, economic, political and social conditions?' and I would suggest that, in the bigger picture, helmet debates are a rather irrelevant side issue.

Totally agree with that stand point similar to my summary point made before. But my other question is, 'why is no one challenging helmet makers?' Is it because there's the lack of a law that makes them compulsory? Or is it generally impossible to create a bike helmet of that calibre for the mass market to be effective enough at a low cost?

I'm happy to look at both sides to any debate and change sides based on fact, but I always believed that helmets were always effective. After reading some of that helmet site, the stats do favour a less severe outcome. But what about the 25% who do encounter more serious injuries? Do they not count? (in reference to the 1996 study)

 

[benb]

That is a fundamentally flawed statement. You can prove a negative in so far as you can prove anything in science.

It depends on the exact circumstances. If I said there was an invisible dragon in my garden, you would find it impossible to disprove. You would rightly suggest that the burden of proof was upon me to demonstrate the existence of said dragon before you took my idea seriously.

In this case though, you can certainly prove that there are no more people falling off but not presenting to hospital with and without helmets.

Depends on the negative!

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Totally agree with that stand point similar to my summary point made before. But my other question is, 'why is no one challenging helmet makers?' Is it because there's the lack of a law that makes them compulsory? Or is it generally impossible to create a bike helmet of that calibre for the mass market to be effective enough at a low cost?

if you made a helmet that would offer protection in higher speed crashes it would look and feel like a motorcycle helmet and no one would be prepared to wear it

 

[threebikesmcginty]

Go on then. I'll have a lager, as it's a hot day. Something continental.

How thoroughly disgusting, the very mention of lager and continental in the same post eliminates you from further involvement in the thread as you're quite clearly an unsavoury sort.

 

[benb]

How thoroughly disgusting, the very mention of lager and continental in the same post eliminates you from further involvement in the thread as you're quite clearly an unsavoury sort.

Look, I normally drink ales, but when it's scorchio a nice cold lager is rather refreshing.

 

[theclaud]

Sense at last!

Thanks for that, will study and return to the thread.

Smeggers, I don't mean to be critical, but is hanging around in P&Lite too much turning you into Andy in Sig? I've just Googled "cycle helmets" and the second hit (excluding the ads) is... you guessed it!

Cycle helmets: an international resource​

www.cyclehelmets.org/​

Presents analysis and commentary about scientific studies on bicycle helmet efficiency. The effects of compulsory helmet laws on cycling is also addressed.​

Fifty-three pages later, and the most vocal and argumentative pro-compulsionist on the thread hasn't even been arsed to give the facts of the matter the most cursory glance. I'd find it quite astonishing if I hadn't long ago concluded that (as I said before) the helmet debate is not really about helmets at all.

 

[Red Light]

Totally agree with that stand point similar to my summary point made before. But my other question is, 'why is no one challenging helmet makers?' Is it because there's the lack of a law that makes them compulsory? Or is it generally impossible to create a bike helmet of that calibre for the mass market to be effective enough at a low cost?

I'm happy to look at both sides to any debate and change sides based on fact, but I always believed that helmets were always effective. After reading some of that helmet site, the stats do favour a less severe outcome. But what about the 25% who do encounter more serious injuries? Do they not count? (in reference to the 1996 study)

The helmet makers don't make any safety claims for their helmets except that they comply with, typically, the EN standard. All the claims are about comfort and cooling and looks. So there's not much to complain about. All the claims are made by third parties like BsHIT.

As for the 25%, anything by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson is highly suspect so treat that paper with great caution.

 

[Wobblers]

Didi it also say that they were many times more likely to ride up the inside of a large vehicle turning left also ?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

Want to throw something else totally irrelevant into the mix? How's about the price of grain?

Oh, and women are more likely to be involved in accidents with HGVs. That's rather different from saying they're more likely to ride up the inside. One is supported by the available evidence, the other is a disgraceful attempt at victim blaming.

 

[benb]

That cyclehelmets.org site is an excellent resource, and well referenced.
This page is interesting.

In Great Britain, there was no detectable improvement in fatalities, serious injuries or the average severity of injuries to cyclists over the period 1985 to 2001, during which helmet use rose from close to zero to approx 22%

 

[theclaud]

Did we ever figure out how one might 'demonstate equanimity on the subject of helmets' or are we putting this down as a typo?

I am keen to find the answer and as soon as I understand the question I'll give it my full attention - limited as that is.

What's so tricky to grasp? Your entire M.O. is a kind of elaborate fence-sitting in service of the whatever hegemony applies. In situations where people are apt to feel strongly or debate gets heated, you like to dress this up as a kind of sangfroid and emphasize your supposed even-mindedness in contrast to hordes of foaming zealots on either side. We've been through this before - the effect of all this is to erase questions of power and imply that nothing matters and that all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds. If you were really stupid enough to think this was true you'd just sit in a corner drooling, or (I'm being charitable) ride around all day with an inanely contented grin. So by not buying it I'm actually paying you a compliment. A back-handed one, admittedly, but one can't be choosy in P&Lite...

 

[Wobblers]

@Red Light: Your assumption is that all instances of bike crashes involved head injuries. There are too many variations of crashes to go as simplistic as your calculation.

For me personally, do helmets not provide protection for the simplist of accidents? I'm going as far down as a slip on a bit of oil and then falling over on your bike onto the road. The risk without a helmet is a major bash of the head onto the surface possibly causing concussion or even brain damage which would have far more reaching consequences. With a helmet, it won't stop you falling over but your head is protected from any major impact. If this type of accident makes up the majority for inexperienced/younger cyclists (between 5 to 18?), surely there's a neccessary need for helmets to be compulsory to protect them from silly mistakes most experienced rides won't encouter? Helmets won't stop a car knocking you off or blocking your path and you ending up flying up in the air.

The most important factor is if the chances of you surviving an accident due to wearing a helmet in most likely instances makes it worth while to protect the majority. Whether this is a minor or major incident. They'll never be a black and white case for yes or no for compulsion. This argument goes for the same as wearing a seat belt to protect yourself or driving at 30mph rather than 35/40mph to increasing the chances of a pedestrian survivng an accident.

I'd say yes to compulsion if it's going to trigger a nationwide education campaign to target both cyclists and drivers in safer cycling/driving.

Both my worst crashes have been exactly the sort of scenario you've just outlined: an off as a result of contamination on the road. Both were very similar in a number of ways. In both, the front wheel washed out and I fell to the side, in both I ended up in A&E with broken bones and in both my shoulder bore the brunt of the impact. Which means, in practical terms, if I'd been wearing a helmet it would have been my head that hit the ground hardest as a result of the added bulk. The most recent crash is in particular noteworthy: the bruising and road rash on my shoulder means that my shoulder contacted the ground with considerable force at high speed. Had I been wearing a helmet, that would have translated to a serious impact with substantial rotational forces. I would may have received serious neck injuries. You should never assume that a helmet will give you adequate protection: in some cases it will, but in others it will make things worse.

With regards to compulsion, in every single case there has been a substantial fall in the number of cyclists. This has not been mirrored in a similar fall in fatalities or serious injuries. In other words, the chances that those remaining cyclists will end up as KSI statistics has increased. In short, helmet compulsion increases the risks to cyclists.

I'm not at all against helmet wearing - it's entirely your own choice. But I am absolutely opposed to compulsion because it's against the interests of all who cycle.

 

[benb]

Had I been wearing a helmet, that would have translated to a serious impact with substantial rotational forces. I would have had serious neck injuries.

Surely you mean may have? I'm pretty quick to pick someone up on their "my helmet definitely saved my life" anecdote, so it would be hypocritical of me not to mention this.