OP
OP
matticus
Guru
Yes, I agree you've shown this ability to an admirable extent. Well done!
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
classic33
Leg End Member
It could be taken that way.
However footpaths were built for use on foot. Many have not removed any road from those using them in order to be built. There's very few helmet wearing pedestrians at present though.
Ming the Merciless
There is no mercy
- Location
- Inside my skull
Extract from the UK's Transport Research Laboratory:
The 2008 survey on major built-up roads showed that cycle helmet wearing was 34.3%, an increase from 30.7% in 2006. The wearing rate has increased each year the survey has been carried out since 1994 when it was 16.0%
By your very own evidence a survey found that 66.7% didn’t wear a helmet on major road. I’d extrapolate it’s an even great percentage away from busy main roads.
classic33
Leg End Member
The footpaths already exist. Cycleways/cyclelanes are still something new over here. They are seen by many other road users as an infringement on the road. Pavements are accepted where they run alongside the roads, as part of the road system.
We have the position whereby a pedal cycle is classed as a road vehicle, but with some calling for those using them to get off the roads. We have some who cycle demanding that the only safe way to cycle is via separate facilities to be built. What we don't have, yet, is anyone calling for pedestrians to be wearing helmets whilst walking on the roads.
Ming the Merciless
There is no mercy
- Location
- Inside my skull
The same data lower down which to conveniently forgot to
Show’s that 82.4% of children do not wear a helmet and that level is constant / even increased.
Show’s that 82.4% of children do not wear a helmet and that level is constant / even increased.
Ming the Merciless
There is no mercy
- Location
- Inside my skull
Which you conveniently forgot to include in your quote. ^^^^^
God I hate the lack of quick edit when auto corrupt has mashed your post.
God I hate the lack of quick edit when auto corrupt has mashed your post.
Ming the Merciless
There is no mercy
- Location
- Inside my skull
I’d would also be careful about surveys on built up roads. Traffic levels on those roads have increased about 200% since 1994. In 1994 I’d ride most A roads quite happily. Now, I would not touch them unless I really have to. Have I started wearing a helmet no? Have I stopped riding? No. Do I ride a lot? Yes.
So I’d say built up roads may have a selection bias to a rider who thinks a helmet will protect them. Aka “It saved my life” brigade. Even so majority still without helmet.
I would also be wary of percentages without knowing numbers.
Lets say they surveyed 100 riders. First time 30 wear a helmet. Therefore 30% wearing a helmet. Next time they survey it’s 88. The 12 no longer there don’t wear a helmet and had enough of the increased traffic. They still ride without a helmet just no longer on the built up road. Suddenly we have that magic 34% figure but the amount of helmet wearing remains unchanged.
So I’d say built up roads may have a selection bias to a rider who thinks a helmet will protect them. Aka “It saved my life” brigade. Even so majority still without helmet.
I would also be wary of percentages without knowing numbers.
Lets say they surveyed 100 riders. First time 30 wear a helmet. Therefore 30% wearing a helmet. Next time they survey it’s 88. The 12 no longer there don’t wear a helmet and had enough of the increased traffic. They still ride without a helmet just no longer on the built up road. Suddenly we have that magic 34% figure but the amount of helmet wearing remains unchanged.
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
I think we should also consider that cycling is not one thing. To oversimplify, a given cyclist (or would be cyclist) will sit on a line somewhere that has pure cycling sport at one end, going via sport recreation to utility (including commuting). Obviously one dimension Sport <-> Utility is oversimplifying - it's going to be n-dimensional - but it will do for now.
Someone taking up cycling for pure sport reasons (eg "I want to give triathlon a go") is unlikely to be bothered by the helmet question. Helmets are pretty well embedded in the cyclo-sport milieu, along with other things of questionable necessity like padded lycra shorts, drop handlebars and clip-in pedals. Not everyone uses all of those but I'd guess it's a pretty high percentage.
Someone taking up cycling to do a commute, maybe because they don't fancy post-covid public transport, may have fear of traffic foremost in their mind. Here the question of helmets may be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, as a danger-signaller reminding them that "cycling is dangerous", and also for practical/personal reasons (eg it makes my head look like a mushroom). On the other hand, it may be a reassuring safety measure enabling them to indulge in a spot of risk-compensation and undertake a dangerous activity (cycling) that they wouldn't otherwise have done. (Leave aside whether it is an effective safety measure, or whether cycling actually is dangerous - I'm considering the potential psychological effect here)
And so on. So it all depends on the type of cyclist. Who, why, when, how old etc.
I can see how the perceived need to wear a helmet could be discouraging - but I'd guess there are a few other barriers placed in front of would be cyclists, some real and some imaginary, all as important if not more so than the question of whether or not to wear a hat. Examples being:
- Cycling is really sporty - I'd have to dress up in stupid skin tight clothing and look ridiculous.
- Cycling is really dangerous - I'm scared of the traffic.
- Cycling is really hard. You have to be really fit.
- Bikes are really expensive. They cost thousands these days, you know.
- I can't ride where I want to because there is a massive great dual carriageway in the way and no safe crossing.
And so on.
Someone taking up cycling for pure sport reasons (eg "I want to give triathlon a go") is unlikely to be bothered by the helmet question. Helmets are pretty well embedded in the cyclo-sport milieu, along with other things of questionable necessity like padded lycra shorts, drop handlebars and clip-in pedals. Not everyone uses all of those but I'd guess it's a pretty high percentage.
Someone taking up cycling to do a commute, maybe because they don't fancy post-covid public transport, may have fear of traffic foremost in their mind. Here the question of helmets may be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, as a danger-signaller reminding them that "cycling is dangerous", and also for practical/personal reasons (eg it makes my head look like a mushroom). On the other hand, it may be a reassuring safety measure enabling them to indulge in a spot of risk-compensation and undertake a dangerous activity (cycling) that they wouldn't otherwise have done. (Leave aside whether it is an effective safety measure, or whether cycling actually is dangerous - I'm considering the potential psychological effect here)
And so on. So it all depends on the type of cyclist. Who, why, when, how old etc.
I can see how the perceived need to wear a helmet could be discouraging - but I'd guess there are a few other barriers placed in front of would be cyclists, some real and some imaginary, all as important if not more so than the question of whether or not to wear a hat. Examples being:
- Cycling is really sporty - I'd have to dress up in stupid skin tight clothing and look ridiculous.
- Cycling is really dangerous - I'm scared of the traffic.
- Cycling is really hard. You have to be really fit.
- Bikes are really expensive. They cost thousands these days, you know.
- I can't ride where I want to because there is a massive great dual carriageway in the way and no safe crossing.
And so on.
OP
OP
matticus
Guru
If I'm absolutely honest, I think this is bollox. I've never witnessed PPE being the factor that persuaded someone to undertake a dangerous activity.
"There is no way I am doing a bungee jump with you Darling."
"But they have helmets!"
"oh ...well ok, maybe ... "
Maybe I'm wired differently to most folk, maybe I am lacking empathy here, I don't know. If you have evidence from other activities, please hit me with it.
[As a marker, I doubt I will ever bungee jump. Or parachute. Or go caving. I am too cowardly! But I have ridden downhill - briefly - at 50mph without a helmet. I was a bit scared.]
OP
OP
matticus
Guru
Yes - I was going to mention this when folks started throwing stats around. But you've described the problem pretty well!
( It links nicely with the concurrent Stats Thread on here; someone linked to this article about "Lurking Variables". I found it a bit of a head-scrambler, but the general idea is clear enough: https://towardsdatascience.com/simpsons-paradox-and-interpreting-data-6a0443516765 )
I am very cautions of ascribing causation/correlation to either helmet wearing rates, or injury rates that compare with/without helmets; there are too many "lurking variables". Rider lurching home from pub will have quite different accidents (with different causes/results) to rider in road race, or experienced rider on a leisurely Sunday bunch ride ... etc etc ...
I absolutely agree with all of your points. However the topic was whether the vast majority of cyclists don't wear helmets. I have provided evidence that for adults this may not be true. Whilst you can pick holes in it, I haven't yet seen your opposing evidence.
When I am cycling, the majority of people that I see are wearing helmets. The exceptions are usually elderly cyclists or, kool kids with their helmet on their handlebars "cos mum said I had to wear it".
It's a shame that they seem to have stopped doing that survey in 2008, as I think that attitudes have changed a lot since then. There is more emphasis on cycling to school for example, and it's common to see young children on scooters or bikes with helmets, thus normalising it.
Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
Well, it may be wrong, but I doubt that it's entirely implausible, or "bollox".
I have met at least one person (a helmet bore - it saved her life, you know) who wouldn't go riding without her helmet. It's a talisman. I reckon if you took it away she'd never ride again. And she loved cycling.
[As a marker, I've been caving. I found the preparations that the instructors went through, and the provision of safety equipment to be a reassuring factor. Abseiling into a bottomless black hole the instructor would give slight a tug on the safety line and say "I've got you", as I was thinking "farkfarkfarkfarkfark" and trying to make my limbs work. Although most of the time actually caving (not dangling) I was never scared, I was too busy just trying to make progress, it was so damn difficult. I never go above about 55 km/h downhill - or so my Garmin tells me.]
Ming the Merciless
There is no mercy
- Location
- Inside my skull
You provided evidence that 2/3 of adults on major roads surveyed were not wearing helmets. Nothing more, nothing less.
OP
OP
matticus
Guru
But isn't that a post-factum thing?
I'm more interested in how people +start+ cycling. It's not as if anyone is proposing to take helmets away from people like your friend :-)
I provided evidence that 1/3rd of adults in 2008 were wearing helmets and that there was a background of strong evidence of continuous growth in the sector which extrapolates to around 50% of adults by 2020.
You on the other hand have provided evidence of nothing. Taking issue with my evidence does not validate your own position.
I am looking forward to your evidence.
