martint235
Dog on a bike
- Location
- Welling
The driiver didn't actually notice. I was very upset by that.But I bet the truck came off rather worse...
If you're riding outside Holland . . please wear a helmet!
- Thread starter David Parry
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Wearing a helmet didn't help this poor cyclist, they can't even protect you from a swipe from a Ford Transit wing mirror. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25816281
As above post, I have no problem with people who choose to wear a helmet, but I really wish the preachers would lay off us who make the choice not to wear one.
I no longer cycle with one particular friend who was such a preacher. I got tired listening to his first comment every time we met up, it was "What, no helmet?". He came off his bike about 8 months ago, having ridden into a car when he wandered over to the wrong side of a narrow street while checking his Garmin. He landed on his shoulder and had a nasty break to the collar bone, which is still at the physio stage in the recovery process. Of course, he claims his helmet saved his life.
Perhaps he would have been paying more attention to the road if his helmet hadn't made him feel invincible? Something like the prat drivers who drive like nobbers because they know that all those nice airbags and crumple zones will save them when they hit a 44 tonne truck.
One of the dangers is the helmet as "the cure" for all cycling's dangers
The motor lobby loves this as it totally diverts away from the real issues.
The article shows this exactly.... look how much of the article is about the helmet and how little about the fact that the drive was charged with causing death by driving without due care and attention.
The article would be more educational and instructive if for instance the emphasis had been on how the driver had been too close and how the accident could have been prevented by giving a safe passing distance
If we were to spend the money, enthusiasm, effort and time promoting safer driving and education ALL road users then the safety increase would be far greater and far more universal benefit than helmets
Moodyman
Legendary Member
You'd talk to your mother like that! Rude boy.
No, I'd reserve that kind of language for some random on the internet who chooses to lecture me about what I should wear on a bicycle (or anywhere else for that matter), and who, without having ever met me or my mother, supports their argument for doing so by making entirely unfounded assumptions about me, about her, and about our relationship. That's rude.
mcshroom
Bionic Subsonic
- Location
- Egremont, Cumbria
Are we now establishing the picture that the OP is actually scared of riding in traffic and promoting the magic hat as a reason to try and asuage such fear? It would explain the Holland and segregation aspect of the post (the fact that a majority of Dutch roads do not have any cycle infrastructure seems to have passed the OP by).
Here's a simple point, cycling is a safe activity, and it is beneficial. Helmets have never been shown to reduce head injuries in population wide studies (in fact in most such as in Australia, the probability of head injouries per unit distance goes up), but have been shown to massively reduce cycling rates in countries where they have been mandated, or even strongly promoted.
I'll quote Roger Geffen again on helmets as this point needs hammering home to helmet evangelists as often as possible: -
"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."
Here's a simple point, cycling is a safe activity, and it is beneficial. Helmets have never been shown to reduce head injuries in population wide studies (in fact in most such as in Australia, the probability of head injouries per unit distance goes up), but have been shown to massively reduce cycling rates in countries where they have been mandated, or even strongly promoted.
I'll quote Roger Geffen again on helmets as this point needs hammering home to helmet evangelists as often as possible: -
"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."
Wobblers
Euthermic
- Location
- Minkowski Space
He was probably just so intimidated by your towering presence he had to pretend nothing had happened.
U
User482
Guest
Finally some science. Thanks Fab. Yes, here is how we can make 700 seriously injured, maimed, or dead Londoners, . . sorry, I mean "KSIs" . . vanish in a blob of visual math!)
My favorite argument? Here it is: "What would your sweet mother say?"
I must stay clear of the individual-rights rhetoric (only some of which was truly moving). "Mandatory" was not in my thread-starter, and my sympathies are truly with the individual, languishing in the shadow of Max Weber's bureaucratic rationalization.
Nevertheless, my thread was initially conceived only in the interests of new commuter warriors, out there running their bicycles inches from fast-moving traffic . . here, outcomes cannot always be predicted. If you tumble hard, you can't stop a head-slammer. Simple and true. I'm sure riders with a lot more experience cycling than me have contributed above, but I nevertheless estimate I've accumulated some 37000 miles of urban cycle commuting in my last 5 years.
Surprisingly, nobody mentioned the Dutch cycling infrastructure. Too bad, cause it's facilitating and inspirational, as many of us know. How did the Dutch bring about their comparative safe cycling infrastructure? Now this is truly worthy of respect!
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/01/09/how-the-dutch-got-their-bike-paths/
So what's your picture telling us? That prior to building their infrastructure, the Netherlands had lots of cyclists, who don't wear helmets. Does that sound familiar?
It is also another downside for helmet compulsion
RoSPA puts a significant reduction in cycle accidents for children due to training. When compared to a similar non-trained control group the control were experiencing 3 - 4 times the number of accidents of the trained group.
Yet since compulsory use of helmets on training courses there are less children training. One group (IIRC Correctly it was Norwich) also pointed out that it was the more vulnerable and accident prone low income families who were being excluded.
So a proven method of avoiding accidents has been effectively neutered by a system that waits for the accident to happen and then tries to mitigate the injuries that occur
snorri
Legendary Member
- Location
- East coast, up a bit.
I don't think we want to be promoting the interests of commuter warriors.
The real question with "new commuters" is whether training would make them more confident, better able to deal with traffic and able to prevent becoming involved in an accident
A helmet will only mitigate the injury, surely preventing that accident in the first place would be a better target?
A helmet will only mitigate the injury, surely preventing that accident in the first place would be a better target?
I don't think we want to be promoting the interests of commuter warriors.
Oh - I don't know:
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
. . I hate to heat it up, but I had the experience a few years ago of an unexpected control loss at about zero MPH (i was drunk, looking at a piece of art when i somehow stumbled). My skull came in to contact with the corner of a polished aluminium picture frame, the edge of which was sharp enough to peel the skin from my skull, and i still have the scar to prove it.
Okay, no helmet when looking at mediocre art works . . I'm cool with this, and I love looking at pictures. But if you're a bit tipsy, and even stationary, please wear a helmet . . for your loved ones. You can't control all the outcomes!
Drink-Aware everyone!
Okay, no helmet when looking at mediocre art works . . I'm cool with this, and I love looking at pictures. But if you're a bit tipsy, and even stationary, please wear a helmet . . for your loved ones. You can't control all the outcomes!
Drink-Aware everyone!
http://www.bmj.com/content/320/7250/1631[ Thornhill - BMJ[/url
THornhill BMJ
61% Alcohol and 25% who didn't learn their lesson the first time!
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
I learnt my lesson... only foam picture frames from now on.
- Status
