The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Mugshot]

 

[Justinslow]

Which lines have I trotted out?
Where have I mentioned tedious?
Any chance of you answering a question? (In fairness I've probably trotted that out a few times)

Was referring to Adrian not yourself.

 

[Mugshot]

Was referring to Adrian not yourself.

Ah, I got all confused on account of you quoting me.

 

[Justinslow]

Personally i think he's engaged with this debate and changed his stance somewhat... from helmets 'saving lives' to 'might do some good'. He's entitled to his choice and is entitled to repeat his opinion just as much as anyone. I don't consider him a troll either... but then again, I apparently am

I think that's a fair reflection of where I am with it, thanks for your kind words, Jeez I don't even make my kids wear them all the time anymore......
This thread IS going round in circles with the same old arguments, I don't think the world is as "black or white" as many on this thread would like it to be. Remind me not to engage anymore, I should have learned my lesson.

 

[Justinslow]

Ah, I got all confused on account of you quoting me.

I was trying to answer the question contained within your quote if you follow, sorry for confusion.

 

[Mugshot]

[QUOTE 4267062, member: 45"]If only everyone would take that advice.[/QUOTE]
On every thread, ever.

 

[MontyVeda]

selective quoting, great isn't it.

 

[MontyVeda]

...
This thread IS going round in circles with the same old arguments
...

As mentioned earlier, it's a very simple debate. There's isn't anything other than the same old arguments. It's gone on for so long because people continue to believe that helmets save lives and/or stop skulls from being 'bashed in' when the simple fact is, they only save bumps, scrapes and grazes. I and others feel the need to restate that, hence 3000+ posts.

I keep telling myself not to bother posting any more too because I've said all I can say on the matter, but abstaining is easier said than done.

 

[philepo]

Reread what you posted: people are cycling 85km being injured at a rate of 61.9 / 100Mkm = 0.000052615 injuries per person; but people are walking 290km being injured at a rate of 31.2 / 100Mkm = 0.00009048 injuries per person; which looks like walking has nearly 2x the injuries per person to me, so why aren't you demanding walking armour? I suspect it's because although less absurd than cycling armour, it's still absurd and more obviously absurd to more people.

Cobblers - please read below and then admit it

The rate is 61.9 injuries per 100 Mkm. You have divided the average number of km cycled per person (85) into the 100 Mkm number to get 1176471 cyclists. Then divided that by 61.9 to get 19006 cyclists per serious injury - i.e. 1 in 19006 cyclists over 85 km distance will get a serious injury (0.000052615 injuries per person)

For pedestrians the rate is 31.2 serious injuries per 100 Mkm and the average number of km walked by the sample pedestrian was 290 km. Using the same method: 100 Mkm / 290 km = 344858 peds. Divide that by 31.2 injuries gives 11052 peds per injury - i.e. 1 in 11052 peds over 290 km will get a serious injury (0.00009048 injuries per person)

So it seems like the peds are 2x as likely to get a serious injury. Except that the if you have a choice of traveling to your destination by cycle or by walking, the distance will be the same and so the the risk is actually 2x higher for cyclists. It is however not a very big increase and I am surprised by that enough to make me think I am safer than I think.

Did you even read my post?
Even if cycling was relatively twice as risky as walking (and it's not, as @mjray pointed out in post 4265921 - I hope you agree I've just proved that actually you're both talking cobblers) you need to look at absolute risk if you are considering where an intervention will do the most good. Yes, which is what I've done above. But also, I'm not interested in saving cycling society, just me.

Imagine you can either spend some money on bulletproof vests for the population of London, or a new magic air cleaner that would improve air quality by 50%. Being shot is certainly relatively more risky than your risk of suffering premature death by poor air quality not over a 50 years period it isn't! , but in absolute terms, improving air quality would save many more lives than the bulletproof vests. Yes, over 50 years, but not in a week

Similarly, even if cycling was more risky than walking, helmets for pedestrians would still do more good (assuming they are effective) because there are so many more of them. It would, but I don't care about them, I only care about me, hence why I am anti-compulsory helmet wearing, and therefore this argument is moot.

So again - why are you only suggesting helmets for cyclists when helmets for pedestrians would do a lot more good? becasue I am not interested in 'doing good' I am interested if I will be safer wearing a helmet or not, not society as a whole... stuff them Why are you only interested in protecting cyclists from head injuries and not pedestrians?

I've rarely felt unsafe as a walking commuter unless I've mistimed a run across the road or something, but fairly regularly get a bit of a fright on my bike from dozy selfish 'Jeremy Hunt's' in vehicles, and that is usually not my error but there's. I don't think the stats I have given reflect like with like, i.e. the same busy commute. I guess London figures would make more sense. Anyone care to waste time searching for those??

 

[benb]

If you are interested in protecting yourself, then assuming you spend more time as a pedestrian than a cyclist, you still ought to wear one when you are a pedestrian as well.

 

[mjr]

Except that the if you have a choice of traveling to your destination by cycle or by walking, the distance will be the same and

That bit of the logic is false because we have lots more footpaths than cycle tracks or carriageways so it is often possible to walk a shorter route, even ignoring the dodgy option of walking across any unfenced land. So the argument is false.

Bottom line, far more people walk regularly than cycle so why pick on the smaller group when you can save more lives if you target the larger one and win the argument?

I've rarely felt unsafe as a walking commuter unless I've mistimed a run across the road or something, but ...

You've rarely heard the ominous squeak of tyres mounting kerb behind you as some daffodil motorist parks or dodges past a queue without looking? My hearing is imperfect and I still hear it far too often

 

[philepo]

If you are interested in protecting yourself, then assuming you spend more time as a pedestrian than a cyclist, you still ought to wear one when you are a pedestrian as well.

I suppose if 2/3 I am walking a 1/3 I am cycling then yes, seems like it. But I won't becasue I don't think those stats are good enough (doh). I would bet my hat that a lot of those injured peds are old or infirm and the cyclists group is a narrow range of younger fitter people who only have a 2x chance of getting seriously injured because the odds are much higher (but no, I am yet to see evidence thats strong)

Also, as someone said above, the stats don't say how many had head injuries (in the 'serious' category) so it may be that the cyclists are higher on that score. Personally I would put a head injury way higher on the fear-o-meter that say broken leg.

That bit of the logic is false because we have lots more footpaths than cycle tracks or carriageways so it is often possible to walk a shorter route, even ignoring the dodgy option of walking across any unfenced land. So the argument is false.

It is not. For the same distance you are more likely to get a serious injury as a cyclist. End of. If that means, by your logic, that walking therefore is very unsafe becasue most of it is on footpaths etc, then fine, but it doesn't change the stats about bikes.

Bottom line, far more people walk regularly than cycle so why pick on the smaller group when you can save more lives if you target the larger one and win the argument?

see post 3101 above for explanation of why this is not my argument

You've rarely heard the ominous squeak of tyres mounting kerb behind you as some daffodil motorist parks or dodges past a queue without looking? My hearing is imperfect and I still hear it far too often

Nope. Only on my bike as bus drivers pull up

 

[mjr]

For the same distance you are more likely to get a serious injury as a cyclist. End of

I didn't write that! It's nowhere near "end of" because a typical walker walks less distance than a typical cyclist - both because walking routes for typically-walked journeys are generally shorter than cycling routes, and because how many walkers do you read about doing imperial centuries, for example? The London-Surrey 100 mile events are the equivalents of the London Marathon's 26 miles.

I'm not replying to the rest of @philepo's post because it's too much of a nuisance to disentangle the misquote. I did not write what he misattributes to me.

 

[philepo]

I didn't write that! It's nowhere near "end of" because a typical walker walks less distance than a typical cyclist - both because walking routes for typically-walked journeys are generally shorter than cycling routes, and because how many walkers do you read about doing imperial centuries, for example? The London-Surrey 100 mile events are the equivalents of the London Marathon's 26 miles.

I'm not replying to the rest of @philepo's post because it's too much of a nuisance to disentangle the misquote. I did not write what he misattributes to me.

I haven't misattributed anything to you. My text is in blue and yours is in black.

There isn't anything to debate. The stats say cyclists, over the same distance covered, are 2x more likely to have a serious injury than peds. Saying that peds "walks less distance than a typical cyclist - both because walking routes for typically-walked journeys are generally shorter than cycling routes..." doesn't change that. And as I say, the stats don't particularly support my own argument, cos the risks are so low. But the fact is, if the fall and bump your head then it is rather odd to think that a helmet makes no difference to outcome.

How come your argument doesn't apply to motorcyclists too?

 

[martint235]

I've rarely felt unsafe as a walking commuter unless I've mistimed a run across the road or something, but fairly regularly get a bit of a fright on my bike from dozy selfish 'Jeremy Hunt's' in vehicles, and that is usually not my error but there's. I don't think the stats I have given reflect like with like, i.e. the same busy commute. I guess London figures would make more sense. Anyone care to waste time searching for those??

How often have you been hit? Perhaps you need to address the mismatch between your perception of risk and actual risk.

This mismatch can be seen many times on CC just by watching camera footage. You'll get people posting up footage of a "close pass" and frothing at the mouth while some of us are thinking "I wish I was given that much room"