The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[ufkacbln]

People die cycling so hard pushed to say it's safe full stop, you need to add context

Cycling slowly on a cycle path is more likely to be safe then hurtling down a mountain at high speed

All about context, not always 'safe' as most would understand it

Certainly:
A helmet only functions in te case of an accident, the rest of the time it performs no actual function at all
Lets look at the actual percentage of deaths caused by head injury according to road user group

Pedestrians 34.8%
Two wheeled vehicle 13.1%
Vehicle drivers 28.1%
Vehicle passengers 18.1%
Cyclist 5.9%

Which raises the same old point.........

If helmets prevent these deaths, then why are Headway and the evangelists only looking at their use for the group that represents the lowest fatalities

 

[david k]

So I'll stick with my "cycling is safe", thank you very much.

That's fine, as long as everyone reading it realises this is a generalisation as it's without context

 

[srw]

That's fine, as long as everyone reading it realises this is a generalisation as it's without context

I think most people do. In fact it's much less of a generalisation than "going to the pub is safe", "staying at home is safe", "travelling is safe" and "being pregnant is safe".

 

[srw]

I think most people do.

No it's not. It's a statement of fact.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the difference between someone who likes the world simple and someone who acknowledges that everything is really quite complicated.

 

[hatler]

But 'safe' is a very absolute term, yet it's mostly used as a generalisation.

Use of the word 'safer' is less controversial. And it would appear that a completely non-controversial statement is that cycling is safer than not cycling. Speak to any actuary about that.

 

[srw]

But 'safe' is a very absolute term, yet it's mostly used as a generalisation.

Use of the word 'safer' is less controversial. And it would appear that a completely non-controversial statement is that cycling is safer than not cycling. Speak to any actuary about that.

(Wanders around the office and finds actuaries and other risk professionals galore)
"Why on earth don't you wear a helmet when you're riding?"
"Isn't cycling terribly dangerous?"
"I'd feel terribly scared riding around the streets of London"
"I hope you wear a helmet"
"Our Chief Risk Officer doesn't wear a helmet! Doesn't say much for his ability to analyse risk"

Yes - all the above are genuine quotes from colleagues. Declaration of interest - I am that Chief Risk Officer. I am also an actuary.

 

[hatler]

Chortle !!

There just had to be at least one of them on here !

Don't the figures show that a cyclist will typically live two years longer than someone who is not active ?

 

[hatler]

And I realise that my previous statement needs amending.

"And it would appear that a completely non-controversial statement is that cycling is safer than not cycling being active. Speak to any actuary about that.

 

[srw]

Chortle !!

There just had to be at least one of them on here !

Don't the figures show that a cyclist will typically live two years longer than someone who is not active ?

Roughly speaking, yes. And "on average" rather than "typically" - it's a subtle distinction but the shape of the mortality curve is such that there's a distinction.

We're not a life or health insurance company, so my colleagues tend to think in terms of individual catastrophe rather than collective norm. I haven't yet been brave enough to have the helmet conversation with the (cyclist) who runs our CSR desk and who is a bit of an evangelist. I have had the helmet conversation with the (cyclist) risk professional who reports to me and does all of our qualitative risk assessments. He thinks I'm taking a massive risk - and then goes off twice a year to ski.

 

[Mugshot]

Do you really think any individual person would read just one post and ignore all the context provided by the others?

Yes

 

[david k]

Blimey people must be waiting in the wings to pounce!

The fact is cycling is safe as a generalisation is fine, but some forms carry more risk than others so context is often required

 

[david k]

It's pretty straight forward- lots of different types of cycling- some carry more risk than others - therefore 'cycling is safe' is a generalisation

You can analyse it, read into it or pull it to bits as much as you like all day long, it's a perfectly reasonable comment ...

 

[benb]

Nevertheless, "cycling is safe" is a much more accurate statement than "cycling is unsafe", the latter being what everyone wearing a helmet is saying (possibly subconsciously).

 

[RichK]

... - and then goes off twice a year to ski.

Does he wear a helmet when skiing? I found some interesting stats about helmet wearing & mortality whilst skiing & guess what, the proportion of people dying whilst skiing whilst wearing a helmet is about the same as the helmet wearing proportion!

(Edited so it makes sense!)

 

[hatler]

Don't get me started on ski-helmets.

When people skiing too fast (because they feel safe because they have their head encased in a hard lump of plastic) ski into me, they have a nasty hard bit of plastic on their heads which is likely to do me more harm than would otherwise have been the case.

That's why I spend my time on the slopes trying to ski as far away from others as I can.