The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[hatless]

Is there research into how people move when falling? I'm guessing that we tend to fall so as to protect vulnerable parts, curling up, bending our necks to keep our heads away from the ground, taking the impact on our backs or shoulders when possible.

Two points from this. Many head injuries may be the result of impaired falling, because the person is drunk, or unconscious or dazed because they've just been punched in the face, or is suffering from some neurological problem. In other words that certain categories are much more likely to hit their heads. They fall over like a bookcase, or even like a rubber bookcase, bending as they go down and actually accelerating their heads into the ground.

But also, if you fall and reach out with your arms or curl up and protect your head, your head will probably miss the ground by a very small distance, or hit it, but with reduced energy. The thickness of a helmet may well fill that margin of distance in which we usually manage to stop or slow our heads before they hit the ground. The result would be a greater impact, or an impact where none would have happened.

And that's without the possibility that wearing a helmet changes behaviour. That is, we may be less protective of our heads when falling with a helmet on, just as a footballer with shin pads will tackle differently from one without.

 

[newfhouse]

Seriously though, if that guy wants to wear that on his head then why not, it's his choice.

Of course it's his choice. It makes me slightly sad that he feels that he needs to make that particular choice. What does it say about his fear of cycling that he decides to wear a hi viz cover on his silly plastic hat?

We have a local guy who walks round in skirts and dresses here.

How is this comparable?

 

[mjr]

None of those are examples of the separate infrastructure that @Profpointy was clearly referring to. The fact that you pick on them as example does somewhat illustrate the paucity of the pro-facility argument.

But @Profpointy was replying to a point I made in a discussion with david k (saying I'd prioritise infrastructure work above yet another media campaign) by apparently completely misunderstanding it and going off ranting about something else.

The fact that you pick on them as example does somewhat illustrate the paucity of the pro-facility argument.

I've no idea what that's trying to say. Rest assured that I accept that the safety case for infrastructure is marginal - much like helmets - and more so if everyone obeyed the laws. In other words, I disagree with @doog too.

What the Hembrow and CEGB acolytes fail to recognise is that in the Netherlands, separated cycling 'facilities' are only on a minority of roads. On most roads cyclists mix with the rest of the traffic.

It's extremely poor form to misrepresent the views of others who aren't part of this discussion (as far as I know) and then argue against them. I'm not one, but surely Hembrow knows that more cycle routes are filtered than segregated and surely his true acolytes will have been on one of his study courses. CEGB I know less.

The fundamental difference is that cycling is regarded as a normal mode of transport for short journeys, everyone is brought up cycling and there is a presumption of liability that sharpens the minds of motorised road users.

No, not everyone cycling in the Netherlands is brought up cycling (look at the cycling stats of immigrants there - they're closer to Dutch levels than their countries of origin - or to how many Dutch coming here stop cycling so much) and I doubt the presumption of liability is fundamental, although both are very nice to have. I think "regarded as a normal mode of transport" is the fundamental difference, with all the social and political consequences that brings... and it's something that I feel isn't going to happen here if people keep portraying it as an extreme sport requiring special armour.

 

[Justinslow]

Of course it's his choice. It makes me slightly sad that he feels that he needs to make that particular choice. What does it say about his fear of cycling that he decides to wear a hi viz cover on his silly plastic hat?


How is this comparable?

I think you'll find the "hi viz" is a waterproof rain cover, just happens to be brightly coloured (not a bad idea)
The guy wearing skirts and dresses does so because he can, he likes it, some people like to do that, just like some people like to wear a cover on their helmet.

I would suggest there are more things worthy of getting sad about in the world than people wearing cycling helmets.

 

[srw]

. What the Hembrow and CEGB acolytes fail to recognise is that in the Netherlands, separated cycling 'facilities' are only on a minority of roads. On most roads cyclists mix with the rest of the traffic.

I think you should have dusted off your bike and come on tour with us last week. About 130 miles through the Netherlands, the overwhelming majority of which was fully segregated. And (to keep on topic) almost no helmets and lots of locals on heavy bikes between towns.

 

[Roxy641]

Actually there's not presumption there that whole cycle helmets look stupid. "More thant twice as stupid" could be 2 x plus a lot - so even if a whole helmet looked zero degrees of stupid....

Then you would get people who think wearing stuff backwards makes them look cool, when it just makes them look silly.

 

[Roxy641]

No everyone doesn't.

I was considering this "wearing helmets makes cycling dangerous" argument, and while it may be true that some or indeed many people think that way it is certainly not universal, over the weekend I asked quite a few people (about 20) what they thought when they see a cyclist and what percentage of cyclists they saw had helmets on. A few commented about the minority of rogue cyclists and jumping red lights, not one said that cycling must be dangerous as cyclists wear helmets but I suspect that was because not one could answer the question about numbers wearing helmets because they didn't notice, now that may be because it's common place I don't know. (I came across about 15 cyclists yesterday on an 8 mile ride, all wearing helmets, or I didn't notice any not wearing a helmet) I then asked if they thought cycling was dangerous, they pretty much all said "not really" a couple said it could be on busy roads, I then asked what they thought about helmets, they all said it seemed a sensible precaution but hadn't really thought about it.

Non scientific I realise but perhaps the presence of a helmet doesn't affect the thinking of a non-cyclist too much.

And there is your answer. I've highlighted it above "but hadn't really thought about it" - that says it all really.

 

[ufkacbln]

Great claim to fame! Learn to manage your liquor intake better??

Which begs comparison to learning to ride the bike better?

 

[doog]

The drink drive campaign certainly wasn't based on fear - unless it was fear of getting nicked.

Some of the drink drive campaign adverts were horrific and were certainly fear based. The ones in the bar where the driver gets flung across the room spring to mind. Fear based is nothing new, even in the 70's wrecked vehicles were often placed outside army barracks as a reminder to soldiers for example.

 

[doog]

Absolutely. What the Hembrow and CEGB acolytes fail to recognise is that in the Netherlands, separated cycling 'facilities' are only on a minority of roads. On most roads cyclists mix with the rest of the traffic.

That's open to debate. I cycled the length of the country on dedicated cycle paths and a quick dip into street view country wide will show the majority of roads have a dedicated facility. I rarely mixed with traffic apart from side streets. I was also completely separate from traffic through several major cities.

Nearly every road has a cycle path called a 'Fietspad' which links most villages and towns. These 'Fietspads' are mostly separate and away from the road itself

http://www.cycletourer.co.uk/cycletouring/holland.shtml

Without doubt the motoring population are probably more clued up for the simple reason they have to be - cyclists have priority over motor vehicles in various traffic situations.

All of this reduces risk. I'm pretty sure if the infrastructure wasnt there helmet use would be similar to Germany.

 

[newfhouse]

I think you'll find the "hi viz" is a waterproof rain cover, just happens to be brightly coloured (not a bad idea)
The guy wearing skirts and dresses does so because he can, he likes it, some people like to do that, just like some people like to wear a cover on their helmet.

You do seem to wilfully miss the point. I wondered whether an environment in which people are so fearful of cycling - and don't forget that's the ones who do cycle - that they choose to dress this way is healthy. Pretending that it's just a style choice with no other meaning is nonsense.

 

[Shaun]

Pretending that it's just a style choice with no other meaning is nonsense.

It may have also simply been raining on the day the picture was taken. Let's move away from hi-viz and back to helmets please. Thanks.

 

[mjr]

That's open to debate. I cycled the length of the country on dedicated cycle paths and a quick dip into street view country wide will show the majority of roads have a dedicated facility. I rarely mixed with traffic apart from side streets.

I found it wasn't always easy to tell when I was on cycle track and when I was on side street. Many of the cycle tracks were built to the same spec as small streets and the side streets really were side streets - dead ends or restricted access or similar for motorists - and not relief roads or rat runs like they often are in England. Also, the volumes of people cycling meant that key cycling routes wouldn't let motorists get there quicker because they'd spend most of their time waiting for safe overtaking opportunities.

 

[newfhouse]

It may have also simply been raining on the day the picture was taken. Let's move away from hi-viz and back to helmets please. Thanks.

Shiny shower cap atop the helmet or not, my point about fearfulness remains.

 

[doog]

You'll be able to evidence such a claim then - perhaps some official figures showing the total road mileage in the Netherlands and the percentage with separate facilities?

I'll make it easy for you... there's about 35,000km of cycle infrastructure (i.e. dedicated cycle paths and routes) in the Netherlands* - that's about 25% of the total roads....

Just to be clear, 25% isn't "the majority of roads"...

* I know the link says 29,000 but I am aware that more recent figures put it at 35,000 so I'm being generous. I'll see if I can find a more up to date link.

How about we differentiate between housing estates, Industrial estates and every other minor road and back street and look at links that cyclists typically take between towns and villages as I quoted. It seems odd that several people have stated the propensity of cycle paths but you are dropping back to google simply to make a play on words..