The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[ufkacbln]

You claimed they were more likely to have a cycle accident... now it's about dying on the road. Skewing claims isn't helping anyone.

Not at all, simply pointing out that the situation is confirmed by more than one source, and that not only cycling is affected, hence the confounding factors

Making the link quotes that:

The socio-economic gradients for deaths vary considerably by accident type:

• for pedestrian deaths, the rate in families where parents have never worked or are long-term unemployed (NS-SEC 8) is 20 times higher than in families with parents in higher managerial/professional jobs (NS-SEC 1)
• for cycling deaths it is 27.5 times higher
• for fire deaths it is 37.7 times higher.6

Other research confirms these variations, showing that childhood deaths from road and fire accidents are significantly higher in poorer households. Deaths from pedestrian accidents, suffocation and drowning also have a strong connection to socio-economic circumstances.7

The Department for Transport also states that there is a significant difference

Deprivation: Cyclist casualty rates are around 36 per
100,000 people in the most deprived areas in
England, compared with 25 per 100,000 in the least
deprived areas

Transport for London also states that there is a link

However it is not that simple as there are higher death and injury rates across the board, not just cycling

 

[srw]

Happily. I've cycled through large parts of the Netherlands, often outside urban areas, and there simply isn't segregation.

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.

As a mathematician and a logician, I know for a fact that those two statements are mutually inconsistent. Unless you're going to suggest that more than 25% of the country's road network is urban?

And this is relevant. Like helmets, segregation is an answer to perceived risk, not necessarily real risk.

 

[ufkacbln]

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.

The big difference is that the alcohol campaigns are across all risk groups:

It isn't a campaign targetting one small group of victims and accepting the same damage to everyone else

 

[swansonj]

.... The seatbelt campaign wasn't really built on fear either - there was a lot of empirical evidence about what was likely to happen if you didn't wear a seatbelt in a crash.

That's not the same with cycle helmets.

So is it time to revisit the comparison between seat belts and cycle helmets?

In both cases there is a physical mechanism by which they might help in certain accidents (a considerably higher proportion of accidents in the case of seat belts).

In both cases they are tested for effectiveness against standards (considerably more stringent standards in the case of seat belts)

In both cases, no-one disputes that there are accidents where they have helped (but it's much easier to find those accidents in the case of seat belts)

Yet in both cases the time series of injury rates shows little evidence of any change for the better coincidental with mandation and consequent increases in usage rate. Both cases contain some evidence of increases in risk to more vulnerable road users.

So we can say that in both cases there is a strong argument from epidemiology that taken overall they do not work*, whatever the evidence from any particular incident.

And if seat belts, starting from a much stronger theoretical basis than cycle helmets, do not work*, is it any wonder that cycle helmets don't either?

Final similarity: in both cases there is a substantial commercial/political/regulatory/Internet forum dwelling lobby that simply refuses to look at the evidence properly .... After all, it's obvious that they work, isn't it, who needs evidence?

*shorthand for a rather more nuanced statement, but pretty reasonable shorthand

 

[doog]

'Cos no-one ever cycles on housing estates, Industrial estates and minor roads and back streets...

The majority of the cycling population gravitate towards safe infrastructure. Its ridiculous that you would presume every single road in the Netherlands has a dedicated cycle route.

I am surrounded by hundreds of kilometres of streets and housing estate. Despite that a dedicated cycle route dissects it and cyclist gravitate towards that for commuting and leisure purposes. The Netherlands simply does it so much better.

 

[Wobblers]

It's an interesting consideration and I suppose it rather depends how you look at it really, certainly volume and surface area are pretty much twice the size helmeted, however are either volume or surface area the correct metric to use? After all the extra volume and surface area on the parts of the head away from the impact site arent particularly relevent are they? Wouldn't the radius be a better metric to use? In other words the distance the impact point is from the centre of the head. So assuming a 10cm head radius and 12 cm head radius, giving a 20% bigger metric.

Don't know what would be the correct way of looking at it but something to consider.

It is the right metric. Collisions occur at surfaces. This is why you get physicsts talking about "colliosn cross sections" and when I go off to do my neutron scattering experiments, I have to consider coherent and non-coherent scattering cross sections [1]. When aiming your pistol at the barn door, it does not matter how wide or how high it is, merely its area.

[1] Well, actually, a macroscopic analogue which simplifies the maths somewhat.

 

[Wobblers]

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

Now, this, actually, is the problem. We focus on one thing: a bit of protective head gear which has little evidence of effectiveness (or we wouldn't be having this conversation, all 360+ pages of it!) while the real issues - changing the behaviour of both cyclists and (especially) motorists is the major issue, and the one which would make the biggest difference.

 

[Big Andy]

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

Well to me it gives the answer that amongst that particular group the wearing of helmets doesnt make cycling look dangerous.

 

[mjr]

And this is relevant. Like helmets, segregation is an answer to perceived risk, not necessarily real risk.

Real risks of exhaust pollution, motorised traffic jams and motor vehicle noise IMO! I don't choose the cycle track over the A road because the A road is particularly dangerous, but because the cycle track is nicer (at least around here - doesn't apply to all). So almost the opposite of helmets.

 

[david k]

Now, this, actually, is the problem. We focus on one thing: a bit of protective head gear which has little evidence of effectiveness (or we wouldn't be having this conversation, all 360+ pages of it!) while the real issues - changing the behaviour of both cyclists and (especially) motorists is the major issue, and the one which would make the biggest difference.

I don't believe we focus on one thing, this thread has discussed many other benefits to safety.
There are others, Boardman for example who have pushed for cycling safety and infrastructure, so I don't believe there is only one focus

 

[Roxy641]

Well to me it gives the answer that amongst that particular group the wearing of helmets doesnt make cycling look dangerous.

The clue is in the hadn't really thought about it. Would you trust a politician if she/he said "Hadn't really thought about it"? It doesn't make you think that they have an opinion on it, or can give any meaningful opinion on the subject.

 

[jefmcg]

I can't catch up with this thread (only on page 361) but here's a picture of an Melbourne Postie

(the "legionnaire" attachment to the helmet looks particularly sad on a damp day)

 

[srw]

Real risks of exhaust pollution, motorised traffic jams and motor vehicle noise IMO! I don't choose the cycle track over the A road because the A road is particularly dangerous, but because the cycle track is nicer (at least around here - doesn't apply to all). So almost the opposite of helmets.

I'd call those unpleasantness rather than risk. But yes the point is valid, as long as the path is well designed.

 

[lutonloony]

It is the right metric. Collisions occur at surfaces. This is why you get physicsts talking about "colliosn cross sections" and when I go off to do my neutron scattering experiments, I have to consider coherent and non-coherent scattering cross sections [1]. When aiming your pistol at the barn door, it does not matter how wide or how high it is, merely its area.

[1] Well, actually, a macroscopic analogue which simplifies the maths somewhat.

Glad you put the footnote on, I was just going to pull you up on it

 

[swansonj]

I offer the following from the "freshers cycling" information sheet put out by a certain university:

"Get the right equipment- the absolute minimums are a mechanically safe bike that fits you, front and rear lights, rear reflector and a good quality lock. Most experienced [name of town] cyclists also decide, after a few near misses, to wear a helmet (if you do decide to wear one make sure it is fitted correctly) and something high-visibility and reflective, particularly at night."