The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Justinslow]

Is it possible that the whole nation across the North Sea has a much safer cycling ecosystem such as

• comprehensive and segregated bike lanes with controlled crossings etc
• in a collision the presumed liability sits with the motorised party
• they start from young and that they and their cycles are one (better control)
• they ride at a much slower speed

They hardly wear lycra or cycle specific clothes and would you like offer your view.

Interesting post, kind of like chalk and cheese you mean?

 

[Justinslow]

Once again, no one is saying that cycling is not dangerous at all, just not very dangerous. To compare to your 14 cyclists killed, there were 65 pedestrians and 25 car occupants. No helmets for them though? There were also 22 PTW riders, who were most probably wearing helmets.
It's all a bit confusing isn't it?

No, they are saying cycling isn't dangerous. I could go back and pick out the posts if I had the time.
Ok I agree compared to all the other accidents and journeys it's a small minority, but never the less it still happened to those cyclists, and this was one city in the UK, The question was posed by @totallyfixed regarding what you would say when giving advice to new cyclists or those returning to cycling, would you ignore these sad deaths and injuries, pretend they don't happen?

 

[Arrowfoot]

Yet another country across the North Sea. Note the cycling classes for the young including migrants.


View: https://youtu.be/ZDneQ0Hjbxc

 

[Justinslow]

You would hate it there because there is nowhere where it appears appropriate to ride fast. The dangerous cyclists are the ones on road bikes wearing Lycra and helmets, riding way too fast on cycle paths who get arsey about people being in their way.

Ok, yeah not my thing, maybe good if I ever go again with the family.

 

[Justinslow]

Have you checked to see whether or not all those 14 cyclists were both helmetless and died of head injuries? If not, your shroud waving is not just distasteful but misleading as well.

No, helmet or non helmet is irrelevant when stating whether cycling is dangerous or not dangerous.

 

[Mugshot]

No, they are saying cycling isn't dangerous. I could go back and pick out the posts if I had the time.
Ok I agree compared to all the other accidents and journeys it's a small minority, but never the less it still happened to those cyclists, and this was one city in the UK, The question was posed by @totallyfixed regarding what you would say when giving advice to new cyclists or those returning to cycling, would you ignore these sad deaths and injuries, pretend they don't happen?

I'm saying it's not dangerous, that doesn't mean it is without risk, but in general no, dangerous is far too strong a word in my opinion.

 

[ufkacbln]

No need to worry then,



Unless you were one of the 14 killed or 647 seriously injured in 2013 in Greater London.
If cycling is not dangerous surely it would be zero?

.... Or one of the 109 pedestrians killed or 1183 seriously injured?

Again a weird perspective that the smaller figure requires attention, but the larger figure doesn't

If 14 deaths means an activity is dangerous, surely 109 deaths is far more dangerous?
time.


After all, compared to all the other accidents and journeys it's a small minority, but never the less it still happened to those pedestrians, and this was one city in the UK. What would you say when giving advice to new pedestrians orthose returning to walking, would you ignore these sad deaths and injuries, pretend they don't happen?

 

[Justinslow]

No, you are quoting cyclist deaths in the context of a helmet debate where you are promoting helmet usage. Of course it is relevant.

Yes I am quoting them, posted by someone else to represent how dangerous or not cycling in Greater London is.
And I'm not promoting helmet use, I use one yes, that doesn't mean I'm promoting it.

 

[newfhouse]

Many on here push the opinion that helmet wearing is wrong (without actually saying it) that is obvious.

Not exactly wrong, but it does make me a little sad that so many people believe that something as liberating, healthy, and yes, safe can't be done without special (alleged safety) equipment. And don't get me started on blame transfer.

But I don't believe anyone is trying to stop you wearing yours, so carry on. Or not.

it is funny how the same old names crop up time and again badgering and teasing working on wordplay trying to get people to say something which shoots themselves in the foot.

I don't believe I'm one of the same old names, I lurk but post very rarely. I do follow this thread because I am interested in following the trail of evidence. In fact, doing so has changed my cycling for the better.

 

[newfhouse]

No, helmet or non helmet is irrelevant when stating whether cycling is dangerous or not dangerous.

True, on average it seems to make very little difference.

 

[Justinslow]

.... Or one of the 109 pedestrians killed or 1183 seriously injured?

Again a weird perspective that the smaller figure requires attention, but the larger figure doesn't

If 14 deaths means an activity is dangerous, surely 109 deaths is far more dangerous?
time.


After all, compared to all the other accidents and journeys it's a small minority, but never the less it still happened to those pedestrians, and this was one city in the UK. What would you say when giving advice to new pedestrians orthose returning to walking, would you ignore these sad deaths and injuries, pretend they don't happen?

No I'd tell them to be careful where they walk.

 

[Justinslow]

Not exactly wrong, but it does make me a little sad that so many people believe that something as liberating, healthy, and yes, safe can't be done without special (alleged safety) equipment. And don't get me started on blame transfer.

Fair enough, I'm totally with you, wearing a helmet that I don't even feel after a couple of minutes doesn't interfere with my cycling experience at all, I don't see any difference. And yes you don't have to wear one if you don't want to, it is everybodies choice.

 

[ufkacbln]

No I'd tell them to be careful where they walk.

.... and would you advice to the cyclists be that simple

" be careful where you cycle"

 

[ufkacbln]

I said mine was anecdotal.
Many on here push the opinion that helmet wearing is wrong (without actually saying it) that is obvious.

Not the case at all
The reality is an informed choice

 

[martint235]

Not the case at all
The reality is an informed choice

This. You can wear a helmet for any reason you want to but if it's only a fashion accessory and you think it's a piece of safety equipment I think you have the right to know the truth