Life jackets, really?

[magnetman]

It does make sense if cars drivers have a tendency to drive more dangerously around cyclists who have helmets on. 

 

It is interesting to consider the difference between how car drivers pass horses being ridden and bikes being ridden. The former are often treated with kid gloves as if they are some sort of delicate china vase. 

 

We used to have ponies in London and when riding on the road the animals were okay with cars. Not a problem and no need to creep past at 0.02mph faster than the animal is moving.

If the animal can't handle cars and is liable to throw the rider it should not be ridden on the road. 

 

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by magnetman

[IanD]

18 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

75.6% of statistics are made up - just saying....  I think the results of a car/bike collision are never going to be good, but at least a helmet might offer some protection to the head.   so I can't see how your logic stands up 'that it may be well be less safe wearing a helmet'. 

I thought it was clear -- if wearing a helmet increases the chance of being in a bike/car accident by more than it reduces the chance of injury/death in an accident, it's safer not to wear one. That's what the research showed.

 

Given that is was done by/for a government seriously committed to cyclist safety, I don't think it makes sense to write it off as "dodgy statistics".

 

Your response shows the same lack of understanding about this as the UK government policy does... 😞

Edited August 11, 2023 by IanD

[mrsmelly]

38 minutes ago, jonathanA said:

75.6% of statistics are made up - just saying....  I think the results of a car/bike collision are never going to be good, but at least a helmet might offer some protection to the head.   so I can't see how your logic stands up 'that it may be well be less safe wearing a helmet'. 

Its always safer to wear safety equipment and any stats taken from another country are completely irrelevant as the way different countries and their people uses roads, means that the stats are beyond useless. I attended several Road Traffic accidents, people were allowed to have accidents rather than just collisions back in the day  where seat belts undoubtedly saved people from serious injury or death. I only ever went to one in which the seatbelt at the inquest was proven to be the major reason for the girls death, and even then it was due to the way she had worn it ( before inertia reel belts ) 

[LadyG]

I find it difficult to believe that motorists are adjusting their behaviors, i doubt many would notice whether a helmet is worn, they sometimes dont even clock the bike!

I think we are comparing apples and pears: racing type solo cyclists and those in a group will behave diffently to mother and child on a quiet side road. The courier cyclists will tend to be more aggressive, thus creating situations. I don't know which group are going to be more involved in A&E accidents, which might be where these stats come from, I'd think that most accidents would not be recorded anyway.

[Momac]

It seems to me most people reading this are not Dutch .

So any data from the Netherlands about the wearing of helmets is not likely to be applicable to the UK as cyclists are not treated as respectfully in the UK as they are in the Netherlands.

 

 

[Hudds Lad]

5 hours ago, LadyG said:

I also used to ride a motorbike bike without a helmet to dry my hair

If I’m in a rush I use a hairdryer, had not considered using a motorbike 😘😉🤣

[system 4-50]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

You're missing the point -- overtaking cars leave less clearance with helmeted bikers, which means more car-bike collisions.

I don't believe this.  Even if you provide a string of expert witnesses in the flesh, I still won't believe this.

[magnetman]

I reckon it might be true. 

 

People process all sorts of information when driving and risk assessment is a very personal activity which happens in the blink of an eye. 

[Arthur Marshall]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

You're missing the point -- overtaking cars leave less clearance with helmeted bikers, which means more car-bike collisions.

 

If you want to wear a helmet then feel free, that's your choice if it makes you feel safer.  But in reality it may well be less safe than not wearing one... 😞

I've never been convinced by the cause and effect of that stat and nor has my cyclist mate who nursed a stack of biker's head injuries. I wondered whether a cyclist wearing a helmet feels less vulnerable and so cycles with less than the usual paranoia? I don't think car drivers notice what a cyclist is wearing.

And, of course , as the proportion of cyclists wearing helmets increase, so will the relative proportion of helmeted accidents versus non-hatted.

I don't wear one, but then I grew up riding motorbikes before compulsory helmets and how we hated that rule...

[jonathanA]

4 hours ago, IanD said:

 

 

Your response shows the same lack of understanding about this as the UK government policy does... 😞

I don't think so and if the uk gov policy is to encourage helmet wearing then that seems eminently sensible to me. 

I'm against compulsory elf and safety as that does encourages people to take no responsibility for their actions and encourages, in my opinion, the blame culture .... it must be someone elses fault that I smashed my head open going  over the bike handlebars....

[IanD]

4 hours ago, system 4-50 said:

I don't believe this.  Even if you provide a string of expert witnesses in the flesh, I still won't believe this.

Suggest you go and tell the Dutch government and all the researchers who analysed the data that they're wrong then, you obviously know better than the experts do... 😉

5 hours ago, MartynG said:

It seems to me most people reading this are not Dutch .

So any data from the Netherlands about the wearing of helmets is not likely to be applicable to the UK as cyclists are not treated as respectfully in the UK as they are in the Netherlands.

 

 

Which makes the negative side of helmet-wearing even worse then...

[Ronaldo47]

3 hours ago, jonathanA said:

......

I'm against compulsory elf and safety as that does encourages people to take no responsibility for their actions and encourages, in my opinion, the blame culture .... it must be someone elses fault that I smashed my head open going  over the bike handlebars....

I never used to wear a helmet until a decade ago after I had made an impromptu forward roll over the handlebars of my electric bike,  landing squarely on my back. Fortunately I was carrying a rucsac that contained only an anorak and a woolen sweater which cushoned the impact. The only damage was to the forks, which  were badly bent. No other traffic or pedestrians were involved, and it was in a quiet backstreet. The atrocious potholes in our local roads had made the bolt holding the front mudguard against the fork, give up the ghost, and the mudgard had suddenly slipped round and jammed the front  brake on hard. 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Ronaldo47
typos

[Momac]

7 hours ago, IanD said:

 

Which makes the negative side of helmet-wearing even worse then...

Does it?

While driving a car do you treat helmet wearing cyclists different to non helmet wearers ? I certainly don't. 

 

 

[haggis]

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

Does it?

While driving a car do you treat helmet wearing cyclists different to non helmet wearers ? I certainly don't. 

 

 

Nor me! I see a cyclist then check road room for passing and weigh up the situation but I never look at the cyclist and couldn't tell if they are wearing a helmet or not. 

[roland elsdon]

I have had 3 cycling accidents wearing a crash helmet which did not involve a motor vehicle.

All hospitalised me for head injuries, at least for assessment.

With regard to the motorist proximity thing the Boardman head of improving cycling in the uk ,never wears lycra or a helmet and says its because its because motorists associate wearing lycra with having fun on the roads and blocking their way on route to essential activity.  ( going to mcdonald drive through etc).

They therefore become entitled.

[magnetman]

I'm sure this is true. 

 

The thing to remember is that most car drivers are basically safe and treat cyclists with respect. 

 

However there are some drivers who feel that cyclists are blocking their rapid progress and have a lot of attitude. 

 

If you spend a lot of time behind cyclists waiting for a safe moment to pass you DO end up looking at them. 

 

It is this small subset of drivers who are likely to cause problems and yes Lycra or fancy helmets are quite likely to trigger a response even if it is is subconscious. 

 

Lots of things happen during the activity of driving a car which the car driver is not aware of. Not to say people are driving without due attention but there will be subconscious messaging going on as well as the actions. 

 

Its bound to happen and for someone who has an innate dislike of cyclists for one reason or another these messages may be telling them to drive more dangerously without them even realising this is what is happening. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GUMPY]

44 minutes ago, magnetman said:

If you spend a lot of time behind cyclists waiting for a safe moment to pass you DO end up looking at them. 

Especially if they have a nice bum😱

[David Mack]

20 hours ago, IanD said:

Because IIRC the government there actually did some research and looked into the statistics, amd found that motorists drove closer to cyclists and more aggressively if they were wearing helmets, and the predicted increase in death/injury rates as a result was bigger then the lives predicted to be saved by wearing helmets.

 

So unlike the knee-jerk response here, the government there does *not* push cyclists to wear helmets.

There's also research out there that found some cyclists and prospective cyclists didn't want to wear helmets, because it is not 'cool', or the hassle of having to carry the helmet when you are not actually on the bike. And so compulsory helmet wearing was found to discourage those who might take up cycling, and hence they wouldn't get the health benefits of cycling rather than taking motorised transport.

It has also been found that those cities around the world where helmet wearing is compulsory have generally lower levels of cycle use than comparable cities where it isn't.

It is very difficult to quantify the health impacts of discouraging cycling against a reduction in head injuries from wearing helmets, but the effect is there.

[IanD]

4 hours ago, haggis said:

Nor me! I see a cyclist then check road room for passing and weigh up the situation but I never look at the cyclist and couldn't tell if they are wearing a helmet or not. 

Regardless of whether you think you do it or not, the research and the accident statistics show that car drivers in general drive closer to helmet-wearers and have more accidents with them -- possibly because they see them as "entitled". It also showed that they give more clearance to obviously female cyclists.

 

As so often, proper statistics trump individual experience... 😉

1 hour ago, David Mack said:

There's also research out there that found some cyclists and prospective cyclists didn't want to wear helmets, because it is not 'cool', or the hassle of having to carry the helmet when you are not actually on the bike. And so compulsory helmet wearing was found to discourage those who might take up cycling, and hence they wouldn't get the health benefits of cycling rather than taking motorised transport.

It has also been found that those cities around the world where helmet wearing is compulsory have generally lower levels of cycle use than comparable cities where it isn't.

It is very difficult to quantify the health impacts of discouraging cycling against a reduction in head injuries from wearing helmets, but the effect is there.

It's not just discouraging cycling, IIRC the research showed that cyclists wearing helmets had a higher fatal accident rate, because head injuries -- which helmets *do* help reduce -- are the cause of death in a relatively small number of fatal bike accidents.

 

This really *is* a case where "common sense" -- that it's safer to wear a helmet -- is basically wrong, because people (and the UK government) focus on the personal "my helmet stopped my skull smashing" but don't see the higher underlying accident rate which leads to this happening in the first place... 😞

[haggis]

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

Regardless of whether you think you do it or not, the research and the accident statistics show that car drivers in general drive closer to helmet-wearers and have more accidents with them -- possibly because they see them as "entitled". It also showed that they give more clearance to obviously female cyclists.

 

As so often, proper statistics trump individual experience... 😉

I should know better than give my own experience as, of course, I am wrong and you and the statistics know best. 

[IanD]

2 hours ago, haggis said:

I should know better than give my own experience as, of course, I am wrong and you and the statistics know best. 

No, the experts and people who actually researched this issue know best, not you (or me)... 🙂

 

Your own experience is an anecdote, not evidence -- it's what drivers (and cyclists) do as a whole that determines the accident rate, not you personally.

 

Just like saying "I'm a good driver, why has my insurance premium gone up?" -- the answer being that accident rates/costs for each cohort of drivers has gone up... 😞

Edited August 12, 2023 by IanD

[flogget]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

No, the experts and people who actually researched this issue know best, not you (or me)... 🙂

 

Your own experience is an anecdote, not evidence -- it's what drivers (and cyclists) do as a whole that determines the accident rate, not you personally.

 

Just like saying "I'm a good driver, why has my insurance premium gone up?" -- the answer being that accident rates/costs for each cohort of drivers has gone up... 😞

Are the Netherlands the only country that have researched this ?

if I picked another random country, say Finland, or Canada  . would their government think tanks have drawn similar conclusions and have similar policies in place ?

[Momac]

https://discerningcyclist.com/why-do-dutch-cyclists-not-wear-helmets/

 

I don't consider cycling facilities and common practices in The Netherlands are comparable  with the UK

 

The Dutch experts say you are better off  wear a helmet as this could reduce cycling fatalities by about a third

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by MartynG

[IanD]

16 minutes ago, MartynG said:

https://discerningcyclist.com/why-do-dutch-cyclists-not-wear-helmets/

 

I don't consider cycling facilities and common practices in The Netherlands are comparable  with the UK

 

The Dutch experts say you are better off  wear a helmet as this could reduce cycling fatalities by about a third

 

https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/2020/01/helmets-evidence_cuk_brf_0.pdf

 

Lots of detailed (worldwide) data and references : here are a few quotes:

 

Once you factor in the proportion of serious and fatal cycling injuries that are not head-only injuries,
and the at-best limited protection that helmets could provide (they are and only can be designed to
withstand minor knocks and falls, not collisions with fast-moving cars or lorries), it can be shown
that it only takes a fraction of a percentage point reduction in cycle use for pro-helmet policies to
shorten a lot more lives than they could possibly save.

 

There is in any case a good deal of controversy about the effectiveness of helmets. As mentioned,
they are (and can only be) designed for minor knocks and bumps, not collisions with fast cars or
lorries. There is also evidence to suggest that: some cyclists ride less cautiously when wearing
them; that drivers leave less space when overtaking helmeted cyclists than those without; that
helmeted cyclists suffer 14% more collisions per mile travelled than non-wearers; and that helmets
may increase the risk of neck injuries. It is therefore entirely possible that helmet-wearing might
have a net disbenefit even in safety terms (a point also suggested by some of the empirical
evidence), not to mention the health and other disbenefits identified above.

 

A study from 2007 says: “There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists
wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand the increase is estimated to be around 14%.”

 

A US study of bicycle use and cyclist safety following Boston’s cycle infrastructure expansion
(2009-2012) found that “… individuals with documented helmet use were found to have 1.85 […]
times the odds of non–helmet users of being involved in an injury-related accident.”

[roland elsdon]

I still race at the tender age of 65 . Competitive riders have wear helmets even though they only ‘work ‘ up to a certain speed,  so not wearing them training is a no brainer.

I would expect ‘helmeted’ riders to have more injuries they likely  ride more kilometres, ride faster and take more risks.

I frequently ride over 70 kph in a race situation, you don’t do that going to buy a newspaper.

 

However what is forgotten is a crash helmet is designed to protect you from a head impact into the ground,  or a curb, not a crash with 2.5 tons of vehicle designed to be used in a conflict zone but instead going on the school or to buy cream from waitrose.