Licence or ban cycling in London

[battered]

Vipers said:

walm said:

People who hurt their heads in a crash with tonnes of steel are quite likely to die, aren't they?

Whether or not you wear a helmet makes no difference to the likelihood of dying, right?

Eh? If I smack you over the head with a large heavy object you are quite likely to die.
If you are wearing a helmet you are more likely to survive. Right?
Now yes, if I am hit by a lorry at 60 then it's all over regardless, but that goes for anything. Just because I might park my car on a level crossing and wait for a train doing 100 mph doesn't mean that seatbelts, crumple zones and airbags are useless in all circumstances, does it?

[Vipers]

Pothole said:

walm said:

Pothole said:

...very little research on whether they are actually as good at preventing KSIs due to head injury as the self-appointed experts would have us believe - they wouldn't accept the results of a drugs trial which was conducted with no control testing for instance, but are happy to trot out their assurances that people "would have died" had they not been wearing a helmet if the scenario fits their agenda.

The problem is that creating a control group is essentially impossible!!

Of course it is. Until there's a really well tested standard for helmets, legislation of this type is silly anyway, I reckon.

There is BSEN1078.

[bearman68]

......and that's when the first punch was thrown.......

[popeyewhite]

walm said:

Pothole said:

...very little research on whether they are actually as good at preventing KSIs due to head injury as the self-appointed experts would have us believe - they wouldn't accept the results of a drugs trial which was conducted with no control testing for instance, but are happy to trot out their assurances that people "would have died" had they not been wearing a helmet if the scenario fits their agenda.

The problem is that creating a control group is essentially impossible!!
I certainly ski more aggressively with a lid on.
Probably true when I cycle.
So, you can't easily control for the shift in risk-taking of the individual.

Drug trials are stricter than most other trials (p<0.01, vs p<0.05) and protocols are different depending on the type of research. You wouldn't use a control group for this kind of research, or any other where a requisite for comparative data is human injury! Psychometrics can easily establish the proportion of people likely to take more risks if they believe a helmet grants them a bigger safety margin. Won't be 100% accurate of course, but then what data is unless the sample covers the entire user group!

[272BHP]

What grates with me and a lot of people is cyclists clearly on a full head down Strava run on their new carbon toy in 5pm city traffic - that is just not compatible with our busy commuter towns is it? These people give cyclists a bad name.

A few weeks ago I was cycling down a hill and immediately slow right down - private school on the left hand side, cars parked up - defensive cycling mode kicks in as there could be kids around cars after school clubs etc. Some nob-head on a road bike overtakes and goes streaming past these cars with barely an inch to spare at an ungodly speed - utter madness.

[Pothole]

272BHP said:

What grates with me and a lot of people

...

[Kell]

Just another reason why bikes are better. Five days into 2017 and London has already breached its annual pollution limits.

There's now a toxic air alert.

http://www.timeout.com/london/blog/a-toxic-air-ale...

[walm]

Vipers said:

Sorry didn't think I had quoted it out of context, just wanted to address those two points, apologies if you think I did.

For the record - by far and away the most civil poster I have ever encountered on a cycling thread - many thanks!

[Vipers]

walm said:

Vipers said:

Sorry didn't think I had quoted it out of context, just wanted to address those two points, apologies if you think I did.

For the record - by far and away the most civil poster I have ever encountered on a cycling thread - many thanks!

Thank you

[Zigster]

battered said:

Eh? If I smack you over the head with a large heavy object you are quite likely to die.
If you are wearing a helmet you are more likely to survive. Right?
Now yes, if I am hit by a lorry at 60 then it's all over regardless, but that goes for anything. Just because I might park my car on a level crossing and wait for a train doing 100 mph doesn't mean that seatbelts, crumple zones and airbags are useless in all circumstances, does it?

I think this quote was all yours? The quoting was messed up a bit so apologies if I'm wrong.

The old "hit over the head with a heavy object" argument doesn't stand up very well.

1. You say you are quite likely to die without a helmet; more likely to live with a helmet. You're making a lot of assumptions there. What sort of heavy object, what sort of helmet, etc.
2. Given you are probably talking about cycle helmets, then a key issue is that any cycle helmet which is practical to wear can only offer a limited amount of protection. They are effective for pretty small impacts, which would actually probably hurt a bit more without a helmet but not cause serious injury. Less effective for major impacts.
3. Back to your "hit over the head with a heavy object" argument. Surely that applies regardless of what activity you're doing - why are cyclists more likely to be hit over the head than pedestrians or drivers/passengers in motor vehicles? The stats on head injuries for those three groups aren't as different as you might expect. So if you think it is obvious that cyclists should wear helmets, why not apply the same to other groups?
4. Why not actually focus on avoiding the people who are likely to hit you over the head with a heavy object. You don't reduce the risk of a bullet injury by wearing a bullet proof vest but by avoiding people with guns shooting at you in the first place ...

I'll leave you with this summary quote from Ben Goldacre's and David Spiegelhalter's 2013 editorial in the BMJ:
[quote=Goldacre & Spiegelhalter]In any case, the current uncertainty about any benefit from helmet wearing or promotion is unlikely to be substantially reduced by further research. Equally, we can be certain that helmets will continue to be debated, and at length. The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct benefits—which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies—but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk.

These guys really do understand the statistics and medicine around this. Their conclusion isn't whether or not cycle helmets "work" but that we just can't tell as any potential benefit appears too small to measure reliably. Which would be an odd conclusion if cycle helmets really were as essential for cycling safety as many people seem to think.

[Vipers]

All good stuff, but from personal experience I know my helmet saved me from injury, so I wear mine. Not waiting another ten years until some statician decides they DO help.

But as always, each to their own.

[Dr Murdoch]

Vipers said:

All good stuff, but from personal experience I know my helmet saved me from injury, so I wear mine. Not waiting another ten years until some statician decides they DO help.

But as always, each to their own.

Indeed. I have a fear of falling off and my head hitting the edge of the kerb.

Thats why I wear mine.

[AMG Merc]

Pachydermus said:

AMG Merc said:

Yep, same old, same old - denial city.

you're ignoring the people causing hundreds of thousands of injuries and deaths every year and it's cyclists that are in denial?

Ah, I think you may be assuming I meant cyclists. I was thinking cycles, motorcycles and vehicles actually - there's an element of denial as to each's behaviour

[Pachydermus]

AMG Merc said:

Pachydermus said:

AMG Merc said:

Yep, same old, same old - denial city.

you're ignoring the people causing hundreds of thousands of injuries and deaths every year and it's cyclists that are in denial?

Ah, I think you may be assuming I meant cyclists. I was thinking cycles, motorcycles and vehicles actually - there's an element of denial as to each's behaviour

In that case I'm in complete agreement

[Kermit power]

Dr Murdoch said:

Vipers said:

All good stuff, but from personal experience I know my helmet saved me from injury, so I wear mine. Not waiting another ten years until some statician decides they DO help.

But as always, each to their own.

Indeed. I have a fear of falling off and my head hitting the edge of the kerb.

Thats why I wear mine.

According to the Police accident investigator, I came off my bike at around 25-30mph, was in the air for around 20' and landed head first onto the stone corner of a storm drain surround.

According to the hospital consultant, if my skull hadn't been 30% thicker than average, I wouldn't have survived.

Since then, I've always worn a helmet. The downside to having a skull 30% thicker than average is that I have a very limited range of helmets to choose from, as most manufacturers don't make them big enough!

The above spontaneous high speed dismount required 16 coppers to close the road off and manage traffic, and ambulance, various doctors and nurses, and on my side, three hours of loss of consciousness, three days in hospital and a month off work.

A more recent attempt to repeat the process with a helmet resulted in said helmet being smashed into pieces, but me having nothing more than concussion and a headache for 24 hours. Granted, thanks to the concussion I don't know exactly what I hit, or even exactly where it was to within more than the accuracy of my GPS and hindsight, but I do know I managed to get home under my own steam after landing head first at 20mph, so I'll take the helmet any day!

[TwistingMyMelon]

Indeed when I hit the deck @ 25mph my helmet and front teeth took all the impact

Thankfully as the helmet protrudes 2 inches, that absorbed nearly all the impact, so I kept my large front teeth, albeit they are fractured, but still there and look OK!

[walm]

Well, when I hit some black ice at about 5mph and fell over, my hip broke the bungy-toggle-clamp thing on my cycling jacket so now it's loose.
Bunch of whingers.

[hora]

stuttgartmetal said:

If they had licences issued to them, they might be less of a danger to themselves.

Abit like motorcyclists and minicab drivers then?

No. Cyclists are self policing. You are the most vulnerable road users hence you act like a tit you don't last long. One big fall and it tends to make cyclists careful.

I commuted for 7yrs by bike in London. We weren't the worst. I'll give you a clue (it's above)

[heebeegeetee]

hora said:

Abit like motorcyclists and minicab drivers then?

No. Cyclists are self policing. You are the most vulnerable road users

Not quite true. Out of four road user groups, pedestrians, cyclists, motor bikers, vehicle occupants, cyclists come second in terms of casualty stats, I'm pretty certain. The Highway Code states that pedestrians are the most vulnerable road user, though I'm not even sure that's true 'cos the casualty stats for motor bikers are off the scale.

[hora]

Maybe it's Direct Access etc but I see some pretty poor roadcraft from motorbike riders, nevermind the must make good progress speed that is endemic ontop of must squeeze through all slow/stationary traffic at all costs.

Saying this I've seen pisspoor cycling interms of undertaking.