Licence or ban cycling in London

[IroningMan]

Kermit power said:

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!

So we're okay to call you 'Mr Thicky' then?

[AMG Merc]

hora said:

...I see some pretty poor roadcraft from motorbike riders.

Agree. I find it a challenge, on any journey, to spy a motor cyclist who IS riding safely and within the law - finding a unicorn at the bottom of my garden is more likely.

[Dr Murdoch]

heebeegeetee said:

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.

Don't quote me, i'll double check this stat when I return to work next week, but I believe...

1% of traffic is made up of powered two-wheelers, yet they account for 20% of killed or seriously injured in GB annually.

[Vipers]

A lot of posts about statistics, including mine.

I always believe statistics are wonderful, I read once that 5% of accidents are caused by drink related drivers, where 95% arnt.

Answer is simple, lets all drink and drive and reduce accidents.

[battered]

Zigster said:

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.

That is the bit I typed, yes, sorry the quoting is a bit mixed up.
The "heavy object" remark was in reply to the "2 tonnes of metal" comment. If you don't think it works then try "flying through the air head-first at 15 mph because a car has pulled across your ROW", this being the most common cause of RTC for cyclists and m/c's AIUI.
Quote: "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."
Not important to the argument. Road accidents comprise an infinite variety of collisions, degrees of severity, etc. You can't legislate against all of them, all you can do is address the most likely.
Quote: "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."
For sure they are less effective for major impacts. If I'm hit by a truck at 50 then I'm dead whatever I'm wearing. However there will be cases where they turn a medium impact into a minor one, or a just-fatal into an almost-fatal. The assessment has to be around whether this difference is significant. On the basis of my personal experience I think that it is.
Quote: "why are cyclists more likely to be hit over the head than pedestrians or drivers/passengers in motor vehicles? "
Cyclists often end up in a "flying through the air head-first" scenario, as I said above. Pedestrians often end up in a "banging their head on the base of the windscreen" scenario. However pedestrians are more isolated from traffic. Car drivers are in a metal box protected by a crumple zone, a seatbelt that keeps them away from the solid bits, and airbags. I have never come close to banging my head in a car accident, even rally drivers seldom bash their helmets. Compare this with m/c racers and racing cyclists who regularly do.
Quote: "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 ..."
Well wouldn't that be nice. Sadly I have to do my cycling on public roads where people don't look, or don't pay attention, or just say "f* it, it's only a bike. He'll move".

Re your BMJ article, I respect their points, but in the absence of any suitable control experiment, I'd refer you to my accident. A classic SMIDSY, the guy turned right in front of me, I did a 20MPH Superman and hit his screen at a closing speed of ~40mph (says the policeman two cars behind me). I hit his screen headfirst and sustained 2 broken arms, shoulder blade, skull, nose, upper jaw, both cheeks, a few teeth. The helmet was broken but being open face it did not protect my face when the impact tipped my head back. This is the point you make above. No helmet can protect against all injuries.

So given that this is the case and you're flying through the air, would you rather have a bike helmet on or not as you head towards the Toyota Starlet? It's a balance-of-probabilities thing, there are no absolutes. Anything can happen from here on in. You choose. I've made my choice. I'm interested in one statistic - me, and my life. The policeman on the scene who saw the accident is convinced I'd be dead without a lid. So is the max-fax surgeon who assessed my head injury and the damage to my frontal lobe and cranial nerves. I believe them. In the sample size of one, which is the only bit of any sample I care about, I'm here because I put a £30 helmet on that day. I replaced it with the same model. If others choose differently, that's their affair and their head.

We could have the same discussion about leather jackets and motorcycling. I know that no jacket can save me if I go down the road at 50 into the path of an oncoming car. However in any motorcycle accident that I can imagine I'd rather be wearing a decent biker jacket than a t-shirt.

[heebeegeetee]

battered said:

Car drivers are in a metal box protected by a crumple zone, a seatbelt that keeps them away from the solid bits, and airbags. I have never come close to banging my head in a car accident, even rally drivers seldom bash their helmets. Compare this with m/c racers and racing cyclists who regularly do.
.

Well I say there's one heck of a lot sources disagree with this:

>>Car occupants looking at fatality numbers, car occupants are the largest single casualty group. They comprise 56% of total EU (15) deaths with the majority of car occupant deaths occurring on non-motorway rural roads. The main injury risks for car occupants arise from the way vehicles interact with each other and with the roadside. Car to car collisions are the single most frequent category of crash. For both fatally and seriously injured occupants, frontal impacts are the most important crash type followed by side impacts. The head is the body area most frequently involved in life-threatening injury, followed in importance by the chest and then the abdomen. Among disabling injuries, those to the leg and neck are important [84]. Determinants of injury severity include:

Restraint use
Contact by occupant with the car 's interior, exacerbated by intrusion into the passenger compartment caused by the colliding vehicle or object<<

Also

>>Pedestrians: Research in Europe suggests that the majority of all fatally and seriously injured pedestrians are hit by the front of a car. Lower-limb injury is, in general, the most common form of pedestrian injury, while head injury is responsible for most pedestrian fatalities [32].<<

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/speciali...

ive Common Car Accident Injuries

There are several common injuries that occur during a car accident. These injuries may vary in regards to their pain and severity.

1. Whiplash

Whiplash occurs when soft tissues in the body are suddenly stretched due to sudden movement. This soft tissue includes muscles and ligaments. This unexpected stretching damages the muscles, making them painful to use until they have healed.

Some of the most common whiplash injuries occur around the head, neck, and back. Sudden impact from the front, rear, or side of a car will cause the vehicle to change directions, whipping the passenger’s body forcefully in an unexpected direction.

Some individuals are able to quickly recover from minor whiplash injuries, while others must see doctors, chiropractors, and physical therapists regularly before the pain begins to subside.

2. Head and Brain Injuries

Because car collisions can happen so quickly, occupants rarely have enough time to brace for impact. This can result in serious head and brain injuries from collisions against the steering wheel, side window, headrest, and more. While the airbag is designed to prevent the most severe head injuries, they can still occur.

While minor head injuries consist of a few scrapes, bruises, or small lacerations, victims can also experience concussions, damaged fluid and tissue inside the skull, and traumatic brain injuries. Some may never fully recover from the brain injuries they sustain in a car accident. Even if the victim has the possibility of recovering, the procedures and care can cost thousands of dollars.
http://russellandhill.com/top-five-injuries-that-r...

Causes[edit]
Common causes of head injury are motor vehicle traffic collisions, home and occupational accidents, falls, and assaults.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_injury#Causes

I mean, just have a google. Cars are a significant source of head injury, head injury is the most common fatal injury to pedestrians, but for some reason we only want cyclists to wear helmets, which I think is very odd.

[Banana Boy]

I love the fact that this thread was started as an anti cycling rant by an internet troll and now it's descended into fighting amongst ourselves about fking hats!!! (AGAIN...)

Seriously, get a grip! The world need unity, compassion and understanding, not bhing, whining and feet stomping because your view isn't shared by everyone you encounter!

Absolutely stand up against intolerance, injustice and ignorance. Educate those willing to learn and respect those who aren't. Live and let live, love and be loved! Peace out people, it's all part of the cycle of life!

[battered]

Quote: head injury is the most common fatal injury to pedestrians, but for some reason we only want cyclists to wear helmets, which I think is very odd."
You're omitting motorcyclists.

[AMG Merc]

Banana Boy said:

Educate those willing to learn and respect those who aren't. Live and let live, love and be loved! Peace out people, it's all part of the cycle of life!

Yeah Man

[stuttgartmetal]

Banana Boy said:

I love the fact that this thread was started as an anti cycling rant by an internet troll and now it's descended into fighting amongst ourselves about fking hats!!! (AGAIN)

Pathetic

[Banana Boy]

stuttgartmetal said:

Banana Boy said:

I love the fact that this thread was started as an anti cycling rant by an internet troll and now it's descended into fighting amongst ourselves about fking hats!!! (AGAIN)

Pathetic

I wouldn't go that far but it is a little sad that people can't have an open debate the moment without it degenerating into a full bore slanging match, name calling and general aggression...

ETA: Not sure you can really take the moral high ground here though, regardless of your motivation, the Daily Wail-esque OP was simply troll like and your hand full of replies since have consisted of random words and vague sentences that lack coherence or fact based evidence.

Change can be difficult to accept and adapt to but change is both necessary and inevitable. Mostly, change is for the good - in the end.

Edited by Banana Boy on Sunday 22 January 09:24

[Zigster]

battered said:

Stuff

I've removed all the quoted stuff to avoid it getting too long.

Lots of people have anecdotes about how a helmet saved their life. But when you look at accident statistics, helmet wearers don't seem to have a better experience as a whole.

One argument is that helmet wearers believe their helmets make them safe and subconsciously thus take more risks - risk compensation - meaning they are more likely to have an accident and/or more likely to have a severe accident. For example, by riding more quickly compared with an unhelmeted rider in the same situation. It's like the opposite of the joke about the perfect car safety feature being a spike sticking out of the centre of the steering wheel.

And helmets are only rated to very low speed impacts (12mph is the usually quoted figure) - beyond that they don't provide a benefit. They won't turn a major head impact into a minor injury. They can turn a minor head injury into an even more minor one. A major one will be major with or without a helmet.

And, back to statistics, head injury rates are actually pretty similar for pedestrians and motor vehicle occupants as for cyclists. Odd that police officers, A&E workers, etc never seem to comment on the helmet (or lack of) for pedestrians and motorists involved in accidents.

The Netherlands is usually brought up in these discussions. Despite helmet wearing behind extremely rare for utility cyclists in NL, their injury stats are much better than the UK's. This is usually put down to segregated cycling infrastructure. But a helmet is most effective for the sort of low speed spills you get equally on segregated and non-segregated cycling infrastructure. So to attribute the difference to the infrastructure means that we believe helmets can protect against the big crashes on non-segregated infrastructure, which is pretty optimistic for a bit of polystyrene.

I'm not saying don't wear a helmet when cycling - that's up to the individual and I wear one myself when road-riding with my cycling mates, or on the odd occasion I go mountain biking. I'm not claiming a cycle helmet provides no benefit - I honestly don't know either way. But, to use a favourite saying of Dr Ben Goldacre, "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that." The safety benefit of wearing a cycling helmet is almost certainly much smaller than assumed by anyone who thinks cycle helmets are absolutely essential but will, conversely, happily walk or drive a car without wearing a helmet.

Or, as Chris Boardman (who sells the things) says, cycle helmets "isn’t even in the top 10 things that will really keep people who want to cycle safe.”

[stuttgartmetal]

Thanks for your replies
I've spent the time thinking this through while riding to work
Point one, I took on board was, do cyclist cause as much trouble as car drivers
I think, no
They seem to be more of a danger to themselves
The polystyrene stuck on their heads are just the result of h+s gone mad
I generally discount their presence on the road as an irrelevance.
All that huffing and puffing ,shabbily dressed
Yeah
I now just think

......meh.......

[Daveyraveygravey]

stuttgartmetal said:

Pathetic

Why? Is it not pathetic that you started this bullst, and 13 pages later, you're still talking crap?

[numtumfutunch]

stuttgartmetal said:

Thanks for your replies
I've spent the time thinking this through while riding to work
Point one, I took on board was, do cyclist cause as much trouble as car drivers
I think, no
They seem to be more of a danger to themselves
The polystyrene stuck on their heads are just the result of h+s gone mad
I generally discount their presence on the road as an irrelevance.
All that huffing and puffing ,shabbily dressed
Yeah
I now just think

......meh.......

Posted at 9:14pm on a school night which is a bit early to be off your face on cheap cider isnt it?

[AMG Merc]

numtumfutunch said:

Posted at 9:14pm on a school night which is a bit early to be off your face on cheap cider isnt it?

Depends when you start ing

[grumpy52]

Is there any connection with the casualty rate in the Netherlands and them riding more traditional bikes and clothing rather than the lycra clad street racers I tend to see in this country?

[RizzoTheRat]

grumpy52 said:

Is there any connection with the casualty rate in the Netherlands and them riding more traditional bikes and clothing rather than the lycra clad street racers I tend to see in this country?

I'd have thought it's pretty much impossible to isolate any factors like that to compare NL and UK. It's a completely different world. For example pretty much everyone cycles, so drivers tend to be a lot more observant of, and tolerant towards, cyclists, because they're also cyclists. Legally if a car and a bike have coming together it's automatically the car driver fault. Then there's the infrastructure, I could cycle the 3.5km to the office or 5+km to the centre of Den Haag without cycling on a road at all, and there are traffic lights where cycle paths cross roads. Cycling in the UK is bloody terrifying in comparison.

[bakerstreet]

MarshPhantom said:

It really isn't, there's very little spare/free bike parking for starters, and theft is a massive problem. Plus you arrive at work/home smelling like a tramp.

I shower at the office. Its really that simple

Commuted by bike at my last job and I showered at the office there too.

[Banana Boy]

RizzoTheRat said:

...Cycling in the UK is bloody terrifying in comparison.

I think that largely depends on where you commute in the UK. I've commuted at least 8 miles a day almost every week day for 2.5yrs in Peterborough and it's been pleasantly ok and largely incident free.

I was knocked off once by a foreign guy in a Transit who was on the wrong side of the road. I've had a hand full of round about near misses due to people not paying attention but my pulsing front light has almosr totally eliminated this issue. Plus people pull out etc. while I'm driving too so it's not exclusive to driving. Oh and I've been shouted at three times, each time by angry old women?!

I tend to find that a confident passive agressive defencive riding style with plenty of observation and positive body language and actions means that drivers behave better around me.