Do you 'engage' with cyclists?
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
Finlandia said:
O/T
Some time ago a kid died in kindergarten, he had been cycling and had a helmet on, then went climbing in some play thing and got his helmet suck and hanged himself.
In Scandinavia about 6 children died after being asphyxiated by their helmet straps. It left a health professional to say " we simply don't know if helmets have saved any lives but we do know they have cost lives".Some time ago a kid died in kindergarten, he had been cycling and had a helmet on, then went climbing in some play thing and got his helmet suck and hanged himself.
I think every authority everywhere that has introduced any legislation re helmets has indeed been able to show a reduction in head injuries. This has been achieved because the helmet law has led to a reduction in cyclists, meaning people have climbed back into their cars instead. I think everywhere the reduction in cyclist numbers has been greater than the reduction in head injuries, meaning that the accident rate for those who continued to cycle actually went up.
ETA: A doctor in Sweden lamented, with regard to strangulations in that country and its child helmet law, "We know we have killed, but we can't show we have saved anyone". (Sweden, 1)
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1227.html#10213
Edited by heebeegeetee on Wednesday 4th March 12:39
We can't save everyone, but a helmet while cycling is a cheap life insurance.
Finlandia said:
We can't save everyone, but a helmet while cycling is a cheap life insurance.
I agree. It's a good idea. I know there was a flippant comment about wearing helmets while being a pedestrian, but its easy to conceive when you fall while moving at something faster than walking pace, you are at great risk of smacking your head. Not only that, when you fall off a bicycle, it can be hard to get your hands out quick enough to slow your head down before it hits. It's sometimes not the impact that causes head trauma, but the fact your brain - bieng all squishy - is still moving inside the skull. thatdude said:
Finlandia said:
We can't save everyone, but a helmet while cycling is a cheap life insurance.
I agree. It's a good idea. I know there was a flippant comment about wearing helmets while being a pedestrian, but its easy to conceive when you fall while moving at something faster than walking pace, you are at great risk of smacking your head. Not only that, when you fall off a bicycle, it can be hard to get your hands out quick enough to slow your head down before it hits. It's sometimes not the impact that causes head trauma, but the fact your brain - bieng all squishy - is still moving inside the skull. Finlandia said:
1. In Sweden it's law for kids up to 15 years of age to wear a cycle helmet when cycling or being transported on a bike, not too may of them have gone back to driving a car.
2. We can't save everyone, but a helmet while cycling is a cheap life insurance.
1. They may have gone back to travelling by car though, thus losing their independence. That's what has happened in the UK, with rates of teenage cycling having plummeted, especially amongst girls. Two reasons, 'helmet hair' and the perception given that cycling is dangerous.2. We can't save everyone, but a helmet while cycling is a cheap life insurance.
2. You won't be able to provide any evidence of that. Its another topic and is for another thread, there have been one or two big ones on the site recently, but best thing is just to do the research, I find it interesting because the evidence that helmets improve safety for ordinary cyclists is so small, and evidence that it does nothing/very little to improve safety for ordinary cycling is so huge.
Do as much research as you can or like, and you'll find that the situation for pedestrians and ordinary cyclists is just about the same, yet nobody is suggesting helmets for pedestrians.
There are two long threads on this subject on PH, if you want to find them.
heebeegeetee said:
Mr Will said:
Finlandia said:
According to Folksam in Sweden: Each year, about 2,000 cyclists are injured, as expected, the most dangerous injury is a head injury. Statistics from real accidents shows in black and white that bicycle helmets are of utmost importance. Two of three head injuries can be avoided by wearing a helmet.
http://www.folksam.se/testergodarad/sakeritrafiken...
Each year thousands of pedestrians suffer head injuries. Per mile travelled they are actually more at risk than cyclists. The question shouldn't be why do you wear a cycle helmet. It should be why do you take it off when you get off your bike?http://www.folksam.se/testergodarad/sakeritrafiken...
The difference for me is speed. When I cycle I reach speeds in excess of 40 mph and regularly do 20mph on the flat. I walk at about 4 mph. I have never fallen over and banged my head as a pedestrian in my 40 years on this planet. However in two and a bit years of cycling i've come off and bashed my head twice. On the second occasion my helmet split in two and I suspect that had I not been wearing it I would have been knocked unconcious. So while I accept that a gentle ride at 10 mph is unlikely to pose more risk than say walking, riding at speed probably does.
Mr Will said:
Finlandia said:
We can't save everyone, but a helmet while cycling is a cheap life insurance.
A helmet while walking on the pavement is cheap life insurance too. You do wear a pedestrian helmet - don't you?Why is it so difficult to understand that a helmet protects your head if an accident was to happen? Why is it that moped riders must use a helmet, they operate at the same speeds as bicycles?
Finlandia said:
I rarely walk at speeds of up to 30mph, but in a black and white world a walking helmet would no doubt save lives.
Why is it so difficult to understand that a helmet protects your head if an accident was to happen? Why is it that moped riders must use a helmet, they operate at the same speeds as bicycles?
Cycling in a helmet can make you very very hot.Why is it so difficult to understand that a helmet protects your head if an accident was to happen? Why is it that moped riders must use a helmet, they operate at the same speeds as bicycles?
Personally I always wore one but a cycling helmet when in collision with a car or any hard surface met at speed isn't going to help you too much.Maybe the new helmets offer more protection?.
johnxjsc1985 said:
Finlandia said:
I rarely walk at speeds of up to 30mph, but in a black and white world a walking helmet would no doubt save lives.
Why is it so difficult to understand that a helmet protects your head if an accident was to happen? Why is it that moped riders must use a helmet, they operate at the same speeds as bicycles?
Cycling in a helmet can make you very very hot.Why is it so difficult to understand that a helmet protects your head if an accident was to happen? Why is it that moped riders must use a helmet, they operate at the same speeds as bicycles?
Personally I always wore one but a cycling helmet when in collision with a car or any hard surface met at speed isn't going to help you too much.Maybe the new helmets offer more protection?.
In the event on a high speed crash with a car or a tree, it's debatable if a cycle helmet helps (it probably does though, but other injuries will be severe), coming off your bike in a single accident it will help.
Saddle bum said:
IroningMan said:
Johnnytheboy said:
There used to be a pic trotted out about when it was ok not to pass a cyclist, featuring a lady in very tight shorts. Livened up many an angry cyclist thread.
I have it, but I'm not sharing it with any non-cyclists.
JagXJR said:
Antony Moxey said:
JagXJR said:
I overtook many vehicles which were approaching an obstruction a quarter of a mile (ish didn't pace it out) away
Why were you attempting an overtake of slow moving traffic if you could see there was an obstacle ahead? Unless you were sure you could complete the overtake before you reached the obstacle then surely you can see it was ill thought out, unless you were expecting the traffic to stop in order for you to complete your overtake.As I've said before, would you have attempted the same overtake if the line of slow moving traffic was a convoy of caravans, or tractors, or lorries or grannies out for a bimble? If the answer is no then why do you think it acceptable to try the overtake when the line of slow moving traffic happens to be a line of cyclists?
I judge each situation on it's merits. in this case there was enough space to overtake, unless someone did something stupid. unfortunately in many miles of driving I have seen many people do some pretty crazy things. So in light of the fact the cyclists did not seem to be paying much attention I just let them know I was there.
In addition it is illegal to race on the highway. Since I don't know that is the case I have not mentioned it as unlike some on here, I don't make things up. But it was a possibility I had considered. If they had decided to suddenly go 3 or more abreast in a sprint finish it could have made the situation dangerous.
Why not sound the horn? Why not alert other road users to your presence? It is the only thing the horn should be used for.
Devil2575 said:
You are per mile at greater risk of dying as a pedestrian than a cyclist but i'm not sure you can then say that pedestrians are the same or more likely to suffer a head injury.
The difference for me is speed. When I cycle I reach speeds in excess of 40 mph and regularly do 20mph on the flat. I walk at about 4 mph. I have never fallen over and banged my head as a pedestrian in my 40 years on this planet. However in two and a bit years of cycling i've come off and bashed my head twice. On the second occasion my helmet split in two and I suspect that had I not been wearing it I would have been knocked unconcious. So while I accept that a gentle ride at 10 mph is unlikely to pose more risk than say walking, riding at speed probably does.
Gravity works at 9.8m/s whether you are stationary, doing 3mph, 30mph or 3000mph. Passing cars do 30+ mph whether you are on foot or on bicycle. I know that it is counter-intuitive but there is no significant difference in risk of head injury between the two forms of transport.The difference for me is speed. When I cycle I reach speeds in excess of 40 mph and regularly do 20mph on the flat. I walk at about 4 mph. I have never fallen over and banged my head as a pedestrian in my 40 years on this planet. However in two and a bit years of cycling i've come off and bashed my head twice. On the second occasion my helmet split in two and I suspect that had I not been wearing it I would have been knocked unconcious. So while I accept that a gentle ride at 10 mph is unlikely to pose more risk than say walking, riding at speed probably does.
(Let me be clear that sport riding is a very separate issue, just as helmets on trackdays don't mean they are required to drive to work)
Antony Moxey said:
Why not just stay behind them until they'd passed the obstacle then overtake once the road was clear? The only reason you used your horn was because you thought their passing of a stationary obstacle might be dangerous, so in that case, because you thought something dangerous could happen, your overtake was ill advised.
It would have been dangerous.But he used his horn.
That made it safe.
Do try to keep up.
Mr Will said:
Gravity works at 9.8m/s whether you are stationary, doing 3mph, 30mph or 3000mph. Passing cars do 30+ mph whether you are on foot or on bicycle. I know that it is counter-intuitive but there is no significant difference in risk of head injury between the two forms of transport.
(Let me be clear that sport riding is a very separate issue, just as helmets on trackdays don't mean they are required to drive to work)
http://fof.se/tidning/2013/8/artikel/spelar-cykelhjalm-verkligen-nagon-roll(Let me be clear that sport riding is a very separate issue, just as helmets on trackdays don't mean they are required to drive to work)
Article said:
International and national are several studies showing that the use of bicycle helmets reduce the risk of head injuries. These include, for example, Berg and Westerling, 2007; Thompson et al., 2009, Oliver et al., 2013. Some other studies have however been criticized because of the built-in method error: they assume that bicycle helmets are effective and counts based on the how many deaths and injuries that could be avoided at higher helmet use.
In our study, injured cyclists. A study of loss development over time, published by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, MSB, 2013, we report on Swedish conditions. Our conclusion is that bicycle helmet law in 2005 for children under 15 years undoubtedly had an effect, although the effect may not be as big as a cursory look at health statistics might suggest. Hospitalization due to concussion (by far the most common head injury leading to hospitalization among cyclists) reduces not only for cyclists but generally, as a result of new diagnostics and new knowledge in healthcare. The number of head injured cyclists, however, reduce faster than other categories.
There are of course many factors that are relevant for this, such as safer cycling routes and total number of cyclists.
But a comparison between age groups show an interesting pattern to indicate that helmet use has power: the decline occurred in all age groups except the oldest, and is particularly marked for the younger age group. This is consistent with an increased helmet use, primarily among younger age groups (approximately 65 percent of children compared with about 31 percent for all cyclists 2011).
2011 was about 3,500 cyclists admitted to hospital in Sweden after accidents. The number of cyclists killed in traffic since the 1980s has fallen from around 80 to around 20 people per year.
/ Jan Schyllander, an investigator at the MSB, and Robert Ekman, Associate Professor, MSB
Sorry about the lazy Google translate.In our study, injured cyclists. A study of loss development over time, published by the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, MSB, 2013, we report on Swedish conditions. Our conclusion is that bicycle helmet law in 2005 for children under 15 years undoubtedly had an effect, although the effect may not be as big as a cursory look at health statistics might suggest. Hospitalization due to concussion (by far the most common head injury leading to hospitalization among cyclists) reduces not only for cyclists but generally, as a result of new diagnostics and new knowledge in healthcare. The number of head injured cyclists, however, reduce faster than other categories.
There are of course many factors that are relevant for this, such as safer cycling routes and total number of cyclists.
But a comparison between age groups show an interesting pattern to indicate that helmet use has power: the decline occurred in all age groups except the oldest, and is particularly marked for the younger age group. This is consistent with an increased helmet use, primarily among younger age groups (approximately 65 percent of children compared with about 31 percent for all cyclists 2011).
2011 was about 3,500 cyclists admitted to hospital in Sweden after accidents. The number of cyclists killed in traffic since the 1980s has fallen from around 80 to around 20 people per year.
/ Jan Schyllander, an investigator at the MSB, and Robert Ekman, Associate Professor, MSB
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff