That's it, I am no longer defending Cyclists!

[Graveworm]

walm said:

Both of those could be true though.
One is KSI accidents involving cyclists (which may or may not involve a car or other vehicle) and the other is just cars and cyclists.

For all the back and forth about compulsory helmets the simple fact is that compulsion puts people off cycling - I am not sure anyone disagrees with that.
And that is a BAD thing - I am not sure anyone disagrees with that.

More cycling is simply better... for health, for the environment, for the safety of other cyclists, and even for road wear.

Do people disagree with that?

So what are the benefits to mandatory helmets?

You are correct about the accidents.No one as far as I know has suggested mandatory helmets. i certainly haven't and have specifically said the opposite in posts in this thread. What I and every health and accident body disagree with is that it is even wrong to recommend the wearing of cycling helmets because

• "It blames the victim" (quote from Cycling UK) - Which at worst is only the case in minority of cases AND it still means it's a good idea to wear one when cycling.
• Why not recommend the wearing of helmets all the time for everyone then. This has no consideration for the overall benefit and it doesn't help with the additional risk I subject myself to ,every time I get on bike AND it still means it's a good idea to wear one when cycling.
• There may be something that we don't understand that means, despite all the data, wearing a helmet is not a good idea. Given the volume of data this is unsustainable but more of a climate change or Russian involvement in Salisbury position - We know it's not in any way credible but we need something to justify carrying on denying that it's a good idea to wear one when cycling.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 9th January 10:05

[austinsmirk]

I'm one of those cyclist people, have been for 30 years now.

Whilst cycling to work today, I caught up with a young man on his mtb this am, its pitch black (it's 7.45 am) - he's on the road- head to toe in dark clothing, no lights on at all, no helmet on.

I advised the knuckle dragging , that he is going to get himself killed- no motorist can see him, he's no helmet on either.

he muttered some councilesque grunts. I left him to it. But imagine a motorist wipes him out, because they can't see him- that's an awful thing to live with.

the point being, cyclists, like runners, like horse riders, like car drivers, have idiots and sensible people amongst them.

Yr very vulnerable as a cyclist, its quite a good idea to make sure yr visible, lights and clothing wise to give yourself a chance amongst the the traffic. I'll past 100's of cars on a commute into work- you wouldn't believe how many people are on their phones (usually hiding them in their laps), not looking properly about.

the other morning a bloke decided to cut into the cycle lane and started mounting the kerb to get around queuing traffic- right in front of me. He nearly wiped me out. I had to bunny hop as such onto the pavement to avoid him. he only stopped as I kicked the rear qtr of his car so hard to stop him crushing me, he heard the massive bang.

fortunately for me I was ok, his car wasn't- a good boot from me in a rigid, cleated cycling shoe stoved the rear qtr of his car in. I hope he thinks twice again about mounting pavements because he can't wait 10 seconds in a traffic queue.

[heebeegeetee]

Graveworm said:

• There may be something that we don't understand that means, despite all the data, wearing a helmet is not a good idea. Given the volume of data this is unsustainable but more of a climate change or Russian involvement in Salisbury position - We know it's not in any way credible but we need something to justify carrying on denying that it's a good idea to wear one when cycling.

This is simply not true. There is an enormous body of evidence, not least including the three studies referred to in the film, which shows that is it extremely difficult to show any improvement in public health that can be attributed to helmets - in other words, the numbers of head injuries dropped because people stopped cycling, and not because people continued to cycle but with helmets. The evidence is overwhelming, from what I've seen.

In response, all people like yourself can show is other also-enormous studies which shows that in an accident, you're better for wearing a helmet. I don't think anyone would disagree with that and I'm surprised they felt the need to do the study in the first place. The mystery is why only cyclists?

I think you need to think about how common head and brain injuries are. The link I posted previously showed that there is a hospital admission for an acquired brain injury *every 90 seconds* in the UK. That's not people visiting A&E with a head injury (such as a broken jaw), it's not an admission to hospital with a head injury, it's admissions to hospital with an acquired brain injury, and the vast majority of them won't be cyclists.

In your previous post you seem to infer that the only people in society that would benefit from helmets is cyclists, which is nonsense.

You say that motorists would not benefit, in which case just about every track day operator on the planet must be doing it wrong. I would imagine the Nurburgring has decades of experience of helmeted car occupants having accidents in cars with air bags, and whilst I'm aware of them banning cameras in the past, I'm not aware of the Nurburgring banning helmets in cars with air bags.

[saaby93]

Killboy said:

When cars inevitably becoming driverless what will people do with all that time spent moaning about cyclists?

Are bikes going to become driverless (or whatever it is ) too?

[Graveworm]

Killboy said:

When cars inevitably becoming driverless what will people do with all that time spent moaning about cyclists?

I went this route earlier and I didn't want to distract things even further. The "Long term" future for all driveless cars can appear pretty scary and grim for some. To work it will need to segregate, as far as possible, human and artificial intelligence. The Ai will eventually be pretty near perfect in terms of not having accidents so it will be as safe as it is possible to be, BUT adding in anything outside the system will make it far less efficient when you take into account what will be possible with swarm technology and massively increase the need for things like signs, road markings traffic lights etc.
If all the cars all know where everyone is, who is in the car, what the purpose of the journey was and where they want to go then every junction and journey will be planned and dealt with in the most efficient manner for everyone. It will naturally reduce roads where riding walking is allowed.until there are none. Not banning cycling just segregating and introducing crossing points. It would just go fully down the route many cycling friendly countries are already
I wouldn't want or be able to cycle anyway, Roads would have virtual lanes only, depending on the number and size of vehicles, spacing between very fast moving vehicles will be much smaller and they will likely dock and un-dock frequently to create instant trams, Ground public transport would all be integrated so no real distinction between railways and roads.
Might take a week or 2 though and I am confident I will not live to see it, unless of course they fix death as well....

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 9th January 10:48

[Mort7]

Thanks Yellowjack. Fatuous comments like that prove my point about some individuals treating cycling as though it were a religion far more effectively than I ever could.

You have either deliberately, or mistakenly, missed the point I was making - that there are alternatives to leisure cycling, where the purpose is solely to get exercise, and a rowing machine is a pretty good alternative if exercise is all you want.

I very much doubt that that will be your last post as I'm sure you will find other heretics who need to be re-educated, and you just won't be able to contain yourself.

[heebeegeetee]

Mort7 said:

I suspect that the reason that you don't understand my post, heebeegeetee, is because you haven't taken the time to read it, digest the content, and consider what I've actually written, before replying.

You've written exactly the same as countless other people have been doing, for decades, just like people have about "road tax" even though it was abolished in 1937. I've be reading exactly the same, for decades, and it's still all wrong.

[yellowjack]

heebeegeetee said:

Mort7 said:

I suspect that the reason that you don't understand my post, heebeegeetee, is because you haven't taken the time to read it, digest the content, and consider what I've actually written, before replying.

You've written exactly the same as countless other people have been doing, for decades, just like people have about "road tax" even though it was abolished in 1937. I've be reading exactly the same, for decades, and it's still all wrong.

FFS don't get him all riled up man. He has a rowing machine, and he ain't afraid to use it...!

[Killboy]

Graveworm said:

I went this route earlier and I didn't want to distract things even further. The "Long term" future for all driveless cars can appear pretty scary and grim for some. To work it will need to segregate, as far as possible, human and artificial intelligence.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 9th January 10:48

People driving is infinitely more scary and grim than computers. I'll bet the future will allow only one

[Mort7]

yellowjack said:

FFS don't get him all riled up man. He has a rowing machine, and he ain't afraid to use it...!

I don't get riled up. I'm very relaxed, and I think this is hilarious.

And I was right, wasn't I? You just can't contain yourself!

[anonymous-user]

Mort7 said:

Thanks Yellowjack. Fatuous comments like that prove my point about some individuals treating cycling as though it were a religion far more effectively than I ever could.

You have either deliberately, or mistakenly, missed the point I was making - that there are alternatives to leisure cycling, where the purpose is solely to get exercise, and a rowing machine is a pretty good alternative if exercise is all you want.

I very much doubt that that will be your last post as I'm sure you will find other heretics who need to be re-educated, and you just won't be able to contain yourself.

Nothing like missing the point I guess

[Graveworm]

heebeegeetee said:

You've written exactly the same as countless other people have been doing, for decades, just like people have about "road tax" even though it was abolished in 1937. I've be reading exactly the same, for decades, and it's still all wrong.

Well until this year, when (the principle) will be right again, until it is wrong..

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 9th January 12:55

[Graveworm]

heebeegeetee said:

This is simply not true. There is an enormous body of evidence, not least including the three studies referred to in the film, which shows that is it extremely difficult to show any improvement in public health that can be attributed to helmets - in other words, the numbers of head injuries dropped because people stopped cycling, and not because people continued to cycle but with helmets. The evidence is overwhelming, from what I've seen.

In response, all people like yourself can show is other also-enormous studies which shows that in an accident, you're better for wearing a helmet. I don't think anyone would disagree with that and I'm surprised they felt the need to do the study in the first place. The mystery is why only cyclists?

I think you need to think about how common head and brain injuries are. The link I posted previously showed that there is a hospital admission for an acquired brain injury *every 90 seconds* in the UK. That's not people visiting A&E with a head injury (such as a broken jaw), it's not an admission to hospital with a head injury, it's admissions to hospital with an acquired brain injury, and the vast majority of them won't be cyclists.

In your previous post you seem to infer that the only people in society that would benefit from helmets is cyclists, which is nonsense.

You say that motorists would not benefit, in which case just about every track day operator on the planet must be doing it wrong. I would imagine the Nurburgring has decades of experience of helmeted car occupants having accidents in cars with air bags, and whilst I'm aware of them banning cameras in the past, I'm not aware of the Nurburgring banning helmets in cars with air bags.

There is no evidence that advising people it is safer to wear a helmet is a bad thing the rest is just straw man about compulsory helmets which no one is arguing for.

Track driving has a different accident profile to road driving, and more requirement/benefit for head movement which you knew, They are banned in some jurisdictions.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 9th January 12:35

[heebeegeetee]

Graveworm said:

Track driving has a different accident profile to road driving, which you knew,

In terms of helmeted occupants in a car with air bags,and lap-and-diagonal seat belts, I hadn't really given it much thought. Tell me more, I'm interested to know.

[swisstoni]

The point is simple;

Are you interested in the safety of individuals who cycle?
Or are you more interested in how many people cycle.

Call me old fashioned but the latter suggests that you are more interested in cycling as a movement than in the individual safety of cyclists.

[heebeegeetee]

swisstoni said:

The point is simple;

1. Are you interested in the safety of individuals who cycle?
2. Or are you more interested in how many people cycle.

Call me old fashioned but the latter suggests that you are more interested in cycling as a movement than in the individual safety of cyclists.

Interesting question, but this really is the point: It isn't that simple. This issue really isn't that simple at all, just as the man in the film says, it's surprisingly complex, and imo anyone who says "The point is simple" either doesn't understand the issue or doesn't want to understand the issue.

To answer your questions:

1. I think I'm more interested in the bigger picture, in the overall health and safety of cycling, or even the overall health and safety of the public. I firmly believe that overall we could all live healthier lives, and I think as proven in countries not far from us, cycling is just great for contributing to this. If we focus on the safety of individuals we could end up banning pretty much everything; I'm sure almost everything can appear dangerous in isolation

2. I would dearly love to see more people cycling, and I would love to join them. There are millions of cyclists missing from our roads (which includes me). The ordinary people, ordinary families, out cycling (or walking), rather en masse like they do elsewhere, which I think is great.

They're missing because of the effing ineptitude of our drivers imo, and the bizarre and bonkers attitudes as exemplified by motorists as seen on these threads constantly, so that we're largely just left with the gung-ho cyclists, who might not also have the best attitudes to sharing the roads either.

In short, I think we absolutely get the cyclists we deserve, but the cyclists we'd possibly more like to see on our roads are put off by drivers attitudes and this whole portrayal of cycling somehow being dangerous, to the point that helmets are needed.

So people stay in their cars instead, the roads are blocked and congested 7 days a week as a result, we have an air quality issue and we're the fattest country in Europe (I believe) and one of the fattest in the world, and the subsequent consequences for health costs more life-years (and money) by an order of magnitude.

An absolutely bonkers scenario imo and rather unique in this quarter of the globe imo.

[walm]

swisstoni said:

The point is simple;

Are you interested in the safety of individuals who cycle?
Or are you more interested in how many people cycle.

Call me old fashioned but the latter suggests that you are more interested in cycling as a movement than in the individual safety of cyclists.

Not sure it qualifies as a "movement" but the pure utilitarian view is very strongly in favour of keeping the numbers of people cycling high.

[Graveworm]

heebeegeetee said:

In terms of helmeted occupants in a car with air bags,and lap-and-diagonal seat belts, I hadn't really given it much thought. Tell me more, I'm interested to know.

Whiplash type accidents can happen at relatively low speed, this is when the vast majority of road accidents happen. Helmets make these more likely and increase the severity. You do know they don't require a helmet at the ring don't you? On a track the proportion of accidents at high speed, rollover etc. is much higher, even so they are introducing additional measures to deal with the increased risk of CS injuries. The requirement to turn/move the head on the road is much higher and doing it with a helmet, headrest and restricted room for movement would again increase the risk of accident or injury.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 9th January 13:13

[heebeegeetee]

Graveworm said:

1. Whiplash type accidents can happen at relatively low speed, this is when the vast majority of road accidents happen. Helmets make these more likely and increase the severity.

2. You do know they don't require a helmet at the ring don't you?

3. On a track the proportion of accidents at high speed, rollover etc. is much higher, even so they are introducing additional measures to deal with the increased risk of CS injuries.

4. The requirement to turn/move the head on the road is much higher and doing it with a helmet, headrest and restricted room for movement would again increase the risk of accident or injury.

Edited by Graveworm on Wednesday 9th January 13:13

1. I'm not sure about that, not with HANS.

2. Yes, but if helmets make matters worse for occupants as you have said, they would ban them. They haven't and I don't think helmets make matters worse.

3. Don't underestimate the severity of road crashes. On track there are no oncoming vehicles, no hgvs, no trees (they're a real killer), no street furniture, no steep embankments, the tracks are lined with barriers all going in the correct direction etc.

4. We've already done that imo, by making roof structures and roof pillars thicker and stronger, making vehicles harder to see out of, making life safer for vehicle occupants at the direct cost of those outside the vehicles, and I don't recall seeing any complaints about that here on a motorists forum.

[yellowjack]

swisstoni said:

The point is simple;

Are you interested in the safety of individuals who cycle?
Or are you more interested in how many people cycle.

Call me old fashioned but the latter suggests that you are more interested in cycling as a movement than in the individual safety of cyclists.

The answer to both of your questions is simple.

I'm greatly interested in the safety of individuals who cycle.
I'm ALSO interested in how many people cycle.

Call me old fashioned, but the latter simply suggests that I've comprehended the correlation between larger numbers of cyclists on the roads and increased safety for all of those individuals within "the herd".

We accept road casualties in cars in the thousands per year. They're largely regarded as an unavoidable cost to our personal freedoms. Study any group and you'll see the same. Swap 'cyclists and drivers' for 'Wildebeest and Lion'. The Wildebeest know that by being part of a herd they reduce the risk that they'll be eaten by a pride of Lion, so they don't potter around solo. They've worked out that it's outliers who get eaten, while recognising that there is some percentage chance that they'll one day be that outlier. So they gather in large numbers and try not to be the least fleet of foot within the group. The more Wildebeest in the group, the better the chance that one of them is less swift than you. Whilst not exactly the same, it's similar for cyclists. The more there are on the road, the more drivers are forced to at least recognise them and learn to deal with them. Inevitably, as with all fallible human interactions, some will fall victim to collisions, injuries, and rarely death as a result. But as a fit, healthy, intelligent adult cyclist I'm confident in my ability to read situations on the road and spot risks. I'm also absolutely certain that there are far less capable, intelligent cyclists out there, and that statistically they're far more likely to go under a bus than I am, whilst I recognise that in freak circumstances I might be the one getting hit.

What I'm absolutely certain of though, is that if the size of the cycling "herd" is reduced, then drivers' awareness of individual cyclists will reduce, and I'll be in far greater danger, whether or not I'm wearing any amount of hi-vis or a helmet.

Simple enough? Clear? Comprende, savvy, understand, do you hear?