That's it, I am no longer defending Cyclists!
Discussion
Graveworm said:
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.
A similar point is true of cycle helmets - there are some injuries (rotational) which can be made worse by the wearing of a helmet.It really isn't as simple as many of you seem to think. Dr Ben Goldacre (he who was sued unsuccessfully by the British Homeopathic Association for pointing out that their products were snake oil) has looked in to all the evidence on this and concluded in an editorial in the BMJ a couple of years ago:
Dr Ben Goldacre said:
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.
heebeegeetee said:
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.
1) So you want HANS as well as helmets in cars? Making near impossible to turn the head and it can only really work if the seats were designed for HANS in the first place or you will sit head like a hunch back. 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.
2) We go back to track driving is different. Some jurisdictions have indeed banned helmets in road cars, no safety organisation recommends them, unlike every safety organisation that recommends cycle helmets on bicycles.
3) There will be some road accidents where a helmet would help but they are in the minority compared to the ones where it will make matters worse so, unless you know what kind of accident you will have, better to choose based on the overall risk.
4) Helmets will make any existing restrictions worse no matter how good or bad they were in the first place and, in many cars with OEM seats many people wouldn't be able to wear a helmet.
Zigster said:
Graveworm said:
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.
A similar point is true of cycle helmets - there are some injuries (rotational) which can be made worse by the wearing of a helmet.]
This has happened with every safety advance: Some injuries are worse with seat belts or airbags, crash helmets on motorcycles are not all upside, ABS in some circumstances increases stopping distances. This is not a reason not to use them as overall they are all a significant force for good.
Olivier and Creighton said:
amongst cyclists neck injury is not common, is usually of a low severity and is not associated with helmet use. Across all studies in the review, the proportion of cyclists with neck injuries (2.6%) was much less than those with injuries to the head (29%), serious injuries to the head (7.4%) and injuries to the face (21.9%).
For example, one study included in the review found that in a sample of 1710 cyclists, 65 had neck injuries and just four of these were more severe than a level 1 on the abbreviated injury scale (minor injury)
Some also suggest that helmet use increases the chance of the cyclist suffering a diffuse axonal injury (a severe form of brain injury, which is a common cause of unconsciousness and a persistent vegetative state). However, like neck injuries, this is a rare diagnosis amongst cyclists.
For example, one study included in the review found that in a sample of 1710 cyclists, 65 had neck injuries and just four of these were more severe than a level 1 on the abbreviated injury scale (minor injury)
Some also suggest that helmet use increases the chance of the cyclist suffering a diffuse axonal injury (a severe form of brain injury, which is a common cause of unconsciousness and a persistent vegetative state). However, like neck injuries, this is a rare diagnosis amongst cyclists.
yellowjack said:
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.
Do not agree with that at all. A single competent well-behaved rider on a well-lit bike with high-viz etc in front of a well-driven Volvo would be a lot safer than a peleton-dwelling, Yorkshire-Dale type cyclist weaving all over the road with his 20 chums frustrating (probably deliberately) the angry Hermes Transit driver behind them for mile after mile between (as an example) Airton and Settle - which anyone can see on any given Sat/Sun between March and November.yellowjack said:
Simple enough? Clear? Comprende, savvy, understand, do you hear?
Unnecessary... OpulentBob said:
Do not agree with that at all. A single competent well-behaved rider on a well-lit bike with high-viz etc in front of a well-driven Volvo would be a lot safer than a peleton-dwelling, Yorkshire-Dale type cyclist weaving all over the road with his 20 chums frustrating (probably deliberately) the angry Hermes Transit driver behind them for mile after mile between (as an example) Airton and Settle - which anyone can see on any given Sat/Sun between March and November.
So thats what happened here?
Killboy said:
OpulentBob said:
Do not agree with that at all. A single competent well-behaved rider on a well-lit bike with high-viz etc in front of a well-driven Volvo would be a lot safer than a peleton-dwelling, Yorkshire-Dale type cyclist weaving all over the road with his 20 chums frustrating (probably deliberately) the angry Hermes Transit driver behind them for mile after mile between (as an example) Airton and Settle - which anyone can see on any given Sat/Sun between March and November.
So thats what happened here?This is the thread that keeps on giving, never heard such a lot of window licking rubbish, I ride a bike and drive a <daily Mail> high powered </daily mail> car and spent 30 years riding a motorbike.
I've never hit or endangered a pedestrian or fellow road user on any of these modes of transport, but apparently I shouldnt be on the road because some mouth breathers with 300 bhp can't drive well enough to overtake a bicycle safey
yellowjack said:
he 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?
What you and the cycling lobby HAVE grasped is that helmets, if made compulsory, would be detrimental to the number of people who cycle.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?
You don't like that idea and throw whatever you can at this patently obvious safety device.
Herd? Safety in numbers? This is just made up Widebolloks.
False sense of security? More risk taking? I'm pretty sure this was the sort of guff that was put up before seat belts became compulsory.
You don't hear about that so much any more.
Again, I am all for adults making their own minds up. But spare them the crap.
swisstoni said:
What you and the cycling lobby HAVE grasped is that helmets, if made compulsory, would be detrimental to the number of people who cycle.
You don't like that idea and throw whatever you can at this patently obvious safety device.
Herd? Safety in numbers? This is just made up Widebolloks.
False sense of security? More risk taking? I'm pretty sure this was the sort of guff that was put up before seat belts became compulsory.
You don't hear about that so much any more.
Again, I am all for adults making their own minds up. But spare them the crap.
House!!! You don't like that idea and throw whatever you can at this patently obvious safety device.
Herd? Safety in numbers? This is just made up Widebolloks.
False sense of security? More risk taking? I'm pretty sure this was the sort of guff that was put up before seat belts became compulsory.
You don't hear about that so much any more.
Again, I am all for adults making their own minds up. But spare them the crap.
Kerching! We've got it.
The way these threads go, every time.
The last lengthy one I was involved in, all the evidence was dismissed as "Internet evidence".
This time it's "made up Wideb
ks" But Swisstoni, surely you realise that this this just leaves so many more questions?
I mean, what made up crap is stopping you from wearing a helmet right now, to prevent you from head injury? Are you at home? Is it made up crap that the home is where most accidents happen? Is it made up crap that there are 6,000 deaths in home accidents, which means you don't have to wear a helmet?
Or are you still at work, which is the second highest source of accidents? Come on, they used to say this about seat belts, you know, they don't say it anymore. What made up crap is stopping you from wearing a helmet in the home, at work, or when just walking, where the fatality rate and number is higher than it is for cyclists?
Ooh, so many questions, but now me tea's ready.
Love it.
heebeegeetee said:
swisstoni said:
What you and the cycling lobby HAVE grasped is that helmets, if made compulsory, would be detrimental to the number of people who cycle.
You don't like that idea and throw whatever you can at this patently obvious safety device.
Herd? Safety in numbers? This is just made up Widebolloks.
False sense of security? More risk taking? I'm pretty sure this was the sort of guff that was put up before seat belts became compulsory.
You don't hear about that so much any more.
Again, I am all for adults making their own minds up. But spare them the crap.
House!!! You don't like that idea and throw whatever you can at this patently obvious safety device.
Herd? Safety in numbers? This is just made up Widebolloks.
False sense of security? More risk taking? I'm pretty sure this was the sort of guff that was put up before seat belts became compulsory.
You don't hear about that so much any more.
Again, I am all for adults making their own minds up. But spare them the crap.
Kerching! We've got it.
The way these threads go, every time.
The last lengthy one I was involved in, all the evidence was dismissed as "Internet evidence".
This time it's "made up Wideb
ks" But Swisstoni, surely you realise that this this just leaves so many more questions?
I mean, what made up crap is stopping you from wearing a helmet right now, to prevent you from head injury? Are you at home? Is it made up crap that the home is where most accidents happen? Is it made up crap that there are 6,000 deaths in home accidents, which means you don't have to wear a helmet?
Or are you still at work, which is the second highest source of accidents? Come on, they used to say this about seat belts, you know, they don't say it anymore. What made up crap is stopping you from wearing a helmet in the home, at work, or when just walking, where the fatality rate and number is higher than it is for cyclists?
Ooh, so many questions, but now me tea's ready.
Love it.
Graveworm said:
Mave said:
Graveworm said:
This is despite even ROSPA data showing the vast majority of KSI accidents involving cyclists, are not the fault of motorists[/footnote]
Have you got a link to that data? The DTI report I've seen suggests that in collisions between cars and cyclists, it is more likely to be the fault of the motorists than the cyclist, especially if you exclude children from the data.[footnote]
heebeegeetee said:
swisstoni said:
What you and the cycling lobby HAVE grasped is that helmets, if made compulsory, would be detrimental to the number of people who cycle.
You don't like that idea and throw whatever you can at this patently obvious safety device.
Herd? Safety in numbers? This is just made up Widebolloks.
False sense of security? More risk taking? I'm pretty sure this was the sort of guff that was put up before seat belts became compulsory.
You don't hear about that so much any more.
Again, I am all for adults making their own minds up. But spare them the crap.
House!!! You don't like that idea and throw whatever you can at this patently obvious safety device.
Herd? Safety in numbers? This is just made up Widebolloks.
False sense of security? More risk taking? I'm pretty sure this was the sort of guff that was put up before seat belts became compulsory.
You don't hear about that so much any more.
Again, I am all for adults making their own minds up. But spare them the crap.
Kerching! We've got it.
The way these threads go, every time.
The last lengthy one I was involved in, all the evidence was dismissed as "Internet evidence".
This time it's "made up Wideb
ks" But Swisstoni, surely you realise that this this just leaves so many more questions?
I mean, what made up crap is stopping you from wearing a helmet right now, to prevent you from head injury? Are you at home? Is it made up crap that the home is where most accidents happen? Is it made up crap that there are 6,000 deaths in home accidents, which means you don't have to wear a helmet?
Or are you still at work, which is the second highest source of accidents? Come on, they used to say this about seat belts, you know, they don't say it anymore. What made up crap is stopping you from wearing a helmet in the home, at work, or when just walking, where the fatality rate and number is higher than it is for cyclists?
Ooh, so many questions, but now me tea's ready.
Love it.
You are only ever going to get much density of cyclists in the middle of cities and student towns in this country.
Everywhere else, cyclists are strung out miles apart to non-existent, especially outside commuting hours.
So how this herd is ever going to be large enough across the country to be a constant reminder to other road users that they are about is hard to imagine.
Even if there were cyclists every 10 yards everywhere, they STILL may as well wear a helmet in case they fall off and hit their f
kin heads. 
I do smile at drivers campaigning for greater legislation on the roads, don’t worry, when the idiots in government have run out of snowflake ideas for cyclists you’ll be at the top of their list.
People are just stty to one another, that and so many thicko individuals getting bent out of shape over nothing.
People are just s
tty to one another, that and so many thicko individuals getting bent out of shape over nothing. swisstoni said:
Ok, this safety in numbers and Herd thing.
You are only ever going to get much density of cyclists in the middle of cities and student towns in this country.
Everywhere else, cyclists are strung out miles apart to non-existent, especially outside commuting hours.
So how this herd is ever going to be large enough across the country to be a constant reminder to other road users that they are about is hard to imagine.
Even if there were cyclists every 10 yards everywhere, they STILL may as well wear a helmet in case they fall off and hit their fkin heads.
Most cyclists in Holland don't wear helmets.You are only ever going to get much density of cyclists in the middle of cities and student towns in this country.
Everywhere else, cyclists are strung out miles apart to non-existent, especially outside commuting hours.
So how this herd is ever going to be large enough across the country to be a constant reminder to other road users that they are about is hard to imagine.
Even if there were cyclists every 10 yards everywhere, they STILL may as well wear a helmet in case they fall off and hit their f
kin heads. Don't equate your personal lack of skill and coordination with that of normal people.
swisstoni said:
Ok, this safety in numbers and Herd thing.
You are only ever going to get much density of cyclists in the middle of cities and student towns in this country.
Everywhere else, cyclists are strung out miles apart to non-existent, especially outside commuting hours.
So how this herd is ever going to be large enough across the country to be a constant reminder to other road users that they are about is hard to imagine.
Even if there were cyclists every 10 yards everywhere, they STILL may as well wear a helmet in case they fall off and hit their fkin heads.
Well that's ok, everyone has got it wrong or it's all made up It's a conspiracy. You are only ever going to get much density of cyclists in the middle of cities and student towns in this country.
Everywhere else, cyclists are strung out miles apart to non-existent, especially outside commuting hours.
So how this herd is ever going to be large enough across the country to be a constant reminder to other road users that they are about is hard to imagine.
Even if there were cyclists every 10 yards everywhere, they STILL may as well wear a helmet in case they fall off and hit their f
kin heads. Any other conspiracy's going on in your life or are people only colluding over cycle helmets?
Mave said:
So the ROSPA data doesn't show that the vast majority of KSI accidents involving cyclists, are not the fault of motorists. To come to that conclusion from the data presented, you'd need to assume that in the majority of incidents where a cyclist is killed or seriously injured, there is no vehicle involved (your conjecture which I've put in bold) - that assumption is not in the ROSPA report, and I don't think it is realistic. Anecdotally, of all the cycling incidents involving friends, relatives or colleagues over the years, I can only think of 1 where there was none else involved; and only 2 where the police were involved.
This all seems a bit like saying that, in single motorised-vehicle accidents, where no cyclist is present, the motorist is at fault in the majority of cases.Mave said:
So the ROSPA data doesn't show that the vast majority of KSI accidents involving cyclists, are not the fault of motorists. To come to that conclusion from the data presented, you'd need to assume that in the majority of incidents where a cyclist is killed or seriously injured, there is no vehicle involved (your conjecture which I've put in bold) - that assumption is not in the ROSPA report, and I don't think it is realistic. Anecdotally, of all the cycling incidents involving friends, relatives or colleagues over the years, I can only think of 1 where there was none else involved; and only 2 where the police were involved.
I am happy with my logic and it shows what I think. Are you saying your friends relatives or colleagues were involved in KSIs with a motor vehicle on a road and there was no police involvement? Do you know the level of injury for serious? If it happened on the road involving a motor vehicle and they were killed or seriously inured then it would almost certainly involve the police. It is a legal requirement to start with and.a 999 call would trigger it as well. Very very few KSIs won't have that. But in any event forgetting all that - we know that whilst it only includes on road data (Am I also unsafe to assume that off road accidents won't involve motorists) that were reported to police. 16% didn't involve a motor vehicle of the remaining 84% its 53% motorists fault and 47% cyclist. So even if my logic is completely flawed we still have the majority (60%) the fault of the cyclist.
Graveworm said:
Mave said:
So the ROSPA data doesn't show that the vast majority of KSI accidents involving cyclists, are not the fault of motorists. To come to that conclusion from the data presented, you'd need to assume that in the majority of incidents where a cyclist is killed or seriously injured, there is no vehicle involved (your conjecture which I've put in bold) - that assumption is not in the ROSPA report, and I don't think it is realistic. Anecdotally, of all the cycling incidents involving friends, relatives or colleagues over the years, I can only think of 1 where there was none else involved; and only 2 where the police were involved.
I am happy with my logic and it shows what I think. Are you saying your friends relatives or colleagues were involved in KSIs with a motor vehicle on a road and there was no police involvement? Do you know the level of injury for serious? If it happened on the road involving a motor vehicle and they were killed or seriously inured then it would almost certainly involve the police. It is a legal requirement to start with and.a 999 call would trigger it as well. Very very few KSIs won't have that. Graveworm said:
But in any event forgetting all that - we know that whilst it only includes on road data (Am I also unsafe to assume that off road accidents won't involve motorists)
Yes, and as we're talking about the Highway Code, I don't think off road incidents are relevantGraveworm said:
that were reported to police. 16% didn't involve a motor vehicle of the remaining 84% its 53% motorists fault and 47% cyclist. So even if my logic is completely flawed we still have the majority (60%) the fault of the cyclist.
That's not what the data says. The 53% and 47% numbers are referring to "failing to look properly", not all incidents. But even if that number were consistent across all accident types, 60% is not a "vast majority" and I suspect, based on the PPR445 data, it is biased by younger cyclists.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff