Safe Speed Forums

Six cyclists suffer head injuries each month in Lothians



NO LESSON LEARNED: Michael Meaney with his mum Angela


« Previous « PreviousNext » Next »
View GalleryBy IAN SWANSON
MORE than six cyclists a month need hospital treatment for head injuries as a result of road accidents in the Lothians.

Official figures show 165 cyclists ended up at hospital after accidents in 2006/07, with 77 of them suffering head injuries.

The casualties included 76 children, 42 of whom had head injuries.

The statistics show Lothians roads were the most dangerous in Scotland for cyclists, and the figures today prompted calls by cycling campaigners for more cycle paths and for cycle training to be incorporated into the school curriculum.

Ian Maxwell, spokesman for Edinburgh-based cycle campaign group Spokes, said today that the accident statistics were worrying

He said: "We would like to see more segregated cycle lanes so those who are not so confident riding in traffic will be given greater confidence when cycling from A to B.

"We would like to see cycle training being a core part of the curriculum, not just an add-on. That is the only way we are going to get the take-up that will almost certainly reduce the injury level among children and adults in the future."

Mr Maxwell acknowledged the Capital had provided some cycleways but said it could do a lot better.

"We are seeing quite a significant increase in cycling despite some of the gaps, but if we had more provision we would see more cyclists on the road," he said.

He said a growth in the number of cyclists would also help reduce accidents and injuries.

"Experience elsewhere is that as the number of cyclists grows the proportion of accidents drops. If there are more people on bikes, other road-users get more accustomed to them."

But Mr Maxwell said most cycling campaigners were opposed to making the wearing of helmets compulsory.

He said other countries which had introduced a law on helmets had seen a drop in cycling, with a consequent loss of the health benefits it brought.

He said: "It's one more factor that would stop people jumping on a bike – and it would be very difficult to enforce.

"If you are cycling on a busy main road among fast-moving traffic, a helmet is very desirable, but if you're off-road on a cycle path through pleasant surroundings, it is less so. Enforcement would have to cover both situations."

The city council said cycling promotion was an important feature in its transport agenda.

A spokeswoman said: "The number of cycle lanes is increasing and we are well on our way to meeting our target of creating a cycling network across the city."

She said cyclists could now use bus lanes on main roads and new off-road cycle paths recently opened from Ratho Station towards the city centre, between Gilmerton and Dalkeith and from Newcraighall station to the Queen Margaret University campus.

She added: "The active schools programme promotes safe and fun bike use to pupils through schemes such as Ready Steady Bike. By the end of the current academic year, 1600 P6 pupils will have received the Scottish cycle training scheme in Edinburgh."

Michael's still taking risks
DESPITE being dragged under a bus for 60 feet and having his skin torn off, 14-year-old Michael Meaney still refuses to wear a helmet when he rides his bike.

The Northfield Drive teen slipped under the seven-ton vehicle on Duddingston Road, but 18 months and several skin grafts later, his mum Angela still can't get him to wear a helmet.

She said: "I've tried taking his bike away but he just rides someone else's.

"I even tried to get him to campaign around schools to show other children the extent of his injuries, but he was having none of it."

Angela added: "He doesn't remember a thing about the accident, which is maybe why he doesn't worry about it."

http://www.bikehelmetsnow.org/2008/04/s ... usade.html

Don't know about wuzzle or weepj, but I for one fully support the work of the i-SUC campaign:

http://www.bikehelmetsnow.org/2008/04/s ... usade.html

a rather strained attempt at irony ?

But I think I look in my gear

I cannot see the arguement for not wearing a lid after all should I come off anything which softens the impact between my head and a hard surface has got to be worthwhile. Is it vanity? or is there a logical arguement to be had? if so perhaps someone can enlighten me.

I have long lost count of how many cyclists I have seen in hospitals, hospices and nursing homes who simply would not be there if they had worn a helmet!.

To see fit healthy people cut down in the prime of their life with no hope of rehabilitation is absolutely soul destroying for them, their family and me

Nuff said...

Purely playing Devils Advocate here, you cannot be sure they would be there if they had worn a helmet.

It's the use of these emotional, anecdotal arguments that clouds these kind of discussions. In exactly the same way as the "if Mr X had been driving at 30mph instead of 35mph he wouldn't have hit and killed little Johnny". There's far more to these things than what knee jerk instincts suggest. Hence why there is so much of a debate surrounding it.

When a cyclist's head comes into contact with a hard object, the brain bounces around inside the skull - the results of which vary. I only get to see the most extreme casualties.

So if you surround the head with an impact-absorbing material, like polystyrene, this softens the blow thereby reducing the impact and limits any contusion to the head or brain.

If anyone doesn't believe me try head-butting a wall with and without a helmet. (Not trying to be factitious, honestly).

Absolutely Peyote and I hope I'm not guilty of that.

Yep, this is how understand some of the effects of an impact on the head, unfortunately the debate as I understand it seems to be that the energy absorbed by the helmet is so small as to be negligable in many RTIs. I've heard reports from several folk in the medical profession and there's just as much disagreement between professional medics as there is the generally cycling population!



Sorry I didn't mean to pick on you!

I guess there is something to be said for professionals who only see the most extreme examples, i.e. if a Physician (to pluck an example out of the air) only sees the cadavers of unhelmeted cyclists then I would suggest that their opinion could be slightly biased.

Though having read many of your (overwhelmingly objective) posts on here I'm quite sure you're aware of any potential bias!

I personally wear one out of an informed choice and that’s where I am coming from.

Less legislation and more common sense.

Exactly - we wear lids by informed choice

We are by law required to wear a helmet to ride a speed limited 50cc moped. A bicycle can, with very little effort, exceed the speed a moped is restricted to (down hill) so what is the difference.

teh misfortune to have an argument with a car on Saturday

An oncoming driver didn't see me and turned right across the road in front of me (adding weight to the lette the other week that a driver will hit you whether wearing hi-viz or not..

I was wearing a bright yellow Endura Air Defence jacket...

I had nowhere to go but straight into the side of her car., at speed

All I can say is I was grateful for my cycling kit as I bounced off the side of her ca and my bike went skidding down the road. My jacket stopped the road burn. - my long fingered gloves shredded - but my knuckles didn''t - an my helmet took the impact as the side of my head hit the road. The helmet split, so I shudder to think what would have happened if I hadn't been wearing one

I agree that helmets won't be your saviour in every case, but I.m now convinced they do increase a rider's chances in the event of a collision. So, other than feeling I've been hit by a train and having some nasty bruising down my left shoulder and side, I think I got off lightly. I hope my bike is not too long in the repair shop. At least the driver was insured!

Wise words Tone and MM, I think the key thing is the informed choice bit, trouble is all to often it is the folk who make the legislation that don't have an informed opinion!

Yep, unfortunately a bicycle helmet and a motorbike/moped helmet offer two significantly different amounts of protection. I'm not convinced a bicycle helmet would provide any benefit whatsoever in an impact at 30mph, I'm almost certain a motorbike helmet would.

Personally I'm not too fussed about wearing a helmet, I find it can protect against flies, rain, low branches as well as providing some protection against abrasions, scratches and the like if I do stack it. I'm under no illusions about the lack of protection it would afford in a RTI though, and this is where I have the big issue with the current "public" view of cycle helmets. They're great for low speed impacts against fixed objects, but the energies involved on the roads are far higher than any of the current batch of helmets are produced for, and with material technology at the stage it is currently at, I don't think a useful, road cycle helmet is going to be available for a long time yet.

I'm not convinced a bicycle helmet would provide any benefit whatsoever in an impact at 30mph, I'm almost certain a motorbike helmet would.