Safe Speed Forums

The point is that road racing cyclist are in a very dangerous environment which does include mixed traffic - two riders in this years TdF were hit by cars - but that few of them wear helmets and few of them suffer head injuries.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Those statistics are a perfect example of bias on selection. They are selecting cyclists who had accidents which were severe enough to need hospital treatment. It does not, cannot, quantify how many cyclists - helmet wearing or not - have accidents which do them no harm. Those statistics are not inconsistent with the theory that cyclists wearing helmets are more likely to have accidents than those who do not.


13.5% seems a sufficiently high figure to be concerned about, since head injuries are more likely to be life threatening than limb injuries.


True but hardly germane to this discussion.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

To be fair, it does come across as BOS to me too. But is it BOS to use my analogy or comparison with the TdF as well I wonder?

I don’t think it is because an accident is still an accident whether you hit, or get hit, by a van or lamppost in the city or hit a tree in the countryside. I’m trying to focus on how accidents relate to fatal head injuries rather than where they occur and the TdF is the best example I could think of where I have seen the very worst. I think I read somewhere that in big cities the most common fatality is when cyclist’s comes up the inside of a HGV on the left and get squashed when the vehicle turns left.

Now it may be that they died from a head injury but I think your head is going to get crushed with or without a helmet under those circumstances anyway. So if these incidents are being included in the statistics of cyclists being killed without a helmet, (when they would have been equally killed with one), that doesn’t strike me as a fair argument for wearing them. (As someone who is aware of RTTM and BOS I don’t want to shoot myself in the foot with this argument).

This is why I mentioned the TdF. I remember that terrible accident years ago when there were about two dozen racing for the line going full pelt and one of them clipped a barrier. It was carnage and the sight of it made me jump out of my sofa with my head in my hands! It was such a sad end of a great stage. There was blood everywhere and broken collar bones but, again, where were the fatal head injuries? There wasn’t.

I’m with Ernest in that I tend to use one but I don’t want it law. I’d just like some true perspective on the matter before it is made law instead of a knee-jerk reaction just 'to be seen to be doing something' on spurious grounds or skewed statistics.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/outrage-at-ruling-on-helmets-for-cyclists-1645736.html

I don't see why they are implying, that cyclists who don't wear helmets are somehow prone to more accidents? It will be the cyclist's own fault if he gets hurt, as if somehow he caused the accident. Maybe the sun was glistening onto his bald head and shined into the eyes of the driver behind him?

_________________
"Just got back from a pleasure trip: I took my mother-in-law to the airport."
Henny Youngman

Obviously no such doubt exists in those who voluntarily choose to wear a helmet? Bias on selection perhaps - but in the absence of any large scale, long term study, the best position could be argued to be that in the absence of evidence that helmets CAUSE injury, then there is nothing lost by forcing riders to use them.

THIS is why it is important not to muddy the waters with silly or extravagant claims... such as people being put off by them becoming compulsory, or because it gives the impression that cycling is somehow dangerous!

It is now possible to buy a helmet for less than £10 and even a Giro can be purchased for less than £30, so expense is not a big issue.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

The UCI (cyclings governing body) made helmet use compulsory for all races in 2003 (they did try in 1991 but the riders protested and a strike was called). The 2003 rules allowed for discarding the helmets during final climbs of at least 5 kilometres in length, subsequent revisions made helmet use mandatory at all times. http://oldsite.uci.ch/english/news/news_2002/20030502i.pdf This followed the death of Andrei Kivilev, who was a leading rider in the Paris-Nice race that year when he died. The use of crash helmets in professional cycling had been on the increase since the mid 90's.

Fabio Casartelli died after a crash at 55mph in 1995 on the TdF. There was a debate whether a crash helmet, of the time, would have saved him. He is the only rider to have died following a crash on the TdF that I can find. I have not looked for deaths from head injuries in other races.

Djamolidine Abdoujaparov had one of the most spectacular crashes I can recall on any TdF on the final stage in 1991. He survived but looked very out of it for quite a time. IIRC he was wearing a crash hat of a kind used by track cyclists and most road race sprinters of the era. Not a modern styrofoam type. I think this is the one BT was talking about.

I am not for compulsion where cycling helmets are concerned. However, I am also tired of the same faux arguments being used to justify non compulsion.

There is no evidence: Didn't stop the compulsion with motorcycle helmets in the 60's. Also there is no evidence to say they increase the rate of head injuries, that I can find.
People will stop riding: Australia's cycling numbers are now about the same as before compulsion. Read that a while ago and can not find the page atm.
They cause neck injuries, break necks: This was a favourite of the anti motorcylce helmet law activists in the states and was being used by some cycling groups. They were proved wrong by the "Hurt" report for motorcycling. The same will probably happen in cycling.
You might not have hit your head if you were not wearing one: One of those never know ones. Every crash is unique. The out comes will be different for each rider/crash scenario.
They are hot/heavy/awkward to carry: Modern helmets have improved on the first 2 significantly since the early 90's. Awkward to carry! No PTW rider can use that as an excuse so what's the difference. Though most cycling helmets weigh significantly less than a motorcycle helmet. Cycling helmet most less than 300 grams, Motorcycle helmet full face more than 1500 grams. Some open face helmets can weigh less but only at the upper end of the price range.


Using Mr Geffens logic if there were no cyclists they would still have 70% of the head injuries. Seriously. A 10% drop is not significant?

Motorcylcle and bicycle crash helmets are about reducing potential brain injury severity. As I have said before, If the current cycling designs are not doing that well enough improve/change the design.

Again I am not for compulsion where cycling helmets are concerned. However I see compulsion as inevitable

BTW my choice is to wear one. After a low side at about 30mph on a motorcycle where my helmet hit the road (it was only after examination of the helmet the following day that I found out this, the crash was at night) and I did not feel it happen or suffer any ill effects (I retired the helmet that same day). I know that on a cycle, that can achieve these speeds, it would be ill advised not to wear one IMO.

So, if a car mounts the pavement and crushes your foot you are at fault for not wearing steel toe-capped boots? Oh no: the received wisdom, on these forums, is that you are at fault for standing near the edge of the pavement.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Cyclists, motorcyclists, horse riders, car occupants and pedestrians all suffer head injuries in road accidents. None of the proponents of compulsion has yet given me a satisfactory explanation of why they think that helmets should be compulsory for the first two groups but not the other three. Would yo like to be the first to do so? No, I thought not.

In over sixty years as a road user I have suffered only one head injury and that as a pedestrian. So my conclusion, my urgent advice, is that all pedestrians should wear helmets.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Did you fail to register the bits in bold? Should I have made the letters bigger?

"I am not for compulsion where cycling helmets are concerned."


In 47 years as a road user I have not. On the one occasion I may have (my helmeted head connected with the road) I was wearing a compulsory crash helmet. Would my head not have hit if I was not wearing it? I don't know.

Many of the four other groups you name choose to wear helmets, or in the case of certain pedestrians are made to wear them due to physical or neurological impairment, dependant on the activity they are doing. That is how it should be. You should assess the risks and make your choice.

My choice is to wear a cycling helmet. This is due to the fact that I can and have attained speeds in excess of 40mph on my commuting route both ways. I live on the North Downs and no matter which way I go I am riding up a fairly steep hill or down one. If I lived in Holland I possibly may not.

And that says it all to me Big Boxers and that is what it is about, or should be.

Assuming we can get real data on head injuries leading to a fatality which could have been prevented by wearing a helmet, (which I believe we neither can nor have), and let's say it's as bad as 1 in 10,000, (which I don’t believe it is). If you legislate for anything and everything which has a fatality rate of 1 in 10,000 or worse then you suddenly include a whole myriad of other things from all walks of life which we need to be protected against.

I don't know what these might be but, off the top of my head, just from the aftermath of what I know and see through my job you can rule out the use of ladders anymore, unless you hire a professional at ££££'s using his H&S harnesses and man 'footing' the bottom.

I know wearing a helmet does help which is why I wear one, like most here it seems. But it simply gets ridiculous if you take it to the n'th degree and this is how I see it; OTT legislation through the back door without forethought for the consequences and restrictions - pandering to the miniscule minority event where it sadly goes wrong. Before you know it, a few people get burned on bonfire day so we all have to wear fire-proof dungarees from now on.

Will I be able to cycle along my canal path without a helmet on a stinking hot day, just wearing my shorts? In time will I have to pass a swimming test to use the canals just in case I fall in the drink? Well, there are no barriers and I know of cases by me where they have fished dead men out of them, (albeit they were drunk). How about a breath test along canals next? I'm not being factitious; it is the ‘slippery slope' and this is where I honestly see it going. Introduce measures slowly and no-one notices or maybe we grumble a bit but still do nothing. Then 10 or 20 years down the line you think "hang on a minute! I didn't subscribe to all this crap!"

We are like the frog or toad advert I remember from years ago. Put one in hot water and it immediately jumps out; put it in cool water and bring it to the boil and it will sit there until it dies...

Ridip!

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

My point exactly. They are basing God knows what decisions on God knows what data they've collected and making it sound as if it's the person who was not wearing the protective gear that is at fault for his or her own injuries. Which leads to this point:



And yes, I agree completely. All people in general should wear helmets, knee and elbow pads, a parachute, stay away from the edge of the pavement and beware of any falling material (if something hits you from the sky, wouldn't it be your fault for not wearing a helmet on that day?).

_________________
"Just got back from a pleasure trip: I took my mother-in-law to the airport."
Henny Youngman

If there was a "Thanks for useful post" facility I'd be dishing a few out on this thread.

Surely there must be some middle ground; a common sense approach to these matters?

Ah, who am I kidding..

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Another convert surfaced in the news this weekend...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-14421721


When he says that they work, I would add the proviso "in some circumstances".

Did I say that mine is a convenient place to mount a light that shines whatever I look towards?

And of course I am firmly against compulsion!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Me too

Until the battery for my £240 Lupine snuffed it and it's got a silly connector so you have to buy their exact one at a rip-off price. So I took it off and now I just have a weird plastic thing stuck on the top to make me look even sillier. I can probably buy one for a fraction of that price these days which is lighter, longer lasting and a whiter LED type of light.

It's actually one of the more attractive helmets on the market; or should I say least ugly..




I bought one from Wilkinsons the once for £6 which made me look like a 6' 2" giant matchstick. I should take a picture of me wearing it so you can all have a laff at my expense..

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Pretty cool helmet. I'd say more attractive rather than less ugly.

_________________
"Just got back from a pleasure trip: I took my mother-in-law to the airport."
Henny Youngman

A Bell big head helmet? I have one. Relatively cheap in comparison to my giro venteux i had but better fit and lighter.

But you don't need a helmet to mount a head lamp. My Petzl mounts on an elastic band round the head. And is as uncomfortable as a helmet.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

No need to go to the trouble of a picture Tone - we'll all just have a good laff at the thought!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

But I don't have a Petzl, I have a CatEye 3x LED with magnetic switch - it has a self locking rubber strap mount which will wrap around the handlebars - or the bracing across the helmet.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Of course much of this debate seems to miss the point.

The real issue (IE the reason WHY this has become an issue) is as a result of the unfortunate trend in recent years of handing down punishments based on the CONSEQUENCES of peoples errors rather than on the basis of their actual culpability!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"