Dad stops kid from crashing bike into parked car (+ link to video)

Judge dreadful wrote:

SteveAustin wrote:

Amazing how many people, on this site, who ride bikes are so anti helmet. Considering a helmet could be the difference between consuming food through a tube for the rest of my life, i find it hard to be as against them as others.

any kids in my care will wear a helmet, as i dont want to have to explain why to their parents why they weren't, not sure petty arguments can be used in real life to argue away life changing injuries, that could have been prevented by something as simple as wearing a helmet.

 

The issue is rarely about the actual lid, or lack thereof, it’s a ‘compulsion’ issue usually. I think it’s incredibly childish. “I don’t care if I smash my head in, I don’t have to wear a lid, so I’m not going to, and anyone who says otherwise is a big smelly poo head”. It’s a very sad attitude for an adult to have.

it would be sad if any adult had that attitude. But they don't, and it's sad that you have constructed a childish strawman in place of any actual thought-through contribution. 

There are two issues. Do helmets do what their proponents claim? Should they be compulsory?

All the evidence that I've read suggests that the benefits are hugely oversold, and the disadvantages hugely understated. In any case, at best the answer to the first question is that the jury is still out.

This doesn't prevent any individual from wearing one if they want to - they're adults and can make up their own minds. It would be nice if you could treat people who decided not to wear one with the same courtesy.

Even if the answer was a clear and unequivocal 'yes', it does not follow that they should be compulsory. That argument relies on a whole other set of assumptions, criteria, value judgements and evidence, none of which are childish. These include questions of personal choice, population-scale impact on healthcare costs and health itself, and balance of risk compared to other activities.

These are complex questions. If all you have to offer is 'smelly poo head' perhaps your own head is in the wrong place.

CygnusX1 wrote:

Hey, Helmut ... is your brother Schubert still around?

This thread was more interesting when Schu D. Bate was here

I don't see him much anymore.

He married a girl called Discbrake and our relationship deteriorated in predictably rapid fashion

Helmut D. Bate wrote:

Someone call?

Yeah, we just wanted to know if when you were a child you were called Master Bate?

KendalRed wrote:

Helmut D. Bate wrote:

Someone call?

Yeah, we just wanted to know if when you were a child you were called Master Bate?

 

Oh in certain delicate scenarios I still am...

... by your Mum.

Rich_cb wrote:

What is the source for your graph? I have very different (referenced) data to that.

Sorry you are right, I was looking at all traffic acidents, not cycling specific ones. (I'm not afraid of admitting when I am wrong)

Rich_cb wrote:

The balance of evidence suggests that bright clothing and lighting help to reduce accidents

But the graph you showed with the correct data of accidents showed the trend of accidents going up, how can that be if bright clothing and lighting help to reduce them?

Rich_cb wrote:

I've said it can be evidence of causation but never said that it proved it.

Your graphs showing the changes in helmet wearing rate on UK major built-up roads cannot be compared with your graph of "Reported Fatalities Cycling UK" which is represented as Fatalities per billion KM travelled. The reasons for this include (but are not limited to:

• You don't know how many of the fatalities happened on the "major built up roads"
• You don't know how many of the fatalities were due to head related injuries
• You don't know how many of those billions of miles travelled were on "major built up roads"
• You don't know if the number of cyclists have increased, just the number of miles travelled or a mixture of the two

Rich_cb wrote:

Personally I believe that, in certain specific circumstances, a helmet will protect its wearer from injury. I can't prove that though.

I believe that too, in fact I would say that the majority of people on this forum would agree that a helmet can protect it's wearer from injuries in certain specific circumstances. The problem arises in the debate around what those circumstances are and if they translate to the need for them on the road.

The main issue with all your posts is that you are not proving anything although you believe that you are. There are people on this forum sitting on both sides of the helmet/no helmet debate that are telling you this so it is not just biais, so just accept it.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

Rich's lack of understanding on basic statistical principles is quite funny but BTBS is equally as deluded: "Disclaimer, I am anti helmet, as a whole to society they cause misery, exclusion, unjust/unlawful action by government, remove freedoms, increase danger and always lower the responsibility of those posing the harm without any increase in safety nor health. the kids in my care never wear helmets, we ride on the roads, in parks trails etc." If you're talking compulsory use then some of your arguments are correct. However, suggesting they increase danger and have no increase in safety is mind blowingly stupid!

 

If through wearing helmets you push the onus of safety on to the vulnerable my safety goes down.

if you push the onus of safety on to the vulnerable the safety of EVERYONE goes down, this includes motorists too...

But, blame is pushed onto victims to the point of no compensation or reduced ompensation in courts and governement not protecting the vulnerable but telling them to wear 'safety' aids as the primary method of protection which is proven to fail at all quarters and the police instead of looking at the primary cause of incidents they look at how the vulnerable haven't protected themselves and thus don't even prosecute/let off those doing the harm, again increasing the safety of the vulnerable.

 

Helmets put off people from cycling, again a known, reduce the numbers cycling, you reduce the overall safety. 

 

it isn't rocket science and you calling it mindblowingly stupid makes you the stupid one for ignoring which is in plain sight and we see the result of how helmets have not made it safer at all, so unsafe are helmets that not just individually are they more detrimental they are so unsafe due to the weakness of the helmet itself and the (to some) unexpected outcomes

 

Again, this is shown in several sports as I mentioned, not just cycling and you again deny that cycling is less safe with helmet wearing and that helmet wearing does not pose a negative effect on the safety of everyone!

Are we not starting to stray into compulsary wearing territory and the victim blaming is really extending to you.

Of course the onus shouldn't be on the vulnerable road user, if a car is driven terribly and hits them then what they're wqearing shouldn't matter a jot. This is about education, enforcement and punishment and should have nothing to do with attire. On the other hand, if hit I'd rather be wearing a lid than not! Any example you give (so long as compulsary doesn't come into it) are external factors and behaviours, if everyone behaved as they should do you would be better with a helmet than not.

To say they've not made it safer at all is MBS (my new acronym) again, I have experienced how it made it safer for me as one prevented serious damage when I had a crash, there we are safer for 1. You can argue all you like that I became a maverick due to wearing a lid, not true, I just messed up.

As for defects, again even a lid that isn't quite as strong as anticipated is likely to be better than none. Lets both sit in a chair and drop slabs of concrete on our head and compare my lid to your non lid, hmm MBS!

Strangely, I agree with many of your points in terms of victim blaming and potential to put people off. You may have seen this by my reactions to headmasters thinking they can impart the laws upon school children or commenting when Police have mentioned riders clothing or riding single file. I am all for free choice and understanding of risk reward, I too agree with helmet salesman Mr Boardman in that it's a long way down the list of issues that need resolving. But when a helmet costs peanuts and can save your life, you'd have to be pretty thick skulled to not consider one!

ClubSmed wrote:

But the graph you showed with the correct data of accidents showed the trend of accidents going up, how can that be if bright clothing and lighting help to reduce them?

Your graphs showing the changes in helmet wearing rate on UK major built-up roads cannot be compared with your graph of "Reported Fatalities Cycling UK" which is represented as Fatalities per billion KM travelled. The reasons for this include (but are not limited to:

• You don't know how many of the fatalities happened on the "major built up roads"
• You don't know how many of the fatalities were due to head related injuries
• You don't know how many of those billions of miles travelled were on "major built up roads"
• You don't know if the number of cyclists have increased, just the number of miles travelled or a mixture of the two

As the risk is stated per billion miles it makes no difference if the number of cyclists increase or the average length of journey increases.

You could quantify differently if you wanted, per journey or per hour or in any other way you chose but in order to have consistency you need to stick to the same metric.

Risk per distance is probably the best one IMHO.

The helmet wearing data is available for a lot of different road types, it all shows a similar trend so the point about different road types is essentially invalid.

As for your remark about the lights... Don't expect to be taken seriously if that is your honest response.

Believe it or not road collisions are multifactorial. If one factor improves but others deteriorate then you can still get an increase in collisions. I've linked to some pretty decent studies elsewhere in this thread that provide good evidence for hi-vis/reflectives and lights.

As I've acknowledged throughout the thread the evidence for helmets is not strong but it is strong enough to refute many of the more ridiculous claims put forward by the anti helmet posters.

The graphs were posted on the previous thread in response to such a claim.

Rich_cb wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

But the graph you showed with the correct data of accidents showed the trend of accidents going up, how can that be if bright clothing and lighting help to reduce them?

Your graphs showing the changes in helmet wearing rate on UK major built-up roads cannot be compared with your graph of "Reported Fatalities Cycling UK" which is represented as Fatalities per billion KM travelled. The reasons for this include (but are not limited to:

• You don't know how many of the fatalities happened on the "major built up roads"
• You don't know how many of the fatalities were due to head related injuries
• You don't know how many of those billions of miles travelled were on "major built up roads"
• You don't know if the number of cyclists have increased, just the number of miles travelled or a mixture of the two

As the risk is stated per billion miles it makes no difference if the number of cyclists increase or the average length of journey increases.

Yes it does, because if the same number experienced cyclists begin to cycle further then the risk is the same. If more non experienced cyclists join in to increase the overall distance than the risk could rise due to the increase of inexperienced riders. 

Rich_cb wrote:

You could quantify differently if you wanted, per journey or per hour or in any other way you chose but in order to have consistency you need to stick to the same metric. Risk per distance is probably the best one IMHO.

That is exactly what I have been saying, you do not have the same metric in your two sets of data so they are not comparable!

One shows Changes in helmet wearing rate on UK major built-up roads (represented as a % of cyclists seen during a period) and the other Reported Fatalities Cycling UK (represented as Fatalities per billion KM travelled) which are nowhere near the same metric!

Rich_cb wrote:

The helmet wearing data is available for a lot of different road types, it all shows a similar trend so the point about different road types is essentially invalid.

You have not shown any other road type metric, just the one I mentioned

ClubSmed wrote:

Yes it does, because if the same number experienced cyclists begin to cycle further then the risk is the same. If more non experienced cyclists join in to increase the overall distance than the risk could rise due to the increase of inexperienced riders. 

That is exactly what I have been saying, you do not have the same metric in your two sets of data so they are not comparable!

One shows Changes in helmet wearing rate on UK major built-up roads (represented as a % of cyclists seen during a period) and the other Reported Fatalities Cycling UK (represented as Fatalities per billion KM travelled) which are nowhere near the same metric!

You have not shown any other road type metric, just the one I mentioned

Here are all the helmet wearing stats.

https://trl.co.uk/reports/PPR420

The trend of increasing use is seen across
different road types and most demographics, teenage boys being the main outlier.

If you want to break down all the fatalities by road type you can do so using the STATS19 data here:

https://data.gov.uk/dataset/road-accidents-safety-data/resource/63932dff...

You can't measure risk and presence or absence of a risk factor using the same metric.

What metric exactly are you proposing for measuring cycle helmet use?

What metric are you proposing for measuring cycling fatalities?

In both cases how exactly are you going to measure said metrics?

It seems to me that you're demanding data that doesn't exist in order to avoid discussing the data that does exist.

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

This is awesome...

 

 

Hmm, not sure. I've strong views on the helmet issue and participated in some of the threads in the past. To be honest I find it boring now. I'm only commenting now to see if we can get a record number of comments on this thread.

Rich_cb wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Yes it does, because if the same number experienced cyclists begin to cycle further then the risk is the same. If more non experienced cyclists join in to increase the overall distance than the risk could rise due to the increase of inexperienced riders. 

That is exactly what I have been saying, you do not have the same metric in your two sets of data so they are not comparable!

 

One shows Changes in helmet wearing rate on UK major built-up roads (represented as a % of cyclists seen during a period) and the other Reported Fatalities Cycling UK (represented as Fatalities per billion KM travelled) which are nowhere near the same metric!

You have not shown any other road type metric, just the one I mentioned

 

Here are all the helmet wearing stats. https://trl.co.uk/reports/PPR420 The trend of increasing use is seen across different road types and most demographics, teenage boys being the main outlier. If you want to break down all the fatalities by road type you can do so using the STATS19 data here: https://data.gov.uk/dataset/road-accidents-safety-data/resource/63932dff... You can't measure risk and presence or absence of a risk factor using the same metric. What metric exactly are you proposing for measuring cycle helmet use? What metric are you proposing for measuring cycling fatalities? In both cases how exactly are you going to measure said metrics? It seems to me that you're demanding data that doesn't exist in order to avoid discussing the data that does exist.

I am proposing that if you are using the metrics detailing use of helmets on major built up roads then you need to use the metrics from accidents on those same type of roads for comparison.
Having looked at the data on road accidents between 2012-2016 I can see that cyclists cover around twice as much distance on Urban roads than Rural roads but the number of cyclists killed are roughly the same over this period. So you could draw a conclusion that the data would be greatly skewed if you included these types of roads as you have.

I am not avoiding discussing the data that does exist, it is just if the data needed doesn't exist that is needed that the data that does exist cannot prove anything as it is uncomparable.

alansmurphy wrote:

 

Of course the onus shouldn't be on the vulnerable road user, if a car is driven terribly and hits them then what they're wqearing shouldn't matter a jot. This is about education, enforcement and punishment and should have nothing to do with attire.

But the pushing of helmets (by manufacturers, organising bodies, the general public [both cyclists and not]) has created the situation where there is pressure, culturally (I'm not comparing this with mandated by law) to wear one. Large numbers of cyclists do.

And if that creates the impression of danger, which results in fewer cyclists, then yes: that makes it less safe for all of us, if you believe in 'safety in numbers' (more cyclists = safer cyclists), as I do.

I've kind of 'fallen' into wearing one. All the triathlons I've done (I might have done a couple of sprints BITD which didn't mandate them, but since I've got back into more 'serious' ones you have to have a helmet), and British Cycling events - they mandate them. I think it's only TTs that don't demand them, and I've got so used to wearing one in races I wear one to those too.

And, buying one for tris, I didn't want to just be getting used to it on race day, so I wore it for commuting and training. Then I realised it was OK at keeping your head dry and warm during a winter commute, and it's a handy place to strap a rear light to, which I do believe makes you safer, and before you know it... it's crept up on me: I'm wearing a helmet more often than not.

I've never 'needed' one; never been in a situation where I'm glad I had one or wished I'd worn one. I've never fallen off onto my head, with or without a helmet. I honestly have no clue how much safer or otherwise wearing one makes me, considering all the variables, a collision I haven't had yet, risk compensation, driver behaviour... there's way too much noise to make a rational decision on that.

But I do believe that us all wearing them makes us all  slightly less safe, because it contributes to fewer cyclists, and I feel slightly guilty about just accepting that situation, largely because I just wanted to do triathlons.

And just tilt this perspective slightly. Think of exactly the same situation, but apply it to pedestrians: the creeping use of helmet-wearing, with little-to-no compelling overall argument for their efficacy; walking event organisers demanding you wear a helmet because you might be safer if you slip on your head halfway up Snowdon; people on forums arguing that you're an idiot for not thinking it will make you safer if a roof slate fell on your head or if you slipped and banged your head on a kerb*; court cases regarding pedestrians who'd been killed by dangerous driving actually discussing whether the pedestrian was wearing one or not...

We don't need a compulsion law for it to already be a pretty sick state of affairs, if you ask me.

*about 6 times the number of deaths from cycling result from a fall down steps, in the UK.

alansmurphy wrote:

Agreed Davel, like you it sneaked up on me and I don't always wear one. You can also say that external pressure and the 'normalising' of it may have had an influence. There is potentially a small impact on the getting people into cycling and safety in numbers points and it'd be interesting to research this - I don't believe the Australian law changes are the way to do it as to me that showed a greater emphasis on their lack of care for cyclists to be a reasonable 'test' and 'control'. I would also wonder how many are directly put off returning based on this, I'd imagine many that say they would actually wouldn't.

Fair point, and conclusions drawn from 'safety in numbers' theory often have their critics. Nevertheless, it is A Thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_in_numbers#In_road_traffic_safety

But yes - the wider point is that there are impossible variables to measure at play, so helmet/no helmet regarding safety is essentially an ideological argument. We might as well argue about religion. I can see why you could get a bit evangelical if you had an off that resulted in a split helmet and unscathed head. Not having had that experience, the equation, for me, is still 'Am I safer with a helmet?'... and I genuinely don't know. I don't see how anyone can. The evidence regarding safety is pretty flimsy, which gifts the opposing arguments traction - risk compensation, driver behaviour... am I more likely to take risks on a descent? Are cars more likely to buzz me..? I doubt it, but I don't KNOW.

So the question for me then is about the wider use of helmets, and its potential effects. What I do know is that colleagues remark that they wouldn't cycle to work as they think it's dangerous; I know that surveys report that people are put off because they perceive cycling to be dangerous; I know surveys report that people associate PPE with danger; I know that people who've driven into cyclists have had lawyers who have discussed the victim wearing/not wearing a helmet as some sort of blaming device.

To me, that constitutes a more tangible negative impact to widespread helmet use, and that's the reason I'm largely anti-helmet.

ClubSmed wrote:

I don't think that striving for this negates the need for a helmet. There are always going to be issues that cannot be controlled like black ice, falling trees/branches, animals running out etc.

I also agree that the helmet projects an element of danger that may put any would be cyclists off, but I don't think it creates as much as a barrier as the perceived need for lycra (I also wear lycra on my commute by the way).

So, to me, the risk of the first (I see the risks of having an off in which a helmet would protect me as pretty insignificant) doesn't outweigh the potential damage. But, again, in something that's impossible to measure, it probably comes down to ideology.

I'd sooner we stop apologising for existing alongside cars, and I suppose I see helmets as feeding that, while it isn't encouraged in any other road user (who happen to die in greater numbers).

But yes: I also used to have a section of commute where my head would get beaten up by branches... if I hadn't worn a helmet. It was pretty useful for that.

davel wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

I don't think that striving for this negates the need for a helmet. There are always going to be issues that cannot be controlled like black ice, falling trees/branches, animals running out etc.

I also agree that the helmet projects an element of danger that may put any would be cyclists off, but I don't think it creates as much as a barrier as the perceived need for lycra (I also wear lycra on my commute by the way).

So, to me, the risk of the first (I see the risks of having an off in which a helmet would protect me as pretty insignificant) doesn't outweigh the potential damage. But, again, in something that's impossible to measure, it probably comes down to ideology.

I'd sooner we stop apologising for existing alongside cars, and I suppose I see helmets as feeding that, while it isn't encouraged in any other road user (who happen to die in greater numbers).

But yes: I also used to have a section of commute where my head would get beaten up by branches... if I hadn't worn a helmet. It was pretty useful for that.

I can understand that, we are all shaped by our own experiences. I was unfortunate enough to watch my father get hit by a car (as a pedestrian) and his head go through the windscreen followed by him skimming along the road on his head. He survived but had massive scaring to the top of his head (the only place that scared as a result of the incident). The incident was pretty much my father’s fault as he tried to cross the road when he should not have, but it gave me an insight as to what could happen should I get hit by a car whilst on the bike. I do understand at the same time that wearing a helmet whilst saving my head may result in more severe injuries elsewhere like my neck and spine, it's all a gamble really.

davel wrote:

So the question for me then is about the wider use of helmets, and its potential effects. What I do know is that colleagues remark that they wouldn't cycle to work as they think it's dangerous; I know that surveys report that people are put off because they perceive cycling to be dangerous; I know surveys report that people associate PPE with danger; I know that people who've driven into cyclists have had lawyers who have discussed the victim wearing/not wearing a helmet as some sort of blaming device.

To me, that constitutes a more tangible negative impact to widespread helmet use, and that's the reason I'm largely anti-helmet.

Absolutely - the 2 that bother me most are the associations with danger and the victim blaming. These are massive external factors that are wrong on so many levels and I've highlighted that I agree with Boardman that the helmet is so far down the list of things for the powers that be to concern themselves with - which incidentally makes the recent reviews so ridiculous.

The utopia is for motorists to behave as they should, infrastructure to improve (both cycling provision and road maintenance) and human beings (or lawyers) to improve their behaviours. Then I'd only have to wear a lid to protect me from myself

ClubSmed wrote:

Yes it does, because if the same number experienced cyclists begin to cycle further then the risk is the same. If more non experienced cyclists join in to increase the overall distance than the risk could rise due to the increase of inexperienced riders. 

That is exactly what I have been saying, you do not have the same metric in your two sets of data so they are not comparable!

 

One shows Changes in helmet wearing rate on UK major built-up roads (represented as a % of cyclists seen during a period) and the other Reported Fatalities Cycling UK (represented as Fatalities per billion KM travelled) which are nowhere near the same metric!

You have not shown any other road type metric, just the one I mentioned

 

Here are all the helmet wearing stats. https://trl.co.uk/reports/PPR420 The trend of increasing use is seen across different road types and most demographics, teenage boys being the main outlier. If you want to break down all the fatalities by road type you can do so using the STATS19 data here: https://data.gov.uk/dataset/road-accidents-safety-data/resource/63932dff... You can't measure risk and presence or absence of a risk factor using the same metric. What metric exactly are you proposing for measuring cycle helmet use? What metric are you proposing for measuring cycling fatalities? In both cases how exactly are you going to measure said metrics? It seems to me that you're demanding data that doesn't exist in order to avoid discussing the data that does exist.[/quote]

I am proposing that if you are using the metrics detailing use of helmets on major built up roads then you need to use the metrics from accidents on those same type of roads for comparison.
Having looked at the data on road accidents between 2012-2016 I can see that cyclists cover around twice as much distance on Urban roads than Rural roads but the number of cyclists killed are roughly the same over this period. So you could draw a conclusion that the data would be greatly skewed if you included these types of roads as you have.

I am not avoiding discussing the data that does exist, it is just if the data needed doesn't exist that is needed that the data that does exist cannot prove anything as it is uncomparable.

[/quote]

The two data sources classify roads differently so you can not make a true comparison across the two sources.

What you can do is compare the overall trends.

Helmet use increased significantly from 1995 onwards on all road types.

Over the same period cyclist fatalities decreased significantly across the country as a whole.

There is a clear correlation, prior to 1995 there had been no significant change in the cyclist fatality rate for over a decade.

In the decade prior to 1995 the pedestrian fatality rate decreased significantly.

That implies separate causative factors for each group.

One hypothesis is that helmets represent the cycle specific causative factor that affected the fatality rate post 1995.

Without further data it is impossible to prove the hypothesis however.

OldRidgeback wrote:

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

This is awesome...

 

 

 

Hmm, not sure. I've strong views on the helmet issue and participated in some of the threads in the past. To be honest I find it boring now. I'm only commenting now to see if we can get a record number of comments on this thread.

The problem is that while it's boring and repetitive to go through the same arguments over-and-over, stories like the one on here just the other day emphasise why it can't simply be ignored, because one day the alliance of the car-centric and the ignorantly-paternalist might get the government to pass such legislation.

davel wrote:

Something happened to ped deaths around the same time as the downward trend in cyclist deaths to make them fall at about the same rate.

What's more likely:

Scenario A: an increase in helmet use from 15% to 30% resulted, completely independently, in cyclist death rates dropping around the same as pedestrians death rates did, for completely different reasons, around the same time?

Scenario B: a multitude of factors resulted in roads becoming increasingly safer for cyclists and peds around the same time, but because they're different types of user the trends don't follow exactly the same pattern?

If your explanation is that the same factor is affecting both groups how do you explain the rapid fall in pedestrian fatalities prior to 1995 which occurred while there was no significant change in the cycling fatality rate whatsoever?

The most logical explanation is a pedestrian specific factor.