Could Volvo Cars and POC be about to settle the helmet debate? The Swedish brands have teamed up for what they claim is a “world-first” series of crash tests that will assess the impact on cycle helmets in collisions with cars – and, by comparing the results with those of existing regulations regarding pedestrian head protection, will enable them “to make a direct comparison between wearing a helmet and not wearing a helmet.”
Volvo says that the initiative is a development of its existing strategy of looking to avoid collisions altogether through features such as cyclist and pedestrian detection systems in its vehicles.
The Volvo-POC research project will see a number of specially designed crash tests at the car manufacturer’s safety research facilities in Gothenburg, Sweden.
It also forms part of wider research aimed at obtaining a greater understanding of the types of long-term injuries sustained by cyclists.
The tests will involve POC cycle helmets, mounted on crash test dummy heads, being launched from a testing rig towards different areas of the bonnet of a static Volvo car.
The helmets will be fired at different speeds and angles, says the car manufacturer, and the tests are in line with current regulatory test procedures for pedestrian head protection, which the two companies say will enable them “to make a direct comparison between wearing a helmet and not wearing a helmet.” They add:
Current bike helmet testing procedures are fairly rudimentary, involving helmets being dropped from different heights on either a flat or an angled surface, and do not take into account vehicle to bike accidents. The Volvo-POC project aims to further refine and advance such testing.
The learnings from the research project will help POC make its helmets safer and more protective in the event of a car-bike accident, while the tests will also provide valuable insights and learnings for Volvo Cars into these types of accidents for future development.
Malin Ekholm, Head of the Volvo Cars Safety Centre, said: “This project with POC is a good example of our pioneering spirit in safety.
“We often develop new testing methods for challenging traffic scenarios. Our aim is not only to meet legal requirements or pass rating tests; instead, we go beyond ratings, using real traffic situations to develop technology that further improves safety.”
“Much like Volvo Cars, safety is at the very centre of our mission, and drives all our ideas and innovations,” commented Oscar Huss, Head of Product Development at POC.
“By working closely with scientific leaders in the POC Lab, we strive to lead the way in introducing new safety ideas. Certification standards are essential, but they should never limit our willingness to look beyond their parameters to find better and more innovative ways to reduce the consequences of accidents.”
94 thoughts on “Could Volvo and POC end the helmet debate? Swedish firms partner for “world first” car and cycle helmet crash tests (+ video)”
Here’s an idea, instead of
Here’s an idea, instead of cyclists wearing what is effectively a polystyrene colander, which due to the limiting factors of bulk and weight, only protects the head and minimaly, why not add padding to cars which could be be far thicker and more protective.
Many cars are already the size of a bungalow and weigh a couple of thousand kilos, so a few extra kilos of “crash foam” several inches thick on the outside wouldn’t be noticed, it would also offer protection to whatever part of a person it came into contact with, not just the head and protect pedestrians as well.
xerxes wrote:
Adding softer components on cars has been tried in the past. The MGs of the late 70s had rubber bumpers. I think Volvo tested some prototypes with a rubber bonnet. And the Citroen BX had a plastic bonnet as I recall.
It’s not a bad idea at all and it wouldn’t have to be expensive either.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Rubber bumpers on MGs was a cheap fix to meet Federal safety standard FMVSS 215, introduced on 1st Sept 1972, so they could sell the cars in the US. Note that this standard only applied up to 5mph and only applied to exterior protection of specific car components – nothing to do with making them safer for the occupants or anyone hit by the vehicle.
Post-1974, they also had to meet a minimum front and rear bumper height, which they did by just jacking up the suspension. Along with the extra weight of the rubber bumpers (over chrome ones), this caused handling problems and these cars were less safe to drive and more accident prone!
Back on topic, I know Renault have played around with fibreglass bodywork in the past, but no idea how extensively or what they’re up to these days.
xerxes wrote:
I owned a Jaguar which had a pedestrian safety device that fired the bonnet upward to provide a cushion between it and the engine, acting as a ‘crumple zone’ for the pedestrian.
Regulations have changed car design quite a lot, to improve pedestrian (and hopefully cyclist) safety.
At the end of the day, the only real benefit will come from technology avoiding the accident in the first place via autonomous braking/steering. There is only so much that can be achieved from crash protection without changing the laws of physics.
xerxes wrote:
Actually the lightweight steel covering most of a car is pretty good at preventing injury to pedestrians and cyclists as it deforms quite easily. The problem lies at the edges where is becomes stiffer and the hard components of the engine that injure the victim as the bonnet deflects and then deforms around them. Current EU regulations actually require a certain gap between the engine and the bonnet to minimise the risk of the victims head striking the engine
“…….will enable them “to
“…….will enable them “to make a direct comparison between wearing a helmet and not wearing a helmet.””
Neatly sidestepping the real problem of drivers killing cyclists. It doesn’t matter how effective the helmet is, if your chest is crushed, and almost all cyclists killed by drivers died from other injuries, as well as head injuries. From memory, one study showed that fully effective helmets would save possibly one life a year in the UK.
Measuring the difference between a bare head and a helmet is measuring the wrong thing, because people change their behaviour when given “safety” gear, which is risk compensation, and it’s why helmetted cyclists have more injury accidents than bare headed ones. It basically doesn’t matter how effective the helmet is, and most people believe they are much more protective than they really are, because people will take more risks wearing them.
This project will achieve the square of the sum of sweet fa.
Seek out the UK 2000 video
Seek out the UK 2000 video where a ‘real-world’ crash is simulated by driving a test car into the back of a ‘cyclist’ set up in a riding position. The helmet does damn all as the roof edge slices into the dummy at a point somewhere between the neck and the pelvis depending on the speed at which the car flips the cyclist up into the air – I knew a person who was decapitated when a driver hit him from behind at c. 70mph at 27mph (in the tests) the ‘cyclist’ left a crease in the car roof extending back around 1.2 metres, and would have probably lost use of their lower limbs.
Best risk management advice – ignore the PPE and learn to have 100% awareness of what is coming up behind you, with a plan to either get out of the way, make them take the avoiding action, or if impact is likely, to move to making that less harmful (a) when hit make the impact launch you clear or b) use your body – legs especially to absorb the forces – by keeping your head clear of the impact and going foetal to roll & bounce with your head protected by the whole body wrapped around it
Seek out the UK 2000 video
Seek out the UK 2000 video where a ‘real-world’ crash is simulated by driving a test car into the back of a ‘cyclist’ set up in a riding position. The helmet does damn all as the roof edge slices into the dummy at a point somewhere between the neck and the pelvis depending on the speed at which the car flips the cyclist up into the air – I knew a person who was decapitated when a driver hit him from behind at c. 70mph at 27mph (in the tests) the ‘cyclist’ left a crease in the car roof extending back around 1.2 metres, and would have probably lost use of their lower limbs.
Best risk management advice – ignore the PPE and learn to have 100% awareness of what is coming up behind you, with a plan to either get out of the way, make them take the avoiding action, or if impact is likely, to move to making that less harmful (a) when hit make the impact launch you clear or b) use your body – legs especially to absorb the forces – by keeping your head clear of the impact and going foetal to roll & bounce with your head protected by the whole body wrapped around it
“Renault have played around
“Renault have played around with fibreglass bodywork in the past, but no idea how extensively or what they’re up to these days.”
I once cycled into (my fault) one of the little Smart cars. They have plastic panels I think, it was surprisingly nice and bouncy to crash into.
Ah, so basically an attempt
Ah, so basically an attempt to sell more of their products to make more money whilst deflecting the responsibility for safety yet again away from those that do the harm.
American footballers wear helmets hugely more robust than any cycle helmet ever developed, and look how well that’s worked out for them! Rugby modified the rules and were restrcted in the impacts that could be made by fact of not feeling so protected (similar to not having all the dirver aids/safety features in a motor) Those in charge of gridiron simply decided to armour up their players to avoid injury, which sport is massively safer, it aint gridiron, not just for head injuries but injuries as a whole.
Yet again people who have no fucking clue whatsoever and are just doing this to make more money.
FUCK OFF!
I’m pleased to see a helmet
I’m pleased to see a helmet manufacturer collaborating with Volvo.
Even if it’s good marketing for POC, the Volvo tests look more extensive than standard helmet tests and this could stimulate innovation.
I don’t expect a polystyrene helmet to save me from being hit by a ton of metal. Cyclecraft is clearly more important than a helmet.
However, we can all make human errors (e.g. failing to see a pothole at night and crashing). In certain circumstances, a helmet could make a difference.
Another_MAMIL wrote:
Indeed, but all the real world, reliable, scientific evidence shows that they don’t make a difference, and promoting helmets as the answer to reducing the risks of cycling has significant negative effects and no benefits. Could we please concentrate on the things that work, and once we’ve done all those, we can start talking about helmets.
Another_MAMIL wrote:
and drivercraft is more important than cyclecraft.
as Chris Boardman and many others have pointed out, helmets are way down on the list of priorities. Top of the list is not causing crashes in the first place, and the way to do that is to remove the danger, which is motor vehicles.
ConcordeCX wrote:
Another_MAMIL wrote:
— ConcordeCX
Many normal activities have a higher risk than cycling e.g. using a ladder, showering, but no-one demands or even suggests that a helmet is worn for them. Walking has the same risk per mile as cycling, but no-one demands or suggests that helmets are worn for it. If cycling isn’t any more dangerous than walking, why aren’t we demanding helmets for every activity with similar or higher risk?
The answer is that cycle helmets are a billion dollar industry, cyclists are an out group that the media can lie about without consequences, and there are a huge number of gullible people who believe that helmets make a difference; but only when cycling for some strange reason.
Another_MAMIL wrote:
— ConcordeCX
what circumstances would those be?
#CrashNotAccident
#CrashNotAccident
If I were to come off my bike
If I were to come off my bike, for whatever reason, and hit my head off a kerb, wall, railing, bollard etc. I’d fancy my chances a lot more if I had a helmet on.
The Gavalier wrote:
And if I were to choose between wearing a helmet and coming off versus not wearing a helmet and not coming off, I’d prefer to not come off. It’s obvious, isn’t it?
hawkinspeter wrote:
If only life was that simple. Shit happens.
The Gavalier wrote:
Exactly – and shit seems to happen more to helmet wearers which is an unexpected consequence.
The Gavalier wrote:
Boring having the same conversation over-and-over, but new people keep turning up and making the same inane points (“it’s common sense, innit?” “If you hit your head against a wall woudn’t you rather be wearing a helmet”…blah blah). It’s the illogicallity of the arguments that annoys me, not the helmets.
Your logic implies you wear a helmet at all times. If you are saying you limit it to when on the bike – you need to explain why. Why does the same reasoning not apply to when you walk down stairs, are a passenger in a car, have a shower, or run? Why do you not wear stab-proof vests whenever you are out and about? After all, if someone were to stab you, you’d faancy your chances a lot more if you had a stab-proof vest on.
Your argument is simply ‘there is a (non-quantified) risk of something, ergo all-and-everything I can do to reduce that risk by some unspecified amount is necessarily justified’.
Wouldn’t “not riding the bike at all” reduce that risk even more? Why do you not opt for that one? It’s what most people choose, after all.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Agree with everything you wrote there.
A great article by CB that addresses some of this:
https://chrisboardman.com/blog/index_files/e67d4b8aac0c709c5801ce466bdcd90e-1.html
(though the pro-helmet shouters & shamers usually CBA to read it)
Knife crime has been in the news of late. Government wants to tackle it so they put resources into policing and even talk about using the army.
But if they use the same logic as some people do for cycle helmets shouldn’t they just subsidise stab vests for Londoners? And tell them that they’re dickheads for not wearing one.
Then we can have lots of boringly predictable articles about ‘research’ by armour and knife companies (who merely want to sell more armour and more knives, not make our streets safe) about making slightly better stab vests. Sorted.
The Gavalier wrote:
I recommend that you acquaint yourself with some facts about helmets. You might then be less convinced of their effectiveness in any and all situations.
The premise of this test is that a slightly better helmet is a good move but the people who disagree are looking at the bigger picture (and have probably read more about the topic).
By all means wear one if you wish but it really is NOT the solution.
Simon E wrote:
Thanks for assuming that I’m not acquainted with both sides of the argument. Risk is based on both likelihood and severity – I wear a helmet to reduce the severity.
The Gavalier wrote:
You don’t cite anything that quanitifies those risk though. I just suspect the real reason people wear helmets when cylcing is due to social pressure. People seem oblivious to how social norms affect their judgements about such probabilities, hence you don’t wear a ‘walking down stairs’ helmet because that isn’t socially expected, nobody is ever victim-blamed for failing to wear one.
Social norms determine what people consider reasonable. A big clue they are involved is if people start referring to ‘common sense’.
(I include myself – I doubt I’d wear a helmet if I were in a society where it wasn’t expected)
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Loving all the assumptions people are making about me on here. I’ve only had 2 visits to hospital in recent years, both after coming off my bike, no cars involved, both due to road surface (oil). Therefore, for me, this raises the ‘likelihood’ side of the equation. On both occasions my head went down hard yet I suffered no serious injury – therefore, I believe, my helmet reduced the severity. I also try to reduce the likelihood by being more aware of the road surface etc. The anti-helmet argument seems mainly to focus on likelihood.
The Gavalier wrote:
To be honest, the assumptions that I made about you were based on your over simplistic comment that a helmet provides some protection. Although this is true, it is also true that wearing full plate armour would most likely prevent even more injuries. In your opinion, why is wearing a helmet (only on a bike, mind) acceptable and full plate armour (again, only whilst riding a bike) not acceptable?
The Gavalier]
Conversely, anecdote is not evidence.
If any of us makes assumptions then it’s based on the assumptions and biases you’ve kindly provided us with (and I can tell you now that most of us have seen such assumptions many times before).
We’re talking about a far bigger issue than your anecdotal evidence so best you get down off your high horse and look at the big picture.
Meanwhile no-one is suggesting that you should stop wearing a helmet if that’s what you want to do, but please leave it on when you get out of the bath, walk down stairs, climb a ladder etc etc. After all, if it saves one life…
Simon E]
If I’m making any assumptions they are:
I’ve had 2 head injuries as a result of coming off my bike, therefore it could happen again.
If I smack my head off the tarmac at 20mph I’d rather it had a helmet on it.
These are based on my experiences, if that’s bias then I hold my hands up.
The reason I don’t wear one all the time (or a stab vest for that matter) is also based on my experiences.
The Gavalier wrote:
These are based on my experiences, if that’s bias then I hold my hands up.
The reason I don’t wear one all the time (or a stab vest for that matter) is also based on my experiences.
— The GavalierFine. As I said before, no-one is telling you not to wear one.
All we’re doing is questioning some assumptions. So far you’ve given no indication that you’re interested in questioning them yourself.
This happens over and over again, at Fluffy said. People come on here, spraying the same weak arguments then wonder why we don’t all give them love and respect for ‘educating’ us about it.
Simon E wrote:
In what way have I tried to educate, or expected love and respect? I’ve simply explained why I do what I do.
Listening to some of the conspiracy theory stuff on here I’m surprised people aren’t all campaigning for tin foil hats to be compulsory.
The Gavalier wrote:
Yeah yeah, same old bollocks yet again.
You appear to have taken ZERO interest in what people are actually saying, you just turn up your headphones and shout louder.
Call people names all you like, it merely demonstrates how blinkered you are. How utterly predictable and boring.
Simon E wrote:
Neatly sums up the comments on any article about helmets…
Simon E wrote:
You’ve accused me of ‘spraying weak arguments’, trying to ‘educate’ people, and coming on here for ‘love and respect’ when all I did was share my experiences. Utter hypocrisy and deflection to now say I’m name calling and not listening.
The Gavalier wrote:
Same old bollocks yet again.
Your experiences are not in question – we all have those – but your reasoning and your refusal to listen to any other point of view.
Accusing multiple contributors of having conspiracy theories (even though they are likely to be better educated on this topic than you) and using the term ‘tin foil hat’ looks like name-calling to me.
Looks to me like YOU are the one deflecting.
Simon E wrote:
What’s wrong with my reasoning, and how have I refused to listen to other point of view?
I fully agree that part of reducing risk is to reduce likelihood, but to reduce risk overall there also needs to include action taken to reduce severity.
The Gavalier wrote:
Personally, I’ve never hit my head when coming off my bike – typical injuries have been to hands, elbows, knees and hips (though nothing more than a scrape or a bruise, luckily).
However, I’ve bumped my head several times whilst not cycling. Usually it’s if there’s a low door-frame or I’ve been crawling under a desk or table. Does this mean that I should be wearing a helmet whenever I’m not cycling?
Also, in my experience, I’m much more likely to bump my head on a low door-frame when wearing a bike helmet.
The Gavalier wrote:
The pro-helmet argument relies heavily on the likelihood that one is going to come off their bike or get hit by a motorist. In the last 5 years I’ve covered possibly 40,000 miles. In that time I’ve come off ONCE when negotiating a tight turn and my toe caught my guards causing me to drop my bike. I badly staved my wrist as a result.
The helmet wearing argument is a red herring to road safety. By all means wear one if you feel comfortable in doing so. But it is NOT a catch all to road safety. Motorists road skills need to radically change. Anyone who climbs in behind a steering wheel needs to read the road not just 6 feet in front but also upwards of half a mile. Those same people need to be aware that the lump of machinery that they throw about the roads without any care, consideration or courtesy can result in catastrophic consequences for vulnerable road users.
Energy needs to be put into making our roads safer environments for all. The developing of more robust helmets will not in anyway change the attitude of motorists towards those more vulnerable. All they think is helmet therefore protected and do not change their way of driving.
The Gavalier wrote:
No assumptions, merely conclusions based on what you actually _said_. Are you now restrospectively changing your original comment? You now seem to be adding in an (anecdote-based) ‘for me’, that wasn’t in your first unqualified comment.
The Gavalier wrote:
Dammit, my first double-post.
You know, if people regualrly double post (someone repeated a post over a dozen times recently) then maybe it’s not just individual ineptitude, but it indicates a problem with unforgiving design?
Maybe don’t accept multiple posts that occur within a second of each other?
Or we could just have posting proficiency classes, I guess, and books on postcraft.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Original comment said “I wear a helmet to reduce the severity”, not “helmets should be compulsory to reduce the severity”.
The Gavalier wrote:
But you originally said
Saying that out of nowhere, without any explanation or justification, when nobody asked you why you wear a helmet, carries a very strong implication of justifying helmet-wearing and promotion in general. I don’t get what other point it would be making. What is supposed to follow from it?
It was a hypothetical scenario that could just as easily been constructed about walking down stairs.
I’ve come off twice, once with and once without a helmet, and both times had some reason to wish I’d been wearing gloves, but I didn’t hit my head (and didn’t suffer any real injury)
The only time I’ve ever had a serious head injury was running around in the playground as a small child. That was largely becaue in those days schools really didn’t do ‘health and safety’ when it came to playground ‘infrastructure’ (I notice in the decades since the deadly architectual element has since been completely rebuilt to remove the killing potential). Back then they didn’t even let you leave class untill you turned green and started vomitting!
I don’t think I can conclude from that that all children at school should wear helmets, though, it does remind me that we really do worry more about children’s safety so much more than we used to.
The Gavalier wrote:
How do you know this will occur, what % of any given incident/s does a helmet reduce severity and how do you come to that figure, how do you know that this is accurate?
How much severity of any given impact does a helmet reduce, is this enough to mitigate the injury/prevent injury, how do you know this. One presumes you’ve seen the cracked/broken helmets in so many ‘helmet saved my life’ stories, would you care to hazard a guess how much of the total energy was absorbed by a bit of polystyrene foam that does not compress but splits apart due to the loading?
Have you ever thought that wearing a helmet increases severity, increases chances of having the incident i.e. with greater circumference increased chances of actually striking your head or indeed catching your head via the various holes and straps?
Do you not think that the increased mass of your head and from that the increased kinetic energy when you come/thrown/knocked off changes how far your head will travel, where it will travel and with how much force copared to unhelmetted? In children adding a helmet is very significant both in terms of bigger target/more head to hit and increased mass.
I’ll repeat it here again, UK hospital/medical facility stats show 1.3Million reported head injuries annually, circa 160,000 of those stay in hospital, not all serious head injuries require a stay so serious head injuries (not brain injuries) of the general population is at the very least 160,000. Whilst not all serious cycling injuries will come under the road stats, the vast majority do, the most recent figures show us that there were 3100 cycling serious injuries of all types on the road, from that the estimates are between 800-1200 being to the head.
Now compare the numbers, firstly risk factor is relatively low despite the appauling level of motorists criminal actions and lack of support to reduce such by gov/police et al. We already know that chances of children being killed on a cycle (by any injury type) is less numerically than that for children who die in motorvehicles by head injury alone, that’s despite the latter being encased in specially designed cages, airbags and restraint systems. We also know that more children die in playgrounds from head injuries than total children die on cycles also.
In the UK Motorists deaths solely by head injury (most deaths are by multiple injuries with head injuries as secondary factor in 1/4 of all other cases) number four times that for people on bikes (Journal of Transport and Health June 2018)
Given the facts, which of the groups mentioned would wearing helmets have the greater effect on reducing severity of outcome (your own words) of serious head injuries/reportable head injuries and hospital stays due to such as well as deaths from head injuries either directly or as a secondary cause IF helmets were effective in the way you beleive?
Would that be the general population/motorists/those in motor vehicles or people on bikes?
I’m presuming you can differentiate between large and small numbers and factors of numbers of course – I know given your previous comments that we should not presume anything about you but I think you’re reasonably educated to understand the rudimentaries of math.
I don’t think these are unreasonable questions to ask in this debate so I await your answers.
The Gavalier wrote:
Respect and kudos for arguing the pro-helmet raison d’etre but you will never convince the dark ages’ “flat-earthers” who inhabit these helmet centric threads that the earth is in fact spherical. The obvious just flies right over their heads (no pun intended) and it all becomes rather akin to banging your head repeatedly on a hard surface (no pun intended).
Always the same usual suspects, you listed some, spoiling for a fight and raging against King Canute on the beach for dissenting from their ‘world view’ whilst wallowing in self aggrandisement afforded them by an echo chamber.
All quite delusional and self serving really. When you dig in the objectives behind this are quite basic, flawed and superficial. I kind of gave up some time ago trying to reason with such closed minds and share actual experiences (sadly negative) which just get shouted down (not that I care) with increasing vitriol and profanity (yes notably you BtBS).
No matter it’s all virtual world narcissism and self indulgence. Meanwhile (and with no little irony) in the real world it is a sea of helmet wearers all by positive choice, essentially ubiquitously, in the cycling community. The argument, the battle, the war is over and done.
RTB wrote:
Do you ever look in the mirror?
RTB wrote:
Usually, the way to argue with flat-earthers is to present evidence that contradicts their world-view which is obviously extremely easy to find.
With that in mind, would you care to present some evidence that helmets provide a significant addition to cycle/road safety? (As there are several disputed studies, it’d be useful if you can present some good quality research rather than anecdotes)
In the meantime, here’s the next level in road safety (modelled by Tufty)
hawkinspeter wrote:
Crikey, if only someone was to conduct some research into helmet efficacy, that would surely settle the debate pretty quickly and stop all this pointless arguing.
WCGW?
RTB wrote:
Wonderfully self-descriptive comment there. No attempt at reasoned argument just the usual insistence that your rightness is ‘obvious’, some generic abuse, and bizarre accusations of ‘shouting down’ in a text based discussion! Why not actually try constructing an argument? Ever considered that?
Oh, and in ‘the real world’ it’s a sea of people who don’t ride bikes.
RTB wrote:
Aren’t the arguments by those opposed to deflecting the blame usually:
If you improve infrastructure and driving standards you’d reduce 95% (or whatever) of fatalities
A helmet is designed to crack, that’s why you get many cracked helmets
Wearing a helmet increases head circumference so you get more bangs on the head
You may take more risks when wearing a helmet
If the media continually state whether a victim was wearing a helmet/hi viz are they not shifting the blame
If the car manufacturers actually care why not alter the design and power of their cars
More people die of head injuries as car passengers or pedestrians, why focus on cyclists
More cyclists suffer crush injuries, do you wear full armour
Many of those that discuss these points, myself included, wear a helmet sometimes or all the time. Like others, I feel if my head were to hit concrete then the wearing of a helmet is unlikely to hinder me. However, the way the car drivers, emergency service ‘experts’, the mainstream media and hell even the general public position it; those who wear helmets are invincible and those who don’t deserve to die…
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Personally, I wear a little mini helmet on each finger-tip when typing.
You should take responsibility for your own comment-safety rather than just blaming Road.cc’s website.
There are some comments on
There are some comments on here that really do take the biscuit.
When i am out on the bike i’m not thinking ” This polystyrene bun on my head will save me,lets go and have an accident “. How ridiculous.
As for “people with helmets crash more often “.Unbelievable. 99% of cyclists i see are wearing a helmet so it follows in an accident that the cyclist is likely to be wearing a helmet.
I know BTB and Burt are raging against the world but when it comes to using foul language on a forum then you’ve extinguished your own argument.
joeegg wrote:
You miss the point.
I don’t, personally, think the ‘risk compensation’ issue is a major one. With mountain bikers on trails, possibly, maybe, dunno, but I doubt that urban commuters ride more dangerously because they have a helmet on. It is _possible_ that drivers are less careful around helmet-wearers (visible lycra probably provokes them as well), but the only evidence for that is one very weak study, so who knows?
The real story behind ‘helmet wearers have more accidents’ is that helmet promoters are constantly telling us about the awful accidents they’ve had and that the helmet ‘saved their life’. It may not be true that they have more accidents, it’s really just that they never shut up about those they have had, hence it sounds like it.
The main point is that helmets are a trivial issue when it comes to the main dangers to cyclists and that they are a symbol of the transfer of responsibility from those who actually cause the problem to the victims. And that the arguments used to push them are so illogical.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Risk compensation is an observable effect with much supporting evidence.
Studies have shown that helmetted cyclists do have more crashes than bare headed ones.
No reliable studies show that helmets make cycling safer, so they aren’t just trivial, they are irrelevant. They are just being used by politicians, the media, the motoring lobby and the gullible to attack cyclists and blame the victims, to deflect from their own failings.
burtthebike wrote:
Risk compensation _in general_ is clearly a well-established phenomenon, but I haven’t personally seen proof that it applies to urban commuter cyclists. I don’t know I have the energy to read up on that to a degree where I could argue for that case, when there’s more than enough reason to discount pro-helmet fanatics already.
I’m not sure there’s a distinction between ‘trivial’ and ‘irrelevant’! Mainly I just find them a kind of symbol of victim-blaming. A way to tell non-motorists to know their place.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I wouldn’t argue that risk compensation is well established at all.
A quick glance at the Wikipedia page will show that the evidence is equivocal at best.
Even the famous UK seat belt example vanishes once you dig a bit deeper in to the numbers.
Rich_cb wrote:
Risk compensation _in general_ is clearly a well-established phenomenon, but I haven’t personally seen proof that it applies to urban commuter cyclists. I don’t know I have the energy to read up on that to a degree where I could argue for that case, when there’s more than enough reason to discount pro-helmet fanatics already.
I’m not sure there’s a distinction between ‘trivial’ and ‘irrelevant’! Mainly I just find them a kind of symbol of victim-blaming. A way to tell non-motorists to know their place.
— Rich_cb I wouldn’t argue that risk compensation is well established at all. A quick glance at the Wikipedia page will show that the evidence is equivocal at best. Even the famous UK seat belt example vanishes once you dig a bit deeper in to the numbers.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
When deciding whether to do something people tend to evaluate the likelihood of bad concequences for themselves. Are you really denying that? You clearly have a radically-different idea about human pyschology, I guess.
Why do we have legal penalties for crimes, then, if the risk of going to jail has no bearing on people’s willingness to break the law? Maybe we should scrap the entire legal system?
Why have speed limits if the risk of being done for speeding has no effect on people’s willingness to drive at 70mph?
(I glanced at the wiki page and it appears to be talking about a very technical narrow use of the term – I’m talking about what English words actually mean in usual usage).
In fact that wiki page contradicts itself:
So in other words, motorists do indeed drive faster if they percive a lower risk to themselves of being done for speeding. That’s risk-compensation as far as I can see. Motorists will increase their speed till they reach a similar level of risk of facing legal penalties. How is that _not_ risk compensation or risk homeostasis? The ‘expert’ opinion on it appears rather confused, judging from Wiki’s take on it.
The question of the relation to accident rates is irrelevant, as speeding motorists is a bad thing for all non-motorists in the area, regardless of accident rates, as it’s unpleasant and deters others from using or crossing the road.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
It may seem to be a common sense assumption but it is quite hard to demonstrate in any reproducible way which indicates that perhaps reality is a bit more nuanced. The wiki page had links to several studies that demonstrated the opposite to the study you cited above.
In terms of PPE, there is no clear evidence of risk compensation existing.
Rich_cb wrote:
When deciding whether to do something people tend to evaluate the likelihood of bad concequences for themselves. Are you really denying that? You clearly have a radically-different idea about human pyschology, I guess.
Why do we have legal penalties for crimes, then, if the risk of going to jail has no bearing on people’s willingness to break the law? Maybe we should scrap the entire legal system?
Why have speed limits if the risk of being done for speeding has no effect on people’s willingness to drive at 70mph?
(I glanced at the wiki page and it appears to be talking about a very technical narrow use of the term – I’m talking about what English words actually mean in usual usage).
In fact that wiki page contradicts itself:
So in other words, motorists do indeed drive faster if they percive a lower risk to themselves of being done for speeding. That’s risk-compensation as far as I can see. Motorists will increase their speed till they reach a similar level of risk of facing legal penalties. How is that _not_ risk compensation or risk homeostasis? The ‘expert’ opinion on it appears rather confused, judging from Wiki’s take on it.
The question of the relation to accident rates is irrelevant, as speeding motorists is a bad thing for all non-motorists in the area, regardless of accident rates, as it’s unpleasant and deters others from using or crossing the road.
— FluffyKittenofTindalos It may seem to be a common sense assumption but it is quite hard to demonstrate in any reproducible way which indicates that perhaps reality is a bit more nuanced. The wiki page had links to several studies that demonstrated the opposite to the study you cited above. In terms of PPE, there is no clear evidence of risk compensation existing.
Where are the contradictory links you refer to? The quote I gave is _from_ that Wiki page, that’s what that page itself says about speeding.
There seems to be an unsupported assumption that speeding is not bad unless it is shown to necessarily increase accident rates.
The relationship between perceived risk of getting caught and the willingness to speed seems to be simply ignored because of that assumption, when in fact that _is_ risk compensation. As far as I can see their own data actually proves what they claim it disproves, simply because they are operating with unexamined asssumptions.
As I said to start with, I don’t know about the issue with cyclists own behaviour regarding helmets, but clearly risk-compensation occurs in general.
I ask again – why do we have police or a criminal justice system at all, if people don’t factor in thre risk of getting caught and paying legal penalties when choosing to commit crimes? Should you not be calling for the whole lot of them to be abolished, if you really believe risk-compensation does not happen at all?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
The links are in the section which disputes risk homeostasis.
You seem to have adopted your own, incredibly broad, definition of risk compensation which as you’ve admitted differs considerably from the ‘technical term’.
Obviously human beings make risk/benefit decisions. I’m not going to dispute that.
There is however no clear evidence of risk compensation (the technical definition) occurring with PPE and its very existence is a matter of continued debate.
You often see risk compensation (technical definition) stated as fact by the anti-helmet brigade.
Their apparent enthusiasm for proof and facts clearly not extending to include a cornerstone of the anti helmet argument.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
You haven’t got it yet, have you? Rich_cb is right and everyone else is wrong.
burtthebike wrote:
Whereas everything you post is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I’m looking forward to your next ‘fact’…
joeegg wrote:
You could have used foul language yourself and extinguished your own arguments instead of using anecdote, assumption and opinion to do it; would have saved time.
You might like to read up a bit on helmets, safety devices and risk compensation, so that your next post at least has the faintest basis in fact.
“Hello. Reality calling joeegg. Over here!”
joeegg wrote:
That’s Mr. BTBS to you son, and swearing is simply because of the complete and utter lunacy and continued and very typical behaviour by companies more interested in protecting their own bottom line than they are lives and people to simply get about without being in fear all the time, so much so they don’t go out at all (on bikes).
My words, sweary or not, are backed up with facts, unlike you Mr. Anecdote with your 99% of cyclists wearing helmets nonsense, not to mention that even if true, the 99 people out of a 100 are going to end up having more incidents by rate than the singular who isn’t wearing, we already know this is true everywhere, all countries and not just cycling.
Wonderful; yet another thread
Wonderful; yet another thread of folk shouting into the void.
Rapha Nadal wrote:
You’re missing the delicious irony of the headline positing an end to the helmet debate and the comments continuing it.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Believe me, the irony has not been missed here! Has anybody mentioned disc brakes yet?
Rapha Nadal wrote:
Believe me, the irony has not been missed here! Has anybody mentioned disc brakes yet?
[/quote]
I for one, am a firm believer in a law forcing disc brakes to wear helmets. I myself have had my own life saved because of them, and I personally know hundreds of other people who are similarly only alive today because their disc brake was wearing a helmet. If it saves just one life……*
*Think I got most of the cliches in there, but please feel free to add.
burtthebike wrote:
For the sake of a few quid why wouldn’t your dic brakes wear helmets, I took my bike to an emergency bike mechaninc who said if my brake wasn’t wearing a helmet the helmet break would definitely be a brake break… And something about hi viz…
burtthebike wrote:
I for one, am a firm believer in a law forcing disc brakes to wear helmets. I myself have had my own life saved because of them, and I personally know hundreds of other people who are similarly only alive today because their disc brake was wearing a helmet. If it saves just one life……*
*Think I got most of the cliches in there, but please feel free to add.
[/quote]
Hmmmm, i really think we should add a Campag vs. Shimano debate into the mix. And follow up with some hi-viz?
burtthebike wrote:
I, for one, would be firmly in favour of mandating the fitting of disc brakes to most commenters here, if it would provide greater stopping power on their comments when it comes to helmet-related threads.
Rapha Nadal wrote:
that would bring the helmet bandwagon to a juddering halt causing everyone to catapult over the bars and land on their heads.
@Fluffy – there’s now a trend
@Fluffy – there’s now a trend of bringing back dangerous playgrounds: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/world/europe/britain-playgrounds-risk.html
hawkinspeter wrote:
I started teaching my own son how to use knives/hot pans when he was still in primary school (and an iron), my youngest grandson started using a kitchen knife when he was 5, my other grandson when he was 7(he’s a bit hyperactive so gets a bit keen to wade right in).
My son cycled to school on a 60mph road from age of 10 sans helmet for 7 years, neither of my grandkids nearly 6 and 10 wear a helmet and they ride plenty. The small un is cycling mad and will happily launch himself down the grassy slopes at the park and prefers to ride on the roads with me given a choice though I strictly select when/where. He like my son is being taught how to cycle, what to watch for, what not to do and when he’s had a crash reminded why he had a crash and he doesn’t repeat the mistake.
Giving kids a chance to explore their boundaries and find out the hard way in some instances is not a bad thing, what is bad is creating an environment where due to external influences they completely lose any sight of the boundary and go beyond in a very big way and end up getting really badly hurt or worse. The studies that they have done on kids shows us that they are influenced significantly when they are wearing a safety aid/something that will protect them, this pretty much replicates the influence that occurs in competition with adults when they are pushing the boundaries very often.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
I do enjoy a BTBS anecdote to prove a point – and it happens regularly.
It is especially entertaining on the threads where he rubbishes other arguments because they reference anecdotes.
It is OK for him to use this to validate his argument, but not for others if it doesn’t fit his assumptions / prejudices / views (delete as applicable).
Sniffer wrote:
Ah, so you readily admit to not understanding the difference between …
I fell/was knocked off my bike and survived ergo my helmet saved my life – something which is utterly unproven by every measure and replicated in many activities/sports globally.
And, I taught my child/grandkids life skills in the normally accepted fashion were they learnt from mistakes whilst given freedoms to explore under adult supervision for the most part without ‘safety’ aids and not only survived but were not ever in any life endangering scenarios.
Okay champ, I bow to your superior understanding of these matters.
I’m a rare beast that has
I’m a rare beast that has been converted by these threads, and like our latest troll, Gavalier, have a couple of anecdotes:
Hit from behind by car, hit tarmac, wearing helmet. Head didn’t hit tarmac, hand injuries.
Hit by a car turning accross me (McDonald’s was more important than my life), wearing helmet. Head hit nothing, arm injuries.
Neither event the helmet helped, neither have convinced me to wear a suit of armour.
Came off heading down Mt Ventoux, smashed shoulder and side of helmet on a ski pole, briefly lost conciousness, plates and fake ligaments now in shoulder. “The helmet saved my life” I decided. On further analysis (and whith video evidence) it’s more likely the additional head circumference is what caused the helmet to hit the pole.
None of what i read or experience encourages me to wear a helmet whilst walking, wear full armour whilst riding, wear fire retardent clothing whilst cooking. However, it boils my piss that victim blaming tossers who drive the cause of cycling fatalities, cyclists like Gavalier and every other ill informed opinion puts the responsibility for all incidents on the clothing of the cyclist whilst ignoring all other dangers in their life.
alansmurphy wrote:
Why troll?
alansmurphy wrote:
Why troll?
The Gavalier wrote:
I’m a rare beast that has been converted by these threads, and like our latest troll, Gavalier, have a couple of anecdotes:
— The Gavalier Why troll?— alansmurphy
I’m not sure. Maybe because you enjoy it?
Burt – you’re (disc) breaking
Burt – you’re (disc) breaking the quote tags again. With your comment editing you’re removing one of the opening quote tags.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’ll put my helmet on.
“victim blaming tossers who
“victim blaming tossers who drive the cause of cycling fatalities, cyclists like Gavalier and every other ill informed opinion puts the responsibility for all incidents on the clothing of the cyclist whilst ignoring all other dangers in their life”
You may want to go back, re-read all my posts, then apologise.
I want graphs. This is not a
I want graphs. This is not a proper helmet debate without some graphs!
ktache wrote:
Further explanation needed. Which group of squirrels was wearing helmets, and did they protect from 85% of injuries inflicted by the predators, as found in completely independent, utterly unbiased research by helmet salemen?
ktache wrote:
I’m sorry, but that’s racist (speciesist?).
Did you know that the Red squirrels in the British Isles are very definitely red, but the same species in Russia is usually gray and in the United States may be either gray or red?
hawkinspeter wrote:
But are red squirrels communists?
Rapha Nadal wrote:
Well, squirrels are known to make shared nests (called Drey) to see them through the winter and they often share food as they can’t remember exactly which squirrel buried what food.
However, red squirrels don’t like sharing with the greys
Rapha Nadal wrote:
They used to be, but these days they are Republicans. Though they are still secretly colluding with Russia, so there’s still some continuity, which is nice.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
.
They definitely sound like
They definitely sound like communists.
Rapha Nadal wrote:
LMAO!
hawkinspeter wrote:
Big fan of Chairman LMAO.
Of course, as ever, despite
Of course, as ever, despite personal anecdotes by those displaying “affect bias” due to personal events ( avoiding getting involved in the whole risk bias effect- which is very real). This so called “helmet debate” comes down those who have done their research and discovered such things as; pedestrians suffer minisculey less head injuries than cyclists and those occupying moving motor vehicles suffer a lot more head injuries than cyclists but that in far access of either, those taking a shower or bath suffer a shockingly multiple amount of head injuries and indeed in comparison, it seems taking a shower or or bath should be assisted by a personal safety assistant. . . .
The biggest risk obviously, is that a motor vehicle will kill you- the one constant thing in all of this.
There is always the risk of death associated with being alive of course….
All of which seems to ignore that cycling is in fact a remarkably safe thing to do – – with or without a helmet. furthermore that helmet wearing has a negligible effect on this.
Talk about blaming the victims!!
Much safer than playing football and way safer than rugby. Indeed slightly safer than ping pong!!