A poll conducted for The Sunday Times has found that almost nine in ten people (89 per cent) think cyclists should be banned from wearing headphones, and almost as many (85 per cent) believe cycle helmets should be compulsory.
The majority of respondents who describe themselves as “more cyclist than motorist” in the survey of 1,867 people conducted by YouGov agreed with those views.
59 per cent of those respondents agreed that wearing of helmets should be compulsory, an issue that is regularly the subject of fierce debate among riders, and 67 per cent of them said that there should be a ban on headphones.
The latter issue was in the news last week after Mayor of London Boris Johnson said in a radio interview about the safety of cyclists that he would be in favour of riders being banned from wearing headphones.
Other findings of the survey include that two thirds of all respondents – rising to three in four of those considered themselves cyclists first and foremost – believe that lorries should be banned from cities during rush hour, something British Cycling's Chris Boardman called for last week in an open letter to Mr Johnson.
Several things differentiate the YouGov survey from some others we have reported on road.cc.
First, respondents aren’t self-selected, as many opt-in internet-based polls are, and which tend to encourage only those with a strong opinion one way or another to respond.
Also, as well as splitting out responses by standard demographic breaks such as gender, age, social grade and region, it also divides them by voting intentions as well as by “motorists,” “people who regularly use a bicycle,” and those who are “more cyclist than motorist.”
How does YouGov separate those categories? Well, it’s based on a question that asks respondents to state:
I regularly drive a motor vehicle and do NOT regularly use a bicycle (60 per cent)
I regularly use both a motor vehicle and a bicycle, but I generally use my motor vehicle more often than my bike (9 per cent)
I regularly use both a motor vehicle and a bicycle, but I generally use my bicycle more often than my motor vehicle (3 per cent)
I regularly ride a bicycle and do NOT regularly drive a motor vehicle (4 per cent)
I do not regularly use either (25 per cent)
As a result, 60 per cent of YouGov’s weighted sample fall into the category it terms “motorists” and 15 per cent are “people who regularly use a bicycle,” including 7 per cent who are “more cyclist than driver.”
Asked, “What do you believe is the most common cause of cycling accidents [sic],” 36 per cent of people said “poor standards of cycling by cyclists,” while 22 per cent cited “poor standards of driving by motorists” and 11 per cent went for each of “badly designed roads” and “too many lorries and other large vehicles on the roads.”
Analysis of police reports in incidents in which cyclists were killed or injured carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory in 2009 found that reckless riding was responsible for only a small percentage of collisions, with police attributing blame to the motorist in around three out of four cases.
As happened across most of the questions, there was a polarity in responses among those considering themselves cyclists or drivers.
Some 41 per cent of motorists blamed poor standards of cycling, and just 20 per cent driving; among regular bike riders, 20 per cent said cyclists were to blame and 30 per cent drivers, and there was an even greater gap among those defined as more cyclist than motorist – 13 per cent versus 36 per cent.
Other responses highlight that different perceptions of road safety exist depending on whether you’re more used to being behind the steering wheel or on the saddle of a bike.
Only 1 per cent of motorists thought badly designed roads are the most common cause of cycling accidents, but that rose to 9 per cent of regular cyclists and 14 per cent of those who are more cyclist than motorist.
Bad upkeep of roads (e.g. potholes) was thought to be a factor by 4 per cent of motorists, but 8 per cent of regular cyclists and 10 per cent of those who are more cyclist than motorist; conversely, drivers were much more likely to see pedestrians as being to blame for cycling accidents than cyclists were, at 11 per cent versus 6 per cent of regular cyclists and 5 per cent of people who are more cyclist than motorist.
Other questions addressed issues including whether sentences for both drivers and cyclists breaking road laws are tough enough, presumed liability, publishing accident data and details of accident blackspots online, increasing the number of cycle lanes, and whether there should be early-start traffic lights for cyclists.
You can find the complete results of the YouGov survey, including the full breakdown of responses by demographic groups and voting intentions, here.
126 thoughts on “Almost 9 in 10 people back headphones ban and compulsory helmets for cyclists say survey”
Stockholm syndrome.
Stockholm syndrome.
that 7% “more cyclist than
that 7% “more cyclist than driver” comes out as 130 people- at which point you run into the problem of infering conclusions from small crossbreaks. That’s 77 in favour of mandatory helmets versus 53 not in favour/don’t knows.
The demographic spread of the cross break will almost certainly be oddly skewed.
Why do we never ask if car
Why do we never ask if car drivers should wear helmets, and make in car entertainment illegal too?
caaad10 wrote:Why do we never
Nail.Head.
Agendas, agendas.
Why do we never ask if car
Why do we never ask if car drivers should wear helmets, and make in car entertainment illegal too?
At least it’s good to see a
At least it’s good to see a survey that’s got the balls to publish enough information to bear scrutiny, rather than the usual cowardly PR-funded pre-interpreted tosh.
Needs some infographics to compare with actual causes of collisions and injuries, though, to highlight the differences between what seems obvious and what is actually the case. A bit like the recent ones comparing people’s assumptions about benefits etc.
Wearing headphones when
Wearing headphones when riding…well I think natural selection takes care of that…oh I didn’t hear that motorbike coming…arrrrrrrrr!
I train on my bicycle with
I train on my bicycle with earphones in regularly (in holland), and never have problems with other traffic, i don’t think it’s a problem on open roads maybe in town it’s a little different.
(I won’t use the in-ear solutions though as i figure they will block any sound from the outside)
Generally speaking: if your’s sensible with it it should not prevent you from being careful on the road. (and in amsterdam nobody wears helmets while commuting, at normal speeds below 30 kph a helmet isn’t necessary, and cycling isn’t dangerous, the solution is to bring down the speeds of the cars on shared roads)
southseabythesea
That’s a strange take on natural selection/ survival of the ‘fittest’ Where the ‘fittest’ in your scenario is the car driver who hits a motorbike he didn’t hear/ see coming, thereby wiping him out of the gene pool. Because that’s the cause of most biker fatalities.
Nothing to do with anybody wearing headphones, then. Least of all a cyclist.
Headphone debate (and the helmet one) are red herrings in the road safety argument. It’s a shame the motoring public can’t see that though.
700c wrote:southseabythesea
Indeed, I’m not sure what you’re meant to do in the split-second when you can discern the motorbike from other traffic. In Spiderman 2 he does a back-flip off his scooter, which I suppose might be worth a go.
I suspect a fairly large
I suspect a fairly large proportion of people will have exaggerated their bike use, because they won’t want to be seen as sedentary carknobs. Rather like people won’t admit to being racist in surveys. Or even that they might vote Conservative.
So that would tend to screw the survey up a bit.
What’s more, I am not sure that a poll is the right way to determine something that is better determined by evidence than by anecdote.
*yawns*
Polls mean nothing
*yawns*
Polls mean nothing aside from it shows the motorists agenda – they can’t bully riders who can’t hear them tooting their horn, revving their engine etc which happens daily… ; )
Lets hope we never have a
Lets hope we never have a true democracy then, because as ever the misinformed prejudices of the majority will cause real punishment of minorities. Mob rule.
Garbage. The opinion of the
Garbage. The opinion of the general public equates to uninformed opinion.
“The opinion of the general
“The opinion of the general public equates to uninformed opinion”
a.k.a. democracy
Note to motorists completing
Note to motorists completing a survey for cyclists.
Don’t criticise what you don’t understand.
Why are we not commissioning a survey with a 60% response return rate from cyclists on the standard of driving and justice in this country?
Our survey says: Most people
Our survey says: Most people regurgitate things they’ve read in the papers back at surveys.
Out of only So lets look at
Out of only So lets look at the breakdown
60% motors,
25% neither
9% more motorist than cycle
…that’s 94% not regular/primarily a cyclist out of only 1867 people. Leaving 7% (rounding error) who are primarily cyclists.
Just sayin
So, if and when the
So, if and when the legislation is passed, and no significant statistical effect is seen (that controls for numbers of cyclists), as it hasn’t been anywhere else… would the law be rescinded?
Me thinks that is unlikely. Meanwhile life becomes slightly worse.
nuclear coffee wrote:So, if
Oh, there will be a statistical effect. No question. Fewer cyclists 🙂 That’s the one proven result of helmet legislation.
Wishful thinking? Those are
Wishful thinking? Those are things *you* can easily influence, much more so than people driving at 40mph while steering with their knees and texting two handed, or deciding that they’re cross with your cycling and skimming your elbow at 50mph, or thinking you should be in the ice covered bike lane, and deciding to tailgate you.
If the problem really was bad cycling, or earphones, or helmets, you can tell yourself that *you’ll* be ok, and that choosing the cycle as a mode of transport in the UK isn’t a triumph of hope and misplaced faith in other people.
I read the article yesterday.
I read the article yesterday. What it highlights is how few people actually understand what causes most cycle crashes and cyclist injuries and deaths. DfT research shows that over 80% of incidents involving a cyclist and a motor vehicle are not the fault of the rider.
The survey also shows how most people (and that includes some cyclists apparently) are unaware that wearing a helmet would make no difference to the outcome for most cyclists involved in incidents that result in serious injuries or fatalities. And it shows too how most people are unaware how ineffective cycle helmets are due to the pathetically low impact standards they’re designed to.
That said, I think anyone wearing headphones or earbuds while they ride is nuts. All well and good off-road but on-road, your hearing is really important to your safety.
Hey, look – there’s a dead
Hey, look – there’s a dead cat!
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2013/11/24/the-dead-cat-strategy-how-the-tories-hope-to-win-the-next-el
how many people know what the
how many people know what the design parameters of a bicycle helmet?
How many see helmet and assume it gives the same level of protection as a motorbike helmet, if you think it is obvious it can’t, but this isn’t about common sense.
The xkcd for today is
The xkcd for today is particularly appropriate for the discussion about regurgitating results of studies
http://xkcd.com/1295/
can we have a survey about
can we have a survey about driving standards? and specifically ask lots of pedestrians and cyclists about this??
I just went for a walk in my local area (camden town) and within 30 minutes of being in the centre area around the tube station and high street saw:
-numerous motorists using smartphones in their cars
-numerous motorbikes, cars and HGV / Bus sitting right in the ASL at the traffic lights
-2 specific instances where 2 motorists got caught of out place after red lights had changed, and then tried to drive through pedestrians crossing on green light, with pedestrians shouting and signalling them both to stop before they got run over. This was:
at lights next to Sports Direct, this is where the women on the bike was run over by lorry recently
at lights next to barclays bank/gym/Vans shop and tube station
no sign of any Police enforcement in this area, and this is one of the busiest Tourists destinations in the UK for people coming to Camden markets
I think we should ban
I think we should ban headphone wearing and texting
by pedestrians unless they are fully trained, wearing hi-vis
and appropriate safety wear. Also car drivers should be
forced to wear helmets for hteir own safety too ….
ooohh is that my alarm clock !!!!
really dont understand why
really dont understand why people are fiercly against helmets. Yes they arent stylish but they are better than nothing and they could very well save your life one day!! All arguments ive seen against helmets are people just saying that they dont need to wear one.
tomawest wrote:really dont
Actually they’re not better than nothing. They’re pretty much indistinguisable from nothing. Have a good read of http://cyclehelmets.org
Meanwhile I’m going to be introducing legislation to make you wear a pair of underpants on your head while riding. It’s got to be better than _nothing_ right? Common sense after all.
tomawest wrote:really dont
VEry few people say don’t wear a helmet, most people are anti compulsion. Why?
Do you know the design parameters of a helmet, fall over and hit your head, your at the limit.
Get hit by a car doing 30+ and your are way outside the parameters.
As most accidents are down to driver negligence, maybe the better course of action is to deal with the problem and stop blaming the victim? Some women get raped, should we ban women from going out without a chasity belt on?
Study after study shows compulsary helmet laws mean less cyclists? is that a good or bad thing?
The police currently don’t bother enforcing speed limits, ASLs, parking, tailgating, crap lane use of motorways, phone use, car radio distraction, red light jumping, etc…… So your asking them to enforce a law on the victim while the criminal is allowed to carry on???
Then we have a study suggesting that drivers actually take more risks with cyclists wearing helmets than they do with those who don’t!!!!!!
Finally, have a look at those nations with most cyclists, where cycling is NORMAL, countries such as Netherlands or Denmark, do they have compulsary helmet laws, in fact do they actually have many people wearing helmets volutarily?
tomawest wrote:really dont
You’re really quite new to this kind of debate, aren’t you…?
Dear Tomawest,
If helmets
Dear Tomawest,
If helmets were “better than nothing”, then you might have a point. Reality, as assessed by studies of real-world and societal-level outcomes, very strongly suggests otherwise:
a) Compulsory helmets only result in, at best, a small level of improvement in head injury rates amongst cyclists and *no* significant difference overall in injury rates.
b) Compulsory helmets have a strong detrimental effect on cycling participation. Fewer people cycle. Certain demographics see extreme drops in cycling participation, e.g. teenage girls. (Girls already do less exercise than boys, so this makes things worse).
c) Any societal gains from reduced head injuries are outweighed, by at least an order of magnitude, by the increased lifetime health problems from reduced exercise, due to compulsory helmet laws.
Basically, the benefits to society would be, at best, small (though, even those are not at all strongly proven – see NL as counter-point), while the harms would be *great* and *certain*.
I have a longer overview on my blog, and I try to collate any further good studies I find in the comments of it: http://paul.jakma.org/2011/10/28/the-case-against-bicycle-helmets-quick-guide/
Alternatively, go read back through the comments on previous road.cc helmet compulsion articles. 😉
A much better way to make cyclists safe AND which would result in MORE people cycling would be to *FIX THE FUCKING ROAD SYSTEM* to minimise the chances and consequences of motorists hitting cyclists (which is what’s doing the fucking damage in the first place). Several other countries have *proven* that this is far, *FAR* more effective than helmets & hi-viz.
Nice summary!
So most
Nice summary!
So most cyclists are uninformed–or, more accurately, misinformed. Posts like yours surely help those who reach out to seek information, but do you have ideas on how to educate the general public? Do you wear one of those stickers that says “Ask me why I ride without a helmet”? Do you stop helmeted cyclists on the street and explain how they’re killing people (presumably peer pressure functions much like a helmet law)? Do you start where I started (apparently more innocuously) by asking cyclists for advice: which brands and designs of helmets are the most effective? Any thoughts? I do none of those things, but I’d like to know if you’ve found advocacy that works well.
I find this whole headphone
I find this whole headphone thing bizarre. Are there even any stats to back up the idea that wearing headphones is a contributory factor in accidents? I regularly see cyclists in London with headphones in, who are clearly aware of their surroundings. In contrast I also regularly see cyclists who don’t even seem to understand the need to look over their shoulder regularly. Whether the latter group have earphones in or not they are far more dangerous. The whole argument just seems to be part of an attempt to blame cyclists for being hit by someone else.
It actually reminds me of an accident I had back when I was a student. I was riding to a local park to study for an exam when a left turning van took me out. After I picked myself off the ground I checked my belongings. This included the items in my rucksack (books, food, etc) and my Walkman (yes, this was a while ago). Of course I’d not been using it at the time, but as it had been in my back pocket I was worried it might be damaged when I hit the ground. As soon as the driver saw it he started shouting that I was listening to music and that is why the accident happened, which was complete rubbish. However, it demonstrates the way that someone causing an accident will jump on any reason to blame the victim. The same is true with helmets. Most of the recent fatal accidents involved the victim being crushed to death. Presence or lack of a helmet makes no difference when a tonne plus lorry drives over you, but it seems to be easier to blame the cyclist for their death. No doubt if they’d asked the question whether cyclists wearing HiViz should be law the answer to that would be yes too….
Personally, I’d be very
Personally, I’d be very disappointed if headphones were banned. I’d never go out without a helmet, but I often listen to my iPod whilst I’m riding. Most of my riding is done alone and out on quiet roads in either the Pays de la Loire or Derbyshire countrysides, so it’s not really a problem, because I don’t need to have the volume up loud to be able to hear my music above the traffic. I’d never listen to my iPod whilst cycling through a busy city, though. I know form experience that you need all your senses when navigating through Paris during rush hour and I imagine London is the same.
Stupid people are stupid
Stupid people are stupid shocker.
Shows more education is required. Although for the 11% who are intending to vote UKIP, I fear that they are beyond help, and the only kind thing to do would be to take them out the back and blow their brains out with a shotgun.
Bikebikebike wrote:Stupid
Your assuming they have brains 😕
Since the last big debate
Since the last big debate about helmets and the article about lights i have kept a count myself of cyclists (road, mtb and bmx style bikes) using the roads and pavements around where i live and work.
Its far from being scientific but just a bit of fun for myself. The resukts are quite interesting:
I counted 745 cyclists in total of which 434 were road bikes, 219 mtb and the rest (92) were bmx style bikes.
Of the 434 none were ridden on the pavement and of those 401 were wearing helmets – 92%.
Of the 219 MTB less than 5% were wearing a helmet and nearly 80% were on the pavement when i saw them.
Of the bmx riders none had a helmet on and all were on the pavement BUT nearly every one of them was a youngster – upto 14yrs.
Obviously i dont know there ages, where they were going or anything about them and its just for a bit of fun but from what i saw it appears that if your on the road the vast majority will wear a helmet yet those on pavements wont.
As for lights it’s quite frightening how many dont have a light on their bike during darkness. In the end it proves nothing, just thought i would pass it on.
FFS
FFS
FFS
FFS
FFS
FFS
FFS
F
FFS
FFS
FFS
FFS
FFS
FFS
FFS
FFS
FFS
the thing that concerns me
the thing that concerns me about “helmets” and “high vis” is the political agenda behind it?
when I went to hospital just under 2 weeks ago, after being run over by a white van driver who simply did not bother checking the road before pulling out into traffic from behind a parked bus (he then fled the scene)
the first things the women at the A&E intake desk asked me:
“where you wearing a helmet?” (answer:yes, but i did not fall over or hit my head, I broke my right hand on the side of his vehicle when I impacted it at 20kph)
“where you wearing high-vis?” (answer:yes, but this was 09.30am in the morning in sunlight, and he did not bother checking his mirrors before pulling out in front of me)
-WHO has tasked A&E staff to ask these questions?
-Is this is a survey of cycling accidents?
-WHO is using the data from this survey?
-To what purpose?
I find this somewhat creepy.
And the lack of resources put into tackling illegal drivers (no license/ mot / insurance) which I can only assume includes the guy who caused my accident because he did everything in his power to escape the scene before anyone could accost him
Compromise; use iphone ear
Compromise; use iphone ear buds, the sound leak is so high you can’t hear the music anyway!
There would be less accidents if there was less traffic, better roads, more cycle paths between towns, better road lighting, less use of in car sat nav/stereos/mobiles/smoking, better on board viability technology in large vehicles, speeding, a ban of excessively wide 4wd’s, wider roads, sensible road behaviour, young drivers curfew, enforced use of winter tyres, pedestrians learning to look, no winter or dark nights, introduction of foam tarmac, rubber cars, badgers/fox/deer road awareness courses, American drivers who can’t understand roundabouts, rush hour and reach down for a packet of mints instead of looking where you are going…..
No, lets just attack the cyclist, they are easy to go for & won’t annoy the voting motorist.
So, which one shall we pursue…?
ah, a government think tank
ah, a government think tank is going to make a 5mph cycling limit to eliminate wind noise, don’t worry, they have got it covered.
When I drive a car I often
When I drive a car I often have some music on.
When I ride my motorbike I have ear plugs in to protect what’s left of my hearing.
When I cycle at a decent pace the wind noise makes me deaf anyway.
When the electric car becomes more common you wont hear it coming.
If you rely on your hearing for any road use you are an idiot.
If you ban it for one you must ban it for all.
As for helmets, the specification and protective capability’s place them in the toy category at best.
good for holding a camera tho.
In another study….
“Public
In another study….
“Public wrong about nearly everything”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html
Evidence based policy making
Evidence based policy making sounds like an indisputably good idea.
Policy made on the basis of this survey would be the reverse.
As someone said ‘There’s a
As someone said ‘There’s a dead cat on the table!’.
The politicians have swiftly moved the story from ‘6 dead cyclists’ to ‘cyclists need to do something about their safety’. This is all very ‘The thick of it’.
This is probably for two reasons:
1) Because the clamour over the 6 dead is reactionary (i.e. It is a reaction to a series of events which don’t (per se) have any connection).
2) Because it means they don’t have to do anything.
I mention the reactionary response, because if, in May, you had gone to politicians about Lee Rigby and asked them to do something to protect soldiers or radicalised muslims they would do the same thing: throw a dead cat on the table. But the reactionary demand is do something about the situation, when actually it is an isolated incident – the UK is not full of radicalised muslims wishing this sort of thing.
Now, if after a year soldiers are regularly being killed by radicalised muslims they would know that there was a real problem, they would then be bound to do something for many many reasons, and mostly that the story would not go away. This is the danger of jumping on something like the unfortunate spate of deaths in the capital and demanding action, the ‘cluster’ of deaths has the effect of discouraging cyclists and therefore less cyclists are likely to put themselves in danger and so no more deaths, no more media attention.
The politicians are actually hand-tied to do anything. They have their policies, and they have allocated their budgets already to cycle safety (and other areas), and so they’re unlikely to do anything unless it can be proven (with some significant statistics) that cycle deaths are increasing, and there is some way of addressing it….so to make your point you need to have the data to show it – after a year, if you have 24 deaths, with an increase of 50% that they can’t ignore things. But we’re not at that yet.
Basically the politicians (Boris/Cameron/whomever) have out manoeuvred those cyclists campaigners wishing to use these tragic events to persuade further funding for infrastructure or road legislation. Better to organise yourself into a political organisation/opposition will to steal votes from them and expose them for their lack of action – point out their hypocrisy at a time when it counts. A typical case of careful what you wish for….cycling lobbyists will now be distracted into campaigning against high viz, helmets and ear phones, and this will be on the table every time until statistics show a clear trend of events – this can only ever be shown after full inquests into the cycling accidents. Such is the reality of politics and urban living.
Colin Peyresourde wrote: the
I think this is probably the root of it. A cluster of deaths don’t prove anything. And people that see themselves as cycle campaigners need to be very careful about shouting “look how terrible it is, it’s so bad that we need X”. There are multiple possible outcomes from convincing the public that cycling is terribly dangerous… most of them are ones which I don’t want.
I was thinking about the
I was thinking about the recent London cycling deaths over the weekend and whilst tragic, I think there is a whole world of perspective that needs to be applied. What do I mean?
Well, put simply, the fact that a cyclist death in London is new, added to the fact that multiple cycling deaths create a whole barrage of knee jerk reaction to me simply proves how safe cycling is.
The day cycling deaths are no longer news, is the day that I dred… Put it this way, how many people have you read about getting killed in their car this week?
The likely reality is, there have been more than six. Its no longer news… people die in cars all teh time, thats what happens. The fact that cyclists don’t get killed is the very reason it is news when tragically cyclists are killed.
This is a safe sport, this is a safe mode of transport, cycling is safe. We do not need laws ‘protecting’ cyclists by restricting their activity.
If there should be a law applied to cyclists it should be that everyone should go through a cycle proficiency course. Drivers need to have it before they drive, kids should have it before being let out alone. It shuld be taught at school.
I am not surprised by the
I am not surprised by the overwhelming opposition to the imposition of strict liability for motorists in the event of an accident involving a cyclist. There wasn’t even a majority in favour amongst the ‘more cyclist than motorist’ group. I agree, it goes totally against the principle of innocent until proven guilty that is fundamental to the British justice system.
I did raise an eyebrow at the 59% who think that punishments should be harsher for cyclists that ’cause accidents’. If we are talking about pedestrians, perhaps fair enough. Otherwise, I would have thought that (serious) injury / death was probably a harsh enough outcome for the kamikaze cyclist.
GoingRoundInCycles wrote:I am
Which only shows how ill informed most brits are.
It is not innocent until proven guilty, it is statistically you were probably in the wrong therefore your insurance company is going to take a hit. We’ll worry about whether your guilty or not in court later. Current system is insurance company will refuse the payment, will find any excuse to avoid a payment, it does take years, and if you happen to die of complications all the better.
As an aside, as the driver is the one who is going to be assumed as the probable cause of an accident, the idea is that they will try a bit harder to avoid one. ( i suspect it won’t work though!)
The fundemental flaw of the British Legal system, the truth does not matter, it is who is the better orator.
We can all see how this is
We can all see how this is going, can’t we? The slow, insidious creep towards compulsory helmets. But there may be an answer.
If we are being forced down the “data shows that helmets will save cyclists’ lives” route, then the same data gathering methodology will also show that drivers’ lives will be saved too, if they also wear helmets. And far more drivers die directly as a result of head injuries than cyclists.
We should be using this clear and unequivocal fact, wherever this thorny issue is raised, because it’s one of the most powerful arguments that we have at our disposal.
So this YouGov “survey”
So this YouGov “survey” contains between 75 and 280 cyclists, depending how you cut it. Rather a high risk of atypical results with such a small sample, so subdividing the responses like in this start of this road.cc article is rather inappropriate: the error margins are just too high once you do that.
Why can’t this topic just be
Why can’t this topic just be left alone and up to personal choice
jarredscycling wrote:Why
Are you new around here?
jarredscycling wrote:Why
Agree about helmets, but in my experience, headphones are not conducive to great riding.
(Unscientifically)
I completely agree about
I completely agree about headphones.
The amount of other riders you say “morning” to who are really close but can’t hear you is growing.
(unscientifically)
jimmythecuckoo wrote:I
So deaf people should be banned from cycling too?
Whilst I never wear
Whilst I never wear headphones whilst cycling, it makes no sense that cyclists are somehow asking to be run over by wearing them. Surely the driver behind must take care to look where they are going?
If I’m rear ended, does it matter that I could hear that I was going to be rear-ended a few moments before it happens or should I just accept that motor vehicles can bully me off the road?
On the other hand it is too scary listening to the noise of cars accelerating behind me and motorcycles revving their engines impatiently trying to hint to me to get out the way because I don’t pay road tax have insurance etc. (yawn).
I think I’m going to start wearing headphones as it will my make commute more pleasant. :S
PS: How does wearing headphones make me less visible to motorists?
As an aside it’d be
As an aside it’d be interesting to know of the incidences of head injuries in the pro peloton pre and post helmet compulsion and see if they’ve gone up or down.
allez neg wrote:As an aside
Not many deaths, certainly not statistically significant either way.
Weylandt (sp), Casartelli (sp) both died in crashes at speed going downhill. More specifically they died because they hit something large and imoveable, wall, concrete block. Would Casartelli have survived if he had worn a helmet? no one knows.
Mrmo – my point is that while
Mrmo – my point is that while bike tech and advances in training have possibly made racing faster, better doping control will have balanced that out, so one could argue that the pro peloton may be the closest we can get to a control group, where any variation in the risk in severity of head injury may be attributable to helmet use.
I can remember an ad showing a thoroughly mashed Specialised Sub 6 lid crashed into a traffic island by a pro racer (I want to say Abdoujhapharov but am not sure)
allez neg wrote:Mrmo – my
fair enough, but if you consider the full history of pro racing, the actual numbers who have died isn’t that great, the odd down a ravine, high speed crash.
Most injuries aren’t head but legs, arms, collar, that sort of thing. Not saying that helmets haven’t ever helped, just not enough cases either way. and unless you repeat the crash you can never know what would have happened.
mrmo wrote:allez neg
fair enough, but if you consider the full history of pro racing, the actual numbers who have died isn’t that great, the odd down a ravine, high speed crash.
Most injuries aren’t head but legs, arms, collar, that sort of thing. Not saying that helmets haven’t ever helped, just not enough cases either way. and unless you repeat the crash you can never know what would have happened.— allez neg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513730/Miraculous-moment-16-year-old-cyclist-wakes-month-coma-hugs-father.html
Just goes to show, you never know when you might need one.
Not saying it should be compulsory, but I bet this lad wishes he’d put one on.
Colin Peyresourde
Sometimes you seem like a rational, evidence-driven person. Other times you post stuff like the above.
What evidence do you have that a helmet would have helped with the above? Do you even have the specific aetiology of the above accident?
More than likely a helmet would have made no difference.
As a regular commuter to work
As a regular commuter to work I play any music I want through the MP3 player and speaker on my phone. I play the volume at full blast. On the busy road I can just about hear it, but on the Canal banks its fine. I don’t think it disturbs any pedestrians as they tend to have earbuds in anyway.
Martin Badger wrote:As a
What if another cyclist wants to overtake you … if you aren’t aware, then you might have a side-on collision if you drift across the path. It is definitely NOT safe to cycle with headphones on as you won’t be fully aware of your surroundings.
As to wearing a helmet … most cyclists already do. I don’t think it should be compulsory as the only person who’s safety is affected is the rider, and it should be their choice if they wish to wear one.
nbrus wrote:
What if another
It is certainly foolish to drift sideways without looking behind. Even with earphones I tend to be fully aware I am cycling on a road, and would never change line without looking. If you don’t look, but rely on hearing, that is when you might cause a collision with a silent bicycle.
felixcat wrote:nbrus
And how is someone supposed to attract your attention if you’re not listening? I don’t think you could argue that you would be more aware of your surroundings (and therefore safer) without the earphones…
nbrus wrote:
And how is
The job of the overtaken is to keep a consistent line and speed. The rest of the onus is on the overtaker. S/he should not depend on any other action by the overtaken.
felixcat wrote:nbrus
You’ve missed the point completely … this isn’t simply about overtaking … that was only an example. Its about awareness of your surroundings and others being able to attract your attention if necessary.
nbrus wrote:
You’ve missed
No I haven’t. I was dealing, quite effectively I think, with a point you were making, which was about overtaking.
Most of those who want to ban earphones resort to vague generalisations about awareness of your surroundings. I find it difficult to imagine any real life problem. The only idea with any traction at all, seems to me that one might be distracted and lost in what one is listening to. This applies to drivers too, but I find that it is not a problem. I find that reality quickly overides the voice in my ear.
Sight is by far the most important sense for safety.
Can you give me a scenario where lack of hearing might lead to an accident? And at the same time the extra sense that the deaf are said to have would save them?
In real life I find that the problem with listening whilst I ride is that traffic can drown out “From Our Own Correspondent”, not vice versa.
felixcat wrote:nbrus
I’m with Felix on this one. When I pass other cyclists I pass wide. Not within inches as motorists are prone to do. Also find a bell is usefull. The high pitch usually cuts through all types of noise.
Why is The (Sunday) Times
Why is The (Sunday) Times running a poll like this which stirs up opinion contrary to its “Cities Fit For Cyclists” campaign? Just seems dumb and counter-productive.
Maybe they should have added in the question, “Knowing that Johnson has had multiple affairs outside of his marriage, one which resulted in a child that he has absolutely no participation in raising, do you think Boris should ‘keep it in his pants’ and stop being a dirty philandering bastard?”
Yes it is (100% safe) next
Yes it is (100% safe) next piece of rubbish?
My vote: helmet should be a
My vote: helmet should be a choice. lets remember cycling is not dangerous, but the car that hit you. 20yrs + of cycling and I can decide when to wear a helmet, commute in London or tearing down a slope in the alps ‘yes’, doing under 10mph on a tow path ‘no’. Not sure why people have such an obsession intruding upon other peoples free will, I keep myself to myself so expect the same from others.
I would have preferred to see
I would have preferred to see the helmet question worded,
“I’m aware that a compulsory helmet law would cause more deaths than it saves, as a result of inactivity among those who subsequently choose not to cycle, and I know that it will cause increased car use and more congestion, making cycling more dangerous for those continuing to cycle, but, since I have a tendency not to think things through in the longer term, I still think compulsion is a good idea”.
Here’s a quick link to Jeff Brewster’s well documented University of Bath study into the effects that helmets have on overtaking vehicles, http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf,
in which he concludes that,
“the helmet effect is likely the result of drivers judging cyclists’ skill levels from their appearance and adjusting their overtaking accordingly”,
and that,
“drivers of buses and heavy goods vehicles got significantly closer than other vehicles”.
Just as some days, I want to
Just as some days, I want to get all the gear on and others I just want to jump on the bike, in old shorts, a t-shirt, trainers, nothing more, to nip to shops or pub. Sure someone will say I am going to die any minute without a helmet, but 20yrs plus of me making my own mind up of where and when seems to work, just as when I have to make any other risk assessment. If you want to wear a helmet I will not be offended, mind the high viz is vile, but your choice, let me make mine. Think of how righteously smug you can be if I crash and die.
Could there possibly be any
Could there possibly be any worse knee jerk reaction to divert attention away from the real issues for cyclists, shame on you Boris!
Ban earphones – we are outside so we can hear the traffic, not inside a noise-proof box, probably with earphones on listening to the radio and making phone calls. If you have ever ridden with earphones then you will know this is rubbish!
Compulsory helmets – would reduce the number of cyclists and thereby undo all the good done from the recent growth in cycling by increasing pollution and health costs. You will not make cycling safer by having less cyclists…..simples!
As a lifelong cyclist myself, the recent high level of fatalities is very sad, but it is not because of helmets, earphones, hi-viz or even running red lights for that matter…..it’s because motorists and lorry drivers either don’t look for us or can’t see us.
Lack of a safe cycling infrastructure and poor driver awareness of cyclists is undoubtedly the main reason for fatalities, so in the meantime…..
Ride where you can be seen and always ride as though you haven’t been seen…..simples!
The NHS deals with about
The NHS deals with about 70,000 serious head injury incidents each year.
The most common causes of head injuries are falling over, motor vehicle crashes and assault. A significant proportion occur in the home or playground.
Cycling related head injuries are a small fraction of the thousands of head injuries the NHS deals with each year, probably less than 1%.
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Head-injury-minor/Pages/Causes.aspx
About 65% of head injuries are also alcohol related.
So the most effective legislation to reduce the incidence of head injuries in the population are ;
1. Compulsory helmets when in a motor vehicle
2. Compulsory helmets when moving about the home
3. Compulsory helmets when drinking in the pub
4. Compulsory helmets for children when playing
Funny how the media, medical profession, and authorities never mention these.
On a wider scale, smoking causes 100,000 premature deaths a year in the UK.
So an outright ban on smoking would have a far greater impact than a helmet law. Funny how smoking is left to the individual’s informed choice but cycling helmets must be forced upon people.
It is an odd world….
Another conveniently weighted
Another conveniently weighted poll that does not address the real problems, that is poor driving standards and a lack of enforcement of driving standards on the roads. :W
A lot of people die in bed
A lot of people die in bed perhaps they should wear helmets too.
I want to know what’s coming
I want to know what’s coming behind me and can’t understand why anyone would wear earphones, I suppose in the city there is always something coming up behind you though.
Helmets need to be a choice, because unlike seat belts airbags and motorcycle helmets, they really aren’t life savers for anyone but kids, most of us ride too spastic to have the thing protect against anything serious.
I wear mine ONLY because they are compulsory for races, TTs and events, so train in one.
When out with the kids I don’t wear one (they do) as I find the air noise around them affects my spatial awareness and I am on max alert looking out for the kids…..which brings back the headphone thing……
HOWEVER ….as advised by my uncle who was a pro in the 50s, I ALWAYS wear specs, as nothing is more dangerous than something getting you in the eye!
So make specs compulsory!
Regarding bells on bikes:
I
Regarding bells on bikes:
I have to say, having fitted 100’s of bells to new bikes being build and sold off workshops in Evans and Cycle Surgery the past few years to meet BS6102 Pt.1
the “stock” bells are absolutely terrible and will either not be heard in the traffic, or will end up snapping or rotating around the handlebar
the only effective bells I have found are the oversized “Ding Dong” bells (stock on pashley bikes), the oversized bells often sold with a “I LOVE my bike” graphic or the awesome “air zound” compressed air system
years ago I saw a courier use an Air Zound which made a woman pedestrian fall over in shock when he parped the horn to warn her from stepping into the street
hampstead_bandit
I’m not commenting on the main topic because it makes me too angry.
But on bells – I can never figure this out. Half the pedestrians you encounter get annoyed if you ring the bell, even just one ‘ding’, because they see it as aggressive and imperious, but the other half reproach you for not having rung your bell to warn them you are behind them.
’59 per cent of those
’59 per cent of those respondents agreed that wearing of helmets should be compulsory’
that may be what the man in the street thinks but it’s my head, not his, so it’s none of his damn business. In the words of John Stuart Mill
“Over one’s mind and over one’s body the individual is sovereign.”
or to quote Sid Vicious
”I’ve met the man in the street and he’s a c***t”
so he can keep his magic plastic hat of invincibility and stick up his a…e
What part of ‘freedom’ do
What part of ‘freedom’ do people not understand, we live in a free country, I’d like it to stay that way. Bans and mandatory helmet laws are nanny state gone mad.
We want safer routes for cycling, not passing oppressive laws that make people want to cycle less and cause them to think cycling it inherently dangerous – it isn’t.
I have really tried to stay
I have really tried to stay away from this, but as a cycling Emergency Medicine Consultant in a large urban hospital that sees 100K patients a year and 25 % children, this is my view.
I see a lot of adults with head injuries, usually involving alcohol and interpersonal violence. Maybe they should put on a helmet before a great night out? Obviously those who misuse alcohol and drink at home who fall downstairs should helmet-up too, not that will prevent their broken neck.
Children over 2 with head injuries are either car v pedestrian, or falls from a height, usually trees or high walls. Maybe we shouldn’t allow children to play out without a helmet and wrist protectors?
Reflecting on it, I can only remember two significant cycling injuries (both adults), one ice driven and one from a fork failure. There are many more prevalent causes of injury in children than cycling.
Helmets won’t save you from multiple injuries from being run-over, nor will they save you from a spinal injury, but they do offer useful head protection. “Bulls-eye” to a car windscreen is nasty, and helmets are useful here. For what it’s worth, I always wear a helmet, but I respect others choice not to. Personally I think if you riding involves going 40mph downhill, you are mad if you don’t wear a helmet, and if in traffic then the risk of a car not seeing you and your head hitting the windscreen makes it the right choice.
So wear a helmet for:
Peloton speeds
Roads shared with cars
Something that might chuck you off, like ice
No point for:
Tow paths in decent weather
If you have cycle lanes separate from traffic, as you should.
When can cycling go back to
When can cycling go back to being something a weirdo minority do? I liked it that way, when the media and politicians left us alone.
Drivers wearing ear buds is
Drivers wearing ear buds is now on the rise, why are we not looking at a ban on wearing these in cars whilst driving? I wear ear buds whilst commuting, and the noise level is never loud enough that I cannot hear what is going on around me. I probably make more effort at looking around when I am wearing these. Helmet as always I say personal choice. There are always going to be poor cyclists/drivers and pedestrians, lets not try and vilify each other, but look out for each other!
😕
(No subject)
@fluffykitten
I’ve never
@fluffykitten
I’ve never understood the reaction many UK pedestrians have to a cyclist using a bell as a polite warning.
In other countries I have not had this reaction, and riding off-road I found many ramblers appreciated the friendly warning that I was coming through
Using the bell on my commuting in London, I’ve had people swear at me, spit at me, make sarcastic “ding ding” comments (usually drunk men in the evening)
as far as I am concerned, the bell is an essential part of my commuting bike, and I’d rather annoy someone, than have a collision with a pedestrian who walks out in the road without looking
hampstead_bandit wrote:I’ve
The old-fashioned brrrrring bells have less of this effect, but still have some of it.
Today I had a 4×4 force pass in a lane with inadequate width, honking as he drove at me, pretty clearly prepared to clip me if needed, then pointing at the (closed by police due to an RTC) cycle track. No helmets or open ears would have stopped that. It needs either redesigned roads without dangerous-width lanes or tougher policing of motor vehicles – those should be the next steps.
Heart/circulatory diseases
Heart/circulatory diseases and cancer deaths due to being overweight in the UK 2010: 35,944 (London 4,647).
Cycling deaths 2010 UK, 111.
People should be encouraged to cycle, harping on about helmets and the danger of cycling is daft, cycling is approximately as dangerous as walking, whilst if more people cycled, thousands of lives could be saved.
None of the news articles have any sense of proportion.
kie7077
You wouldn’t know it from the way people argue vociferously on here…..
Agree, cycling is not that dangerous. And never believe anything you read in the news. It is a massive skew of information – it reports events which are out of the ordinary because they are interesting. Headlines of ‘Thousands successfully commute to work by bicycle everyday’ don’t really happen.
The only thing this survey
The only thing this survey has proved is that the vast majority of UK residents are really, really ignorant about cycling. How about doing another one but give the respondents the information first. Mind you, given the “persistence of myths” effect, the results probably wouldn’t be that much different.
The earphone thing really
The earphone thing really gets strong reactions. other than social rides i always use earbuds. I’ve been cycling with noise isolating earphones for years, but started wearing them after years of learning how to move and behave on the road safely and confidently without them. As safe as i know i am with earphones, I would hesitate to recommend a beginner cyclist to wear them before gaining experience on the road.
I do think anyone that relies on sound alone to make turns or passing maneuvers is acting in a dangerous manner. Sure you can listen to reinforce what other senses are telling you but unless you physically look to confirm it is safe to turn or pass then your not safe. listening alone is unsafe.
Motor bike helmets are sound isolating. Most wear foam ear plugs, even the police who have headsets on while driving. no backlash here.
Deaf people are allowed to cycle and to ride motorcycles. no backlash here.
motorcycle lessons teach you only to look. you can hear whatever you want but unless you see that is is safe to move you do not move.
cars, especially luxury vehicles come with sound isolation glass and wadding throughout the vehicle. they are designed to isolate you from the environment outside of the car. Yes you are more vulnerable on a bike this is exactly why you have to be super disciplined with observations.
car stereo’s drown out all noise outside of the vehicle. you wouldnt wind the window down and listen before changing lanes? no you look.
I think people just knee jerk on this and think it must be dangerous without thinking about it.
Its not for everyone, neither is wearing a helmet. Why cant we just let folk be! too many people thinking they have some kind of authority to preach to others. If i want to commute on a tricycle in my mr Blobby suit with beats headphones on its up to me.
Seems that the moral majority
Seems that the moral majority just love to wag the finger and tut tut.
The fact is most people in the world are cyclists and by that I mean able to ride a bike. We learn as kids without a care in the world for helmets or HiViz (unless we ride with our over-cautious parents!). Many of us give up cycling in adulthood and then conveniently forget the joy we had on our bikes as kids. There is some risk of injury and a very small risk of death but these are greatly outweighed by the health benefits, the freedom and the enjoyment that cycling gives us. Not many of us die in the process but when we do it almost always involves a motor vehicle and, disproportionately, involves a HGV or PSV. As this is a fact why would wearing a helmet stop lorries from killing you? Why would removing earphones stop a coach or a lorry from crushing you? The answer is they wouldn’t. So why then are these solutions to cycling deaths being proposed? Bias? Prejudice? Ignorance? illogic?
Peoples opinions are sometimes not worth a jot, usually because they are ill-informed, prejudiced or just plain illogical. I suspect that many surveyed by YouGov can be placed into any or all of these categories.
Maybe we should make pedestrians, who are jogging or running, wear helmets too and stop them from wearing headphones. Better still, why don’t they run in the road! With the kids on skateboards and rollerblades! Bloody nuisances!
Good grief.
This latest debate seems like
This latest debate seems like a sneaky way of passing a helmet law by pinning the headphone debate along with it.
I don’t think wearing headphones is sensible, yes I know deaf people cycle safely but they have also had a lifetime to adapt to it.
Helmets though (even though I wear one sometimes) should still be a personal choice.
Personally speaking, I
Personally speaking, I managed to make it through from about 1974 to 2007 without wearing or needing a lid BUT (I know we’ve all heard the anecdotes…) after a friend of mine died from what would have been a easily survivable fall (brain haemorrhage due to a base of skull fracture), I do wear a lid nearly every time I ride one of my bikes.
Now I can see people either nodding in agreement with my personal decision or shaking their heads, understanding the reasons but disagreeing with them…well I do wear a lid to save me in the odd chance that I do hit my head and don’t get mangled in the process by a truck or car.
So lets put all the cards on the table, helmets are not the safety panacea that the uneducated think that they are, because while they may save you in impacts of <30mph (well they are only tested up to 30mph anyway) you are already in serious danger of injury or death...would it not be better to prevent the fall first!?! X(
So do I still wear a lid knowing that, well yes I do, it is convenient for mounting the lights and video camera etc on and could save me from the lower speed impacts and banging my thick skull on some street furniture and ending up even madder than I already am, but in the majority of recent cases it will just as likely hold my skull together to make identification easier. :S
Never the less I do encourage all riders to wear them but other than for children or youngsters I vehemently disagree with making them compulsory, especially when so many of those uneducated people believe that it is going to make any significant dent in the casualty figures that we are currently seeing. This is because they'll do bugger all to protect your spleen, liver or other internal organs that will cause you to bleed out while lying on the road if damaged in a substantial collision impact!! ~X(
Furry Mommy wrote: a friend
With all respect, you have no idea whether the fall would be survivable or not. It is extremely difficult to reconstruct the circumstances of a crash and without instrumentation recording what happened you are making a wild speculation.
Or it may exacerbate the oblique blow you sustain and turn a painful injury into a life-threatening one.
Helmets are most definitely NOT tested up to 30mph impact speeds.
This is like strapping a sharp rock to your head with the intent to lower the effectiveness of your helmet.
Again, with all respect, do what you want, but I think a large number of us would prefer to trust our own judgement. I certainly don’t think from your post that you have the same decision-making process that I do. Unsurprisingly I prefer mine. I encourage you to do what you want and not to spend your time encouraging anyone else.
There is no case for making helmets compulsory for children. This should be left to the parent to judge the risks and benefits. There is no clear basis to judge that helmets are useful for children.
This is very clearly a subject about which there is much less known than most people, including the “educated” believe.
Ush wrote:Furry Mommy wrote:
With all respect, you have no idea whether the fall would be survivable or not. It is extremely difficult to reconstruct the circumstances of a crash and without instrumentation recording what happened you are making a wild speculation.
Or it may exacerbate the oblique blow you sustain and turn a painful injury into a life-threatening one.
Helmets are most definitely NOT tested up to 30mph impact speeds.
This is like strapping a sharp rock to your head with the intent to lower the effectiveness of your helmet.
Again, with all respect, do what you want, but I think a large number of us would prefer to trust our own judgement. I certainly don’t think from your post that you have the same decision-making process that I do. Unsurprisingly I prefer mine. I encourage you to do what you want and not to spend your time encouraging anyone else.
There is no case for making helmets compulsory for children. This should be left to the parent to judge the risks and benefits. There is no clear basis to judge that helmets are useful for children.
This is very clearly a subject about which there is much less known than most people, including the “educated” believe.— Furry Mommy
Thank *goodness* that at least some common sense (and scientific understanding) prevails on this forum. Excellent post.
Furry Mommy wrote:So lets put
Myth! They’re only tested up to 12.42mph (5.52m/s) and even then, only in a guided freefall – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EN_1078 for the helmet test standard most common in the UK. It’s pathetic.
I wear a helmet but I’m going to stop as soon as I get a thick enough beanie to deflect the branches from the hedges and trees that the councils no longer cut… and actually, some of those have felt really nasty when they hit the helmet. Then I may still wear a helmet when it’s icy and a free fall onto the ground is more likely.
I never understand why I
I never understand why I bother reading these strings. It always ends up the same way. I wear a helmet every time I get on my bike. Because I want to (and it makes me look cool like Chris Froome B-) ) But hey, if you’d rather not wear one, then don’t. You will simply look less cool than me, which is fine. Until “the man” makes it compulsory, then you have the freedom of choice. I’m old enough to remember all the fuss about car seat belts becoming compulsory 30-odd years ago. Let’s stop shouting at each other (particularly at those with headphones in who may struggle to hear the arguments at regular volume) and enjoy however we choose to ride our bikes.
Darren makes a passing
Darren makes a passing comparison with compulsory car seatbelts. There is no comparison. Using the seatbelt, that is already in the car, stays there when you park it, automatically adjusts to a proper fit, does not make you look like an alien, or sweaty and besides it’s not as if you’re exerting yourself driving, is hardly any trouble at all. And making seatbelts compulsory did not stop anyone driving.
Helmets on the other hand, don’t come with the bike, can’t be attached securely to the bike when it’s parked (or not without extra hassle), is complex to fit correctly and useless if not, does make you look weird (identifies you as a member of the social out-group who all jump red lights), does make my head at least, horribly sweaty. Helmets are altogther so much trouble that they suppress the number of people cycling in all countries where either law or social pressure require them. And the people they stop cycling are not the sporty types who would take some kind of exercise anyway, but the peaceful pootlers, who don’t take any other exercise at all, so they get fatter, which is such a shame because they would be safer cyclists anyway, because pootlers avoid the dangerous roads where the scorchers get their speed kicks and don’t do that awfully hazardous wheels-in-the-air mountain-biking. Riding slower also gives more time to react.
Interesting statistic: 13% of the cyclists admitted to Dutch hospitals are helmet-wearing sport cyclists, even though more than 98% of the cycle traffic in the Netherlands comprises bare-headed (or normally hatted) riders of non-sporting bicycles. The pro-helmet speedy and thrill-seeking scorchers really are doing a more hazardous kind of cycling, for which a helmet may well be advisable. They need to wise up to the differences and stop trying to lumber us peaceful pootlers with THEIR safety gear etc.
Sure a lot of pootlers have been browbeaten into wearing the darned things. I was one of them. Since I stopped wearing a helmet (except when it’s icy, when it’s fortunately cold enough I don’t get sweaty) the problem I was having with stiffness in my neck has largely resolved and I’m sure that traffic gives me a wider berth.
No whole-population-based data shows any association between increased wearing of helmets in that population (whether increased by social or legal pressure) and fewer deaths per amount of cycling. Probably this is because increased helmet wearing is associated with increasingly sporty cycling, against which the fundamentally safer pootlers feel discouraged and stop cycling, and also the tendency of drivers to regard cyclists wearing “all the proper kit” to be more skilled, so less likely to wobble if passed very close. Not a safe assumption of course.
If helmets are made compulsory here: I WILL stop cycling. I’ll be retired soon, so maybe I’ll go live in another country, one with more respect for freedom and an individual’s right to choose. Germany perhaps.
Crankwinder wrote:
Helmets on
If you’re finding helmets “complex to fit correctly” then how you’re operating a bicycle without trouble is beyond me. If you find helmets “so much trouble” then you must find life in general in inconvenience. My helmet weighs 175g – I hardly know I’m wearing it, it’s ventilated enough that I rarely, if ever, get horribly sweaty.
As a helmet wearing cyclist, I have absolutely no problem with whatever other cyclists wear or don’t wear on their head. Do what you want, it’s your head, but it’s the venom with which “anti-helmet wearers” on this site have I find a bit distasteful.
Just out of interest, if you rode a motorbike, would you wear a helmet?
welly2 wrote:
If you find
I don’t see the relevance of your last question – motorbikes and their helmets are entirely different beasts to bikes and bike helmets, so whats the point of the question? My answer is “I wouldn’t ride a motorbike – too dangerous and environmentally damaging for my taste – and most of all, too bloody loud!”.
The “venom” you refer to is, insofar as it actually exists, a bit unfortunate. I also wear a helmet and also leave it up to others to decide.
But as with high-viz its pretty obviously a reactive venom to that spouted by the judgementalists and assorted victim-blamers and compulsionists on the other side. The recent Met police “Operation Victim Blame”, for example, almost made me want to stop wearing a helmet, just to annoy them.
Also – are you really saying you never get a distracting itch under your helmet? Or that you never set off, then realise something’s missing and have to go back for the damn thing? They _do_ add another inconvenience, another thing to forget or mislay when cycling.
Without going in to enough
Without going in to enough details to identify the friend that died (I need to ask the family before I do this?!), according to the coroners report that the base of skull fracture was caused by a single direct impact to the rear of the skull, whereby the force of the impact was transferred to the weakest part of the skull…the thin bone at the base of the skull. From the autopsy evidence of the impact site/injury the pathologist determined that the impact speed was probably less than 20mph, there were no other vehicles involved and no other indications of significant impact injury (minor bruising to elbows, shoulders and buttocks).
The coroner determined from this autopsy report that the fall and impact would more than likely have been survivable if he had been wearing a cycle helmet, insofar that the impact site at the rear of the skull was at the thickest part and showed no signs of significant damage.
So I have to go with those that have far more medical expertise and experience than I do, as to both the cause of death and the potential survivability of this fall, if a helmet had been worn.
As an engineer with over 20 years experience in safety critical industries, material testing etc I much prefer my own ability to analyse the scientific/engineering data available and then decide for myself what is or isn’t safe, though as an engineer I am always open to changes in technology and debate…so am always learning.
Yes I do appreciate that strapping both a light and video camera to the lid can detract from the ability of a helmet to absorb and dissipate the force of any impacts, so you are correct.
“This is like strapping a sharp rock to your head with the intent to lower the effectiveness of your helmet.”
I do though consider the risk acceptable, at least for the light, to be able to have illumination wherever I turn my head. The video camera is a slightly different matter though, as I have found that since wearing one when ever I cycle I get far less abuse from other road user, which probably does balance out the increased risk of the helmet not being able to absorb any impacts in a fall, in possibly preventing other types of incident.
As to the increased risk of torsion injuries, well there are cyclists that have suffered such traumatic injuries through not wearing a helmet, so regardless there is a risk that has to be accepted for either wearing or not wearing a lid…?!
Now to the speed of the impact tests you are correct that they are not tested up to 30mph, I should have been more circumspect with what I wrote and not try and rely on memory, considering I did have the links to these documents somewhere that state the following:
“Helmet standards require helmets to be designed only to survive a simple drop test onto an anvil. The maximum permitted deceleration of the dropped head form is typically 300g, which is equivalent to an impact velocity of 20 km/h (12.5 mph).
The performance of a helmet above an impact velocity of 20 km/h is neither tested nor defined. Cycle helmets usually fail catastrophically rather than gradually, through total compression or disintegration. It is therefore not simply the case that the proportion of the force absorbed will decrease with increasing velocity. It is a matter of conjecture as to whether significant protection to the head would be afforded at higher speeds, and this is likely to vary from helmet to helmet. Mclntosh and Dowdell34 appear to have found no cases of helmeted cyclists surviving crashes where
the equivalent impact velocity was greater than 20 km/h.
Whilst it is possible that some helmets may provide useful protection above the impact velocity for which they are tested, a report by the Consumers Association35 suggests that most helmets do not meet even the stipulated standard, and are therefore likely to provide reduced protection below 20 km/h. 14 helmets out of the 24 tested failed the test criteria for shock absorption, and two of the remainder failed tests related to retention and strap strength. Only two of the 24 helmets met the more
demanding Snell absorption test, and one of these caused some impairment of a cyclist’s vision.”
(taken from: http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/effectiveness.pdf)
I also refer to this article with regard to oblique testing of helmets: http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-eps/metallurgy/perg/Documents/p156obliqueimpacttestingofbikehelmetsfweb150dpi.pdf
So I am well aware that helmets as are currently manufactured and tested etc are not the safety panacea that the media is trying to make them out to be, which I is why I do not nor have supported the compulsory introduction of helmets other than for children, sorry but as they are more likely to have minor falls etc and that both their skulls and brains are still developing they are more susceptible to minor head injuries that can have devastating consequences.
So will I still wear a lid knowing this, yes I will and I will still encourage other cyclists to wear them as I said earlier but it is down to personal choice and not legislation, unless they really do improve the minimum standards that helmets are manufactured to. But until the causes of falls is addressed in the first place, as in the shoddy state of the roads, the poor design of the roads and the appalling “them” and “us” attitude between cyclists and other roads users has been resolved helmets are not going to save the numbers that keep getting banded around!
Furry Mommy wrote:
LONG SNIP
It’s not just “the media”. It’s people like yourself that consistently claim, despite a mountain of uncertainty that a helmet did this, or that. Frankly I see this as a form of lying.
What evidence do you have that bicycle helmets prevent serious brain damage in children? What are probabilities that a child on a bicycle will have an accident of the type theoretically mitigable by a helmet? How do those risks compare to that of an infant tumbling around the living room? Should infants at play be required to wear helmets such as the ThudGuard.
Honestly, you really have no business even having an opinion on this subject, let alone suggesting compulsion of anything unless you have the answers to some questions which no one else does.
I strongly suggest doing a lot more research before you start handing out advice.
Ush, I know you’re upset, but
Ush, I know you’re upset, but it’s an open forum. She has a right to her thoughts.
The only stat that I’m aware of that suggests helmets are unhelpful is that they deter cycling and so ‘make people less healthy active’ which suggests they don’t run, swim or do other activities as a result. Helmets provide protection against head trauma, but how often cyclists are subject to this is not exactly apparent. Wearing a helmet is probably a good idea.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:The
Helmets do not provide protection and that’s a myth that fuels accusations of risk compansation. Helmets merely lessen a very specific type of head trauma. They are not a magical protective cloak for the head.
Other stats about unhelpfulness that one should consider include increased risks of accidental hanging (Bicycle helmets and accidental asphyxia in childhood, Byard RW, Cala A, Ritchey D, Woodford N.. Medical Journal of Australia, MJA 2011;194(1):49. 2011.), rotational injuries (Assessment of current bicycle helmets for the potential to cause rotational injury, StClair VJM, Chinn BP. Transport Research Laboratory, PPR213. 2007) and concussion because the increased size of helmets hits things when a thin hat wouldn’t (I can’t find the reference for this just now, but it might be The Effectiveness of Bicycle Helmets, Henderson M, Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales. 1995.)
You fall in to the trap of
You fall in to the trap of how good the helmet design is. I didn’t say they protect from all head trauma for a reason. But they do provide protection. I have friends with cracked helmets from falls (without incurring any damage themselves) with illustrates that they have been protected. I’m not saying they cover every area, but they do better than fresh air.
The ‘no helmet’ brigade come out with this idea that they don’t protect against certain accidents, and potential torsional injuries make them worse, but the evidence from A&E departments show that they do help, not in every case, but in some. Some protection is better than none. I’m not even saying that helmets be compulsory, but based on the evidence that is provided the biggest case against them (because other studies are inconclusive) is that they affect cycle usage negatively whether that be cost or fashion.
If you can afford a helmet it is probably worth wearing (and really is no trouble to wear) and if you can’t carry on and hope for the best. No one can tell you when you will need a cycle helmet, seat belt, life vest or lifeboat – some people take comfort that they, some will never need them. But denying that they do anything isn’t right. Argue all you like about it but some people will always choose to wear them and this will make those that don’t appear cavalier with their safety and they would be right – even though the perception of how useful they are is misunderstood.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:The
And you fall into the traps of attempting proof by assertion (it’s not protection in general until it’s proven and let’s see that A&E evidence… hospital returns have some interesting quirks when it comes to supposed protective personal equipment, including that the equipment would be reducing A&E attendance if it worked) while ignoring the negative effects of the equipment that you don’t like or can’t explain away.
I would suggest considering helmet use on a trip-by-trip basis. I don’t even carry a puncture repair kit on every journey, after all.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:Ush,
I disagree. Someone handing out advice and calling for laws interfering with other people’s choices has a responsibility to spend a long time sorting out the basics. Otherwise they deserve to be called on it. Strongly.
Then you need to look at the population-level data in high helmet use areas and attempt to discern whether there is a correlation between the treatment and the response. It is highly questionable whether this can be seen. To say the least.
If helmets were a new drug being tested on the population there would be howls of outrage from the public about a bogus drug being sold. One of the reasons I find this subject so offensive is that the basis for it is pseudo-science resting on folklore and “common sense” for its basis. It’s like hearing someone bang-on about how their naturopathy should be compulsory for every one else and anyone that doesn’t take powered rhino horn is a fool.
As do hats.
RoSPA and other organizations have plenty of data as to the incidence of serious head injuries broken down by activity and age. You’ll find the cycling head injuries are in the same ballpark as pedestrian injuries.
For what exactly? What specific injuries do you expect it to mitigate?
Ush wrote:
Colin Peyresourde
As you ask for specifics, i’ll give you a couple. I had an off last year, front wheel wipe-out whilst turning to exit a roundabout (seemingly on some oil). Speed was pretty much exactly 20mph. I went down on my right side – head, upper arm, hip, knee and ankle were definitely in contact with the ground, secondary compression injury to the ribs.
I later examined my helmet and noticed the following.
– There were a number of small (~2mm), relatively deep (2-4mm) indentations in the shell. The tarmac on that part of the road is pretty rough, and the indentations looked to be consistent with the lumps of exposed aggregate.
– There was an overall compression of the shell on the upper right side.
– There was a crack entirely thought one of the internal foam structs.
In addition, there was the ‘normal’ scratches and grazes over the right-hand side, such as you might expect to see on a shiny surface after being run across a rough surface.
So, in my case, the helmet has in all likely-hood prevented quite an amount of abrasive injury and lacerations to my head (little to no hair) including the ear. Judging by the small, puncture-type indentations some of these may have been quite deep – although consideration has to be given to the extent to which the helmet extends beyond the skull line. Given the abrasive injury to other parts of my body, I would suggest that I have a reasonable idea as to what I could have expected without a helmet.
The breakage of the structure of the helmet tells me that a reasonable amount of energy was also adsorbed by the helmet – which may have otherwise been transmitted into my skull in part or in whole. From the direction and location of the crack, it would also indicate that it may have provided a very small amount of reduction in deceleration. From discussions with my doctor, the amount of force inflicted on the ribs via my arm was not inconsiderable – and would more than likely have resulted in a significant whip-lashing of my head towards the ground as the arm made contact with it. The extent of the helmet beyond the skull line may have helped here by reducing the time the skull had to accelerate and by providing an energy adsorbing layer.
In summary, as best as I tell, the helmet has apparently saved a fair amount of lacerations to my head – which I consider justification enough for me to choose to keep wearing one – and may have reduced the total load and deceleration of my head against the road. The effect of the latter is impossible to ascertain, but I personally feel it may have been to my benefit, rather than anything else. This was an opinion backed up by two physicians.
I will continue riding with a helmet, but I have no wish to enforce that on anyone else – it’s their body and they can treat it how they like. I’m not saying this applies to your comments, which are more general, but I do consider people telling me ‘oooo – you can’t be sure it helped you’ not only bloody irritating but irrational. I’m damn sure it helped me in a crash situation that I do not consider extraordinary, in a manner that I consider worth other risks. In particular, in this case I do not believe it would have been possible for my head NOT to have contacted the road – so at least part of the energy adsorption and damage to the helmet must have been necessarily taken by my head.
Now, as far the statistics go, I know i’m potentially exposing to, or exacerbating , other injuries because of wearing a helmet. On balance, I still choose to wear it. I hope this example has been specific enough for you.
I remember when this website
I remember when this website used to write about the wonderful pastime/sport/world of cycling.
Now its just friggin Hi Viz, Helmets and the Highway Code.
Give it a rest for heavens sake.
Hoester wrote:I remember when
While I agree with you, we are at a critical stage in utility cycling development that all the myths, fallacies and hyperbole that is spouted against investing in sustainable forms of transport are torn down once and for all and we end the ridiculous huge subsidy cars receive.
We’ve had a compulsory
We’ve had a compulsory helmet law here in NZ since 1994. Cyclist modal share has declined and injuries and deaths have gone up since then. A recent two year coroners review of thirteen cyclists deaths has finally started to move away from focusing on high vis and helmets as the sole safety measures. Unfortunately his only recommendation was for another report. It would be great to put the onus for safe roads on society rather than on cyclists.
Same old, same old shit I
Same old, same old shit I see
Should cyclists wear a helmet? In my opinion yes
Should cyclists wear headphones? In my opinion no (or at least not at a volume which prevents them hearing the surrounding events.
Should either of these be compulsory? No
Like I said at the start Same old same old shit once again
If helmets protect, why can’t
If helmets protect, why can’t we tell? When wearing in Oz trebled because of the law casualty rates did not change.
What is the explanation for this.
In none of the jurisdictions where helmets have been made mandatory has there been a clear reduction in casualty rates. How can this be?
You want a proof negative,
You want a proof negative, which you can’t tell. How do we know if air bags save lives, how do we know live boats save lives? Well you can’t tell how many people survived an incident, unless there is statistics which show that following seat belts/live boats introduction that significant numbers have avoided dying by the same means. The problem with statistics around bike helmets is that it is likely that no one reports their bike accident because they survived and didn’t require hospital treatment, and this is the trick.
But, do you really think a bike helmet does nothing? And has never helped? I don’t think you can argue that it doesn’t and never has. I’m not saying how significant it is, but you make yourself look ridiculous by saying that it doesn’t protect. You can make your educated choice about wearing one every time you go out, I’m not stopping you. But you cannot deny ‘a helmet affords a greater level of protection to your head, than not wearing a helmet at all’. The question over how effective it is warding against the average cycling injury is a different question. And whether the compulsory wearing of one has a positive effect on cycling is another. The debates by ‘experts’ generally come down to the later – trading off the safety aspect against the deterrent of an unwanted expense.
Repeated studies are roughly inconclusive, with a possible bias set into the study, with statistics difficult to obtain. ER and brain specialists have come out in favour, and other medical ‘experts’ not – I don’t dispute that it is unclear, I just dispute the fact that people completely disregard them and say there is no benefit to wearing them. That is false – you’d have to tell me that my friends would not have smashed their heads open when they fell off their bikes and hit their helmets instead.
The number of road deaths in
The number of road deaths in a country, or any other population level statistic, can be forecast with a surprising degree of accuracy. Look at a graph of road deaths. Allowing for the general trend the number of, deaths is predictable, given a large number.
Any road safety intervention which is as sudden and as definite as putting a large number of cyclists into helmets who were not wearing them before ought to produce a corresponding reduction in injiries or deaths.
If someone has an accident which helmetless would have produced an injury, but now is saved by the hat there will be a reduction in the collected figures.
When the trend in casualties is unaffected by the large scale intervention the conclusion has to be that if some injuries were averted, then others must have been caused.
The difference in efficacy as calculated by case controlled studies and population level studies really does need an explanation.
The notorious 1989 Thompson, Rivara and Thompson study claimed that helmets could save 85% of head injuries. It is still quoted by helmet proponents. If this was true it would have made a huge impact on the national figures and put paid to any dispute.
No jurisdiction has produced a fall in casualties. It is highly unlikely that they all have coincidental confounding variables.
Published data from across Alberta shows how the province’s child helmet law has reduced child cycling by around 56% while at the same time the absolute number of injuries has gone up.
For example, in the state of Western Australia where bicycle helmets have been mandatory for all ages since July 1992, the annual cyclist death toll from 1987 to 1991 (pre-law) averaged 7.6 fatalities per year. From 1993 to 1997 (post-law) it was 6.4 fatalities per year, representing a 16% reduction (Meuleners, Gavin and Cercarelli, 2003). However, Government cycling surveys show cycling declined in Western Australia by approximately 30% during the 1990s following mandatory helmet law enforcement . Thus, relative to cycle use, fatalities went up, not down.
Individual cases are anecdotal and superficially persuasive. It is impossible to prove benefit without repeating the accident without a helmet, and this is impossible too. They are scientifically equivalent to the healthy eighty year old chain smoker stories.
But are you saying a helmet
But are you saying a helmet has no safety benefit?
Fatalities and head injuries are two different things. You can correlate the figures regarding road deaths to helmet use, but again, you don’t have statistics on reduction in hospitalised head injuries. I’ve read this about Australia, but the reports are inconclusive because of the proof negative problem. The only thing that is recognised is the fall in cycle usage. My Australian friends have told me how dangerous cycling in Australia is. I know how Matthew Pinsent feels about wearing a helmet after being hit by a truck in the head while cycling in the US. He still wears one now.
I am not saying that helmets
I am not saying that helmets have no protective effect. What the figures show is that if they do protect, then something must be cancelling it out. Maybe helmets cause an equivalent number of injuries. Perhaps risk compensation operates. What is your explanation?
It is those who say that helmets don’t work who have the problem of trying to prove a negative. All we can say is that it is impossible to show they work. The pro-helmet people have a positive to prove.
It is not only in Oz that a law has failed to lead to demonstrable injury reductions. In none of the law countries has there been a reduction. I mention two in my last post.
I know that Oz is a dangerous country for cyclists. All the compulsion countries are. In none of them has the law changed this.
I have not posted citations and figures here, in an attempt to make the subject less tedious. You can find them at cyclehelmets.org. If you are really open minded I will dig them up for you. Enough to say that quibbling about “hospitalised head injuries” does not obscure the force of the figures.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:You
No. If the claim is that helmets reduce head injuries then it’s a matter of comparing the head injury rate in high-helmet populations versus that in low-injury populations. We can do this, albeit with the proviso that there may be other variables to account for in the two populations, by comparing Australia, N.Z., Canada (N.S., B.C.) versus the USA. It is not possible to show that there is a difference.
Helmets have not been shown to have a clear protective effect (whether against their actual test scenario or the more fanciful magic capabilities such as deflecting trucks as you mention).
By all means wear one if you wish. But, please, don’t talk ignorant rubbish. It matters because you’re helping to convince the other eejits that don’t know how to think. End of.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:You
No, I just want the A&E evidence that you made up… sorry, I mean that you mentioned.
Well, a helmet does protect in a slow-speed gudied freefall onto a flat surface or a kerb, so it clearly does something and will help if you have that sort of silly crash. So I’m not saying either of those: I’m saying that, taking all effects together, it appears at best completely uncertain that helmets do more good than harm – in other words, I don’t think there’s any net benefit been shown yet.
We can dance around it by modifying the claim. You seem to have tried claiming that there’s a net benefit to head injuries, but even that weaker claim doesn’t seem clear from what I’ve read and there’s been only hand-waving at A&E figures to support it in this discussion.
I saw someone wearing a
I saw someone wearing a cycling helmet backwards once, that was funny as f***!!! 😀