He's not considered the unintended consequences, eg impact on numbers cycling (Australian data), and city bike schemes..... Will every hire station also dispense helmets, or is one expected to carry helmet at all times just in case one has unexpected need for a city bike latter in the day.... etc
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
THE Helmet Thread
(895 posts)-
Posted 6 years ago #
-
It's an irrelevant comment from a man far removed from the day to day cycling we participate in.
It's a bit like trying to legislate against kids heading a football.
No point in getting too concerned, I suspect the UK Govt have many more pressing issues that they can't deal with already.
I won't be buying a lid anytime soon.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Is he paid to promote them?
Posted 6 years ago # -
Using my special ability to discern intelligence from utterances of those who appear on the telly etc, I think Boardman is the more erudite of the two. I have not read the source article in The Sunday Times was the journalist asking the questions? Then were answers edited?
The quotes in the BBC article do drift towards the risks of cycling in London. From there Boardman would certainly have rammed home the safety of cycling is about driver behaviour and that segregated infrastructure is necessary to improve safety not helemets.
Sadly Geraint is quoted as lamely asking for sharing the space not being enemies. The helemet brand Kask (very nice, very dear helmets) sit nicely atop his love.y curly hair.
Geraint is a great cyclist but perhaps not such a great thinker about cycling. He will have encouraged many to start cycling which is great perhaps he can become an advocate for segregated infrastructure as the Helmet debate is designed to draw attention away from proper infrastructure and secondly sell helmets.
When I joined this forum as a person returning to cycling on roads in Edinburgh and with a friend possibly saved from death by his helmets (twice maybe) I was able to listen to the debate and check out all the research. So my position moved to be a choice thing ( but being always wary the debate was actually about drawing attention away from bad driving and the need for segregated infra).
In 2018 I have had a helmet on in the snow, route mostly path but sometimes road. Wore no helmet down path all spring and summer but since the
Festival drivers arrived I have put the helmet back on. These are my risk assessments for me.Posted 6 years ago # -
@amir what I was thinking, so he may have a nice new contract from KASK following his we'll deserved success in the T de F?
Posted 6 years ago # -
Picked up in the review of the papers on radio four just now. About to get riled.
Posted 6 years ago # -
“When I joined this forum as a person returning to cycling on roads in Edinburgh”
I’d forgotten you were a ‘returner’.
Of course you realise it’s unfashionable to look at evidence before making a decision...
Posted 6 years ago # -
“Will every hire station also dispense helmets, or is one expected to carry helmet at all times just in case one has unexpected need for a city bike latter in the day”
Indeed.
Because of hire schemes there must be plenty of evidence that cycling isn’t particularly dangerous in major cities even when undertaken by non-regular riders.
Certainly isn’t the case that bike hire cities have great infrastructure.
Posted 6 years ago # -
I didn’t bother reading it. The memsahib did and apparently this guy is too scared to ride a bike in London.
And like others my first thought was, “And now a message from our sponsors…”
Posted 6 years ago # -
I'd like the TdF-style segregated roads more than the helmets. But I blame the media - they know what they are doing and they don't ask Formula one drivers this sort of commuter safety stuff.
My takeaway from these sorts of interviews is that Boardman's a great advocate and that sports cycling success does nothing for improving commuter infrastructure.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Posted 6 years ago #
-
The boardman Twitter exchange gets to the nub
Helmets no sticking plaster for poor infa.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Whilst I always wear a helmet, I wish such energies could be put into trying to stop aggressive and stupid driving.
But no lets victim blame and make cyclists all wear helmets and high viz, take cycling courses etc etc.
Posted 6 years ago # -
@geraintthomas
"Wow! This was one question in an hour interview. It’s nothing I’ve ever thought about. So when asked I thought... I always wear one and I’d advise all children to wear them so Didn’t realise people felt so passionately about helmets!!
#thisaintacampaign"
So it's mostly a media context thing not his actual stance. I don't suspect he will make the same mistake again.I guess sky don't cover non pro issues in their media training.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Helmet discussion about helmets on Radio Scotland today at 9am.
Posted 6 years ago # -
You'd think it might be something of which he'd at least be vaguely aware, after that incident in 2012 when a cyclist was killed near the Olympics and Wiggins blurted out something about helmets when asked about it in a press conference, which was then added to the pile of Opinion.
Perhaps there should be mandatory training or awareness courses about non-racing cycling techniques for racing cyclists, if they're not going to preface any spoken opinions with a warning that what they're saying relates primarily to whooshing along in a racing costume at greater than whatever 30mph is in kmph.
Posted 6 years ago # -
These helmet debates are really quite tiresome. The same old arguments every six months (if we're lucky). Does anyone know if the French or the German media use them as a means of click bait / easy air-filling content?
Posted 6 years ago # -
The problem with the helmet debate is that both sides are right.
1. Cyclists who turn up at hospital wearing helmets have better outcomes than their helmetless counterparts.
2. If you have segregated cycle infrastructure then the risk of head injury is less.
And so you end up with this circular debate that can't be resolved.
Posted 6 years ago # -
It's about perceptions of safety, isn't it? Many more people walking the streets or driving cars would be objectively safer if they wore helmets and F1 style flame retardant fire suits. And if we padded bathtubs with thick foam linings that would definitely eliminate a lot of home-based accidents. And who thought allowing people to have sharp knives in their kitchen was a good idea?
People weigh their own personal risk factors and fears against convenience. If it feels safe to ride in a car with a mere seat belt and air bags, then full F1 kit seems like overkill and most of the time it is. But for that one time when a catastrophe happens, it could be a life-saving factor.
Same with bicycle helmets. I feel perfectly safe cycling without one, and the few times I've come off my bike a head injury was not a factore. But an acquaintance of mine, while cycling in the wilds of East Lothian, had an encounter with a deer and wound up with a concussion. He now wears a helmet with out fail, even though the likelihood of that happening twice is pretty small, I'd guess. But it makes him FEEL safer and that's ok. I've agree to wear a helmet on long weekend rides because it makes my wife feel less anxious on my behalf (because of that bloody deer again, apparently cars don't bother her so much).
Posted 6 years ago # -
I think it's more about objective truth, and personal truth.
Objective truth:
Climate change is happening, the data proves this beyond reasonable doubt.
If you suffer a head injury, people who wear helmets will have a much better outcome. The data proves this beyond reasonable doubt.Personal truth:
It's just weather, the studies are flawed, climate changes all the time.
Helmets provide no benefit unless less than 12mph, the studies are flawed.The part I've not managed to reconcile in my head, is why the left and right will *choose* which science they hold to be objective truth. Science is science right, especially when it's been peer reviewed, and generally accepted by the experts of the particular field?
Posted 6 years ago # -
Objective truth:
People who wear helmets consciously or sub-consciously take marginally higher risks.People who drive cars, trucks, etc., near to people who wear helmets consciously or sub-consciously take marginally higher risks with the helmet wearer.
Those marginally higher risks add up over a population to generate more head impacts & other bodily injuries.
Compulsory helmet laws results in vastly fewer cycle trips, which again increases the risk and rate of head injury among the remaining cyclists.
The data proves this beyond reasonable doubt.
Posted 6 years ago # -
"Compulsory helmet laws results in vastly fewer cycle trips, which again increases the risk and rate of head injury among the remaining cyclists."
That's not strictly true, whist the Australian study did conclude this, a Canadian study found no relationship between helmet compulsion, and cycling rates. So not clear enough to be an objective truth.
"People who wear helmets consciously or sub-consciously take marginally higher risks.
People who drive cars, trucks, etc., near to people who wear helmets consciously or sub-consciously take marginally higher risks with the helmet wearer."
In this London study, there were more helmet-less cyclists than helmet wearing, so the opposite seems true; at least in this data-set:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185367Posted 6 years ago # -
@Baldcyclist
The London study is on cyclists admitted to the London Major Trauma Centre with serious head injury. It tells you nothing about what risks a helmeted or non-helmeted cyclist took before they suffered the head injury.
In any case, the increase in risk afforded by helmet wearing is so small as to be immeasurable in an individual cyclist. It can only be measured when looking at whole populations.
As well as the Australian study, a similar New Zealand study also found that cycle use fell off a cliff when helmet compulsion laws were introduced.
I'm not sure what happened in Canada, but in any case, many provinces do not have mandatory laws (& some only for children).
Posted 6 years ago # -
If you suffer a head injury, people who wear helmets will have a much better outcome.
This might be an objective truth if it were written:
"If you suffer a head injury, people who wear helmets will have a much better outcome for their head injury."
Alternatively, other studies show that helmets can exacerbate brain rotational injuries & concussion (where the brain slops backward & forwards inside the skull). Also helmets can increase neck injuries, broken necks, etc.
So maybe not so much of an "objective truth" after all.
Posted 6 years ago # -
This is somewhat the point I was making re the science.
If you were to ask the vast majority of climate scientists whether climate change is real. They would say yes.
We believe them.
If you were to ask the vast majority of medical professionals whether cycle helmets have any positive impact on outcome of head injury. They would say yes.
Nah, it's a fairy tale. We trust them on the cancer outcomes though...
The side point about left and right is also interesting (as someone who doesn't identify with a political group).
Posted 6 years ago # -
@Baldcyclist
I never claimed that any studies were flawed (which you now seem to have deleted from your post).
In the London Study, under Results :
Further research is required to clarify their role against injuries caused by shearing force
Which means they've done no research into the rotational & "brain slop" injuries that I mentioned. It doesn't mean the study is flawed. It means that the study does not cover a very significant way the brain can be injured (which is likely to be increased by helmet wearing).
Posted 6 years ago # -
If you were to ask the vast majority of medical professionals whether cycle helmets have any positive impact...
I would also ask them why they aren't doing a similar study whether helmet wearing inside motor vehicles has any positive impact...
Posted 6 years ago # -
The "rotational injuries" thing is causing some consternation on skiing forums too.
Some manufacturers now provide MIPS and non MIPS variants of helmets, the theory being that the MIPS helmets kind of break off inside and mitigate against the rotational injuries.
I have asked once or twice if they are simply manufacturing a solution to a problem that doesnt exist if you dont wear a lid..........you can imagine the type of responses I got, especially as I go sans lid when skiing too :-)
Recent meta studies in skiing - Telegraph article on helmet research
suggest that helmets do protect users from head injuries but questions their effects on TBI, especially concussion.
So, the summary was that a helmet will protect you from minor head injuries but not more serious head injuries.
The thing I was not expecting is the significantly lower risk of any injury at all among helmet wearers which kinda goes against my own risk compensation hypothesis
Posted 6 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
