Sorry
Public Service Announcement
BROADCASTS
Fri 27 Aug 2010 13:30 BBC Radio 4 (FM only)
Sun 29 Aug 2010 20:00 BBC Radio 4
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tgwz7
UPDATE
Now on Listen Again -
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
"Is it really safer to wear a helmet when cycling?"
(153 posts)-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
should prove interesting...
Posted 13 years ago # -
Uh-oh! :-o
Play nice people....!Posted 13 years ago # -
Dr Ian Walker is going to be on it - had a few email discussions with him over the years (keen cyclist and sciencey statistics bod) and if they're anything to go by he should be quite good.
I, however, shall be avoiding listening. Can't be bothered with it. Even the title of the piece is skewed. I'd prefer balance between the two sides with an 'It's your choice' conclusion... :P
Posted 13 years ago # -
Many millions of European cyclists risk injury every year.... etc.
Many millions of helmets could be sold to them... etcHave the States of Jersey brought in a legal requirement now?
Posted 13 years ago # -
should be fun
Posted 13 years ago # -
Laidback - the States of Jersey now require all cyclists aged under 18 to wear a cycle helmet, anyone aged 18 and over can choose whether to wear a helmet or not.
Personally I think this whole argument is a red herring. Placing responsibility for cyclist safety solely on the cyclist, when they are the most vulnerable road user, excuses drivers and policy makers from tackling the major causes of cycle accidents. Yes cyclists should follow the rules of the road, but debates over helmet wearing within the cycling community waste time and energy that could be used to campaign for changes that would protect all cyclists, e.g. better driver and cyclist training, infrastructure investment and creating a hierarchy of responsibility for road users. The argument over helmets really only benefits lazy drivers and the politicians that pander to their whims – who can use this as an excuse not to tackle issues of real importance and to blame cyclists for their own injuries. It is noticeable that helmet wearing is almost unheard of countries with a developed cycling culture - that is because they have dealt with the key issues identified above and cyclists feel, and are, safe to ride with or without helmets.
As an aside, I should say I always wear a helmet when out cycling and am convinced that wearing one saved me from serious injury or worse when I was hit by a car that pulled out of a side street and hit my back wheel as I was passing at speed. However, I feel this is an issue of personal choice - it is hard enough to convince people to cycle without requiring them to wear a polystyrene hat as well.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"Laidback - the States of Jersey now require all cyclists aged under 18 to wear a cycle helmet, anyone aged 18 and over can choose whether to wear a helmet or not."
You would hope that the authorities in Jersey have done a careful census on the amount of cycling going on before the law passed, and can now do a follow-up.
However, I suspect that carefully *not* doing that is an essential part of the plan. It will therefore be possible to truthfully say that part of the British isles has brought in helmet legislation with no recorded ill effect on cycling participation.
Headway actually publish releases saying that "nowhere has such an effect been recorded" (ahem) which has caused me to toy with reporting them to the charities commission for fraudulent fundraising (if money was donated to support an intervention which is pitched as being good for cyclists when they know it isn't).
Posted 13 years ago # -
Dave - It's not quite as you suspect. The Proposition which resulted in the Jersey law (sort of like a private members bill) was promoted by a Deputy (MP) whose son had suffered a serious brain injury due to a cycling accident. The Jersey Minister of Transport was opposed to the introduction of this Bill - his report on the Bill states:
[i]4.5 Regulations mandating the compulsory wearing of cycle helmets would be problematic to police, be resource intensive and if introduced at an early stage could bring the law into disrepute.
4.6 Education provides a more effective tool for capitalising on the overall benefits of cycling in terms of safety, improvements in health, reduced congestion and safer roads, and a better environment for the Island.
4.7 Prioritising resources to promote active travel, educate cyclists and other road users and encourage safe and responsible road use by pedestrians, cyclists, drivers and riders, particularly in the younger age groups, should form an integral part of the States’ Health, Education, Road Safety and Transport policies and will help achieve the priorities in the Strategic Plan and meet our responsibilities.
4.8 The Proposition is not supported.
The Bill was passed with the support of the majority of the State's Deputies against the advice of Ministers and civil servants. Dull, I know - but no conspiracy I'm afraid.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I think you misunderstand.
For example, one of the points offered by Headway on the Jersey law is "In the Australian State of Victoria, cyclists' head injuries declined 41% following the introduction of the law to make cycle helmet compulsory."
That may be, however the sad fact is that non-head injuries fell by almost exactly the same amount.
There are only two possible explanations for this - first, that wearing a helmet causes you to have fewer *body* injuries through some mechanism as yet unknown to science, or second, that much less cycling was going on in the first place.
Sure enough, according to monitoring carried out in the Australian State of Victoria, the number of cyclists two years on was "showing by then a 46% decrease from pre-law levels".
Can anyone really justify passing this sort of legislation when the effects are so calamitous? Perhaps, if what we want to achieve is a drop in injuries caused directly by reducing cycling. That's a fair aim for Headway and the Jersey deputies to go for, because ultimately stopping half of all cycling activity *will* definitely and certainly reduce the number of head injuries.
Otherwise, I think it bordering on the criminal to publicise such an eye-wateringly spun figure that a 46% drop in cyclist numbers can be hailed as a 40% drop in injuries, no cons attached. Even cyclists come out in favour without understanding the first thing about what they're asking for.
(Incidentally, there is quite a good comment on this very piece of research at the Bike Helmet Research Foundation, which is very readable: http://cyclehelmets.org/1093.html)
Posted 13 years ago # -
Except there was also a huge drop in cycling numbers in the UK over the same period as the Australian law change which renders that particular inference fairly shaky if we are being honest. Being the end of a recession probably did more to get people back in there cars than any legislation.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Quite a lot of fuel to add to the flames in this week's Cycling weekly that I bought to amuse myself on my lunch hour
Posted 13 years ago # -
"Except there was also a huge drop in cycling numbers in the UK over the same period as the Australian law change which renders that particular inference fairly shaky if we are being honest. Being the end of a recession probably did more to get people back in there cars than any legislation."
I'm not sure how well that holds up.
First, the different Australian states passed their laws at different times. Why did cycling collapse in states only as they passed their laws - your hypothesis would have to be that the recession ended in different years (corresponding, by coincidence, to helmet legislation) in each state:
"The average proportion cycling to work in states without enforced helmet laws increased in 1991, contrasting with the average decline for other states"
The same collapse has been observed in NZ and the US, at different times as they passed their own legislation. I'm not sure whether this is bike helmet laws correlated (coincidentally) with recessions again?
Second, the Australian Northern Territories partially revoked their helmet law. Unlike everywhere else in Australia, their cycling rate has risen and now stands at just over 4% of journeys to work, compared with a national average of just over 1%.
There may be an alternative explanation, but I haven't seen it yet. In general if you suspect there is a cause / effect and you reverse the cause and find a reversed effect, that's a pretty solid indicator. (Unless there's been a highly localised and sustained recession in that part of Oz?)
Posted 13 years ago # -
You would hope that the authorities in Jersey have done a careful census on the amount of cycling going on before the law passed, and can now do a follow-up.
Having passed through Jersey on way back from France we (the family) got a fair measure of how things were.
- * St Helier had a very high concentration of luxury vehices and 'supercars'.
* These were all restricted by traffic congestion and the islands speed limit of 40mph
* You were faster cycling along the prom than driving. Lots of bike hire for tourists - including side by side quad tandems / sociables
* The roads inland to the German War Tunnel are green lanes and restricted to 15mph
Cycling in JerseySo all in all the potential to be a very safe environment. Other road users are mainly millionaires seeking lower taxes - aka the cyclists best friend ;-)
The helmet decision is a bit odd as they want to be 'seen as green'.Posted 13 years ago # -
I'm not going to join the discussion over research results. I would say though that cycle helmets do not cause accidents (I know there has been research that indicates drivers may drive closer to someone wearing a helmet, but that's not what I mean), nor do they prevent accidents. Helmets simply reduce the severity of impact of a cyclist's head on the road in certain limited circumstances.
Making helmet wearing mandatory may reduce the number of people cycling, similarly many people would not cycle in Scotland without wearing a helment. Are helmet wearers deluded about their effecitveness - possibly. However, I assume everyone on this forum agrees that encourgaing people to cycle is a "good thing". Therefore if it takes wearing a helmet to get someone cycling then that too must be a good thing.
Lets focus on reducing the number accidents involving cyclists - helmeted or not. There are no plans to require mandatory helmet wearing in the UK. The Scottish Parliament cannot legislate on this issue as it is a matter for Westminster. The current UK Government has no interest in this issue as they consider it "elf an' safety gone mad" (the likely next Tory leader, Boris Johnson, is a famous non-helmet wearer) .
Posted 13 years ago # -
^^^
What Morningsider said
Posted 13 years ago # -
^^^
Likewise!Posted 13 years ago # -
^^^
Yeah, that. Also, it's something else to colour-coordinate with the frame and lycra, so must be a good thingPosted 13 years ago # -
+1 to the above, well apart from the colour coordinating bit...
Posted 13 years ago # -
"However, I assume everyone on this forum agrees that encourgaing people to cycle is a "good thing". Therefore if it takes wearing a helmet to get someone cycling then that too must be a good thing."
I quite agree with this. I would never argue that a prospective cyclist should stick to their car instead of wearing a helmet.
But - and we're getting close to the underlying point now - the only way to make cycling popular is to help people realise how safe it is.
Saying "yes, cycling is really dangerous, but you can wear a helmet" is not really promoting cycling; it may convince a few to take it up but it would surely be better to say "cycling is so safe that you'll add years to your life (doing it bareheaded)".
Unfortunately overall outcomes are rarely important to safety campaigners. I think it very likely that Headway *knows and expects* that a 30-40% drop in cycling follows compulsion, but that they're quite happy about it (because less cyclists get less head injuries).
Posted 13 years ago # -
Dave, thanks for the reply. I'm glad you agree about encouraging people to cycle. I have never argued for mandatory helmet wearing and I want to see much more rather than less cycling. I think it should be up to the individual - we all have our own views on the risk/reward of any activity, including cycling. I think cycling is safe, although many people do not and if wearing a helment is enough to get them over that fear then I think they should go for it.
However, I am now about to do something which isn't good for my head - I'm off to the pub (bike's at home today!) Have a good weekend all.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"But - and we're getting close to the underlying point now - the only way to make cycling popular is to help people realise how safe it is. "
The underlying point was raised above by Morningsider-
"The argument over helmets really only benefits lazy drivers and the politicians that pander to their whims – who can use this as an excuse not to tackle issues of real importance and to blame cyclists for their own injuries.
It is noticeable that helmet wearing is almost unheard of countries with a developed cycling culture - that is because they have dealt with the key issues identified above and cyclists feel, and are, safe to ride with or without helmets. "You can quote statistics all you like but that is not going to stop all the tailgating/elbow brushing/swerving into/pulling out in front of/left hooking drivers putting cyclists in danger all the time. Just because they didn't hit you, doesn't mean their actions are not dangerous.
Posted 13 years ago # -
...that is not going to stop all the tailgating/elbow brushing/swerving into/pulling out in front of/left hooking drivers putting cyclists in danger all the time.
Only experience and confidence and fitness on the bike can help change that today. Tomorrow's motorists, next year's, next decade's, might be part of a movement towards greater awareness and tolerance. I find that more haste, less speed does quite well for cycling in cities, although it also depends on the assertiveness of the individual in specific circumstances.
But the twenty-four-hour lifestyle of today doesn't seem to be encouraging people to slow down at all, especially on the roads. Everywhere has to be reached Right Now, drawing as fine a line as possible between the safety of others and personal progress. I think cycling instills a far greater self-awareness of self-preservation, patience and one's performance limits.
Sorry if that all came out sounding a bit metaphysical.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I'd never pretend that cycling is any less dangerous than it is - but it's still not that dangerous.
For all their efforts, the sum total of every driver who has been drunk, on drugs, unlicenced, uninsured, "tailgating/elbow brushing/swerving into/pulling out in front of/left hooking" is a tiny number of deaths - about 100 a year.
That's certainly 100 too many, but put in the context of 100,000 annual heart disease deaths, 70,000 deaths from stroke, does it really make sense to argue that cycling is more dangerous than not cycling?
The DfT recently estimated that between 12-16% of deaths would be prevented by a helmet, so even 100% helmet use would only save 12-16 lives a year. Would 12-16 more people suffer heart disease or stroke?
Posted 13 years ago # -
"does it really make sense to argue that cycling is more dangerous than not cycling?"
I personally would not make this argument and the fact that so many people do irritates me a lot. But given that most people are put off cycling because of bad driving, does it really make sense to claim that because SOME cyclists choose to wear helmet and/or hi-viz that this is what is actually putting people off? Because you do make this claim quite frequently.
Every day I see cyclists with and without helmets, with and without hi-viz. Focussing only on the ones who wear both and claiming that, somehow, their clothing choice is what is making cycling look dangerous to non-cyclists is just daft.
"Only experience and confidence and fitness on the bike can help change that today."
Aye. Onus all on cyclists!
Posted 13 years ago # -
+1 more for what Morningsider said.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"+1 more for what Morningsider said."
Yes, s/he joined after the helmet 'war' 'we' had, so it's good to get a new 'voice' that manages to analyse a lot of the issues and make some sense.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Hear hear. I saw what another forum descended (IMO of course) into after the Martlew issue polarised opinions to the point where those who didn't adopt the prevailing Dogma were effectively branded as trolls. Anyone remember uk.rec.cycling?
Posted 13 years ago # -
"
BBC must want to increase quota of vitriolic, partisan comments. It's published a bike helmet article. http://bbc.in/ay3nAI
"
Posted 13 years ago # -
"vitriolic, partisan comments" how true. I didn't realise Carlton Reid was so young. I think I've been mistaking him for Dave whatsisname. Anyway, I should get off up to the Newcraighall consultation thingy.
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
