CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
There was a good Bad Science article in the Guardian last Sat about statistical differences and how a large number of respected studies [in respected neuroscience journals] reported statistically significant differences from the norm for the target group but then fail to state that the difference between the target group's change and the control group's change is not significant.
so it is not just us
"But, the decline in cycle use is always linked directly to legislation."
Dave - last time we had this debate, did I not post evidence that this was NOT the case in the Canadian cases?
Shall I close this thread now??
Why? It's good natured (except when I'm compared to a school child).
"Why? It's good natured"
Yes, quite civilised this time round!
Just seems to have gone round in another circle...
Bottom line -
General agreement about person choice.
Not enough data accounting for all the variables to give convincing conclusions on either 'side'.
Fair enough. I'm not fussed. There's enough holes in both sets of arguments to keep me going for months and I can argue both sides.
HAs been more restrained this time round. I vote close, it will be back
as William James said
Habit is thus the enormous flywheel of society, its most precious conservative agent. It alone is what keeps us all within the bounds of ordinance
"Personally, I find the 'danger' idea quite silly. The idea that people who have been cycling for any length of time suddenly think to themselves, "Oh my, we've got to wear a helmet? Streuth, this must be dangerous. Best stop." No.
Personally I'm not so sure. Suppose participation in school sports was accompanied by leafleting and poster etc. campaigns on the dangers of sports, photographs of mangled children and the admonishment that you MUST equip your child with armour if you want them to take part - or opt out. I think there would be a sizeable decline even though most parents are smart enough to understand that children do not explode when taken out of doors.
If you took someone from Mars into the streets and asked them if they thought cycling looked very dangerous, the scattering of riders in luminous bin-man suits with body armour on would paint a very different picture to, say, continental Europe where crowds of cyclists just look like pedestrians with wheels. Personally I think this (rather than a careful assessment of casualty rates) is what puts the boot in to participation.
At the end of the day, hardly anybody dies cycling (for instance, an average year in Scotland sees a total of zero night time cycling deaths, but people are particularly afraid of cycling after dark) so the whole thing is based on a shifting sand of perception in the first place.
"And to be honest, I think cost is not a significant enough factor. Even in the 80s helmets were not that expensive. They were horrible, cumbersome but even that I find quite unconvincing, except among the type of people who worry more about looking cool than about their safety. "
Again, is it not about marginal decisions? When petrol goes up by just 1p per litre, the amount of driving going on falls, although I cannot imagine any scenario where I would not travel because each mile cost me an extra 1/13th of a penny.
I can easily imagine doing less cycling in a helmeted world. The car keys are hanging at the door, but it's a nice day so you think about getting the bike out of the garage but you can't remember where you put your helmet when you last came in. For what proportion of people would the delay of finding it (or even if you know where it is, going to get it) be outweighed by just grabbing those dangling keys and walking out the door?
It's interesting that (apart from in the UK) the pace of change seems now to be set against helmet use. Laws have been repealed in Mexico and Israel to support urban cycle use while the Australians are coming around - increasing calls for repeals because their cycle hire schemes are such a dismal failure compared with... everywhere else in the world.
If helmet use didn't discourage cycling, and everybody is actually enjoying just the same enthusiastic cycling environment as before their unrelated but contemporaneous "blips" in participation - why are people going to the trouble of campaigning over it?
"The car keys are hanging at the door, but it's a nice day so you think about getting the bike out of the garage but you can't remember where you put your helmet when you last came in."
Tip: hang your helmet next to the car keys.
"... why are people going to the trouble of campaigning over it?"
Because people don't like being told what to do when they don't think it's necessary.
For example, some motorists campaign about speed cameras - is it because they think it stops other motorists from driving?
The importance of examples like the Victoria research (aside from it demonstrating the dishonesty of bicyclehelmets.org) is that it demonstrates the complexity of the impact of helmet law on cycling. We see cycling increasing among adults, declining slightly among young children and dropping dramatically among teenagers. What that allows us to say is that there is no clear and easily predictable impact of helmet law. There are different impacts or none at all (if you look at figure 2 of this report it actually looks like adult cycling and child cycling stayed on an established trajectory and only teenage cycling changed). And when the effect is inconsistent, even where it is related to helmet legislation, we need to look for some other mechanism, working alongside the new law, to create the outcomes that are being observed. We can no longer say that helmets produce an outcome. We have to say helmet + other change produces an outcome. The other changes become just as important.
The changes among children are particularly complex because they don't make independent decisions. We have to account for the impact of their parents and their peers. When you caricature what helmet wearing campaigns say to parents and parents' reactions to those campaigns you make no point at all because while the outcome might be reasonable based on the caricature, it's a caricature. There's no sensible response to it. Men from Mars indeed.
But you make a completely different point when you imply that any sort of precaution - fluorescent clothes, lights etc. - is putting people off cycling. I assume you have no data for that. Similarly, I assume you're not advocating that cyclists should stop using lights in the dark on the grounds that no one dies at night. I assume you've already considered the possibility that no one dies at night because sensible people take precautions to maximise their visibility in the dark using fluorescent things and lights. To be honest I'm not sure at all what point it is you're making now.
As for costs - you'll have to point me at the data that shows the volume of driving declining as petrol prices increase. Personally, I don't think that evidence exists. I think driving is pretty price inelastic. But it's also not clear what this has to do with helmet wearing 20 years ago and what it has to do with cycling participation now. The attitudes to cycling and helmet wearing have shifted to such an extent that no one needs to persuade anyone other than crusty old refuseniks like us to wear a helmet. My kids want to wear helmets because their friends do even though I don't wear one and don't insist that they do. Even if it were true 20 years ago that helmet laws affected cycling participation it seems very unlikely that it would now. Relying on what is, frankly, ancient data to make an argument about policy now is pointless. It doesn't tell us anything useful. The world's moved on.
"Even if it were true 20 years ago that helmet laws affected cycling participation it seems very unlikely that it would now."
As I commented a page or two ago. The only people who cycle now are the ones who are willing to face death on the roads, whether or not their response to that is choosing to wear a helmet or go bareheaded. In that respect, I'm certain that helmet legislation here would have a much smaller effect* than 20 or 30 years ago when comparable laws were introduced.
Nevertheless this is not a reason to relax on the helmet front. The only way that cycling will become normal and accepted (as it is on the continent) is if it is seen to be safe. While enforcing helmet use is neither here nor there for people who already ride (with helmets), it's not much help converting the 99% who don't because they are scared off the roads.
In other words, opposition to helmets is a necessary (but sadly not sufficient) precondition to having a cycling society.
* That said - if legislation was passed I would take the car for many journeys I currently cycle, and at up to 800 miles a month, I am a "fairly" keen cyclist. I wonder whether the loss of a few enthusiasts who ride a disproportionate amount, or the casual users who don't think of themselves as cyclists at all is more to the point.
"That said - if legislation was passed I would take the car for many journeys I currently cycle."
Why?
OMG I so wish this had stopped before it started up again. Helmets is a cul de sac to draw the fire away from cars. Head apparel debate is a distractor, we have all been duped. Petrol prices going up may lead to more cycling tho
"Head apparel debate is a distractor, we have all been duped. Petrol prices going up may lead to more cycling tho"
"That said - if legislation was passed I would take the car for many journeys I currently cycle."
"Why?"
I'm in the 'why' camp as well. I'm completely and utterly pro-choice, ride without a helmet every day, couldn't really care less if someone else dons a helmet to cycle, and if a law came in? Well, if it was enforced, I'd wear a helmet. And if the 'why' is posed to that, because I'm not giving up the bike and all the benefits I get from that to sit in a metal box getting frustrated at the world and losing my daily stress relief over the sake of having to put a bit of plastic on my head that has been mandated.
Would I agree with the law? No, and I'd probably campaign against it, but there are many other laws that I don't necessarily agree with and comply with.
Maybe other people are more easily put off the things they love. I think that might only happen with me and cycling if it was made law that your saddle had to be replaced with a hot poker.
chdot - I'm part of your rush hour (yellow jacket)! Were you sitting on a stationary bike when you took this?
I was going to start a thread on dangerous cycling after being a part of this convoy - a couple of these guys pulled vary dangerous manoeuvres to squeeze past me on the way home, one who insisted on overtaking me as I passed you and then bellowing at me to get out of the road (polite version).
Instography - I salute your indefatagability!
The only way that cycling will become normal and accepted (as it is on the continent) is if it is seen to be safe. While enforcing helmet use is neither here nor there for people who already ride (with helmets), it's not much help converting the 99% who don't because they are scared off the roads.
In other words, opposition to helmets is a necessary (but sadly not sufficient) precondition to having a cycling society.
I don't disagree with the first paragraph but I can't agree with the second. It implies that helmets are an important factor in making cycling appear unsafe to non-cyclists. Helmets need to be opposed because they're putting people off cycling. I'm sitting here looking at data from just over 12,000 Scottish adult non-pensioner, non-cyclists giving their reasons for not cycling (Scottish Household Survey 2009/2010). I won't claim it's the definitive answer although it reflects the types of responses given in years of much smaller Scottish Government surveys of people's attitudes to cycling. The important thing is that not one of those people mentions helmets or lights or funny clothes as a barrier to cycling.
The main reasons they give are, in this order of frequency:
* distance - it's too far to cycle
* the weather - it's often too cold, too wet or too windy
* there's too many cars
* cars are too fast
* concerns about safety on dark or lonely roads
* inconsiderate drivers
* needing to carry luggage or shopping
* can't be bothered
* showering changing when they get there
* fitness
* hills
* the state of the roads
* no safe place to lock a bike
* can't ride a bike
* nowhere to store a bike at home
* a health problem
* pollution from traffic
* too many bikes stolen
* inconsiderate pedestrians
This says to me that there are a host of practical and attitudinal reasons (and excuses) that are keeping people off a bike but a helmet isn't one of them.
chdot - wot no panniers?
@Insto - surely all of the following are, by definition, about the perception that cycling is dangerous (dangerous enough, for instance, that one should wear a helmet):
* there's too many cars
* cars are too fast
* concerns about safety on dark or lonely roads
* inconsiderate drivers
* the state of the roads
Yet in reality, all of the above are largely a perception. I think the luminous suit and body armour play a big role in the way cycling is perceived, whether or not you'd have to tailor survey questions to find out what ordinary people thought.
Here's a genuine survey question for you:
"If you do not regularly cycle: would you consider doing so if the government made it safe for ordinary people to do without needing to wear a helmet and high visibility clothing?"
And of course:
"If you do not cycle regularly: do you think that looking sweaty and vaguely silly in a cycle helmet is one of the things that puts you off?"
Never let me near a real survey design ;-)
"Were you sitting on a stationary bike when you took this?"
Yes, wheels against kerb and foot on pavement. It looked like a 'bunch' I was glad I wasn't in the middle of!
Don't think I've actually seen 5 bikes in a bunch there before.
Presume all 5 know the (random) state of the road surface and the imminent encounter with the van at the Post Office and the 'fast' left turn where it's possible to get taken out by cars AND the pedestrian island just past that. Last thing you want is to have to worry about inconsiderate cyclists!
"wot no panniers?"
Yes that was a bit surprising.
Clearly this is literally a snapshot. All male (I think). 4 helmets (this is more typical among commuters than general 'people on bikes' so skews all sorts of perceptions).
"Never let me near a real survey design"
Well, no; pointed/leading questions are a certain way of getting biased responses.
Concerns about speed/volume/considerateness/roughness of cars and roads do not link directly (and solely) to "so I'd have to wear a helmet at the very least to even begin feeling safe". There are other types of injury available besides those to the head. As well as anticipating their potential for resulting in injury, too much/too fast/too impolite/too bumpy othertraffic and surfaces could be being anticipated as causes of journeys resulting in no physical harm but lots of stress and upset. Lots of stress could be incurred on every journey, whereas life-threatening injuries are not likely to be incurred by the same person on a daily basis.
winpig life-threatening injuries are not likely to be incurred by the same person on a daily basis
<grin>
Thanks for that! Whilst delighted that a (re-)post of mine has created such interest, I think the original point that a court considering a helmet necessary under certain conditions has now been superceeded by the general debate.
I've not observed these before, not really being a "cyclist" as such, so I've found it very enlightening - despite the risk that it might have descended into heat rather than light!
Thanks for fleshing things out so well folks.
Robert
Insto,
No, the school kid point is that even with all the crumple zones people in cars still get head injuries. It's possible that these could be reduced if they wore a big hat. in a car you don't need to do anything which might make you hot and you could wear a bigger, more effective, hat than a cyclist might. Driving hats are available, not surprisingly they come from. Austrailia You can see a photo on Copehnhagenize.
Yes, I realise that drivers and pedestrians still get head injuries. I'm not actually a school child. You said
If cycling is dangerous enough to need protection then so is walking and being in a car.
And I pointed out many ways in which both pedestrians and car drivers are protected. They're not protected by helmets although much of the protection in cars - I'm thinking crumple zones and air bags and side curtains - is aimed at the same sort of controlled deceleration and impact dissipation that helmets offer. Just not so directly. Why that warrants the comparison to a school child escapes me. It seems like a fairly gratuitous insult.
"I pointed out many ways in which both pedestrians and car drivers are protected."
But isn't the point that helmets on pedestrians would save a large number of lives despite the fact that they are already protected - far more than bike helmets could ever save, in truth.
The best we can expect from bike helmets is that they'd prevent all cycling injury, but in absolute terms that's still a trivial number (around five deaths a year) - very little compared with the number of OAPs who fall and terminally bang their heads, to give just one example.
Similarly, all the protection that modern cars provide doesn't prevent a very high (absolute) number of head injuries, many of which could be prevented by the same sort of helmets that are already cheaply available for motorcyclists. If society wants to save X lives a year, there are very much lower fruits to pluck than ours.
" The best we can expect from bike helmets is that they'd prevent all cycling injury..."
That's rather optimistic. The most I'd ever expect would be that they might reduce or prevent or help prevent some head injuries. They're not magic, after all.
Of course helmets on pedestrians and motorists would save more lives but so what? No one's arguing that it wouldn't or that mandating helmets for cyclists would be the best way to reduce road injuries. No one's even arguing for mandatory helmets. I'm not even arguing that anyone should wear a helmet although they can if they want to.
No one's arguing that helmets would prevent all or most or even many injuries. I've already described Snell rated helmets as a shoddy compromise that give an unjustified sense of security.
I'm just against the position of being against helmets, especially when it's argued using the kind of phoney and dishonest stats that we see on bicyclehelmets.org. It's a choice made by rational adults for themselves and their children. There's no argument against it since it's they who need to decide to suffer any discomfort or inconvenience and they don't impose it on anyone else. There is no campaign to impose helmets on everyone else so a campaign against them is quixotic.
More an observation than an insult. That's what kids in school say to me. They don't understand that I've already factored in the crumple zones.
"There is no campaign to impose helmets on everyone else"
That's not really true.
There are various campaign/er/s for compulsory helmet use - at least by children; recently in the Northern Ireland Assembly and by various MPs over the years.
So a certain amount of vigilance and low level 'resistance' had been used by individuals and cycling organisations.
Periodically 'influential' groups like the BMA change their minds.
As this thread demonstrates (again...) there are different views and more and less and less reliable statistics.
Most 'evidence' is hard to prove either way.
It's certainly a valid observation that using 20 year old stats/evidence may have little relevance in today's world of different attitudes and expectations.
Helmet compulsion might be acceptable as a tiny element in a masive programme of harm/danger reduction aimed at ALL road users. But...
Lots more here - Road Danger Reduction Forum.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts