Anti-LTN Tory accused of hypocrisy over support for al fresco dining scheme; TikTok star in hot water for riding with pet dog strapped on his back; Polite bike thief told where to go; Jeremy Vine vs cabby; TTs back on next month + more on the live blog

One thing that muddies the whole helmet debate in the UK is that if you wear a helmet you are more likely to be hit by a driver. Drivers drive less safely around people who they perceive as 'experienced' cyclists [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060911102200.htm#:~:text=Summary%3A,collision%2C%20the%20research%20has%20found.] So the overall effect of a helmet might be positive if I only ever rode off road, but given that I mostly ride road, and my only real risk of coming off comes from being twatted by an oblivious driver...the upshot of a helmet is likely to be an overall increase of risk in injury.

fwhite181 wrote:

One thing that muddies the whole helmet debate in the UK is that if you wear a helmet you are more likely to be hit by a driver. Drivers drive less safely around people who they perceive as 'experienced' cyclists [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060911102200.htm#:~:text=Summary%3A,collision%2C%20the%20research%20has%20found.] So the overall effect of a helmet might be positive if I only ever rode off road, but given that I mostly ride road, and my only real risk of coming off comes from being twatted by an oblivious driver...the upshot of a helmet is likely to be an overall increase of risk in injury.

That research is fifteen years old and undertaken at a time when helmet use was far less prevalent, so drivers would have assumed that helmetted cyclists were experienced. Now they are so widely used, it's doubtful that assumption still exists. And in any case, although this reseach is so frequently quoted the actual findings are not so widely quoted: that on average drivers passed 8.5 cms closer (about the length of your forefinger) to helmetted than non-helmetted cyclists - a negligible distance. And that's all it proved, no cyclists in the experiment were involved in collisions, so it did not, as you claim, show that wearing a helmet increases the risk of injury, it simply showed that cyclists with helmets (in 2006) were passed a finger's length closer than those without, that's all.

Rendel Harris wrote:

It simply showed that cyclists with helmets (in 2006) were passed a finger's length closer than those without, that's all.

You seem to have fallen foul of the fallacy of averages - on average passes were that much closer does not mean that all passes were that much closer. It could do, but it could equally mean that most passes were unchanged, while a minority were a lot closer.

Rendel Harris wrote:

fwhite181 wrote:

One thing that muddies the whole helmet debate in the UK is that if you wear a helmet you are more likely to be hit by a driver. Drivers drive less safely around people who they perceive as 'experienced' cyclists [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060911102200.htm#:~:text=Summary%3A,collision%2C%20the%20research%20has%20found.] So the overall effect of a helmet might be positive if I only ever rode off road, but given that I mostly ride road, and my only real risk of coming off comes from being twatted by an oblivious driver...the upshot of a helmet is likely to be an overall increase of risk in injury.

That research is fifteen years old and undertaken at a time when helmet use was far less prevalent, so drivers would have assumed that helmetted cyclists were experienced. Now they are so widely used, it's doubtful that assumption still exists. And in any case, although this reseach is so frequently quoted the actual findings are not so widely quoted: that on average drivers passed 8.5 cms closer (about the length of your forefinger) to helmetted than non-helmetted cyclists - a negligible distance. And that's all it proved, no cyclists in the experiment were involved in collisions, so it did not, as you claim, show that wearing a helmet increases the risk of injury, it simply showed that cyclists with helmets (in 2006) were passed a finger's length closer than those without, that's all.

Whilst that experiment needs to be taken with a pinch of salt due to its limitations, you're not correct about no cyclists being involved in collisions:

Quote:

Dr Walker, who was struck by a bus and a truck in the course of the experiment, spent half the time wearing a cycle helmet and half the time bare-headed. He was wearing the helmet both times he was struck.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337367329_Effects_of_bicycle_helmet_wearing_on_accident_and_injury_rates/link/5dd44b1a458515cd48abf9e0/download A more recent and multi-national study: the number of accidents and injuries in cyclists increases with greater helmet usage. The authors acknowledge that a bunch of this could be to do with the culture of countries that mandate/promote helmet usage above actually providing infrastructure and respecting cyclists. But the upshot is that if we want safe cycling, telling people to wear helmets really isn't the best approach.

I'm not saying don't wear a helmet, I always do. But don't present them as a way of genuinely reducing risk to cyclists. Almost any casual cyclist will almost always be infinitely better served by good infrastructure than they will be by a glorified polystyrene cup. 

I think you meant to reply to Rendel. I can't recall presenting helmets as a solution to anything except low-hanging branches (and my kitchen doorway that I sometimes bump my head on whilst wearing my helmet as it makes me a cm or two taller).

Interesting study though.

hawkinspeter]</p>

<p>&nbsp;
<p>[quote wrote:

Dr Walker, who was struck by a bus and a truck in the course of the experiment, spent half the time wearing a cycle helmet and half the time bare-headed. He was wearing the helmet both times he was struck.

I stand corrected. However that is shockingly bad research practice for the researcher to also act as subject - the possibility of confirmation bias coming in is huge.

Sriracha wrote:

But a helmet that cracked right through is a helmet that failed to protect you. Helmets work through the action of the EPS being irreversibly crushed. This lengthens the distance through which the head is brought to a halt, thereby reducing the deceleration of the head and the brain within. A helmet that simply breaks apart on impact has done very little - other factors not to do with the helmet likely saved your bacon.

This is so often stated and is simply not true. Yes, the EPS is designed to crush to absorb impact; if the impact is hard enough then it will, ultimately, like any other material, reach breaking point and crack, having already performed its shock absorbing duties. If you can show a helmet that has simply broken apart without any crushing of the EPS, that is a helmet that hasn't done its job, but I've never seen or heard of that happening.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Sriracha wrote:

But a helmet that cracked right through is a helmet that failed to protect you. Helmets work through the action of the EPS being irreversibly crushed. This lengthens the distance through which the head is brought to a halt, thereby reducing the deceleration of the head and the brain within. A helmet that simply breaks apart on impact has done very little - other factors not to do with the helmet likely saved your bacon.

This is so often stated and is simply not true. Yes, the EPS is designed to crush to absorb impact; if the impact is hard enough then it will, ultimately, like any other material, reach breaking point and crack, having already performed its shock absorbing duties. If you can show a helmet that has simply broken apart without any crushing of the EPS, that is a helmet that hasn't done its job, but I've never seen or heard of that happening.

True enough, hence I said, "A helmet that simply breaks apart ...". But I could have been clearer. If the EPS crushes then it's done its job, up to that point.

The way I read Crazyhorse's account implied that it was the cracking apart of the helmet which sacrificially saved his head from the same fate - but for the fact that the helmet cracked it would have been my head instead. That needs to be dispelled.

I've seen pictures on this site of helmets that have split in two, but show negligible compression of the EPS (as far as can be determined from a photo).

There seems to be a "cargo cult" around the protective effects of cycle helmets whereby some people will believe that because a helmet cracked, it must have saved your skull from cracking. This is despite the fact that it is relatively easy to crack a helmet in two using your hands (and maybe a knee or two) but very difficult to crack a skull in two using your hands (disclaimer: I have not tried that).

There's also people who over-state the protective benefits, such as when you wrote about crashing at 30mph - that's way beyond the safety tests for cycle helmets and unreasonable to expect that cycle helmets would be over-engineered to provide substantial protection beyond the standards (which would make a helmet heavier and thus less appealing to most cyclists). That seems to me to be an article of faith rather than evidence based.

However, St Chris hit the nail on the head with his statements about helmets and hi-viz not even being in the top 10 of cycling safety factors.

Also, I'd like to submit that white paint on roads (A.K.A. cycle lanes) are akin to a protective ward. Not much evidence that they increase safety and some evidence that they reduce safety.

You can't generally tell if EPS has been crushed without using a micrometer and/or microscope.

To clarify, when talking about coming off at 30mph I was thinking of the  sort of slide off one might experience on a wet corner, hitting the ground hip and shoulder first but then bumping the noggin or dragging it across the tarmac. Obviously I'm not claiming a helmet will save you in a head-on 30mph impact, because it won't.

Rendel Harris wrote:

You can't generally tell if EPS has been crushed without using a micrometer and/or microscope.

To clarify, when talking about coming off at 30mph I was thinking of the  sort of slide off one might experience on a wet corner, hitting the ground hip and shoulder first but then bumping the noggin or dragging it across the tarmac. Obviously I'm not claiming a helmet will save you in a head-on 30mph impact, because it won't.

If the EPS only deforms a small amount, then I'm surprised that it's absorbing much energy at all. I could make a visible dent using my fingers, so surely a crash would leave some visible sign of deformation?

Crazyhorse wrote:

I was deliberately knocked off my bike and my cycle helmet was cracked right through. That would have been my cranium without it, and I do not think I would have got up from that (to be assaulted by the driver!)

The risk of falling off a bike is low, as is the risk of crashing a car - but I always wear a seatbelt. The risk of death when playing Russian roulette is (relatively) low, but I would still not be keen to play - even if the barrel could accomodate 100 bullets.

If others do not want to wear a helmet, that is their choice. I've not heard any serious calls for compulsion.

Still amazing that the number of people who have been 'kept alive by a bike helmet' far exceeds the numbers that were dying before their introduction.

Also that countries where no one wheres helmets have far fewer cyclist deaths per mile travelled than countries with mandatory helmets.

Yes, your head would have hit the floor, it's possible that you would have been rendered unconcious, but I very much doubt your skull would have broken in half like the cycle helmet.

Risk of falling off a bike on a single journey is much smaller than 1:100 and consequences significantly less severe the a gunshot, so your analagy is absurd. 1/100 helmetless cyclists do not die every year, never mind every trip.

Miller wrote:

I put a video of the National HC on youtube and discovered from the comments that there is an infinite supply of helmet nazis out there. Worldwide! So many know-nothings who have a fit at the sight of someone bare headed on a bike.

It's a religious thing; they believe, so everyone else should, and just like other religions, they ignore awkward things like facts.  Cycle helmets are an incredibly good illustration of the gullibility of the average human and the sheer impossibility of changing someone's mind with facts.

eburtthebike wrote:

It's a religious thing; they believe, so everyone else should

[/quote]

Given your fanatical devotion, both on this site and others, Burt, to arguing aganst helmets, I can't see much difference between them and you, you're two sides of the same coin.

Rendel Harris wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

It's a religious thing; they believe, so everyone else should

Given your fanatical devotion, both on this site and others, Burt, to arguing aganst helmets, I can't see much difference between them and you, you're two sides of the same coin.

Surely he's a helmet-atheist - he doesn't believe that helmets are a major safety factor for cyclists.

Fanatical devotion would be wearing a cycling helmet in the shower to protect against slipping.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Surely he's a helmet-atheist - he doesn't believe that helmets are a major safety factor for cyclists.

In that case surely one would just say I don't think they're any use but wear one if you want to, dear old Burt frequently rants at people and calls them stupid and gullible for wearing helmets. Not wearing a helmet appears to be just as much of a religion to him as wearing one is, he alleges, to others.

Can we not just say wear one if you want and don't if you don't? They're never going to be made mandatory in this country, it's really not worth everyone getting so extra about it.

Rendel Harris wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Surely he's a helmet-atheist - he doesn't believe that helmets are a major safety factor for cyclists.

In that case surely one would just say I don't think they're any use but wear one if you want to, dear old Burt frequently rants at people and calls them stupid and gullible for wearing helmets. Not wearing a helmet appears to be just as much of a religion to him as wearing one is, he alleges, to others.

Can we not just say wear one if you want and don't if you don't? They're never going to be made mandatory in this country, it's really not worth everyone getting so extra about it.

You can get militant atheists that decry theists, so maybe Burt is just a militant helmet-atheist.

Rendel Harris wrote:

In that case surely one would just say I don't think they're any use but wear one if you want to, dear old Burt frequently rants at people and calls them stupid and gullible for wearing helmets. Not wearing a helmet appears to be just as much of a religion to him as wearing one is, he alleges, to others.

Can we not just say wear one if you want and don't if you don't? They're never going to be made mandatory in this country, it's really not worth everyone getting so extra about it.

There have been several attempts to make helmets compulsory in this country, and this has only been prevented by pointing out that the people demanding it were stupid and gullible.  Given the seemingly increasing number of people who believe them to be effective, despite the evidence, and the pressure from those who put us at risk to make us wear them so that they feel better, it is likely that there will be others.

Anyone who believes things without checking the facts is stupid and gullible in my opinion.

eburtthebike wrote:

Anyone who believes things without checking the facts is stupid and gullible in my opinion.

That's a bit simplistic. I believe a whole lot of different things without having researched the facts (e.g. door mirrors working better than wing mirrors).

I think it's more down to whether something seems reasonable or not based on experience. It's reasonable to state that a cycling helmet provides some head protection at slow speeds, but less reasonable to think that it'll protect against being run over by a lorry.

Stupidity is more when someone presents an alternate view and you don't re-evaluate what you believe in light of the new evidence.

hawkinspeter wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

Anyone who believes things without checking the facts is stupid and gullible in my opinion.

That's a bit simplistic. I believe a whole lot of different things without having researched the facts (e.g. door mirrors working better than wing mirrors).

There was some research done a very long time ago which showed that door mirrors were more dangerous than wing mirrors because it took drivers significantly longer to shift their focus to look into them.  Just don't ask me to dig it up!

eburtthebike wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

Anyone who believes things without checking the facts is stupid and gullible in my opinion.

That's a bit simplistic. I believe a whole lot of different things without having researched the facts (e.g. door mirrors working better than wing mirrors).

There was some research done a very long time ago which showed that door mirrors were more dangerous than wing mirrors because it took drivers significantly longer to shift their focus to look into them.  Just don't ask me to dig it up!

Well there's the problem right there. If they are shifting focus to the mirror, then they are not focused on the image reflected in the mirror, which is at a considerably more distant image plane. Someone needs to tell these drivers they're doing it wrong - they need to look through the glass, not at it. Maybe the same kind of thing is happening with the windscreen? Would explain plenty!

Rendel Harris wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

It's a religious thing; they believe, so everyone else should

Given your fanatical devotion, both on this site and others, Burt, to arguing aganst helmets, I can't see much difference between them and you, you're two sides of the same coin.

[/quote]I've never argued against helmets, only the overwhelming promotion of them as "the answer" to drivers knocking us off, and the gullibility of the people who believe bad science and endlessly repeated "helmet saved my life" stories, which are clearly not true.  The worst thing about helmet promotion and propaganda is that it diverts attention from what really works and sows dissent in the people who should be working together to make cycling mainstream.

Miller wrote:

I put a video of the National HC on youtube and discovered from the comments that there is an infinite supply of helmet nazis out there. Worldwide! So many know-nothings who have a fit at the sight of someone bare headed on a bike.

Calling people Nazis because they advocate the use of helmets, whatever you believe about the ins and outs of the arguments, is distasteful and frankly pathetic.

Agreed. I thought 'Nazis' were people who wished to elimate personal freedom and were responsible for the mass murder of Jews, Slavs, communists, disabled people, Roma, gay people, and many others.

Not people who choose to wear an odd looking hat. But I could be wrong.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Calling people Nazis because they advocate the use of helmets, whatever you believe about the ins and outs of the arguments, is distasteful and frankly pathetic.

It isn't that they advocate helmets, it is their intolerance of any differing views, despite those views being supported by the facts.

Maybe Mencken said it best:

"The truth, indeed, is something that mankind, for some mysterious reason, instinctively dislikes. Every man who tries to tell it is unpopular, and even when, by the sheer strength of his case, he prevails, he is put down as a scoundrel."

eburtthebike wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

Calling people Nazis because they advocate the use of helmets, whatever you believe about the ins and outs of the arguments, is distasteful and frankly pathetic.

It isn't that they advocate helmets, it is their intolerance of any differing views, despite those views being supported by the facts.

Maybe Mencken said it best:

"The truth, indeed, is something that mankind, for some mysterious reason, instinctively dislikes. Every man who tries to tell it is unpopular, and even when, by the sheer strength of his case, he prevails, he is put down as a scoundrel."

Firstly, if people are intolerant of differing views that is undesirable but it does not make it acceptable to call them Nazis, it's both grossly insulting to them and downplays the horror of the Nazi regime.

Secondly, don't be ridiculous, you and those who think like you all hold the TRUTH and anyone who disagrees is only doing so because they instinctively dislike it? We're not talking socialism vs capitalism here old fruit, get a sense of perspective. I don't particularly like wearing a helmet, they clutter up the house, they're a pain to carry around and I look ridiculous in them, but the balance of the evidence and the experience of forty-odd years of keen cycling suggests to me that they're a worthwhile protection. Not because I know that you hold the TRUTH but for some unexplained mad reason I want to suppress it, I'd far sooner agree with you and not wear a helmet, but I don't so I do.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

That GoldenDoodle does look pretty comfy riding in the backpack.

Can't see how they see that as dangerous. I notice some of the naysayers seem to be saying that riding a bike is dangerous and you'll die if you don't wear a helmet... Nutjobs, clearly just against cycling.

Same sort of people who call out child abuse for people riding with their children on the roads. Seem to have the view that cyclist is a high risk activity, possibly because they themselves are incapable of driving safely around vulnerable road users.