You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Cycling is three times more likely to cause you injury than walking, see TJs book of stats.
Re driving you might have a point
Also…
Your point would be relevent if cars bore any resembelence to the vehicle he was driving.
…it's not like bikes are all the same, either.
Despite maintaining that there is a “lack of down sides”.
I can think of one downside to wearing it in the car. I'd need the sun roof open. Pretty sure 2 ton of car baring down in my neck would be a downside should the helmet come into play.
As I said when I start walking at 30 ....or I'll bring that down.... Even more than 10 mph I'll think about the helmet . Other wise I'll just assume your making straw comparisons to drive your arguement.
But yeah other than its about as inconvienant as putting a jacket on what were the downsides again.
People on here like to think they are taking part in some extreme dangerous activity that requires special skills and outfits
No we don't.
Cycling is three times more likely to cause you injury than walking, see TJs book of stats.
Re driving you might have a point
No, my point is nothing to do with stats. My point was a counter to the arguments of "you should protect against any blow to the head" and "there's no downside to wearing a helmet". They're utter hogwash, because every single person who makes those arguments behaves entirely contrary to them, just so long as they don't have a bicycle between their legs.
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/the-brick-wall/
Indeed you appear to have posted a random irrelevant picture of a motor bike and a bicycle to draw comparisons between an f1 car which other than having and engine and 4 wheels has nothing in common with a road going vehicle
what were the downsides again.
They're of subjective importance. You find them negligible, I don't. Many people feel similarly to you, many others feel similarly to me, and all the shades in between. It doesn't really matter. If someone personally finds that some aspect of wearing a helment is a downside then who are you to claim that it's not a downside for them any more than I am to say that it must be a downside for you.
Just accept that you have a perspective that is yours—acquired through your own experiences and preferences and your own way of riding a bike and how that activity (whether it comes in one flavour or many) fits into your own life—and that your perspective is not the only one, and not the only valid one.
a random irrelevant picture of a motor bike
Er, that's a pedal cycle.
See? An F1 car and a Ford Mondeo are so similar that you can recognise that they're both motor cars; bicycles are so diverse you can't even recognise what they are 🙂
Indeed the cats skinned both ways
I'm concerned that if I subscribe to your way of thinking and throw my helmet away j should surely die by the sword and remove the seatbelts the ROP and the SIP from my car perhaps the abs too After all it's all unnessecary
I mean after all I only use it to go get milk I don't race it for sport.
Edit it's a Honda downhill bike from about 15 years ago. Looks like an ebike on a phone screen
If a helmet is essential why not a full body armour and neck brace?
Full roll cages for bicycles mandatory
Absolutely now your getting it* teej
*My bingo books nearly complete anyway.
I’m concerned that if I subscribe to your way of thinking and throw my helmet away
Obviously I'm not asking you to do any of that and I realise you're being a bit facetious 😉 I'm just hoping folks might accept that if someone has a different perception of the risk they face themselves (and specifically that; risk posed to others is a very different matter) then that's ok, and if someone has a different perception of whether a helmet is bothersome in any way, then that's ok, and if someone does certain things to reduce their level of risk but those things are inherently visible in the way that a helmet isn't, then that's at worst ok and just possibly even wiser than wearing a helmet and not adapting their behaviour.
Though if you fancy some food for thought on seat belts…
http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/11/05/seat-belts-another-look-at-the-data/
Compulsory helmet use for cycling would see a detrimental effect on cycle use. Which as minority road users, we need more people to cycle for the government to invest in safer cycling infrastructure. So it would be a bad thing for all cyclists.
Currently helmet use is not compulsory. Therefore it is a personal choice and that should be the end of it. You may not agree that someone thinks its safe to cycle without a helmet, whilst you think it is dangerous and risky. It is thier choice.
As an example, I know plenty of motorbike riders that won't ride a motorbike in anything other than full power rangers set of leathers with body armour, as this offers the best protection in the event of a crash, no matter how short their journey is. Whereas I'm more than happy to ride my motorbike around town in jeans and t-shirt. Some might say it's dangerous and a risk and I shouldn't do it. But to me, doing 30mph round town on a motorbike is less of a risk, than riding my road bike downhill at 45+mph in nothing more for body protection than lycra. And that is my personal choice. If it became compulsory to wear some form of protective clothing for motorbiking I could see that having a massive reduction on motorbike journeys made. I Know I'd certainly use mine less.
Probably 95% of my bike rides I wear a helmet, but there is the occasional time I pop to the shops where I won't bother. For those occasions I just don't see the need to wear one.
tinas – the car comparison is per hour of activity 🙂
That's why I said you were wrong.
Per mile, the car is more than 15x safer than cycling (1.8 Vs 29.7 KSI per billion miles)
Per hour, the car is about 4x safer (assuming the bike averages about 12mph and the car about 50mph). But that's a daft metric as hardly anyone drives a car for fun.
[although having read your post back word for word it's ambiguous whether you're talking about the car driving or walking]
In 2019, car occupants accounted for 42% of road deaths, pedestrians 27%, motorcyclists 19% and pedal cyclists 6%
or 736 died in cars 470 pedestrians. 336 motorcyclists 100 cyclists
Says far more about their relative uses than their safety.
I agree with your argument, but you're grossly misrepresenting the stats.
But if the Pedestrian is doing 3mph and the bike ~12mph, then the cyclist is 4x safer per hour.
Although I got that one the wrong way around, bikes are faster, therefore more risky by that factor on a per hour basis.
He’s wrong on the car point though, 1.8 KSI per billion mile Vs ~30 for pedestrians and cyclists. Assuming 50mph that’s 36 KSI per million hours in a car, or 2475 KSI per million hours on a bike.
This also makes that 90 KSI per billion hours for the car.
and 360 per billion hours for the cyclists.
and 90 per billion hours for walking (same as the car, but as noted above a daft comparison).
No, but the fit human can run at 20mph. Guess what, the skull evolved to mitigate the risk of falling at this speed!
Sorry, I missed this belter. Presumably Usain Bolt didn't do sprint training on a shitty potholed road. And I also presume a sprinter would find it hard to sustain such a speed very far. So like I said, walking and cycling are two very different activities with two very different risk and fall profiles.
in 50 years of cycling I have hit my head once IIRC I had a helmet on and it was a glancing blow on a low hanging tree limb with no injury. In 40 years of drinking I have hit my head 3 times each time leading to injury
Conversely in 33 years of cycling I've hit my head multiple times, at least two of those resulting in neck injury and mild concussion. In 23 years of drinking I've never hit my head once.
I'll see if I can dig out the pictures of the General Lee and the helmet, you can decide how much energy was dissipated in the crash and then I'll reverse a Sprinter at your face to see how inconsequential it is. Prove me wrong.
Conversely in 33 years of cycling I’ve hit my head multiple times, at least two of those resulting in neck injury and mild concussion.
jeepers - maybe a skills course?
then I’ll reverse a Sprinter at your face to see how inconsequential it is. Prove me wrong.
cycle helmets don't protect your face 🙂
jeepers – maybe a skills course?
I'd like to have seen you do any better in a split second decision. I was probably doing about 30 considering the hill behind me and otherwise clear road in front.
Where in a skills course does it cover other people or mechanical failures? Is this a new STW Cycling God trend you're trying to start? Is there an Advanced Cycling Proficiency test with the Institute of Advanced Cyclists you can recommend?
Of course it couldn't just be a case that you've been lucky and I've not could it? How about all those people who seem to regularly get knocked off their bikes, are they unskilled too? They clearly must be doing something wrong as I'VE never been knocked off MY bike?
cycle helmets don’t protect your face 🙂
Semantics, forehead then.
Oh and yes they do, why else do full face helmets exist?
Conversely in 33 years of cycling I’ve hit my head multiple times, at least two of those resulting in neck injury and mild concussion.
Wow, you sound like a crap rider or just very unlucky. You definitely need to wear a helmet.
I have hit my head once in almost 50 years of cycling. That includes 10 years of BMX when young and related dicking about and doing stupid things. I have even been knocked off by cars twice.
The one time I did hit my head? I was manualling a brakeless BMX in my garage and looped out and landed flat on the floor (embarrassingly that was only 10 years ago!)
My worst head injury was when running out of my drive as a kid and hitting a girl running along the pavement head to head. Neither of us had helmets on and I ended up in A&E.
So my anecdotal evidence supports wearing a helmet when running around as a kid and if doing thing beyond my capability in my garage...
I have hit my head once in almost 50 years of cycling.
You probably don't ride the same kind of trails squirrelking does.
For a comparison - when I use to commute in/around London on a motorbike I reckoned on clipping a vehicle every other day (might just be a mirror etc). Folk who only ride motorbikes at weekends etc for pleasure will probably never clip a vehicle (unless they have a big accident).
You probably don’t ride the same kind of trails squirrelking does.
But again we're missing the point. If you're going to go down some pretty hairy trails and test your own abilities to the limits then chances are sooner or later you're going to come off, and if you do then you risk injury—especially since today's bikes are capable of going so fast and over such big drops. There are those of us who started out on bikes which were less capable than an average gravel bike these days.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the article that triggered this, which was essentially about using a bicycle to get to work. There's a reason why some people refer to it (and things like scooting) as things like "wheeled pedestrianism": all it is is being able to move around a little further and a little quicker than is possible with just shoes.
Again, if we conflate awesome shredding or Strava segment-chasing with going to work or school or buying milk then the whole conversation is doomed. It's precisely the conflation that anti-cycling influencers love you to make: they make it too because it helps achieve their ends.
Lots of interesting views and links. My own experience of multiple crashes on road, commuting and mountain biking means that I will always wear a helmet. Maybe they did not help but the damage to the helmet suggests they did something. Also I will get the training as recommended above!
On individuals accidents it seems based on this review of previous studies that a helmet does reduce serious injuries.
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/46/1/278/2617198
I know this is very different to the health of the overall population if helmet wearing discourages cycling.
For a comparison – when I use to commute in/around London on a motorbike I reckoned on clipping a vehicle every other day (might just be a mirror etc).
Wtaf? I do the same and used to ride a bike for work around London and the only time I’ve clipped a vehicle was when filtering at pace on my Beemer which had sticky out mirror pods (fortunately being a BMW I never used the indicators in these pods so no damage done)
in my "career", ive been in two accidents (which were both on the road), in which i believe my helmet played a significant part in me not becoming a vegetable.
I wouldnt suggest anyone HAS to wear a helmet, but i'll keep wearing mine, thanks.
Presumably Usain Bolt didn’t do sprint training on a shitty potholed road.
Why Usain Bolt I'm pretty sure he is the today's result of the evolutionary path that runners are on? Originally running man had to run on what was there if he wanted to eat meat and provide for the family. I'm pretty certain that would not have been a groomed race-track.
So yes, you did come up with a belter, however it does not negate the fact that the skull is rated to 20mph and polystyrene to 12mph and then only in specific instances.
here is another thought experiment for you
I take a large metal bar and swing it so its 10mm above your scalp. Helmet on - it catches the top of your helmet jerking your head back and knocking to the ground. Ouch
No helmet - it whistles thru your hair and you ride on going "phew - near miss"
and polystyrene to 12mph and then only in specific instances.
and only with the weight of your head driving it not the weight of your whole body!
As for the motorcyling one - I used to ride as a courier in a big city. I never once clipped a mirror. Infact I don't think I ever have in many years of mortorcycling
mrl - that link is just a survey of previous reseach which for long and boring reasons contains some totally discredited reseach
I'm off out shortly so don't have time to go into it but the basic reseach shows such huge falws that its conclusions are poor.
No one is arguing helmets do not provide priotection for the individual from minor injuries.
the argument is this effect is so slight because of the safe nature of cycling that secondary effects mean no protection across populations can be shown.
there is also much dispute about the effects on helmets on major injuries ie are you swapping scalping yourself as you hit the ground for a defuse axon injury?
TJ. Can you link to the work dis crediting the data in the above study? The above journal is peer reviewed and was 2017 so I would be surprised if it got through review if the data had be proven to be flawed? Reviewers tend to be pretty picky on that!
Also if you have any links to axon injury? Is this the over rotation due to the bigger circumference of the head with the helmet? I was try to explain to someone why I let my daughter scoot and roller blade without a helmet.
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/9/e027845
This seems to support helmet usage in reducing head injury and the potential impact the helmet wearing has on spine or neck injuries. The limb injuries bit is an odd correlation?
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the article that triggered this, which was essentially about using a bicycle to get to work.
Exactly. Riding along a road at 13mph is not the same as riding down a rocky descent on the limit of grip at 30mph and is much closer in risk to walking.
I would actually question why people riding the extreme ends of MTB are not actually wearing a proper helmet rather than a cycling helmet.
You probably don’t ride the same kind of trails squirrelking does.
You clearly missed the comment that I did 10 years of BMX as a fearless teenager...
Helmet on – it catches the top of your helmet jerking your head back and knocking to the ground.
Oddly the only time I’ve ever damaged a helmet was when I forgot that it made me significantly taller than the door frame of a Coed y Brenin cabin and I walked into it and knocked myself over backwards 😐
Riding along a road at 13mph is not the same as riding down a rocky descent on the limit of grip at 30mph and is much closer in risk to walking
I'd say I spend a lot more time closer to 30mph on the road than off it (and my strava times would back that up). Also if I do come off on the road the ground will definitely be hard. Likelyhood of coming off is harder to judge but off road it'll be my fault, on it there are a load of other factors outside my control.
it seems based on this review of previous studies that a helmet does reduce serious injuries
The main issue with that and similar studies, though, is the selective nature of the sample set.
It doesn’t (as far as I could see from a hurried spot of the abstract) look at people who didn’t suffer injuries, nor at people who were fatally injured.
This means it ignores any correlation between avoidance of injury and either wearing or not wearing helmet, and it also ignores any correlation between fatal injuries and the same. I’m also going to guess that it might not be normalised by the helmet usage rate (which would be a highly uncertain figure anyway).
So while such studies support the “try hitting yourself on the head with a brick and then try it wearing a helmet” argument, they ignore two facts: firstly the fact that people are going to be more willing to hit themselves with a brick if they’re wearing a helmet, and secondly the fact that if you hit yourself hard enough with a brick, you’re dead whether you’re wearing a helmet or not.
So yes, a properly worn helmet can provide a bit of protection. But below a certain level of impact it makes no real difference; above a certain level it makes no readily difference; and the window in the middle where it makes a real difference has to be offset by any change in likelihood of suffering such a crash which correlates with wearing one. And that’s an extremely difficult effect to research.
I’d say I spend a lot more time closer to 30mph on the road than off it (and my strava times would back that up).
You’re not getting it are you?
The post you replied to explicitly said 13mph, not 30. Again, you’re a cycling enthusiast and as a result you have a blinkered view which means you’re seemingly unable to consider that a lot of people don’t ride at 13mph or less. (Don’t take this as an ad hominem assault; it’s not, I’ve been there.) You have Strava times. Most people don’t give a monkey’s toss about Strava, they just want to put their normal clothes on and get to work cheaply and in good time without having to get stuck in traffic or catch the plague in the tube or whatever.
Hm I think those banging on about misunderstanding stats are guilty of misunderstanding them as well.
So while such studies support the “try hitting yourself on the head with a brick and then try it wearing a helmet” argument, they ignore two facts: firstly the fact that people are going to be more willing to hit themselves with a brick if they’re wearing a helmet, and secondly the fact that if you hit yourself hard enough with a brick, you’re dead whether you’re wearing a helmet or not.
This is a poor post. The brick thought experiment is to demonstrate how much it would hurt and how much damage you could do hitting your unprotected head on a hard object, based on familiar parameters (i.e. we've all banged our heads on hard objects, most of us haven't been in serious bike crashes) that's all. It says nothing about the likelihood of an accident, and you're extrapolating to absurdity.
The studies that measure head impact are there to prove that the helmet does provide physical protection. Scientific studies have to be specific by their nature. They aren't poor studies just because they don't then go on to analyse human behavioural patterns.
Re the comments about walking and risk - I haven't seen a breakdown of the causes of these walking accidents. But I suspect that most walking accidents could have been prevented by some other action taken by the walker i.e. keeping your shoelaces tied, being good at walking, etc. I think as a walker you have a high degree of agency when it comes to your own safety. As cyclists, we have a good deal of agency there but there's always the risk of being taken out by a passing car when there's nothing you can do about it, because we are riding in the road.
So yes, a properly worn helmet can provide a bit of protection
Thanks, that's all there is to it. Sometimes a bit of protection makes all the difference.
I take a large metal bar and swing it so its 10mm above your scalp. Helmet on – it catches the top of your helmet jerking your head back and knocking to the ground. Ouch
No helmet – it whistles thru your hair and you ride on going “phew – near miss”
What do you think goes on in bike accidents?!
cycle helmets don’t protect your face
They do.
That sticky out bit at the front protects your eyes and nose, if not your jaw. I had to scrape my mate up off the ground many years ago and somehow get him to a hospital in the days before mobiles after a high speed faceplant into hard ground. He doesn't remember it, so it was a significant impact. His helmet was unmarked except for a dent at the very front, and his only facial injuries were a graze on his jaw. Had the front of the helmet not taken the impact it'd have been his nose and eye sockets.
This also makes that 90 KSI per billion hours for the car.
and 360 per billion hours for the cyclists.
and 90 per billion hours for walking (same as the car, but as noted above a daft comparison).
I'd imagine there are a great many people who drive more than ten hours a week, but not that many people who cycle or walk that much.
A better statistic for understanding risk would be the number of KSIs amongst the population who exhibit typical usage patterns for each mode of transport. So rather than your risk of KSI per mile, divide it in to categories:
Risk of cycling related KSI for:
Casual cyclist
Commuter cyclist
Recreational cyclist
Keen amateur cyclist
Risk of car related KSI for:
Occasional drivers
Regular short commuters
Regular long commuters
High milage drivers i.e. Sales Reps etc
That kind of thing. You would also be able to include the mileage and perhaps even road type for each category and perhaps split it up by people who were involved in multiple categories. For example, keen amateur roadies and also recreational cyclists are highly likely to be seeking out quieter roads; whereas commuters are more likely to be in heavy urban traffic in denser roads and more complex junctions. Also, it may be that keen recreational cyclists also commute, but they might be safer commuters due to being more experienced riders than the general public OR they might be at more risk because they're probably going a lot quicker as they zip through traffic.
It says nothing about the likelihood of an accident
That was the whole point. Likelihood is literally half of a risk calculation. If you ignore it you’re not assessing risk properly.
I’m not disputing the study, I’m saying that to take a study like that and say “I must be safer if I wear a helmet” is missing a large part of the picture. As a personal choice that’s fine, I’m not disputing anyone’s personal choice to wear one and I’ve no right to do so anyway, but at a population/policy level it’s highly problematic.
and you’re extrapolating to absurdity.
Well, that was just fitting in with the “go and hit yourself on the head” line of argument, obviously. The well-researched fact is that people take more risks when they feel protected, and the inevitable result of wearing a helmet is that they feel more protected. Another fact is that people who wear helmets still get killed—in fact the chances are (and this isn’t just hypothesis) that fatalities are more prevalent amongst helmet wearers, in no small part due to the risk profiles that arise due to other correlating choices.
but there’s always the risk of being taken out by a passing car when there’s nothing you can do about it, because we are riding in the road.
No-one’s denying that. Just as various risks exist when you’re not on a bicycle.
And what would the data need to look like before there were calls for car drivers to wear helmets?
mrl
this website looks at a lot of the shortcomings in the data on helmnet wearing including a discussion on why the cochrane review ( riveria et al?) reseach is of poor quality
Take a large pinch of salt with you when visiting - indeed take two
in fact the chances are (and this isn’t just hypothesis) that fatalities are more prevalent amongst helmet wearers,
There are multiple possible factors in this. No decent research that I have seen
the factors include:
Risk compensation on behalf of the rider and car drivers
the "dehumanising" effect of wearing helmets leading to car drivers to care less about the cyclist
Skill levels of helmeted cyclists compared to non helmeted
Increased risk of hitting your head if helmeted due to the increase in size and weight of your head
Increased risk of diffuse axon injury when helmeted due to increased rotational forces ( both from the increased diameter and due to the helmet sticking on the ground) in oblique impacts
Reduction in number of miles cycled when helmets are compulsory leading to a reduction in "safety in numbers"
but there’s always the risk of being taken out by a passing car when there’s nothing you can do about it, because we are riding in the road.
Actually there is. Use a mirror. Why is it mirrors are standard equipment for most vehicles but most cyclists don't use them. Using a mirror I have been warned of a close overtakes in time to move a foot or two left and make them comfortable. Once in the USA I had to ride off the road to avoid being hit by a campervan doing 50-60mph. Using a mirror I'm still here. I doubt a helmet helps much at those speeds.
Could someone explain when riding on Great George Street became a gnarly trail? Yes, of my two worst head impacts one was off road (Swan dive after my front wheel caught a ramp lip) but the other was on road. As for unskilled, perhaps those making that claim would explain what they would have done differently?
Interested to hear if that assessment extends to Trail Rat as well.
@tjagain how about answering my question, do you fancy having a sprinter van reversed into your forehead to prove how useless a helmet is?
@sandwich, you do realise that 20mph is an extremely fast running speed don't you? People trip, fall and sustain critical injuries at far lower speeds.
I was try to explain to someone why I let my daughter scoot and roller blade without a helmet.
be careful with this one - a lot of the factors are different with children
Increased overall risk as they are more likely to be reckless and unskilled and softer skulls
But also be aware of ill fitting helmets with children
@tjagain how about answering my question, do you fancy having a sprinter van reversed into your forehead to prove how useless a helmet is?
its a stupid and pointless question. The only answer is I would rather avoid it altogether
How about you answer my question about swinging the metal bar 10 mm above your scalp?
Wow just wow, you can wear a helmet if you want to, you don't have to wear a helmet if you don't want to & long may it remain that way.
From my casual observations the least % of helmet wearing seems to correlate quite well with the cities with a high proportion of cycle commuting students - do Oxford & Cambridge have greater numbers of head injured people showing up at A&E than other similar sized cities?
do Oxford & Cambridge have greater numbers of head injured people showing up at A&E than other similar sized cities?
Well it seems they do have some of the worst normalised statistics for cyclists injury and death in the UK.
Coinquidink ?
Fairly certain it's all those people swinging metal bars 10mm above folks scalp causing it
TJ, thanks for the link. I agree on the pinch of salt. A pretty strong agenda driven by that site!
The first paper I linked to, Olivier 2016, references the Elvik 2011 work and seems to be a academic reply. It seems elvik excluded 24 published studies (published before 2011) from his work that the the later work included. They also recognised and tried to account for risk compensation bias. However both papers do agree that helmets reduce the risk of injury. They are just arguing about the amount of benefit. The Oliver work conflicts with Elvik on the neck and diffuse axon injuries.overall they come out as null impact for helmets.
Combined with the 2019 Dodds paper (second link to the bmj) seems to support the reduction in injury.
The Olivier and Elvik work comes across as a bit of an academic argument and are both re analysis of previous studies. But the Dodds paper is pretty compelling.
its a stupid and pointless question. The only answer is I would rather avoid it altogether
You're missing the point, the outcome was avoidable only in the sense that the alternative was to plough through a family. I didn't exactly set off to whang myself into the back of a van. Tell me, what would you have done differently in the split second between applying your brakes and hitting/avoiding them?
How about you answer my question about swinging the metal bar 10 mm above your scalp
Fine, as long as I then get to swing it 10mm below yours sans helmet in return. I've clattered my head off enough pipes to know how much it hurts, I've also taken to wearing linesman helmets for that exact reason, oddly enough you tend not to bump your head when you can actually see the hazard. How do you fancy your chances?
what would you have done differently in the split second between applying your brakes and hitting/avoiding them?
Who knows? I don't have enough detail but generally behind a van I am placed on the right hand side just wider than the van so I can see the drivers face in his mirror and I have an escape route down the righthandside.
How about you answer my question about swinging the metal bar 10 mm above your scalp
POint missed - 10 mm above your head - no helmet it misses, helmet on you get clattered
Its equally ridiculous to your questions
the only answer to yours is not to be there.
I said it two pages back didn't I.
...dragged into points scoring arguments about plastic hat efficacy...
Little useful ever comes of these threads TBH. Some obscure and boring studies and stats are lobbed about and variously interpreted to support just about anything.
In the end nobody ever changes their mind about how good/bad foam hats are.
Perhaps it would be simpler to just ask (without any extra explanation) who would vote 'yes' and who would vote 'no' to compulsory helmet wearing on a bicycle on the road, if it were put to a vote tomorrow?
I would be a 'no'.
squirrelking - the other thing I would have done is as soon as the van started reversing I would have screamed. Its saved me a couple of times with vehicles pulling out. People hear a scream they hit the brakes instinctivly
I suggested we need a mass multi arm crossover double blinded rct megatrial on page one, as observational stats, anecdote and hypothesising won't solve this. I even suggested a design and method for blinding. Hey ho.
Can we do knee pads next?
Can we do knee pads next?
Could just ride along the middle of the road screaming ?
Works for me trailrat! Cars and vans don't hit you if you do 🙂 Mind you no one comes near you.
Who knows? I don’t have enough detail but generally behind a van I am placed on the right hand side just wider than the van so I can see the drivers face in his mirror and I have an escape route down the righthandside.
The van was double parked.
the other thing I would have done is as soon as the van started reversing I would have screamed.
Read the story again. The reversing I referred to just makes things easier than loading you on a bike and riding into the back of a van.
POint missed – 10 mm above your head – no helmet it misses, helmet on you get clattered
No, point not missed, helmet may get clattered but that's a spacial awareness issue. Now what would the helmet do for you if the bar was 10mm below your scalp line?
You're being completely ridiculous here, for some reason your example is fine but as soon as I reverse the situation it becomes ridiculous? You know fine and well you are defending the indefensible.
the only answer to yours is not to be there.
So the only safe way to ride a bike is not to? Because that's the only way I can see that I couldn't be there. You don't know what's going to happen, if a kid runs out in front of you, if you have to swerve into a pothole. One day you run out of luck, even if you are a vain delusional riding god (seriously, helmet hair? are you a teenage girl?). PPE is only ever the last line of defence but when you need it you're bloody glad of it.
Point missed completely squirrelking have a think rather than kneejerking and ranting old chap - not good for your BP
I don't have enough info to answer your question apart from "do not be there" I ride very assertively and defensivly. Every van or vehicle I pass I look into the mirror to see if there is anyone in it. a double parked van I would bemoving out into the road to overtake it 50 m back at least, looking into the mirrors to see if a driver was in it and so on
without knowing more I cannot say for certain but I would not put myself into a situation where a van reversing could hit me.
I wouldn't ride into the back of a van - I would never be in a road position where i would do
always ALWAYS leave an escape route always be in the correct road position in loads of time.
As for the examples - they are both equally daft. Mine however is an example of how wearing a helmet leads to injury.
Once again - I wear a helmet when appropriate
if a kid runs out in front of you,
ride 2 m from the pavement edge - see a kid on the pavement / dog / whatever watch them closely. 2 m from the pavement edge gives you plenty of time to react
if you have to swerve into a pothole
Be observant. ride defensively don't swerve to avoid potholes - be in the correct road position in plenty of time
. One day you run out of luck,
There is no luck. Or to quote gary player - the harder I work the luckier I am
Luck plays zero part in all this.
The van was double parked.
Same applies - be out in the road wider than the van at least 1.5 m to the right of the van 50 m before you reach it
Basic defensive riding. 50 years of daily urban riding has taught me a lot and this is one thing I NEVER compromise on. Never put yourself in a position wher a driver doing something daft will cause you to crash.
One day I'll take a commented video of urban riding for you to critique
If you are the sort of skier for whom a day on the slopes means making giggling snowplough turns down a green run, any accident is likely to be slow speed and probably result in simply being sat on your 4r5e. A helmet is unlikely to be significant benefit.
If you ski at speed down black runs with the occasional wipe out, be it caught out by piste conditions, making momentary poor judgement, or just pushing your luck in moments of high jinx tomfoolery then a wearing helmet is probably a sensible choice.
This is how I think of it. Make your own choices.
@tjagain, go back and actually read what happened. A family of three walked across the road in a line, I was busy watching for red light jumpers when they walked out. I was in lane 3 IIRC and when I saw them slammed on the brakes and screamed at them to move, they never so I avoided them as best I could and ended up in the back of a parked van as I skidded and couldn't save it. No time to think about it, only react.
Give up the holier than thou pish, it's wearing really thin. You are not as smart or as talented as you would like to think you are.
There is no luck.
Bullshit. It could have been a family, a red light jumper, bearing failure or whatever. Sometimes we get away with it, sometimes we don't.
As for the examples – they are both equally daft. Mine however is an example of how wearing a helmet leads to injury.
Of course they are. Mine however is an example of how wearing a helmet prevents injury, I'd rather take my chances with one than without. Frankly though, if you're riding at that sort of speed through scaffolding you have it coming (I have no idea where else your contrived example would apply on a commute).
My favourite thing about this debate is when you get people like Geraint Thomas weighing in on it, as if he has anything to say even remotely relatable to how most people ride bicycles.
I'd like to kidnap him, strap him to a bicycle, start him peddling, then tell him there's a bomb attached that will detonate if he exceeds ten miles an hour. You are already seeing him more as Dougal than as Sandra Bullock aren't you?
Force him to ride a bike @ under ten miles an hour for exactly one hour, then tell him he needs to wear a helmet for his own safety.
Helmet schmelmet.
squirrellking -you did not describe the situation well at all and keep on changing it. I did my best to answer
Do you really think you had nothing to learn from the incident or there was nothing you could have done better?
Its so confused as yo keep on changing what you want me to answer on this incident
Again - the only answer really is "not be in that position"
Are you really telling me that a different road position. better observation, better braking technique etc would have made no difference?
I assume yo did your reflection on the incident afterwards?
There is no luck.
Of course there is luck. I was knocked off 10 years ago. I was passing a side junction and was out away from edge so no where near the car waiting in the junction. I could see he was waiting but as I rode past he pulled out a bit too keenly and drove straight into my rear wheel and I went straight over the bars.
Went straight into a roll with hands out so only image was to middle finger which bent back and pretty much snapped and shattered towards knuckle. 3 operations later the finger still doesn't bend and never will.
Not an accident I could have avoided but again a helmet would have offered nothing but maybe some solid steel gloves would have!
Luck plays zero part in all this.
You can't possibly know how many times a driver may have reacted "in the nick of time" that you simply didn't notice. YOU many have been paying attention all the time.. But what other road users are doing? You haven't a scooby old chap. You may have been the "recipient" of other people's luck many many times
Have I understood The Squirrelking Incident correctly?
Approaching a light-controlled junction and passing a double-parked van on the approach to that junction? And your speed at the time was around 30mph?
If I’ve conflated someone else’s posts I apologise, but if the above is what happened (and I appreciate these things are nuanced so I’m not judging it) I’d be questioning whether that’s a wise approach speed, particularly given that you “ended up in the back of a parked van as I skidded and couldn’t save it. No time to think”.
In my young and stupid days I had at least one vaguely similar incident but all such things are opportunities to analyse what you’d do differently next time in order to avoid it outright (and if nothing else comes out of that, there’s always the option of slowing down next time), rather than to think “well that might happen again, I think my helmet worked this time, therefore I’m just going to rely on my helmet next time too”.
A thing about that:
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/the-collision-that-never-happened/
Of course luck plays a part in it. The point is to ride or drive in such a way that you minimise the extent to which luck plays a part.
Luck plays zero part in all this.
They call him neo down Edinburgh way. He sees things before they have happened.
I'd like to see you tell my dad there is no luck.
Explain why bad luck wasn't a contributory factor on the day he was riding his motorbike to the shops a speeding van came round a blind corner on the wrong side(blocking both lanes) of the road between a cliff face and a Armco preventing you plunging 150ft and wiped him out.
Experts - that is actual experts with job titles to match who stood up in court gave evidence based on the speed stamped video of the following bike that said categorically there was absolutely nothing that could have been done by the injured party.
Luck is a thing - unless of course you believe Jesus is your co pilot.
The point is to ride or drive in such a way
Oh yes of course. I'm very happy to have found a traffic free route to work, it's longer; but the only things I have to think about are dogs and wee kiddies...
Its a semantic / pedantic point. If someone makes an error be it you or someone else its not luck - its an error.
I agree that occasionally there are crashes where on reflection there is nothing you could have done to avoid it but to me thats not luck - luck is something no one has influence over. If someone has made an error thats not luck. someone is to blame.
mleh, special pleading, this is just a variation of your singular definition of "accident". Your black and white view of the world demands it be so. In reality it's a bunch messier than that, you just won't/can't see it that way.
TJ I agree with you about riding without helmet. As I don't think it should be compulsory, and it would have a massive negative impact if they were made compulsory.
However regarding your defensive cycling. That is great for you, you have many years of experience and knowledge how to do that. But unfortunately many other cyclists don't have the knowledge, skills or confidence to ride like that. So they may unfortunately find themselves in more dangerous positions than you would.
Especially more so now with the increased uptake in cycling. Lots of very inexperienced riders are on the roads. And they seem to ride in ways that puts themselves at risk. In this case maybe compulsory helmet use would be beneficial for their safety. But I wouldn't want to see them put off by having to wear one.
Its a semantic / pedantic point. If someone makes an error be it you or someone else its not luck – its an error.
Semantics. The point is that in the road there’s no real option but to take the stoic approach: accept that you have no control over others’ actions, only your own.
Given that, most people would use luck to describe whether they found themselves in incidents that they feel they have no control over.
The key here is the nuanced difference between what we feel we have no control over, and what we do have some influence over (whether by adapting our behaviour or, if that can’t reasonably be done, by simply reducing our exposure).
For instance, the one thing that I feel I have no control over (give that I choose my roads carefully and ride appropriately to minimise this risk—the only other step I could take is not to cycle, and the. I’m risking mental and physical health problems instead) is being hit from behind. If I ride, there’s an unavoidable lottery where somewhere there’s a bonnet with my name on it. Whether it finds me in my lifetime is something I think is adequately described as luck.
But the nuance is important. You can’t eliminate the need to rely on luck but you can minimise it through various choices.
As I don’t think it should be compulsory
TBH I think you'd struggle to find anyone who thinks that helmets should be made compulsory. We're all dancing around a narrow margin of how or what most people would define as a "benefit" here. There's one side that take the view. "Why wouldn't you? Helmets exist, they might of some benefit" and there's another group that suggest "It's probably less than you think, and there are better ways of keeping us all safe" that, to me at least, is the argument
We can only ever make decisions for ourselves based on our best interpretations of our own risk. Trying to persuade others (especially using data, when this argument isn't really about data) is a fool's errand as the many many threads on this subject will attest.
I think you’d struggle to find anyone who thinks that helmets should be made compulsory.
Sadly, that’s quite untrue. I mean, obviously there’s the comments sections on new websites and there’s Facebook and what have you, all frequented with people whose thought processes are angry versions of the cartoon below, but I’m guessing you’ve never had this discussion with a number of triathletes… Oddly it seems there’s a correlation between people who ride flat-backed and head-down as fast as they can with their hands nowhere near the brake levers, and people who can’t comprehend why anyone should be allowed near a bicycle without a polystyrene hat.
Well it seems they do have some of the worst normalised statistics for cyclists injury and death in the UK.
How often is head injury the cause of death? [I can find data that suggests for the UK there are serious head injuries in ~75% of deaths, that's not quite the same as it being the cause of death]
How often were they wearing a helmet?
How often would a helmet have prevented the death? [its clear that motorcyclists (who virtually all wear far more effective helmets than pedal cyclists) don't survive every crash]
I'm not sure how you were "normalising" was that for the amount of miles/hours/journeys on bikes?
Whilst the content in this article is far from being a peer-reviewed study - it suggests about 50% of the cycling injuries in the Cambridge area are hand/wrist/arm/shoulder/clavical...