Some safety tips from Boardman
Comments
-
Two things, it's a numbers game and an analogy. No, somebody in dark clothing getting knocked off does not make me safer in absolute terms when I set out on my ride. In broad statistical terms, I improve my odds by taking precautions.Surrey Commuter wrote:morstar wrote:Chris Bass wrote:morstar wrote:Think of it as running away from lions. I don't need to out run the lion, just the other people around me.
that makes no sense in this case, unless drivers are driving around until they hit someone.
Respectfully, I disagree. I'm referring specifically to my bike being well lit. Of all the people killed / hurt at night, I am assuming the odds are at least slightly* in favour of the well lit ones get hitting less.
I'm improving the odds in my favour.
*But no, I don't have any stats to support this assumption.
This is wrong because there is not a quota of casualties each night. back to your lion analogy if it had already eaten an antelope earlier in the day then it would not eat any of you so the slow runners (ninja cyclists) would be alive and well
Is that acceptable?0 -
morstar wrote:Generally I agree with you here. But much as we can be pragmatic about expectations, it is still important to continually challenge the perception that it is the cyclists primary duty to protect themselves. This is what CB is doing. If you keep saying it often enough, views can gradually change.
Surley everyones primary duty is to protect themselves no matter what they are doing?
I don't see a helmet and making yourself visible as being that excessive in most situations, and I certainly do not see dropping the safeguards 100% as the first step in achieving CB's goals.
He has mentioned body armour (specifically for car collisions) in the past. No one wears that as far as I know, but if they did and car drivers could see it then I would agree with him that it was wrong.
If car drivers take risks with cyclists lives because they see them wearing a helmet, then that is 100% the car drivers fault and needs to be addressed without making the cyclists journey less safe if a non car related accident occurs.
The struggle to make cycling safer re traffic is a separate issue to helmets and non ninja clothing IMO.
I don't think helmets are that big a deal for some types of cycling.
Wearing black just seems silly though.
CB has certainly got his point across which I guess was the main thing, and a good thing if other steps are taken to achieve what he seems to want.
If people chose to adopt a non helmet/low visibility approach to their cycling as a result then I just hope it works out for them.0 -
Lot of talk about car drivers, but not hearing much about the rather large percentage of road cyclists who use public roads as personal race tracks, be in in sportives or chasing segments on Strava or racing other cyclists. Same off road as well. Unfortunately many other road users just think that MAMILS are complete tools. Dressed up like pro sportsmen and often riding at speeds either too fast for them to handle, or too fast for the prevailing conditions. Take Richmond Park, speed limit is often ignored by the weekend warriors.
I have started cycling in normal clothes in many instances and I have to say, it's quite pleasant not being lumped in with 'cyclists'. Brave statement on a cycling forum, but sometimes, looking in the mirror is a useful exercise.Big Red, Blue, Pete, Bill & Doug0 -
How large a percentage would you say that was Vman? (Not whiteV(van)man by any chance?).
Have you seen this often (apart from Richmond Park)? as I have not noticed it much apart from Ride London, which is on closed roads and with that many people you are bound to get some idiots.
Granted I do not live in London any more so appreciate I am not experiencing similar behaviour to you perhaps.
Come to think of it, I saw some 'Clapham Chasers' on the Tour of Wessex that were acting (verbally at least) a bit suspect
I would say most of the people doing the things you have mentioned, do them sensibly.
You are also linking a lot of things together to make a non point IMO.
People are also just as likely (if not more so) to do the bad things when not on a sportive, or wearing cycle specific clothing, or being middle age etc. etc.
Your post just sounds like you have some sort of chip on your shoulder.0 -
morstar wrote:
Two things, it's a numbers game and an analogy. No, somebody in dark clothing getting knocked off does not make me safer in absolute terms when I set out on my ride. In broad statistical terms, I improve my odds by taking precautions.Surrey Commuter wrote:morstar wrote:Chris Bass wrote:morstar wrote:Think of it as running away from lions. I don't need to out run the lion, just the other people around me.
that makes no sense in this case, unless drivers are driving around until they hit someone.
Respectfully, I disagree. I'm referring specifically to my bike being well lit. Of all the people killed / hurt at night, I am assuming the odds are at least slightly* in favour of the well lit ones get hitting less.
I'm improving the odds in my favour.
*But no, I don't have any stats to support this assumption.
This is wrong because there is not a quota of casualties each night. back to your lion analogy if it had already eaten an antelope earlier in the day then it would not eat any of you so the slow runners (ninja cyclists) would be alive and well
Is that acceptable?
I am not debating that having good lights makes you safer but your analogy doesn't make sense.
A lion will run until it catches something it wants to eat then stop, you having good lights doesn't make you less likely to get hit because you are more visible than another cyclist, it is because you are more visible to the driver. So to rework your analogy it makes you faster than the lion so it can't catch you, not faster than the other prey so it gets to them first.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Carbonator wrote:How large a percentage would you say that was Vman? (Not whiteV(van)man by any chance?).
Have you seen this often (apart from Richmond Park)? as I have not noticed it much apart from Ride London, which is on closed roads and with that many people you are bound to get some idiots.
Granted I do not live in London any more so appreciate I am not experiencing similar behaviour to you perhaps.
Come to think of it, I saw some 'Clapham Chasers' on the Tour of Wessex that were acting (verbally at least) a bit suspect
I would say most of the people doing the things you have mentioned, do them sensibly.
You are also linking a lot of things together to make a non point IMO.
People are also just as likely (if not more so) to do the bad things when not on a sportive, or wearing cycle specific clothing, or being middle age etc. etc.
Your post just sounds like you have some sort of chip on your shoulder.
The V has nothing to do with a road vehicle. I don't have a chip on my shoulder at all. Just personal observations and reading what people 'say' they do on here. Also using Strava as a source of information on routes I have ridden, there clearly are hundreds of cyclists attempting speed records on any number of sections of road in the Chilterns, some of which are pretty suspect, if not dangerous. The cyclist has a responsibility to be a considerate road user, just as much as the other traffic.Big Red, Blue, Pete, Bill & Doug0 -
There's an idiot called Bob who posts this sort of thing on one of the newspaper's comment pages below any cycling related story. What he can't and you too have apparently failed to grasp is that the difference between a car being driven legally and illegally is vast. In a 30 limit a car be so dangerous at full speed that prison sentences are fully warranted. At 60 and 70, driving excessively above those speeds can also result in the possibility of draconian punishment. Getting it wrong at those sort of speeds - racing - results in something similar to a small aircraft crashing, with a v high possibility of death.VmanF3 wrote:Lot of talk about car drivers, but not hearing much about the rather large percentage of road cyclists who use public roads as personal race tracks, be in in sportives or chasing segments on Strava or racing other cyclists. Same off road as well. Unfortunately many other road users just think that MAMILS are complete tools. Dressed up like pro sportsmen and often riding at speeds either too fast for them to handle, or too fast for the prevailing conditions. Take Richmond Park, speed limit is often ignored by the weekend warriors.
I have started cycling in normal clothes in many instances and I have to say, it's quite pleasant not being lumped in with 'cyclists'. Brave statement on a cycling forum, but sometimes, looking in the mirror is a useful exercise.
Let us turn our attention to the wannabe Pro cyclist, dressed up in errrr.... suitable cycling attire actually, if we're going more than a handful of miles. At a push I might get above 30 on the flat, more likely to beat 30 on a bit of a drop and absolute balls out madness I can do 50.2 (nr Darlington towards Piercebridge, huge fun). Ignoring the 50+ which would only happen if it were absolutely safe (e.g. not in a trading estate or the run into Hastings), a racing cyclist is doing hardly any higher speed than a cyclist having a nice run to work, and is very likely to be within the speed limits. So for all the wittering about it, cycling isn't in any way comparable to racing in a car.0 -
CiB wrote:
There's an idiot called Bob who posts this sort of thing on one of the newspaper's comment pages below any cycling related story. What he can't and you too have apparently failed to grasp is that the difference between a car being driven legally and illegally is vast. In a 30 limit a car be so dangerous at full speed that prison sentences are fully warranted. At 60 and 70, driving excessively above those speeds can also result in the possibility of draconian punishment. Getting it wrong at those sort of speeds - racing - results in something similar to a small aircraft crashing, with a v high possibility of death.VmanF3 wrote:Lot of talk about car drivers, but not hearing much about the rather large percentage of road cyclists who use public roads as personal race tracks, be in in sportives or chasing segments on Strava or racing other cyclists. Same off road as well. Unfortunately many other road users just think that MAMILS are complete tools. Dressed up like pro sportsmen and often riding at speeds either too fast for them to handle, or too fast for the prevailing conditions. Take Richmond Park, speed limit is often ignored by the weekend warriors.
I have started cycling in normal clothes in many instances and I have to say, it's quite pleasant not being lumped in with 'cyclists'. Brave statement on a cycling forum, but sometimes, looking in the mirror is a useful exercise.
Let us turn our attention to the wannabe Pro cyclist, dressed up in errrr.... suitable cycling attire actually, if we're going more than a handful of miles. At a push I might get above 30 on the flat, more likely to beat 30 on a bit of a drop and absolute balls out madness I can do 50.2 (nr Darlington towards Piercebridge, huge fun). Ignoring the 50+ which would only happen if it were absolutely safe (e.g. not in a trading estate or the run into Hastings), a racing cyclist is doing hardly any higher speed than a cyclist having a nice run to work, and is very likely to be within the speed limits. So for all the wittering about it, cycling isn't in any way comparable to racing in a car.
I never suggested that cycling was comparable to racing in a car? What are you on about?Big Red, Blue, Pete, Bill & Doug0 -
You wanted to make a thing about cyclists racing on the roads, as if it's a problem. It isn't; cars racing on the roads is. Cyclists racing will be doing it out of the way and won't be breaking the speed limit, unless your events have bunch sprints into the centre of the village.
Racing is an emotive word, which doesn't mean the same thing in real terms when applied to cycling.0 -
I'd love to know what is deemed as a suitable speed for a cyclist to ride at given, as CiB has pointed out, that in virtually all situations a cyclist riding flat out is going to be going slower than any motor vehicle would be. Of course there are people who will ride faster than the conditions or their ability allows but then the same applies (and probably more so) to motorists. Equally there will often be idiots who ride without taking account of their own safety or that of others but again this is the same for motorists and pedestrians.
How many times have you see a pedestrian walk across a road in front of a car while playing about with their phone or trying to get across the road in a non-existent gap in traffic? The key issue is that in the case of a cyclist or pedestrian the impact of their stupidity is almost always going to result in their injury rather than that of others. When driving a motor vehicle we are at a much higher risk of killing or injuring others.0 -
Simon Masterson wrote:
but the helmet saved me from the first and probably lethal impact.
No offense, I'm a helmet wearer myself (when on the road bike, not otherwise) but this is a typical knee-jerk response from someone who has been involved in a nasty collision.
The bit in bold, there is no possible way of knowing if this is true. You may have died from a hemmorage, or may have had a headache for a couple of hours and a mild concussion. I've never read any evidence approaching from either viewpoint that conclusively proves one way or another.
Since the accident, June 2013, there has been enough time for the knee to stop jerking and enough cold daylight for me to reflect on the matter instead to react to it. Thus I repeat most assuredly that arguments against wearing a helmet only serve one purpose: to demonstrate that people can act contrary to the most obvious wisdom and prudence, for no apparent good reason.
I can understand motor bikers complaining about helmets, they are a real head cage and take away a lot of the fun of riding, but bicycle helmets are not anywhere close. They are light, airy, and even worn tight you hardly feel them after a while.
As to the 'bold' part... I did say 'probably'. Anyway, it's not to hard to deduct what would happend if the impact that cracked a helmet in half was applied directly to the head instead.
And I don't understand why the voice and vote of someone 'who has been involved in a nasty collision' and lived has any less value when it comes to establish helmet wisdom. Should it not be the opposite?0 -
Yes, it is very hard to deduce what would have happened. You can only guess as there are far too many variables. :roll:Tiglath wrote:Anyway, it's not to hard to deduct what would happend if the impact that cracked a helmet in half was applied directly to the head instead.
This from an article on the BBC about cycle safety today:
Motorcycle helmets are a lot bigger, there is also far more evidence with regards to their effectiveness. This is not so much the case with bicycle helmets. But I still usually wear one because whilst it may or may not help it is unlikely to make matters worse."The benefits of helmets are hugely exaggerated," says John Franklin, author of Cyclecraft and an expert in cycle safety and accidents. "To put emphasis on them as a major safety aid is considerably overstating the evidence." Helmets are designed for low-speed accidents, explains Walker. They're typically only tested up to 14mph.
"They shatter if you hit them too hard," adds Roger Geffen, from the CTC cycling charity. "People get very impressed when they see a shattered helmet and think 'My goodness, that could have been my skull' - but what it's showing is that helmets are actually quite flimsy."
Saying that I am popping out to the pub later and I will not be wearing a helmet. This is because I will be riding a 1950s ladies town bike and wearing normal clothes, not a dress. I am not going far and I will not be going very fast and as an adult I have decided not to wear a lid. Tomorrow morning when I ride to work and I am going further and faster whilst playing with the traffic I will have a helmet on. Assuming not wearing one tonight doesn't kill me of course.0 -
VmanF3 wrote:
The V has nothing to do with a road vehicle. I don't have a chip on my shoulder at all. Just personal observations and reading what people 'say' they do on here. Also using Strava as a source of information on routes I have ridden, there clearly are hundreds of cyclists attempting speed records on any number of sections of road in the Chilterns, some of which are pretty suspect, if not dangerous. The cyclist has a responsibility to be a considerate road user, just as much as the other traffic.
So you have never actually seen much happening then?
Why do you assume a cyclist is not being a considerate road user just because they are going for a segment?
'Racing' does not mean too much when you think about it. Its only stupid/inconsiderate riding that causes problems.
You can cycle fast and still be a perfectly decent road user.
Cycling fast (racing ooer!) in cycle specific clothing on a decent road bike to get a PB or KOM is no different to running late for work on a hybrid in jeans and pegging it.
Both have the opportunity to do sensibly or take risks. The KOM may even tempt risk taking less as you will accept it may not happen that day, can pick a decent time to do it, and are hopefully not going to be attempting dangerous ones in the first place.
You only get one chance to avoid being late for work and are completely stuck with time of day, route, traffic conditions and weather.0 -
Tiglath wrote:Anyway, it's not to hard to deduct what would happend if the impact that cracked a helmet in half was applied directly to the head instead.
It's very easy to deduct. But deduction doesn't equal proof.
I cracked mine once. Going uphill, probably about 10 mph. A few other cuts and bruises. A relatively slow speed.
I'm happy that I had it on. I may well have had a bump on my head without it. Equally, it may well be that had my head been 2 inches smaller (i.e. not having a helmet on) I may not have hit my head at all during what was a full tumble. It's also possible to say that the headache I had that night was because I hit my helmet.
It's absolutely not possible to say. And it's absolutely impossible to test ever given circumstance.
Am I glad I had it on? Instinct suggests yes. But that's really all I can offer. I can offer no proof and, crucially, my opinion as the casualty offers no greater insight that the bystander. Indeed, it's possible that the casualty offers greater bias.My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
bendertherobot wrote:Tiglath wrote:Anyway, it's not to hard to deduct what would happend if the impact that cracked a helmet in half was applied directly to the head instead.
It's very easy to deduct. But deduction doesn't equal proof.
I cracked mine once. Going uphill, probably about 10 mph. A few other cuts and bruises. A relatively slow speed.
I'm happy that I had it on. I may well have had a bump on my head without it. Equally, it may well be that had my head been 2 inches smaller (i.e. not having a helmet on) I may not have hit my head at all during what was a full tumble. It's also possible to say that the headache I had that night was because I hit my helmet.
It's absolutely not possible to say. And it's absolutely impossible to test ever given circumstance.
Am I glad I had it on? Instinct suggests yes. But that's really all I can offer. I can offer no proof and, crucially, my opinion as the casualty offers no greater insight that the bystander. Indeed, it's possible that the casualty offers greater bias.
Proof? Why is proof necessary to believe an inductive proposition? Proofs belong to mathematics when things required rigor and exactitude. Most things in life require no proof to persuade, high likelihood suffices much of the time.
And I can tell you that if, god forbid, you end up propelled through the air by a 3000 lb car travelling at 40 mph hitting you, and you impact your head against something hard, it is HIGHLY LIKELY that you will die or suffer serious head injuries.
You seem to require absolute certainty, instead of high probability, before you are willing to believe me. All I can say is that you would do well to drop that requirement.
And no, the casualty does not have the same insight as the by-stander, because knowledge by experience is not equal to knowledge by observation. Could you 'know' what kissing was like by seeing lovers kiss, or did your knowledge on the matter lose the quotes when you actually tried it?0 -
Veronese68 wrote:
Yes, it is very hard to deduce what would have happened. You can only guess as there are far too many variables. :roll:Tiglath wrote:Anyway, it's not to hard to deduct what would happend if the impact that cracked a helmet in half was applied directly to the head instead.
How hard is it, exactly?
What variables could make such accident a non-event, I wonder.
Here are the main 'variables' I see and they do not vary much.
1. Man travels through air head first propelled by impact from car travelling at 40 mph.
2. Man's head lands on hard pavement, with forceful impact to the head that cracks helmet almost completely. The cracked helmet moves and the exposed scalp suffers lacerations.
What variable can you contrive into play here when there is no helmet and the skull suffers, as it would, the same impact that cracked the helmet. and yet no serious injury or death occurs.
I am curious, because I may be able to save a lot on helmets.0 -
Tiglath wrote:
Proof? Why is proof necessary to believe an inductive proposition? Proofs belong to mathematics when things required rigor and exactitude. Most things in life require no proof to persuade, high likelihood suffices much of the time.
And I can tell you that if, god forbid, you end up propelled through the air by a 3000 lb car travelling at 40 mph hitting you, and you impact your head against something hard, it is HIGHLY LIKELY that you will die or suffer serious head injuries.
You seem to require absolute certainty, instead of high probability, before you are willing to believe me. All I can say is that you would do well to drop that requirement.
And no, the casualty does not have the same insight as the by-stander, because knowledge by experience is not equal to knowledge by observation. Could you 'know' what kissing was like by seeing lovers kiss, or did your knowledge on the matter lose the quotes when you actually tried it?
Out of interest, when this 3000 lb car hit you at 40 mph propelling you over such a long distance, what were your other injuries?My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
Boardman knows full well that to focus all the time on helmets and high vis creates a view that cyclists are the only ones responsible for our safety. This is true at the level of the individual. However government and society need a different view..... One where cycling safety is built into the design of infrastructure and embedded into the minds of all road users.
Banging on about helmets moves the debate away from the REAL safety issues facing cyclists.You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
Tiglath wrote:Veronese68 wrote:
Yes, it is very hard to deduce what would have happened. You can only guess as there are far too many variables. :roll:Tiglath wrote:Anyway, it's not to hard to deduct what would happend if the impact that cracked a helmet in half was applied directly to the head instead.
How hard is it, exactly?
What variables could make such accident a non-event, I wonder.
Here are the main 'variables' I see and they do not vary much.
1. Man travels through air head first propelled by impact from car travelling at 40 mph.
2. Man's head lands on hard pavement, with forceful impact to the head that cracks helmet almost completely. The cracked helmet moves and the exposed scalp suffers lacerations.
What variable can you contrive into play here when there is no helmet and the skull suffers, as it would, the same impact that cracked the helmet. and yet no serious injury or death occurs.
I am curious, because I may be able to save a lot on helmets.
So you are saying a bit of polystyrene a few millimetres thick and tested to protect from a low speed fall somehow makes the difference between death and a bit of a cut? Do you really, seriously believe that? Maybe we should start making other products out of this wonder material.
I can see that the helmet can make a difference in the sort of impact they are designed for but to somehow suggest it's a life saver when being hit by a car doing 40mph is stretching its protective powers somewhat.0 -
Daz555 wrote:Boardman knows full well that to focus all the time on helmets and high vis creates a view that cyclists are the only ones responsible for our safety. This is true at the level of the individual. However government and society need a different view..... One where cycling safety is built into the design of infrastructure and embedded into the minds of all road users.
Banging on about helmets moves the debate away from the REAL safety issues facing cyclists.
Is the focus really on helmets and hi viz?
He has made a big deal about it so is only fuelling the fire anyway.
Are some people calling for tougher, more impact protective helmets and even higher viz hi viz to kerb the number of cyclists killed and injured then?
I assume some of the cyclists that have been killed were wearing helmets and non black clothing so why is the wearing of them any distraction to what needs to be done?0 -
Lion analogies being scientifically dismantled by pedants aside...
It's extremely important that this debate is being taken up in the mainstream media from a more neutral perspective than is typical.
We keep getting the odd politician coming out with the usual car drivers disdain for cyclists in the house of commons which gains the usual populist support. UKIP are clearly anti cyclist and despite cycling not being their primary pet hate, more of them in Westminster is only going to give more anti cyclist rants the oxygen of publicity.
At least the idea that cyclists are vulnerable users and the responsibility for safety needs shifting is getting airtime. Don't underestimate how significant this is. It used to be perfectly 'normal' to be openly racist or drink drive. The media is a powerful tool in changing mindsets. Just ask Hitler if you don't believe me.
The helmet debate is plain tedious but at least one or two car drivers might have actually realised why some cyclists choose not to wear them or don't see it as their responsibility to stop cars from hitting them. This isn't life changing, but it is significant.
I don't quite understand why motorbikes get think bike campaigns and cyclists don't.0 -
Pross wrote:Tiglath wrote:
I can see that the helmet can make a difference in the sort of impact they are designed for but to somehow suggest it's a life saver when being hit by a car doing 40mph is stretching its protective powers somewhat.
No it's not. The car hits you at 40mph but that's not to say your head hits anything that fast.
In any case, surely you would prefer to be wearing one, it's always going to lessen the impact a bit and may keep your face/eyes a bit further away from the thing you hit.0 -
morstar wrote:Lion analogies being scientifically dismantled by pedants aside...
It's extremely important that this debate is being taken up in the mainstream media from a more neutral perspective than is typical.
We keep getting the odd politician coming out with the usual car drivers disdain for cyclists in the house of commons which gains the usual populist support. UKIP are clearly anti cyclist and despite cycling not being their primary pet hate, more of them in Westminster is only going to give more anti cyclist rants the oxygen of publicity.
At least the idea that cyclists are vulnerable users and the responsibility for safety needs shifting is getting airtime. Don't underestimate how significant this is. It used to be perfectly 'normal' to be openly racist or drink drive. The media is a powerful tool in changing mindsets. Just ask Hitler if you don't believe me.
The helmet debate is plain tedious but at least one or two car drivers might have actually realised why some cyclists choose not to wear them or don't see it as their responsibility to stop cars from hitting them. This isn't life changing, but it is significant.
I don't quite understand why motorbikes get think bike campaigns and cyclists don't.
Absolutely brilliant post! When I heard about Chris Boardman appearing on a bike on the telly without a helmet, at first I thought "Oh my God, how could he get caught out like that?" but when I read what he was saying I changed to thinking "He's done this deliberately to get the helmet debate more publicity, and with it, the cycling safety debate." It is fantastic that this issue is at last getting exposure.
I wear a helmet, usually have small strobing lights on in the daytime, and all the high viz I can get my hands; I have been SMIDSY'd too many times in the past not to. And I still get the odd SMIDSY now, but feel it has reduced.
We wouldn't need better infrastructure if people took their driving seriously, and didn't just assume because they passed (a pretty crappy) driving test however many years ago that they could drive, and it was everyone else that was the problem. When you're driving, is saying to a cyclist you've nearly taken out in your car "Sorry mate, I just didn't see you" ok? Is close passing a cyclist ok because there wasn't room to cross the white line far enough to make a safe pass ok? Is pulling out of a junction in front of a bike ok "because it is a bike"?
The more publicity this issue gets the better. I don't believe a helmet can make any accident more dangerous, so I wear one. I don't really understand why you wouldn't wear one, but if you don't that is your choice. Just as it is a choice when someone chooses to drive like a complete c...0 -
DaveP1 wrote:I don't believe a helmet can make any accident more dangerous, so I wear one. I don't really understand why you wouldn't wear one, but if you don't that is your choice. Just as it is a choice when someone chooses to drive like a complete c...
The thing about helmet data is that, pretty much, anything is possible. It's certainly possible that if you catch the strap you could create some pretty nasty rotational forces. It's also possible that, given a scenario that could be exactly replicated, you could lever your head and neck more when wearing a helmet than without. Indeed, it's possible that, in the case where you glance your helmet on something, that you would not have hit your head at all.
And therein our problem. We tend to see the debate as between wearers and non wearers. That in itself is flawed. I'm a wearer. I'd rather be than not. But I simply cannot make a claim about helmet efficacy at all. The poster above asked whether I needed proof rather than high probability. That misses the point of the argument. I'm going with high probability. I believe I'm probably better off with than without it. But I could simply never run the argument that it's saved my life. Not with the accidents I've had to date.My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
Carbonator wrote:Pross wrote:Tiglath wrote:
I can see that the helmet can make a difference in the sort of impact they are designed for but to somehow suggest it's a life saver when being hit by a car doing 40mph is stretching its protective powers somewhat.
No it's not. The car hits you at 40mph but that's not to say your head hits anything that fast.
In any case, surely you would prefer to be wearing one, it's always going to lessen the impact a bit and may keep your face/eyes a bit further away from the thing you hit.
The point was more in response to the person stating that in that scenario you will 'highly likely die or suffer serious injuries' yet by somehow putting a few millimetres of plastic and EPS in the way you walk away with a bit of a cut on your head. It's this apparent gulf in the with and without scenario that I have issue with.
As I've said somewhere else, it's akin to catching your thigh on a thorn bush and ripping your trousers and giving a minor scratch on your leg then claiming if you hadn't been wearing trousers your femoral artery would probably have been severed and left you to bleed to death whereas in reality you would have just had a slightly deeper cut. A helmet and a skull are completely different things perform different tasks so suggesting that because one breaks in a given scenario the other would have too is plain bonkers. The role of the helmet is more along the lines of the fluid between skull and brain if anything.0 -
I think the only fair and 100% scientific way to decide this argument is to find the average age of everyone on here who wears a helmet, the average age of those who don't, the higher one wins (as clearly all the people in the lower age group die earlier). That is a test which is entirely full proof, no one could possibly argue with it.
It is about as accurate as why people think left handed people die 10 years earlier than right handed people, which is obviously a fact!www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Of course he did it on purpose. To use an analogy of his if people were being shot regularly on our streets would we bring in mandatory bullet proof vests or would we do something to stop the shootings?DaveP1 wrote:When I heard about Chris Boardman appearing on a bike on the telly without a helmet, at first I thought "Oh my God, how could he get caught out like that?" but when I read what he was saying I changed to thinking "He's done this deliberately to get the helmet debate more publicity, and with it, the cycling safety debate." It is fantastic that this issue is at last getting exposure.0 -
Good post.bendertherobot wrote:DaveP1 wrote:I don't believe a helmet can make any accident more dangerous, so I wear one. I don't really understand why you wouldn't wear one, but if you don't that is your choice. Just as it is a choice when someone chooses to drive like a complete c...
The thing about helmet data is that, pretty much, anything is possible. It's certainly possible that if you catch the strap you could create some pretty nasty rotational forces. It's also possible that, given a scenario that could be exactly replicated, you could lever your head and neck more when wearing a helmet than without. Indeed, it's possible that, in the case where you glance your helmet on something, that you would not have hit your head at all.
And therein our problem. We tend to see the debate as between wearers and non wearers. That in itself is flawed. I'm a wearer. I'd rather be than not. But I simply cannot make a claim about helmet efficacy at all. The poster above asked whether I needed proof rather than high probability. That misses the point of the argument. I'm going with high probability. I believe I'm probably better off with than without it. But I could simply never run the argument that it's saved my life. Not with the accidents I've had to date.
Given the value of the market for helmets, I'm frankly very surprised how little evidence there is to suggest any significant benefit to wearing them. Yes, I'm talking about well researched studies, as opposed to anecdotes about the time someone fell off and split their helmet, or a nurse telling them it saved their life. If we compare this to the issue of seatbelts within cars, there is overwhelming evidence to show that these have saved thousands upon thousands of lives.
But I do wear a helmet, because my feeling is that I'm probably (slightly) better off with one that without, particularly given that I mainly ride a road bike at a reasonably decent clip. By contrast, I'm not sure what benefit there is for your average Dutch cyclist. They nearly all ride a much heavier town bike at a fairly leisurely pace, and when they do hit something or someone, the riding position means they fall off sideways and almost never go over the bars. In all seriousness, I've been told that riding into a canal is a bigger hazard than banging your head.
I'd never discourage someone from wearing a helmet, but as CB said, there are just a load of other more important issues for improving cyclist safety.0 -
Veronese68 wrote:Of course he did it on purpose. To use an analogy of his if people were being shot regularly on our streets would we bring in mandatory bullet proof vests or would we do something to stop the shootings?
Does it have to be that convoluted and carefully constructed?
The advice was sound and the delivery managed not to be patronising, frilly or overly technical and jargon-heavy. That put it at once above most of the gubbins floating around.
That a good percentage of this thread has become a helmet debate (and that on a CYCLING forum no less) is indicative of a slightly tribal and well dug-in mortar-bomb-lobbing approach from certain elements of both sides of the 'debate'.
The piece CB did was not about helmets. He gave sound advice and gave it clearly. At some points the helmet debate has the look of a discussion on Darwin in which the deeply religiously fundamental are actively looking for something at which they can take offence. This applies to the zealots on both sides of the hat-chat.
It is just a bicycle and it is just a hat. The advice given by alleged former doper Chris Boardman was clear, sound, brief and appropriate. His apparel had nothing to do with anything unless you really, really want it to. And even then it doesn't.0 -
Veronese68 wrote:
Of course he did it on purpose. To use an analogy of his if people were being shot regularly on our streets would we bring in mandatory bullet proof vests or would we do something to stop the shootings?DaveP1 wrote:When I heard about Chris Boardman appearing on a bike on the telly without a helmet, at first I thought "Oh my God, how could he get caught out like that?" but when I read what he was saying I changed to thinking "He's done this deliberately to get the helmet debate more publicity, and with it, the cycling safety debate." It is fantastic that this issue is at last getting exposure.
Going with that analogy.
If every single person in London went out and bought bullet proof vests after the first shooting they would still do something about the perpetrator/s, and that's exactly as it should be with the fact people wear helmets and hi viz.
What CB is suggesting is for everyone to take their bullet proof vest back off before the shooter is caught.0
