Commute less than 8km? Why don't you cycle?

Stark

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Someone on the first few pages got slated for driving a km to work, but as he said, why shouldn't he? He pays his tax and insurance etc and he's just as entitled to use the roads he pays towards as anyone who walks or cycles.

Because it's daft when it would take you the same time to walk 1km as drive 1km by the time you got into the car, started the car, negotiated traffic, parked the car. I see neighbours do this to nearby shops and the like and I always arrive there at the same time or before them. I also save wear, tear and petrol consumption by not subjecting my car to regular short journeys with the engine cold. I wouldn't even go to the hassle of wheeling a bicycle out of the house for such a ridiculously short walk.

Not saying that he's not entitled to do it, just saying that it's illogical. I mean I'm perfectly entitled to stab myself in the hand with the knife that I bought and paid for. However, I wouldn't call it a smart plan.

monument

johnnyc wrote: »

same story with a different reference....for u pleasure
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10573443

My question still stands: If I can find a story about somebody getting a head injury by tripping while walking on the street and another tripping at home will you wear a helmet all the time then?

faceman wrote: »

Cycling to work doesnt make you any more fitter than people who dont cycle to work but do exercise anyway.

Yes, indeed, but once you get fit, commuting cycling has the benefit of keeping you fit without the need for a gym, and without the cost and time cost of such. A gym also won't give you the exercise-related mental health benefits at key times of before and after work... ie the clearing your head / refreshing feeling.

Paparazzo wrote: »

I start cycling to work about 2 months ago. Haven't been on a bike for about 15 years before that. First thing I noticed is how uncomfortable the saddle was! Who designs these things? Perverts?

At first when your not used to sitting on a saddle it may be a bit uncomfortable, but you should get used to it reasonably quickly -- if not maybe look at getting a more comfortable saddle.

Quint wrote: »

I cycle to work and don't wear a helmet. I won't quote websites with dodgy data on helmets, but tell you the real reason people (including me) don't wear them: cos they look stupid!

I used not wear a helmet for the same reason, but done some research (including looking at a number of studies) and turns out I was right all along.

johnnyc

monument wrote: »

My question still stands: If I can find a story about somebody getting a head injury by tripping while walking on the street and another tripping at home will you wear a helmet all the time then?

If we went by your logic it would be fine for people driving a motorbike not to wear a helmet?. Monument i cant understand your logic walking is totally different from cycling...next u will say houses should have bubble wrap in case of accidents

Stark

johnnyc wrote: »

If we went by your logic it would be fine for people driving a motorbike not to wear a helmet?. Monument i cant understand your logic walking is totally different from cycling...

By your unquantifiable perceptions. Riding a motorcycle is more dangerous than riding a pushbike (yes, really!). Motorcycle helmets also offer far more protection than bicycle helmets, so unlike bicycle helmets, there are actually proven benefits. I've yet to see anything to convince me that cycling is more dangerous than walking (pedestrians do actually get killed and injured in Ireland too you know) or that I'd actually get more benefit to wearing a helmet while riding a pushbike than I would wearing one walking in case I tripped and fell. There were probably more people killed standing at bus stops in Ireland last year than cyclists killed.

monument

johnnyc wrote: »

If we went by your logic it would be fine for people driving a motorbike not to wear a helmet?.

There's two reasons why motorbikes are different and not comparable: (A) The speed they can easily gain, and remember we're talking about your advantage commuter cyclist, not racing cyclists, and (B) as already said, motorbike helmets are very different to cycling helmets.

johnnyc wrote: »

Monument i cant understand your logic walking is totally different from cycling...next u will say houses should have bubble wrap in case of accidents

This isn't my logic, just trying to extend your logic...

The level of dangers of a head injury while walking are comparable to those of cycling, on the other hand around the house is known as one of the main dangers areas of head injury out side high risk areas such as construction. Thus if somebody is wearing a helmet while cycling where there is little danger of a head injury, why don't they wear one while doing other day-to-day stuff where there is also little danger of a head injury?

If hitting your head off the ground was a real risk for cyclists, than where is the epidemics of such head injury in countries where commuting cycling is up to and above 40%?

johnnyc

Going by your logic theres no need of any safety on a bike.... ah can we go back to topic and cyclist around the country rather then get cash and cycle on over congested roads.


The child in australia is one example of how a helmet can save a life....and theres countless people who had the same injury and are alive due to a helmet. I actually dont understand your logic.

Rawr

johnnyc wrote: »

Going by your logic theres no need of any safety on a bike.... ah can we go back to topic and cyclist around the country rather then get cash and cycle on over congested roads.


The child in australia is one example of how a helmet can save a life....and theres countless people who had the same injury and are alive due to a helmet. I actually dont understand your logic.

I believe that monument is trying to outline that head-injuries are not the greatest threat to the Commuter Cyclist. Ironically enough, I feel that the helmet actually covers the most important safety-feature a cyclist can possess...his/her own brain.

monument

johnnyc wrote: »

Going by your logic theres no need of any safety on a bike....

No, I've never said that. What I've said is helmets are a disproportional measure which amounts to scaremongering.

johnnyc wrote: »

The child in australia is one example of how a helmet can save a life....and theres countless people who had the same injury and are alive due to a helmet.

What on earth are you talking about? The story you linked to about the child in Australia had no mention of a helmet.

johnnyc wrote: »

I actually dont understand your logic.

Ok: The likelihood of a head injury while commuting on a bike at low speed is so low a helmet is not a reasonably useful safety measure. It's a distraction and there is research which shows motorists actually drive closer to those wearing a helmet.

You may disagree, but the only way I can see somebody not understanding that is they have consumed too much of the scaremongering in this country about cycling being dangerous and helmets are part of the solution. Dangerous driving and cycling are the problem, helmets are a distraction.

monument

You seem to have changed your mind over deaths going down after I provided stats proving such, so maybe you could at least be open to the idea that helmets are pointless and possibly counter-productive as a safety measure?

L31mr0d

Well for me I work about 1km from where I live so I walk to work, and yes, many a morning I've passed people sitting in traffic heading in the same direction as me and I will get to my destination before them.

I don't cycle because it isn't facilitated enough around where I live. I've been to Copenhagen and Stockholm and cycled pretty much every day that I was there. In Stockholm particularly cycling is treated equally with driving. The cycle lanes have there own network, separate to the road network that doesn't just run alongside the motoring roads. There are even lights and pedestrain crossings on the cycle lanes. It just felt all the more safer and if someone had actually bothered their ass to facilitate cyclists, instead of just putting a splash of red paint on the side of the road for 100m.

johnnyc

monument wrote: »

You seem to have changed your mind over deaths going down after I provided stats proving such, so maybe you could at least be open to the idea that helmets are pointless and possibly counter-productive as a safety measure?

http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm

There are 73 to 85 million bicycle riders in the US, including 45 million over age 6 who rode more than six times in 2008.

700 bicyclists died on US roads in 2007. Over 90 percent died in crashes with motor vehicles.

The "typical" bicyclist killed on our roads is a sober male over 16 not wearing a helmet riding on a major road between intersections in an urban area on a summer evening when hit by a car.

About 540,000 bicyclists visit emergency rooms with injuries every year. Of those, about 67,000 have head injuries, and 27,000 have injuries serious enough to be hospitalized.

Bicycle crashes and injuries are under-reported, since the majority are not serious enough for emergency room visits. 43,000 cyclists were reported injured in traffic crashes in 2007.

1 in 8 of the cyclists with reported injuries had a brain injury.

Two-thirds of the deaths here are from traumatic brain injury.

A very high percentage of cyclists' brain injuries can be prevented by a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent.

Direct costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are estimated at $81 million each year, rising with health care costs.

Indirect costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are estimated at $2.3 billion each year.

Helmet use in the US varies greatly in different areas and different sectors of our society. White collar commuters probably reach 80 per cent, while inner city kids and rural kids would be 10 per cent or less. Overall, our best wild guess is probably no more than 25 per cent.

bk

IME The majority of cyclists killed are killed by getting dragged under the wheels of a bus or truck turning left at a junction. Having seen the after mate of one of these accidents, a helmet would make little difference.

monument

[font=Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;]

[/font]Evaluating the Health Benefit of Bicycle Helmet Laws, Piet De Jong, Macquarie University - Actuarial Studies...

A model is developed which permits the quantitative evaluation of the benefit of bicycle helmet laws. The efficacy of the law is evaluated in terms of the percentage drop in bicycling, the percentage increase in the cost of an accident when not wearing a helmet, and a quantity here called the "bicycling beta." The approach balances the health benefits of increased safety against the health costs due to decreased cycling. Using estimates suggested in the literature of the health benefits of cycling, accident rates and reductions in cycling, suggest helmets laws are counterproductive in terms of net health. The model serves to focus the bicycle helmet law debate on overall health as function of key parameters: cycle use, accident rates, helmet protection rates, exercise and environmental benefits. Empirical estimates using US data suggests the strictly health impact of a US wide helmet law would cost around \$5 billion per annum. In the UK and The Netherlands the net health costs are estimated to be \$0.4 and \$1.9 billion, respectively.

Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent gender, Ian Walker, Department of Psychology, University of Bath

A naturalistic experiment used an instrumented bicycle to gather proximity data from overtaking motorists. The relationship between rider position and overtaking proximity was the opposite to that generally believed, such that the further the rider was from the edge of the road, the closer vehicles passed. Additionally, wearing a bicycle helmet led to traffic getting significantly closer when overtaking. Professional drivers of large vehicles were particularly likely to leave narrow safety margins. Finally, when the (male) experimenter wore a long wig, so that he appeared female from behind, drivers left more space when passing. Overall, the results demonstrate that motorists exhibit behavioural sensitivity to aspects of a bicyclist's appearance during an encounter. In the light of previous research on drivers’ attitudes to bicyclists, we suggest drivers approaching a bicyclist use physical appearance to judge the specific likelihood of the rider behaving predictably and alter their overtaking accordingly. However, the extent to which a bicyclist's moment-to-moment behaviour can be inferred from their appearance is questionable, and so the tendency for drivers to alter their passing proximity based on this appearance probably has implications for accident probability.

Wearing a helmet puts cyclists at risk, suggests research, press release of the above ...

Bicyclists who wear protective helmets are more likely to be struck by passing vehicles, new research suggests.
Drivers pass closer when overtaking cyclists wearing helmets than when overtaking bare-headed cyclists, increasing the risk of a collision, the research has found.


Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist from the University of Bath, used a bicycle fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor to record data from over 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol.
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.

He found that drivers were as much as twice as likely to get particularly close to the bicycle when he was wearing the helmet.

DCC Position Paper on Helmets...

In the case of a safety issue regarding helmets arising in a discussion/debate it encourages that all cyclists realize the helmets are not a pertinent safety issue but rather the questions of speed, heavy goods vehicles, lack of enforcement, education, cycle facility designs, cyclist training, traffic calming etc are the real issues of contention. So in theory discussing helmets to make cyclists safer is ignoring and detracting from the real facts and the actual road environment.

...

The need for wearing a helmet when cycling implies that cycling is in fact a dangerous activity. This is not actually the case and one would be surprised to hear that "Home Living (Active)" carries a higher risk than cycling, 0.27 to 0.26. Traveling in an automobile is calculated at a risk of 0.47 and on a motorcycle at 8.8. (Data compiled by Failure Analysis Associates, Inc. (see Design News, 10-4-93)) It would make sense that if cyclists were made to wear helmets so to would motorists, as shown by a study in Sheffield which concluded that helmets for motorists would save 13 times as many lives. Similar comparisons in Australia have suggested that targeting motorists for compulsory helmets could save 17 times as many lives. Hence any attempt to pigeonhole cyclists into compulsory protective headgear is unbalanced as a safety initiative.

“A helmet saved my life!”...

A common experience
Many people who wear helmets can relate their experience of a crash which leads them to believe that a helmet 'saved their life'. This is a very common experience - very much more common, in fact, than the actual number of life-threatening injuries suffered by bare-headed cyclists. Yet there is no evidence that helmets save lives or prevent serious injury at all across cyclists as a whole [1].

For example, in the state of Western Australia where bicycle helmets have been mandatory for all ages since July 1992, the annual cyclist death toll from 1987 to 1991 (pre-law) averaged 7.6 fatalities per year. From 1993 to 1997 (post-law) it was 6.4 fatalities per year, representing a 16% reduction [2]. However, Government cycling surveys show cycling declined in Western Australia by approximately 30% during the 1990s following mandatory helmet law enforcement [3]. Thus, relative to cycle use, fatalities went up, not down.

Why this contradiction?
These facts appear contradictory and counter-intuitive, but there are several possible explanations.

There is a good deal of circumstantial evidence that helmeted cyclists are more likely to crash, and data from one study [4] suggests that those wearing a helmet are more than 7 times likely to hit their heads if they do.
Many falls result in arm and shoulder impacts that keep an unhelmeted head just clear of the ground. A helmeted head, being twice as big and a little heavier, is more likely to hit something.

Another possibility concerns so-called 'risk compensation' - the tendency or willingness of people to take greater risks when they feel better protected. There is clear evidence of this, particularly amongst children, and it is quite likely to be a subconscious reaction. If people take greater risks (such as riding in places requiring a higher level of skill) due to a misplaced belief that their helmet makes them safer, they could be more likely to experience a crash.

The movement of a helmet or the irritation to the head that many people experience might also affect balance or concentration at a crucial moment.

Why it is wrong to claim that cycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries and 88% of brain injuries...

Claims that helmets prevent 85% of head and 88% of brain injuries are widely quoted by advocates of helmet laws. Despite many later studies showing lesser benefits, the 85% and 88% reductions continue to be cited.

The 85% and 88% estimates are from a small study in 1987 in Seattle [1]. The difficulties of interpreting data from this (and other case-control studies) are explained, to shed light on why their estimates are so different to real-life experience of helmet laws, all of which show no noticeable benefit of forcing millions of cyclists to wear helmets [5] [2].

Almost 75% of cyclists killed in Dublin were hit by HGVs turning left...

ALMOST THREE-QUARTERS of cyclists killed on Dublin roads are hit by left-turning heavy goods vehicles (HGVs), according to a new report from Dublin City Council.

The report, compiled by the council’s traffic department from Garda statistics, found that cars were the most likely vehicles to be involved in collisions with bicycles but the majority of serious and fatal incidents involved HGVs.

...

While 73 per cent of fatalities were at a left turn (all involving HGVs) almost one-third resulting in serious injury to the cyclist involved a left-turning vehicle. A further 18 per cent of serious injuries were caused when a vehicle turned right and hit a cyclist, while 11 per cent involved sideswipes from vehicles.

johnnyc

hi monument we can talk about this for ever you have references and so do I, so i will call it a draw.

bk

johnnyc wrote: »

hi monument we can talk about this for ever you have references and so do I, so i will call it a draw.

Er, no, IMO monument has blown you out of the water.

You have one reference from a clearly pro helmet wearing website.

Monument has multiple detailed references, from a variety of seemingly independent sources that personally I'd put more trust in. Monuments references are very compelling.

johnnyc

Heres other reports
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810986.PDF
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1067727&blobtype=pdf

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/04/bike-helmets-helmet-laws.php
5. Are Helmeted Cyclists "car magnets?"

Our commenter suggested that drivers are less careful around helmeted cyclists. ("this cyclist jerk seems well enough protected to me, no need to be too careful around him").

There appears to be some truth to this. A study published Accident Analysis and Prevention was summarized in Helmets.org:

test cyclists were given 8.5cm (3.3 inches) more clearance by cars if they were not wearing helmets. When the researchers donned female wigs they got more clearance, 14cm (5.5 inches) more than apparent males in helmets. They did not report on what a skirt and helmet combination would do. The author was hit by a bus and a truck during the experiment, and was wearing a helmet both times.


http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/News/Helmets-for-injury-prevention.aspx?articleID=8084&categoryID=news-poh6
a small reference
Do helmets work?

Some sports, such as bicycling, hockey, and horseback riding, carry a high risk of head injury. There is good evidence that the right helmet can protect against head injury in these sports.

Bicycling

The effect of bicycle helmets on injury rates has been widely studied in both adults and children. Bicycle helmets have been shown to reduce the risk of head, brain, and facial injury, in some cases dramatically: a systematic review of five case-control studies found that helmets reduced the risk of head and brain injury by up to 88%. As might be expected, though, helmets are not always able to protect against injury to the lower face and teeth.

Studies from New Zealand and Canada have shown that helmet legislation is associated with a reduction in bicycle-related head injuries. By law, children must wear bicycle helmets in Ontario and Alberta, and bicyclists of all ages must wear helmets in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, and British Columbia. Some cities and towns in other provinces also have helmet by-laws.


Bicyclist Hit in Accident Says Helmet Saved His Life a real life story
http://www.fox13now.com/news/kstu-cyclist-hit-in-accident-says-helmet-saved,0,6014848.story
have a watch of that video

another story here & please tell me if he/she wasnt wearing a helmet how did they survived?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2443045/Cyclist-Steve-Lumb-I-was-saved-by-my-15-Halfords-helmet.html

monument

johnnyc wrote: »

Heres other reports
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810986.PDF

No proof there. Just a claim which isn't backed up or referenced.

johnnyc wrote: »

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/04/bike-helmets-helmet-laws.php
5. Are Helmeted Cyclists "car magnets?"

Our commenter suggested that drivers are less careful around helmeted cyclists. ("this cyclist jerk seems well enough protected to me, no need to be too careful around him").

There appears to be some truth to this. A study published Accident Analysis and Prevention was summarized in Helmets.org:

test cyclists were given 8.5cm (3.3 inches) more clearance by cars if they were not wearing helmets. When the researchers donned female wigs they got more clearance, 14cm (5.5 inches) more than apparent males in helmets. They did not report on what a skirt and helmet combination would do. The author was hit by a bus and a truck during the experiment, and was wearing a helmet both times.

I'm confused, why are you are posting this? It says the same thing as one of my links -- drivers give cyclists without helmets more clearance.

Just to make this clear, it is saying drivers pass you closer when you are wearing a helmet.

http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/News/Helmets-for-injury-prevention.aspx?articleID=8084&categoryID=news-poh6
a small reference
Do helmets work?

Some sports, such as bicycling,[snip]

Commuting cycling is not a sport so that's flawed.

johnnyc wrote: »

Bicyclist Hit in Accident Says Helmet Saved His Life a real life story
http://www.fox13now.com/news/kstu-cyclist-hit-in-accident-says-helmet-saved,0,6014848.story
have a watch of that video

another story here & please tell me if he/she wasnt wearing a helmet how did they survived?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2443045/Cyclist-Steve-Lumb-I-was-saved-by-my-15-Halfords-helmet.html

First of all I'd like to note you're linking to a local branch of Fox and, the Sun!

Secondly I've already posted this following link and text... did you miss it the first time are or you not reading anything I post?...

“A helmet saved my life!”...

A common experience
Many people who wear helmets can relate their experience of a crash which leads them to believe that a helmet 'saved their life'. This is a very common experience - very much more common, in fact, than the actual number of life-threatening injuries suffered by bare-headed cyclists. Yet there is no evidence that helmets save lives or prevent serious injury at all across cyclists as a whole [1].

For example, in the state of Western Australia where bicycle helmets have been mandatory for all ages since July 1992, the annual cyclist death toll from 1987 to 1991 (pre-law) averaged 7.6 fatalities per year. From 1993 to 1997 (post-law) it was 6.4 fatalities per year, representing a 16% reduction [2]. However, Government cycling surveys show cycling declined in Western Australia by approximately 30% during the 1990s following mandatory helmet law enforcement [3]. Thus, relative to cycle use, fatalities went up, not down.

Why this contradiction?
These facts appear contradictory and counter-intuitive, but there are several possible explanations.

There is a good deal of circumstantial evidence that helmeted cyclists are more likely to crash, and data from one study [4] suggests that those wearing a helmet are more than 7 times likely to hit their heads if they do.
Many falls result in arm and shoulder impacts that keep an unhelmeted head just clear of the ground. A helmeted head, being twice as big and a little heavier, is more likely to hit something.

Another possibility concerns so-called 'risk compensation' - the tendency or willingness of people to take greater risks when they feel better protected. There is clear evidence of this, particularly amongst children, and it is quite likely to be a subconscious reaction. If people take greater risks (such as riding in places requiring a higher level of skill) due to a misplaced belief that their helmet makes them safer, they could be more likely to experience a crash.

The movement of a helmet or the irritation to the head that many people experience might also affect balance or concentration at a crucial moment.

monument

I've removed this from the other post to comment on it more...

johnnyc wrote: »

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1067727&blobtype=pdf

Here's the references in that...

Thompson RS, Rivara FP, Thompson DC. A case control
study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets. N Engl
7 Med 1989; 320: 1361-7.

This is rebuked as flawed here: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html . It's very comprehensive so I won't repost it all here.

3 Maimaris C, Summers CL, Browning C, Palmer CR. Injury
patterns in cyclists attending an accident and emergency
department: a comparison of helmet wearers and nonwearers.
BMJ 1994; 308: 1537-40.

I looked this up, it's flawed as it lumps in commuters with higher risk cycling such as racing and extreme sport cycling like mountain biking. It's the same as comparing motor sport or F1 to driving around town - highly flawed.

4 Vulcan AP, Cameron MH, Heiman L. Evaluation of mandatory
bicycle helmet use in Victoria, Australia. 36th Annual Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Portland, Oregon, 5-7 October 1992.

As I've already posted above: "Empirical estimates using US data suggests the strictly health impact of a US wide helmet law would cost around \$5 billion per annum. In the UK and The Netherlands the net health costs are estimated to be \$0.4 and \$1.9 billion, respectively" (Evaluating the Health Benefit of Bicycle Helmet Laws, Piet De Jong, Macquarie University - Actuarial Studies).

5 McIntosh AS, Kalleris D, Mattem R, Svensson NL, Dowdell
B. An evaluation of pedal cycle helmet performance requirements. Proceedings of 39th STAPP Car Crash Conference, Coronado, California. 8 -- 10 November, Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers, 1995:
111 -9.

Can't gain access to that. But it looks like it's about the standards of helmets rather that the need for one.

bk

monument wrote: »

I looked this up, it's flawed as it lumps in commuters with higher risk cycling such as racing and extreme sport cycling like mountain biking. It's the same as comparing motor sport or F1 to driving around town - highly flawed.

Yes, I've done a little cross country mountain biking and I would always wear a helmet then, along with other safety gear.

However I don't when I commute, as it isn't necessary.

Helmets for commuting are an unnecessary distraction. If you want to save commute cyclists lives, tech them not to cycle on the insides of trucks and buses and how to handle junctions.

When I cycle to work everyday, I'm shocked when I see so many people who simply don't know how to cycle safely.