[C&T's very own] cycling helmet thread

Carawaystick

I wonder if all the pro compulsory push-bike helmet wearing people are aware of the design spec of bike helmets?
The original design spec was to protect a stationary cyclist, falling over sideways and hitting head off the ground, maybe the standard has improved, but a quick google on my phone only returns pay walled specs.
Given that push-bike helmets have a limited range of operation from their design, do the pro-compulsion lobby think, cyclists should use a full face motorbike helmet, (it's even safer, reducing cycling injuries, due to there being no cyclists left)
Or preventing cyclists exceeding the design spec of the helmet ( mandating compulsory speedometering of pushbikes)

If a motorist crashes into a cyclist, such that the cyclists helmet impacts, do the pro-compulsion lobby intend it to be compulsory for the motorist to carry a spare helmet for the cyclist, or should the cyclist be prevented from cycling home by not having a propper helmet any more?

I haven't seen any mention by the pro-compulsion lobby of the dangers of children wearing helmets while not cycling, several children have been killed from strangulation and hanging from getting helmets caught when not cycling (also a reason pedestrians should not be made wear them)

I love these threads, if only it had been kept for the cold weather when this summer ends though, I have my own (bike) light, but a bit of heat is great

Spook_ie

John_C wrote: »

If I take the 2 melons and toss them in front of a car travelling at 50kph, will the one in the helmet survive?
I've never tried but I doubt it.

If you toss the two melons at a car traveling 50Kph, then in all probability the one encased in a protective cover will suffer less damage than the one without as a portion of the energy transfer would be converted via the helmet doing its work, don't throw silly arguments into a mix that won't even stand up to a basic knowledge of physics

bk

I just came across two very insightful statistics:

- Percentage of people who wear helmets in the Netherlands: 0.1%

- The Netherlands has 1/3 the number of cycling fatalities (per 100,000 cyclists) of Australia.

I think that says it all very clearly.

Focusing on mandatory helmet laws takes away the focus from the actual changes that can be made to make cycling safer.

When Australia introduced mandatory helmet laws the number of cyclists decreased by 36% while they had only a 4% decrease in fatal accidents (thus an actual increase in fatal accidents per 100,000 cyclists), meanwhile:

- Copenhagen, Denmark, between 1995 and 2006, cycling increased by 44% and the percent of people cycling to work increased from 31% to 36%. During the same period, the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured fell by 60%

- Netherlands, between 1980 and 2005, cycling increased by 45%, and cyclist fatalities decreased by 58%

- London, between 2000 and 2008, the number of bicycle trips made in London, UK doubled. Over the same period, serious bicycle injuries declined by 12%.

- Berlin, between 1975 and 2001, the total number of bicycle trips almost quadrupled. Between 1990 and 2007, the share of trips made by bicycle increased from 5% to 10%. Between 1992 and 2006, the number of serious bicycle injuries declined by 38%.

Cookie_Monster

Spook_ie wrote: »

If you toss the two melons at a car traveling 50Kph, then in all probability the one encased in a protective cover will suffer less damage than the one without as a portion of the energy transfer would be converted via the helmet doing its work, don't throw silly arguments into a mix that won't even stand up to a basic knowledge of physics

enough less to make a difference? No I think not. helmets are only designed for very low speed, low momentum impacts. In the above case you exceed the design specs so much that the protection given equates to virtually nothing.

Spook_ie

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The one point people never seem to mention is that a helmet could save your life, protect you enough to leave you with a devestating brain injury and be left a vegtable, rather than be killed outright. That's something that terrifies me tbh!

Debilitating head injuries are something that terrifies most people, it hasn't really raised it's head here but is alluded to by the description "Life Changing Injury" earlier in the thread

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

yeah cos research from a country with strict helmet usage is going to be unbiased...

Don't shoot the messenger, it's only viewed that way by people in non mandatory wearing countries, where their view is biased on not wearing them

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

It could be a few less cars on the roads causing the accidents, it could be that bigger groups of cyclists are forcing motorists to overtake with some thought, and making them slow down...

I think I said that...The logic is that there is a force at work, I don't pretend to know which force it is because there has been no study made in Ireland, a lot of assumptions but no study

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

because people have crashed into him and he's had a few minor errors in judgement?
Can you honestly say you've never made any mistake at all driving or should we just go ahead and take your car off you too?

Let me see, how many owies have I had, one when I burnt myself taking off the rad cap does that count?

How many accidents have I had, in 40 years of driving, 3, 2 very early in my driving career and the last in Dublin 1996 when a cyclist swerved across me on College Green/Dame Street causing me to stop suddenly and get a City Imp in the back for my troubles of not creaming the cyclist

BTW learn to recognise sarcasm even without smilies tends to help a lot in threads

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

Spook_ie can I ask you this, are you a regular cyclist?

Why are you so interested in forcing helmets on people?

You can ask, but I'll ask you this firstly, does it make a difference to the validity of arguments for and against helmet wearing?

bk

Spook_ie wrote: »

You can ask, but I'll ask you this firstly, does it make a difference to the validity of arguments for and against helmet wearing?

Yes it does.

Because if you aren't a cyclist, why should you care and why should it affect you?

Often I see mandatory cycling helmet laws being put forward by people who never actually cycle and know nothing about it in some stupid idea to protect those poor silly cyclists from themselves. To be honest it is nanny statism.

I also note you haven't responded to my post with detailed statistics showing that in Australia with the introduction of mandatory helmet laws they saw an increase in fatal cycle accidents. While countries with no mandatory cycle helmet laws not only saw a massive increase in the number of cyclists, but also massive decreases in the number of fatal accidents amongst cyclists.

Cookie_Monster

bk wrote: »

Yes it does.

Because if you aren't a cyclist, why should you care and why should it affect you?

because he hates cyclists, posting history makes that plain as day.

Spook_ie

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

enough less to make a difference? No I think not. helmets are only designed for very low speed, low momentum impacts. In the above case you exceed the design specs so much that the protection given equates to virtually nothing.

The standards for a cycling helmet are

• STANDARDS: WHAT DOES EN 1078 MEAN?
Standard EN 1078 “Helmets for cyclists and skateboard/roller skate users”, produced by European Standard Committee, sets the requirements and tests to guarantee quality and safety of this protection device.
Standard EN 1078 compliance is mandatory throughout the EU, and basically assesses the following items:


- Manufacture and visual field
o Materials used shall not cause skin reactions.
o The entire helmet shall be durable and resistant to use.
o The design shall comprise ventilation systems.
o Certain visual fields shall be taken care of.
- Impact absorption properties
Through the corresponding tests, it is verified that the helmet reduces deceleration caused by a series of impacts in the most unfavorable points to less than 250G.
- Fastening system properties
o Fastening systems shall be adjustable to the defined sizes.
o Through the correspondent tests, it is verified that the fastening system is effective and does not come loose in the event of an accident.
- Marking and information
The helmet shall include all use and safety information defined by the standard and written in the proper language.
FEM analysis shock absortion

During an impact, the speed at which the hit is suffered, is reduced to zero in fractions of a second, which causes a tremendous negative acceleration (deceleration), measured in multiple G’s (Earth gravity). Above 250G there is a high risk of severe brain internal damage.


A good helmet must have enough capacity for progressive deforming and dissipate as much energy as possible during this process in order to achieve a soft deceleration to values that are safe for our bodies. CLOSCA™ helmet has been designed to reduce deceleration produced by standard impacts 5.42 m/s over flat anvil and 4.5 m/s over curb shaped anvil to less than 250G

Feel free to report back when you find out the G Forces involved with the melons, however, the laws of physics still apply the melon with a helmet WILL SUFFER LESS DAMAGE

Aard

I wonder if mandatory helmet laws are just an excuse not to provide cyclists with excellent cycle infrastructure, while having no problem providing motorists with excellent infrastructure. Many motorists get upset if the camber on a road isn't just right, or if a turning curve is a little too tight, or a speed limit 10kmph too low. Most cyclists are happy just to find a broken-glass-free lane.

Painting a dashed white line and saying "Wear a helmet" isn't good enough.

Cookie_Monster

Spook_ie wrote: »

Feel free to report back when you find out the G Forces involved with the melons, however, the laws of physics still apply the melon with a helmet WILL SUFFER LESS DAMAGE

I never said it wouldn't, did you even read the post? What I said was as the design spec is so far exceeded (5.42m/s is about 19.5kph) combined with the cyclists approach speed, lets be very generous and say they were only doing 20, 70kph impact or 350% speed of test standard (never mind the momentums involved) that any protection given and hence less damage suffered is minimal to the point of irrelevance.

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

Yes it does.

Because if you aren't a cyclist, why should you care and why should it affect you?

Often I see mandatory cycling helmet laws being put forward by people who never actually cycle and know nothing about it in some stupid idea to protect those poor silly cyclists from themselves. To be honest it is nanny statism.

.

No have to disagree if I cycle or not has no relevance to the validity of any arguments I've put forward.

The cost to the state, (which taxpayers ultimately fund) for a death or serious injury is how much? Which means that ALL taxpayers have a right to contribute to a debate not just cyclists, or are the cycling fraternity that worried they'd prefer to censor other contributors.

I also note you haven't responded to my post with detailed statistics showing that in Australia with the introduction of mandatory helmet laws they saw an increase in fatal cycle accidents. While countries with no mandatory cycle helmet laws not only saw a massive increase in the number of cyclists, but also massive decreases in the number of fatal accidents amongst cyclists

Let me see if I can find it and read some detail behind it, though I believe I've already posted a link to one for the risk compensation myth which I think you are alluding to?

7 February 2013. A key theory of anti-helmet campaigners—that helmets lead bike riders to take more risks while riding—has been thrown on its head by new research into bike crashes.

It had been claimed that riders not wearing helmets were safer riders because they were more careful and that riders with helmets were less safe because they took more risks.

It was speculated that the helmeted riders took more risks because they believed they were protected by their helmets.

The theory, known as 'risk compensation', has been used to underpin anti-helment campaigns, particularly in Europe.

But new research from the University of New South Wales, which studied nine years of data from bike-on-car crashes—debunks the argument.

Bike riders without helmets are not only more likely to be injured in a crash, but are more likely to have been riding recklessly at the time, the study found.

The riders with helmets were actually the careful ones.

The study examined 6745 bike rider injury collisions involving motor vehicles motor vehicles in NSW from 2001 to 2009.

The case-control study, led by Dr Mike Bambach and Dr Rebecca Mitchell and co-authored by Dr Jake Olivier and Prof Raphael Grzebieta, was carried out by linking detailed information on admissions to all hospitals in NSW with police reports on road traffic collisions in which cyclists were injured or killed.

A pre-publication version of the study is available here. It has been formally published in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention.

The study found that non-helmeted cyclists were almost three times as likely to have disobeyed traffic controls as helmeted riders, and more than four times as likely to have been above the blood alcohol limit.

One in four of the cyclists who crashed were not wearing a helmet (These are NSW figures). These riders were more likley to be involved in more severe crashes with cars and trucks.

Non-helmeted cyclists were also more likely to be seriously injured in body regions other than the head.

Co-author Dr Olivier said the benefits of helmets were clear in the study. "Cyclists without helmets had up to 3.9 times the risk of sustaining a head injury, compared with those who wore helmets," he said

"The more severe the injury, the greater the benefit: Helmet use reduced the risk of moderate head injury by 49 per cent, of serious head injury by 62 per cent, and of severe head injury by 74 per cent”.

Teenagers were the most likely to sustain skull fractures and brain injuries. Around one half of children and adolescents less than 19 years were not wearing a helmet.

The study also overturned a belief widely held in anti-helmet circles, that helmets were not effective in impacts involving motor vehicles. All crashes in the study involved motor vehicles and helmets were shown to be very protective.

Another speculative proposition—that helmets did not help or may result in increased severity of certain kinds of brain injury (diffuse axonal injury)—is also weakened by the publication of this research, which indicates that such injuries are likely to be rare and thus insignificant in the assessment of helmet effectiveness.

Spook_ie

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I never said it wouldn't, did you even read the post? What I said was as the design spec is so far exceeded (5.42m/s is about 19.5kph) combined with the cyclists approach speed, lets be very generous and say they were only doing 20, 38.5kph impact or 200% speed of test standard (never mind the momentums involved) that any protection given and hence less damage suffered is minimal to the point of irrelevance.

And how many head on collisions do we get between cars and cyclists, stop scaremongering then and use realistic data for your arguments

Cookie_Monster

Spook_ie wrote: »

And how many head on collisions do we get between cars and cyclists, stop scaremongering then and use realistic data for your arguments

so suddenly it doesn't suit your arguments and you're changing the goal posts. Even an impact speed of only 50 is still 250% of the test, or how about something ever more realistic: A cyclist doing 15kph up a hill hit from behind by a car doing 100, a mere 510% of the tests speed.

bk

It is no Myth Spook, the stats speak from themselves.

- Australia introduces mandatory helmet laws, sees a 36% decrease in cyclists while an actual increase in fatal accidents per cyclist.

- Many examples of countries and cities with no mandatory cycle helmet laws, yet massive increases in the number of cyclists, with a corresponding decrease in the number of fatal accidents.

That stats really do speak for themselves on this matter.

Spook_ie

Spook_ie wrote: »

<snipped>

Helmets

So excluding the arguments that helmet wearing drives down cycle use, does a helmet actually protect you, imagine an experiment
Take a water melon and drop it onto a road from the height of a cyclist's head, next try it with a similar water melon protected with a helmet.

Which water melon is likely to be going straight into the fruit cocktail?
Or to put it another way which cyclist is going to be in for a life changing experience?

<snipped>

John_C wrote: »

If I take the 2 melons and toss them in front of a car travelling at 50kph, will the one in the helmet survive?
I've never tried but I doubt it.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so suddenly it doesn't suit your arguments and you're changing the goal posts. Even an impact speed of only 50 is still 250% of the test, or how about something ever more realistic: A cyclist doing 15kph up a hill hit from behind by a car doing 100, a mere 510% of the tests speed.

Who's moving the goal posts, Don't think it was me

EDIT:- BTW Conservation and transfer of energy, if a car hits you from behind at a 100 Kph it doesn't translate to you being accelerated to a 100 Kph

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

It is no Myth Spook, the stats speak from themselves.

- Australia introduces mandatory helmet laws, sees a 36% decrease in cyclists while an actual increase in fatal accidents per cyclist.

- Many examples of countries and cities with no mandatory cycle helmet laws, yet massive increases in the number of cyclists, with a corresponding decrease in the number of fatal accidents.

That stats really do speak for themselves on this matter.

There is often a surge in statistics when ever any safety act is implemented, when seat belts were legislated for there was an initial surge in fatalities immediately following it, but not many people would argue against their effectiveness since ( when they're being used of course! )

bk

Spook_ie wrote: »

There is often a surge in statistics when ever any safety act is implemented, when seat belts were legislated for there was an initial surge in fatalities immediately following it, but not many people would argue against their effectiveness since ( when they're being used of course! )

LOL, you are really clutching at straws now, aren't you!!

The stats aren't just initial stats, they are a proven ongoing phenomenon.

There is a massive amount of scientific research into this area and to summarise it for you, it basically says there are safety in numbers. i.e. the more people who cycle, the safer they are:

Elvik, R. (2009). "The non-linearity of risk and the promotion of environmentally sustainable transport". Accident Analysis and Prevention 41 (4): 849–855.doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.04.009. PMID 19540975. "Several studies show that the risks of injury to pedestrians and cyclists are highly non-linear. This means that the more pedestrians or cyclists there are, the lower is the risk faced by each pedestrian or cyclist."

Geyer, J. Raford, N., Pham, T., Ragland, D. (2006). "Safety in Numbers: Data from Oakland, California". Transportation Research Record 1982: 150–154.doi:10.3141/1982-20. "Estimates of the model parameters show that the number of pedestrian collisions increases more slowly than the number of pedestrians; that is, the collision rate decreases as the number of pedestrians increases, consistent with previous studies by Leden and Jacobsen. Specifically, a doubling of the number of pedestrians (increase of 100%) is associated with only a 52% increase in the number of vehicle-pedestrian collisions, with the corresponding rate decreasing by about 24%."

Miranda-Moreno, L., Strauss, J., Morency, P., (2011). "Disaggregate Exposure Measures and Injury Frequency Models of Cyclist Safety at Signalized Intersections". Transportation Research Record (2236): 74–82.doi:10.3141/2236-09. "A 10% increase in bicycle flow was associated with a 4.4% increase in the frequency of cyclist injuries.

Raford, N., Ragland, D. (2004). "Space Syntax: Innovative Pedestrian Volume Modeling Tool for Pedestrian Safety". Transportation Research Record 1978: 66–74. doi:10.3141/1878-09. "Downtown intersections experience slightly more pedestrian–vehicle collisions per year than the intersections in East Oakland but carry approximately three times as many pedestrians annually, indicating lower annual accident rate per pedestrian than that in East Oakland.

Schneider, R., Chagas Diogenes, M., Arnold, L., Attaset, V., Griswold, J., Ragland, D. (2010). "Association Between Roadway Intersection Characteristics and Pedestrian Crash Risk in Alameda County, California". Transportation Research Record 2198: 41–51. doi:10.3141/2198-06. "[a]s the pedestrian volume increases, the expected number of pedestrian crashes increases at a decreasing rate (Figure 1a). As the pedestrian volume increases, the expected risk of a crash for each individual crossing decreases (Figure 1b).

Harwood, D.W., Torbic, D.J., Gilmore, D.K., Bokenkroger, C.D., Dunn, J.M., Zegeer, C.V., Srinivasan, R., Carter, D., Raborn, C., Lyon, C., Persaud, B. (2008)."Pedestrian Safety Prediction Methodology". NCHRP Web-only Document 129: Phase III. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC

Jonsson, T. (2005). "Pedestrian Safety Prediction Methodology". Predictive models for accidents on urban links. A focus on vulnerable road users. Ph.D. Dissertation. Bulletin 226. Lund Institute of Technology, Department of Technology and Society, Traffic Engineering, Lund. "The validation indicated that exponents were 0.5 for both the flows of pedestrians and motor vehicles in models for accidents involving vulnerable road users, and 1.0 for the motor vehicle flow exponent in the models for motor vehicle accidents. For bicyclist accidents the correct exponent for bicyclist flows is likely to be somewhat lower than 0.5, close to 0.35.

Lyon, C., Persaud, B.N. (2002). "Pedestrian collision prediction models for urban intersections". Transportation Research Record 1818: 102–107.doi:10.3141/1818-16. "Collisions are estimated to increase with AADT and pedestrian volumes, although these relationships are nonlinear (as shown by the exponents of AADT and PEDS being significantly less than 1). This would confirm that the use of collision rates is based on an erroneous assumption of a linear relationship between collisions and volumes.

Robinson, D.L. (2005). "Safety in numbers in Australia: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and cycling". Health Promotion Journal of Australia 16(1): 47–51. PMID 16389930. "As with overseas data, the exponential growth rule fits Australian data well. If cycling doubles, the risk per kilometre falls by about 34%; conversely, if cycling halves, the risk per kilometre will be about 52% higher."

Jensen, S. U., Andersen, T., Hansen, W., Kjærgaard, E., Krag, T., Larsen, J.E., Lund, B.L. Thost, P. (2000). "Collection of Cycle Concepts". A publication of Road Directorate, Denmark: 15.

Jensen, S.U. (1998). "DUMAS – Safety of Pedestrians and Two-wheelers". A publication of Road Directorate, Denmark: Note 51. "when pedestrian and cycle traffic increases, the casualty rate per kilometre decreases."

Elvik, R. (2009). "The non-linearity of risk and the promotion of environmentally sustainable transport". Accident Analysis and Prevention 41 (4): 849–855.doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.04.009. PMID 19540975.

Daniels, S., Brijs, T., Nuyts, E., Wets, G. (2010). "Explaining variation in safety performance of roundabouts". Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (2): 393–402. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.08.019. PMID 20159059. "Confirmation is found for the existence of a safety in numbers-effect for bicyclists, moped riders and – with less certainty – for pedestrians at roundabouts."

Vandenbulcke, G., Thomas, I., de Geus, B., Degraeuwe, B., Torfs, R., Meeusen, R., Panis, L.I. (2009). "Mapping bicycle use and the risk of accidents for commuters who cycle to work in Belgium". Transport Policy 16 (2): 77–87.doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.03.004. "Table2 shows that -- as expected -- the risk of cyclists becoming casualties of road accidents decreases as the proportion of cyclists increases."

Ekman L. (1996). "On the treatment of flow in traffic safety analysis — a non-parametric approach applied on vulnerable road users". Lund, Sweden: Institutionen för Trafikteknik, Lunds Tekniska Högskola. Bulletin 136. "the conflict rate for bicyclists is twice as large at locations with low bicycle flow compared to locations with higher flow"

Turner, S.A., Roozenburg, A.P., Francis, T. (2006). "Predicting accident rates for cyclists and pedestrians.". Land Transport New Zealand. Research Report 289. "A 'safety in numbers' effect is observed for cycle accidents at traffic signals, roundabouts and mid-block sites. An increase in cycle numbers will not therefore necessarily increase the number of accidents substantially. A 'safety in numbers' effect is also observed for pedestrian accidents at traffic signals and mid-block sites. Insufficient data exists to conclude whether a 'safety in numbers' effect occurs at roundabouts"

Turner, S.A., Binder, S., Roozenburg, A.P. (2009). "Cycle Safety: Reducing the Crash Risk". Land Transport New Zealand. Research Report 389. "As shown in figure 2.20, an increase in the proportion of cyclists to the overall traffic volume causes an increase in expected crashes at mid-block locations, but the crash rate increases at a decreasing rate. That is to say, the crash rate per cyclist goes down as the cycle volume increases."

Knowles, J., Adams, S., Cuerden, R., Savill, T. Reid, S., Tight, M. (2009)."Collisions involving pedal cyclists on Britain's roads: establishing the causes". Transport Research Laboratory Published Project. Report PPR445. "The research assessed as part of this study is strongly suggestive that a safety in numbers effect exists."

Noland, R.B., Quddus, M.A., Ochieng, W.Y. (2008). "The effect of the London congestion charge on road casualties: an intervention analysis".Transportation 35 (1): 73–91. doi:10.1007/s11116-007-9133-9. "While motorcycle casualties in Inner London seem to have increased after implementation of the congestion charge no similar effect is found for bicycle casualties. This is despite an increase in bicycle usage within the congestion charging zone."

Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (2009). Cycling in the Netherlands. p. 14.

Pucher J., Dijkstra L. (2000). "Making walking and cycling safer: lessons from Europe". Transportation Quarterly 54 (3): 25–50.

Turner S.A., Wood, G.R., Luo, Q., Singh, R., Allatt, T. J., Affiliation: Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand; Macquarie University, NSW, Australia; Beca Infrastructure Ltd, New Zealand. (2010). "Crash prediction models and the factors that influence cycle safety". Australas Coll Road Saf 21 (3): 26–36. "The key finding is that as cycle volumes increase, the risk per individual cyclist reduces - the 'safety in numbers' effect."

Tin Tin, S., Woodward, A., Thornley, S., Ameratunga, S. (2011). "Regional variations in pedal cyclist injuries in New Zealand: safety in numbers or risk in scarcity?". Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 35 (4): 357–363. doi:10.1111/j.1753-6405.2011.00731.x. "The injury rate increased with decreasing per capita time spent cycling."

Daniels, S., Brijs, T., Nuyts, E., Wets, G (2011). "Extended prediction models for crashes at roundabouts". Safety Science 49 (2): 198–207.doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2010.07.016. "Confirmation is found for the existence of a 'safety-in-numbers' effect for different types of road users."

de Geus B, Vandenbulcke G, Int Panis L, Thomas I, Degraeuwe B, Cumps E, Aertsens J, Torfs R, Meeusen R. (2012). "A prospective cohort study on minor accidents involving commuter cyclists in Belgium". Accident Analysis & Prevention 45 (2): 683–693. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.09.045. "The 'safety in numbers' principle is also applicable for minor bicycle accidents."

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

LOL, you are really clutching at straws now, aren't you!!

The stats aren't just initial stats, they are a proven ongoing phenomenon.

There is a massive amount of scientific research into this area and to summarise it for you, it basically says there are safety in numbers. i.e. the more people who cycle, the safer they are:

<snipped> what appears to be the wiki ref page for safety in numbers

Safety in numbers, who wants to be the one on the edge that gets picked off by the predator, or the one on the edge that their life quality would still be there if they'd been forced to wear a helmet?

It still doesn't give an indication that having mandatory helmets wouldn't prevent a majority of head/brain injuries to cyclists involved in accidents,

As an extra thought:-

I'm not disputing that there is a cause and effect phenomenon with cyclists and their numbers, however, have you ever thought that the reason for this phenomenon is that as you increase the number of cyclists you decrease the number of motorists and the increase in cyclists are also the motorists that have garnered road sense from driving... where does that lead me to....Oh yeah training and obeying road signs for cyclists.

Careful where you point me to because if you combined that with mandatory helmets we'd have far less collisions and injuries.

hardCopy

Spook_ie wrote: »

Safety in numbers, who wants to be the one on the edge that gets picked off by the predator, or the one on the edge that their life quality would still be there if they'd been forced to wear a helmet?

It still doesn't give an indication that having mandatory helmets wouldn't prevent a majority of head/brain injuries to cyclists involved in accidents,

As an extra thought:-

I'm not disputing that there is a cause and effect phenomenon with cyclists and their numbers, however, have you ever thought that the reason for this phenomenon is that as you increase the number of cyclists you decrease the number of motorists and the increase in cyclists are also the motorists that have garnered road sense from driving... where does that lead me to....Oh yeah training and obeying road signs for cyclists.

Careful where you point me to because if you combined that with mandatory helmets we'd have far less collisions and injuries.

No you wouldn't.

No matter what way you look at it mandatory helmets -> less cyclists -> more danger for remaining cyclists -> increased premature deaths due to heart disease and obesity for the lost potential cyclists.

If you like helmets so much give them out for free or at least cut the VAT on them but compelling people to wear them is proven to be a step too far.

bk

In the real world, the stats clearly show, mandatory cycling helmets -> less cyclists -> greater chance of being in a fatal accident.

Also research clearly shows that those who cycle to work live an average 7 years longer then those that don't.

Again I'll repeat the most pertinent stat, you are three times as likely to be in a fatal accident in Australia, which has mandatory helmet laws, then in the Netherlands where less then 1% of people wear helmets.

bk

Another interesting stat for you, 3 out of every 4 fatal cycling accidents in Dublin is caused by a left turning HGV.

http://www.traceysolicitors.ie/blog/cyclists-in-dublin-facts-figures-on-accidents/

A cycle helmet will do nothing to save you from getting mangled under the wheels of a left turning HGV.

What will save lives is:

- Better cyclist training, with an emphasis on being very cautious of cycling left of traffic
- Better training for drivers to look out for cyclists at all times and in particular when turning left.
- Expansion of the HGV ban in Dublin (best thing that ever happened in Dublin to improve cyclists and pedestrian safety).
- Gardai enforcement of drivers who stop too far forward at traffic lights in the reserved cycle space.
- Better cycling infrastructure that doesn't tend to push you to the inside of left turning vehicles. Ideally Dutch style completely segregated high quality cycle lanes.

If you are truly concerned about cyclists safety, then these are the things you should be campaigning for, not worthless mandatory helmet laws.

AltAccount

Spook, I can only presume you're playing Devil's Advocate or posting to get a reaction.

AFAIK you're a taxi driver, and as a taxi driver you stand to gain from each additional cyclist on the streets.

If I cycle instead of driving:
- There's one less car on the road, causing congestion and slowing you down
- I risk having a mechanical failure or bad puncture and requiring a taxi ride home
- I expose myself to the elements and increase the likelihood that I'll need to take a taxi home because the heavens have opened
- I have more disposable income due to fuel & maintenance savings and so am more likely to treat myself to a taxi on a night out instead of taking the bus home
Etc etc

Multiply that by every additional commuting cyclist and you become busier and better off as a result

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

Another interesting stat for you, 3 out of every 4 fatal cycling accidents in Dublin is caused by a left turning HGV.

http://www.traceysolicitors.ie/blog/cyclists-in-dublin-facts-figures-on-accidents/

A cycle helmet will do nothing to save you from getting mangled under the wheels of a left turning HGV.

What will save lives is:

- Better cyclist training, with an emphasis on being very cautious of cycling left of traffic
- Better training for drivers to look out for cyclists at all times and in particular when turning left.
- Expansion of the HGV ban in Dublin (best thing that ever happened in Dublin to improve cyclists and pedestrian safety).
- Gardai enforcement of drivers who stop too far forward at traffic lights in the reserved cycle space.
- Better cycling infrastructure that doesn't tend to push you to the inside of left turning vehicles. Ideally Dutch style completely segregated high quality cycle lanes.

If you are truly concerned about cyclists safety, then these are the things you should be campaigning for, not worthless mandatory helmet laws.

Forgive the pun, but that's old hat.

http://www.dublincity.ie/ROADSANDTRAFFIC/HGV/Pages/HGV%20Management%20Strategy.aspx

Left turning vehicles will always be a danger to anyone overtaking on the inside, that's why there is so much advice NOT to drive/cycle/undertake up the inside when someones indicating. The addition of proximity alert systems, as per the campaign led by Cynthia Barlow and others is the next logical step for the protection of cyclists.

Something like this http://www.cyclealert.com/


Given that you'll never erradicate the need for some delivery/buses in an urban traffic situation the solution to the next problem is continual education which still doesn't remove the reduction in injuries to people who get pushed off bikes whilst avoiding traffic conflict wearing a helmet.

Answer me this do you wear a helmet when cycling?

Spook_ie

AltAccount wrote: »

Spook, I can only presume you're playing Devil's Advocate or posting to get a reaction.

AFAIK you're a taxi driver, and as a taxi driver you stand to gain from each additional cyclist on the streets.

If I cycle instead of driving:
- There's one less car on the road, causing congestion and slowing you down
- I risk having a mechanical failure or bad puncture and requiring a taxi ride home
- I expose myself to the elements and increase the likelihood that I'll need to take a taxi home because the heavens have opened
- I have more disposable income due to fuel & maintenance savings and so am more likely to treat myself to a taxi on a night out instead of taking the bus home
Etc etc

Multiply that by every additional commuting cyclist and you become busier and better off as a result

Makes no difference to me at all as I only work nightime, therefore a reduction or increase in cyclists is basicly a non event unless you all start cycling to and from the pub and that is another story altogether

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/cyclist-who-died-after-fall-was-not-wearing-helmet-court-told-1.533067

bk

Spook_ie wrote: »

Forgive the pun, but that's old hat.

It certainly isn't old hat, 75% of cyclists killed in Dublin are killed by left turning HGV's. The point is cycle helmets do nothing to protect these people.

Cyclop mirrors help reduce these type of deaths, and they are already been introduced:


http://thecorknews.ie/articles/new-%E2%80%98cyclops%E2%80%99-mirror-regulation-hgvs-2834

However it isn't been done fast enough, they need to be rolled out to all trucks and buses ASAP and eventually all vehicles.

This will save lives, cycle helmets will have little or no impact.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Answer me this do you wear a helmet when cycling?

If you go back over the thread you will find that I already volunteered this information in an earlier post.

- When I commute the 4km to work every day or the 5km into town on my upright hybrid bike, then no, I don't wear a helmet. Nor do I wear cycling clothes, just normal work/casual clothes.

- When I take my racer out for long distance fast cycles at the weekend. Then yes I do wear a helmet. I also then wear lyrca cycling clothing and clipless cycling shoes.

The point being I'm a responsible adult who is capable of determining the risk and making an adult decision for myself.

At the relatively slow speeds of utility cycling, there just isn't a need for helmets as is clearly proven in the Netherlands where less then 1% of cyclists wear helmets yet they have the best cycle safety record in the world.

AltAccount

Spook_ie wrote: »

Makes no difference to me at all as I only work nightime, therefore a reduction or increase in cyclists is basicly a non event unless you all start cycling to and from the pub and that is another story altogether

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/cyclist-who-died-after-fall-was-not-wearing-helmet-court-told-1.533067

Do you or any of your family cycle or is your interest purely academic?

steamengine

A taxi driver or any other road user is quite entitled to express their opinion in the same way as cyclists are all too ready to express their opinions on car/taxi/bus/goods/ vehicle drivers.

Regarding HGV's - As a cyclist, don't find yourself inside them at left turns, either position yourself in front or behind. If for some reason you do, then be prepared to take defensive action and get on to the adjacent footpath.

In such incidences cyclists need to be heard and I'm somewhat surprised that a horn such an 'Air Zound' is not being recommended by the 'know it all' cycling lobbyists ! As I stated here before, on two occasions recently, car drivers reversing out of driveways into my path have come to an instant halt on hearing the horn on my bike and it's only a standard bulb horn - although fairly loud.

But of course it is a 'legal requirement to have a bell' - not a hell of a lot of use with dense traffic noise and HGV's revving !

I wear a helmet to try and protect my brain, a high viz vest so I can be seen more readily, use a mirror to see more and a horn to be heard !!! I am also a motorist, and an ex-motorcyclist.

AltAccount

steamengine wrote: »

A taxi driver or any other road user is quite entitled to express their opinion in the same way as cyclists are all too ready to express their opinions on car/taxi/bus/goods/ vehicle drivers.

.

Who said they couldn't express their opinion?

Spook_ie

AltAccount wrote: »

Do you or any of your family cycle or is your interest purely academic?

My son and daughter both cycle, I don't anymore and the wife can't, anymore personal questions that people want to ask to see if they can find an excuse to disregard an opinion? because that's what questions like that come across as.

Victor

bk wrote: »

Often I see mandatory cycling helmet laws being put forward by people who never actually cycle and know nothing about it in some stupid idea to protect those poor silly cyclists from themselves.

No, it is to keep motorist's insurance premiums down while they drive more aggressively.

To be honest it is nanny statism.

Nope, it is victim blaming.

AltAccount

Spook_ie wrote: »

My son and daughter both cycle, I don't anymore and the wife can't, anymore personal questions that people want to ask to see if they can find an excuse to disregard an opinion? because that's what questions like that come across as.

You have very strong views on the subject and I was wondering if they were Bourne of experience, of personal injury/tragedy or whatever.

It was no more intrusive than you enquiring if someone else wore a helmet (or at least it wasn't meant to be).

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

It certainly isn't old hat, 75% of cyclists killed in Dublin are killed by left turning HGV's. The point is cycle helmets do nothing to protect these people.

Cyclop mirrors help reduce these type of deaths, and they are already been introduced:


http://thecorknews.ie/articles/new-%E2%80%98cyclops%E2%80%99-mirror-regulation-hgvs-2834

However it isn't been done fast enough, they need to be rolled out to all trucks and buses ASAP and eventually all vehicles.

This will save lives, cycle helmets will have little or no impact.



If you go back over the thread you will find that I already volunteered this information in an earlier post.

- When I commute the 4km to work every day or the 5km into town on my upright hybrid bike, then no, I don't wear a helmet. Nor do I wear cycling clothes, just normal work/casual clothes.

- When I take my racer out for long distance fast cycles at the weekend. Then yes I do wear a helmet. I also then wear lyrca cycling clothing and clipless cycling shoes.

The point being I'm a responsible adult who is capable of determining the risk and making an adult decision for myself.

At the relatively slow speeds of utility cycling, there just isn't a need for helmets as is clearly proven in the Netherlands where less then 1% of cyclists wear helmets yet they have the best cycle safety record in the world.

Firstly it would seem that some data is out of kilter somewhere, I could accept maybe 1 or 2 but to lose 7 fatalities is an error and then some

Your quoted source cites a fatality rate of 2002-2006 of 11 people whereas the figures according to cyclingdublin.com is actually 18 for that period, which one are we going to accept as accurate?

Spook_ie

AltAccount wrote: »

You have very strong views on the subject and I was wondering if they were Bourne of experience, of personal injury/tragedy or whatever.

It was no more intrusive than you enquiring if someone else wore a helmet (or at least it wasn't meant to be).

I'm a taxidriver I have very strong views on everything and the only reason I asked that was because of me being asked if I was a cyclist..

steamengine

AltAccount wrote: »

Who said they couldn't express their opinion?

To be fair that's just quoting me out of context !

My point was that taxi drivers should be able to express their opinion in the same way as cyclists do without the close questioning of motives in either case. Nothing to do with entitlement to expression 'per se'.

bk

Well thanks for posting that data Spook! The data you have posted clearly shows the over the last 15 years, despite a significant increase in the number of cyclists in Dublin over the period and no mandatory cycle helmet law, there has been a very significant drop in the number if cycling fatalities.

LOL thanks for proving my point so clearly

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

Well thanks for posting that data Spook! The data you have posted clearly shows the over the last 15 years, despite a significant increase in the number of cyclists in Dublin over the period and no mandatory cycle helmet law, there has been a very significant drop in the number if cycling fatalities.

LOL thanks for proving my point so clearly

So from that you want to use the figures I supplied then?

bk

Spook_ie wrote: »

So from that you want to use the figures I supplied then?

You are the one who brought these figures up. But now they don't suit your line of thought!!

Cookie_Monster

from cycling:

tomasrojo wrote: »

It seems that two federal agencies in the USA have agreed to stop claiming that helmets prevent 85% of head injuries.

http://newswithtags.com/Traffic%20collision/waba-feds-withdraw-claim-that-bike-helmets-are-85-percent-effective#.UbElpErG5ci

This change in policy is very far from a concession that helmets do not prevent head injuries, but I think if you value the scientific method, it's a good move. The source study was always far too flimsy to support the claim.

(The interpretation of odds ratio in the study shouldn't have passed peer review either, but that's one for people who actually enjoy statistical analysis.)

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

You are the one who brought these figures up. But now they don't suit your line of thought!!

Very presumptuous of you to think that they don't suit my line of thought, so which set of figures do you want to use?

I favor the last set as they seem to be more up to date

bk

Spook_ie wrote: »

I favor the last set as they seem to be more up to date

Fine, then we go with the last set which clearly proves the point of the whole thread.

This data clearly shows a significant drop in fatal accidents in Dublin despite a massive increase in cyclists and no mandatory helmet laws.

This data correlates almost perfectly with what has been seen throughout Europe and even further a field. Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Berlin, London and now even Dublin show that as the number of cyclists increases, the number of fatal cycle accidents decreases.

This proves that the key to making cycling safer is to get more people cycling.

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

Fine, then we go with the last set which clearly proves the point of the whole thread.

This data clearly shows a significant drop in fatal accidents in Dublin despite a massive increase in cyclists and no mandatory helmet laws.

This data correlates almost perfectly with what has been seen throughout Europe and even further a field. Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Berlin, London and now even Dublin show that as the number of cyclists increases, the number of fatal cycle accidents decreases.

This proves that the key to making cycling safer is to get more people cycling.

Good now lets work with some figures then



So first thing despite your scaremongering using the earlier data that you initially used..

Dublin Port Tunnel opened in December 2006 and from there you see a significant drop in fatalities

Dublin Bikes started in 2009 and initially you would think there was a further decrease in fatalities because of it, however, look at 2003 no fatalities, no DPT/No DBS, what about 2004 similar levels to 2009 again no DPT/No DBS until Sept 2009, 2005 same story

So what am I saying, I'm saying that like most people you are making false assumptions because the data you are basing them on is fundamentally flawed.

SOURCES: Data for Co Dublin 1997-2009 is from the RSA report ‘Pedal Cyclists Road Collision Facts 1997-2009′; Data for Dublin City is from the RSA report ‘Safety in Irish Cities 1997-2006′; 2007-2010 deaths for Co Dublin / Dublin City from yearly RSA Collision Fact Books; 2011 and 2012 data is only based on press and online reports to date; serious injuries for 2007-2010 from RSA by email; 2011 serious injuries is RSA provisional data; *a Dublin Bikes user died after a collision with a taxi on Westmoreland Street on June 21, 2011; **a woman died from her injuries days after a collision with truck on the Airport Roundabout on the Swords Road on February 20, 2012.

But surely we can depend on the RSA figures and forget about 2011/2012 and still prove your point.....Well sorry but no we can't

According to table 14 of this report the RSA figures could be out by as much as a factor of 3 or 4

http://cyclingindublin.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/RTC-related_Hospital_Admissions_2005-2009_A_Report.pdf

You'll forgive me then if I'm skeptical about any data sources that are used to prove/disprove things and revert back to the only good test is a dynamic test.

If you strike an object with your head wearing a helmet do you suffer less trauma, answer is a yes unless you want to rewrite the laws of physics


Now let me ask you another question..

How many dead/brain injured cyclists is an acceptable rate?

bk

If you walk down the street, trip over a lose slab and hit your head, would a helmet reduce the trauma?

If you slip in the shower, hit your head, would a helmet reduce the trauma?

If you get rear ended in a car, would a crash helmet and rally style seat with the helmet attached to the seat save your life, neck and head?

The answer to your and all the above questions is yes.

Then why don't we wear helmets in all of these cases? Because these sorts of accidents rarely happen, helmets are impracticable and the risk is very low.

Also there is a risk to wearing a helmet, a number of children have been strangled and died due to the strap of a helmet.

Again I'll repeat the most important stat. Less then 1% of people wear helmets in the Netherlands, yet they have 1/3 the number of fatal accidents as does Australia with it's mandatory helmet laws.

Helmet laws reduce the number of people cycling and do little to improve safety. They are simply a distraction from the real issues that will actually make cycling safer.

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

If you walk down the street, trip over a lose slab and hit your head, would a helmet reduce the trauma?

If you slip in the shower, hit your head, would a helmet reduce the trauma?

If you get rear ended in a car, would a crash helmet and rally style seat with the helmet attached to the seat save your life, neck and head?

The answer to your and all the above questions is yes.

Then why don't we wear helmets in all of these cases? Because these sorts of accidents rarely happen, helmets are impracticable and the risk is very low.

Also there is a risk to wearing a helmet, a number of children have been strangled and died due to the strap of a helmet.

Again I'll repeat the most important stat. Less then 1% of people wear helmets in the Netherlands, yet they have 1/3 the number of fatal accidents as does Australia with it's mandatory helmet laws.

Helmet laws reduce the number of people cycling and do little to improve safety. They are simply a distraction from the real issues that will actually make cycling safer.

You're not answering the questions, instead you're just

Again I'll repeat the most important stat

and I've just proven that the stats aren't as reliable as you'd like them to be and are open to interpretation depending on the view you wish to encourage/discourage

Richard Logue

I'm old enough to remember the same arguments against compulsory seat belt usage 40 years ago.

Spook_ie

Richard Logue wrote: »

I'm old enough to remember the same arguments against compulsory seat belt usage 40 years ago.

Me to which is one reason I won't let any "off the cuff" statement quoting this or that survey to go untackled

Spook_ie

Interesting report

Press release, 18 April 2011 15:00
Traffic deaths down again

640 traffic deaths in 2010; 80 fewer than in 2009
Fewer victims under 40 years of age in particular
Largest decrease for people in cars and cyclists
Slight rise in number of pedestrian deaths

According to figures released today by Statistics Netherlands and the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, 640 people were killed in traffic accidents in the Netherlands in 2010. This is 11 percent fewer than the 720 deaths in 2009, and continues the downward trend observed in the last few years. The number of fatalities among people aged under 40 in particular decreased, as well as the number among cyclists and people in cars.

The number of traffic deaths among people aged under 40 was 247 in 2010. This is 20 percent down on twelve months previously. Within this age group the strongest decrease was for 15-19 year-olds. This is mainly because fewer of these youngsters were killed in cars (from 36 victims in 2009 to 19 in 2010). Victims in their twenties do still account for the largest number of traffic deaths, however: 114 in 2010.

Most of the decrease in the number of traffic deaths is accounted for by cyclists and car drivers and passengers. There were 50 fewer car deaths in 2010; at 246 this was 17 percent lower than in 2009. This group does account for most of traffic deaths however. The number of cyclists killed on Dutch roads fell from 185 in 2009 to 162 in 2010.

There was a notable slight rise in the number of pedestrians killed in 2010: 72 pedestrians died, of whom over 60 percent were aged 50 years or older. Pedestrians were the only group of road users for whom the number of deaths did not decrease.

People in the age group 15-29 years run a three times higher risk of being killed in traffic on a Friday or Saturday night than at other times in the week. This differential has even increased in the last four years. The number of traffic deaths on ‘clubbing’ nights has remained stable, while the number of victims in the rest of the week has decreased. For people aged 30 years and older, the difference in risk is smaller, and people aged of 45 years and older are even less likely to be killed on a Friday or Saturday night than in the rest of the week.

In 2010, 56 of the 640 people killed in traffic accidents were not registered in the Netherlands. These were tourists and people visiting the Netherlands for their work. The number of fatal victims in this group has been stable for years now.

The number of fatal casualties on Dutch roads has been decreasing since the mid-1970s, when more than 3 thousand people a year were killed in traffic accidents. In the mid-1970s it became compulsory to wear a seatbelt in the front seats of cars, and people on mopeds were required to wear a helmet. Since the year with the highest number of traffic deaths, 1972, the number of people killed yearly has fallen by 80 percent.

162 cyclists died in Holland in 2010, doesn't give a breakdown of how they died but 162 in a country with far better cycling infrastructure than here merits further investigation

Wonder if many/any of the fatalities were single bicycle accidents and how many single bike accidents had preventable head injuries

Causes of crashes vary according to local conditions. A study conducted in 2000 by the Institute for Road Safety Research in the Netherlands found that single bicycle accidents accounted for 47% of all bicycle accidents, collisions with obstacles and animals accounted for 12%, and collisions with other road users accounted for 40%, with the remaining 1% having unknown or unclassified cause.[citation needed] Many bicycle crashes are unreported and therefore not included in official statistics. Prospective studies estimate that less than 10% of bicycle accidents are officially reported.[1]

bk

There is nothing "off the cuff" about this.

There is a massive amounts of verified research into this that shows:

1) Mandatory helmet laws leads to a significant reduction in the number of cyclists.

2) More cyclists means less fatal accidents.

Most have recognised that mandatory helmet laws were a failure in Australia and that is why no country has introduced similar laws since.

It is interesting to note that the Mayors of Sydney and Perth are looking for exemptions from the mandatory helmet laws for their cities:

http://cyclehelmets.org/1207.html?NKey=90
http://cyclehelmets.org/1207.html?NKey=82

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

There is nothing "off the cuff" about this.

There is a massive amounts of verified research into this that shows:

1) Mandatory helmet laws leads to a significant reduction in the number of cyclists.

2) More cyclists means less fatal accidents.

Most have recognised that mandatory helmet laws were a failure in Australia and that is why no country has introduced similar laws since.

It is interesting to note that the Mayors of Sydney and Perth are looking for exemptions from the mandatory helmet laws for their cities:

http://cyclehelmets.org/1207.html?NKey=90
http://cyclehelmets.org/1207.html?NKey=82

You see there you go again spouting off meaningless stats instead of doing some research

Population of Ireland 4.576 million (2011)
Population of Holland 16.69 million (2011)

Therefore pro rata with all other things being equal you would expect Holland to have approx 4 times the accidents/injuries etc. or to put it the otherway Ireland to have 25% of the Dutch results

Can you imagine the outcry if we had 40 cyclists killed in 2010, did we have anywhere near that amount?

EDIT: The mayors of the 2 cities are looking for a repeal on the ban for the hired bikes not a repeal of the complete law, something to do with making money possibly?

bk

What you miss out on is that in Holland 40% of people cycle to work everyday.

So with a higher population and 40% of people cycling every day, of course there is going to be more accidents in total. That is obvious!

The important figure to look for and find is the number of accidents per 100,000 cyclists.

The other figure that you might want to look at is how many fatal accidents for all modes of transport (cycling, driving, walking, etc.).