4 ms·

I had a cycling accident when out training on a road bike coming down a hill doing about 50km/h and a delivery van turned in front of me into a parking lot. I h

I had a cycling accident when out training on a road bike coming down a hill doing about 50km/h and a delivery van turned in front of me into a parking lot. I hit the side of the van put a big dent in it and fractured my clavicle and t6 and had several cuts in my face. The helmet I was wearing was completely disintegrated on the side I hit the car with. Fortunately I was visiting Australia were cycling helmets were mandatory, back in Europe were i was living normally i would not have worn one. Since then I always were a helmet when out training. However I don't wear a helmet when dropping off the kids with my cargo bike. It's true that drivers are more aggressive towards helmet wearers, moreover I can't think of an accident where a helmet would help when I'm on the cargo bike.

op00to 4y ago
> it’s true that drivers are more aggressive towards helmet wearers Citation, please? > can't think of an accident where a helmet would help when I'm on the cargo bike. Right hook.
- tboughen 4y ago
  “cyclists were given 8.5cm (3.3 inches) more clearance by cars if they were not wearing helmets.” https://helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm https://helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm
  - threeseed 4y ago
    You know that the article you posted was about refuting this claim: "After re-analysis of Walker's data, helmet wearing is not associated with close motor vehicle passing"
    - i_am_jl 4y ago
      Confirmation bias machine strikes again.
    - KennyBlanken 4y ago
      As discussed above: the "re-analysis" took an analog measurement, filtered it into a binary "close" or "not close" at an arbitrary distance threshold, and then patted themselves on the back when the found there was no difference.
- ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
  There's this Ian Walker study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457506001540 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00014... It's a small sample size, so take with a pinch of salt.
  - threeseed 4y ago
    Refutation of the Walker study which "assesses the extent to which the sample size in the original analysis may have contributed to spurious results". https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783373/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783373/
    - ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
      Response to the refutation: https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/bicycle-helmet-wearing-is-associated-with-closer-overtaking-by-dr https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/bicycle-he... Olivier and Walter re-analysed the same data in 2013 and claimed helmet wearing was not associated with close vehicle passing. Here we show how Olivier and Walter’s analysis addressed a subtly, but importantly, different question than Walker’s. Their conclusion was based on omitting information about variability in driver behaviour and instead dividing overtakes into two binary categories of ‘close’ and ‘not close’; we demonstrate that they did not justify or address the implications of this choice, did not have sufficient statistical power for their approach, and moreover show that slightly adjusting their definition of ‘close’ would reverse their conclusions. We then present a new analysis of the original dataset, measuring directly the extent to which drivers changed their behaviour in response to helmet wearing. This analysis confirms that drivers did, overall, get closer when the rider wore a helmet.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - alan99999 4y ago
    What Ian Walker's study failed to do was measure the amount of traffic, let alone the oncoming traffic. As he did different parts of his data collection on different days and on different roads, this key measure which often affects how far a car is able to move out going past a cyclist is a very obvious parameter to take into account. Ian's data set has times of passes in it so it might be possible to crate a proxy for traffic density but I haven't attempted this. I think it's more valid to conclude this study has no credence than to draw any conclusion from it.
- u801e 4y ago
  You can largely avoid right hooks by riding in the primary position/take the general purpose lane by default rather than riding towards the edge or in the bike lane.
cameronh90 4y ago
I had a cycling accident where I misjudged how tight a corner was, ran off the path, high sided and head planted into a tree. I wasn't going fast, maybe 10mph, but clearly too fast for the corner. First injury in over 15 years of cycling. Nobody else involved, indeed, nobody else in earshot, let alone cars. My friend was cycling up a hill on a cycle route and his handlebars fell apart. Not sure why, think it was metal fatigue - they split down the fork. He woke up on the floor with his helmet in tens of pieces and with no idea what happened. Things can just go wrong quickly on two wheels, and the outcome is often smashing your head on something.
abandonliberty 4y ago
The distance from your head to the ground on a bike is sufficient to cause serious injury of you just fall off. Your individual risk is very low, because you don't fall of bikes often. But multiplied across millions in the population, it starts to make a difference.
- wlecometo 4y ago
  the same argument might work for walking, but none is suggesting to have helmets while walking

op00to 4y ago

> it’s true that drivers are more aggressive towards helmet wearers Citation, please? > can't think of an accident where a helmet would help when I'm on the cargo bike. Right hook.

tboughen 4y ago
“cyclists were given 8.5cm (3.3 inches) more clearance by cars if they were not wearing helmets.” https://helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm https://helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm
- threeseed 4y ago
  You know that the article you posted was about refuting this claim: "After re-analysis of Walker's data, helmet wearing is not associated with close motor vehicle passing"
  - i_am_jl 4y ago
    Confirmation bias machine strikes again.
  - KennyBlanken 4y ago
    As discussed above: the "re-analysis" took an analog measurement, filtered it into a binary "close" or "not close" at an arbitrary distance threshold, and then patted themselves on the back when the found there was no difference.
ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
There's this Ian Walker study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457506001540 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00014... It's a small sample size, so take with a pinch of salt.
- threeseed 4y ago
  Refutation of the Walker study which "assesses the extent to which the sample size in the original analysis may have contributed to spurious results". https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783373/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783373/
  - ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
    Response to the refutation: https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/bicycle-helmet-wearing-is-associated-with-closer-overtaking-by-dr https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/bicycle-he... Olivier and Walter re-analysed the same data in 2013 and claimed helmet wearing was not associated with close vehicle passing. Here we show how Olivier and Walter’s analysis addressed a subtly, but importantly, different question than Walker’s. Their conclusion was based on omitting information about variability in driver behaviour and instead dividing overtakes into two binary categories of ‘close’ and ‘not close’; we demonstrate that they did not justify or address the implications of this choice, did not have sufficient statistical power for their approach, and moreover show that slightly adjusting their definition of ‘close’ would reverse their conclusions. We then present a new analysis of the original dataset, measuring directly the extent to which drivers changed their behaviour in response to helmet wearing. This analysis confirms that drivers did, overall, get closer when the rider wore a helmet.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- alan99999 4y ago
  What Ian Walker's study failed to do was measure the amount of traffic, let alone the oncoming traffic. As he did different parts of his data collection on different days and on different roads, this key measure which often affects how far a car is able to move out going past a cyclist is a very obvious parameter to take into account. Ian's data set has times of passes in it so it might be possible to crate a proxy for traffic density but I haven't attempted this. I think it's more valid to conclude this study has no credence than to draw any conclusion from it.
u801e 4y ago
You can largely avoid right hooks by riding in the primary position/take the general purpose lane by default rather than riding towards the edge or in the bike lane.

cameronh90 4y ago

I had a cycling accident where I misjudged how tight a corner was, ran off the path, high sided and head planted into a tree. I wasn't going fast, maybe 10mph, but clearly too fast for the corner. First injury in over 15 years of cycling. Nobody else involved, indeed, nobody else in earshot, let alone cars. My friend was cycling up a hill on a cycle route and his handlebars fell apart. Not sure why, think it was metal fatigue - they split down the fork. He woke up on the floor with his helmet in tens of pieces and with no idea what happened. Things can just go wrong quickly on two wheels, and the outcome is often smashing your head on something.

abandonliberty 4y ago

The distance from your head to the ground on a bike is sufficient to cause serious injury of you just fall off. Your individual risk is very low, because you don't fall of bikes often. But multiplied across millions in the population, it starts to make a difference.

wlecometo 4y ago
the same argument might work for walking, but none is suggesting to have helmets while walking