4 ms·

As a space for cycling campaigner ( http://www.cyclebath.org.uk http://www.cyclebath.org.uk ) helmet articles are an interesting problem that tend to identify c

by awjr 12y ago

As a space for cycling campaigner ( http://www.cyclebath.org.uk http://www.cyclebath.org.uk ) helmet articles are an interesting problem that tend to identify cycling as a dangerous activity without extolling the health benefits of cycling itself. In places like New York, where their Citi Bike scheme has had huge success without helmets (23 million miles of riding, no deaths), utility cycling (commuting) has been made safe through a huge investment in the segregation of cycles from cars and pedestrians. The health benefits to the city are huge (as well as reducing congestion) and you get people of all ages cycling now. In Australia where helmets are a legal requirement, city cycle schemes are failing, but this may also be to do with a lack in building out segregated cycle infrastructure as part of these schemes. It is still a mainly hardcore, male activity there. The point is, helmets and cycling create flame wars with anecdotal evidence in favour "how it saved my life" and the response being that the health benefits to society of cycling far out weigh the risks of not wearing one (i.e. It's calculated in the UK, that a helmet law would kill 235 people per year more through obesity related deaths). When I trundle to the shops or pop into town I wear a cap (being bald brings it's own problems), but should I go out on a club ride or go off-roading I wear a helmet as the risk of falling off is higher. I also wear one when I'm out after dark. Wear one if you want, don't wear one. Just make sure you are out there riding. The health risks far outweigh the perceived risk of falling off your bike. The real problem isn't helmets, it's the lack of segregating cycles from pedestrians and motorised vehicles. Making people feel safe cycling to and from shops, homes, schools and their place of work.

Tomte 12y ago
> The point is, helmets and cycling create flame wars The point is, you are very much involved in creating flame wars by labelling the pro side as people who only have their superstitial, anecdotal fairy tales, while saying the contra side has all the cold, hard scientific facts. Let's just leave it at that.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  It's just an observation of fact. Facts are known to be biased. If there are studies that show the benefits of bicycle helmet wearing, I'd be interested in seeing them.
  - frabbit 12y ago
    "[A]n emphasis on helmets reflects a seductively individualistic approach to risk management (or even “victim blaming”) while the real gains lie elsewhere." http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817?ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaLzX&keytype=ref#ref-9 http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817?ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaL...
- TheAnimus 12y ago
  There is also another benefit of a helmet, it changes how people treat you. They apparently respect cyclists more when they wear a helmet. I was in a collision a two months ago. The driver hit me on purpose, because I had call him a wanker, he became self defining in this, by swiping me with the rear of his car, thankfully the relative speed difference would have been at most 10mph, so I only had minor injury (three fractures). The police, who have a job to collect evidence, were not remotely accepting that I was not doing anything wrong. My arm was injured, my head obviously not, so before the ambulance arrived someone had helped me remove it, and clip it to the holder on my bag. Immediately the police were questioning me, asking why I wasn't wearing my helmet when the accident happened. My head never came close to hitting the ground during the impact. The fact is that people are very judgemental. Cyclists who wear helmets tend not to be the ones who cycle straight through junctions at red lights whilst smoking a spliff such as the space cadet I saw this Monday the 6th, 9:30am, Highgate. It was interesting, that despite the obvious location of the collision, A lane that the car should not have been in, the Police were been told off by the paramedics for been hard on me, taking me off gas+air (mild anesthetic) so I could be breathalised for signs of alcohol consumption would be one good example of how I feal they acted poorly. Only after they found my pilots license did the police start to treat me with any dignity or respect, it was frankly shameful, as the other party had already admitted he used his car to injure me to a witness. Best of all, the driver isn't even been charged with assault.
  - jchrisa 12y ago
    There are studies suggesting that drivers give wider berth to the un-helmeted: http://www.helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm http://www.helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm
netcan 12y ago
In Australia there are places ideal for cycling schemes. Neighbourhoods and smaller cities, especially if universities contribute significantly to the population are decent cycling areas. Even big cities like Melbourne have some great bike routes going mostly through green belts. You can get from the 10-20km radius of the centre to ~2-5 from the centre ("inner suburbs like Richmond or Brunswick or Fitzroy, in Melbourne parlance where many people work fairly safely and pleasantly very often. Many Ozzies cycle recreationally. Helmet laws are definitely a major impediment to cycling as transport. Distances, and infrastructure issues are an impediment too. It's not Amsterdam where most journeys are <5km on flat roads on cycle lanes, but it could work for more people than it does work for.
whyenot 12y ago
> i.e. It's calculated in the UK, that a helmet law would kill 235 people per year more through obesity related deaths Calculated by whom? Do you have any more information on how the calculator arrived at this figure? To me 235 seems a lot more precise than I would have expected.
- judk 12y ago
  Obviously it is a ratio of various factors, and the error bars are not reported. Would you rather see "200"?
  - whyenot 12y ago
    No. I would like to see the error bars. 235 ± 30 is very different than 235 ± 300. Not including this information or at the very least how this figure was arrived at is dishonest. It's also a pretty clear indication that the person presenting the figure is more interested in promoting a specific agenda that in providing useful information.
danieltillett 12y ago
> Making people feel safe cycling to and from shops, homes, schools and their place of work. The real issue is actually making cyclist safer, not making them feel safer. Even segregated paths are not a solution if they have to cross traffic. I am not sure how to solve this problem short of pushing oil up to a $1000 a barrel - even then I suspect a lot of drivers would rather give up eating rather than give up their car.
- threeseed 12y ago
  I have seen dedicated cycling lanes being completely unused. Why ? Because if they are improperly designed like say their design doesn't match up with roundabouts or crossings etc then it is actually more dangerous to use them. Likewise often the cycle lanes have drains which can catch tyres.
Coding_Cat 12y ago
And aside from the health benefits, it's also better for both the environment and your wallet (and it's fun).
threeseed 12y ago
I live in the Melbourne CBD and have used the city cycle scheme. The problem isn't the scheme. It's the fact that it is downright suicidal to ride in many parts of the city. The cycling infrastructure e.g. dedicated lanes are inadequate, there are blind spots all over the place and car drivers are not taught from day one how to check for cyclists moving around them. I know people who have been crippled from cycling. And you are being pretty ridiculous by mentioning the health benefits. Cycling without adequate infrastructure is dangerous. Much more dangerous than a bit of a cardio. It is far better for people's health to educate them to stand up and take a walk a few times a day. Fix the infrastructure first. Then start encouraging the family to ride to work or school.

by awjr 12y ago

Tomte 12y ago

> The point is, helmets and cycling create flame wars The point is, you are very much involved in creating flame wars by labelling the pro side as people who only have their superstitial, anecdotal fairy tales, while saying the contra side has all the cold, hard scientific facts. Let's just leave it at that.

pessimizer 12y ago
It's just an observation of fact. Facts are known to be biased. If there are studies that show the benefits of bicycle helmet wearing, I'd be interested in seeing them.
- frabbit 12y ago
  "[A]n emphasis on helmets reflects a seductively individualistic approach to risk management (or even “victim blaming”) while the real gains lie elsewhere." http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817?ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaLzX&keytype=ref#ref-9 http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817?ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaL...
TheAnimus 12y ago
There is also another benefit of a helmet, it changes how people treat you. They apparently respect cyclists more when they wear a helmet. I was in a collision a two months ago. The driver hit me on purpose, because I had call him a wanker, he became self defining in this, by swiping me with the rear of his car, thankfully the relative speed difference would have been at most 10mph, so I only had minor injury (three fractures). The police, who have a job to collect evidence, were not remotely accepting that I was not doing anything wrong. My arm was injured, my head obviously not, so before the ambulance arrived someone had helped me remove it, and clip it to the holder on my bag. Immediately the police were questioning me, asking why I wasn't wearing my helmet when the accident happened. My head never came close to hitting the ground during the impact. The fact is that people are very judgemental. Cyclists who wear helmets tend not to be the ones who cycle straight through junctions at red lights whilst smoking a spliff such as the space cadet I saw this Monday the 6th, 9:30am, Highgate. It was interesting, that despite the obvious location of the collision, A lane that the car should not have been in, the Police were been told off by the paramedics for been hard on me, taking me off gas+air (mild anesthetic) so I could be breathalised for signs of alcohol consumption would be one good example of how I feal they acted poorly. Only after they found my pilots license did the police start to treat me with any dignity or respect, it was frankly shameful, as the other party had already admitted he used his car to injure me to a witness. Best of all, the driver isn't even been charged with assault.
- jchrisa 12y ago
  There are studies suggesting that drivers give wider berth to the un-helmeted: http://www.helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm http://www.helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm

netcan 12y ago

In Australia there are places ideal for cycling schemes. Neighbourhoods and smaller cities, especially if universities contribute significantly to the population are decent cycling areas. Even big cities like Melbourne have some great bike routes going mostly through green belts. You can get from the 10-20km radius of the centre to ~2-5 from the centre ("inner suburbs like Richmond or Brunswick or Fitzroy, in Melbourne parlance where many people work fairly safely and pleasantly very often. Many Ozzies cycle recreationally. Helmet laws are definitely a major impediment to cycling as transport. Distances, and infrastructure issues are an impediment too. It's not Amsterdam where most journeys are <5km on flat roads on cycle lanes, but it could work for more people than it does work for.

whyenot 12y ago

> i.e. It's calculated in the UK, that a helmet law would kill 235 people per year more through obesity related deaths Calculated by whom? Do you have any more information on how the calculator arrived at this figure? To me 235 seems a lot more precise than I would have expected.

judk 12y ago
Obviously it is a ratio of various factors, and the error bars are not reported. Would you rather see "200"?
- whyenot 12y ago
  No. I would like to see the error bars. 235 ± 30 is very different than 235 ± 300. Not including this information or at the very least how this figure was arrived at is dishonest. It's also a pretty clear indication that the person presenting the figure is more interested in promoting a specific agenda that in providing useful information.

danieltillett 12y ago

> Making people feel safe cycling to and from shops, homes, schools and their place of work. The real issue is actually making cyclist safer, not making them feel safer. Even segregated paths are not a solution if they have to cross traffic. I am not sure how to solve this problem short of pushing oil up to a $1000 a barrel - even then I suspect a lot of drivers would rather give up eating rather than give up their car.

threeseed 12y ago
I have seen dedicated cycling lanes being completely unused. Why ? Because if they are improperly designed like say their design doesn't match up with roundabouts or crossings etc then it is actually more dangerous to use them. Likewise often the cycle lanes have drains which can catch tyres.

Coding_Cat 12y ago

And aside from the health benefits, it's also better for both the environment and your wallet (and it's fun).

threeseed 12y ago

I live in the Melbourne CBD and have used the city cycle scheme. The problem isn't the scheme. It's the fact that it is downright suicidal to ride in many parts of the city. The cycling infrastructure e.g. dedicated lanes are inadequate, there are blind spots all over the place and car drivers are not taught from day one how to check for cyclists moving around them. I know people who have been crippled from cycling. And you are being pretty ridiculous by mentioning the health benefits. Cycling without adequate infrastructure is dangerous. Much more dangerous than a bit of a cardio. It is far better for people's health to educate them to stand up and take a walk a few times a day. Fix the infrastructure first. Then start encouraging the family to ride to work or school.