Chris Boardman - Helmets not even top 10 things keep cycling safe

[winjim]

I suspect you were told that by someone speaking from a carcentric viewpoint.

l was told that by someone running a speed awareness course on behalf of South Yorkshire police. He was a keen motorcyclist and seemed pretty clued up on many aspects kf road safety. Hazard perception, including cyclists, was a big part of the course.

WRT the cycle lane, I think the intention is good. Slowing the flow of traffic makes things safer for everyone, cyclists included. And a tin of white paint is much cheaper than building traffic islands. It just has the unfortunate side effect of making a crap cycle lane.

 

[StuartG]

I had a visit to A&E last week, during which one of the nurses insisted that they see lots of cyclists who hadn't been wearing helmets with head injuries but no head injuries amongst those who had been wearing one. I did struggle to believe it at the time.

I had a classic 'over the bonnet' experience many years ago. I had to be taken to hospital (Kings College) with a heavily bruised pelvis. Not a mark on my head but I was still subjected to "I see lots of cyclists ..." speech too when he discovered I had not been wearing one.

I did point out I was a statistician and this greatly concerned me as they did not seem to appear in the statistics. Was he and his colleagues covering up on the reporting of all these excess head injuries? I was quickly discharged!

 

[winjim]

Problem page of the Grauniad a couple of weeks ago:

"How can I get my father to wear a bike helmet? He recently had a serious accident in which he fractured his collarbone yet he still refuses to wear one."

Of the half dozen or so published replies, all were pro helmet; not a single one pointed out the very obvious flaw in the questioner's reasoning.

 

[benb]

Do you wear a seat belt on a flight ?

During takeoff and landing, and when otherwise directed to by the illuminated signs, yes. Why?

 

[Sara_H]

I had a classic 'over the bonnet' experience many years ago. I had to be taken to hospital (Kings College) with a heavily bruised pelvis. Not a mark on my head but I was still subjected to "I see lots of cyclists ..." speech too when he discovered I had not been wearing one.

I did point out I was a statistician and this greatly concerned me as they did not seem to appear in the statistics. Was he and his colleagues covering up on the reporting of all these excess head injuries? I was quickly discharged!

My OH had a nasty bike injury last year after coming off and impaling his hand on a spikey low down fence. I lost count of the number of people who asked him "weren't you wearing a helmet/" before I tetchily replied on his behalf "clearly not on his freaking hand he wasn't."

Interestingly, the OH had another accident a few years ago where he came off face plant style and suffered a le fort 3 fracture (facial fractures). The max fax surgeon said it was relatively common among cyclists, and there was no difference among the helmeted and non helmeted.

 

[ufkacbln]

My OH had a nasty bike injury last year after coming off and impaling his hand on a spikey low down fence. I lost count of the number of people who asked him "weren't you wearing a helmet/" before I tetchily replied on his behalf "clearly not on his freaking hand he wasn't."

Interestingly, the OH had another accident a few years ago where he came off face plant style and suffered a le fort 3 fracture (facial fractures). The max fax surgeon said it was relatively common among cyclists, and there was no difference among the helmeted and non helmeted.

Firstly....

All the cohort studies support the safety of cycling as NONE ever have cycling as a major cause in head injuries. Previous head injuries, assault, simple falls, stairs all feature and the most common is aclohol

Secondly, as I have mentioned elsewhere and seems to be avoided by the pro-helmeteers

The present EN1078 is about effective as a wet paper bag and mot even recognised by some countries and organisations.

There is a lot of evidence to also show that present helmets are ineffective due to the small amounts of material left to absorb energy, never mind the snag points and the issues they cause.

Finally the British Dental Association wants greater facial coverage.

Amazing though how weight, being too warm etc become justifiable arguments against the devlopment of a helmet that actually works, yet are unacceptable if you use the same argument against wearing one

 

[DooDah]

Previous head injuries, assault, simple falls, stairs all feature and the most common is aclohol

Are you drunk?

 

[benb]

Quite.
EN1078 is tested for 150 joules - which is basically a vertical fall onto a hard surface with little or no forward momentum.
The human skull will fail somewhere between 14-70 joules, depending on individual and exact place of impact.

So in the best case, a helmet will only protect you from an impact of 164-220 joules. Any more than that, and the helmet won't make any difference.
It's pretty obvious that that's such a narrow range, the number of impacts that fall into that category is vanishingly small. There are tons of activities we do where the risk is so tiny that we don't bother with helmets. So why is cycling singled out?

 

[Markymark]

Is cycling singled out? I see lots of sports where they wear helmets.

 

[Inertia]

Is cycling singled out? I see lots of sports where they wear helmets.

Cycling is not just a sport though, its a mode of transport, Car Race drivers wear helmets yet their commuter counterparts don't.

 

[benb]

Is cycling singled out? I see lots of sports where they wear helmets.

Cycling is singled out as an activity where you are constantly exhorted to wear a helmet, accused of being an idiot or brain dead if you don't, and there is the frequent threat of compulsion. Yet the actual risks are far lower than lots of other things that we do not wear helmets for.

 

[ufkacbln]

Not

Are you drunk?

Not yet.......