Helmets!

[Wobblers]

Dell, what exactly do you need?

Links to papers, the pdfs or just a summary? I could see what I can dig up on the PubMed and Science Citation Index for you.

The problem with insurance companies is that, while they're very good making up and reading acturial tables, for risks that can't be so easily quantified, they're at best going to err on what is the safe side (for them). A group of cyclists riding to Brighton through the night is one of those risks - common sense would say that helmets would help so they'll insist on helmets. You need to be able to present sound evidence, preferably a stack of papers which refutes their "it's obvious, so it must be true" approach.

Oh... and for the record, and to counter the Undead with their "I wouldn't be here today without my helmet" brigade, had I been wearing a helmet in my last and biggest crash, it would have been my head that would have hit the ground first - at 25 mph - rather than my shoulder. If I'd been lucky, I'd have turned up at A & E on the back of an ambulance strapped to a spinal board. A helmet is not some magical device that wards off all harm and I wish people would stop pretending that it is.

 

[dellzeqq]

"But you're paying us a premium of £1000. If one of your riders suffers a serious head injury and can blame it on someone else there we'll be down £5 million. We know it's a very very very very remote possibility, and there's no robust scientific data either way, but the common-sense view is that a helmet might save us £5 million."

At this level, insurance is more about emotion and underwriter gut feel than about hard fact.

I'm sure you're right, and I intend to rely on emotion. I may even wear a suit.

 

[dellzeqq]

Yes. That's my first extra suggestion. Don't think about death. Insurance companies (in the nicest possible way, obviously), quite like death. It's cheap. A death will set us back a small six-figure sum. A serious injury requiring lifelong care (especially if that life isn't shortened) will cost a large seven-figure sum.

The second extra suggestion, if you haven't done so already is to talk to the pros. Bike Events run events with tens of thousands of people and don't require a helmet. The BHF runs a dozen or more cycling events and don't require a helmet. Who does their insurance?

I'm going to leave that one well alone. L2B. Death. Yup. shoot happens.

There is a company that does cycle rides and doesn't make a fuss about helmets, and that, of course is where it might go - but I've been making the point for months and it's not got anywhere yet.

 

[dellzeqq]

Sorry. Not relevant. Don't even go there with an insurance company. They won't be interested. Keep it very simple indeed.

Which company are you talking to? Is it the broker or the underwriter? Your approach ought to be different with each.

the broker. How would it be different?

 

[dellzeqq]

Dell, what exactly do you need?

Links to papers, the pdfs or just a summary? I could see what I can dig up on the PubMed and Science Citation Index for you.

The problem with insurance companies is that, while they're very good making up and reading acturial tables, for risks that can't be so easily quantified, they're at best going to err on what is the safe side (for them). A group of cyclists riding to Brighton through the night is one of those risks - common sense would say that helmets would help so they'll insist on helmets. You need to be able to present sound evidence, preferably a stack of papers which refutes their "it's obvious, so it must be true" approach.

Oh... and for the record, and to counter the Undead with their "I wouldn't be here today without my helmet" brigade, had I been wearing a helmet in my last and biggest crash, it would have been my head that would have hit the ground first - at 25 mph - rather than my shoulder. If I'd been lucky, I'd have turned up at A & E on the back of an ambulance strapped to a spinal board. A helmet is not some magical device that wards off all harm and I wish people would stop pretending that it is.

bear in mind that I might well be dribbling this nonsense rather than typing it if I hadn't worn a helmet. But do I wear a helmet now? No. Why? It messes up my hair.

What I need (or think I need, now that srw is here to guide me) is a couple of easily digested numbers that suggest that your chances of getting killed (point taken about cheap) or brain damaged is pretty slim if you're not being hit by a car, bus or truck. Point taken about the 5 mill. The emotion thing is really about turning it round - if you don't give way on this the charity loses £100,000 this year, and maybe more in future years, and we wouldn't want that to happen would we? (One of the great things about meetings which you are called to by somebody that assumes that you can be persuaded is that the only way to get the outcome they assume is going to happen is for them to change their mind....)

 

[Wobblers]

bear in mind that I might well be dribbling this nonsense rather than typing it if I hadn't worn a helmet. But do I wear a helmet now? No. Why? It messes up my hair.

And I could be quietly dribbling (instead of noisily dribbling, according to some!) had I been wearing one. Or, more likely, had our positions been reversed we would be saying the opposite... Anecdata does not make for good statistics.

What I need (or think I need, now that srw is here to guide me) is a couple of easily digested numbers that suggest that your chances of getting killed (point taken about cheap) or brain damaged is pretty slim if you're not being hit by a car, bus or truck. Point taken about the 5 mill. The emotion thing is really about turning it round - if you don't give way on this the charity loses £100,000 this year, and maybe more in future years, and we wouldn't want that to happen would we? (One of the great things about meetings which you are called to by somebody that assumes that you can be persuaded is that the only way to get the outcome they assume is going to happen is for them to change their mind....)

Anyway, some data...

Traumatic head injury is responsible for 70% of all road cyclist deaths.

Collision with motorised vehicles accounts for 90% of all road cyclist deaths.

In other words, at night with very low traffic densities, the risk of death is very low. The risk of debilitating injury is primarily predictated on brain injury, so the risks of such injury can be expected to be similarly low.

Just how low is hard to say. One study from New Zealand came up with a figure of 30.74 injuries per million hours cycled, and 6.24 serious injuries per million hours cycled. A serious injury is defined as one requiring hospital admission - or death. To put that in context, assuming 1000 Martlet riders who take an average of ten hours to get to Brighton, you could reasonably expect a 30% of an injury occurring with a 6% chance of a serious injury (which would not necessarily result in an insurance claim - most "serious injuries" actually aren't: my broken hand was classed as one - though I classed it as seriously irritating!).

Bear in mind figures for the UK will be different. I haven't been able to come up with the equivalent UK numbers yet (if anyone has them please let me know!). Also, this is an average over all conditions - I would expect the probability of serious injuries to be substantially less due to the decreased traffic.

 

[dellzeqq]

And I could be quietly dribbling (instead of noisily dribbling, according to some!) had I been wearing one. Or, more likely, had our positions been reversed we would be saying the opposite... Anecdata does not make for good statistics.

that I grant you.

Thanks for the headline figures. Tomorrow morning I'm going to do the sensible thing and ask the CTC about death and head injury on club runs.

Of course the £5,000,000 question is about negligence. I've just got to make darn sure that the Martlets isn't negligent.

 

[ufkacbln]

And I could be quietly dribbling (instead of noisily dribbling, according to some!) had I been wearing one. Or, more likely, had our positions been reversed we would be saying the opposite... Anecdata does not make for good statistics.



Anyway, some data...

Traumatic head injury is responsible for 70% of all road cyclist deaths.

Collision with motorised vehicles accounts for 90% of all road cyclist deaths.

Interesting when according to some (Hamer, M. (27 August 2005)"Stopping the slaughter of innocent pedestrians". New Scientist) sources TBI is responsible for 80% of deaths in Pedestrians!

Once again we see a far greater saving of lives gained with the use of pedestrian helmets!





The problem though is that in both cases this is extremely flawed data... The cause of death is often listed as Head Injury when it is not necceaassaily the case. Most of these victims will have massive trauma which could and would have contributed to that death.

 

[Wobblers]

Bear in mind figures for the UK will be different. I haven't been able to come up with the equivalent UK numbers yet (if anyone has them please let me know!). Also, this is an average over all conditions - I would expect the probability of serious injuries to be substantially less due to the decreased traffic.

I've now found the DoT figures for 2009. Per billion kilometres cycled:

fatalities: 33.55
Seriously injured: 840.65
Slightly injured: 4630

For 1000 Martlets riders and assuming a course distance of 100 km, we get

Probability of:
fatality: 0.33%
serious injury: 8.4%
slight injury: 46%

This is very much a worst case scenario. The DoT figures are for all roads in all conditions. Quiet rural roads such as the Martlets route are considerably safer (I've seen some figures that I can't now find that suggest about four times safer). In addition, 90% of fatalities and most serious injuries are down to collisions with motor vehicles - not really a factor at night with no traffic! KSI figures will probably be a tenth at best of the above.

It occurs to me that the BHF L2B goes down much the same roads. Though I believe they're closed to traffic (the roads, that is!!) at night time the traffic density's so low so a direct comparison would seem to be reasonable. Just how many casualties do the BHF rides get? It could be worthwhile contacting the BHF's insurers - since they will already have quantitative data on the risks they ought to be able to give you a more representative quote.

And the AUK seem to be able to find insurance of £2 a rider down similar rural roads, often involving night cycling without mandating helmets. Someone else to contact?

Of course the £5,000,000 question is about negligence. I've just got to make darn sure that the Martlets isn't negligent.

Quite.

 

[Wobblers]

The problem though is that in both cases this is extremely flawed data... The cause of death is often listed as Head Injury when it is not necceaassaily the case. Most of these victims will have massive trauma which could and would have contributed to that death.

Very true. It's been interesting, wading through some of the published research. Papers from the nineties go on about how helmets would save 88% (referenced to one paper whose conclusions have now been retracted) and mandatory helmet use is the bestest thing since sliced bread. One paper I've read highlights the 38% drop in casualties in cyclists in Australia and mention in passing that the number of adult cyclists fell 86% No mention was made at all that the cycling rate fell more than the casualty rate - so the risks were in fact increased!

More recent papers are far more reticent about compulsion...

 

[MacB]

Just how low is hard to say. One study from New Zealand came up with a figure of 30.74 injuries per million hours cycled, and 6.24 serious injuries per million hours cycled. A serious injury is defined as one requiring hospital admission - or death. To put that in context, assuming 1000 Martlet riders who take an average of ten hours to get to Brighton, you could reasonably expect a 30% of an injury occurring with a 6% chance of a serious injury (which would not necessarily result in an insurance claim - most "serious injuries" actually aren't: my broken hand was classed as one - though I classed it as seriously irritating!).

Are your numbers right there? 31 injuries per million hours cycling versus 1000 Martletts riders and give them say 10 hours cycling each which would give you 10000 hours of cycling. That would be a factor of 100 and so probability of injury 0.3%, or am I reading your numbers wrong?

 

[MacB]

I've now found the DoT figures for 2009. Per billion kilometres cycled:

fatalities: 33.55
Seriously injured: 840.65
Slightly injured: 4630

For 1000 Martlets riders and assuming a course distance of 100 km, we get

Probability of:
fatality: 0.33%
serious injury: 8.4%
slight injury: 46%

Sorry McW but numbers again, 1k riders doing 100km is a total of 100k km, 1 billion divided by 100k gives a factor of 10k. This would give the probabilities as:-

fatality - 0.0034%
serious injury - 0.084%
slight injury - 0.463%

 

[srw]

the broker. How would it be different?

Probably too late now - sorry, I didnt' log back in last night.

The broker is motivated primarily by his commission, because that's what drives his profit. He may have a profit share, but that will be slaughtered by any sizable claim. The insurer is motivated by a balance of income and claims, and so cares much more about the claims potential than the broker.

The broker will be looking to sell things to the insurer that the insurer doesn't necessarily want.

 

[Wobblers]

Sorry McW but numbers again, 1k riders doing 100km is a total of 100k km, 1 billion divided by 100k gives a factor of 10k. This would give the probabilities as:-

fatality - 0.0034%
serious injury - 0.084%
slight injury - 0.463%

MacB, you've worked out the absolute probabilities, not the percentage probabilities. Expressed as a probability, where 1 = certainty (eg, the sun came up this morning, so that had a probability of 1) and 0 = will not happen (the Earth wasn't eaten by a giant space lizard last night so that probability equals zero) we get your numbers:

fataility - 0.0034.

Expressing as bookies' odds that's a 1 in 300 chance - for the entire event. However, as I've said, this is a gross overestimate. When you factor the lack of traffic and remember that 90% of cyclist fatalities are due to collision with motorised vehicles we come up with a probability ten times lower:

a 1 in 3000 chance.

That's a very low number: on average, people in this country have a 1 in 10000 chance of dying in a RTA each year. Insurers deal with this level of risk routinely - your car insurance covers that for (usually) hundreds rather than thousands of pounds.

I also have to stress that it is more risky to drive down a country lane than cycle down it. If you were to require all the Martlets riders to drive, the probability of death or serious injury would be significantly greater. It really is a very safe undertaking - that Dell's been running the FNRttC for so long with very few minor injuries is ample testament to that.

 

[dellzeqq]

Probably too late now - sorry, I didnt' log back in last night.

The broker is motivated primarily by his commission, because that's what drives his profit. He may have a profit share, but that will be slaughtered by any sizable claim. The insurer is motivated by a balance of income and claims, and so cares much more about the claims potential than the broker.

The broker will be looking to sell things to the insurer that the insurer doesn't necessarily want.

and I think this turned out to be quite important

We have got procedures in place. We've got a risk assessment. We offer free Dr. Bike sessions. We issue a checklist. We arrange discounts on servicing. We send out, perhaps, 20 individual messages on safety to each rider, and have pages on safety on the blog. Nobody will be allowed to register in eight days before the ride. Every rider is handed a routesheet at the start, which highlights safety on Reigate Hill. There is a safety talk at the beginning of the ride. We'll have about 35-40 marshals on the route, and there will be another safety talk as they get to the top of Reigate Hill, with marshals posted on the hill yelling 'slow down' to speeders.

This year we will have a straightforward message to the riders 'no brakes, no lights, no ride'. There will be brake monitors checking the brakes on bikes that look as if they need checking. If riders don't have lights they will be pulled.

All of this was put to the broker, who was sort of impressed. We're working out a form of words that some people won't like, but helmets will not be compulsory. He, the broker, is confident of selling the ride to the insurer.

Thanks for your advice, srw. As you see, the word 'emotion' was key. The broker has seen a cyclist friend suffer brain damage - whether or not that was a result of not wearing a helmet wasn't up for discussion. He has a duty to look after the Martlets whose insurance premiums will leap if the insurers have to settle a claim. We discussed risk reduction and liability reduction as two separate but linked issues, and, as I say, there was pretty broad agreement.