The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Profpointy]

I agree however unless these pedestrian head Injuries are properly categorised instead of simply used as a carte blanche comparison between cycling and walking then it simply isn't a proper statistical comparison.

whilst that's perhaps true, not sure cycling stats are so categorised either

 

[doog]

Why not? The cycling head injuries aren't properly categorised either - racing gets lumped in with the old maid pootling to the corner shop.

I thought no one ever got Injured racing ..I'm sure I read that on here ..every other week

 

[david k]

It would reduce them, as the budget is unlikely to be bottomless. It's a balancing act and another Nice Way Code should absolutely not be the top spending priority.

I posted in accordance with motorists ignorance, it would help if they understood the precautions cyclists were taking for their safety to increase understanding and hopefully reduce close passes etc. It is important as are other things, I couldn't say which would be priority without investigating more as to the cost to benefit ratio of all the suggestions if it was a limited budget especially

 

[Profpointy]

I thought no one ever got Injured racing ..I'm sure I read that on here ..every other week

But anyway, doesn't the different risk levels question, whether within pedestrians or cyclists still leave open the question of whether helmets actually help? From Australia, we already pretty much know they don't help cyclists on average - and i've sèen nothing that even claims that they would help "risky" cyclists but that's somehow balanced by harming "low risk" cyclists. It could just as well be true that helmets are more helpfull to low risk cyclists balance by more harm to high risk cyclists. We only know that on balance harm and benefit balance out (if anything more harm than good seemingly)

 

[Profpointy]

I posted in accordance with motorists ignorance, it would help if they understood the precautions cyclists were taking for their safety to increase understanding and hopefully reduce close passes etc. It is important as are other things, I couldn't say which would be priority without investigating more as to the cost to benefit ratio of all the suggestions if it was a limited budget especially

Frankly I'd rather they spend zero of the budget, limited or otherwise, on facilities. The oeverwhelming majority of which make cycling less convenient and / or more dangerous as well as increasing agression (hence risk) from motorists if you deign not to use said dangerous facilities.

 

[srw]

Frankly I'd rather they spend zero of the budget, limited or otherwise, on facilities. The oeverwhelming majority of which make cycling less convenient and / or more dangerous as well as increasing agression (hence risk) from motorists if you deign not to use said dangerous facilities.

Having just spent a week across four countries, in two of which there are lots and lots of very good facilities and lots and lots of cyclists and almost no helmets, and in two of which there are a quite a lot of poor facilities and not very many cyclists and quite a lot of helmets for the number of cyclists I'd beg to suggest that the evidence is that if you spend lots of money on good quality, convenient and safe facilities then you get more cylists, fewer of whom feel the need to wear something which may or may not make them actually safer.

 

[mjr]

I couldn't say which would be priority without investigating more as to the cost to benefit ratio of all the suggestions if it was a limited budget especially

I'll wait. You go look at the cost to benefit ratio of road "safety" media campaigns, even if we ignore their rather dodgy content. I think it was mentioned by the 2010 Coalition government in justifying cutting more than half off the "THINK!" campaign budget.

Frankly I'd rather they spend zero of the budget, limited or otherwise, on facilities. The oeverwhelming majority of which make cycling less convenient and / or more dangerous as well as increasing agression (hence risk) from motorists if you deign not to use said dangerous facilities.

How do "Except cycles" plates on no-entry or no-turn signs make cycling less convenient or more dangerous? How does replacing high kerbs and obnoxious barriers with simple bollards make cycling less convenient or more dangerous? I'd accept that we need tough design standards (rather than the current weak and often wrong guidance), but infrastructure used well could offer improvements. It can be more like the Netherlands - it doesn't have to be like Nuneaton.

 

[Profpointy]

Having just spent a week across four countries, in two of which there are lots and lots of very good facilities and lots and lots of cyclists and almost no helmets, and in two of which there are a quite a lot of poor facilities and not very many cyclists and quite a lot of helmets for the number of cyclists I'd beg to suggest that the evidence is that if you spend lots of money on good quality, convenient and safe facilities then you get more cylists, fewer of whom feel the need to wear something which may or may not make them actually safer.

Is it a case of wet pavements cause rain though? Serious question, and I don't know the answer. I've visited Amsterdam a few times, not cycled, and did afterwards wonder if the vast numbers of cyclists had really been coralled into (relatively) narrow cycle lanes so that the fewer in number (but more important?) cars had the road. I was led to be believe that cyclists were obliged to use the cycle lanes too. Dunno, but it's worth questioning. It'd be quite hard to put a move on cycling in Amsterdam as you might in London.

 

[Profpointy]

I'll wait. You go look at the cost to benefit ratio of road "safety" media campaigns, even if we ignore their rather dodgy content. I think it was mentioned by the 2010 Coalition government in justifying cutting more than half off the "THINK!" campaign budget.


How do "Except cycles" plates on no-entry or no-turn signs make cycling less convenient or more dangerous? How does replacing high kerbs and obnoxious barriers with simple bollards make cycling less convenient or more dangerous? I'd accept that we need tough design standards (rather than the current weak and often wrong guidance), but infrastructure used well could offer improvements. It can be more like the Netherlands - it doesn't have to be like Nuneaton.

If I've understood your point, most of what you describe is road infrastructure which is less hostile to cycles rather than cycle infrastructure per se (other than "except cycles" to be fair). What I onbject to is segregated cycle lanes which make the essentially safe straight bit marginally safer but make every driveay, side road and junction moe dangerous and / or a detour and encourages motorists to "punish" you with close passes for daring to ride on the road. Likewise the paint cycle lanes encourage motorists to drive up to their line passing you by maybe a thou, whereas all but the most inept would have given you a more or less sensible clearance without the line.

 

[srw]

Is it a case of wet pavements cause rain though? Serious question, and I don't know the answer. I've visited Amsterdam a few times, not cycled, and did afterwards wonder if the vast numbers of cyclists had really been coralled into (relatively) narrow cycle lanes so that the fewer in number (but more important?) cars had the road. I was led to be believe that cyclists were obliged to use the cycle lanes too. Dunno, but it's worth questioning. It'd be quite hard to put a move on cycling in Amsterdam as you might in London.

We went nowhere near Amsterdam. Straight across the Southern Netherlands to Cologne, then back via Aachen across northern Belgium to Ghent. And the facilities in NL and BE weren't just in the shape of cycle tracks and lanes (widish, but in the Netherlands too often made of red concrete blocks designed for Dutch bikes with wide tyres, not 25mm road tyres) but also in the shape of trains that actively welcomed cyclists.

[edit: https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/the-latest-news-on-the-fridays-vi-v-a-colonia-tour.206807/]

I believe that the facilities and investment in cycling preceded the cycling, so unless you believe in time flowing backwards then the correlation strongly implies causation. Central London, of course, is also suggestive...

 

[Big Andy]

Where was the ride? 15 in 8 miles is fairly low unless out in the countryside. Your location seems to be "Huddersfield & Leicester" and neither is all that for cycling AFAICR.

That particular ride was along a section of the Calder Valley Greenway. Now 15 was just an guesstimate as I wasn't particularly counting but seems about right and similar to the amount I would expect to see on that route.

BTW Their are loads of cyclists in Leicester and as far as I have experienced I would say the cycling infrastructure is very good,

 

[EnPassant]

Frankly I'd rather they spend zero of the budget, limited or otherwise, on facilities. The oeverwhelming majority of which make cycling less convenient and / or more dangerous as well as increasing agression (hence risk) from motorists if you deign not to use said dangerous facilities.

Having just spent a week across four countries, in two of which there are lots and lots of very good facilities and lots and lots of cyclists and almost no helmets, and in two of which there are a quite a lot of poor facilities and not very many cyclists and quite a lot of helmets for the number of cyclists I'd beg to suggest that the evidence is that if you spend lots of money on good quality, convenient and safe facilities then you get more cylists, fewer of whom feel the need to wear something which may or may not make them actually safer.

Can anyone enlighten me as to exactly why the money that does get spent in this country tends to be on the former than the latter? Some of it must certainly about councils and numbers games, is there anything else?

It's a pet hate of mine that I not only have to put up with occasional abuse from car drivers about taking "their" space, but this galls one even more when money spent on schemes ostensibly for the benefit of cyclists but is so badly used that I and most others eschew the result and are consequently opened up to even more abuse than if they didn't exist at all.
There's a video of this behaviour in the current 4x4 thread
[QUOTE 4472360, member: 45"]4x4 nobber?[/QUOTE]

 

[mjr]

If I've understood your point, most of what you describe is road infrastructure which is less hostile to cycles rather than cycle infrastructure per se (other than "except cycles" to be fair). What I onbject to is segregated cycle lanes which make the essentially safe straight bit marginally safer but make every driveay, side road and junction moe dangerous and / or a detour and encourages motorists to "punish" you with close passes for daring to ride on the road. Likewise the paint cycle lanes encourage motorists to drive up to their line passing you by maybe a thou, whereas all but the most inept would have given you a more or less sensible clearance without the line.

As you know, I disagree with pretty much all of that except making driveways more dangerous and this isn't the place to have that discussion again, but I don't really mind if we prioritise fixing the hostile road infrastructure before bypassing the quasi-motorways, as long as micturating the budget onto screens isn't the thing that comes first.

BTW Their are loads of cyclists in Leicester and as far as I have experienced I would say the cycling infrastructure is very good,

I might have missed the best bits, but it was a typical cycle-hostile English city when I last visited. Not the worst, but most definitely not "very good". It's behind Cambridge or London and maybe Norwich and Bristol, all of which are well behind most of the Netherlands. There's still a long way to go in Leicester before ordinary people won't believe in safety snake oil.

 

[mjr]

Can anyone enlighten me as to exactly why the money that does get spent in this country tends to be on the former than the latter? Some of it must certainly about councils and numbers games, is there anything else?

Partly numbers game: councils can report the "easy" but marginal straight miles and ignore the expensive difficult junction changes that would actually improve things, while it's usually difficult to link the casualty figures to botched road layouts as long as a misspent cycling budget doesn't actually make things much worse. So that tends to favour doing the useless straights as well, then dumping people back onto carriageways through junctions.

Often it's also some combination of a county council that's crap at cycling and vehicular or no cycling campaign groups IMO.

Finally, national government has dropped the ball. They don't let councils bulid random lethal junk for motorists since 50 or so years ago, but have never yet enforced cycling design standards.

 

[Justinslow]

Look @Justinslow, since this was addressed directly to me - you are the one who types one thing and means something else entirely; I do not do this. I have never once said that I 'don't want people to wear a helmet under any circumstances', because I am in favour of informed free choice. You are making up things that I have not said and accusing me of saying them, and I would like you to apologise.

I replied to your trolling post, but was actually talking to @User, the clue should be the fact that I named him twice in that post!