Cycling UK Forum

irc wrote:Meanwhile I've given up trying to persuade my local council that a marked cycle lane within the doorzone of a line of parked cars on a downhill stretch of road is a bad idea. At least if a cyclist is injured there they can sue the council as well as the council has been well warned.

Well done. I trust you have found an alternative route yourself?

George Riches wrote:...but helmet wearing rates seem much lower among those who wear normal clothing whilst cycling.

Standing on the railway station yesterday, I counted twelve cyclists arrive. Only one in cycle specific clothing. Of the twelve, nine had helmets (that did include the one in lycra). So eight elevenths (73%) of "normal" comuting cyclists wear helmets. Obviously not really a valid statistic but I could probably repeat the count at many railway stations and get not dissimilar results.

The non-helmet wearers (I think) are the casual cyclists. If I'm right, not many people without helmets will be out and about during the rush hours.

I don't know when most bike accidents happen. IF they happen during rush hour, then the statistics may support, even more, the conclusion that wearing a helmet is a bad idea...

However, if proportionally more accidents happen at other times, then maybe we are not actually seeing the benefits of a helmet in the accident statistics because of the small proportion of "victims" who wear them...

I've just been reading the article on contributary negligence! I'd read it before but didn't pick up on the following:

"The Department for Transport is currently engaged in a new evidence review on the effectiveness of helmets (as part of a wider study of factors affecting cycle safety), in a tacit acknowledgement that the evidence-base for the effectiveness of helmets is still contested. "

Does anyone have any information on this? Do we know what is being reviewed or when they might finish?

Davebax - No fault in your argument at all. As with Edinburghfixed, I have a slight feeling that "anti-helmet" is not the correct term.

Now if you were a novice, who had just found the CTC web site and you were sufficiently interested in the benefits of helmets you might type into the search box - cycle helmet. This is what you get:

Everyone has their own reasons for choosing whether or not to wear a helmet. Some people feel safer and more confident if they do wear one; while others don’t wear one because they think helmets make cycling appear exceptionally dangerous (which it isn't!) – and a few just don’t want to mess up their hair!

That is the first paragraph. Nothing there to suggest that helmets might be a bad idea, in and of themselves. Note also the language - "exeptionally dangerous (which it isn't)" - What impression does that give? To me is says cycling is dangerous but not exeptionally so. Then it says "and just a few don't want to mess up their hair!" - to me that suggests that only vain people would choose not to wear a helmet.

You have to go to the third and fourth paragraphs (and there is only four) for any suggestion that helmets might be a bad thing:

Compulsion laws in other countries have reduced the number of people who cycle – and the more people who cycle, the safer cycling becomes. What's more, cycling is such a healthy activity that people are far more likely to gain from it than otherwise. It's therefore important not to put anyone off.

Several recent reports (including four papers in peer-reviewed medical journals) have found no link between changes in helmet wearing rates and cyclists' safety - and there are even cases where safety seems to have worsened as helmet-wearing increased.

I have fewer problems with these paragraphs. I'd prefer it if they were more definitive, but to be fair that is difficult given the remaining uncertainties. There is a hyperlink to a CTC page talking about Dr. Walker's research but nothing else. Why no links to the other reports from within the text - pro or anti? Better still why not a line encouraging people to read up on this subject as some of the findings are counter intuitive...

Again look at that last line - "and there are even cases where safety seems to have worsened as helmet-wearing increased." It's a throw away line isn't it? It's phrased not to be taken seriously, yet this is the crux of the matter - Does wearing a helmet make you less safe?

From what I've read and from the majority of comments on this thread, the answer would seem to be - yes, wearing a helmet will make you less safe.

I can see why an organisation like CTC would be slightly soft on that kind of statement - but surely the above illustrates that the CTC stance is actually a skewed support of helmets.

meic wrote:I am not sure, how about compulsion in England. Leaving people free to choose in the devolved nations.

Of course that would be ethically questionable - we could try compulsion in the Principality first - as we usually do.

drossall wrote:...And to get back to the original point, given all the available research from specialist researchers, what could the CTC add? It's not a research body and would just end up commissioning more of the same from the same people. It's not as if there is one obvious study that would resolve all the confusion.

I know CTC is not a research body. CTC however is able to make press statements quite happily saying that cycling is safer when there are more cyclists and is able to publish data of which parts of the UK are safer. I think that is so close to being in the research field that the differences are trivial. My wish was for CTC to be involved in further research, rather than to conduct it unilaterally. CTC does carry some weight as a lobbying group but, arguably, does not use this in as clear or consistent way as it might.

Much of the current research on helmets is actually quite old and it is certainly not complete. The most trusted research (in terms of peer review) seems to look at whole population data and shows little or no benefit from the use of helmets. Smaller sample based studies however seem to indicate that there is a benefit (to the individual) of helmet use. Clearly there is a mis-match which is not adequately addressed. I think Dr. Walker's work sheds some light onto the possible reasons for this. I think there is real scope to extend that research to examine cycling in other locations and to examine the effects of other factors, such as bike and clothes choices. If such work is to be conducted, it needs to be funded. CTC is an organisation which represents cyclists. As such they are clearly an interested party but they remain neutral by not having a vested interest in helmet manufacture.

I'm an engineer, not a researcher and I lack the skills (and to be fair, inclination) to address the problem. I hoped that collectively we might have been able to begin to scope out the specific, detailed questions which need to be answered by further research. Since starting the thread I don't think we have advanced this aim much - but it has been enjoyable. I have done some more reading and a good deal of thinking!

I think Si possibly hit the nail on the head a few pages ago. Regardless of whether helmets help of hinder - they are a very minor factor in a cyclists overall safety. Maybe we should focus our collective attention on other matters. My only problem with that is that of public perception of cyclists. We will never be able to able to convice the "driver of the clapham mondeo" that it is his behaviour which is at fault. Our best bet is to keep banging on to the legislators - and for that we need an evidence based approach.

It's very cosy here on the CTC forum, talking to fellow cyclists, who for all their diverse opinions are broadly all on the same side. The reality is that the politicians do not see many votes in helping cyclists in any real, tangible way. We are there, at best, as a means of putting a tick in another box to show their political credentials. If compulsion is introduced - it's a political victory: The politicians will be seen to have acted to make us safer - even if the result is more injuries.

There is a very real possibility that the helmet debate will need to be resolved properly before anyone will be allowed to really begin to tackle the bigger issues.

beachcomber wrote:I drew a circle with my house at the centre. As I live on the sea front half the ride was 'on' water. Could I do this by pedalo or wouldn't that count?

You could do the semi-circle entirely by pedalo. A pedalo counts as a cycle?

Both petrol and acetone work!

Probably best to remove the wheels and definitely work outside.

I've also had success with tar remover (Armourall I think)- available from all good car parts shops and halfords. This smells better and is less likely to cause other damage.

axel_knutt wrote:A helmet may well make the difference between walking away and ending up in a wheelchair. But then, it may make the difference between ending up in a wheelchair and being killed outright, and that doesn't seem quite so appealing.........

Sorry - You've lost me there: Are you saying it's better to die than be in a wheelchair? If you are, then you are entitled to your opinion - but most people would stop a long way short of that extreme...

Just taking the idea of a circular route a little bit further. If you are at the centre of the circle you would need to ride our for one radius distance, then do the circumference followed by the same radius home. Given that there are no roads running exactly parallel to the theoretical circle there would be an amount of "give and take" - bust mostly "take". Assuming that this extra distance adds 30% the radius of the circle would need to be 9.3 miles!

An alternative would be to do a semi-circle. For that you would need to cycle out about 15miles but you would return from the opposite direction, meaning you no longer need to be at the exact centre of the route. It looks like there are some interesting places not much further than 15 miles from Swindon. Of course I don't have your knowledge of the area, but it's often a totally different feeling being in familiar surroundings but on the bike...

EdinburghFixed wrote: ...but a low helmet wearing rate encourages many more people to cycle...

Not sure I agree with that. Certainly evidence shows that the wearing of helmets seems to reduce cycling numbers. It is not clear though that an absence of helmets encourages cycling uptake.

I suspect that it may be a vicious circle. Low cycling numbers mean more danger, more danger means greater use of helmets, more helmets support the perception of a dangerous activity leading to fewer cyclists...

Much has been made elsewhere of the better attitude towards cyclists on the continent but I suspect it has always be so - I'm not convinced there has ever been a "good old days" for cycling in the UK.

EastAnglian wrote:Most research (I've read four papers - thanks for the links) says they don't totally protect, but they make a measurable difference.

Cycle helmets are not designed to totally protect, nor is any other peice of safety equipment. A cycle helmet is designed to absorb an amount of energy in a low speed impact. The question is not if a cycle helmet can do this, it clearly can. The question is will a cycle helmet be of benefit in a real life incident. What this means is, on avarage, is the positive benefit of a helmet greater than the negative? There are real negative effects of wearing helmets.

The original purpose of this thread was to discuss what further research could be done to better answer that question. and secondarily if CTC members would wish to see their organisation involved in that research. It became clear quite early on that CTC members did not wish to see CTC involved in such research. Personally I find that odd but I can accept it.

We still have the question as to what research could be conducted...

gilesjuk wrote:What will happen is people move nearer their job, or a get a job nearer their home.

...and then cycle...

For what it's worth...

When I was taught about road signing design, there was a clear emphasis that the signage should be easily understood and unambiguous. It's not always possible to be both.

In this instance, it is clear that there should not be two white arrows and this could lead to confusion.

However - Is the intent of the sign unclear? As a bus driver it shows they are allowed on the road and that there is a contra-flow cycle lane to the right. The road conditions, as far as can be seen in the photo, would not permit two busses and that would surely be the over-riding factor in the resolution of any event.

We can't see further down the road, but it is possible that there are actually two bus lanes.

FatBat wrote:...What I would like to do is determine what other factors influence the overtaking distance, but for this I'd need to bring in the specialist software (SPSS or MatLab) which I don't have! Plus, my stats is so rusty, I'd get it wrong anyway.

I wholeheartedly agree. There must be other factors involved. I should be possible to test these in a similar way to Dr Walker. Off the top of my head I'd guess that colour, type of clothes, type of bike (upright or drop bar), speed of travel and road surface conditions all change the overtaking distance.

It would be good to see if Hi-Vis actually helps of hinders!

My perception (such that it is) is that I get more room on an upright bike...

axel_knutt wrote:On the basis of Walkers study, the safest option ought to be wear a helmet with a wig over it.

Bizarrely, you may actually be right

FatBat wrote: I'm a mathematician (but stats was never my strong point!), so I could shed some light on this. From Dr Walker's raw data, and splitting just by whether a helmet was worn, I get the following;

No helmet, mean distance = 1.605 m, s.d. = 0.405m
With helmet, mean distance = 1.520m, s.d. = 0.354m

So, with a helmet, the mean passing distance is less than without, but the distribution of passing distances is more "concentrated"

Now, assuming the passing distances are normally distributed, the probability of a particular vehicle passing within 1m are 6.8% when no helmet is worn and 7.1% when the helmet is worn.

But, what was observed was when no helmet was worn, 4.234% of passes were within 1m (49 of 1206 passes), whilst with the helmet 5.51% of passes were within 1m (60 of 1089).

I used a smaller group of the data - I selected only Salisbury and excluded cycle lanes. My results were: No helmet - 1.608m ave and 0.399SD. With helmet 1.547m ave and 0.346SD.

That yields 6.4% less than 1m for No helmet and 5.7% less than 1m for helmets. I wasn't sure I'd done the numbers correctly but your numbers are similar...

SO - Where are we going wrong? Is there a skew on the data? I've not checked that. Any other ideas?

Quoting from the article:- "While this is a useful guide, we're also very keen to stress that even the apparently less safe areas aren't actually unsafe, and that it's still much better for your health to cycle than not to cycle, wherever you live," said Chris Peck, the CTC's policy coordinator. "It's important that people are not put off cycling."

So - why not publish the quide by giving the relative health benefits across the different areas? By publishing safety ratings A to E anyone in D or E would be quite entitled to see that as a valid reason to not cycle.

To change the data to something a good deal more positive all that is needed is to create a "typical" driver and a "typical" cyclist. Their relative healths could then be compared. I suspect the main problem is that the "danger" faced by cyclists in zones A and E are really so similar that it would be hard to distinguish any difference across the country.

Yet I can't help feeling that zones A to E are counter productive.