Cycle clips

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
User avatar
horizon
Posts: 10088
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Cycle clips

Postby horizon » 19 May 2016, 12:29pm

LollyKat wrote: it's obvious, innit?


But why?
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3875
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Cycle clips

Postby pjclinch » 19 May 2016, 12:46pm

horizon wrote:
LollyKat wrote: it's obvious, innit?


But why?


As LollyKat further noted, " it's obvious, innit? They see it everywhere".

As to why they see it everywhere in the UK, it's a meme that's reached critical mass. People repeat because they hear/see it a lot. They hear/see it a lot because it's often repeated. Which in turn is why we're obviously Dangerous Maniacs with some anti-vaxxer-like agenda to suggest anything as rash as they're not clearly a big safety win that everyone should be encouraged/forced to use.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 15051
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Cycle clips

Postby mjr » 19 May 2016, 1:00pm

pjclinch wrote:As to why they see it everywhere in the UK, it's a meme that's reached critical mass. People repeat because they hear/see it a lot.

As long as they look at mainstream media or even CUK publications like "Cycle Clips" or "Cycle" rather than what's actually happening on the streets where on average the majority don't wear helmets. Why is CUK being part of the helmet problem? Seems rather contrary to its aim to encourage cycling.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 10088
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Cycle clips

Postby horizon » 19 May 2016, 1:14pm

Although I think there's repetition value in the promotion of helmets there may be a deeper psychological grip whereby attention is constantly directed to a vulnerable organ. This causes anxiety (I've already linked to Oliver Burkeman's article and the phemoneon known as "koro") and an irrational response. Oliver Burkeman points strongly to the attention factor. This creates not only a response in the individual concerned but also a social reaction - basically mass hysteria. This is why non-cyclists mention helmet wearing to cyclists. It's been documented in crowd panics but I think you can add, yes, vaccination, personal hygiene, women's body hair, lots of insurance products, fear of germs and fear of epidemics. These are socially constructed hysterics - you can argue where you draw the line of course but helmets I think fit reasonably on the side of hysteria.

Just to emphasise again: helmet wearers really do experience a physical anxiety regarding their skull - this is Oliver Burkeman's main point, not just the rather more sensationalist koro. Helmet wearers' fear outweighs their more rational attention to the actual effectiveness of and need for helmets. The cycle helmet phenomenon is very significant - mere advertising and promotion doesn't quite explain it fully.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3875
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Cycle clips

Postby pjclinch » 19 May 2016, 3:33pm

mjr wrote:
pjclinch wrote:As to why they see it everywhere in the UK, it's a meme that's reached critical mass. People repeat because they hear/see it a lot.

As long as they look at mainstream media or even CUK publications like "Cycle Clips" or "Cycle" rather than what's actually happening on the streets where on average the majority don't wear helmets. Why is CUK being part of the helmet problem? Seems rather contrary to its aim to encourage cycling.


For some values of "on average"...

The notional "average" cyclist is probably not a CUK member. Cycle is a CUK publication for its members, many of whom are happier in a crash helmet than not.

CUK are between a rock and a hard place here. If you're going to publish a magazine for your members you have to account for what they do over and above what some notional average cyclist does. Otherwise you might as well complain that they don't review the BSOs that so many non-members choose to ride.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3875
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Cycle clips

Postby pjclinch » 19 May 2016, 3:47pm

horizon wrote:This creates not only a response in the individual concerned but also a social reaction - basically mass hysteria. This is why non-cyclists mention helmet wearing to cyclists. It's been documented in crowd panics but I think you can add, yes, vaccination, personal hygiene, women's body hair, lots of insurance products, fear of germs and fear of epidemics. These are socially constructed hysterics - you can argue where you draw the line of course but helmets I think fit reasonably on the side of hysteria.


I think there's a fair chunk of fairness in that.

For me it's particularly well illustrated with the adoption of completely different strategies for cycling than other things with similar (or worse) risk profiles, and the extension of strategies for high-risk cycling in to low risk cycling. So a pal who will always wear his lid for any cycling based on knocking himself out doing technical MTB years ago doesn't see anything odd about that, and the children being given TLC and an I've banged my head! sticker for a playground fall are somehow seen totally differently when they're riding around the same playground at about the same speed (but under far closer supervision) on bikes. And so on.

It comes down to the mass delusion that you're pretty much bound to bang your head if you ride a bike, and in a far more serious manner than you might bang it doing other everyday stuff. Part of this is the delusion already noted that all cycling is basically dangerous completely irrespective of context.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 10088
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Cycle clips

Postby horizon » 19 May 2016, 8:10pm

It doesn't help of course that the fears aren't completely groundless: people really do die from head injuries, from infectious diseases and indeed BO can be unpleasant. But if the response is exaggerated or inappropriate then it's hysteria. And of course it becomes unarguable if what they fear has actually happened to other people.

What I find interesting is that people who wear helmets cycle at all - if the risk is that great (and the protection so limited) then for goodness' sake leave the bike at home or use a tubo trainer in the bedroom. I certainly wouldn't cycle if I thought I needed to wear a helmet - that flimsy piece of polystyrene doesn't fiil me with confidence at all.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher

Steady rider
Posts: 2189
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Cycle clips

Postby Steady rider » 19 May 2016, 8:38pm

These are rough calculation,

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/128190

113 deaths, 3401 seriously injured in 2014

Some European data is available on the number of kilometres cycled and the death rate per billion kilometre cycle . Norway with 11.0 cyclist deaths per billion kilometres cycled, followed by Denmark with 12.1, the Netherlands with 12.4, Sweden with 14.4 and Great Britain with 22.4. Data from GB shows that there is an urgent need to improve safety for cyclists.

Approximately 5 billion km of cycling for the UK it seems

Assuming average person cycled 40 km per week. 5 billion /40 = 125 million weeks
125 million /113 = 1.1 million weeks per death, once in 21153 years of cycling.

125 million weeks divided by 3401 = 36734 weeks per serious injury, once in 707 years of cycling.

So cycling is not particularly high risk but could also be safer.

Research evidence reports that helmets may protect or lower the proportion of head injuries and also may increase the accident rate, by 14% according to one estimate and increase the risk of neck injury. Long term neck problems may also occur it seems. The best available evidence suggests that helmet use increases the total injury risk.

A person may think, yes I will wear one for added protection, seems sensible. A person may think the risk is low and it will make cycling less convenient or comfortable for them and decide not to wear one, seems sensible. Some people may have problems wearing helmets, feeling too warm, not enjoying their cycling as much, Most users will not study the research or understand the risk factors.

In part two forms of education may be helpful, people who wear helmets should understand that non-wearers point of view is just as valid as their own and the overall injury risk is probably lower when not wearing and non-wearers appreciate wearers are probably trying to protect themselves. Cycling organisations should help explain this to their members and the public.

Phil Fouracre
Posts: 817
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 12:16pm
Location: Deepest Somerset

Re: Cycle clips

Postby Phil Fouracre » 21 May 2016, 8:54am

Steady rider wrote:These are rough calculation,

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/128190

113 deaths, 3401 seriously injured in 2014

Some European data is available on the number of kilometres cycled and the death rate per billion kilometre cycle . Norway with 11.0 cyclist deaths per billion kilometres cycled, followed by Denmark with 12.1, the Netherlands with 12.4, Sweden with 14.4 and Great Britain with 22.4. Data from GB shows that there is an urgent need to improve safety for cyclists.

Approximately 5 billion km of cycling for the UK it seems

Assuming average person cycled 40 km per week. 5 billion /40 = 125 million weeks
125 million /113 = 1.1 million weeks per death, once in 21153 years of cycling.

125 million weeks divided by 3401 = 36734 weeks per serious injury, once in 707 years of cycling.

So cycling is not particularly high risk but could also be safer.

Research evidence reports that helmets may protect or lower the proportion of head injuries and also may increase the accident rate, by 14% according to one estimate and increase the risk of neck injury. Long term neck problems may also occur it seems. The best available evidence suggests that helmet use increases the total injury risk.

A person may think, yes I will wear one for added protection, seems sensible. A person may think the risk is low and it will make cycling less convenient or comfortable for them and decide not to wear one, seems sensible. Some people may have problems wearing helmets, feeling too warm, not enjoying their cycling as much, Most users will not study the research or understand the risk factors.

In part two forms of education may be helpful, people who wear helmets should understand that non-wearers point of view is just as valid as their own and the overall injury risk is probably lower when not wearing and non-wearers appreciate wearers are probably trying to protect themselves. Cycling organisations should help explain this to their members and the public.


Blimey! That all seems eminently reasonable, just imagine if you could promote this to all those screaming, shouting people who refuse to listen to others opinions.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Cycle clips

Postby meic » 21 May 2016, 9:12am

125 million weeks divided by 3401 = 36734 weeks per serious injury, once in 707 years of cycling.


But it doesnt fit their personal experience, I know at least a dozen people who have had "their life saved by a helmet" at least once.
Yma o Hyd

Steady rider
Posts: 2189
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Cycle clips

Postby Steady rider » 21 May 2016, 10:05am

This is another point that requires explaining to the public. 3401 - seriously injured

Starting from Robinson's 1996 paper (page 464) , http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-head-injuries.pdf

8 cyclists from 40 wearing hit their helmet/heads in the last 18 months, one in five helmet wearers.
20% v 2.7%

Assuming 10 million people ride bikes in the UK, assuming 40% wear helmets, 4 million wearers, assume 20% hit their helmet/head in an 18 month period, 528,000 in a 12 month period. Say 25% considered it had saved their life,132000 each year saying they had been saved.

In contrast, 113 deaths occurred in 2014 and if examined in detail perhaps the claim would be 10-15% may have been saved, perhaps 13 lives.

If you start to look at the figures in detail it shows a high number of claims will occur for helmets saving lives but in practice perhaps 50,000 - 100,000 claims for each life that may have been saved, bearing in mind the potential increase in the accident rate of 14% reported for helmet wearers, making lives saved near to zero.

So it needs someone to give a lecture or presentation or detail this type of explanation, so that cyclists and the general public understand that both wearers and non-wearers have basically fairly valid views.

Who is actually safer, wearers of non-wearers? From total injury risk, probably non-wearers. From the fatality and serious injury risk - some reports indicates wearers but other factors than helmets come into play, behaviour and perhaps the type of cycling e.g track racing. Data from NL and countries with low helmet wearing rates indicates the highest levels of safety occurs in countries with low helmet wearing rates. They prove that cycling can be reasonable safe without helmet use. All the promotional aspects of helmets, Highway Code, schools, groups insisting on people wearing helmets and sales of helmets should all have to carry warnings that research has shown that helmet use may increase either the accident rate or impact rate for helmets compared to not wearing.
They are being sold and promoted without suitable warning. The CTC research mentions the 14% figure, so they are explaining a higher risk may occur.
http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... ncebrf.pdf