Simplification to cut through the mis-perceptions?

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.
millimole
Posts: 514
Joined: 18 Feb 2007, 5:41pm
Location: Leicester

Re: Simplification to cut through the mis-perceptions?

Postby millimole » 26 Jan 2017, 9:23am

drossall wrote:I'm a bit puzzled about proposals for AGM motions to change the Highway Code. The CTC was pretty active last time in trying to change the drafts, and did get some very significant improvements. I'd expect the same this time. However, it doesn't write the Code. So, what would a motion achieve that would not already be done?

I would like to see a motion to get the helmet issue discussed, and a firm position (regarding the code) well in advance of any drafts of the code being put out for discussion.
There is a (possibly slight) danger that if this matter is left open, without discussion, and a motion at an AGM that the CTC will be wrong-footed by haste to get a draft approved, and/or a minority of helmet compulsion advocates. There is also the possibility (slight, I agree) of coming to an acceptable compromise with BC as they are now the frontrunners in cycle advocacy.
There is the other side of the coin, that a too tightly worded motion could tie the hands of CTC in negotiations around the draft (and any possible talks with BC).


I'm a trendy consumer. Just look at my brain to my iPad using my fingers and Tapatalk
Leicester; Riding my Hetchins since 1971; Audaxing on my Dawes; Riding to work on a Decathlon Hoprider

Steady rider
Posts: 2187
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Simplification to cut through the mis-perceptions?

Postby Steady rider » 26 Jan 2017, 9:27am

edited
viewtopic.php?f=45&t=110948&p=1076476#p1076476
motions number 2,3 and 13 are Highway Code related.

CTC AGM Motions may be helpful in focusing attention and weighing up the pros and cons. The concise wording people consider may also be useful. The Code was last fully revised in 2007, they do make changes to reflect changes in legislation. CTC staff can use motions passed to run with the issue and press for changes. The details are circulated to all members, 60+k. Provided Council provides the right advice on how to vote motions may be helpful.

CTC could consult with say RTR members and seek suggestions for improving the Code, this would limit the paperwork by using RTR who may be on their email system. Governments react to social pressures and vested interests. If cycling issues are not raised many other groups raise their own issues, often seeking funding.

Leaving the topic until when the DfT has a consultation, leaves hardly any time to gather and discuss how the Code could be revised. At last years AGM, motions that needed supporting by Council did not receive support. It may be better to provide an alternative path for suggestions.

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 48193
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Simplification to cut through the mis-perceptions?

Postby Mick F » 30 Jan 2017, 5:30pm

I find it interesting, that the people not wearing a helmet are open to reason and argument and chose not to wear one.
The ones who wear a helmet, are doing it through perceived common sense.
Mick F. Cornwall

Boyd
Posts: 509
Joined: 24 Oct 2016, 11:56pm

Re: Simplification to cut through the mis-perceptions?

Postby Boyd » 12 Feb 2017, 8:44pm

Mick F wrote:Yes, a good piece about the "issue".
Thanks drossall.

However, I feel there could be a simple and bare percentage figure for head injuries in cars and on bicycles.
The figures must exist.

What if the figures do exist? Why would they be relevant? You are talking about cyclists with and without helmets. Ludicrous to compare cyclist not wearing a helmet with car occupants not wearing a helmet or are you comparing car occupants not wearing helmets with cyclist wearing a helmet....I can't be bothered with the other options!!

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 48193
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Simplification to cut through the mis-perceptions?

Postby Mick F » 13 Feb 2017, 3:33pm

No options. :D
How many head injuries present nationally per year for cyclists and for car occupants.
Mick F. Cornwall

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14993
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Simplification to cut through the mis-perceptions?

Postby mjr » 13 Feb 2017, 4:47pm

Mick F wrote:How many head injuries present nationally per year for cyclists and for car occupants.

I expect it remains similar to the attached:
Image Attachments
helmet_causes.jpg
causes of head injury
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
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 48193
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Simplification to cut through the mis-perceptions?

Postby Mick F » 13 Feb 2017, 4:55pm

Thanks.
Good illustration.
Mick F. Cornwall

Zigster
Posts: 49
Joined: 29 Oct 2012, 7:55am

Re: Simplification to cut through the mis-perceptions?

Postby Zigster » 13 Feb 2017, 7:19pm

Slightly off topic for where this thread is at the moment, but broadly relevant to the thread title.

On another forum on which I lurk (Bike Radar/Commuting General) is a thread from someone who has just been doored by a taxi passenger.

As far as I can gather from his description of the incident, he was cycling in a cycle lane at close to 35km/h alongside a queue of stationary traffic. A taxi door opened for the passenger to get out and injured him (quite badly) and wrote-off his £5.5k bike. He’s asking for advice.

The advice is sympathetic with lots of tips on what he should do, including some from what appears to be a lawyer. While agreeing that it is the fault of the taxi passenger and/or driver, some people are also suggesting that he should be more careful about riding at speed in the door zone. But he won’t accept that: he was in the cycle lane and is therefore safe and he also has some sort of spidey sense which allows him to quickly analyse situations and avoid danger. (I am paraphrasing a little.)

“There was nothing I could have done to change the outcome of the situation” and, of course, “Helmet defo saved my life!”

That’s the misperceptions that I find frustrating. While not absolving the taxi driver/passenger of blame for opening the door without looking, defensive riding strikes me as a much better way to avoid accident and injury than relying on a cycle helmet. Perhaps a good example of risk compensation.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2919
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Simplification to cut through the mis-perceptions?

Postby The utility cyclist » 13 Feb 2017, 7:38pm

Whilst a marked cycle lane is indeed a seperate lane, it's rarely treated as such by motorists and indeed the law/juries either - see recent case where left turning vehicle killed a cyclist but got off despite HC and generally accepted norm that you ensure the lane is clear to enter/traverse before doing so, I mean, it applies when ascertaining blame when it's motorist on motorist but not when you are on bike :twisted:
Thus you should know not to be travelling at speeds like that, certainly in dense or static traffic, should you expect to make progress without being taken out, yes, however static traffic requires caution of some sort not blithely cracking on at full chat.

And yes, helmets do induce people to take more risk, that they (helmets wearers when asked) would take less without pretty much to a man/woman is a good indicator at the very least not to mention the stats which show imperceptible benefit if not worse than previous.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17909
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Simplification to cut through the mis-perceptions?

Postby Vorpal » 13 Feb 2017, 9:17pm

mjr wrote:
Mick F wrote:How many head injuries present nationally per year for cyclists and for car occupants.

I expect it remains similar to the attached:

Is it really reasonable to say that those are *causes* of head injuries? I means are cars a cause? Or leisure? Road traffic crashes might be a cause. Crime is likely a direct cause. But the others? They aren't even consistent categories. Motor bikes and cars are things, cycling and walking are activities. At the very best, it is an imprecise use of language.

The illustration is conceptually good, but I think the labels should be improved.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

Boyd
Posts: 509
Joined: 24 Oct 2016, 11:56pm

Re: Simplification to cut through the mis-perceptions?

Postby Boyd » 13 Feb 2017, 10:35pm

Mick F wrote:No options. :D
How many head injuries present nationally per year for cyclists and for car occupants.

What are car occupant head injuries got to do with cycling head injuries? Its injuries with helmets on and without. An attempt at winning an argument with irrelevant comparison. I beginning to believe that a lot of the anti helmet brigade are quite hysterical.

Zigster
Posts: 49
Joined: 29 Oct 2012, 7:55am

Re: Simplification to cut through the mis-perceptions?

Postby Zigster » 14 Feb 2017, 9:27am

Boyd wrote:
Mick F wrote:No options. :D
How many head injuries present nationally per year for cyclists and for car occupants.

What are car occupant head injuries got to do with cycling head injuries? Its injuries with helmets on and without. An attempt at winning an argument with irrelevant comparison. I beginning to believe that a lot of the anti helmet brigade are quite hysterical.


An obvious point in response would be that not all cyclists wear helmets. I think it is something like 30% of UK cyclists wear helmets (doubtless someone will be along shortly with the accurate figure).

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

Re: Simplification to cut through the mis-perceptions?

Postby meic » 14 Feb 2017, 9:35am

Your helmeted cyclist v helmeted cyclist comparisons would seek to show if helmets were EFFECTIVE or not.
Comparing car occupant V cyclist figures show whether a helmet is LIKELY TO BE NEEDED or not.

The point which is being made is that cycling is claimed to "need" the use of a helmet where in fact there is no greater risk of head injury than with many other pastimes when helmet use is, quite rightly, ridiculed as an over-reaction to the risk involved.
Yma o Hyd

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17909
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Simplification to cut through the mis-perceptions?

Postby Vorpal » 14 Feb 2017, 10:10am

Boyd wrote:What are car occupant head injuries got to do with cycling head injuries? Its injuries with helmets on and without. An attempt at winning an argument with irrelevant comparison.

The answer to that is it depends. If you look at specific scenarios where helmets are designed to help, some benefit can be demonstrated. If you look at populations of cyclists with & without helmets, the best that can be said is that no benefit can be demonstrated (helmet wearers typically have more injuries, but not usually at a statistically significant rate).

What car occupants have to do with it... Well, the risk level and benefits are roughly comparable. If statistical risk of head injury is similar whilst driving a car and riding bike, and a helmet can produce similar benefit in both situations, is it reasonable to promote cycle helmets, but not helmets in cars? Afterall, going purely by the number of people who drive or ride in cars versus the number who cycle, many, many more head injuries can be prevented by wearing helmets in cars than on bikes.

p.s. I am not against helmets, but I do think that people should make an informed choice.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17178
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Simplification to cut through the mis-perceptions?

Postby [XAP]Bob » 14 Feb 2017, 1:46pm

Boyd wrote:
Mick F wrote:No options. :D
How many head injuries present nationally per year for cyclists and for car occupants.

What are car occupant head injuries got to do with cycling head injuries? Its injuries with helmets on and without. An attempt at winning an argument with irrelevant comparison. I beginning to believe that a lot of the anti helmet brigade are quite hysterical.


They are everything to do with the level of hysteria that helmet promoters exhibit.

They run around like headless chickens suggesting that the sky is falling on anyone who looks at a bike without a few ounces of polystyrene.
Those who face similar, or higher, levels of risk without said few ounces of polystyrene are of course exempt from the hysteria.


There isn't much of an anti-helmet brigade. There is a strong anti-compulsion brigade, and even an anti-promotion brigade...
But both 'brigades' are approaching their decisions with data. There is no data suggesting that helmets provide a net benefit, so helmet promotion is on a par with a strong governmental promotion of homeopathy.

In fact I quite like that comparison - because people trusting in homeopathy often won't look at treatments that actually work...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.