Stop Headway

[kwackers]

For situations like these I have a sticker on my motorcycle helmet that reads: "If you find this helmet with a head in it, leave it alone, call an ambulance".

Many years ago, when I rode motorcycles, I read that it wasn't a good idea to put anything on a motorcycle helmet as it might increase the friction between the helmet and the road surface.

Over the years I've fallen off many different motorcycles many times, worst I ever get is a scrape on the paint. Given the speeds then a motorcycle helmet probably offers some protection against a glancing blow on a kerb etc. It's never happened to me and up to now the most likely scenario when falling off one is that nothing much happens...
I suspect the likelihood of 'nothing much happening' is somewhat greater on a bicycle. Chuck in the relatively low speeds and I struggle to conceive of a scenario where I'm likely to bang my head - at least in a way that the narrow degree of protection offered by the helmet is of any use.

OTOH, whilst I'm not convinced that wearing a helmet on my bicycle makes me take more risks, I'm absolutely convinced of that fact on a motorcycle. Throw in some leathers and armour and I know for a fact that the side walls of my tyres will see more tarmac than usual.

[Steady rider]

Car occupant admission for head injury, Chart 6d, page 85,
Reported Road Casualties
Great Britain: 2008
Annual Report
http://20splentyforus.co.uk/UsefulRepor ... es2008.pdf

actual number of admissions?

[reohn2]

I've not read all the thread so forgive me if this has been covered,are Headway also campaigning for the wearing of safety helmets for horseriders?

[downfader]

I've not read all the thread so forgive me if this has been covered,are Headway also campaigning for the wearing of safety helmets for horseriders?

Using their search on their site shows nothing to that effect.

Highway Code rule 49:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_069853

Safety equipment. Children under the age of 14 MUST wear a helmet which complies with the Regulations. It MUST be fastened securely. Other riders should also follow these requirements. These requirements do not apply to a child who is a follower of the Sikh religion while wearing a turban.


[Laws H(PHYR) Act 1990, sect 1 & H(PHYR) Regulations 1992, reg 3]

So I'm guessing since there is already legal compulsion for under 14s that its not on their radar.

[reohn2]

I've not read all the thread so forgive me if this has been covered,are Headway also campaigning for the wearing of safety helmets for horseriders?

Using their search on their site shows nothing to that effect.

Highway Code rule 49:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTr ... /DG_069853

Safety equipment. Children under the age of 14 MUST wear a helmet which complies with the Regulations. It MUST be fastened securely. Other riders should also follow these requirements. These requirements do not apply to a child who is a follower of the Sikh religion while wearing a turban.


[Laws H(PHYR) Act 1990, sect 1 & H(PHYR) Regulations 1992, reg 3]

So I'm guessing since there is already legal compulsion for under 14s that its not on their radar.

Thanks for that Downfader,just a thought,it could have been a stick to beat them with(or a crop )

[Steady rider]

http://www.webchild.com.au/index.php/Ar ... ations.php

Headway should be providing suitable warnings. I would not recommend helmets and especially for young children.

[Jonty]

How anyone can state that there might be 11-18 fatalities a year (not to mention the non-fatal injuries) directly attributable to head injuries, and then say that cycling is clearly not dangerous in order to justify not wearing a helmet, uses logic that passes me by.

On a per mile basis cycling is safer than motorcycling or walking according to the DfT. The 2008 figures for deaths per billion Km are

motorbikes - 88.8

peds - 30.9

cycling 24.2

I think any activity that is on a per mile travelled safer than walking can be reasonable described as safe. Why wear a helmet for cycling when I don't wear one for the more dangerous activity of walking?

Numbers are from the DfT "Transport Trends, current edition" pdf then selecting "Section 7: Safety (210 kb)" then selecting "Trend 7.1b"

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/da ... s/current/

Edit - These per mile stats might be good numbers to quote when asking why Headway push for cycle helmets but not walking helmets.

Frankly I think this is rather meaningless point. It would be more sensible IMHO to compare the accident rate per hour of the activity, or per journey rather than per mile travelled as cyclists travel faster than pedestrians.
In the same way I've always thought it misleading to say that air travel is safer than say train travel because the accident rate per passenger mile is lower.
jonty

[Cunobelin]

That is why cyclists are such a deadly threat to pedestrians!

[Pete Owens]

Frankly I think this is rather meaningless point. It would be more sensible IMHO to compare the accident rate per hour of the activity,

Why on earth per hour?
A brisk walker may reach their destination in half the time as little old lady - they would still encounter the same hazards en-route, but at double the hourly rate. Would it make sense to advocate a helmet for one but not the other?

or per journey rather than per mile travelled as cyclists travel faster than pedestrians.

OK lets do it per journey.

Say a 1km walk to school - compared to a 1km cycle ride to the same school.
If you were to advocate that a helmet use for the more risky mode then pretty much the entire population would think you were barking.
Advocate it for the safer mode then most non-cyclists will nod sagely in agreement.

In the same way I've always thought it misleading to say that air travel is safer than say train travel because the accident rate per passenger mile is lower.
jonty

Tis a pefectly valid point.
Fly from London to Edinburgh and you are slightly more likely to reach your destiniation than heading up the A1.

[Cunobelin]

Flying and trains are a bit like motorways!

The spurious claim is that they are "safer" is only because the assessment is different.

If you remove the interactions with the most vulnerable and frequent groups then of course it is "safer", however due to other circumstances such as higher speeds the severity of accidents is higher. You are more likely to be killed in a motorway accident than one on a non-motorway.

To paraphrase an old joke - flying doesn't kill, landing does!

Airplanes have a very controlled environment to operate in and there are few pedestrians, cyclists, car drivers in the skies. Equally the pilots are much better regulated than car drivers. I suspect a significant number of drivers would lose their licences if this level of regulation were applied. However when it goes wrong it is more severe, as with motorways the survival rate is lower when the accident occurs.

Trains more interestingly have a closer comparison to cyclists in that they have a segregated network of routes which many would advocate for cyclists, yet many of the accidents are due to the failure of motorists to react appropriately. Vehicles on lines, and failing to give way correctly are prime causes of train accidents, but again the level of injury is severe when compared to road accidents.

[irc]

Tis a pefectly valid point.
Fly from London to Edinburgh and you are slightly more likely to reach your destiniation than heading up the A1.

Perhaps. But go via the M1/M6M8 and the driving risk may be lower than the flying risk. For an experienced sober driver motorway driving risk is comparable, if not lower than the flying risk.

http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uplo ... riving.pdf

[Jonty]

Let's look at the figures given above.
Deaths per billion kilometers for pedestrians is 30.9 and for cyclists 24.2.
Let's assume that the average bike journey speed is 16k per hour and the average pedestrian journey is 4k per hour.
One billion kilometers will equate to 62,500,000 hrs of cycling and 250,000,000 hours of walking. So pedestrians will experience about 4 times the lenth of time walking as cyclists will experience cycling to achieve a death rate only 27% higher.
In other words, the risk to pedestrians is only about a quarter of that experienced by cyclists on average whilst engaged in their respective activities.
Let's now look at journeys and assume that the average pedestrian journey is 2k and the average bike journey is 8k.
One billion kilometers will equate to 500,000,000 pedestrian journeys and 125,000,000 cycle journeys. In other words pedestrians will undertake on average about 4 times the number of journeys compared with cyclists in order to experience a slightly higher death rate.
In terms of "exposure" risk and "risk per journey" cycling is much more dangerous than walking.
To argue that cycling is less dangerous than walking only on the basis of deaths per unit distance travelled is partial and misleading IMHO.
jonty

[Cunobelin]

Which is why cyclists are so dangerous!

1. Several thousand pedestrians are killed each year in vehicle accidents
2. One pedestrian is killed every few years by a cyclist
3. However the journey time and distances are greatly different.

When you correct these figures and put the "risk / exposure" into the equation - pedestrians are at greater threat from cyclists (and more likely to be killed by one) than from vehicles.

[Jonty]

Which is why cyclists are so dangerous!

1. Several thousand pedestrians are killed each year in vehicle accidents
2. One pedestrian is killed every few years by a cyclist
3. However the journey time and distances are greatly different.

When you correct these figures and put the "risk / exposure" into the equation - pedestrians are at greater threat from cyclists (and more likely to be killed by one) than from vehicles.

Cunobelin
Thanks for that but IMO you are not seriously addressing the points I have raised.
jonty

[drossall]

Surely, to know which basis of measurement (of danger) to use, you have to know what question is being asked?

If I am deciding whether to drive, cycle or walk for a particular trip, the distance won't change, so the risk per mile is relevant.

If I make an overall lifestyle decision, and I am typical, I'm prepared to live (say) an hour from work. If I choose to drive, I may well choose to live further away, and if I insist on walking, quite close. Then the risk per hour may be more relevant.

But then of course there are the health benefits...