Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

For all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmet usage will be moved here.
Post Reply
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Highway Code revisions: helmet discussion

Post by Steady rider »

[moderator note: this topic has been split from viewtopic.php?f=6&t=139662]


I think cyclist have been let down by the helmet advice and need to ask their MP for a Parliamentary inquiry.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... 553abdffc6

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... sment_mk_2

New helmet advice Highway Code
You should wear a cycle helmet that conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened. Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances.
Parliament should have an inquiry because the advice is questionable and it does not provide suitable warnings, as examples,

a) Research shows helmet use is associated with a higher accident rate, Zeegers analysed 3 large data sets from the Netherlands, Victoria Australia and Seattle and described a marked overestimation of the effectiveness of helmet usage which ranged from +8% to a massive more than 400% and when the data was reanalysed in two out of three series the risk of head injury for helmeted cyclists was not lower and across all three studies the risk of non-head related injury was higher.
See Clarke Cf, Gillham C, Effects of bicycle helmet wearing on accident and injury rates, GB National Road Safety Conference, November 2019
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... jury_rates

b) Children have been strangled by their helmet being caught on things, leaving the child hanging, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-o ... e-51139789 and
https://helmets.org/cpscplay.htm

c) StClair and Chinn reported ‘However, in both low speed linear impacts and the most severe oblique cases, linear and rotational accelerations may increase to levels corresponding to injury severities as high as AIS 2 or 3, at which a marginal increase (up to 1 AIS interval) in injury outcome may be expected for a helmeted head.’ Assessment of current bicycle helmets for the potential to cause rotational injury (trb.org) https://trid.trb.org/view/810710

d) A recent article contained data showing severe head injuries for helmeted to be 2.16% v 0.69% for non-wearers, head injuries in general where lower for helmeted, see Unreliable claims regarding bicycle helmet law in Western Australia https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 21-04949-2

e) Moore et al. reported on adult cyclist post-concussion syndrome (PCS) that “The mean duration of PCS for helmet wearers was 22.9 months, and 16.8 months for patients not wearing a helmet at the time of concussion (p=0.41)”
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _in_adults

f) Cycling UK say, In any case, there are serious doubts about the effectiveness of helmets. They are, and can only be, designed to withstand minor knocks and falls, not serious traffic collisions. Some evidence suggests they may in fact increase the risk of cyclists having falls or collisions in the first place, or suffering neck injuries. https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/v ... le-helmets

g) The Highway Codes advice can be used in legal proceedings to lower compensation for cyclists not wearing helmets.
Last edited by Steady rider on 9 Jan 2022, 8:08pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by mjr »

Steady rider wrote: 1 Dec 2021, 8:11pm I think cyclist have been let down by the helmet advice.
I agree almost completely. I also think the clothing section is not based on sound evidence. I commented on both those points in the consultation, as well as some others like roundabouts. I'm not aware of any points being considered seriously except those the DfT specifically asked about.
g) The Highway Codes advice can be used in legal proceedings to lower compensation for cyclists not wearing helmets.
Are you sure about that? I thought that to succeed in that, the other party must show that the helmet would have, on a balance of probabilities, reduced the injuries or damage suffered... and because standard helmets are not designed for collisions with cars, this is not something that motorists can do.

But some unfortunate grieving families have probably accepted lower compensation in out-of-court settlements because the defending lawyers argued that ignoring the highway code rule would persuade the court to lower compensation.

The bigger risk IMO is that riding traditionally could be used to evidence that someone is the sort of reckless rider who ignores parts of the highway code, but I suspect that is not a much greater risk under the new wording than the old.
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.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by Steady rider »

Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/

The word 'should' would in some or many cases weaken the case for full compensation.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by mjr »

Steady rider wrote: 1 Dec 2021, 8:28pm
Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/

The word 'should' would in some or many cases weaken the case for full compensation.
Yes, but not in this case. The highway code cannot be used to override the normal laws.

And that isn't the real highway code site. It's one promoting a motoring business which hasn't always been up to date, although that's not important this time.
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.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by Steady rider »

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway ... troduction
Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default ... de_con.pdf
Question 39, reply from Cycling UK included,
* Even if the above point was not the case, the Government should still take account of the prejudicial
legal impact of a Highway Code rule saying that cyclists "should" wear a helmet. This wording has made
it routine for insurers representing drivers involved in collisions where a cyclist has suffered a head injury
to counter the cyclist's claims for injury damages by mounting a 'contributory negligence' counter-claim -
see www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-he ... cent-cases. In the
most serious cases (i.e. those involving death or permanent disablement), this can cause a traumatised
cyclist, or their family (who may have suffered bereavement or become life-long carers) to have to spend
years of their lives, and tens of thousands of pounds in legal costs, countering these unjust 'contributory
negligence' claims. Changing the wording to "Consider wearing a helmet" could avert the huge, and
wholly unjust, financial cost and emotional trauma which is so often borne by the victims of cycling
injuries.
* Finally, the word "may" (or "can") rather than "will" (before "reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury
in certain circumstances") reflects the uncertainty over the protective effect of helmets, and the possible
reasons why they may also increase the risk of injury (including neck injury) in certain circumstances. The
word "may" would reflect the fact that there are no circumstances in which it could be confidently claimed
that helmets "will" reduce a cyclists' risk of head injury, and that there are some circumstances in which
the opposite might be true. The proposed amendment to the preceding paragraph of this rule (concerning
the potential benefits of light-coloured or fluorescent clothing) uses the word "can". It would be misleading
to imply that the evidence for the benefits of helmets is any more certain than that for light or fluorescent
clothing. For more on the complexity of the evidence relating to helmets, see
www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/d ... _brf_0.pdf.
Zulu Eleven
Posts: 235
Joined: 26 Oct 2018, 9:25pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by Zulu Eleven »

Steady rider wrote: 1 Dec 2021, 8:11pm I think cyclist have been let down by the helmet advice and need to ask their MP for a Parliamentary inquiry.


New helmet advice Highway Code
You should wear a cycle helmet that conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened. Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances.
Parliament should have an inquiry because the advice is questionable and it does not provide suitable warnings, as examples,

a) Research shows helmet use is associated with a higher accident rate, Zeegers analysed 3 large data sets from the Netherlands, Victoria Australia and Seattle and described a marked overestimation of the effectiveness of helmet usage which ranged from +8% to a massive more than 400% and when the data was reanalysed in two out of three series the risk of head injury for helmeted cyclists was not lower and across all three studies the risk of non-head related injury was higher.
See Clarke Cf, Gillham C, Effects of bicycle helmet wearing on accident and injury rates, GB National Road Safety Conference, November 2019
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... jury_rates

b) Children have been strangled by their helmet being caught on things, leaving the child hanging, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-o ... e-51139789 and
https://helmets.org/cpscplay.htm

c) StClair and Chinn reported ‘However, in both low speed linear impacts and the most severe oblique cases, linear and rotational accelerations may increase to levels corresponding to injury severities as high as AIS 2 or 3, at which a marginal increase (up to 1 AIS interval) in injury outcome may be expected for a helmeted head.’ Assessment of current bicycle helmets for the potential to cause rotational injury (trb.org) https://trid.trb.org/view/810710

d) A recent article contained data showing severe head injuries for helmeted to be 2.16% v 0.69% for non-wearers, head injuries in general where lower for helmeted, see Unreliable claims regarding bicycle helmet law in Western Australia https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 21-04949-2

e) Moore et al. reported on adult cyclist post-concussion syndrome (PCS) that “The mean duration of PCS for helmet wearers was 22.9 months, and 16.8 months for patients not wearing a helmet at the time of concussion (p=0.41)”
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _in_adults

f) Cycling UK say, In any case, there are serious doubts about the effectiveness of helmets. They are, and can only be, designed to withstand minor knocks and falls, not serious traffic collisions. Some evidence suggests they may in fact increase the risk of cyclists having falls or collisions in the first place, or suffering neck injuries. https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/v ... le-helmets

g) The Highway Codes advice can be used in legal proceedings to lower compensation for cyclists not wearing helmets.

None of your points in any way contradict the statement that “Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances”.
tatanab
Posts: 5030
Joined: 8 Feb 2007, 12:37pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by tatanab »

Zulu Eleven wrote: 2 Dec 2021, 2:14am None of your points in any way contradict the statement that “Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances”.
Note the conflicting terms there -
"suggests" i.e not proven
"will" i.e fact

To be consistent, that "will" should be replaced with "may".as suggested earlier. It would not be possible to replace "suggests" with "shows" because that would require proof.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by mjr »

What's your point? Nothing there contradicted what I wrote. In particular, I know insurers will use it to claim contributory negligence, but most times I've seen, it fails in court, but the increase in cost and distress defending it makes many settle before it gets there. I've read cases where even lights have not been used when legally required and it was found not to be relevant to the casualty's injuries, but courts can be unpredictable and many won't risk it.

The HC wording remains crap and should be corrected, but it's not as bleak as you say.
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.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by Steady rider »

https://www.quittance.co.uk/personal-in ... ike-helmet
Provides some useful information regarding compensation.

Zulu Eleven wrote: ↑2 Dec 2021, 2:14am
None of your points in any way contradict the statement that “Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances”.
The evidence quoted suggests an increased risk of having an accident, plus and increased risk of post-concussion syndrome, plus an increased risk in both low speed linear impacts and the most severe oblique cases. The 'reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances' may apply to 1 in say 20 accidents, whereas the ' increased risk of having an accident' may be more significant.

The Highway Code does not provide any warning of potentially negative aspects. All medicines that have side effects usually list them to alert the public. I think a similar approach may be needed regarding cycle helmets.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by Jdsk »

Commentary from Cycling UK: "A new Highway Code and a hierarchy":
https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/new-high ... -hierarchy

Jonathan
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by mattheus »

Steady rider wrote: 2 Dec 2021, 6:14pm https://www.quittance.co.uk/personal-in ... ike-helmet
Provides some useful information regarding compensation.

Zulu Eleven wrote: ↑2 Dec 2021, 2:14am
None of your points in any way contradict the statement that “Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances”.
The evidence quoted suggests an increased risk of having an accident, plus and increased risk of post-concussion syndrome, plus an increased risk in both low speed linear impacts and the most severe oblique cases. The 'reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances' may apply to 1 in say 20 accidents, whereas the ' increased risk of having an accident' may be more significant.

The Highway Code does not provide any warning of potentially negative aspects. All medicines that have side effects usually list them to alert the public. I think a similar approach may be needed regarding cycle helmets.
Seems reasonable.
Thehairs1970
Posts: 602
Joined: 11 Aug 2018, 9:30am

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by Thehairs1970 »

mattheus wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 6:56pm
Steady rider wrote: 2 Dec 2021, 6:14pm https://www.quittance.co.uk/personal-in ... ike-helmet
Provides some useful information regarding compensation.

Zulu Eleven wrote: ↑2 Dec 2021, 2:14am
The 'reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances' may apply to 1 in say 20 accidents, whereas the ' increased risk of having an accident' may be more significant.

The Highway Code does not provide any warning of potentially negative aspects. All medicines that have side effects usually list them to alert the public. I think a similar approach may be needed regarding cycle helmets.
Where does your 1 in 20 come from? Is that your own statistic or what?

You think that helmets should have the possible negatives? Well, why stop there? Seatbelts - might trap you in event of a vehicle fire. Builders helmets - might fall off and hit someone below. Fire extinguishers - may cause injury if used incorrectly (this is an argument used against helmets - not worn correctly). Petrol - this will cause global warming. Coffee ~ may give the jitters. I could go on.

As I said before, if you don’t want to wear one, don’t. But why spend your time persuading us not to? I don’t get it.
Zulu Eleven
Posts: 235
Joined: 26 Oct 2018, 9:25pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by Zulu Eleven »

Steady rider wrote: 2 Dec 2021, 6:14pm The evidence quoted suggests an increased risk of having an accident, plus and increased risk of post-concussion syndrome, plus an increased risk in both low speed linear impacts and the most severe oblique cases. The 'reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances' may apply to 1 in say 20 accidents, whereas the ' increased risk of having an accident' may be more significant.

The Highway Code does not provide any warning of potentially negative aspects. All medicines that have side effects usually list them to alert the public. I think a similar approach may be needed regarding cycle helmets.

Oh, well. If you really want to drag it down the line of medicines and side effects, then I am more than happy to, as of course this is where Cochrane reviews come in.

https://www.cochrane.org/CD001855/INJ_w ... or-vehicle
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20297
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by mjr »

Zulu Eleven wrote: 3 Dec 2021, 8:53pm
Steady rider wrote: 2 Dec 2021, 6:14pm The evidence quoted suggests an increased risk of having an accident, plus and increased risk of post-concussion syndrome, plus an increased risk in both low speed linear impacts and the most severe oblique cases. The 'reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances' may apply to 1 in say 20 accidents, whereas the ' increased risk of having an accident' may be more significant.

The Highway Code does not provide any warning of potentially negative aspects. All medicines that have side effects usually list them to alert the public. I think a similar approach may be needed regarding cycle helmets.

Oh, well. If you really want to drag it down the line of medicines and side effects, then I am more than happy to, as of course this is where Cochrane reviews come in.

https://www.cochrane.org/CD001855/INJ_w ... or-vehicle
Thompson, Rivara, Thompson, really? Are you sure you want to cite such notoriously biased authors writing a Cochrane Review that included multiple studies by themselves (it's a flaw in Cochrane that isn't a forbidden conflict of interest), including that now-long-discredited 85% study?

(edited to fix link, twice)
Last edited by mjr on 6 Dec 2021, 11:54am, edited 2 times in total.
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.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Highway Code revisions: Consultation complete and Government response published

Post by Steady rider »

Regarding the 20 to 1 suggestion.
Namiri et al data reports 78,070 head injuries for bicyclists and includes 11,812 for those with alcohol or drugs usage (this includes all head injuries, face included). Using an estimate of 25 -35 million aged 18 and over who cycle in the USA , it calculates at one head injury per 256 – 448 people or 0.39% - 0.22% per year for those who cycle.
see,
Impact of alcohol and drug use on bicycle and electric scooter injuries and hospital admissions in the United States
The 78,070 head injuries included face, so probably half may be the figure for head portion protected by a helmet.
In any case probably only about 1 in 10 accidents, or fewer go to hospital.
Wasserman 1988 had data on cyclists reported hitting the head/helmet, helmeted - 8 from 40, 20%, non-wearers -13 from 476, 2.7%.
see Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws,
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-head-injuries.pdf see page 2
Post Reply