CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

For all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmet usage will be moved here.
Jlumley100
Posts: 2
Joined: 8 Jan 2022, 10:55am

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Jlumley100 »

I read about the helmet and front light decision in cycling weekly. Its very sensible. Most popular time trials take place on busy roads and turn on roundabouts so anything to make riders safer and more visible is a good idea. There have been 2 deaths in competitions from riders being struck down by motorists recently so rider safety is more important than any perceived inconvenience of using helmets and front lights. Nobody wants cyclists to be injured or killed and the police will stop organisers putting on events on a particular road if they think its unsafe to do so, so safety is in everyones interest. I race my tandem in CTT events and always wear a helmet and use front and rear lights when competing so this isn’t an issue. Not wearing a helmet while competing is pure stupidity, even cycling uphill as accidents can always happen whilst racing as people tend to take a few risks to go as fast as possible. So keep safe and enjoy cycling.
drossall
Posts: 6115
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by drossall »

I think perhaps that you have not read the thread before posting that :lol:
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Steady rider »

Jlumley100 » 8 Jan 2022, 11:38am wrote
I read about the helmet and front light decision in cycling weekly. Its very sensible. Most popular time trials take place on busy roads and turn on roundabouts so anything to make riders safer and more visible is a good idea. There have been 2 deaths in competitions from riders being struck down by motorists recently so rider safety is more important than any perceived inconvenience of using helmets and front lights. Nobody wants cyclists to be injured or killed and the police will stop organisers putting on events on a particular road if they think its unsafe to do so, so safety is in everyones interest. I race my tandem in CTT events and always wear a helmet and use front and rear lights when competing so this isn’t an issue. Not wearing a helmet while competing is pure stupidity, even cycling uphill as accidents can always happen whilst racing as people tend to take a few risks to go as fast as possible. So keep safe and enjoy cycling.
There are a few issues here, accident avoidance, injury prevention, risk compensation, personal choice based on suitable information.
With riders generally taking a low profile, lights could help them to be seen and assist in avoiding accidents.
Helmets can provide some protection in some impacts but research shows they may increase the accident rate see, https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1213.html
- https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... 553abdffc6
If the police make a judgement based on lights and helmets, is this not risk compensation for both riders and police?
Personal choice based on suitable information - my view is favouring individuals making decisions, rather than groups imposing their view when the evidence is mixed and injury prevention is the issue. I think CTT are wrong to make hill climbers subject to lights and helmets and are not acting in the best interest of cyclists.
mattsccm
Posts: 5101
Joined: 28 Nov 2009, 9:44pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by mattsccm »

And the above posts come back to the same old argument. It is no one elses business if I chose to put my self into what some may feel is harms way.
The suggestion that this is stupidity is insulting in the extreme to the point that I must say that it is plain stupid to suggest such a thing.
2 lives this year in time trials. Hardly a lot is it? Just how many died because they had no covid jab? Shall we impose that as well ? (well I would actually but only because it is for the greater good on a large scale). How many died falling off a ladder or because they were pissed?
I do wear a helmet in TT's but not in hill climbs generally. Too hot and unpleasant.
Of course this is why we have a seperate helmet section so we can bang on at each other and refuse to see the other side point of view :lol:
GranvilleThomas
Posts: 139
Joined: 1 Apr 2015, 9:58am
Location: Caerphilly

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by GranvilleThomas »

mattsccm wrote: 9 Jan 2022, 5:23pm Just how many died because they had no covid jab? Shall we impose that as well ? (well I would actually but only because it is for the greater good on a large scale).
I know whats best for you and I will impose a medical intervention on you for your own good, even if if I have completely no idea what I am talking about.

Good grief, you couldn't make it up.
drossall
Posts: 6115
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by drossall »

Jlumley100 wrote: 8 Jan 2022, 11:38amThere have been 2 deaths in competitions from riders being struck down by motorists recently so rider safety is more important than any perceived inconvenience of using helmets...
Steady rider wrote: 8 Jan 2022, 4:13pmI think CTT are wrong to make hill climbers subject to lights...
I've said it before, but these two quotes embody the problem. The basis of helmet design and standards lies in kids falling off sideways from a standing start. So the idea that they are a good response to any issues with cars travelling at 40mph+ on DC courses just seems ludicrous. Conversely, whilst I'm not advocating helmets in hill climbs, the idea that there should be an exemption for the only type of event that gets near the capabilities of a magic hat just shows how much we've lost track of reality, as far as I can see.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Steady rider »

Helmet wearers more likely to hit their heads
At the time of questioning by the researchers, 40 (7.8%) of the cyclists were wearing helmets and 476 were not. Of the 21 cyclists who reported striking their heads in the previous 18 months, eight had been wearing helmets at the time of the mishap. This is 20% of the 40 helmeted cyclists questioned. The 13 other, unhelmeted, cyclists who had struck their heads represented 2.7% of the 476 unhelmeted cyclists who were questioned in the study. Thus helmet wearers were 7 times more likely to hit their heads than those who cycled bare-headed
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1162.html

Also helmeted are more likely to have a fall, -https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... jury_rates

The two, extra head/helmet impacts and more falls, result in lower levels of safety.
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 5470
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by pjclinch »

Steady rider wrote: 9 Jan 2022, 9:17pm
Helmet wearers more likely to hit their heads
At the time of questioning by the researchers, 40 (7.8%) of the cyclists were wearing helmets and 476 were not. Of the 21 cyclists who reported striking their heads in the previous 18 months, eight had been wearing helmets at the time of the mishap. This is 20% of the 40 helmeted cyclists questioned. The 13 other, unhelmeted, cyclists who had struck their heads represented 2.7% of the 476 unhelmeted cyclists who were questioned in the study. Thus helmet wearers were 7 times more likely to hit their heads than those who cycled bare-headed
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1162.html

Also helmeted are more likely to have a fall, -https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... jury_rates

The two, extra head/helmet impacts and more falls, result in lower levels of safety.
This falls in to the same hole as the work claiming they make you safer: it assumes there is no differentiation between cyclists other than whether or not they wear a helmet. Correlation not necessarily causation.

You could probably make a better case for TT bikes causing crashes, because the geometry and skis make them less manoeuvrable than a road bike and the riding position encourages riders not to look where they're actually going: handling and sightlines have a direct effect on crash probability.

But you could make an even better case for racing causing crashes, because going as fast as possible, including brinkmanship on fast turns, is necessary to win, so winning is in direct opposition to riding as safely as possible. Cavendish is, I'm pretty sure, a very good bike handler but he seems to crash a lot even taking the exposure of many miles ridden in to account. Is that because he's wearing a helmet or because he's involved in total mayhem at very high speeds on a regular basis?

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
Mike Sales
Posts: 7883
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Mike Sales »

pjclinch wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 8:45am
But you could make an even better case for racing causing crashes, because going as fast as possible, including brinkmanship on fast turns, is necessary to win, so winning is in direct opposition to riding as safely as possible. Cavendish is, I'm pretty sure, a very good bike handler but he seems to crash a lot even taking the exposure of many miles ridden in to account. Is that because he's wearing a helmet or because he's involved in total mayhem at very high speeds on a regular basis?

Pete.
It has been pointed out that "safety" benefits on the road are often consumed as performance benefits.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 5470
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by pjclinch »

Mike Sales wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 8:54am
pjclinch wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 8:45am
But you could make an even better case for racing causing crashes, because going as fast as possible, including brinkmanship on fast turns, is necessary to win, so winning is in direct opposition to riding as safely as possible. Cavendish is, I'm pretty sure, a very good bike handler but he seems to crash a lot even taking the exposure of many miles ridden in to account. Is that because he's wearing a helmet or because he's involved in total mayhem at very high speeds on a regular basis?
It has been pointed out that "safety" benefits on the road are often consumed as performance benefits.
I'd be interested to know how one would accurately determine that the contestants in a top level Madison or World Tour bunch sprint would not put in quite so much effort if they weren't wearing crash helmets...

Is it "I can go faster because I'm safer!" or is it "I'm going as fast as I can, might as well add a bit of PPE!"?
I suspect you'd have instances of both across a riding population, as usually the case where psychology is involved it's going to be very hard to make a general case.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
Mike Sales
Posts: 7883
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Mike Sales »

pjclinch wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 10:41am

I'd be interested to know how one would accurately determine that the contestants in a top level Madison or World Tour bunch sprint would not put in quite so much effort if they weren't wearing crash helmets...

Is it "I can go faster because I'm safer!" or is it "I'm going as fast as I can, might as well add a bit of PPE!"?
I suspect you'd have instances of both across a riding population, as usually the case where psychology is involved it's going to be very hard to make a general case.

Pete.
Yes indeed.
We can only look at cases like taxi drivers with anti-lock brakes, who braked later and followed closer.

[
The ministry fitted half of the 91-car Munich taxi fleet with anti-lock brakes, which at the time were considered a major leap in road safety. Then it monitored the fleet for three years using accelerometers, which measure G-forces, and undercover passengers. Every care was taken to avoid corruption of the data--the drivers were switched among the cars, for example, and they were not told which cars had anti-lock brakes nor how they would be monitored. The results were clear. Not only did drivers of ABS-equipped vehicles have slightly more accidents, on average, they also tended to brake harder, accelerate faster and create more traffic conflicts. In other words, the wonder brakes did nothing for road safety, but rather had the opposite effect: They encouraged drivers to speed up and be more reckless.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by mattheus »

Jlumley100 wrote: 8 Jan 2022, 11:38am I read about the helmet and front light decision in cycling weekly. Its very sensible. Most popular time trials take place on busy roads and turn on roundabouts so anything to make riders safer and more visible is a good idea. There have been 2 deaths in competitions from riders being struck down by motorists recently so rider safety is more important than any perceived inconvenience of using helmets and front lights. Nobody wants cyclists to be injured or killed and the police will stop organisers putting on events on a particular road if they think its unsafe to do so, so safety is in everyones interest. I race my tandem in CTT events and always wear a helmet and use front and rear lights when competing so this isn’t an issue. Not wearing a helmet while competing is pure stupidity, even cycling uphill as accidents can always happen whilst racing as people tend to take a few risks to go as fast as possible. So keep safe and enjoy cycling.
This is really interesting.

If THE Joanna Lumley is racing CTT events, I want to know more!
gcogger
Posts: 113
Joined: 2 Jul 2020, 9:54am

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by gcogger »

Mike Sales wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 10:55am
pjclinch wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 10:41am

I'd be interested to know how one would accurately determine that the contestants in a top level Madison or World Tour bunch sprint would not put in quite so much effort if they weren't wearing crash helmets...

Is it "I can go faster because I'm safer!" or is it "I'm going as fast as I can, might as well add a bit of PPE!"?
I suspect you'd have instances of both across a riding population, as usually the case where psychology is involved it's going to be very hard to make a general case.

Pete.
Yes indeed.
We can only look at cases like taxi drivers with anti-lock brakes, who braked later and followed closer.

[
The ministry fitted half of the 91-car Munich taxi fleet with anti-lock brakes, which at the time were considered a major leap in road safety. Then it monitored the fleet for three years using accelerometers, which measure G-forces, and undercover passengers. Every care was taken to avoid corruption of the data--the drivers were switched among the cars, for example, and they were not told which cars had anti-lock brakes nor how they would be monitored. The results were clear. Not only did drivers of ABS-equipped vehicles have slightly more accidents, on average, they also tended to brake harder, accelerate faster and create more traffic conflicts. In other words, the wonder brakes did nothing for road safety, but rather had the opposite effect: They encouraged drivers to speed up and be more reckless.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html
From the same article:
In the 1980s, Lund conducted his own investigations into risk homeostasis and found that it applies only to anti-lock brakes, studded tires and other automotive features that give the driver active feedback. When you can feel the better brakes and surer handling, then some drivers instinctively exploit them. “But [the theory] doesn’t make any sense for passive safety features” such as air bags and seat belts, says Lund.
I have no clear opinion on the subject myself, but it appears there is at least some dispute over extrapolating the ABS results to passive safety measures.
Mike Sales
Posts: 7883
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by Mike Sales »

gcogger wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 11:46am
From the same article:
In the 1980s, Lund conducted his own investigations into risk homeostasis and found that it applies only to anti-lock brakes, studded tires and other automotive features that give the driver active feedback. When you can feel the better brakes and surer handling, then some drivers instinctively exploit them. “But [the theory] doesn’t make any sense for passive safety features” such as air bags and seat belts, says Lund.
I have no clear opinion on the subject myself, but it appears there is at least some dispute over extrapolating the ABS results to passive safety measures.
Standard risk homeostasis theory stipulates that the safety benefit should be known to the subject, and air bags and belts certainly are.
Drivers and passengers survive some serious collisions, and this does not go unnoticed. The decreased vulnerability is celebrated as an advance in safety (for motor vehicle occupants).
risk.png
Also intriguingly, for the first time of which I am aware, serious, statistically-qualified, advocates of seat-belt legislation acknowledged a risk transfer effect:

The clear reduction in death and injury to car occupants is appreciably offset by extra deaths among pedestrians and cyclists.

and

the best estimates from both the analyses summarised here are that extra deaths to vulnerable road users did accompany the introduction of mandatory wearing of seat belts.

Table 1 from Allsop et al summarizes the risk transfer effect for vulnerable road users – cyclists, pedestrians and rear sear passengers who were not covered by the seat belt law.
http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2013/02/08/1061/
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
drossall
Posts: 6115
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: CTT introduce compulsory helmets and front lights

Post by drossall »

Mike Sales wrote: 10 Jan 2022, 12:05pmStandard risk homeostasis theory stipulates that the safety benefit should be known to the subject...
Strictly, it's about what the subject believes. If the subject believes a safety method to be highly effective, that subject may take more risk. If the measure is not in fact as effective as the subject believes, then the outcome may be negative. For example, jlumley100, who apparently believes that a helmet can offer protection from a fast-moving motor vehicle on a DC course, would definitely be expected to get a negative safety effect from wearing one.
Post Reply