Does your riding position influence the chances of head injury?

[cycle tramp]

...as an aside, people will argue that riding in a fairly upright position also reduces your speed..

..certainly you wouldn't want to do it for any timed event..

..however for utility journeys of under 20 miles, any time lost is negotiable, caused by sensory overload.. you tend not to go fast because of the sights that you notice, whether its the colour of the skies, the dance of the passing seasons, the way the birds fly.. and within that data your also picking up on road surface ls, and the interaction of the traffic around you, whether the streets are busy..

..you're not forcing the situation but allowing it to unfold, and (attempting) to place yourself on the maximum position of control as it does unfold...

[pjclinch]

I would suggest that there are sufficient differences between tractor driving and bike riding that it's not clear cut that assumptions about one will hold for the other.

Conjecture is good for a start point, but not an end one.

Well, unless I can find any participants to the following experiment, it's going to have to do;
Participant a was asked to ride a bike for one hour, through town at rush hour and out into the open countryside.
Participant b was asked to ride the same bike, at the same time, following the same route - but they were asked to wear glasses of which the upper 40% of the lens was masked out.

..given the choice, would you be a or b in this experiment?

I'd choose A, but that's because it would be more pleasant. Knowing my vision is impaired I'd be more cautious if I was doing B.
What we want to know here is whether I'd be safer, not whether it would be easier/more pleasant.

..going back to the whole Gordon Ramsey thing... its possible that it was a mixture of his speed and limited visibility caused by his cycling position which caused him to crash..

It is possible, yes, but back to the conjecture thing...

..the only figures there are may come from the Netherlands where alot more 'sit up' bikes are used. However their low rate if cycling injury has already been attributed to cycle facilities.. personally I believe its a mixture of both.. but it's impossible to prove...

More than change the danger levels what good infra typically does do is make cycling possible without the degree of expertise required for the Weapons Grade traffic interfacing of Bikeability Level 3 (sufficiently demanding that it requires a 6:2 pupil/instructor ratio to teach and usually done in Y6/P7 or higher) so it makes cycling much more normal so "everyone" tends to do it. And that tends to mean slow, comfortable riding in fairly large numbers. My suspicion (and it is really just conjecture) is that this relatively slow, relatively crowded cycling makes far more difference than pilot view.
One thing about pilot view is just because you can look around easily doesn't mean you will, and when you pass a Dutch school at chucking out time and share a fietspad with dozens of kids who are mostly chatting to their pals (either in person or on the phone) rather than worrying about their immediate surroundings (which they feel fine to do because it's a safe environment) it's pretty clear that laser-focus on their cycling is not paramount!

Pete.

[pjclinch]

...as an aside, people will argue that riding in a fairly upright position also reduces your speed..

..certainly you wouldn't want to do it for any timed event..

..however for utility journeys of under 20 miles, any time lost is negotiable, caused by sensory overload.. you tend not to go fast because of the sights that you notice, whether its the colour of the skies, the dance of the passing seasons, the way the birds fly.. and within that data your also picking up on road surface ls, and the interaction of the traffic around you, whether the streets are busy..

..you're not forcing the situation but allowing it to unfold, and (attempting) to place yourself on the maximum position of control as it does unfold...

I don't really agree with your "(attempting) to place yourself on the maximum position of control". What people tend to do is attempt to place themselves on the maximum position of enjoyment, which is usually enough control. You don't have maximum control if you're looking at the birds, but I'll look at the birds if I think it's safe enough. You don't have maximum control if you're pushing as hard as you can in a reduced-vision tuck, or bouncing over a deliberately contrived to be awkward rock garden on an MTB, but it can be fun if it's safe enough.

Pete.

[pjclinch]

The usual place to start on how people will eat up any safety benefits by changing their behaviour to match a perceived Happy Risk Level is John Adams' Risk, out of print but available as a free PDF download at http://www.john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/ ... K-BOOK.pdf

Pete.

[drossall]

Some statements in this thread are so oblique that it's hard to work out what's being argued. I think cycle tramp is now maintaining that an upright position decreases the chances of crashing, as well as reducing the chances of head impact. I'm not sure this line of argument is that helpful. It seems to be based on the not-uncommon, but entirely unproven, assumption that upright cycling gives better control. The issues with this include at least that:

• It's rather a marginal effect, as you can set up bars at any height (relative to the saddle) within reason, so there are no two clear groups of upright and "sports" riders, but rather a continuum - you can easily, for example, set the bars on a sports bike higher (again in relative terms) than those on a utility machine. So evidence is going to be really hard to come by.
• Many people, my teenage self included, may find dropped bars unfamiliar at first, but so was riding a bike - that's not good evidence that, once you've adapted, they are inherently dangerous.
• An overly-upright position reduces load on the front wheel, and therefore its traction and control.
• It's well known that we tend to over-estimate the risks of unfamiliar situations, and under-estimate the risks of familiar ones. So people who like dropped bars are going to think them safe, and those who don't will think the opposite, and neither tells us that much about the actual risks.

So basically this thread is all about supposition and no hard evidence. It's the first time I've heard someone seriously argue that a significant factor in the better safety record on the continent is the wider use of utility bikes. I don't even know, in percentage terms, whether that's true - I'm much more convinced by arguments around better provision and also safety in numbers - cycling is safer when there are lots of cyclists because, bluntly, motorists expect to see cyclists and get more practice at dealing with them properly.

I'm not sure this thread is contributing anything at all!

[853]

I'm not sure this thread is contributing anything at all!

Whilst I can understand your view, what this thread (and others in the 'Helmets & helmet discussion' section) does do is highlight that there is a lack of good quality evidence and data to support any view.

Several members have pointed out that there are too many factors to consider, and one of these is random luck. Only last year I lost both wheels from underneath me on a dry corner that I've taken hundreds of times. I'm still no wiser as to what caused the crash, but it happened and I put a small dent in my helmet. Had I lost contact 1 second earlier or later, I would have missed the grassy bank I hit.

Of course, if anyone does have some very good evidence or data to support their view I'd be only too pleased to see it

[pjclinch]

I'm not sure this thread is contributing anything at all!

Whilst I can understand your view, what this thread (and others in the 'Helmets & helmet discussion' section) does do is highlight that there is a lack of good quality evidence and data to support any view.

Though knowing that we don't really know is at least something, and for example says that basing public policy and safety advice on such a basis is on fairly shaky ground.

Several members have pointed out that there are too many factors to consider, and one of these is random luck. Only last year I lost both wheels from underneath me on a dry corner that I've taken hundreds of times. I'm still no wiser as to what caused the crash, but it happened and I put a small dent in my helmet. Had I lost contact 1 second earlier or later, I would have missed the grassy bank I hit.

Luck is effectively factored in to probabilities which is how risk is typically measured and with that you effectively account for the range of luck with a suitably large sample size. So you get the "I just fell off, I don't know why" events but you also get the "I have no idea how I stayed on!" events and the (almost certainly more numerous) "I just rode my bike and that was that" events, and with enough data you get a reasonable idea if something carries an outsized risk.

What's more of a problem is sorting out one set of factors that might affect outcomes from another, so roadies might fall off more than tourers but is that because they're going faster, they're typically travelling in tighter knit, bigger bunches, they're using narrower, higher pressure tyres, they're not looking so far ahead on average, it's harder to look behind, they're perhaps less experienced etc. etc.
Comparisons to find these things out work best if all the variables can be independently controlled, but they generally can't be in a meaningful way.

Pete.

[cycle tramp]

I'm not sure this thread is contributing anything at all!

That's fair enough, here's a quick re-cap. Following Gordon Ramsey-Street's ass-ertion that I should wear a helmet, all the time no matter how short the journey..
..I have raised the question does the cyclist's riding position affect, or influence the chances of sustaining a head injury, either by (a) reducing the possibility of a collision or (b) by placing the riders head away from the point of impact..

..it is important that this is raised, because (i) I'm not sure if anyone else has (ii) if the answer to both or either the former points are 'yes', it follows that this weakens the argument for helmet compulsion.

Admittedly there is a lack of evidence. However this does not mean the question shouldn't be asked. Other questions which could be asked include 'is Starmer afraid of the countryside? Does not seeing a building for miles snd miles terrify him? Does he have nightmares about trees?'.

[cycle tramp]

It's the first time I've heard someone seriously argue that a significant factor in the better safety record on the continent is the wider use of utility bikes. I don't even know, in percentage terms, whether that's true - I'm much more convinced by arguments around better provision and also safety in numbers - cycling is safer when there are lots of cyclists because, bluntly, motorists expect to see cyclists and get more practice at dealing with them properly.

Both statements may be true..
..in the case of bicycle/powered vehicle collisions, I suspect the later of your statements to be true...
..in the case of single collision situations, its possible that the former may be true.. cycling everyday, and perhaps more than once a day may maintain both your balance and experience compared with cycling once a week.

[cycle tramp]

Some statements in this thread are so oblique that it's hard to work out what's being argued. I think cycle tramp is now maintaining that an upright position decreases the chances of crashing, as well as reducing the chances of head impact. I'm not sure this line of argument is that helpful. It seems to be based on the not-uncommon, but entirely unproven, assumption that upright cycling gives better control.

I hope I didn't use the word 'control', if I did I apologise. The words I should have used were 'view point' or 'angle of vision' or something like that... basically the better your view of the road, the more information your mind has, with which to make the right decision and the less chance you will be caught by surprise. If you are less likely to be caught by surprise, you may be less likely to crash, and therefore unlike Gordon Ramsey-street the less likely you are to need a helmet...
...indeed the same point was raised in the earlier link. If Gordon Ramsey-Street wasn't cycling a carbon fibre racing bike, but rather a Pashley Roadster, would he have fallen off at all? If the answer is yes (and we may never know) then surely the rebuke to his demand that 'I wear a helmet all the time' is for him to 'stop riding a road bike and cycle something more practical".

[pjclinch]

I hope I didn't use the word 'control', if I did I apologise. The words I should have used were 'view point' or 'angle of vision' or something like that... basically the better your view of the road, the more information your mind has, with which to make the right decision and the less chance you will be caught by surprise. If you are less likely to be caught by surprise, you may be less likely to crash, and therefore unlike Gordon Ramsey-street the less likely you are to need a helmet...

Do have a read of the Adams Risk book. It details how lots of smart, well meaning people applying common sense and straightforward mechanics trying to make the world a safer place have been routinely undermined by the vagaries of human behaviour.

So in your above example, if our notional rider taking in maximum information is focused solely on their own safety then it probably will be a benefit, but as you'd noted further up they could well be looking at the birds which, assuming they feel safe enough, is the sort of thing people do if they're not in a big hurry and there aren't clear and present threats. So when you say the more information your mind has, with which to make the right decision and the less chance you will be caught by surprise that needs to factor in how the "more information" includes which birds you've just been looking at, in a direction not really relevant to riding your bike as safely as possible. You might have more information but it's not all relevant and the diversion in to twitching will compromise the safety.

Also worth a look is Steve Casner's "Careful!: The Surprising Science Behind Everyday Calamities - and How You Can Avoid Them", which points out that people don't really multi-task beyond stuff like walking and breathing at the same time. What one tends to do is task-switch, so if you're watching the birds that's actually most of what you're doing, and when you switch back to the road that's most of what you're doing. It might be nice to think that with 20% better field of view or whatever measure you can divert 20% of your active attention to the birds, but what you'll actually do is something like 20% of your time concentrating on the birds during which you'll have minimal focus on the road. So if a surprise comes up while your mind is elsewhere your better view isn't really any help (in fact, quite the reverse!).

...indeed the same point was raised in the earlier link. If Gordon Ramsey-Street wasn't cycling a carbon fibre racing bike, but rather a Pashley Roadster, would he have fallen off at all? If the answer is yes (and we may never know) then surely the rebuke to his demand that 'I wear a helmet all the time' is for him to 'stop riding a road bike and cycle something more practical".

The thing is that our sweary chef apparently goes out for a burn, and if you're going out for a burn you don't use a Pashley Roadster. Sport riding isn't about being "practical". This is part of how it's difficult to separate all the confounding variables.

I have several bikes, I ride quite differently according to which I'm on. If I want to test my athletic prowess on the road, even though at the end of the day it's just push X watts for Y minutes so the bike you use doesn't really matter, I'll choose something relatively whizzy where my effort brings more tangible Fun Factor returns. And I imagine our sweary chef will too.

Having said all that, thinking about how riding position affects the ride is certainly worth thinking about. If one is finding looking around in traffic hard with increasing age it may well be worth considering a bike that makes it a bit easier to do that.

Pete.

[cycle tramp]

...indeed the same point was raised in the earlier link. If Gordon Ramsey-Street wasn't cycling a carbon fibre racing bike, but rather a Pashley Roadster, would he have fallen off at all? If the answer is yes (and we may never know) then surely the rebuke to his demand that 'I wear a helmet all the time' is for him to 'stop riding a road bike and cycle something more practical".

The thing is that our sweary chef apparently goes out for a burn, and if you're going out for a burn you don't use a Pashley Roadster. Sport riding isn't about being "practical". This is part of how it's difficult to separate all the confounding variables.

I have several bikes, I ride quite differently according to which I'm on. If I want to test my athletic prowess on the road, even though at the end of the day it's just push X watts for Y minutes so the bike you use doesn't really matter, I'll choose something relatively whizzy where my effort brings more tangible Fun Factor returns. And I imagine our sweary chef will too.

Pete.

Well...yes. And to be fair, if people want to go for a burn on their bikes, I have nothing against it. Where I tend to draw the line is;
(A) if they ride outside of their ability, fall off and then pronounce that their helmet saved their life and that everyone should wear one.. no matter how short their journey or what they ride...
(B) if they ride outside of their ability fall off, hit their head and then become a static for the helmet fascists to argue for compulsory helmet wearing....

It's not like I'm going around going 'Hey everyone, I'm teetotal... and I think you're all very very irresponsible for drinking something which might cause cancer of the mouth and throat, damage to your internal organs and threatens your mental well being*'....
Good Lord the whole of the west countries cider economy might collapse if I did that..
(*and in the case of cider.. loss of memory, the ability to use long words, and the increasing risk you will actually wet yourself by the 9th pint )

[pjclinch]

Well...yes. And to be fair, if people want to go for a burn on their bikes, I have nothing against it. Where I tend to draw the line is;
(A) if they ride outside of their ability, fall off and then pronounce that their helmet saved their life and that everyone should wear one.. no matter how short their journey or what they ride...
(B) if they ride outside of their ability fall off, hit their head and then become a static for the helmet fascists to argue for compulsory helmet wearing....

I'm right with you there, but in terms of riding position/bike type etc., if we compare someone that's worked up slowly and carefully from a JCC and is a thoroughly competent bike handler to someone that's had a midlife crisis and gone out and dropped a few grand on some carbon confection they can barely control then the riding position/bike type etc. is pretty much the same...

It's typically down to making sure you know what you're at.

There's a not entirely dissimilar wrangle that's been going on for years in winter hillwalking circles about ice axe length. Longer axes give better support to prevent falls, shorter axes (as used by climbers) are less use for support but easier to self-arrest with if you do fall, and much hot air has gone about regarding how the relative merits. In reality, as long as you are familiar with whatever axe you use, and know its limitations and work within them, you'll be okay.

Pete.

[853]

..going back to the whole Gordon Ramsey thing... its possible that it was a mixture of his speed and limited visibility caused by his cycling position which caused him to crash..

That's fair enough, here's a quick re-cap. Following Gordon Ramsey-Street's ass-ertion that I should wear a helmet, all the time no matter how short the journey..
..I have raised the question does the cyclist's riding position affect, or influence the chances of sustaining a head injury, either by (a) reducing the possibility of a collision or (b) by placing the riders head away from the point of impact..

Well...yes. And to be fair, if people want to go for a burn on their bikes, I have nothing against it. Where I tend to draw the line is;
(A) if they ride outside of their ability, fall off and then pronounce that their helmet saved their life and that everyone should wear one.. no matter how short their journey or what they ride...
(B) if they ride outside of their ability fall off, hit their head and then become a static for the helmet fascists to argue for compulsory helmet wearing....

Having decided to bring Gordon Ramsay into the discussion for some reason, and now implying that he fell off because he was riding outside of his ability, let's do the facts.

Here is the photo of GR before the start of the ride in which he crashed.

Top of the 'bars are pretty much level with the saddle, and it's a short stem. I'd call that a touring position and fairly upright. It's certainly not a low position.

And this is what he said in Men'sHealth:

'My life flashed before me,’ says Ramsay. ‘{I was} travelling down the hill quite fast, no other cars involved. The front wheel went down a pothole, and the whole bike just catapulted me. I struggled to breathe. I thought I was going to pass out.'

So there we have it. His front wheel went down a pothole. Presumably he didn't see it in time, yet he wasn't riding in a low position. You might not like the sweary chef, but it's always good to check the facts first before implying they ride outside their ability.

https://www.menshealth.com/uk/fitness/a ... e-accident

[cycle tramp]

Well... in answer to the first issue - Gordon Ramsey-street brought himself into the issue by telling me, and everyone else to wear a helmet, all the time.. no matter how short the ride..
..like every other helmet fascist out there, reasons why I may not wish to do this simply escape him or his understanding..

As for riding outside of his ability... ah, it appears he has actually admitted it, himself. If you travel at a speed where you can't detect a hazard then you are travelling outside your ability..... the moral being 'don't ride at a speed where you can not spot a hazard on the road.. whether that's a pothole, tree trunk, parked vehicle, dead badger or whatever'...(I think its even mentioned in the highway code)... and the second moral being 'there ain't never been a road which can't or doesn't form a pothole.. the moment you stop looking for 'em, is the moment you'll find one'. The second moral came from a highways engineer...

And thus my rebuke to the helmet fascist Gordon Ramsey-street's demand is 'actually I will continue to ride bare headed as is my legal right to so, but at a speed where I can spot and avoid road defects'.

Thanks for the link, and in my defence I'll give you the line from fight club 'we felt sorry for the men packed in gyms, trying to look like whatever Calvin Klein or Tommy Hilfiger
said that they should...'