Cycling UK angered by Highway Code's 'victim blaming' helmet advice

HawkinsPeter wrote:

Jitensha Oni wrote:

'Tis the season to be falling...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqo4hwnJt6Y

A question that I have is when a helmet wearer falls and the helmet splits apart does that mean that the helmet did its job or did it fail to provide adequate protection?

Helmets used by for eg the military have two distinct requirements to meet: impact, and penetration. Penetration is addressed by something like a kevlar skin, and impact by an absorbing structure. In practice, the two act together for example in the case of impact with a point, or an edge. Cycle helmets only address impact, and this assumes hitting a large flat area where the load is evenly distributed. Splitting of the polystyrene is most likely due to hitting an edge, where the helmet is not evenly loaded. Something very likely to happen if you hit a car, a kerb, or even part of a bike. Bike helmets aren't designed to cope with this situation.

Jitensha Oni wrote:

'Tis the season to be falling...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqo4hwnJt6Y

I don't think a single one hit their head, although with a helmet on, a couple would have found the protruding helmet hit the pavement.

Who knows, they might then have posted on roadcc how the helmet saved them.

hirsute wrote:

Jitensha Oni wrote:

'Tis the season to be falling...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqo4hwnJt6Y

I don't think a single one hit their head, although with a helmet on, a couple would have found the protruding helmet hit the pavement.

Who knows, they might then have posted on roadcc how the helmet saved them.

my thoughts as well. Though it does look like a lot of shoulders, elbows and wrists are quite tender. Maybe they should be wearing pads and wrist braces? If you watch carefully you see a lot of them automatically lifting their heads to prevent them hitting the deck. 

Stevemoore wrote:

Speaking as an experienced cyclist who would be dead if not for a helmet, I pity anyone who does not wear one

Yawn.

Stevemoore wrote:

Speaking as an experienced cyclist who would be dead if not for a helmet, I pity anyone who does not wear one

Who was in the control group?

muppetkeeper wrote:

I believe that each year more pedestrians are killed from head injuries than cyclists. Helmets for pedestrians?

Also, whilst “sports cyclists” probably should wear helmets, due to the high speeds they can get up to, urban “popping to the shops” cyclists rarely go really fast. The sad truth seems to be that cyclists mainly die due to collisions with vehicles, and rarely by just falling off.

 

"Collisions with vehicles ", eh? So that'd be the very thing that helmets are *not* designed to protect you from...?

brooksby wrote:

muppetkeeper wrote:

I believe that each year more pedestrians are killed from head injuries than cyclists. Helmets for pedestrians?

Also, whilst “sports cyclists” probably should wear helmets, due to the high speeds they can get up to, urban “popping to the shops” cyclists rarely go really fast. The sad truth seems to be that cyclists mainly die due to collisions with vehicles, and rarely by just falling off.

 

"Collisions with vehicles ", eh? So that'd be the very thing that helmets are *not* designed to protect you from...?

Yes, I agree. I wear a helmet always, but mainly due to my most likely accident being falling over whilst clipped in and stopped. Cycle helmets don’t reallt help much over 15mph or when faced with a 2 tonne car doing 50mph.

muppetkeeper wrote:

brooksby wrote:

muppetkeeper wrote:

I believe that each year more pedestrians are killed from head injuries than cyclists. Helmets for pedestrians?

Also, whilst “sports cyclists” probably should wear helmets, due to the high speeds they can get up to, urban “popping to the shops” cyclists rarely go really fast. The sad truth seems to be that cyclists mainly die due to collisions with vehicles, and rarely by just falling off.

 

"Collisions with vehicles ", eh? So that'd be the very thing that helmets are *not* designed to protect you from...?

 

Yes, I agree. I wear a helmet always, but mainly due to my most likely accident being falling over whilst clipped in and stopped. Cycle helmets don’t reallt help much over 15mph or when faced with a 2 tonne car doing 50mph.

 

I'm struggling to see how you would hit your head in that circumstance and a helmet simply increases the likelihood of contact with the road.

Dingaling wrote:

When people are told to wear hard hats and steel toe-capped boots on a building site or, say, protective glasses when using an angle grinder, do people start screaming "victim blaming" . 

Can't say I understand the negative reaction to reasonable advice. I have never read anywhere claims that a cycle helmet will save your life in ALL accidents, it may reduce or eliminate injury in some cases. 

Once, when I hit a hump in the asphalt at speed, I flew over the handlbar, landed on my head and shoulder and broke the helmet.  That helmet prevented a serious injury.

That said though, I wouldn't support a move to make helmets and hi viz gear a legal requirement.

Each can decide what's best for his/herself.

While I agree with your conclusion, the issue isn't with 'victim blaming' it is with the HC's apparent 'solutions' to the safety issue. People would certainly have an issue if those on work sites were told to wear cotton wool in their ears and balloons on their feet to prevent injury, as these are patently ineffective. There is no evidence (in fact the evidence is contrary) that hi viz ( and in fact helmets) do anything to improve cyclist safety, whereas those worksite items you have mentioned demonstrably reduce injuries. And the problem for cyclists is, when there is an accident, the non-use of these 'safety' items is seen as a contributory effect. 

I agree helmets prevent some injuries, but because the (implied) necessity  discourages people from cycling in general, recommending them actually has a significant health cost for the population, and due to 'herd protection' makes cycling more dangerous (Arguably)

Dingaling wrote:

When people are told to wear hard hats and steel toe-capped boots on a building site or, say, protective glasses when using an angle grinder, do people start screaming "victim blaming" . 

Can't say I understand the negative reaction to reasonable advice. I have never read anywhere claims that a cycle helmet will save your life in ALL accidents, it may reduce or eliminate injury in some cases. 

Once, when I hit a hump in the asphalt at speed, I flew over the handlbar, landed on my head and shoulder and broke the helmet.  That helmet prevented a serious injury.

That said though, I wouldn't support a move to make helmets and hi viz gear a legal requirement.

Each can decide what's best for his/herself.

 

 

Silly fucker, should have been looking where you were going in order to avoid said hump.

don simon fbpe wrote:

Dingaling wrote:

When people are told to wear hard hats and steel toe-capped boots on a building site or, say, protective glasses when using an angle grinder, do people start screaming "victim blaming" . 

Can't say I understand the negative reaction to reasonable advice. I have never read anywhere claims that a cycle helmet will save your life in ALL accidents, it may reduce or eliminate injury in some cases. 

Once, when I hit a hump in the asphalt at speed, I flew over the handlbar, landed on my head and shoulder and broke the helmet.  That helmet prevented a serious injury.

That said though, I wouldn't support a move to make helmets and hi viz gear a legal requirement.

Each can decide what's best for his/herself.

 

 

Silly fucker, should have been looking where you were going in order to avoid said hump.

Well, be fair, it's entirely his choice if he prefers to wear a helmet to the hassle of looking where he's going (and I'm not being facscetious there either - if you aren't confident you aren't going to come off/go over the handlebars, that's a legit reason to wear a helmet).

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

don simon fbpe wrote:

Dingaling wrote:

When people are told to wear hard hats and steel toe-capped boots on a building site or, say, protective glasses when using an angle grinder, do people start screaming "victim blaming" . 

Can't say I understand the negative reaction to reasonable advice. I have never read anywhere claims that a cycle helmet will save your life in ALL accidents, it may reduce or eliminate injury in some cases. 

Once, when I hit a hump in the asphalt at speed, I flew over the handlbar, landed on my head and shoulder and broke the helmet.  That helmet prevented a serious injury.

That said though, I wouldn't support a move to make helmets and hi viz gear a legal requirement.

Each can decide what's best for his/herself.

 

 

Silly fucker, should have been looking where you were going in order to avoid said hump.

I think you might be the silly fucker. I was looking where I was going, namely reading the directions on a roundabout sign. The hump in the asphalt was a fault in the surface and not readily visible. The council sent workers round to grind it level but not before I'd photographed it. It cost 'em and I got lots of new parts for the bike.

 

Well, be fair, it's entirely his choice if he prefers to wear a helmet to the hassle of looking where he's going (and I'm not being facscetious there either - if you aren't confident you aren't going to come off/go over the handlebars, that's a legit reason to wear a helmet).

You don't know me, and it is facetious.

BFBS:

The issue for me is not about whether cycle helmets are better for the population overall nor your so called stats ( i.e. there are lies, damned lies and there are statistics). The issue is whether or not a helmet is a benefit for me and there are lots of studies that say it is.

Let's just look at this excerpt from the internet

"So whether helmets save lives overall is actually a much more subtle and complicated issue than it first appears—and it's especially contentious in countries such as Australia where helmet wearing is compulsory.

This argument has been forcefully made by Australian researcher Bill Curnow in a variety of papers, including Bicycle Helmets: A Scientific Evaluation [PDF]. Chris Rissel, Professor of Public Health at the University of Sydney, argues that "... the benefits of cycling outweigh the risks, with helmet legislation actually costing society more from lost health gains than saved from injury prevention." 

So there is no benefit to society in cyclists being made to wear a helmut. I'm not going to argue with that but what I find strange is that some CYCLISTS conclude that there is no benefit to them. Implicit in the the above Aussie observation is that there is a benefit to cyclists, it is just outweighed (over the whole population) by those that, due to compulsory wearing of helmets, do not cycle.

Here are some other results:

"A recent two-year study of injuries treated in one hospital by Dinh et al found that "A lower proportion of people wearing helmets had significant head injury... or facial injury... compared with non-helmet users... [and] helmet use was associated with a 70% decrease in the odds of significant head injury."

Another study, by Canadian researchers Costa et al, concluded that not wearing a helmet doubles the cost of hospital treatment for cyclists who suffer traumatic brain injuries. But that doesn't mean helmets are guaranteed to help in every situation.

A recent study of 3854 injured cyclists (by Rivara, Thompson, and Thompson) concluded that "Prevention of serious bicycle injuries cannot be accomplished through helmet use alone, and may require separation of cyclists from motor vehicles." That's perhaps not surprising when you consider the relative mass and speed of a cyclist and an automobile—and imagine what happens when they collide. Whether a helmet helps you also depends on who you are.

One 2015 German study ("Prevention of Bicycle Accidents" by Zwipp et al) argued that "Elderly bicyclists... are a minority... but represent a majority... of all fatalities. They profit most by wearing a helmet."

Back in Australia, where the debate continues to rage over compulsory cycle helmets, a 2016 statistical review of some 40 separate studies by Jake Olivier and Prudence Creighton concluded that "Bicycle helmet use was associated with reduced odds of head injury, serious head injury, facial injury and fatal head injury"—a 70 percent reduction in serious head injury and a 65 percent reduction in fatal head injury.

It's difficult to argue that bicycle helmets benefit everyone, equally, in all situations, or that wearing a helmet should be a legal requirement. Ultimately, the choice is yours. If you're an ordinary, careful rider and you just happen to have an accident that you survive, a cycle helmet could reduce your risk of a serious head injury and save your life. That's why many cyclists conclude that wearing a helmet is a no-brainer, while not wearing one could leave you with no brain. But while scientists and doctors argue over whether helmets are a good or a bad thing overall, and whether their use should be voluntary or compulsory, there's absolutely no way of knowing whether a helmet will make any difference in any one particular accident; that's the nature of risk. And risk is an unavoidable part of our life."

The above paragraph (  https://www.explainthatstuff.com/how-bicycle-helmets-work.html) covers my position.

Dingaling wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

don simon fbpe wrote:

Dingaling wrote:

When people are told to wear hard hats and steel toe-capped boots on a building site or, say, protective glasses when using an angle grinder, do people start screaming "victim blaming" . 

Can't say I understand the negative reaction to reasonable advice. I have never read anywhere claims that a cycle helmet will save your life in ALL accidents, it may reduce or eliminate injury in some cases. 

Once, when I hit a hump in the asphalt at speed, I flew over the handlbar, landed on my head and shoulder and broke the helmet.  That helmet prevented a serious injury.

That said though, I wouldn't support a move to make helmets and hi viz gear a legal requirement.

Each can decide what's best for his/herself.

 

 

Silly fucker, should have been looking where you were going in order to avoid said hump.

I think you might be the silly fucker. I was looking where I was going, namely reading the directions on a roundabout sign. The hump in the asphalt was a fault in the surface and not readily visible. The council sent workers round to grind it level but not before I'd photographed it. It cost 'em and I got lots of new parts for the bike.

 

Well, be fair, it's entirely his choice if he prefers to wear a helmet to the hassle of looking where he's going (and I'm not being facscetious there either - if you aren't confident you aren't going to come off/go over the handlebars, that's a legit reason to wear a helmet).

You don't know me, and it is facetious.

BFBS:

The issue for me is not about whether cycle helmets are better for the population overall nor your so called stats ( i.e. there are lies, damned lies and there are statistics). The issue is whether or not a helmet is a benefit for me and there are lots of studies that say it is.

Let's just look at this excerpt from the internet

"So whether helmets save lives overall is actually a much more subtle and complicated issue than it first appears—and it's especially contentious in countries such as Australia where helmet wearing is compulsory.

This argument has been forcefully made by Australian researcher Bill Curnow in a variety of papers, including Bicycle Helmets: A Scientific Evaluation [PDF]. Chris Rissel, Professor of Public Health at the University of Sydney, argues that "... the benefits of cycling outweigh the risks, with helmet legislation actually costing society more from lost health gains than saved from injury prevention." 

So there is no benefit to society in cyclists being made to wear a helmut. I'm not going to argue with that but what I find strange is that some CYCLISTS conclude that there is no benefit to them. Implicit in the the above Aussie observation is that there is a benefit to cyclists, it is just outweighed (over the whole population) by those that, due to compulsory wearing of helmets, do not cycle.

Here are some other results:

"A recent two-year study of injuries treated in one hospital by Dinh et al found that "A lower proportion of people wearing helmets had significant head injury... or facial injury... compared with non-helmet users... [and] helmet use was associated with a 70% decrease in the odds of significant head injury."

Another study, by Canadian researchers Costa et al, concluded that not wearing a helmet doubles the cost of hospital treatment for cyclists who suffer traumatic brain injuries. But that doesn't mean helmets are guaranteed to help in every situation.

A recent study of 3854 injured cyclists (by Rivara, Thompson, and Thompson) concluded that "Prevention of serious bicycle injuries cannot be accomplished through helmet use alone, and may require separation of cyclists from motor vehicles." That's perhaps not surprising when you consider the relative mass and speed of a cyclist and an automobile—and imagine what happens when they collide. Whether a helmet helps you also depends on who you are.

One 2015 German study ("Prevention of Bicycle Accidents" by Zwipp et al) argued that "Elderly bicyclists... are a minority... but represent a majority... of all fatalities. They profit most by wearing a helmet."

Back in Australia, where the debate continues to rage over compulsory cycle helmets, a 2016 statistical review of some 40 separate studies by Jake Olivier and Prudence Creighton concluded that "Bicycle helmet use was associated with reduced odds of head injury, serious head injury, facial injury and fatal head injury"—a 70 percent reduction in serious head injury and a 65 percent reduction in fatal head injury.

It's difficult to argue that bicycle helmets benefit everyone, equally, in all situations, or that wearing a helmet should be a legal requirement. Ultimately, the choice is yours. If you're an ordinary, careful rider and you just happen to have an accident that you survive, a cycle helmet could reduce your risk of a serious head injury and save your life. That's why many cyclists conclude that wearing a helmet is a no-brainer, while not wearing one could leave you with no brain. But while scientists and doctors argue over whether helmets are a good or a bad thing overall, and whether their use should be voluntary or compulsory, there's absolutely no way of knowing whether a helmet will make any difference in any one particular accident; that's the nature of risk. And risk is an unavoidable part of our life."

 

The above paragraph (  https://www.explainthatstuff.com/how-bicycle-helmets-work.html) covers my position.

 

 

I hope that you've learnt to ride properly now, Dingaling, it can sometimes be a harsh lesson when you get a knock and hurt yourself. I don't understand why you're blamiing the Council for the hump, you were clearly not looking where you were going and have openly admitted as much here. I'm glad, that as a tax payer, I was able to subsidise your stupidity. May I suggest that you ride a little slower in ordfer to take in all the information around you including signs and humps in the road, a bit of bike control wouldn't go amiss either.

Good luck on future rides.

Dingaling wrote:

When people are told to wear hard hats and steel toe-capped boots on a building site or, say, protective glasses when using an angle grinder, do people start screaming "victim blaming" . 

Can't say I understand the negative reaction to reasonable advice. I have never read anywhere claims that a cycle helmet will save your life in ALL accidents, it may reduce or eliminate injury in some cases. 

Once, when I hit a hump in the asphalt at speed, I flew over the handlbar, landed on my head and shoulder and broke the helmet.  That helmet prevented a serious injury.

That said though, I wouldn't support a move to make helmets and hi viz gear a legal requirement.

Each can decide what's best for his/herself.

PPE is ALWAYS, ALWAYS the last resort, this is H&S 101! You still end up with more head strikes because of hard hats, just ask any builder or people using hard hats that didn't BITD!

Roughly 70% of all head strikes in construction industry DO NOT occur on the crown, that being the section that the drop test is done on, in a similar way to cycle helmets that is the strongest part, for cycling it's even worse, motorcylist incidents revealed the top most part of the helmet only had c.7% of impacts.

But let's look at how hard hats might be protecting people in industry in the UK and you know they are compulsory right?

1990/91 which is BEFORE RIDDOR and compulory hard hat wearing, there were 161 reported deaths of all types in industry, post RIDDOR and up to and incl 2017/18, the number of reported deaths deaths in industry has dropped a massive SEVENTEEN! Yup, 144 deaths compared to those scary days before helmets were mandatory of 161! http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/

So, how many lives have been saved in the construction industry due to wearing hard hats and how mahy due to doing risk assessment of work practises and getting those posing the harm to change what they do, not what those whom are vulnerable do?

Just like cycling, helmets MIGHT save a few lives, might, however what helmets do overall is negative to safety and cycling as a whole.

1.3Million head injuries in the UK annually and 160,000 hospital stays (not all serious head injuries require a stay), this is from a study done using stats from the vast majority of hospitals, HEADWAY use these figures.

Cycling number of serious injuries, of ALL injury types, around 3100 currently, the highest number for years.

Even you can do the math right?

Dingaling wrote:

When people are told to wear hard hats and steel toe-capped boots on a building site or, say, protective glasses when using an angle grinder, do people start screaming "victim blaming" . 

If it was on a building site whose managers consistently refused to do anything to address the obvious dangers presented by bad practice and faulty equipment or to make any serious efforts to reduce risks apart from pushing PPE, then yes, I think people would "scream" (as you dishonestly call it) victim blaming.