Highway Code cycle helmet tweet branded ‘victim blaming’ by Cycling UK

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

We have better brakes on bikes, we have motors with better brakes and more tech that is supposed to make crashes less likely, they have better/wider tyres, as have bikes, better lights, and yes, despite the infra being crap, more infra that is being utilised.

We already know that there have been a reduction in all other modes EXCEPT cycling per mile travelled, in fact a huge increase, the differential is a 50% swing!!

We can say with absolute certainty that whilst helmet wearing has increased massively in the UK, particularly by those doing the most miles, injuries of cyclists has gone up significantly whilst everyone else using the roads has gone down. It's pretty cut and dried how helmets are a bag o shite, an absolute sham and a massive failure despite all the other positives.

More crashes, injuries and deaths in the pro ranks despite better tyres, despite better brakes, despite better on course H&S, despite more marshals on course, yup, helmets have worked a fucking treat. You see the same thing in cricket, boxing, most definitely in gridiron, horse riding helmets have not changed a damn thing and neither has skiing despite virtually universal wearing. it's so bloody obvious yet people are still umming and arghing because of 'other factors', yet other factors would improve things as we see with the reductions in injuries of other modes, so the only real difference is helmets! 

Back to just posting made up stuff again I see.

Bb

Rich_cb wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

We have better brakes on bikes, we have motors with better brakes and more tech that is supposed to make crashes less likely, they have better/wider tyres, as have bikes, better lights, and yes, despite the infra being crap, more infra that is being utilised.

We already know that there have been a reduction in all other modes EXCEPT cycling per mile travelled, in fact a huge increase, the differential is a 50% swing!!

We can say with absolute certainty that whilst helmet wearing has increased massively in the UK, particularly by those doing the most miles, injuries of cyclists has gone up significantly whilst everyone else using the roads has gone down. It's pretty cut and dried how helmets are a bag o shite, an absolute sham and a massive failure despite all the other positives.

More crashes, injuries and deaths in the pro ranks despite better tyres, despite better brakes, despite better on course H&S, despite more marshals on course, yup, helmets have worked a fucking treat. You see the same thing in cricket, boxing, most definitely in gridiron, horse riding helmets have not changed a damn thing and neither has skiing despite virtually universal wearing. it's so bloody obvious yet people are still umming and arghing because of 'other factors', yet other factors would improve things as we see with the reductions in injuries of other modes, so the only real difference is helmets! 

Back to just posting made up stuff again I see.

He certainly doesn’t know anything about cricket.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Just a comment to stop this thread dropping. No particular reason.

That's what this forum needs!  More pointless posts.

alansmurphy wrote:

It was the squirell with the big boobies...

Oh Lordy, I expect he will be sharing a picture from the "special" folder on his hardrive.

Mungecrundle wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

It was the squirell with the big boobies...

 

Oh Lordy, I expect he will be sharing a picture from the "special" folder on his hardrive.

They're all special

HawkinsPeter wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

It was the squirell with the big boobies...

 

Oh Lordy, I expect he will be sharing a picture from the "special" folder on his hardrive.

They're all special

 

OK, thats kind of disturbing... 

HawkinsPeter wrote:

Oh Lordy, I expect he will be sharing a picture from the "special" folder on his hardrive.

They're all special

[/quote]

Quite a piece of tail, as a certain American president might say.

macbaby wrote:

Having come off on two separate occasions at around 25 and 15mph respectively with the helmet hitting 1) the kerb and 2) the road and the much-maligned polystyrene cracking on impact, I'm happy to to wear the noddy hat. My distinctly un-random sample of two is enough statistics for me. And I don't need to be profane about it either ...

Look in the mirror and repeat "Anecdotes are not data" until you understand it.  You can use a profanity in there somewhere if you'd prefer.

macbaby wrote:

Having come off on two separate occasions at around 25 and 15mph respectively with the helmet hitting 1) the kerb and 2) the road and the much-maligned polystyrene cracking on impact, I'm happy to to wear the noddy hat. My distinctly un-random sample of two is enough statistics for me. And I don't need to be profane about it either ...

I've only ever experienced car drivers driving into me when I was wearing a helmet. I've had no such experience when not wearing one... does this anecdata prove that wearing a helmet causes drivers to crash into me?

macbaby wrote:

Having come off on two separate occasions at around 25 and 15mph respectively with the helmet hitting 1) the kerb and 2) the road and the much-maligned polystyrene cracking on impact, I'm happy to to wear the noddy hat. My distinctly un-random sample of two is enough statistics for me. And I don't need to be profane about it either ...

I came off at high speed (over 30mph) about 15 years ago after my front wheel went into a massive hole in the road - hidden by dark shadow and off the normal line as I was avoiding a furry critter shooting out, it was not just wide it was nearly 2 metres longitudinally and a fair depth too.

As I hit the front edge and was sliding down sideways as my front wheel hit fresh air I got flipped (I think the left side pedal dug in too) I tucked my head and impacted on my shoulder dislocating it and tearing lots of muscle tissue, ligaments and tendons. IF I had been wearing a helmet I would have struck my head (I missed the road by a very small amount) and at the very least suffered a serious TBI and a severely damaged neck plus being unconscious in the middle of a NSL road, AT BEST!

Xmas day just gone, I slid out at 5mph negotiating the mini roundabout not 150m from home due to black ice. If I had been wearing a helmet I again would have struck my head, this time on the kerb edge of the roundabout. So a sideways fall replicating the speed of an adult skull when tripping whilst walking. Wearing a helmet would have again guaranteed a head strike, to the side of the head, which is not the strongest part of a cycle helmet for a start off, I would have had a concussive force transmitted through my brain, who knows how this might have turned out. For me my only injury was a was a bruised hip and a scrape to the STI plus a large amount of annoyance at LA for not gritting the road when the temps were clearly below feezing!

My distinctly un random sample is enough for me, I'll never wear a helmet even if government were to force matters and make it compulsary, I'd rather go to prison than wear a helmet.

Please make sure to wear a helmet at all times though, just in case you have another un random event, I'm sure like most others you'll have bashed your head and statisically you're more likely to have a serious head injury whilst not on a bike sans helmet than many activities so best to be safe mate!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

... a furry critter shooting out, it was not just wide it was nearly 2 metres longitudinally and a fair depth too.

I swear it wasn't me!

HawkinsPeter wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

... a furry critter shooting out, it was not just wide it was nearly 2 metres longitudinally and a fair depth too.

I swear it wasn't me!

Sorry, but we need times, dates, pictures, statements from at least two reliable, non-furry, witnesses and your doubtless flimsy alibi.  I seem to remember seeing a picture of a squirrel with tyre marks round about then.  Confess!  Cardinal Biggles, bring on the comfy chair!

burtthebike wrote:

HawkinsPeter wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

... a furry critter shooting out, it was not just wide it was nearly 2 metres longitudinally and a fair depth too.

I swear it wasn't me!

Sorry, but we need times, dates, pictures, statements from at least two reliable, non-furry, witnesses and your doubtless flimsy alibi.  I seem to remember seeing a picture of a squirrel with tyre marks round about then.  Confess!  Cardinal Biggles, bring on the comfy chair!

You've nothing on me - I was wearing a disguise at the time.

HawkinsPeter wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

... a furry critter shooting out, it was not just wide it was nearly 2 metres longitudinally and a fair depth too.

I swear it wasn't me!

I had to re-read BTBS after reading this - for a moment, I thought they'd meant the furry critter was 2 metres long (do we get Womp-rats in the UK, they're not much bigger than 2 metres...?)

brooksby wrote:

HawkinsPeter wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

... a furry critter shooting out, it was not just wide it was nearly 2 metres longitudinally and a fair depth too.

I swear it wasn't me!

I had to re-read BTBS after reading this - for a moment, I thought they'd meant the furry critter was 2 metres long (do we get Womp-rats in the UK, they're not much bigger than 2 metres...?)

.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Xmas day just gone, I slid out at 5mph negotiating the mini roundabout not 150m from home due to black ice. If I had been wearing a helmet I again would have struck my head, this time on the kerb edge of the roundabout. So a sideways fall replicating the speed of an adult skull when tripping whilst walking. Wearing a helmet would have again guaranteed a head strike, to the side of the head, which is not the strongest part of a cycle helmet for a start off, I would have had a concussive force transmitted through my brain, who knows how this might have turned out. For me my only injury was a was a bruised hip and a scrape to the STI plus a large amount of annoyance at LA for not gritting the road when the temps were clearly below feezing!

This 2 minute video posted in the Forums illustrates your point with a large sample of people, none of whom hit their head.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqo4hwnJt6Y

hirsute wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Xmas day just gone, I slid out at 5mph negotiating the mini roundabout not 150m from home due to black ice. If I had been wearing a helmet I again would have struck my head, this time on the kerb edge of the roundabout. So a sideways fall replicating the speed of an adult skull when tripping whilst walking. Wearing a helmet would have again guaranteed a head strike, to the side of the head, which is not the strongest part of a cycle helmet for a start off, I would have had a concussive force transmitted through my brain, who knows how this might have turned out. For me my only injury was a was a bruised hip and a scrape to the STI plus a large amount of annoyance at LA for not gritting the road when the temps were clearly below feezing!

This 2 minute video posted in the Forums illustrates your point with a large sample of people, none of whom hit their head. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqo4hwnJt6Y

So BTBS would  have had a concussive force rather than a potential tensile neck stress, or not, the amount and effect of either we don't have a clue about, there's a video showing some people not hitting their heads and I can also provide a number of anecdotal data about various head hits and misses, with and without a helmet, on bikes and skateboards to add to those already given and... we're still no closer to actually making any meaningful conclusion point about anything. There's a change.

Bill Tucker wrote:

Enough conjecture. How many of the 92 cycling fatalities detailed on the internet for 2018 would have been avoided if the cyclist had been wearing a helmet?

Well, the TRL report estimated that helmets could save 16% of those fatalities, a figure repeated often in headlines of the msm, so that must be right.  Except that if you actually read the whole report not just the executive summary, you found out that that figure was plucked from the air, they literally made it up and had absolutely no data to support it.   They could find no evidence that cycle helmets reduced the death rate of cyclists, which is also the finding of other epidemiological studies in Australia and New Zealand, which have helmet laws.

So no conjecture needed; helmets don't save lives.

burtthebike wrote:

Bill Tucker wrote:

Enough conjecture. How many of the 92 cycling fatalities detailed on the internet for 2018 would have been avoided if the cyclist had been wearing a helmet?

Well, the TRL report estimated that helmets could save 16% of those fatalities, a figure repeated often in headlines of the msm, so that must be right.  Except that if you actually read the whole report not just the executive summary, you found out that that figure was plucked from the air, they literally made it up and had absolutely no data to support it.   They could find no evidence that cycle helmets reduced the death rate of cyclists, which is also the finding of other epidemiological studies in Australia and New Zealand, which have helmet laws.

So no conjecture needed; helmets don't save lives.

Yes, that TRL 'report', no. PPR446.2009 was full of holes and had the square root of fuck all in hard evidence.

In fact the idiots doing the study just looked at the flawed research that has time and again being shown to be flawed/bias with those doing the research already wanting to find that helmets work or had agenda's like Jake Olivier who is directly funded by NSW state government (that state which is the worst in the world for punishing cyclists for not wearing helmets so has a vested interest in keeping them).

Data on the rate of killed and seriously injured per billion miles travelled shows that from 2002 to 2012 cyclists had an increase of 19% compared with a general reduction for other road users of 35%

So since the huge increase in helmet wearing, KSIs of cyclists have gone up, whereas for everyone else they've dropped significantly. That's how fucking bad helmets have been in terms of safety, this is repeated in every country with helmet laws or big increases in helmet wearing! It's repeated in the pro peleton, it's repeated for the weekend warriors who seem to crash massively more than when they weren't all in noddy hats.

Yet people still think they need to wear helmets for racing/weekend run, yet it's the helmet that is having a significant negative effect on behaviour (of both riders and motorists) whilst offering next to naff all protection at the higher speeds/collisions with motorvehicles.!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

So since the huge increase in helmet wearing, KSIs of cyclists have gone up, whereas for everyone else they've dropped significantly. That's how fucking bad helmets have been in terms of safety, this is repeated in every country with helmet laws or big increases in helmet wearing! It's repeated in the pro peleton, it's repeated for the weekend warriors who seem to crash massively more than when they weren't all in noddy hats.

Yet people still think they need to wear helmets for racing/weekend run, yet it's the helmet that is having a significant negative effect on behaviour (of both riders and motorists) whilst offering next to naff all protection at the higher speeds/collisions with motorvehicles.!

Helmets are a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy; wearing one makes collisions more likely, therefore you need a helmet.