Remember kids... always wear a helmet. (The almighty bikeradar helmet thread)

Mdcc: Dangerous in London/Britain compared with Holland or Denmark, where there are actual bike lanes separated from cars/pedestrians. Everywhere.

Bike lanes separated from cars, everywhere. As an example I live in the New Forest, there are quite a lot of cyclists but do you really think that could ever happen there (realistically or logistically)?

BBC Breakfast are covering the helmet debate this morning. Not been on yet but this should be the conclusive answer. Can we close the thread now?

Bike lanes separated from cars, everywhere. As an example I live in the New Forest, there are quite a lot of cyclists but do you really think that could ever happen there (realistically or logistically)?

Why not? Things happen because people make them happen.

James: hope it feels good being as smug as you.

Why not? Things happen because people make them happen.

You really think that a separated cycle lane can/would be put alongside all of the roads in the New Forest. Have you ever been to those sorts of places?
And that is just the area I know, what about the millions of miles of roads around the country, a separated cycle lane on every single road?

Might be better to think of more realistic solutions.

Yes, I have been to the New Forest.

I didn't say every single road but on main ones and many others is.

It is also possible to build bike only paths through the New Forest.

Have you not been anywhere other than the New Forest?

What adjustments and compensations do deaf people make?

They look around more and are generally likely to be more alert than people who often lazily use their hearing to compensate for lack of skill etc.

Mdcc: Dangerous in London/Britain compared with Holland or Denmark, where there are actual bike lanes separated from cars/pedestrians. Everywhere.

There are many factors involved in why crash rates in those countries are lower than here, but it's important to note that Dutch crashes have been going up and up for about the last fifteen years (by hospital admissions):

http://www.swov.nl/rapport/R-2012-09.pdf

This is despite them having built a large kilometrage of new segregated cycle tracks and it is also not attributable to more cycling (modal share has remained roughly constant and population hasn't increased sufficiently to account for the difference). As a percentage of all crashes (including other modes of transport) the percentage of injuries to cyclists has also kept going up.

The real change in safety in the Netherlands came about in the 1970s, when there was a collective change of heart and cycling both re-increased and re-acquired a higher status. As I said, there are many factors: Better driver training, different legislation, smaller, more compact cities, etc.

The real world is usually multi-causal. :)

Reading cyclehelmets.org. All v interesting.

What has stood out so far is that helmeted riders are more likely to get injured when cycling than non helmeted riders. Wonder if that is because they are more likely to be novice riders and make themselves more vulnerable or that they take more risks because they feel protected?

I think it's probably because some of the helmet wearers were engaged in sports riding (mtb, racing, bmx).

Just watched the BBC Breakfast debate. The CTC guy was terrible. Collateral damage is acceptable if there are fewer fatties. Give me a break. Never going to win hearts and minds with that attitude. Nothing about driver education or improving infrastructure. The onus to safety and protection is all on the cyclist. If something goes wrong it must've been the cyclist's fault. I wonder who was going round that blind bend faster: the van or that poor boy in a coma?

Oliver and Betty: good points.

Let me start that I don't think earphones should be banned otherwise Ed Scoble must be banned, too. But I must ask: I've found myself riding and have for whatever reason had to call/shout to the person riding in my vicinity rockin Dr Dre Beats like a moody footballer in their own world (maybe because I wanted to pass them or they were about to swerve into my path or something) but they couldn't hear a word I said. How do you justify this as sensible?

I don't mind headphones but I'm yet to see any of the wearers ever substitute their loss of sense by looking around them even more. Kinda grates me.

I don't wear earphones or headphones and wouldn't advocate their use but would not see them banned.

The fallacy in the oft rolled out argument against them by people who contribute to the comments section of The Daily Mail is interesting. Earphones, the received wisdom is, deny cyclists the opportunity to hear cars.

Those very cars and lorries, however, often drive with windows shut and music playing as well as the sound of their own engine obscuring other sound. They cannot hear the shouts, whistles or bells of cyclists or the screams of pedestrians. In my experience cars and lorries are more danger to others than bicycles are.

Before banning earphones, The Daily Mail should ban music, radios and telephones in cars and oblige them to drive with their windows open.

And we should also remember that visibility for people on bikes is generally far better than for people in cars. The problem is that a lot of bike riders don't make use of the potential they have to see.

I am dismayed at the number of kids I see wearing helmets in playgrounds. Whether on swings, slides, scooters or small bikes. It is not something I will be encouraging in my children. If you fall over, it hurts so learn not to fall off and if you do then understand the consequences and make sure you know how to fall.
I cannot see how wrapping them up like this can lead to well adjusted individuals. Most likely these kids will be the ones getting screwed up on drink and drugs when they hit their teens as they have no concept of danger, cause and effect.
My tuppance, feel free to wheel out the stats or call me a cunt

I rode to work sans helmet yesterday. I just forgot.

The overtaking cars gave me weird looks, and loads of space.

#Pointlesstrollpost

Just watched the BBC Breakfast debate. The CTC guy was terrible. Collateral damage is acceptable if there are fewer fatties. Give me a break. Never going to win hearts and minds with that attitude. Nothing about driver education or improving infrastructure. The onus to safety and protection is all on the cyclist. If something goes wrong it must've been the cyclist's fault. I wonder who was going round that blind bend faster: the van or that poor boy in a coma?

Do you not agree compulsory helmet wearing would reduce cycling (if enforced)? Do you not agree that it's healthy to encourage casual cycling?

The CTC are very used to commenting on this and won't bang on about infrastructure etc because that's a real issue for another day and not 2mins on breakfast tv. The helmet 'debate' is basically sorted in the minds of the sensible.

Do you not agree compulsory helmet wearing would reduce cycling (if enforced)? Do you not agree that it's healthy to encourage casual cycling?

Yes, cycling should be encouraged and a mandatory helmet law would probably reduce cycling.

The problem i have is the debate is too narrow and all the onus to safety is put on the cyclist.

There have been huge, expensive campaigns to tell drivers to watch out for motorbikes and to think bike and the rest. Campaigns that enforce the idea that motorcycles deserve a space on the road and that cars need to respect them and their space.

But when it comes to cyclists, the message is cyclists should wear a helmet or accept they will be maimed/killed. And the debate hasn't moved/isn't moving on from that.

Just saying cyclists shouldn't be forced to wear helmets does nothing to change the attitudes of motorists.

I am dismayed at the number of kids I see wearing helmets in playgrounds. Whether on swings, slides, scooters or small bikes. It is not something I will be encouraging in my children. If you fall over, it hurts so learn not to fall off and if you do then understand the consequences and make sure you know how to fall.
I cannot see how wrapping them up like this can lead to well adjusted individuals. Most likely these kids will be the ones getting screwed up on drink and drugs when they hit their teens as they have no concept of danger, cause and effect.
My tuppance, feel free to wheel out the stats or call me a cunt
There are quite a number of cases of young children being killed by strangulation after their helmet got caught when they had a fall on play equipment, trees, bunk beds etc.

^^ Spelling out why cyclists shouldn't be forced to wear helmets probability did change the attitude of some motorists this morning.

It's breakfast tv. If you feel the debate should be wider that's grand and you can find it occasionally on radio 4.

:)

Miro, I hope you're right.

Miro is right, they do occasionally discuss cycle helmets on Radio 4.

There are quite a number of cases of young children being killed by strangulation after their helmet got caught when they had a fall on play equipment, trees, bunk beds etc.

Loads of cases.

Our kids did'nt even wear jackets with permanent hoods untill they small. Poppered hoods only.

Try getting a kid to put on a cycle helmet with the strap tight enough to actually function. Forget it.

rhb: lol

......
(4) "The other crime of helmet promotion is that it tends to put people off cycling to such an extent..." Have you any evidence for this? I would have thought that the vast majority of people who don't cycle for safety reasons do so because they are fully aware that most drivers drive too fast and too close to cyclists and don't look when they pull out or open doors. I just can't imagine that there are many people sitting there thinking 'the roads look really safe to me, but the pro-bike helmet agenda makes me realise that they aren't - I'd better not cycle'
You are right, a great many people say that they don't cycle because they are worried about the danger. Few of them realise that the risk of death per mile while cycling is only a little bit higher than the risk of being a pedestrian. If you are a male aged 18-24, or a passenger of such a person, your risk of death in a car crash is far higher.
Cycle helmet promotion always over states the risk of cycling compared to other daily activities or other modes of transport. It usually overstates the protective effect of helmets to a massive extent. This mis-representation of the risks leads to your observation that the vast majority of people who don't cycle for safety reasons think the risks are higher than they actually are.
There are masses of evidence that cycle helmet compulsion reduces the amount of cycling. There is also a lot of evidence that cycle helmet promotion also reduces cycling although it is not generally the main focus of studies into cycle helmet promotion research. I am not aware of any study showing that cycle use increased as a result of cycle helmet promotion.
There is also a lot of evidence on the comparative benefits of promoting cycling and active travel to give massive health benefits as opposed to discouraging cycling due to safety fears. Harry Rutter was very good on this at the Hackney Cycling Conference this year (Hackney's website seems to be down just now). Piet de Jong has built a very strong comparative analysis http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1249.html and there is more info here http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1015.html
My use of the word 'crime' with respect to cycle helmet promotion was a figure of speech. I don't think anyone here is at risk of prosecution, although Federal Law in the USA prevents government agencies using the type of statistics most commonly seen in press and 'road safety' commentaries in the UK.

I see Charlie the Bikemonger now has helmets more suited to the everyday conditions found on the streets of London.

Yes, I have been to the New Forest.

I didn't say every single road but on main ones and many others is.

It is also possible to build bike only paths through the New Forest.

Have you not been anywhere other than the New Forest?

You said Everywhere which I took as meaning on every single road, everywhere. If you are now talking about main roads then yes that is possible and places like the New Forest don't have many main roads. Saying that, I still don't see a time where the narrow forest roads would have cycle lanes added and they sure are not going to let you widen the roads into the Forest. Not saying that is right or good but just the way it is. Exactly why I don't believe cycle lanes are the answer for most of the country.

And as for going outside of the New Forest, no I would never leave the forest. The other villagers tell me people don't come back.