Why is there so much animosity towards cyclists in Sheffield?

[Eater Sundae]

If you mean this oft referenced and deeply flawed testing done by Ian Walker.That was as much a case of testing a male vs female rider than helmet use. Lots of flaws in that study which when later re-analysis showed to prove nothing.

 

One experiment later proved to be wrong shows what exactly?

 

How heavy do think bike helmets are?

Not to mention the daft 'if you haven't hit you head' caveat. You of all people should know that avoiding hitting your head when falling is a skill, one that needs to be learnt and practised and is not something cyclists will do.

I should point out although I always wear one, I'm dead against compulsory helmet wearing. Why? Because that decreases cycling numbers which also decreases bike safety, so in fact very counter productive. Plus you shouldn't need to wear a helmet as cycling in and of itself is pretty darn safe. Also if cyclist were forced to wear helmets, than surely pedestrians should wear body armour etc as far more of them get hit by vehicles.

Also of note...

Coincidentally, around the same time as Walker announced his results, New York City released a report on bicycle deaths and injuries: 225 cyclists died between 1996 and 2005 on New York streets; 97 percent of them were not wearing helmets. Of these deaths, 58 percent are known to involve head injury, but the actual number could be as high as 80 percent. Comparing the helmet to a seat belt in a car, Swart of the BHSI says, "When you do have that crash, you better have it on."

 

---------- Post added 05-06-2015 at 12:43 ----------

 

Thinking that it's the same 3% is not understanding statistics or correlation.

I know plenty of people who are nice, considerate and lovely humans, but when they get behind the wheel of a car they drive in ways that are dangerous. Not socio or psychopathic behaviour, just plain idiocy.

Impatience + car=dead people.

Stupidity + car=dead people.

Ignorance + car=dead people.

Selfishness + car=dead people.

Phone + car=dead people.

Drink/drugs + car=dead people.

 

The thing is the 'psychos' may actually drive quite well.

 

Re bib. Do the statistics include the other information necessary to fully interpret them?

 

For example,

Of the 58% (up to 80%) who had head injuries, was this the cause of death? If not, in how many cases was it the sole cause?

Would the 97% who were not wearing helmets have survived if they had been wearing them?

What percentage of riders using New York streets wear helmets?

What percentage of riders involved in crashes were wearing helmets?

What percentage of riders not involved in crashes were wearing helmets?

[mattleonard]

Put the give way markings before crossing cycle path for emerging traffic and keep minor gives way to major priority and there will be no confusion.

 

There certainly should be no confusion. Yet I cycle daily along a one way road where a side road joins which has a stop and give way sign and markings at the junction. I'd say that about 2/3 of the times I see a car approach, they don't stop, look left - the side from which traffic will not come from - and then pull out. So I always approach ready to get out of their way.

Edited June 5, 2015 by mattleonard
adding "and markings"

[altus]

Are you suggesting that Jezzyjj may lack understanding of statistics and correlation?

 

I'll let Eater Sundae answer that.

 

 

The issue of wearing cycle helmets is controversial because there is no clear evidence that either wearing or not wearing them is better overall. That's why wearing helmets hasn't been made compulsory and the best we can do is educate people to the pros and cons of them and let them decide for themselves.

[Cyclone]

I suppose a stereotype only becomes so if a large proportion of the group act a certain way for a period of time.

 

What I disagree with is how cyclists highlight the fact of their general propensity towards injury should mean they are given special treatment on the roads (this is part I agree with) but to then in the same breath assume that as they pose a generally low risk to other road users, a cyclist going through a red light is somehow OK, ignoring the fact that the danger is to the cyclists not to other road users whom the cyclist may collide with.

 

No cyclists on this thread has expressed that opinion though.

 

The only reason we argue at all is that motorists make blanket statements and stupid suggestions.

 

---------- Post added 05-06-2015 at 14:21 ----------

 

I'll let Eater Sundae answer that.

 

 

The issue of wearing cycle helmets is controversial because there is no clear evidence that either wearing or not wearing them is better overall. That's why wearing helmets hasn't been made compulsory and the best we can do is educate people to the pros and cons of them and let them decide for themselves.

 

Hopefully it also hasn't been made compulsory because it's a barrier to cycling, and barriers reduce numbers and increase risk for the rest.

[jezzyjj]

The issue of wearing cycle helmets is controversial because there is no clear evidence that either wearing or not wearing them is better overall. That's why wearing helmets hasn't been made compulsory and the best we can do is educate people to the pros and cons of them and let them decide for themselves.

I'm against compulsory wearing of helmets, but I find the anti helmet brigade's reasons for why helmets are dangerous, spurious to say the least. They remind me of a couple of chaps I knew who used to argue that seatbelts were dangerous as they could think of lots of convoluted scenarios where it would be a drawback, without taking into account that nearly all accidents that actually happen are ones where seat belts are useful.

Speaking as someone who has broken a couple of helmets [once because of mechanical failure of bike and once through being attacked by a driver], knowing numerous people who have survived nasty crashes only because of wearing helmets and of someone who became a vegetable after not wearing one I tend to always wear one. I don't understand why people are so anti them, I find they keep my head warm in winter and the sun off in summer and the rain off all year round, so kind of handy anyway. Plus they've saved my skull getting cracked twice whilst biking.

If you do not want to wear a helmet that's fine, but don't make crap up as to how they are dangerous to justify it.

 

I've also hit concrete hard enough with my whilst roller skating to easily fragment my skull, but my helmet meant I wasn't even concussed. Not cycling I know but boy did it test how well a bike helmet can work. Now despite all the people I've seen survive because of wearing a helmet, I used to organise MTB races and did Roller Derby for a while which is very brutal, so have seen one heck of a lot of bad accidents and people hitting the deck with their heads, I never came across anyone injured by the helmet itself. Anecdotal I know, but still a fair bit of data. I'd have probably broken more than two helmets, but years of doing martial arts where knowing how to land on floor without hitting one's head is a core skill, prevented that happening.

 

---------- Post added 05-06-2015 at 20:41 ----------

 

Ultimately, anyone considering wearing a helmet needs to gather information from sites like http://www.cyclehelmets.org, weigh up both the pros and cons of helmet wearing and make their own informed decision.

Do you also get yourinformation about immigration from UKIP and the Daily mail?

 

---------- Post added 05-06-2015 at 20:45 ----------

 

Are you suggesting that Jezzyjj may lack understanding of statistics and correlation?

Do I think you make biased generalisations and presumptions that have nothing to do with reality? Without doubt judging by your posts. Edited June 5, 2015 by jezzyjj

[WiseOwl182]

Wow, is this thread still going?

 

Some people are idiots, ergo some cyclists are idiots and some motorists are idiots.

 

Next!!

[altus]

I'm against compulsory wearing of helmets, but I find the anti helmet brigade's reasons for why helmets are dangerous, spurious to say the least. They remind me of a couple of chaps I knew who used to argue that seatbelts were dangerous as they could think of lots of convoluted scenarios where it would be a drawback, without taking into account that nearly all accidents that actually happen are ones where seat belts are useful.

I'm not anti helmet - I'm look at the pros and cons and make your own mind up.

 

And don't try to dismiss arguments by claiming people invent convoluted scenarios - all those cyclists' deaths in London through lorries turning left aren't claimed to be because of head injuries.

 

Speaking as someone who has broken a couple of helmets [once because of mechanical failure of bike and once through being attacked by a driver], knowing numerous people who have survived nasty crashes only because of wearing helmets and of someone who became a vegetable after not wearing one I tend to always wear one. I don't understand why people are so anti them, I find they keep my head warm in winter and the sun off in summer and the rain off all year round, so kind of handy anyway. Plus they've saved my skull getting cracked twice whilst biking.

You know this definitively do you? Perhaps you were the surgeon specialising in head injuries who treated them? Or perhaps you're just confusing correlation with causation.

 

If you do not want to wear a helmet that's fine, but don't make crap up as to how they are dangerous to justify it.

 

I've not made anything up. I'm just advocating people look at as much of the evidence as they can before making up their own mind.

 

I've also hit concrete hard enough with my whilst roller skating to easily fragment my skull, but my helmet meant I wasn't even concussed. Not cycling I know but boy did it test how well a bike helmet can work. Now despite all the people I've seen survive because of wearing a helmet, I used to organise MTB races and did Roller Derby for a while which is very brutal, so have seen one heck of a lot of bad accidents and people hitting the deck with their heads, I never came across anyone injured by the helmet itself. Anecdotal I know, but still a fair bit of data. I'd have probably broken more than two helmets, but years of doing martial arts where knowing how to land on floor without hitting one's head is a core skill, prevented that happening.

 

The plural of Anecdote is Not Data

 

Do you also get yourinformation about immigration from UKIP and the Daily mail?

 

If the Daily Mail ever produces the immigration equivalent of cyclehelmet.org's Published evidence supportive of helmet effectiveness or promotion I might consider them as a potential source.

 

Do I think you make biased generalisations and presumptions that have nothing to do with reality? Without doubt judging by your posts.

 

Eater Sunday gave good reasons why the bit you quoted can't support the impression it gives - there are too many missing facts to be able to judge its accuracy. That, together with your conflating of anecdotes with data, seems to indicate your understanding of statistics and correlation is poor.

[jezzyjj]

Eater Sunday gave good reasons why the bit you quoted can't support the impression it gives - there are too many missing facts to be able to judge its accuracy. That, together with your conflating of anecdotes with data, seems to indicate your understanding of statistics and correlation is poor.

Says the person conflating posts and confusing responses to different people.

I freely admitted that some information was anecdotal, but useful information can be obtained that way if there is enough of it. Another term for it is real world experience. You could argue that the flawed study 'proving wearing a helmet is dangerous' is also anecdotal as it that too was all personal experience.

Regardless of all that, I wouldn't be writing anything on this or any other subject had I not worn helmets in the past. A couple of friends who trashed helmets were told by medical people they were lucky to be alive when they got treated, considering the head impact. So you can argue all you like about helmets being dangerous, but I can take comfort in the fact that they saved my skin on several occasions and that of some friends too.

 

Still do not understand why people are so anti helmet when it's up to you to wear one or not for normal road riding. Wear one, don't wear one, it's your choice. Just don't force your choice on others whichever it is.

There's no compulsion either for mountain biking, but it's very unusual to see anyone do it helmetless. Heck, body armour is quite common, leg and shin guards are very useful protection against stingies I find.

 

BTW - I did statistics at A level and then at university. Probably [arf, arf] the most useful subject I ever studied.

[AlexAtkin]

I ALWAYS wear a helmet, partly as I always have to wear a hat anyway due to not having any hair.

 

I also know someone who NEVER wears a helmet as he said its more likely to cause you to have an accident due to overheating.

 

When going uphill in Sheffield, I can see his point. Before I got my e-bike I would regularly get quite dizzy and overheated on the trip home, with it all being uphill. Although I'm not sure if that would still be a problem if I was in perfect health with a full head of hair.

[altus]

Says the person conflating posts and confusing responses to different people.

You might want to look at who the post you replied to was in reply to before making such accusations.

 

So you can argue all you like about helmets being dangerous

I'm not arguing they are dangerous - just pointing out that there can be downsides to them and they are not the universal good people seem to think they are.

 

Still do not understand why people are so anti helmet when it's up to you to wear one or not for normal road riding. Wear one, don't wear one, it's your choice. Just don't force your choice on others whichever it is.

 

I'm not sure how you go from people pointing out that there are pros and cons to helmet wearing and suggesting that people look into the issues to people being "so anti helmet". Nobody in this thread has tried to force their choice on others.

 

There's no compulsion either for mountain biking, but it's very unusual to see anyone do it helmetless.

 

I go mountain biking without a helmet - but I don't go tearing round like a maniac so there's no chance of me head butting a tree and the protection from direct impact a helmet would give is not necessary.

 

Is this where the disagreement is coming from? You're assuming I'm arguing everyone who does the sort of riding you do shouldn't wear a helmet whereas I'm suggesting people should consider all the issues around helmet wearing, which includes their riding style, before making a decision about whether to wear one.