Cyclists

I don't wear a helmet. Research has shownthat drivers give significantly more space on the road to cyclists without a helmet.

Bit conflicted about it though. But considering how close some drivers pass me, I'm not sure it's worth the rish!

Me either.. Forelocks flowing in the wind, not a care in the world
 
This post explains a lot.
http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australia's-helmet-law-disaster

Australia's helmet law disaster
IPA REVIEW ARTICLE

| Luke Turner
Australia is one of only two countries in the world with national all-age mandatory bicycle helmet laws (MHLs).

Introduced by state and territory governments under threat of cuts to federal road funding in the early 1990s, the idea that it should be a criminal offense for an adult to ride a bicycle without a helmet has since then only been copied in New Zealand (1994) and a handful of regional or local jurisdictions (mainly in North America).

Israel experimented with national legislation, but repealed the law in 2011 after a four year trial. It's no mystery why the rest of the world has shunned making bike helmets compulsory. From almost every perspective, helmet laws have been a disaster.

There are many objections to MHLs: they don't improve injury rates, discourage regular recreational exercise in an era of high obesity, and are an unnecessary and unjust intrusion into individual freedom.

The first criticism of bike helmet laws is simple-they don't do what they're intended to do.

The most extensive study of the real-world effects of MHLs on injury rates was by Australian researcher, Dr Dorothy Robinson from the University of New England, who found ‘enforced helmet laws discourage cycling but produce no obvious response in percentage of head injuries'.

Even after 20 years and plenty of research, there is still no compelling evidence that Australia's compulsory helmet laws have reduced injury rates on a population-wide basis.

While there is evidence that wearing a helmet will provide some protection from a knock to the head, the benefit is small. Severe head injuries amongst cyclists are not particularly common, and helmets do not prevent all or even a high proportion of those that might occur, but rather provide some marginal decrease in the likelihood of injury.

The reasons that the protective benefits of helmet-wearing are not evident across the whole population are not completely known, but almost certainly have something to do with the significant unwanted side-effects of helmet laws.

MHLs change people's behaviour and perception of risk. Some cyclists take more risks while riding with a helmet than they would without, while studies have shown that some motorists drive closer to helmeted cyclists, than unhelmeted ones. This tendency for individuals to react to a perceived increase in safety by taking more risk is known as risk compensation.

Importantly, helmet laws severely reduce the number of cyclists on the road, leading to increased risk among those who remain through reduced safety in numbers, a researched and acknowledged influence on cyclist accident and injury rates.

Unsurprisingly, compulsory helmets have also discouraged cycling.

When the laws were introduced in the early 1990s, cycling trips declined by 30-40 per cent overall, and up to 80 per cent in some demographic groups, such as secondary school-aged females.

Today mandatory helmets are still a major factor deterring people from riding. A recent survey from University of Sydney Professor Chris Rissel found 23 per cent of Sydney adults would ride more if helmets were optional-a significant proportion given that only about 15-20 per cent of people ride regularly at present-and that amending helmet laws to allow adult cyclists free choice would lead to an approximate doubling of cycling numbers in Sydney.

MHLs are the main reason for the failure of Australia's two public bike hire schemes. Brisbane and Melbourne are the only two cities in the world with helmet laws to have attempted public bike hire. While schemes in places like Paris, London, Montreal, Dublin and Washington DC have flourished, Brisbane and Melbourne have amongst the lowest usage rates in the world.

To facilitate increased cycling participation, the City of Sydney has recommended that current bike helmet legislation should be reviewed.

Cycling is generally a safe activity, the health benefits outweighing the risks from traffic accidents by a large margin. British research suggests life years gained through cycling outweigh years lost in cycling fatalities by a factor of 20:1. A recent study of users of Barcelona's public bike hire scheme puts this ratio at 77:1.

Given that MHLs reduce cycling numbers so dramatically and produce such a small (or probably non-existent) safety dividend, it's probable that the laws create a net health and financial burden on the community and health system.

By any measure, health problems associated with a lack of exercise are a far greater problem than cycling head injuries in Australia. According to the Heart Foundation, lack of physical activity causes 16,000 premature deaths each year, swamping the 40 or so cycling fatalities.

It makes little sense for Australian governments to be conjuring questionable attempts to ‘encourage' exercise while at the same time maintaining legislation which actively discourages and prevents people from partaking in a simple form of exercise like cycling.

Each year police issue tens of thousands of fines to Australians for engaging in a peaceful activity which poses no danger to any other person or property. Some have even been imprisoned for refusing or being unable to pay bike helmet fines.

Australian cyclists who want to ride sans-helmet are being prevented from doing so, not because it's reckless or dangerous, but simply because this already safe and healthy activity might be made marginally safer with the addition of a helmet. This is surely a flimsy basis for incarceration.

The best judge of when a helmet is necessary is the individual, who can take into account the particular circumstances of his or her ride. Downhill mountain bikers and high-speed road warriors would probably overwhelmingly still don lids if given the choice. Those out for a sedate ride on bike paths or on short local trips might be more inclined to want to feel the wind in their hair.

MHLs are not only unnecessary and unjust, they are inconsistent. Pedestrians and car occupants are each responsible for more hospital patient days for head injuries than cyclists. Despite this, few argue that compulsory walking and driving helmets are essential for safety.

After 20 years, the results are clear: the compulsory bike helmet experiment has failed. We need to amend the law to allow adults the freedom to choose if a helmet is necessary when they cycle.

Some will still choose to wear helmets at all times, and this is a totally reasonable decision. However in many situations it is perfectly safe to go without and Australia should join the rest of the world in allowing this simple freedom
 
http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australia's-helmet-law-disaster

Australia's helmet law disaster
IPA REVIEW ARTICLE

| Luke Turner
Australia is one of only two countries in the world with national all-age mandatory bicycle helmet laws (MHLs).

Introduced by state and territory governments under threat of cuts to federal road funding in the early 1990s, the idea that it should be a criminal offense for an adult to ride a bicycle without a helmet has since then only been copied in New Zealand (1994) and a handful of regional or local jurisdictions (mainly in North America).

Israel experimented with national legislation, but repealed the law in 2011 after a four year trial. It's no mystery why the rest of the world has shunned making bike helmets compulsory. From almost every perspective, helmet laws have been a disaster.

There are many objections to MHLs: they don't improve injury rates, discourage regular recreational exercise in an era of high obesity, and are an unnecessary and unjust intrusion into individual freedom.

The first criticism of bike helmet laws is simple-they don't do what they're intended to do.

The most extensive study of the real-world effects of MHLs on injury rates was by Australian researcher, Dr Dorothy Robinson from the University of New England, who found ‘enforced helmet laws discourage cycling but produce no obvious response in percentage of head injuries'.

Even after 20 years and plenty of research, there is still no compelling evidence that Australia's compulsory helmet laws have reduced injury rates on a population-wide basis.

While there is evidence that wearing a helmet will provide some protection from a knock to the head, the benefit is small. Severe head injuries amongst cyclists are not particularly common, and helmets do not prevent all or even a high proportion of those that might occur, but rather provide some marginal decrease in the likelihood of injury.

The reasons that the protective benefits of helmet-wearing are not evident across the whole population are not completely known, but almost certainly have something to do with the significant unwanted side-effects of helmet laws.

MHLs change people's behaviour and perception of risk. Some cyclists take more risks while riding with a helmet than they would without, while studies have shown that some motorists drive closer to helmeted cyclists, than unhelmeted ones. This tendency for individuals to react to a perceived increase in safety by taking more risk is known as risk compensation.

Importantly, helmet laws severely reduce the number of cyclists on the road, leading to increased risk among those who remain through reduced safety in numbers, a researched and acknowledged influence on cyclist accident and injury rates.

Unsurprisingly, compulsory helmets have also discouraged cycling.

When the laws were introduced in the early 1990s, cycling trips declined by 30-40 per cent overall, and up to 80 per cent in some demographic groups, such as secondary school-aged females.

Today mandatory helmets are still a major factor deterring people from riding. A recent survey from University of Sydney Professor Chris Rissel found 23 per cent of Sydney adults would ride more if helmets were optional-a significant proportion given that only about 15-20 per cent of people ride regularly at present-and that amending helmet laws to allow adult cyclists free choice would lead to an approximate doubling of cycling numbers in Sydney.

MHLs are the main reason for the failure of Australia's two public bike hire schemes. Brisbane and Melbourne are the only two cities in the world with helmet laws to have attempted public bike hire. While schemes in places like Paris, London, Montreal, Dublin and Washington DC have flourished, Brisbane and Melbourne have amongst the lowest usage rates in the world.

To facilitate increased cycling participation, the City of Sydney has recommended that current bike helmet legislation should be reviewed.

Cycling is generally a safe activity, the health benefits outweighing the risks from traffic accidents by a large margin. British research suggests life years gained through cycling outweigh years lost in cycling fatalities by a factor of 20:1. A recent study of users of Barcelona's public bike hire scheme puts this ratio at 77:1.

Given that MHLs reduce cycling numbers so dramatically and produce such a small (or probably non-existent) safety dividend, it's probable that the laws create a net health and financial burden on the community and health system.

By any measure, health problems associated with a lack of exercise are a far greater problem than cycling head injuries in Australia. According to the Heart Foundation, lack of physical activity causes 16,000 premature deaths each year, swamping the 40 or so cycling fatalities.

It makes little sense for Australian governments to be conjuring questionable attempts to ‘encourage' exercise while at the same time maintaining legislation which actively discourages and prevents people from partaking in a simple form of exercise like cycling.

Each year police issue tens of thousands of fines to Australians for engaging in a peaceful activity which poses no danger to any other person or property. Some have even been imprisoned for refusing or being unable to pay bike helmet fines.

Australian cyclists who want to ride sans-helmet are being prevented from doing so, not because it's reckless or dangerous, but simply because this already safe and healthy activity might be made marginally safer with the addition of a helmet. This is surely a flimsy basis for incarceration.

The best judge of when a helmet is necessary is the individual, who can take into account the particular circumstances of his or her ride. Downhill mountain bikers and high-speed road warriors would probably overwhelmingly still don lids if given the choice. Those out for a sedate ride on bike paths or on short local trips might be more inclined to want to feel the wind in their hair.

MHLs are not only unnecessary and unjust, they are inconsistent. Pedestrians and car occupants are each responsible for more hospital patient days for head injuries than cyclists. Despite this, few argue that compulsory walking and driving helmets are essential for safety.

After 20 years, the results are clear: the compulsory bike helmet experiment has failed. We need to amend the law to allow adults the freedom to choose if a helmet is necessary when they cycle.

Some will still choose to wear helmets at all times, and this is a totally reasonable decision. However in many situations it is perfectly safe to go without and Australia should join the rest of the world in allowing this simple freedom

So because cyclists have a terribly bad and selfish attitude to being told what to do, as exemplified by you on this thread, they should have to obey no laws of the road at all. Load of bollocks.

Not to mention the source of your review is an organisation that is against any kind of application of rules. No bias there whatsoever
 
So because cyclists have a terribly bad and selfish attitude to being told what to do, as exemplified by you on this thread, they should have to obey no laws of the road at all. Load of bollocks.

Not to mention the source of your review is an organisation that is against any kind of application of rules. No bias there whatsoever
Who said anything about ignoring the rules of the road?

Here's a different source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11110665
Cycle helmets - a hard case to crack
By Charlotte Pritchard
More or Less, Radio 4
Continue reading the main story
In today's Magazine

Marooned at an airport... then what?
Sweden looks inward after Roma revelations
The car mechanic who uncorked a childbirth revolution
The US airman shot down by Syria
With the autumn evenings drawing, regular cyclists will be reminded of the need to stay safe on the road. Many riders wouldn't leave home without a helmet - but it's a piece of kit that doesn't offer as much protection as some cyclists might think.
Cyclists on the UK's roads travelled 3.1 billion miles last year and many will have done so with safety at the forefront of their minds. Lights and reflectors are a legal obligation after dark, and reflective jackets an increasingly common sight.

But it's the cycle helmet that is undoubtedly the most debated piece of kit. Helmets are not compulsory in the UK, unlike in Australia and parts of the US, yet the government encourages cyclists to wear one.

Continue reading the main story
Find out more

BBC Radio 4's More or Less is on Fridays at 1330 BST and Sundays at 2000 BST
Or listen again using the link below
More or Less
But is it really safer to wear a helmet when cycling?

Just a brief look at the blogosphere shows you what a hotly contested question this is. Unfortunately, the published evidence doesn't make the debate much clearer.

While many cyclists wouldn't leave home without clamping on their helmet, Dr Ian Walker, a professor of traffic psychology, has long believed head protection can work against someone on a bicycle.

Dr Walker conducted a study looking into how cyclists wearing a helmet affect the behaviour of drivers. He found that for those wearing a helmet, motorists drove much closer when overtaking.

"In absolute terms they got 8-9cm closer than they did when I wasn't wearing one," he explains, "And the proportion of vehicles getting within a really close distance went up considerably."

He also decided to don a long, flowing wig to disguise himself as a female and found that drivers left him more space when passing. He says this further proves that drivers react to cyclists' appearance.

His findings have led Dr Walker to conclude that drivers use a cyclist's physical appearance to judge the specific likelihood of the rider behaving predictably. They alter their overtaking space accordingly.

He suggests drivers think helmeted cyclists are more sensible, predicable and experienced, so therefore the driver doesn't need to give them much space when overtaking. Non-helmeted cyclists, especially non helmeted "women" are less predictable and experienced, according to this study.

Skull protection

But it's not only motorists who alter their behaviour. Other research has looked at how helmeted cyclists take more risks, believing their head protection will compensate for this.

"I'm not convinced I saw any evidence of that," says Dr Walker. "I don't take any more risks when wearing a helmet and I think other cyclists would say the same."

A recent report commissioned by the Department for Transport rejected all behavioural research, including that of Dr Walker, saying that none of the studies was robust enough to prove that helmets affect behaviour.

Continue reading the main story

Start Quote

It's plain and simple that helmets are effective”

Angela Lee
Bike Helmets Trust
This Department for Transport report studied all the evidence available and concluded that "the effectiveness of helmets in single-vehicle collisions was estimated to be 50%".

But the report's authors admit that "it should be remembered that there was no specific evidence to support these estimates".

They do include a study into 100 police fatality reports which led them to say that helmets could prevent 10-16% of cyclist fatalities. But this was also an estimate based on a small study.

The problem is that the data available about injured cyclists, from the police or hospital admissions, does not record whether they were wearing helmets or not. It is therefore difficult to draw definitive conclusions in favour of helmets.

But for many cyclists, any such evidence comes second place to first-hand experience.

Angela Lee, chief executive of the Bike Helmet Initiative Trust and a nurse consultant in paediatric trauma, says it's clear that helmets make cycling safer.

"It's plain and simple that helmets are effective," Ms Lee continues. "If you think of people who have mobile phones, computers, I bet they all have covers on to protect them. You have a skull protecting your brain and if you know anything about computers you know that if you damage a computer you can't load the programme. That's exactly the same with your brain."

Wearing a helmet does seem like common sense - if it doesn't encourage you or other road users to take extra risks. But in the absence of really compelling evidence either way, it's up to individuals to make their own choices.

Me? I wear a helmet, and I'll continue to do so
 
HHB, at 7 in the morning, with no reflective clothing on, nobody will see if someone has a helmet on or not. Do you think children should wear helmets?
 
Who said anything about ignoring the rules of the road?

Here's a different source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11110665
Cycle helmets - a hard case to crack
By Charlotte Pritchard
More or Less, Radio 4
Continue reading the main story
In today's Magazine

Marooned at an airport... then what?
Sweden looks inward after Roma revelations
The car mechanic who uncorked a childbirth revolution
The US airman shot down by Syria
With the autumn evenings drawing, regular cyclists will be reminded of the need to stay safe on the road. Many riders wouldn't leave home without a helmet - but it's a piece of kit that doesn't offer as much protection as some cyclists might think.
Cyclists on the UK's roads travelled 3.1 billion miles last year and many will have done so with safety at the forefront of their minds. Lights and reflectors are a legal obligation after dark, and reflective jackets an increasingly common sight.

But it's the cycle helmet that is undoubtedly the most debated piece of kit. Helmets are not compulsory in the UK, unlike in Australia and parts of the US, yet the government encourages cyclists to wear one.

Continue reading the main story
Find out more

BBC Radio 4's More or Less is on Fridays at 1330 BST and Sundays at 2000 BST
Or listen again using the link below
More or Less
But is it really safer to wear a helmet when cycling?

Just a brief look at the blogosphere shows you what a hotly contested question this is. Unfortunately, the published evidence doesn't make the debate much clearer.

While many cyclists wouldn't leave home without clamping on their helmet, Dr Ian Walker, a professor of traffic psychology, has long believed head protection can work against someone on a bicycle.

Dr Walker conducted a study looking into how cyclists wearing a helmet affect the behaviour of drivers. He found that for those wearing a helmet, motorists drove much closer when overtaking.

"In absolute terms they got 8-9cm closer than they did when I wasn't wearing one," he explains, "And the proportion of vehicles getting within a really close distance went up considerably."

He also decided to don a long, flowing wig to disguise himself as a female and found that drivers left him more space when passing. He says this further proves that drivers react to cyclists' appearance.

His findings have led Dr Walker to conclude that drivers use a cyclist's physical appearance to judge the specific likelihood of the rider behaving predictably. They alter their overtaking space accordingly.

He suggests drivers think helmeted cyclists are more sensible, predicable and experienced, so therefore the driver doesn't need to give them much space when overtaking. Non-helmeted cyclists, especially non helmeted "women" are less predictable and experienced, according to this study.

Skull protection

But it's not only motorists who alter their behaviour. Other research has looked at how helmeted cyclists take more risks, believing their head protection will compensate for this.

"I'm not convinced I saw any evidence of that," says Dr Walker. "I don't take any more risks when wearing a helmet and I think other cyclists would say the same."

A recent report commissioned by the Department for Transport rejected all behavioural research, including that of Dr Walker, saying that none of the studies was robust enough to prove that helmets affect behaviour.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

It's plain and simple that helmets are effective”

Angela Lee
Bike Helmets Trust
This Department for Transport report studied all the evidence available and concluded that "the effectiveness of helmets in single-vehicle collisions was estimated to be 50%".

But the report's authors admit that "it should be remembered that there was no specific evidence to support these estimates".

They do include a study into 100 police fatality reports which led them to say that helmets could prevent 10-16% of cyclist fatalities. But this was also an estimate based on a small study.

The problem is that the data available about injured cyclists, from the police or hospital admissions, does not record whether they were wearing helmets or not. It is therefore difficult to draw definitive conclusions in favour of helmets.

But for many cyclists, any such evidence comes second place to first-hand experience.

Angela Lee, chief executive of the Bike Helmet Initiative Trust and a nurse consultant in paediatric trauma, says it's clear that helmets make cycling safer.

"It's plain and simple that helmets are effective," Ms Lee continues. "If you think of people who have mobile phones, computers, I bet they all have covers on to protect them. You have a skull protecting your brain and if you know anything about computers you know that if you damage a computer you can't load the programme. That's exactly the same with your brain."

Wearing a helmet does seem like common sense - if it doesn't encourage you or other road users to take extra risks. But in the absence of really compelling evidence either way, it's up to individuals to make their own choices.

Me? I wear a helmet, and I'll continue to do so

"I don't trust the research that says cyclists take risks because it's not what I do!" very scientific that is. + he's looked at the subject from a driver's psychology point of view, not any accident data.

I would actually expect helmets to increase head injury rates, but that would be a good thing.

But you oppose all compulsory cycling safety efforts, which is daft and selfish, like smokers opposing smoking restrictions
 
EVENT GUIDE - HIGHLIGHT
Shlomo Franklin
The Richmond Revival, College Road, Fermoy, Co. Cork, P61 T292

27th Apr 2024 @ 7:00 pm
More info..

Alan Fitzpatrick

Cyprus Avenue, Tomorrow @ 11pm

More events ▼
Top