A road safety organisation has come under fire for its latest campaign, which urges cyclists to wear a helmet and has been criticised for "victim-blaming" and failing to tackle road danger "at source".

Bedfordshire Road Safety Partnership — a group "working together to reduce road casualties" and is made up of representatives from the council, police, fire and rescue and the Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner — launched the campaign, which has since been shared on Road Safety GB's website, a national road safety organisation.

In the video (link is external), which can be viewed on the Bedfordshire group's website, viewers are shown an animated story of a cyclist called Ted, who didn't wear a helmet on his head. "Whilst riding real quick, he hit a big stick, and now he's in a hospital bed," the rhyme ends.

The campaign was also shared on Road Safety GB's website, the national road safety organisation that is run in association with THINK! and representatives from groups across the UK, including local government road safety teams.

Road Safety GB said the campaign aims to make wearing a helmet "the norm", drawing on comparison with Australia where helmet use is mandatory and cyclists breaking the rules can be fined.

It was also revealed that all schools in Bedfordshire have been sent the resources to add to their social media accounts and pass on to parents in newsletters.

Promoting the three-week campaign, a spokesperson told Road Safety GB: "We are trying to make wearing a helmet the norm, as it is in Australia. To do so, we are targeting all age groups to change their habits – as has happened with the wearing of seatbelts over the years."

The campaign was shared on social media by one Twitter (X) user simply saying, "Oh dear", while another joked about the comparison to Australia a country "famous for so much cycling".

Another reply shared a link to an Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report which showed one in five people injured on Australian roads and paths is a cyclist while the rate of hospitalisation for cyclists increased by 1.5 per cent per year over the 17-year period of the report, 4.4 per cent year-on-year in the final six years of the report.

"If this approach works why do the stats show cycling is getting more dangerous in Australia? Stop victim-blaming and tackle road danger at source," they said. "If you really want to make the roads safer for people on bikes campaign for proper infrastructure. Helmets and personal protective equipment are not and never will be the answer."

The reply also tagged England's cycling and walking commissioner Chris Boardman, who famously said back in 2014 that helmets are "not even in top 10 of things that keep cycling safe"

In June, an Irish children's hospital consultant spoke out making the case for cyclists to be legally required to wear a helmet, arguing accident and emergency units see a spike in crash-related injuries during the summer months.

The UK government has repeatedly shut down occasional calls for cyclists to be required to wear a helmet, most recently in December of last year when a minister of state from the Department of Transport said the matter had been considered "at length" during the cycling and walking safety review in 2018.

They said: "The safety benefits of mandating cycle helmets for cyclists are likely to be outweighed by the fact that this would put some people off cycling, thereby reducing the wider health and environmental benefits. The Department recommends that cyclists should wear helmets, as set out in the Highway Code, but has no intention to make this a legal requirement."

https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-helmet-campaign-prompts-victim-blaming-call-304081

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

[…]

> Another reply shared a link to an Australian Institute of Health and
> Welfare report which showed one in five people injured on Australian
> roads and paths is a cyclist while the rate of hospitalisation for
> cyclists increased by 1.5 per cent per year over the 17-year period of
> the report, 4.4 per cent year-on-year in the final six years of the report.

> "If this approach works why do the stats show cycling is getting more
> dangerous in Australia?

‘Do they?’ might be a good question.

Presumably these ‘statistics’ were uncritically swallowed hook, line, and
sinker by the authors of this article?

> https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-helmet-campaign-prompts-victim-blaming-call-304081

Quelle surprise! It’s road.cc!

--
Spike

There once was a cyclist named Mandy,
Who was plowed down by a speeding Audi,
The driver got off Scot-free,
As Mandy's children mourned she
Who died and was blamed so unfairly.

She wore something bright,
Had two working lights,
With polystyrene MIPS fitted tight!
Alas! No helmet would change
The two-ton impact by Shane,
Who said,
'honest, Guv, I ain't to blame.'

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> There once was a cyclist named Mandy,
> Who was plowed down by a speeding Audi,
> The driver got off Scot-free,
> As Mandy's children mourned she
> Who died and was blamed so unfairly.
>
> She wore something bright,
> Had two working lights,
> With polystyrene MIPS fitted tight!
> Alas! No helmet would change
> The two-ton impact by Shane,
> Who said,
> 'honest, Guv, I ain't to blame.'

That’s poor, in both theme and construction.

--
Spike

It's amazing how the effectiveness of helmets is so exagerated in the minds on the faithful. The number of people whose lives have been saved by helmets according to annecdote far exceeds the number of cyclists who were dying to head injuries before helmets.

So either most people "who would have died" without a helmet would not actually have died.

OR

Drivers are now knocking cyclists down far more frequently safe in the knowledge that their helmets protect them.

Do you wear a helmet when out walking? why not? head injuries per billion km are higher for pedestrians than for cyclists.

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> A road safety organisation has come under fire for its latest campaign,
> which urges cyclists to wear a helmet and has been criticised for
> "victim-blaming" and failing to tackle road danger "at source".

> The campaign was shared on social media [which contained] a link to an
> Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report which showed one in
> five people injured on Australian roads and paths is a cyclist while the
> rate of hospitalisation for cyclists increased by 1.5 per cent per year
> over the 17-year period of the report, 4.4 per cent year-on-year in the
> final six years of the report.

Note that the link wasn’t given in the road.cc’s article.

Note also that it mentions an increase in cyclist casualties without also
mentioning whether cycling had increased over the period of the report, or
road traffic had done likewise.

The uncritical-of-thinking might mistakenly get the impression from these
omissions that cycling in Australia had become more dangerous. In reality,
if cycling had increased by a greater proportion than casualties,
Australian cycling would have become safer. But, of course, in the
perverted thinking of the cycling media, this may have been unwelcome news
and hence the lack of relevant data.

A similar argument applies if the unmentioned increase in road traffic had
also outpaced cycling casualties.

> "If this approach works why do the stats show cycling is getting more
> dangerous in Australia? Stop victim-blaming and tackle road danger at source," they said.

You will now note how the limited figures published have been traduced by
the unsupported assumption that cycling in Australia is getting more
dangerous.

> The reply also tagged England's cycling and walking commissioner Chris
> Boardman, who famously said back in 2014 that helmets are "not even in
> top 10 of things that keep cycling safe"

“We can point to who we have killed (through lack of a safety helmet) but
we cannot point to anyone that has been saved (through the use of a safety
helmet)”.

On that basis, Boardman is despicable for saying what he did.

> In June, an Irish children's hospital consultant spoke out making the
> case for cyclists to be legally required to wear a helmet, arguing
> accident and emergency units see a spike in crash-related injuries during
> the summer months.

Which of course comes as no surprise.

> The UK government […] said: "The safety benefits of mandating cycle
> helmets for cyclists are likely to be outweighed by the fact that this
> would put some people off cycling, thereby reducing the wider health and
> environmental benefits.

And where is this analysis, that infers that some cyclists will die just so
others might cycle without a helmet?

> https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-helmet-campaign-prompts-victim-blaming-call-304081

--
Spike

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's amazing how the effectiveness of helmets is so exagerated in the
> minds on the faithful. The number of people whose lives have been saved
> by helmets according to annecdote…

If you are going to use ‘annecdote’ as evidence, it might help if you
spelled it correctly.

> …far exceeds the number of cyclists who were dying to head injuries before helmets.

> So either most people "who would have died" without a helmet would not actually have died.

By piling supposition upon supposition, any desired result can be gained.

> OR

> Drivers are now knocking cyclists down far more frequently safe in the
> knowledge that their helmets protect them.
>
> Do you wear a helmet when out walking? why not? head injuries per billion
> km are higher for pedestrians than for cyclists.

Pedestrians perform far more trips in a year than cyclists, 235 to 20, and
so are 12 times as likely to suffer collisions.

--
Spike

In 2019, there was an interesting dispute between the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). While looking at the latest data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), NTSB became concerned that traffic deaths are still rising. So the NTSB - people who usually research crashes around planes, trains, and automobiles - recommended that all 50 states implement bicycle helmet laws. Though injury and fatality numbers increased for all modes, NTSB's recommendation did not include helmets for drivers or pedestrians and only recommended mandatory helmets for cyclists. Either NTSB does not like drivers and pedestrians as much, or is really, really concerned about cyclists.

NTSB has not cared much about bicycle safety since 1972, so the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) first had to catch them up on the science: "Experience has shown that while bike helmets can be protective, bike helmet laws are not. NACTO strongly urges NTSB to remove the recommendation that states adopt mandatory helmet laws and work with their federal and state partners to enshrine the remainder of this critical, timely, and well-researched report into practice."

To understand this disagreement between NTSB, NACTO, and NHTSA, we can look to other countries that have extensively researched this topic. For this topic, we best enter The Commonwealth of Nations or at least four of their countries: New Zealand, Australia, the U.K., and Canada. Since they all speak English and all have very similar 'cultures,' there is a lot of comparable research available. Australia and New Zealand were the first countries to introduce helmet laws in the early 1990s. Canada has some regions with similar policies; in the U.S. and U.K., there is a lot of bike helmet bullying going on. Researchers have been able to draw many conclusions from their results ever since, and that's why not too many countries have these laws. Cycling U.K. put together a great summary, and so did various other researchers.
Old British Bicycle Helmet Standard (BS6863, 1987)

The old standards for cycle helmets said: "Cycling helmets are intended to give protection in the kind of accident in which the rider falls onto the road without other vehicles being involved."
This implies that helmets are of little value when the cyclist collides with a motor vehicle.
EU Standard (EN 1078)

Bicycle helmets are a weird compromise between strength and weight. Protecting against hitting a flat surface or hitting a curb requires different designs. The old British Standard was the strong one; subsequent standards have been progressively weakened due to lobbying by the manufacturers themselves.
And even with standards, there is always a very good chance you own the wrong one or use it for too long already.
Safety Statistics

Looking at the statistics behind Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI), it turns out cycling is far from being the most dangerous activity. Most TBI-related cases happen to car drivers, passengers and people hit by motorists. People are just tripping and falling everywhere. Apparently, people are falling out of bed and injuring their brains. A lot of TBI cases have to do with guns.

It turns out that if Safety were the big concern behind helmet laws, helmet laws would have to include driving, walking, and everyone living in a home with a gun. Especially in the U.S., those activities seem more dangerous than cycling.

Commonwealth Research Facts:

U.K.: "Pedestrians and drivers account for five and four times the number of fatal head injuries as cyclists."

Australia: "proportion of head injuries requiring hospitalization was about the same for cyclists (27.4%) as for drivers (26%) and less than pedestrians (33.3%)"

U.K.: "cycling accounted for 10% of child traumatic brain injury (TBI) admissions, but pedestrians accounted for 36%, while falls accounted for 24%"

Australia: "cycling without a helmet carried only slightly more risk of death or serious injury per hour than driving"

Germany: "report from 2009 found that the rate of serious head injuries amongst cyclists, pedestrians and car occupants is similar"

Canada: "Bike helmet laws got more people wearing them, but did little to reduce the rate of serious, hospital-worthy injury. In fact, helmet use had almost no effect at all"

Denmark: "compared with pedestrian and car occupant injuries, cycling injuries result in the shortest hospital stays and are least likely to be serious"

Do Sports Helmets work?

There is even better science available about helmet wearing contact sports. It turns out that helmets don't help much there, either. The results are, in fact, so devastating that the Mercury News just recently called for the ban of tackle football. The link between Parkinson's Disease and boxing was already established. But football players also have a 61% greater risk. Playing football increases the chance of CTE by 15% every year.
And other sports, like baseball, rugby, lacrosse, soccer, and wrestling, aren't much safer either. If helmets made a difference, it certainly does not show in high school sports or college. And professional sports are even worse; out of 111 NFL brains, 110 were found to have CTE that led to aggression, depression, and suicide.
All these guys were wearing helmets of higher quality than cycling helmets.
The Law of Unintended Consequences

Colin Clarke (Cycling U.K.) asked, "Why does the Netherlands, with hardly any cycle helmet wearing have a fatality rate of 8 per billion kms cycled, the U.K. with 21 and the USA with 49?" He concluded that "The emphasis on helmets is unscientific and, more importantly, damages cycling and blocks the kind of cycling policy and infrastructure in successful cycling cities, e.g. Freiburg, Delft, Lund, Copenhagen or Muenster." Colin Clarke refers to the fact, that bicycle helmet laws led to a 36% drop in people cycling, leading to fewer injuries overall. However, looking deeper into the data led to the conclusion that helmeted people's injuries actually increased.

Researchers from various countries kept coming to similar conclusions. Professor Piet de Jong, Dr. Kay Teschke, Dr. Harry Hutter, Dr. Ian Walker, and many others uncovered the following facts:

Experienced cyclists felt a false sense of security, rode faster and harder and gained more injuries.

Bicycle helmet laws suppressed bicycle usage in NZL, AUS, and CAN by up to 60%.

Female riders, children, seniors, and minorities were turned away by mandatory helmet wearing

Commonwealth Research Facts:

Canada: "In some instances, helmeted cyclists ride faster, elevating the risk of a crash; in others, drivers feel they can drive closer to riders with helmets than riders without them, also raising the likelihood of calamity. In none of the studied scenarios was the possibility of serious injury reduced by helmet laws."

U.K.: "Helmeted cyclists suffer 14% more collisions per mile travelled than non-wearers"

Australia "In several cases young children were being hanged by their bicycle straps."

Boston: "… individuals with documented helmet use were found to have 1.85 times the odds of non–helmet users of being involved in an injury-related accident,"

California: "The prevalence of significant head trauma was 35% in the group of patients with helmet and 34% in the group without helmets. The prevalence of all significant trauma was 26% in the group of patients with helmet and 20% in the group without helmets. The overall mortality was 1%. There was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted patients.."

U.K. hospital study: "There was a statistically significant increase in chest, spinal, upper and lower limb injury in the helmeted group in comparison with the non-helmet group." For example, 10.7% of helmeted cyclists suffered serious spine injuries, compared to 5.4% of unhelmeted cyclists.

Canada: "For traffic-related injury causes, higher cycling mode share was consistently associated with lower hospitalization rates. Helmet laws were not associated with hospitalization rates for brain, head, scalp, skull, face or neck injuries."

Health Benefits of Cycling

It turns out cycling without a helmet is actually better for your health than not cycling at all.

Here is what Cycling U.K. found out:

"By contrast, the risks of cycling are not exceptionally high, and are very small relative to the health benefits. You are in fact as unlikely to be killed in a mile of cycling as in a mile of walking. The Government has endorsed estimates that the health benefits outweigh the risks of cycling by a factor of 20:1."

Britain's roads aren't very bicycle-friendly. If the U.K. achieves a ratio of 20:1, how much better are countries with better bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes) like The Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany?
Conclusions

Should you be using a bicycle helmet?

This should be a personal decision based on perceived risk. But anyone who feels very strongly about Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) should also be wearing motorist helmets, kitchen helmets, gardening helmets, bathtub helmets, and window-cleaning helmets - as these and other activities seem way more dangerous. But whatever people choose, they should never call anybody else out for not wearing a helmet. These people might just be following the correct science.

Should there be a bicycle helmet mandate of any kind?

On 26/09/2023 07:23, Simon Mason wrote:
> In 2019, there was an interesting dispute between the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). While looking at the latest data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), NTSB became concerned that traffic deaths are still rising. So the NTSB - people who usually research crashes around planes, trains, and automobiles - recommended that all 50 states implement bicycle helmet laws. Though injury and fatality numbers increased for all modes, NTSB's recommendation did not include helmets for drivers or pedestrians and only recommended mandatory helmets for cyclists. Either NTSB does not like drivers and pedestrians as much, or is really, really concerned about cyclists.
>
> NTSB has not cared much about bicycle safety since 1972, so the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) first had to catch them up on the science: "Experience has shown that while bike helmets can be protective, bike helmet laws are not. NACTO strongly urges NTSB to remove the recommendation that states adopt mandatory helmet laws and work with their federal and state partners to enshrine the remainder of this critical, timely, and well-researched report into practice."
>
> To understand this disagreement between NTSB, NACTO, and NHTSA, we can look to other countries that have extensively researched this topic. For this topic, we best enter The Commonwealth of Nations or at least four of their countries: New Zealand, Australia, the U.K., and Canada. Since they all speak English and all have very similar 'cultures,' there is a lot of comparable research available. Australia and New Zealand were the first countries to introduce helmet laws in the early 1990s. Canada has some regions with similar policies; in the U.S. and U.K., there is a lot of bike helmet bullying going on. Researchers have been able to draw many conclusions from their results ever since, and that's why not too many countries have these laws. Cycling U.K. put together a great summary, and so did various other researchers.
> Old British Bicycle Helmet Standard (BS6863, 1987)
>
> The old standards for cycle helmets said: "Cycling helmets are intended to give protection in the kind of accident in which the rider falls onto the road without other vehicles being involved."
> This implies that helmets are of little value when the cyclist collides with a motor vehicle.
> EU Standard (EN 1078)
>
> Bicycle helmets are a weird compromise between strength and weight. Protecting against hitting a flat surface or hitting a curb requires different designs. The old British Standard was the strong one; subsequent standards have been progressively weakened due to lobbying by the manufacturers themselves.
> And even with standards, there is always a very good chance you own the wrong one or use it for too long already.
> Safety Statistics
>
> Looking at the statistics behind Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI), it turns out cycling is far from being the most dangerous activity. Most TBI-related cases happen to car drivers, passengers and people hit by motorists. People are just tripping and falling everywhere. Apparently, people are falling out of bed and injuring their brains. A lot of TBI cases have to do with guns.
>
> It turns out that if Safety were the big concern behind helmet laws, helmet laws would have to include driving, walking, and everyone living in a home with a gun. Especially in the U.S., those activities seem more dangerous than cycling.
>
> Commonwealth Research Facts:
>
> U.K.: "Pedestrians and drivers account for five and four times the number of fatal head injuries as cyclists."
>
> Australia: "proportion of head injuries requiring hospitalization was about the same for cyclists (27.4%) as for drivers (26%) and less than pedestrians (33.3%)"
>
> U.K.: "cycling accounted for 10% of child traumatic brain injury (TBI) admissions, but pedestrians accounted for 36%, while falls accounted for 24%"
>
> Australia: "cycling without a helmet carried only slightly more risk of death or serious injury per hour than driving"
>
> Germany: "report from 2009 found that the rate of serious head injuries amongst cyclists, pedestrians and car occupants is similar"
>
> Canada: "Bike helmet laws got more people wearing them, but did little to reduce the rate of serious, hospital-worthy injury. In fact, helmet use had almost no effect at all"
>
> Denmark: "compared with pedestrian and car occupant injuries, cycling injuries result in the shortest hospital stays and are least likely to be serious"
>
> Do Sports Helmets work?
>
> There is even better science available about helmet wearing contact sports. It turns out that helmets don't help much there, either. The results are, in fact, so devastating that the Mercury News just recently called for the ban of tackle football. The link between Parkinson's Disease and boxing was already established. But football players also have a 61% greater risk. Playing football increases the chance of CTE by 15% every year.
> And other sports, like baseball, rugby, lacrosse, soccer, and wrestling, aren't much safer either. If helmets made a difference, it certainly does not show in high school sports or college. And professional sports are even worse; out of 111 NFL brains, 110 were found to have CTE that led to aggression, depression, and suicide.
> All these guys were wearing helmets of higher quality than cycling helmets.
> The Law of Unintended Consequences
>
> Colin Clarke (Cycling U.K.) asked, "Why does the Netherlands, with hardly any cycle helmet wearing have a fatality rate of 8 per billion kms cycled, the U.K. with 21 and the USA with 49?" He concluded that "The emphasis on helmets is unscientific and, more importantly, damages cycling and blocks the kind of cycling policy and infrastructure in successful cycling cities, e.g. Freiburg, Delft, Lund, Copenhagen or Muenster." Colin Clarke refers to the fact, that bicycle helmet laws led to a 36% drop in people cycling, leading to fewer injuries overall. However, looking deeper into the data led to the conclusion that helmeted people's injuries actually increased.
>
> Researchers from various countries kept coming to similar conclusions. Professor Piet de Jong, Dr. Kay Teschke, Dr. Harry Hutter, Dr. Ian Walker, and many others uncovered the following facts:
>
>
> Experienced cyclists felt a false sense of security, rode faster and harder and gained more injuries.
>
> Bicycle helmet laws suppressed bicycle usage in NZL, AUS, and CAN by up to 60%.
>
> Female riders, children, seniors, and minorities were turned away by mandatory helmet wearing
>
> Commonwealth Research Facts:
>
> Canada: "In some instances, helmeted cyclists ride faster, elevating the risk of a crash; in others, drivers feel they can drive closer to riders with helmets than riders without them, also raising the likelihood of calamity. In none of the studied scenarios was the possibility of serious injury reduced by helmet laws."
>
> U.K.: "Helmeted cyclists suffer 14% more collisions per mile travelled than non-wearers"
>
> Australia "In several cases young children were being hanged by their bicycle straps."
>
> Boston: "… individuals with documented helmet use were found to have 1.85 times the odds of non–helmet users of being involved in an injury-related accident,"
>
> California: "The prevalence of significant head trauma was 35% in the group of patients with helmet and 34% in the group without helmets. The prevalence of all significant trauma was 26% in the group of patients with helmet and 20% in the group without helmets. The overall mortality was 1%. There was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted patients."
>
> U.K. hospital study: "There was a statistically significant increase in chest, spinal, upper and lower limb injury in the helmeted group in comparison with the non-helmet group." For example, 10.7% of helmeted cyclists suffered serious spine injuries, compared to 5.4% of unhelmeted cyclists.
>
> Canada: "For traffic-related injury causes, higher cycling mode share was consistently associated with lower hospitalization rates. Helmet laws were not associated with hospitalization rates for brain, head, scalp, skull, face or neck injuries."
>
>
> Health Benefits of Cycling
>
> It turns out cycling without a helmet is actually better for your health than not cycling at all.
>
> Here is what Cycling U.K. found out:
>
> "By contrast, the risks of cycling are not exceptionally high, and are very small relative to the health benefits. You are in fact as unlikely to be killed in a mile of cycling as in a mile of walking. The Government has endorsed estimates that the health benefits outweigh the risks of cycling by a factor of 20:1."
>
> Britain's roads aren't very bicycle-friendly. If the U.K. achieves a ratio of 20:1, how much better are countries with better bicycle infrastructure (bike lanes) like The Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany?
> Conclusions
>
> Should you be using a bicycle helmet?
>
> This should be a personal decision based on perceived risk. But anyone who feels very strongly about Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) should also be wearing motorist helmets, kitchen helmets, gardening helmets, bathtub helmets, and window-cleaning helmets - as these and other activities seem way more dangerous. But whatever people choose, they should never call anybody else out for not wearing a helmet. These people might just be following the correct science.
>
> Should there be a bicycle helmet mandate of any kind?
>
> Absolutely not: "The relatively small risks of cycling do not remotely justify banning any age group from cycling without a helmet, while mass helmet use has not in practice been found to materially reduce those risks. What is clear is that enforced helmet legislation would suppress cycle use and that the lost health benefits alone would be a severe net cost to society.
>
> At a time of mounting concern over the twin crises of obesity and climate change, the last thing we should be doing is forcing yet more people, especially children, into car-dependent and sedentary lifestyles."
>
> https://www.rwcpulse.com/blogs/peeking-at-plans/bike-helmets-01-7533472

Nope don't wear a helmet when walking I do wear a coat and hat if it looks like rain though. Only hit my head once while walking when I was a boy I walked into a lamppost while chatting to my father.
Well as well as the consultant the copper also thought it saved my life so you who know very little about this are heavily outweighed by those that have seen the accident and what was left of the helmet.

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> In 2019, there was an interesting dispute between the National
> Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National Association of City
> Transportation Officials (NACTO).

So, US based, where their roads and laws are not necessarily the same as
others.

> NTSB has not cared much about bicycle safety since 1972, so the National
> Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) first had to catch
> them up on the science: "Experience has shown that while bike helmets can
> be protective, bike helmet laws are not. NACTO strongly urges NTSB to
> remove the recommendation that states adopt mandatory helmet laws and
> work with their federal and state partners to enshrine the remainder of
> this critical, timely, and well-researched report into practice."

What does NACTO mean when using the term ’Experience’?

> To understand this disagreement between NTSB, NACTO, and NHTSA, we can
> look to other countries that have extensively researched this topic.

Why? Other countries have different roads, roads systems, applicable laws,
different cultural and social attitudes.

> For this topic, we best enter The Commonwealth of Nations or at least
> four of their countries: New Zealand, Australia, the U.K., and Canada.
> Since they all speak English and all have very similar 'cultures,'

What an appallingly bad set of criteria!

Perhaps they are four countries separated by a different language.

US cars have hoods, trunks, run on gas, and roll over a lot; other
countries cars have bonnets, boots, and run on petrol.

> there is a lot of comparable research available. Australia and New
> Zealand were the first countries to introduce helmet laws in the early
> 1990s. Canada has some regions with similar policies; in the U.S. and
> U.K., there is a lot of bike helmet bullying going on.

The inherent basis for the bias in this article could be expressed less
nakedly and less savagely. But the opportunity to pass over an over-egging
of the cake obviously was foregone.

> Researchers have been able to draw many conclusions from their results
> ever since, and that's why not too many countries have these laws.
> Cycling U.K. put together a great summary, and so did various other researchers.

Cycling UK…a bastion of evenhandedness?

> Old British Bicycle Helmet Standard (BS6863, 1987)
>
> The old standards for cycle helmets said: "Cycling helmets are intended
> to give protection in the kind of accident in which the rider falls onto
> the road without other vehicles being involved.”

> This implies that helmets are of little value when the cyclist collides
> with a motor vehicle.

This implies that helmets are of little value when the cyclist collides
with other things, such as lampposts, trees, walls, gates, Armco,
pedestrians, other cyclists, and the like.

> EU Standard (EN 1078)

> Bicycle helmets are a weird compromise between strength and weight.
> Protecting against hitting a flat surface or hitting a curb requires different designs.

Those assertions certainly need to be explained.

> The old British Standard was the strong one; subsequent standards have
> been progressively weakened due to lobbying by the manufacturers themselves.

And the evidence for lobbying by helmet manufacturers to weaken standards
is…?

> And even with standards, there is always a very good chance you own the
> wrong one or use it for too long already.

Kindly enumerate this ‘very good chance’.

> Safety Statistics

> Looking at the statistics behind Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI), it turns
> out cycling is far from being the most dangerous activity. Most
> TBI-related cases happen to car drivers, passengers and people hit by motorists.

In the light of the fact that nearly a thousand people a year are killed by
falling down steps and stairs, implying many more suffer injuries such as
TBI - and that is just one everyday activity undertaken by the vast
majority of the population - some breakdown of whatever data supports the
quoted assertion might help the case being made, such as it is.

> People are just tripping and falling everywhere.

Puffery.

> Apparently, people are falling out of bed and injuring their brains. A
> lot of TBI cases have to do with guns.

Now what country has the goalposts been shifted to?

> It turns out that if Safety were the big concern behind helmet laws,
> helmet laws would have to include driving, walking, and everyone living
> in a home with a gun. Especially in the U.S., those activities seem more
> dangerous than cycling.

In the US, there are more guns than people. Are there more bicycles than
people?

Apples and oranges spring to mind.

> [Selected?] Commonwealth Research Facts:

> U.K.: "Pedestrians and drivers account for five and four times the
> number of fatal head injuries as cyclists."

But there are 10x the number of drivers, and 20x the number of pedestrians,
than cyclists!

Apples and oranges spring to mind.

> Australia: "proportion of head injuries requiring hospitalization was
> about the same for cyclists (27.4%) as for drivers (26%) and less than pedestrians (33.3%)"

The UK data mentioned fatalities, the Australian data speaks of head
injuries.

Apples and oranges spring to mind.

> U.K.: "cycling accounted for 10% of child traumatic brain injury
> (TBI) admissions, but pedestrians accounted for 36%, while falls accounted for 24%"

Yet another shift of the goalposts.

> Australia: "cycling without a helmet carried only slightly more risk
> of death or serious injury per hour than driving"

The conclusion being what, exactly?

> Germany: "report from 2009 found that the rate of serious head
> injuries amongst cyclists, pedestrians and car occupants is similar"

‘The rate’ meaning what? Per trip? Per hour? Per mile?

> Canada: "Bike helmet laws got more people wearing them, but did
> little to reduce the rate of serious, hospital-worthy injury. In fact,
> helmet use had almost no effect at all"

Then helmets are worth wearing, aren’t they!

> Denmark: "compared with pedestrian and car occupant injuries, cycling
> injuries result in the shortest hospital stays and are least likely to be serious"

That’s because the speed of cyclists is so low.

Wait until the 20mph limits kick in, and cycling casualties as a rate, go
up. What will the cyclists have won?

> Do Sports Helmets work?

> There is even better science available about helmet wearing contact sports.

‘Better science available’?

One hasn’t seen any science yet, merely a collection of numbers that bear
little relationship to each other, dressed up an an argument.

> It turns out that helmets don't help much there, either. The results are,
> in fact, so devastating that the Mercury News just recently called for
> the ban of tackle football.

That might be a useful comparison if cyclists fell off their bicycles and
bumped their head as frequently as contact-sportspeople do. Otherwise, it’s
just apples and oranges again.

> The link between Parkinson's Disease and boxing was already established.
> But football players also have a 61% greater risk. Playing football
> increases the chance of CTE by 15% every year.

And? Where was Parkinson’s ever mentioned as a risk for cyclists?

> And other sports, like baseball, rugby, lacrosse, soccer, and wrestling,
> aren't much safer either. If helmets made a difference, it certainly does
> not show in high school sports or college.

Parkinson’s is a fairly rare disease in school children or college
students.

Is there a point to this irrelevant section of this article?

> A difference And professional sports are even worse; out of 111 NFL
> brains, 110 were found to have CTE that led to aggression, depression, and suicide.
> All these guys were wearing helmets of higher quality than cycling helmets.

But ask yourself, since when was cycling in everyday life a body-contact
sport?

Someone is comparing apples and oranges.

> The Law of Unintended Consequences

> Colin Clarke (Cycling U.K.) asked, "Why does the Netherlands, with hardly
> any cycle helmet wearing have a fatality rate of 8 per billion kms
> cycled, the U.K. with 21 and the USA with 49?"

Where did Colin Clarke of Cycling UK get his figures from?

Holland: 17.2 million people, 207 cycle deaths:
12 cycle deaths per million (UK: 1.6 cycle deaths per million)

On a population basis, Holland is a dangerous place to cycle.

By mileage cycled:
Holland: 15bn km cycled, 207 cycle deaths:
13.8 deaths per billion km cycled or 
22 deaths per billion miles cycled
(UK: 22 deaths per billion miles cycled)

On a mileage cycled basis, there is no difference in death rates between
Holland and the UK.

> Researchers from various countries kept coming to similar conclusions.
> Professor Piet de Jong, Dr. Kay Teschke, Dr. Harry Hutter, Dr. Ian
> Walker, and many others uncovered the following facts:

marmotte27 | 569 posts | 1 hour ago
2 likes

Can someone please point me in the direction of Bedfordshire/GB Road Safety's three week campaigns aimed at drivers on:
- overtaking cyclists respecting safety distances
- not overtaking cyclists when there isn't the space (oncoming traffic, blind bends, traffic islands...) or time (crossroads/traffic lights... coming up)
- driving within the speed limits or slower when around cyclists
- not making left turns immediately after overtaking a cyclist
- not tailgating, honking at, yelling at cyclists you cannot safely overtake
- not driving into advanced stop boxes or into crossing cycle lanes
- and generally not making lots of unnecessary car journeys?

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> marmotte27 | 569 posts | 1 hour ago
> 2 likes
>
> Can someone please point me in the direction of Bedfordshire/GB Road
> Safety's three week campaigns aimed at drivers on:

> - and generally not making lots of unnecessary car journeys?

What about unnecessary cycle journeys, Tours, Velos, Vueltas?

What’s sauce for the goose…

--
Spike

We don't have an issue with wearing a helmet, but we do have an issue with people that think they are the only conversation to be had over road safety.. It's obviously great for people that don't like cyclists as they can just blame anyone that chooses to not wear a helmet and call them an idiot (it's common sense after all).

There are downsides to wearing a helmet and places that mandated helmet wearing saw a reduction in the number of cyclists - a so-called safety measure that instead increases the chance of heart disease etc. through inactivity.. It's far better that we just get people on bikes and shut the hell up about helmets.

"Accidents happen" - that's the siren song of incompetent drivers that don't believe that drivers have any agency in crashes. Not paying attention and not driving to the conditions is by far the biggest cause of crashes, but hey, accidents happen yeah?

It's insidious when we get cyclists simping to the helmet manufacturers and singing their praises, when they are way down the list of safety measures we need to be talking about. We'll never get to Vision Zero by just putting a helmet on everyone, but that's all that "safety" organisations seem to be willing to talk about. Banging on about helmets and ridiculing the adults that actually want a more intelligent conversation about road safety is counter-productive and makes you look like an idiot, just repeating the same old cliches.

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are downsides to wearing a helmet and places that mandated helmet
> wearing saw a reduction in the number of cyclists - a so-called safety
> measure that instead increases the chance of heart disease etc. through
> inactivity. It's far better that we just get people on bikes and shut the
> hell up about helmets.

Wrong! Look at the data…

Keep in mind that the Dutch population at 17.2 million is almost exactly
one-quarter of that of the UK at 68 million.

To compare cases per year on a per-head basis, the NL figures have been
multiplied by 4.

CVD:
UK…324446
NL…347880
Result: UK healthier for CVD.

IHD:
UK…178985
NL…167020
Result: NL slightly healthier for IHD

Stroke:
UK…20326
NL…26072
Result: UK healthier for stroke.

So where are the claimed health benefits?

> "Accidents happen" - that's the siren song of incompetent drivers that
> don't believe that drivers have any agency in crashes. Not paying
> attention and not driving to the conditions is by far the biggest cause
> of crashes, but hey, accidents happen yeah?

The 4th biggest killer of cyclists arises from ‘Cyclist entering road from
pavement’, which means that the cyclist wasn’t paying attention.

> It's insidious when we get cyclists simping to the helmet manufacturers
> and singing their praises, when they are way down the list of safety
> measures we need to be talking about.

Every little helps. It’s immoral not to address one issue because another
loons larger.

> We'll never get to Vision Zero

Exactly. When there are only bicycles on the road, cyclists will be killing
cyclists, as well as the ever-present cyclist SVA.

> by just putting a helmet on everyone, but that's all that "safety"
> organisations seem to be willing to talk about. Banging on about helmets
> and ridiculing the adults that actually want a more intelligent
> conversation about road safety is counter-productive and makes you look
> like an idiot, just repeating the same old cliches.

Banging on about helmets and ridiculing the adults that actually want a
more intelligent conversation about road safety is counter-productive and
makes you look like an idiot, just repeating the same old cliches.

Touché

--
Spike

Cba2make1 replied to JLasTSR | 2 posts | 1 day ago
8 likes

The issue with this argument is, you could remove a number of things to prevent injury, such as not going out, an increased headwind on the day, slower riding, or the most obvious, if the car driver was trained better, more attentive and hadn't pulled out, you wouldn't have required a helmet in the first place.

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cba2make1 replied to JLasTSR | 2 posts | 1 day ago
> 8 likes
>
> The issue with this argument is, you could remove a number of things to
> prevent injury, such as not going out, an increased headwind on the day,
> slower riding, or the most obvious, if the car driver was trained better,
> more attentive and hadn't pulled out, you wouldn't have required a helmet
> in the first place.

OTOH…

if the cyclist was trained better, more attentive and hadn't pulled out, he
would have been wearing a helmet in the first place.

--
Spike

Don't bother arguing with the usual helmet muppets on here - it's not worth your time.

I completely agree that wearing helmets, in general, is trivial, and those here who are involved in the inexplicable campaign for wearing them, and bullying/intimidating/shaming those who do not wear helmets should be ashamed of themselves for promoting a pathetic agenda of falsehoods and intimidation.

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don't bother arguing with the usual helmet muppets on here - it's not worth your time.
>
> I completely agree that wearing helmets, in general, is trivial, and
> those here who are involved in the inexplicable campaign for wearing
> them, and bullying/intimidating/shaming those who do not wear helmets
> should be ashamed of themselves for promoting a pathetic agenda of
> falsehoods and intimidation.

I was under the strong impression that the cycling world was full of “…a
pathetic agenda of falsehoods and intimidation”.

--
Spike

giff77 replied to JLasTSR | 2130 posts | 1 day ago
2 likes

And yet Volvo was only popular amongst elderly drivers are safety conscious drivers. As I said to Holding On. All the modern features on today's vehicles encourage irresponsible driving.

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> giff77 replied to JLasTSR | 2130 posts | 1 day ago
> 2 likes
>
> And yet Volvo was only popular amongst elderly drivers are safety
> conscious drivers. As I said to Holding On. All the modern features on
> today's vehicles encourage irresponsible driving.

Turing Test: FAIL

--
Spike

On 28/09/23 06:59, Spike wrote:
> Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Don't bother arguing with the usual helmet muppets on here - it's not worth your time.
>>
>> I completely agree that wearing helmets, in general, is trivial, and
>> those here who are involved in the inexplicable campaign for wearing
>> them, and bullying/intimidating/shaming those who do not wear helmets
>> should be ashamed of themselves for promoting a pathetic agenda of
>> falsehoods and intimidation.
>
> I was under the strong impression that the cycling world was full of “…a
> pathetic agenda of falsehoods and intimidation”.
>
Glad to be of service.

My point is that a road safety organisation should be focussing on road safety and bike helmets are way down the list of what actually works. They could be running a campaign to teach drivers about leaving enough space around vulnerable road users, or not using mobile phones, or not speeding. They could be campaigning for effective infrastructure or driver re-testing or law changes to allow cyclists to use traffic lights more flexibly. But no, it's just bike helmets.

Mandatory helmets have been shown to reduce the number of cyclists on the roads and thus tends to make cycling more dangerous!

I don't think you understand the basics of road safety.

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> My point is that a road safety organisation should be focussing on road
> safety and bike helmets are way down the list of what actually works.
> They could be running a campaign to teach drivers about leaving enough
> space around vulnerable road users, or not using mobile phones, or not
> speeding. They could be campaigning for effective infrastructure or
> driver re-testing or law changes to allow cyclists to use traffic lights
> more flexibly. But no, it's just bike helmets.
>
> Mandatory helmets have been shown to reduce the number of cyclists on the
> roads and thus tends to make cycling more dangerous!
>
> I don't think you understand the basics of road safety.

The wise alternative approach to road safety is to advance on all fronts,
not just one at a time, rather than using the employment of other measures
first as a means of not looking like a tit.

--
Spike

No, they are collisions - that's the only description we can be certain about. A driver may not mean to hit you, but by not paying sufficient attention they did so nonetheless. That's a decision on their part, not an accident..

I'm not going to get into a debate about whether the helmet saved your life in this instance. I also wear a helmet when cycling, but I don't think that it should be front and centre of a road safety campaign, which is what is actually being debated here.

Campaigns for road safety should primarily focus on decreasing collisions, not mitigating their effects. By making cycling out to be inherently dangerous (nearly killed by a big stick? Seriously?) this campaign helps to put people off cycling. That does more harm to people's health, as the benefits of cycling greatly outweigh the risks.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't wear a helmet. I'm saying that campaigns should not be focused on helmet wearing as they are counter productive and take away space from more effective campaigns.