Helmet debate Radio 2 lunchtime today

[Ivor Tingting]

Just after 1pm BBC Radio 2 Mon 16/03/09

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/shows/vine/

Re the recent case where it was suggested cyclists who don't wear a helmet
and are then involved in a collision sustaining injuries should not be entitled to full
compensation.

[EdinburghFixed]

Did anyone listen in?

Although nothing new happened in the recent case, I'd be interested to know whether the prevailing opinion is with / against.

[Mick F]

I heard it.

It was Radio 2, so only entertainment, rather that real debate.

As usual, there were two ways of looking at it, then some people phoned in. The producers always make these things "balanced", so it was boring and really, but it's good that the Awful Jeremy Vine is still away!

[Si]

Was this the he Jeremy Vine programme prog featuring an interview with Gwyn Prosser?

If so then anything short of him not declaring all cyclists should be lynched is probably a triumph - remember the one that he did with Dan Cadden ?!?!?!

Having just read Roger Geffen's RTR post on the subject, he seems to be of the opinion that overall the media has been pro-cyclist on this one. But then again it's the media so expect them to change tack three times a day.

[meic]

The person presenting the case against penalising non-helmet wearers was a Tory MP! What is the world coming to?

The case for compulsory helmets (yes they soon forgot what they were supposed to be discusing and got round to that) was largely by the hordes of people who had their lives saved by their helmets.

So the big mystery remains, as half of cyclists do not wear helmets, where are all the dead and brain damaged non-helmet wearers?
It is hard to believe that not wearing a helmet prevents accidents but the evidence is starting to get overwhelming.

The representative from Brake seemed quite capable of accepting the lids were not much use but should be compulsory. She also denied that there was any "cost" to wearing one. In which case why not have everyone wear a helmet all the time?

[Si]

The person presenting the case against penalising non-helmet wearers was a Tory MP!

Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group.

There do seem to be more prominent Tory MPs that are actually known for riding bikes (yes, you know the two I mean), rather than just for telling people to get on their bikes , just goes to show that either bikes are being recognised as real forms of transport, or bikes are becoming status symbols, or MPs/politicos of both main parties are starting to become real people (I'll let you decide which it is).

[downfader]

There seems to have been a LOT of this in the press this past week. Did someone famous smash his brains out or something?

Its the same thing everytime. Show me proper, justifiable evidence and I'll beleive it. I wear one to keep the sun out of my eyes and the fact that if you do have a small fall then you wont scrape your head as bad on the tarmac.

[thirdcrank]

So the big mystery remains, as half of cyclists do not wear helmets, where are all the dead and brain damaged non-helmet wearers?

The fact that you don't hear from them does not mean that they don't (or didn't) exist.

In the meantime, I feel a helmet thread coming on. It is a while since we had one.

[drossall]

So the big mystery remains, as half of cyclists do not wear helmets, where are all the dead and brain damaged non-helmet wearers?

Oh there's a bigger question than that. With 120-150 cyclists a year killed and the numbers not changing that fast, where are all the lives saved coming from? There can't be more than ten lives a year saved by helmets, or the numbers would have dropped through the floor. Mercifully, even with the unpleasant numbers above, most of us probably don't know anyone who has lost their lives on a bike. So how can we know lots of people who have had their lives saved when there are only, at a very generous estimate, one tenth as many of them as there are fatal casualties?

Sorry.

We do not want another helmet thread.
We do not want another helmet thread.
We do not want another helmet thread.
We do not want another helmet thread.
We do not want another helmet thread.
We do not want another helmet thread.
We do not want another helmet thread.
We do not want another helmet thread.
We do not want another helmet thread.
We do not want another helmet thread.

[hubgearfreak]

There can't be more than ten lives a year saved by helmets, or the numbers would have dropped through the floor.

i'll bet if you checked the helmet threads in this very forum, you'd find 10 whose lives have been undoubtedly saved by them.

a scratch in the paint is proof enough of a fatal injury abated

[Jimmy The Hand]

We do not want another helmet thread.

Why not? some of us are to new to have taken part in the last one

I wear a helmet, but oddly enough I didn't whilst in Holland last year. So why do I wear it? it gives a modicome (sp) of protection and I feel safer with it on in the UK

[gilesjuk]

So the big mystery remains, as half of cyclists do not wear helmets, where are all the dead and brain damaged non-helmet wearers?

Has it occurred to you that they haven't been involved in an accident yet?

All these people on building sites you see wearing helmets have probably never had anything land on their head, but the potential is there.

[gilesjuk]

There can't be more than ten lives a year saved by helmets, or the numbers would have dropped through the floor.

i'll bet if you checked the helmet threads in this very forum, you'd find 10 whose lives have been undoubtedly saved by them.

a scratch in the paint is proof enough of a fatal injury abated

Why are they mandatory in professional cycling events?

It's not all about saving your life anyway, it is about reducing the damage if you aren't killed.

[EdinburghFixed]

Why are they mandatory in professional cycling events?

A full-face helmet, eight point seatbelt and fireproof suit are required in most professional driving events. The fact that nobody even advocates them for ordinary driving should illustrate to you how bizarre it is that to go and pick up milk from the corner shop on your bike, you should nevertheless armour up "like a professional cyclist".

Although the chances of coming off in a pack race or jostling keirin event on the track are not massive, they are still vastly higher than the risk of falling off on a utility cycle ride.

Currently I come off my mountain bike around once each day that I go mountain biking. Since I'm rarely going fast when I hit the dirt (technical obstacles) it makes good sense to wear a helmet. But to run errands? I'm not so sure.

---

The problem with this whole line of thought is that cycling is very safe per hour ridden, safer than driving and even walking.

In other words, more pedestrians suffer serious head injuries each year than cyclists, even after accounting for the proportion of time spent doing each activity.

Ironically, the design of a cycle helmet is even more appropriate to pedestrians - they rarely exceed 12mph and are especially unlikely to suffer from the rotational injuries which affect cyclists so badly. So with a helmet commonly available that would be suitable for pedestrians, it begs the question, why are we not prioritising pedestrian helmet use over cyclists?

Many more lives would be saved.

Yet it's just laughable that you'd wear a walking helmet even though the risk of injury is real. I think it has to do with the fact that pedestrians implicitly realise how minute the actual risk of a head injury is - cyclists in countries with a high rate of participation inevitably seem to feel the same way.

Only in the UK and our 'spin-off' countries is cycling portrayed as such an extreme risk environment that you need to armour up to do it. Ironically, the biggest turn-off to non-cyclists is this concept of danger, and the biggest *real* difference to road safety is made by? More cyclists.

Thus the vicious cycle turns.

Pro-helmet advocates seem to focus maddeningly on the individual in isolation to their environment, pointing out (correctly) that the more armour you wear, the less your chance of being injured (although even that is still contentious when it comes to cycling at speed). It's also true that elbow and shin pads, chest and spine protectors would reduce the number of killed or seriously injured cyclists (or pedestrians, or drivers) but for some reason this argument eludes them.

[thirdcrank]

Why are they mandatory in professional cycling events?.

In short, because people see it happening, and assume it proves it's a good idea, as you seem to have.

So, it's pressure from the manufacturers, who cannot advertise these things openly as having a safety value because if they did they would be making false representations (As in when did you last see an ad for a helmet that made any claim beyond meeting the minumum standard?) Professional racing cyclists resisted compulsion. Initially, the UCI allowed exeptions, like riders could take them off for the last big climb in the tour. The sight of so many ridersdumping these valuable safety aids in a big roadside bin was too much to bear. I fancy if the money was good enough, many pro's would ride in a batman outfit.