Do you wear a helmet?

[Zigster]

I've got to say that I find it surprising that the stats show only 30% of UK cyclists wear helmets. I use my Brompton in London on a weekday and I would have guessed at more like 90% wear helmets - I do feel I stand out without one and there is a certain peer pressure to wear one. If you look at youtube helmet cam videos, helmet wearing seems to be near universal. I realise why those might not be wholly representative samples, but it would presumably mean much less than 30% of cyclists in other areas wearing helmets.

A few recent examples of over emphasis on helmets:

- I'm a Cub Scout leader. At a training course recently we were discussing how to provide a balanced programme to the Cubs. Cycling was suggested and, without pause, everyone in the room (except me) piped up that the Cubs must be made to wear helmets. What frustrated me was not the suggestion of wearing helmets but the way in which it was seen as the most important thing. Personally, I would have suggested the parents confirmed whether or not they wanted their child to wear a helmet. Plus, as an aside, I bet the bike and helmet would be driven to the Scout hut in the back of the car rather than cycled there, despite us living in a fairly small village.

- there is a annual cycling fun day (for want of a better phrase) which is organised in a town near me (http://www.hhbikeride.co.uk/). I was thinking of doing it this year but the home page put me off as the most important message they had was apparently, "WE TAKE SAFETY SERIOUSLY. NO HELMET, NO RIDE"

- several mums in the village put pressure on me to wear a helmet for my cycle to the station. One will even shout at me every time she sees me, "Where's your helmet?". Her young daughter has now started doing the same. I've explained several times that the stats don't back up helmets being particularly important - they get really wound up by this (seriously, quite cross) and the most vocal will say that she used to be a nurse so she knows what she's talking about. Quite a few of my friends in the village also cycle to the station and they tend to wear helmets because their wives pressure them to (my wife has given up with me in that respect).

Sorry it was a bit lengthy. My point with those examples is that helmet wearing really is seen as the default in the UK and that by not doing so you are some crazy fool who is going to leave a widow and fatherless children. People really don't have any idea there is even a debate about this - they see helmets as safe; no helmets as dangerous.

[bovlomov]

I've got to say that I find it surprising that the stats show only 30% of UK cyclists wear helmets. I use my Brompton in London on a weekday and I would have guessed at more like 90% wear helmets

A couple of years ago I stood for a while on City Road, London E1, and counted 18 helmets and 17 bare heads. As a main commuter route, I imagine that's more helmets than the average throughout London.

I'll do a similar survey next time I have half an hour to spend.

As for these wives and villagers - just keep on doing what you are doing. Explain to them that the statistics don't support their opinions, and that you'd be delighted to have a full discussion about it when they have done a bit more research. Your village seems to be populated by a burning torch and pitchfork mob who are looking for things to be disgusted about. When they aren't attacking you, they're probably pushing threatening anonymous letters through eachother's letterboxes and pouring rubbish into eachother's gardens the night before the pretty village competition.

[mjr]

I've got to say that I find it surprising that the stats show only 30% of UK cyclists wear helmets. I use my Brompton in London on a weekday and I would have guessed at more like 90% wear helmets

A couple of years ago I stood for a while on City Road, London E1, and counted 18 helmets and 17 bare heads. As a main commuter route, I imagine that's more helmets than the average throughout London.

I'll do a similar survey next time I have half an hour to spend.

It would be interesting if you both did that, actually. Try to remove the perception filter and actually count. Note the time and place too. When I wore a helmet, I'd convinced myself it was more common than it is and was surprised when I counted. That wasn't a key part of why I stopped wearing but I found it interesting anyway.

Your village seems to be populated by a burning torch and pitchfork mob who are looking for things to be disgusted about.

Nah, that's Lewes isn't it?

As for the HHBikeRide, they're another victim of adopting British Cycling's inappropriate sport rules for a community event, so please challenge them if you're local: ask them, complain about their reply and your exclusion in the local press, maybe go ride the route on the day without a helmet (assuming it's on public roads). I'm going to do a couple of rides near me, maybe with a fake number plate of "DSQ" and the ECF "Ask me why I cycle without a helmet" materials hidden on my bike in case anyone challenges me.

[horizon]

Sorry it was a bit lengthy. .

It wasn't, it was really interesting.

My point with those examples is that helmet wearing really is seen as the default in the UK and that by not doing so you are some crazy fool who is going to leave a widow and fatherless children. People really don't have any idea there is even a debate about this - they see helmets as safe; no helmets as dangerous

+ 1 I agree. Although the numbers wearing helmets might be a bit fewer than we think, the general consensus is as you describe. I don't agree with MickF that the war is already lost but the word Dunkirk does come to mind. It won't be the first time that society has grabbed onto something and run with it but I think they are already disappearing off into the distance. And while the general compulsion war is definitely not lost, it might as well be given what you say about the issue in the Scout hut.

[bovlomov]

It would be interesting if you both did that, actually. Try to remove the perception filter and actually count. Note the time and place too.

City Road EC1,southbound, Wed 29th August, between 6.40pm and 6.50pm :
35 cyclists; 18 with helmets; 17 without.

[Tonyf33]

As an anecdotal example, my birth place of Kingston upon Hull still has a very very low instance of helmet wearing, particularly amongst utility/commuting to work cycling. whilst the local club cyclists that I see on the fringes of the city at the w/e are all wearing plaggy hats I think it was about 1 in 50 of those going to work and/or nipping to the shops.
Mater has never worn one, she's retired now but still cycles 3-4 times a week including across the city using the roads & off road cycle lanes. She can still go at a fair lick on the main roads on the odd occasion we've ridden together and isn't phased by vehicular traffic. she rides sensibly and the thought of wearing a helmet hasn't crossed her mind and that's despite being t-boned at a junction by a large van several years ago.

[Mick F]

People really don't have any idea there is even a debate about this - they see helmets as safe; no helmets as dangerous.

That is exactly my point.

People don't know.
Why not?
Because no-one is telling them.

[Steady rider]

Some data below could be used to debate if helmet use has improved safety.

Road safety has improved over the last 30 years and reduction in deaths for cyclists and pedestrians have occurred. Helmet use has increased from about 1990 and in recent years. The population has increased and cycling levels also, especially in London.

GB fatalities cyclist v pedestrian

peiod..... 80 - 84.....85- 89.....90-94........95-99.....00-04.....05-09.....10-13(4yrs)
Cyclists....1574.........1358.......1060.........929.......643........649........445
Peds.......9466.........8792...... 6912....... 4784......4003......3063.......1676
C/P% ,,,,,,16.6,,,,,,,,,15.4,,,,,,, 15.3,,,,,,,,19.4,,,,,,,16.1,,,,,,,21.1,,,,,,,26.5


GB killed and seriously injured, cyclist v pedestrian,

period .... 80 - 84.... 85- 89.... 90-94...... 95-99...... 00-04..... 05-09..... 10-13
Cyclists... 29999..... 26044..... 20579..... 17836..... 12617..... 12641..... 12555
Peds ...... 94726..... 91542..... 72172..... 55241..... 42604..... 33791..... 22887
C/P%...... 31.7 ....... 28.4 ...... 28.5 .......32.2 .......29.6 .......37.4 .......54.8

in London more than 50% may wear helmets,

Any universities wanting to hear a debate, how about York or Hull? I don't mind debating or discussing the topic.

[mjr]

Where's that data from? Especially the London 50%.

Anyone want to suggest historic helmet use estimates?

Should we take pedestrian or motorist injuries as the baseline?

[Steady rider]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 013-02.pdf
page 156 and 157
The wearing rates for London, TRL 2008 report provides some data, 'Cycle helmet wearing in 2008' PPR 420
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/uk-helmet-wearing-2008.pdf

Cyclists and pedestrians are both subject to driver error and similar misjudgments, both can suffer similar impacts with little if any protection. The time children spend outside may change over time and reduce their exposure to risk.

An alternative approach is to consider risk per billion mile or km.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-geffen ... ing-needed

Considering both approaches gives a guide to if safety has been improved relative to road safety trends.

[TonyR]

Most of the official data on killed and injured is misleading when comparing with pedestrians. The official stats are for road accidents involving a vehicle. So a cyclist falling off on their own counts, a pedestrian tripping over on their own doesn't. If you look at the limited data on pedestrian hospitalisations from trips and falls on the highway the per km rate exceeds that in the road casualties data by five or six fold and those road casualty figures for pedestrians already exceed that for cyclists by 50%. Even if you factor in the higher numbers of the elderly in the trips and falls data it still comes out with cycling being massively safer than walking.

[pjclinch]

People really don't have any idea there is even a debate about this - they see helmets as safe; no helmets as dangerous.

That is exactly my point.

People don't know.
Why not?
Because no-one is telling them.

That they're not listening and have their hands over their ears isn't the same as nobody is telling them. It is aired on national TV and radio, it is written about in national newspapers. Changing ingrained attitudes takes time. People have to be told a lot of times before they start to change.

For example, it is a long held view of hill and trail walkers that it is essential to wear stiff boots with "proper ankle support". This view started being challenged quite a long time ago, but the orthodoxy stood in place despite plenty of evidence (personal/empirical and reasearch) to the contrary, and it was certainly quite common to be publicly tutted at for wearing trainers or (worse) sandals up a hill. But over the course of many years (I'd guess about 20) it has sunk in that you're not Doomed and Irresponsible if you use trainers with a gnarly sole to bag your Munros.

Pete.

[bovlomov]

People have to be told a lot of times before they start to change.

...Not helped by the prevailing mood, that current orthodoxy is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We are on the high plateau of human development and understanding, and therefore there's no point in considering alternative ways of thinking. They were wrong in the past. The future won't tell us anything we don't know already. Science knows everything, and that Science has been carved into stone tablets and disseminated via the agencies of Government Advice, Insurance Requirements and BBC Policy.

Of course, when the orthodoxy changes people are very quick to forget that they ever believed differently. That's the infuriating thing.

[EDIT: That's why governments should be careful about legislating on matters of individual choice. Yesterday's compulsory becomes tomorrow's forbidden, and vice versa.]

[Steady rider]

http://crag.asn.au/189
see
APPENDIX 1: Official misrepresentation

A number of points arise with the reporting on helmets that points towards the public being misled over a long period.

[mjr]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/358042/rrcgb2013-02.pdf
page 156 and 157
The wearing rates for London, TRL 2008 report provides some data, 'Cycle helmet wearing in 2008' PPR 420
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/uk-helmet-wearing-2008.pdf

As ever, exercise extreme caution about TRL because: 1. many claims in the summary like "cyclists more likely to wear a helmet at peak times" seems basically unsupported by the methodology - it probably should say helmet-wearing cyclists were more likely to be observed at peak times, but I feel the sloppy wording suggests a fast-and-loose approach to the evidence, which links to 2. they've been accused of policy-based evidence-making for hire here and elsewhere.

With that caveat, here's a crude set of graphs produced from the data in PPR 420 and RAS 30061. I'm happy to answer questions on their production or share the spreadsheet file:

Crude graphs from PPR 420 and RAS 30061

Unfortunately, so far, UK helmet use and pedal-cycle KSI trends are both linked by time (usage increasing and KSIs generally falling - EDIT: would be interesting to see if TRL would claim helmet usage had continued increasing during the recent slight increase - EDIT2: KSI increase, in case that wasn't obvious) and probably many other things, which limits the usefulness of this analysis, but on the other hand, helmet use seems to have kept increasing slowly without KSIs continuing to fall. The plot of helmet use against KSIs suggests that possibly when helmet use crosses a threshold, more helmet-wearing doesn't result in fewer KSIs - after those compelled to wear them in some situations (racers and similar), does uptake increase mainly among people who generally don't benefit, perhaps?

With a linear trend model, R²=0.777 (3dp) for peak, R²=0.609 for off-peak, so helmet use isn't strongly correlated with a reduction in KSIs. In both cases, logarithmic trends give the highest R² (which would mean there's an asymptote, wouldn't it?) but it's still only around 0.8.

Much more analysis is possible, but the low quality data sources mean we risk Garbage In, Garbage Out, so I'm not inclined to push it.

I think the fascinating thing would be if we could reduce helmet use again and see if KSIs start to change. I have no ethical problem with discouraging helmet use outside of sports cycling because I currently believe they're a net penalty.