On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:47:31 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

In message you wrote:

Colin Nelson wrote:
I've recently been thinking about the wearing (or not) of cycling
helmets by adult cyclists. Considering that the protection offered
is at best minimal (only offers low impact protection by design ie
falling of stationary/slow moving bicycle, and that I haven't fallen
off in the past 10 years or so and when I did last fall off I didn't
hit my helmetless head), yet according to this little bit of
research
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/...ing110906.html
(and yes I know it's 'old news' now) I/we might be safer not wearing
one at all.

I haven't worn a helmet since I looked at the figures, but I'm not
convinced by this 'study' at all. Walker was the only cyclist in his
own experiment! This is wide open to observer-expectancy effect: the
distance between a cyclist and passing motor traffic is affected by
cycling style, so he could easily have been unconsciously affecting the
result (and not just out of risk compensation).

The peer reviewed publication of the data is better seen at

Accident Analysis and Prevention 39: 417-425 (2007)

http://preview.tinyurl.com/5jvawd

I note that in Ian Walker's cv he has the following paper listed

Murphy Jones,C. & Walker, I (in revision) How types of pedal cyclist
accidents in Oxfordshire, England vary with age and sex of cyclist.

Which would seem to be an alternative study that looks at the gender
issue in relation to cycle accidents.

Clearly as in all research it is better when several pieces of work,
preferably from independent sources substantiate an observation.


Mike


I must say that in the abstract I would say that the "finding" is odd
to say the least:

The relationship between rider position and overtaking proximity was
the opposite to that generally believed, such that the further the
rider was from the edge of the road, the closer vehicles passed.

Generally believed by who?

So the nearer the cyclists is to the centre of the road - then the
less room there is to overtake - therefore the vehicle will be closer
to the cyclist.

Amazing - who would have believed that - doesn't fill me with
enthusiasm for the rest of the research.

I wonder whether this was objective research, or was Walker hoping
to prove what he already believed?

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:47:31 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

In message you wrote:

Colin Nelson wrote:
I've recently been thinking about the wearing (or not) of cycling
helmets by adult cyclists. Considering that the protection offered
is at best minimal (only offers low impact protection by design ie
falling of stationary/slow moving bicycle, and that I haven't fallen
off in the past 10 years or so and when I did last fall off I didn't
hit my helmetless head), yet according to this little bit of
research
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/...ing110906.html
(and yes I know it's 'old news' now) I/we might be safer not wearing
one at all.

I haven't worn a helmet since I looked at the figures, but I'm not
convinced by this 'study' at all. Walker was the only cyclist in his
own experiment! This is wide open to observer-expectancy effect: the
distance between a cyclist and passing motor traffic is affected by
cycling style, so he could easily have been unconsciously affecting the
result (and not just out of risk compensation).

The peer reviewed publication of the data is better seen at

Accident Analysis and Prevention 39: 417-425 (2007)

http://preview.tinyurl.com/5jvawd

I note that in Ian Walker's cv he has the following paper listed

Murphy Jones,C. & Walker, I (in revision) How types of pedal cyclist
accidents in Oxfordshire, England vary with age and sex of cyclist.

Which would seem to be an alternative study that looks at the gender
issue in relation to cycle accidents.

Clearly as in all research it is better when several pieces of work,
preferably from independent sources substantiate an observation.


Mike


I must say that in the abstract I would say that the "finding" is odd
to say the least:

The relationship between rider position and overtaking proximity was
the opposite to that generally believed, such that the further the
rider was from the edge of the road, the closer vehicles passed.

Generally believed by who?

So the nearer the cyclists is to the centre of the road - then the
less room there is to overtake - therefore the vehicle will be closer
to the cyclist.

Amazing - who would have believed that - doesn't fill me with
enthusiasm for the rest of the research.

I wonder whether this was objective research, or was Walker hoping
to prove what he already believed?


This really comes down to what you are trying to achieve. If you come off a
bicycle, you are likely to make contact with a hard object or objects which
is almost ceetain to include the ground. Most parts of the body may sustain
injury ranging from graze to a broken bone - all of which heal. But the
head is different as the impact can cause significant internal damage to the
brain which is often irreversible. It is true that you may come off quite a
few times before you actually hit your head, but don'y you think it is
important to protect this area.

As an allusion: I buy eggs regularly in the supermarket, but I would not buy
them if they didn't come in a protective box. I am certain that most times
I would get them home without trouble, but why take the chance?

I shoud point out that 35 years ago I was involved in what probably seemed a
rather bad accident on a motor cycle (collision with the usual car whose
driver hadn't seen the motor cycle). I wasn't wearing a helmet (not
compulsory then), but nevertheless got up and walked away without injury. I
would not care to use that experience as a justification for not wearing a
helmet today.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:58:04 +0100, Walter Wall wrote:

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:47:31 +0100, Mike Clark
wrote:

In message you wrote:

Colin Nelson wrote:
I've recently been thinking about the wearing (or not) of cycling
helmets by adult cyclists. Considering that the protection offered
is at best minimal (only offers low impact protection by design ie
falling of stationary/slow moving bicycle, and that I haven't fallen
off in the past 10 years or so and when I did last fall off I didn't
hit my helmetless head), yet according to this little bit of
research
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/...ing110906.html
(and yes I know it's 'old news' now) I/we might be safer not wearing
one at all.

I haven't worn a helmet since I looked at the figures, but I'm not
convinced by this 'study' at all. Walker was the only cyclist in his
own experiment! This is wide open to observer-expectancy effect: the
distance between a cyclist and passing motor traffic is affected by
cycling style, so he could easily have been unconsciously affecting the
result (and not just out of risk compensation).

The peer reviewed publication of the data is better seen at

Accident Analysis and Prevention 39: 417-425 (2007)

http://preview.tinyurl.com/5jvawd

I note that in Ian Walker's cv he has the following paper listed

Murphy Jones,C. & Walker, I (in revision) How types of pedal cyclist
accidents in Oxfordshire, England vary with age and sex of cyclist.

Which would seem to be an alternative study that looks at the gender
issue in relation to cycle accidents.

Clearly as in all research it is better when several pieces of work,
preferably from independent sources substantiate an observation.


Mike


I must say that in the abstract I would say that the "finding" is odd
to say the least:

The relationship between rider position and overtaking proximity was
the opposite to that generally believed, such that the further the
rider was from the edge of the road, the closer vehicles passed.

Generally believed by who?

So the nearer the cyclists is to the centre of the road - then the
less room there is to overtake - therefore the vehicle will be closer
to the cyclist.

Amazing - who would have believed that - doesn't fill me with
enthusiasm for the rest of the research.

I wonder whether this was objective research, or was Walker hoping
to prove what he already believed?


This really comes down to what you are trying to achieve. If you come off a
bicycle, you are likely to make contact with a hard object or objects which
is almost ceetain to include the ground. Most parts of the body may sustain
injury ranging from graze to a broken bone - all of which heal. But the
head is different as the impact can cause significant internal damage to the
brain which is often irreversible. It is true that you may come off quite a
few times before you actually hit your head, but don'y you think it is
important to protect this area.

Indeed. It's just as important to protect it while cycling as to do so
while walking, or having a shower.

Do you wear a helmet while walking?

If not, why not?

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:58:04 +0100, "Walter Wall"
wrote:

snip

This really comes down to what you are trying to achieve. If you come off a
bicycle, you are likely to make contact with a hard object or objects which
is almost ceetain to include the ground. Most parts of the body may sustain
injury ranging from graze to a broken bone - all of which heal. But the
head is different as the impact can cause significant internal damage to the
brain which is often irreversible. It is true that you may come off quite a
few times before you actually hit your head, but don'y you think it is
important to protect this area.

As an allusion: I buy eggs regularly in the supermarket, but I would not buy
them if they didn't come in a protective box. I am certain that most times
I would get them home without trouble, but why take the chance?

I agree

I shoud point out that 35 years ago I was involved in what probably seemed a
rather bad accident on a motor cycle (collision with the usual car whose
driver hadn't seen the motor cycle). I wasn't wearing a helmet (not
compulsory then), but nevertheless got up and walked away without injury. I
would not care to use that experience as a justification for not wearing a
helmet today.



I am sure that you are right - I am purely highlighting that there is
a real unwillingness for people in this group to acknowledge certain
aspects of wearing helmets.

They are so tied up in compulsion - that they cannot see anything
else.

NB The opening post in the other thread : Cycle H*m*e* saved my life:
http://www.bracknellnews.co.uk/articles/1/4270
More bull****.
But hang on, he's a policeman so it _must_ be true.

we really cannot have people believing that a cycle helmet may have
contributed to saving someone's life can we?

The next thing we know is that everyone will be wearing them - we
can't have that can we?

--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:19:32 GMT, _
wrote:

snip


Indeed. It's just as important to protect it while cycling as to do so
while walking, or having a shower.

Do you wear a helmet while walking?

If not, why not?


I am not aware of any evidence that wearing a helmet whilst out
walking will overall reduce the risk of injury to my head.

I am aware that research has been carried out which shows that overall
wearing a helmet while cycling will reduce the risk of injury to the
head.

(I suppose I should say "significantly" or "measurably" just in case
you try and be pedantic)

(I am surprised you couldn't see that - it's not too hard - however,
do come back if you have any more questions. I just love the way you
tell others to ignore me - but can't do so yourself)



--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:05:57 +0100, judith wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:19:32 GMT, _
wrote:

snip


Indeed. It's just as important to protect it while cycling as to do so
while walking, or having a shower.

Do you wear a helmet while walking?

If not, why not?


I am not aware of any evidence that wearing a helmet whilst out
walking will overall reduce the risk of injury to my head.

Anecdotally - it would have prevented mine. The only head injury I have
had was received when I walked in to the rear of a road sign mounted on
a pole on the pavement. I got a bruise and small cut. So it would have
at least reduced one injury. These are exactly the kind of injuries
that helmets can help mitigate - however the scare-mongers concentrate
on other injuries where it is unclear whether helmets have a positive
effect on total risk. Is the mitigation of small cuts and bruises
enough case for them to be promoted? Is it enough for them to be
mandatory? My answer for both of those is no, especially when you
consider the rarity of head injuries amongst people cycling on the road.
I am sure someone has the stats which show that the incidence of cyclist
head injuries is broadly similar to those of pedestrians.

--
Andy Leighton =
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

"judith" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:19:32 GMT, _
wrote:

snip


Indeed. It's just as important to protect it while cycling as to do so
while walking, or having a shower.

Do you wear a helmet while walking?

If not, why not?


I am not aware of any evidence that wearing a helmet whilst out
walking will overall reduce the risk of injury to my head.

I am aware that research has been carried out which shows that overall
wearing a helmet while cycling will reduce the risk of injury to the
head.


But can you point to evidence that overall wearing a helmet while cycling
'does' reduce the risk of injury to the head?

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:01:43 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


"judith" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:19:32 GMT, _
wrote:

snip


Indeed. It's just as important to protect it while cycling as to do so
while walking, or having a shower.

Do you wear a helmet while walking?

If not, why not?


I am not aware of any evidence that wearing a helmet whilst out
walking will overall reduce the risk of injury to my head.

I am aware that research has been carried out which shows that overall
wearing a helmet while cycling will reduce the risk of injury to the
head.


But can you point to evidence that overall wearing a helmet while cycling
'does' reduce the risk of injury to the head?


Yes - I think I got it from: British Medical Journal, (2006) 332:
722-725 "No clear evidence from
countries that have enforced the wearing of helmets" D.L. Robinson

but I didn't keep the copy.

Are you suggesting that this may not be correct?

And do you have any evidence that wearing a helmet whilst out walking
*does* overall reduce the risk of injury to my head.


--
you can either promote cycling or promote helmets,the two are
incompatible. (Guy Chapman)

On 27 Aug, 21:53, judith wrote:

I must say that in the abstract I would say that the "finding" is odd
to say the least:

The relationship between rider position and overtaking proximity was
the opposite to that generally believed, such that the further the
rider was from the edge of the road, the closer vehicles passed.

Generally believed by who?

Many cyclists believe, from experience, that motorists tend to leave
less clearance if they, the cyclists, are riding close to the kerb
than if they are riding 1 to 2 metres away from it.

So the nearer the cyclists is to the centre of the road - then the
less room there is to overtake - therefore the vehicle will be closer
to the cyclist.

Amazing - who would have believed that - doesn't fill me with
enthusiasm for the rest of the research.

Mildly surprising possibly. One theory is that riding close to the
kerb encourages motorists to overtake without executing a proper
manoeuvre, simply ignoring the cyclist. By riding further out you
force the motorist to overtake as they would any other slow moving
vehicle. In doing so they are more likely to leave an appropriate
gap.

I wonder whether *this was objective *research, or was Walker hoping
to prove what he already believed?

Why don't you ask him?

--
Dave...

judith wrote:
I am not aware of any evidence that wearing a helmet whilst out
walking will overall reduce the risk of injury to my head.

It's "common sense" innit?

BugBear