Cyclists without helmets

[Freedi8]

Driving around my local town today which was heaving and was quite lovely to see everybody having a good time.

Anyway, as we were driving, there were 3 cyclists who didn't appear to be experienced cyclists - 2 men and a woman.

They were riding in the middle of the road, they had no helmets on, they were trying to over take cars when cars were turning (a few near misses from different cars), they were weaving in and out of cars, and they were not concentrating on the road but pointing at buildings as they cycled in the middle of the road.

The thing is, we would sigh a sigh of relief whenever we got past them, just for them to catch up at traffic lights.

The worst 2 incidents were:
The man and woman got through an amber traffic light turning right and it turned red before their friend got through. Their friend decided to go through the red light and almost got hit by an oncoming car.

Second was, in a queue of traffic lights ready to turn left, when the cyclists come through on the left side of the cars and as i'm about to turn left they coming straight past me on the left side wanting to turn right.

My patience was wearing a thin and I couldn't believe they weren't wearing helmets when they were riding their bikes with such carelessness.

This thread has confirmed for the first time what I suspected, there are people in the UK who think the rules of the road don't apply to cyclists. (I grew up in another country, where bicycles were mainly transport for children. Unlike UK adult cyclists, we always stopped at red lights.)

@RandomLondoner completely agree. I guarantee if the car did hit the cyclist who cycled through the red light, there'd still be people on here blaming the driver for not having the psychic ability a cyclist would run a red light.

@RandomLondoner and I don't think people realise that cyclists can be fined for careless cyclinf

I can't see anybody saying cyclists are never at fault and it's always the motorist in the wrong. You unfortunately encountered some thoughtless idiots behaving like twats. They happened to be riding bikes. They could have been walking, they could have been driving, but that day they were on bikes. It's just topics like this always get people frothing at the mouth a bit because they see some people on bikes go through red lights, or feel they're being held up by them, and suddenly all cyclists get lumped together as one pretty much, and then people start wanging on about road tax and numberplates with tedious inevitability. You had talked about them not wearing helmets which is why a number of people have been saying that they are not quick and simple fix that some imagine.

The seatbelt analogy is false equivalence frankly. Basic physics should tell you that. Cycle helmets are designed to protect in limited circumstances, and there has to be a trade-off for weight and ventilation. Very different circumstances to a seat belt.

@secular39

Having worked with patients who have sustained traumatic brain injuries. People who ride without helmets are idiotic at best.

Have you ever been to Germany or the Netherlands? You might be surprised as to how normal it is not to wear helmets.

@RandomLondoner

This thread has confirmed for the first time what I suspected, there are people in the UK who think the rules of the road don't apply to cyclists. (I grew up in another country, where bicycles were mainly transport for children. Unlike UK adult cyclists, we always stopped at red lights.)

Who has said that? I agree people should use whatever mode of transport they are in charge of in a safe, considerate, and responsible fashion. In an ideal world that would be the case, but there are only finite resources and I would argue it's best to focus enforcement where it will make the most difference. There are still many uninsured drivers, dangerous vehicles, and frankly awful drivers out there. More people are injured and killed by car drivers on pavements or running red lights than cyclists. I'd prefer enforcement was focussed on what was causing actual harm and death, rather than what was just more people being careless and annoying.

You can tell which cyclists are likely to be dangerous - they’re the numpties with no helmet who are wearing street clothes, riding wherever they feel like it including on the pavement, and not signalling or anything. Those who wear helmets etc are much more likely to be sensible cyclists who obey the Highway Code and don’t cause hazards.

My friend killed a cyclist who wasn’t wearing a helmet and swerved across the road in front of her car without signalling to turn right. She was facing a prison sentence. It caused immense stress for her and her family. All of which could have been avoided if the cyclist was wearing a helmet and following safe cycling rules. I honestly think helmets and lights should be compulsory, and so should a cycling proficiency licence if you’re riding on the road.

@DoubleTweenQueen

A study has shown that drivers are more aware and more careful of cyclists not wearing helmets, but it is extremely sensible to wear one. The thing that most worries me is cyclists road craft (or lack of) and visibility - dark clothing, zero lights - twilight etc. It's worse with the electric scooters that have zero helmets, no lights or d cent Vis clothing and will weave through traffic however they please, either side of cars and vans, including lights and junctions. Many on bikes/scooters are also plugged into their earpods/cans so hampered by not being aurally in touch with their surroundings. What annoys me the most is that if I get caught out and come into contact with any of them it will be me that's liable :(

On the earpods things, it's bad practice to rely on your hearing when cycling, a lot of vehicles are silent now (electric cars, mopped, and other cyclists), so you should rely on your eyes, not your ears. I listen to music on my bike, but I check my sides and behind me all the time. I can still hear with headphones, probably as much as motorists can hear in a car without music.

@RandomLondoner

This thread has confirmed for the first time what I suspected, there are people in the UK who think the rules of the road don't apply to cyclists. (I grew up in another country, where bicycles were mainly transport for children. Unlike UK adult cyclists, we always stopped at red lights.)

The idea as bicycles as transport for children only is also one of the greatly divisive reasons some people also get massively wound up about cycle lanes and being 'held up' by 'Lycra-clad' people in the countryside.

I guarantee if the car did hit the cyclist who cycled through the red light, there'd still be people on here blaming the driver for not having the psychic ability a cyclist would run a red light
If you see a cyclist you have to slow down and expect them to be a dick. I always slow down to 30mph when overtaking a cyclist. Annoying and it annoys drivers behind me, but it’s not worth having my life ruined because some twat decides to swerve in front of me and gets killed.

How are there actually people out there who think that you're no better off wearing a helmet when on a bike?

No of course not. Just prevents you from ending up with concussion at minimum if you come off your bike, death at worst and then there's a varying range of brain damage in the middle.

Your seat belt can give you whiplash, cracked ribs etc in the event of a car crash. Are you going to stop wearing it to prevent that? I'd hope not, but going by the above mentality, probably.

All cyclists should wear helmets and hi vis. It's in the Highway code. If you choose not to bother, thats your decision. Don't complain if something happens, well, you might not be able to i guess. A helmet doesn't make you a better cyclist, but least it protects you. Better than nothing.

Only a couple of countries have helmet enforcement laws, and they have seen a drastic reduction of cyclists, which puts remaining cyclists at risk, because there's nothing that make cyclists safer like a critical mass of cyclists. That's why helmets are not compulsory. They don't offer the protection that critical mass does.
In an ideal world, there would be both, helmets and critical mass, but it doesn't happen that way.

Also, let's not forget that helmets are not designed to withstand impacts with fast moving cars.

If a cyclist decides to pass a motor vehicle on the left hand side at traffic lights where the vehicle is (presumably) indicating a left turn

I'm in Germany so there are probably a lot more cyclists around. In this scenario here it would be a right turn. And if the cyclist was following the (priority) road and not turning - it is Dow to the car driver to let them past. The vehicle turning has to give way. So when turning right (left in UK) you must check for cyclists. And if you hit one in this scenario? Y
You are at fault

All cyclists should wear helmets and hi vis. It's in the Highway code

Its not the law and cycle helmets are so flimsy, they don't actually make the difference you think.
HiViz makes no difference what so ever.... an adult on a bike is fucking big, if you can't see them, then there is something the matter with your driving.

So since their introduction in professional cycle racing, there has been no reduction in accidents involving serious injury.

Having said that, i do wear one

Anyone who wants to reduce cycle accidents should support no fault liability i.e. the car driver has to prove they were not at fault if they hit a cyclist walker horse rider.

Atm if you want to commit murder and get away with it, run down a cyclist etc

In the end in an incident with a car and a cyclist the cyclist will come off worse.

Reading these posts you'd think it was the other way around!

@SmokeyDevil

How are there actually people out there who think that you're no better off wearing a helmet when on a bike?

No of course not. Just prevents you from ending up with concussion at minimum if you come off your bike, death at worst and then there's a varying range of brain damage in the middle.

Your seat belt can give you whiplash, cracked ribs etc in the event of a car crash. Are you going to stop wearing it to prevent that? I'd hope not, but going by the above mentality, probably.

All cyclists should wear helmets and hi vis. It's in the Highway code. If you choose not to bother, thats your decision. Don't complain if something happens, well, you might not be able to i guess. A helmet doesn't make you a better cyclist, but least it protects you. Better than nothing.

If it's so simple, why are there not shown to be any reduction of rates in head injuries in countries that have mandated helmet use? What they do see is a reduction in cycle use, which actually makes things more dangerous for cyclists on the whole, and increases diseases associated with lack of exercise.

It's about recognising risk, enforcing where the danger actually comes from, and personal choice. If you want to reduce the number of people getting head injuries, why not make helmets compulsory for pedestrians and drivers? That would have a much bigger impact.

@thecatsatonthewall

All cyclists should wear helmets and hi vis. It's in the Highway code

Its not the law and cycle helmets are so flimsy, they don't actually make the difference you think.
HiViz makes no difference what so ever.... an adult on a bike is fucking big, if you can't see them, then there is something the matter with your driving.

So since their introduction in professional cycle racing, there has been no reduction in accidents involving serious injury.

Having said that, i do wear one

Anyone who wants to reduce cycle accidents should support no fault liability i.e. the car driver has to prove they were not at fault if they hit a cyclist walker horse rider.

Atm if you want to commit murder and get away with it, run down a cyclist etc

I do agree in a way, but an adult in dark green or black cycling at night or even dusk on a country road is difficult to see. I came across two teenagers on the road cycling, no lights, no hi vis, and it was pitch black. Now unless you've got the same eyes as superman has, you wouldn't have seen them either.

You've got to be sensible on the road. I drive everywhere assuming that every other person on the road is an idiot basically. I watch everything, every pedestrian, cyclist, car etc. I assume the worst at all times. I don't hesitate though, but I'm on guard at all times. That's how everyone should be driving, but they don't. They don't often pay attention. Those are the ones that cyclists, horse riders, pedestrians etc need to give additional 'help' to. That's what the hi vis is for. So they get extra chance to spot them. And the helmet is for when they don't. No they aren't perfect helmets, but your skull is a lot easier to damage without the helmet.

How are there actually people out there who think that you're no better off wearing a helmet when on a bike? confused

Because the available research doesn't support it.

You can tell which cyclists are likely to be dangerous - they’re the numpties with no helmet who are wearing street clothes, riding wherever they feel like it including on the pavement, and not signalling or anything.

That will be me then. With the exception of riding on pavements (I refuse to ride on the so called cycle paths which are on pavements too if it helps) and I always signal. I've been cycling since I was 5 years old. I spent my university days cycling into cental London. I've never once worn a helmet or anything other than 'street clothes'. But I won't be cycling ever again and the main reason is because of societal pressure to wear a helmet. Fortunately for the NHS I take my exercise in other ways.

Anyone who is older than about 40 will remember the days when schools had packed cycle racks for all the kids cycling to school. There's a barely a cycle rack to be found now.

In the end in an incident with a car and a cyclist the cyclist will come off worse
And if you’re a car driver and a cyclist swerves in front of you and gets killed, you’re the one who’ll end up in court and possibly in jail. Even if they caused the accident. You have to protect yourself by assuming every cyclist is an idiot.

@Donitta

In the end in an incident with a car and a cyclist the cyclist will come off worse And if you’re a car driver and a cyclist swerves in front of you and gets killed, you’re the one who’ll end up in court and possibly in jail. Even if they caused the accident. You have to protect yourself by assuming every cyclist is an idiot.

So you were clearly passing too close and at speed in that case, you should be passing at least 2m from them and it its not safe to do so, wait until it is?

Roads are so poor that its the choice between riding into a fucking pothole that will have you over the bars and run over or swerve to avoid it
My sister was cycling up a country road on Sunday, a dog went mental in its garden and jumped out in front of her, she avoided it by swerving away from it, a car passed her a second later doing 60, a fraction earlier and she'd have been killed.

The justice system is such that its hardly likely you would even get prosecuted, let alone go to jail.

I do agree in a way, but an adult in dark green or black cycling at night or even dusk on a country road is difficult to see. I came across two teenagers on the road cycling, no lights, no hi vis, and it was pitch black. Now unless you've got the same eyes as superman has, you wouldn't have seen them either

Of course, there are idiots everywhere and these sorts of bike riders wont be bothering with hi viz in any case, just as they aren't using lights now, despite it being the law.
Just as some other road users have no mot, illegal tires or one front headlight.

I had yet another near miss a few days ago when passing a parked car (on double yellows). She chose just that moment to pull out. Without indicating or turning her head.

What saved me was not my helmet. Nor my hi-vis, which can only be seen by people who actually look. It was my honed-over-decades idiot detector system, which alerts me to people who may be very concerned about whether or not a cyclist is dressed the way they prefer, but aren't at all concerned about checking that they will not endanger a cyclist.

YANBU, I'm a cyclist and a motorist, the issue is that the both are culpable motorists for not looking etc and cyclists doing stupid things like overtaking on the left or jumping lights as if that does not apply to them.

Back when I was at school (Primary) we had to do cycling proficiency which meant learning the Highway Code (well signs etc) it certainly made me a more confident and safer cyclist. Maybe bring that in.

There should be hazard awareness simulator testing for the driving test too! Pulling away from the kerb with zero indicating or look, also opening doors onto oncoming cyclist or vehicle - not rare, unfortunately.

Because the available research doesn't support it.

www.headway.org.uk/news-and-campaigns/campaigns/cycle-safety/#:~:text=Cycle%20helmets%20offer%20vital%20protection,the%20event%20of%20an%20impact.

A 2019 study into the impact of cycle helmet use on severe traumatic brain injury and death in a national cohort of over 11,000 pedal cyclists, using data from the NHS England Trauma Audit and Research Network dataset, found that cycle helmet use was associated with a significant reduction in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). 47.6% of patients who were not wearing a helmet sustained a severe TBI, compared to 19.1% of patients who were wearing a helmet (Dodds N, Johnson R, Walton B, et al, 2019).

A study from 2016 collected data from over 64,000 cyclists around the world, and found compelling evidence that wearing a cycle helmet reduces risk of serious head injury by almost 70% and fatal head injury by 65%. It is the largest review on cycling and helmets to date. The study also found that the risk of sustaining a general head injury is reduced by 51% and facial injury by 33%, when a helmet is used (Olivier, Creighton, 2016).

The study was led by the University of New South Wales in Australia, and published in the International Journal of Epidemiology. The full research paper (Bicycle injuries and helmet use: a systematic review and meta-analysis) can be found in the related resources section.

Further evidence is offered by a meta-analysis into cycle helmet efficacy, which found a protective effect of helmets, leading the authors to conclude that helmet use for all riders should be encouraged (Attewell, Glase & McFadden, 2001). Helmet use has also been associated with a reduced risk of head injury of up to 74% (Bambach, Mitchell, Grzbieta & Olivier, 2013).

A Cochrane review (Thompson, Rivara & Thompson, 2000) considered five case-control studies from the UK, Australia and the USA. The study, published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, found a large and consistent protective effect from cycle helmets for cyclists of all ages, reducing the risk of brain injury by up to 88% and facial injury by 65%. This paper (Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists) is also available in the related resources section.

Please provide a study that says helmets do not assist in any way against any head or brain injury.