Helmet? No, a wig is better

Raam

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm

Cyclists who wear protective helmets are more likely to be knocked down by passing vehicles, new research from Bath University suggests.

The study found drivers tend to pass closer when overtaking cyclists wearing helmets than those who are bare-headed.

Dr Ian Walker was struck by a bus and a lorry during the experiment. He was wearing a helmet both times.

But the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents said tests have shown helmets protect against injuries.

To carry out the research, Dr Walker used a bike fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor to find drivers were twice as likely to get close to the bicycle, at an average of 8.5cm, when he wore a helmet.

The experiment, which recorded 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol, was funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

Dr Walker, a traffic psychologist from the University's Department of Psychology, said: "This study shows that when drivers overtake a cyclist, the margin for error they leave is affected by the cyclist's appearance.

"By leaving the cyclist less room, drivers reduce the safety margin that cyclists need to deal with obstacles in the road, such as drain covers and potholes, as well as the margin for error in their own judgements.

"We know helmets are useful in low-speed falls, and so definitely good for children, but whether they offer any real protection to somebody struck by a car is very controversial.

"Either way, this study suggests wearing a helmet might make a collision more likely in the first place," he added.

Dr Walker thinks the reason drivers give less room to cyclists wearing helmets is because they see them as "Lycra-clad street warriors" and believe they are more predictable than those without.

He suggests different types of road users need to understand each other.

"Most adult cyclists know what it is like to drive a car, but relatively few motorists ride bicycles in traffic, and so don't know the issues cyclists face.

"There should definitely be more information on the needs of other road users when people learn to drive and practical experience would be even better."

Wig wearing

To test another theory, Dr Walker donned a long wig to see whether there was any difference in passing distance when drivers thought they were overtaking what appeared to be a female cyclist.

While wearing the wig, drivers gave him an average of 14cm more space when passing.

In future research, Dr Walker hopes to discover whether this was because female riders are seen as less predictable than male riders or because women are not seen riding bicycles as often as men on the UK's roads.

However, a spokesman for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents insisted: "We wouldn't recommend that people stop wearing helmets because of this research. Helmets have been shown to reduce the likelihood of head and brain injuries in a crash.

"[The research] highlights a gain in vulnerability of cyclists on our roads and drivers of all types need to take more care when around them."

Enduro

Where in Dublin can I buy a long Blonde wig?

robfitz

To carry out the research, Dr Walker used a bike fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor to find drivers were twice as likely to get close to the bicycle, at an average of 8.5cm, when he wore a helmet.

I'm trying to developing a similar project called CycleRecorder, though the page needs to be updated with recent changes.

Here is a study in relation to cycle lanes by Warrington Cycle Campaign.

Enduro wrote:

Where in Dublin can I buy a long Blonde wig?

There is a joke shop on South King Street near the The Gaiety Theatre and Stephens Green Shopping Centre.

dalk

Dr Ian Walker was struck by a bus and a lorry during the experiment.

:eek: There has to be easier things to research..

Victor

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=13474112&src=rss/oddlyEnoughNews

Drivers give helmeted cyclists less room?

TORONTO (Reuters) - Motorists give greater leeway to cyclists who do not wear safety helmets, according to a study by a academic in Britain who was hit by traffic twice as he rode his bike to carry out his research.

Researcher Ian Walker from the Department of Psychology of Britain's University of Bath found drivers were up to two times more likely to get close when passing cyclists wearing helmets than when overtaking bare-headed pedalers.

He said wearing a helmet might therefore make a collision more likely, but a safety-advocacy group cautioned against giving up a helmet's protection against head injury in hopes of avoiding a crash.

To conduct his experiment, Walker rode a bicycle fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor and recorded data from more than 2,500 overtaking motorists.

He spent half his time wearing a helmet and half bare-headed. He says he was struck by a bus and a truck while wearing the helmet but was uninjured.

Walker, whose research has been accepted for publication in the international journal Accident Analysis & Prevention at a date not yet set, said his study followed previous research that found many drivers saw cyclists as a group of "lycra-clad street-warriors.."

"This may lead drivers to believe cyclists with helmets are more serious, experienced and predictable than those without," he said in a statement released on Tuesday.

Walker found drivers passed an average of 3.3 inches (8.5 cm) closer to cyclists with a helmet than without, giving cyclists the room needed to avoid drain covers and potholes.

As part of his experiment, Walker also donned a blond wig and found drivers gave him an average of 5.5 inches more space when they passed what appeared to be a female cyclist.

"We know helmets are useful in low-speed falls, and so definitely good for children, but whether they offer any real protection to somebody struck by a car is very controversial," said Walker. "Either way, this study suggests wearing a helmet might make a collision more likely in the first place."

A spokesman for Britain's Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents said the study highlighted the vulnerability of cyclists and the need for drivers to take greater care.

"But we would not recommend people stop wearing cycle helmets because of this research. Helmets have been shown to reduce the likelihood of head and brain injuries in a crash," said the spokesman.

blorg

He also recorded the types of vehicles passing; apparently drivers of white vans were the worst.

Cabaal

Interesting research, its believable too

rubadub

So the best would be a helmet covered by a blonde wig!

I reckon the motorists are slowing down for the long hair to get a look at their arse, get a good look at the tight lycra pants, drive on and then look in their mirror only to see it was an ugly bloke they were checking out!

This does make sense from what some other reports were saying, that head injuries increased with mandatory helmets. They are saying

Helmets have been shown to reduce the likelihood of head and brain injuries in a crash

But it is not clear if there is an increased risk overall. i.e. say you are 50% more likely to be saved by wearing a helmet, but 51% more likely to be knocked down, then it is safer not to wear one.

Victor

Another.

robfitz

rubadub wrote:

I reckon the motorists are slowing down for the long hair to get a look at their arse, get a good look at the tight lycra pants, drive on and then look in their mirror only to see it was an ugly bloke they were checking out!

As a lycra where long haired cyclist I hope it makes them feel sick.


Here is a link to the research authors website. The research should be available with in a few weeks from ScienceDirect.

milod

robfitz wrote:

As a lycra where long haired cyclist I hope it makes them feel sick.

You could at least stick a couple of oranges down your top to make it worthwhile for them... :eek:

DirkVoodoo

Hmmm...ok, im new to cycling and so i wud rate myself as inexperienced. Does this mean i should forget wearing a helmet altogether? Im gonna side with common sense and say that I would feel safer with the helmet.

robfitz

DirkVoodoo wrote:

Hmmm...ok, im new to cycling and so i wud rate myself as inexperienced. Does this mean i should forget wearing a helmet altogether?

No, I would suggest that you do wear a helmet. But that is just because you are inexperienced, so your chances of just falling off the bicycle or putting yourself in a bad road position are greater. When you have more experience you will have less need for a cycle helmet.

Remember a helmet does nothing to stop you from having an accident, it only helps to reduce head injury if you do have an accident.

DirkVoodoo wrote:

Im gonna side with common sense and say that I would feel safer with the helmet.

But because you feel safer do you act differently, cycle faster, cycle more a aggressively, what about road position, awareness about other road users, etc.

Ghost Rider

I strongly recommend you wear a helmet, no matter how experienced you are. Although you may improve your own road skills over time, you won't improve those of others - in particular, the person whose car may end up knocking you off your bike one day. It might never happen. Then again, it might. When it's your skull that's at stake, why take the chance?

Also, be aware that there is a political dimension to the subject of helmets on this board. In other words, don't expect all the advice you receive to be "neutral". While almost nobody seems in favour of making helmets mandatory around here, there are people whose anti-legislation stance is so extreme that they are unwilling to admit there are any safety benefits whatsoever to helmets.

DirkVoodoo wrote:

Hmmm...ok, im new to cycling and so i wud rate myself as inexperienced. Does this mean i should forget wearing a helmet altogether? Im gonna side with common sense and say that I would feel safer with the helmet.

cyclopath2001

Ghost Rider wrote:

I strongly recommend you wear a helmet, no matter how experienced you are. Although you may improve your own road skills over time, you won't improve those of others - in particular, the person whose car may end up knocking you off your bike one day. It might never happen. Then again, it might. When it's your skull that's at stake, why take the chance?

You're ignoring the original post which suggests that the risk of injury may increase if you wear a helmet.

It's typical of the blind enthusiasm of the pro-helmet lobby that all research, logic and reasoning is ignored and people are urged 'why take a chance?'.

Ghost Rider

I'm not a member of the "pro-helmet lobby". Read my post again.

cyclopath2001 wrote:

It's typical of the blind enthusiasm of the pro-helmet lobby that all research, logic and reasoning is ignored and people are urged 'why take a chance?'.

DirkVoodoo

Ok, so helmet it is.

Not too sound too new to this cycling thing, and thus condemn myself to the title of "the new guy", I just wanted to know what a good make of helmet is?

Which one has good price/performance and doesn't make you look like a german tourist on a camping holiday.

Also, I realise performance might be defined as crash protection, so im not asking anyone to cycle into a wall to answer my question, more along the lines of comfort and fit, although i guess crash protection ranks fairly high in the decision making process.

robfitz

DirkVoodoo wrote:

I just wanted to know what a good make of helmet is?

Just go to your local bicycle shop and ask for a bicycle helmet, all the helmets will have been crash tested, so that won't be a problem just pick the one you like the best. Just make sure it's the right fit for your head and you put it on properly.

Also get a good set of lights if you don't already have a set.

DirkVoodoo

Cool, yeah i have nothing.

I have to go into stillorgan in the next day or two and get on my bike, literally...I was going to buy a second hand one, but i think a cheapish new one and if it goes well, i can upgrade...maybe to a tandem bike, just need to find someone willing to share the commute

cyclopath2001

robfitz wrote:

all the helmets will have been crash tested,

Be sure to read the label first.

Ghost Rider

The EU safety specification for bike helmets is EN1078 so there should be a sticker somewhere on all new helmets stating that they conform with that.

To be honest, I'd be surprised if you could find one that didn't. Worth checking first, though.

DirkVoodoo wrote:

Cool, yeah i have nothing.

I have to go into stillorgan in the next day or two and get on my bike, literally...I was going to buy a second hand one, but i think a cheapish new one and if it goes well, i can upgrade...maybe to a tandem bike, just need to find someone willing to share the commute

chicoben

so what type of drivers do you think give you the least amount of room? i find that taxi drivers give the least and bus drivers tend to cut it close when overtaking also, also has anyone ever cycled on the old airport road cycle track? its a bit of a joke, just after the maxol station where the track runs up onto the actual path, the track then goes back down onto the road where the cars turn left, so you could get clocked real easy! who designs these things?

Gavin

If I look behind and see an Aircoach coming along, I get as far over as possible, those guys scare the **** out of me. Dublinbus are usually quite good. Taxis can be terrible/can be good.

Gav

cyclopath2001

Ghost Rider wrote:

The EU safety specification for bike helmets is EN1078 so there should be a sticker somewhere on all new helmets stating that they conform with that./QUOTE]What level of protection is guaranteed by EN1078?

Do the labels offer any information about the helmet's effectivness in an impact at, say 30/40kph?

leeroybrown

cyclopath2001 wrote:

What level of protection is guaranteed by EN1078?

Do the labels offer any information about the helmet's effectivness in an impact at, say 30/40kph?

I don't claim to be an expert on helmets but I would say 'relatively little'. To my knowledge EN1078 is actually a weak standard that results in helmets designed to protect in low speed 10/20KPH crashes not involving another vehicle. The original helmets pushed in the early 90's were probably a lot better. If you're talking about 30/40KPH crashes with cars then I don't think that they are designed to deal with that at all.

Ghost Rider

I've read that too, and it's a concern. But to make that an argument against the wisdom of wearing a helmet is like saying sailors shouldn't wear lifejackets because they're only effective in certain wind conditions and not others.

I'll stop recommending helmets to cyclists when someone can prove to me that the psychological effects of wearing one (on oneself and on drivers) outweigh the safety benefits.

leeroybrown wrote:

I don't claim to be an expert on helmets but I would say 'relatively little'. To my knowledge EN1078 is actually a weak standard that results in helmets designed to protect in low speed 10/20KPH crashes not involving another vehicle. The original helmets pushed in the early 90's were probably a lot better. If you're talking about 30/40KPH crashes with cars then I don't think that they are designed to deal with that at all.

dalk

There are helmets available that meet a higher standard than EN1078.

Check out the Certified Helmets section of Snell Memorial Foundation.

Also, DirkVoodoo, make sure you wear the helmet properly (low on your forehead). About 50% of the cyclists i see wearing helmets have them pushed back on their head, cowboy style...:rolleyes:

Ghost Rider

Didn't know there were other helmets available. Interesting...

As for how to wear it, you're right about keeping it low.. Also, you need to keep the chin strap fairly snugly underneath your chin. Otherwise there's a risk the fecker will come off your head if you ever do have a fall.

dalk wrote:

There are helmets available that meet a higher standard than EN1078.

Check out the Certified Helmets section of Snell Memorial Foundation.

Also, DirkVoodoo, make sure you wear the helmet properly (low on your forehead). About 50% of the cyclists i see wearing helmets have them pushed back on their head, cowboy style...:rolleyes:

blorg

Back to the topic of overtaking as we already had a good long helmet thread recently... Ian Walker's research suggests that trucks and buses are the worst offenders:

While the average car gave cyclists 52in of room, trucks got 7.5in closer and buses 9in.

In my experience, not sure about the average closeness but certainly buses and trucks need to give cyclists _more_ room than cars, given their size and the relative position of the driver, who is much further away and in a far worse position to judge the position of the cyclist. And of course this is reflected in the death statistics where HGVs cause cyclist deaths massively out of proportion to their number.

I was forced onto the verge myself by a cement truck on the road between Kilternan and Stepaside last week, and I am pretty stable and experienced even with very close passes. He just gave me _no_ room whatsoever and didn't even try to cross the middle line when overtaking. I think I could well have been killed only I knew he was behind me and anticipated him doing exactly that.

And last night a bus was going fast down Amiens Street with one wheel basically on the line of the cycle lane causing the girl in front of me to swerve into the path and almost come off. I only didn't myself because I knew it was behind me and expected it to do that, it sure came close.

Cycling bang in the middle of the lane so they CAN'T do this and have to overtake properly really is the only solution.

rubadub

blorg wrote:

certainly buses and trucks need to give cyclists _more_ room than cars, given their size and the relative position of the driver, who is much further away and in a far worse position to judge the position of the cyclist.

Not only that, the "draft" from buses can be huge, even on a cycle track with kerb a good bit away from the road the wind caused by buses can cause dangerous swerves.

blorg wrote:

And last night a bus was going fast down Amiens Street with one wheel basically on the line of the cycle lane causing the girl in front of me to swerve into the path and almost come off. I only didn't myself because I knew it was behind me and expected it to do that, it sure came close.

Cycling bang in the middle of the lane so they CAN'T do this and have to overtake properly really is the only solution.

Not sure what you mean by this? If I am in the centre they can just travel as close. Do you mean if they do make you swerve you have a bit of room since you are not as close to the edge?

blorg

rubadub wrote:

Not sure what you mean by this? If I am in the centre they can just travel as close. Do you mean if they do make you swerve you have a bit of room since you are not as close to the edge?

They _can_ do but the idea is to cycle far enough out that they _have_ to cross the lane line to overtake. The reasoning is that if they have to cross the line anyway they may as well just overtake properly, and in my experience this does tend to work. Of course you do also have more room to your left to swerve into if necessary, which is another benefit but not the primary one.

The main problem with inadaquate space overtaking is when people try to drive past you in the _same_ lane, without crossing the line (often without moving out at all.) Cycling closer to the centre prevents this.

Capt'n Midnight

blorg wrote:

Cycling bang in the middle of the lane so they CAN'T do this and have to overtake properly really is the only solution.

Richards bicycle book back in the 1970's called this "riding the high side"

In the past I used to stay out to force the vehicle wide and when the vehicle got close nip back in again so hopefully putting an extra foot between us.

DirkVoodoo

It always amazes me the cycle lanes in town, when one is on the bus. seeing cyclists pass under the mighty 46A can make you feel a little queasy. Has anyone ever had a near miss from a buss pulling into the bus stop or passengers alighting?

rubadub

DirkVoodoo wrote:

Has anyone ever had a near miss from a buss pulling into the bus stop or passengers alighting?

Yes, many times on the N11. Especially the stretch between whites cross and fox rock church. I do not even think this is legally a cycle track, I had taken to cycling on the road only to be beeped by buses who fly by (several times breaking the speed limit) extremely close. So now I have taken to (illegally) cycling on the (technically) footpath for fear of my life. There is scatterings of white lines in places but about 80% of it has no markings at all. There are no yield or caution signs at the bus stops. They have put up a brand new bus stop with absolutely no markings at all. On monday I was flying along about 40km/hr and there was a bus up ahead, fine he passed the bus stop, then he was at the lights. I come along and the ignorant kunt opens the door and the usual oblivious passengers just start bailing off NONE looking where they were going, some going to the proper path, some still on the "cycletrack". I put all the blame on the bus driver, he had passed me and saw me and still let people out. AFAIK it is against some rule for drivers to let people out at any stop other than a bus stop since many refuse to do so if you ask, even if the bus is stopped at traffic lights, but letting people out onto a cycle track is disgraceful.

milod

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Richards bicycle book back in the 1970's called this "riding the high side"

In the past I used to stay out to force the vehicle wide and when the vehicle got close nip back in again so hopefully putting an extra foot between us.

Yeah - it's the only solution - just develop a hard neck, ignore the honking and take up some road space