helmeted riders 'more likely to be hit'

[rhysrhysbaby]

my team leader actually printed this out and put it on my desk.
interesting read.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20411078-1702,00.html

Helmeted riders 'more likely to be hit'By Tamara McLean, National Medical Writer
September 14, 2006 02:05pm
Article from: AAPFont size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
CYCLISTS who wear helmets for better protection on the road are ironically more at risk of being knocked down by cars, according to new research.

A study by a British traffic psychologist has found that drivers pass twice as close when overtaking cyclists wearing helmets than when overtaking their bare-headed counterparts.

Drivers shaved an average of 8.5cm off their passing distance when passing cyclists wearing helmets, increasing the risk of a collision.

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

"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 judgments."

The scientist used a bicycle fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor to record data from over 2500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol.

Dr Walker spent half the time wearing a cycle helmet and half without and was knocked down twice, by a bus and a truck, while helmeted.

He said while helmets had been proven to protect kids in low speed falls, it was questionable whether they offered any real protection to somebody struck by a car.

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

He believed drivers perceive cyclists as an unfamiliar sub-culture of "lycra-clad street-warriors".

Riders wearing helmets were incorrectly viewed as very experienced and less likely to do something unexpected, which explains why drivers leave less space when passing.

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

He said drivers gave "her" an average of 14cm more space than for a man not wearing a helmet, probably because women riders were seen as more unpredictable.

The study, accepted for publication in the journal, Accident Analysis & Prevention, also found that buses and trucks passed considerably closer than cars.

[projectsplat]

whew. thank god for that. No more helmets for me.....

I am heading off right now to print out a copy so that I can hand it to the police officer when they try to book me for not wearing a helmet, although I think it is more likely that the police would find it on my still warm corpse after being hit by a car.......

Publishing this kind of crap in a newspaper is irresponsible and stupid. Reposting it here is almost as bad.

[dain2772]

I think that I will keep my helmet on, but buy a wig to wear under it. The results operates under the same concept that says that drivers will take more risks driving in a car with more safety aids.

Although if the more unpredictable we seem, the greater distance they leave, maybe we should all just ride around swerving all over the place.

[k3n!f]

Interesting report, but if anyone out there see's this as an advantage for not wearing a helmet, then they lack enough brain cells to need one.

[Bodin]

As reported in this month's MBA, in the USA, 95% of cycling fatalities are non-helmet wearers. Trying to scare cars away from you by making yourself more likely to die is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, as to begin with, it assumes they've seen you in the first place.

I implore everyone reading this thread to ignore this utter f***ing stupidity and wear a helmet on the roads.

...and since when was "traffic psychologist" an actual profession anyway?!?!?

[Downhiller007]

Originally posted by Bodin
As reported in this month's MBA, in the USA, 95% of cycling fatalities are non-helmet wearers. Trying to scare cars away from you by making yourself more likely to die is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, as to begin with, it assumes they've seen you in the first place.

I implore everyone reading this thread to ignore this utter f***ing stupidity and wear a helmet on the roads.

...and since when was "traffic psychologist" and actual profession anyway?!?!?

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[projectsplat]

I implore everyone reading this thread to ignore this utter f***ing stupidity and wear a helmet on the roads.


Would it be asking too much to get one of those moderator type people to preface this thread with Bodin's quote in really big coloured letters?

The thought of someone taking this article seriously concerns me quite a lot. Having been involved in several of the "helmet = good?" theads on this site, I feel that this concern is quite valid.

[Bodin]

Would it be asking too much to get one of those moderator type people to preface this thread with Bodin's quote in really big coloured letters?

The thought of someone taking this article seriously concerns me quite a lot. Having been involved in several of the "helmet = good?" theads on this site, I feel that this concern is quite valid.

I'm one of "those moderator types" and I think the responses to the thread so far encourage me that we're all on the same train of thought.

[projectsplat]

It's not the people who read to the bottom of the page and then reply that worry me. It's the ones that read the first 5 lines of the article or even just the title of the thread and then wander off.

Edit : there is no need to do it on my behalf, I am just expressing my concerns aloud.

[Home-J]

helmets save lives. end of story

[Drizz]

*Sigh* Dun mention the war......*sigh*

I am not going to comment in regards to wearing and not wearing a helmet, topics been done to death on various forums and quite frankly nothing definitive ever comes out of these threads IMO.

But I do like to comment how hopelessly flawed the experiment was conducted. "computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor to record data from over 2500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol." is more an indication of road space avaliable on British roads and Bristol and Salisbury's driving habits. To conclude that wearing a helmet makes you more likely to have an accident is a bit of a stretch IMO.

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

He said drivers gave "her" an average of 14cm more space than for a man not wearing a helmet, probably because women riders were seen as more unpredictable.

Or more accurately it proves that drivers gave "wierdos" in wigs extra 14cm space compare with normal cyclist. If you wanted to compare reaction to male vs female cyclist, why not just get a female cyclist?

The study, accepted for publication in the journal, Accident Analysis & Prevention, also found that buses and trucks passed considerably closer than cars.

No shit! Sherlock! What are they going to conclude next? Young people generally walk faster than old people? :rolleyes:

[liamo]

Hmm... I found it an interesting study. The reactions on this thread are also pretty interesting...

The study didn't state that you should not wear a helmet. It looked at driver behavior based on a cyclists appearance and found some significant changes in the way drivers treat cyclists as a result. I don't see any reason why that should make it "utter f***ing stupidity". Trying to find out what factors affect cyclists safety is something that should be encouraged. Even if the results of the study don't match your world view.

Everyone who's posted on this thread is in favour of wearing helmets, including myself. I'm not arguing against wearing a helmet, just against judging studies like this on an emotional level. If the study found that wearing a helmet increased the room cars gave you and that you would be safer as a result, would there be any criticism of it?

Of course if you were to criticise the report because of methodology used, e.g. it was not a blind study, then that would be a different matter.

Liam

[Sov]

Fascinating - some startling insights in that article, groundbreaking stuff:
The study, accepted for publication in the journal, Accident Analysis & Prevention, also found that buses and trucks passed considerably closer than cars.
Who would have thought that a wide vehicle like a truck or bus would tak up more space in a given lane than a car!

edit: doh, beaten to it!

[projectsplat]

Hmm... I found it an interesting study. The reactions on this thread are also pretty interesting...

The study didn't state that you should not wear a helmet. It looked at driver behavior based on a cyclists appearance and found some significant changes in the way drivers treat cyclists as a result. I don't see any reason why that should make it "utter f***ing stupidity". Trying to find out what factors affect cyclists safety is something that should be encouraged. Even if the results of the study don't match your world view.

Everyone who's posted on this thread is in favour of wearing helmets, including myself. I'm not arguing against wearing a helmet, just against judging studies like this on an emotional level. If the study found that wearing a helmet increased the room cars gave you and that you would be safer as a result, would there be any criticism of it?

Of course if you were to criticise the report because of methodology used, e.g. it was not a blind study, then that would be a different matter.

Liam

Apologies Liam, I was at work, so did not have time to dissect and aggresively target the elements of the methodology contained in the study that I felt were flawed. In order to actively do that, I would need to go a significant way to repeating the study to be able to accurately identify the failings and make sensible suggestions.

I guess that for the moment I will just have to stick to random, emotive and unfounded comments on an website.... :-)

Cheers

Al

[Cúl-Báire]

As reported in this month's MBA, in the USA, 95% of cycling fatalities are non-helmet wearers?!?!?

There inlies the problem - not the fact that these poor people are not wering helmets- it's that there American :p

Here we have two stupid statements that contradict each other.
1) As if you are going to read much into Trafic Pshycology.
2) As if you'd actually read MBA in the first place... :rolleyes:

Be safe folks, wear a helmet- while I can't say for sure it will save you serious issues in the event of a crash, I'd say it's probably more likely to help then a bare scull would. :cool:

[Bodin]

If the study found that wearing a helmet increased the room cars gave you and that you would be safer as a result, would there be any criticism of it?

What total rhetoric. Of course people won't criticise reasons to wear safety gear! :rolleyes: What was the point of pointing that out? That's not an interesting point, it's just semantics.

The fact here is that some tool has proved a useless point that only serves to encourage dangerous behaviour and a news source has been just as stupid and called this useless point "news".

There inlies the problem - not the fact that these poor people are not wering helmets- it's that there American :p

Here we have two stupid statements that contradict each other.
1) As if you are going to read much into Trafic Pshycology.
2) As if you'd actually read MBA in the first place... :rolleyes:

Be safe folks, wear a helmet- while I can't say for sure it will save you serious issues in the event of a crash, I'd say it's probably more likely to help then a bare scull would. :cool:

Of course I read MBA - I read all Specialized catalogues!

[Dumbellina]

He said while helmets had been proven to protect kids in low speed falls, it was questionable whether they offered any real protection to somebody struck by a car.



When I last bounced off a car bonnet, I am certain that it was my helmet that saved my life.

I have also had enough high speed collisions with hard things while MTB to know that helmets work in protecting the head. I also have seen enough disintegrated helmets and the riders suffering severe injury to limbs but the head still in one piece.

Sure the helmet does not offer protection to the limbs or torso where a car collision can result in fatal or serious injury, but the most dangerous and lethal aspect of a car collision is your head hitting the ground or other hard object hard.



Riders wearing helmets were incorrectly viewed as very experienced and less likely to do something unexpected, which explains why drivers leave less space when passing.



The political context of this article is the on-going about mandatory helmet wearing in the UK. In these debates there will always be loonies reporting their half-baked research. There could have been other factors to drivers giving the riders more room, like the rider riding more recklessly or the riding in peak hour traffic versus quieter times.

The research did say something of use, it is carelessness on the driver's behalf the risks the lives of riders. Which for any regular rider is a self-evident truth, but Mr Duffy, Ms Devine and all the other raving anti-bike loonies cannot and probably will never understand.

[Carlin]

For those who don't believe it, go out on the road and ride in a dead straight line. Then ride is a wavy line, and see how much more room the traffic gives you.

The moral of the story is still wear you helmet but be unpredictable...I think :confused:

[demo man]

For those who don't believe it, go out on the road and ride in a dead straight line. Then ride is a wavy line, and see how much more room the traffic gives you.

The moral of the story is still wear you helmet but be unpredictable...I think :confused:

but then you end up riding like another 1/4 of the distance you are already riding!

My vote is wear a helmet, but add onto that some sort of fluro coloured wing that sticks out and up 1m in each direction, right, left and verically upwards. that would make people think you're a loony, think you're unpredictable, and want to keep clear of you for all sorts of reasons.


[EDIT] oh, and don't forget some flashing lights, disco music, and an elvis costume.

[t]

but then you end up riding like another 1/4 of the distance you are already riding!

My vote is wear a helmet, but add onto that some sort of fluro coloured wing that sticks out and up 1m in each direction, right, left and verically upwards. that would make people think you're a loony, think you're unpredictable, and want to keep clear of you for all sorts of reasons.


[EDIT] oh, and don't forget some flashing lights, disco music, and an elvis costume.

I'm going out tomorow to get one of those massive afro wigs to ware over my DJ Lid, then motorists will think i'm a loon and give me 19cm of extra room but I wont get beat up by the Homies.

Yellow saftey vest is out of the question, it would clash with my red crumpler.... But i wonder do motorists percieve cyclists with terrible dress sence to be more unpredictable? for instance would motorists on Chapel street give me more room if I wore torn designer jeans, a pollo shirt and havanas thongs than if I wore trackies, a hoodie and Dunlop volleys. Furthermore would results be the same or reversed if I repeated the experiment on Brunswick Street.

[DaGonz]

for instance would motorists on Chapel street give me more room if I wore torn designer jeans, a pollo shirt and havanas thongs than if I wore trackies, a hoodie and Dunlop volleys.

Are they spd thongs?

Cheers
Gonz

[ScottD]

sure they might not pass you as close but what happens when you fall off at 60km/h?

just make sure your seen, get a set of bike shorts that stand out or a jersey.

[Cúl-Báire]

Of course I read MBA - I read all Specialized catalogues!

Must keep you pretty busy... I quiet like the Kenda ones myself! :p

[anthonybmx]

could it be that they rode closer to the kerb when not wearing a helmet? due to being more scared of being hit?

[Ham]

nice grave dig read when the last post was it was last year.

[Binaural]

nice grave dig read when the last post was it was last year.

Actually, he's got a point (albeit a gravedug one). Do people not wearing helmets ride more conservatively? I know that if I nip two blocks to the local shops to get some milk at 11pm I ride a lot more conservatively than if I am actually riding any significant distance (when I wear a helmet).

[Some Guy]

could it be that they rode closer to the kerb when not wearing a helmet? due to being more scared of being hit?

That wouldn't have affected this study. This was a few paragraphs in to the article:

The scientist used a bicycle fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor to record data from over 2500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol.

Dr Walker spent half the time wearing a cycle helmet and half without and was knocked down twice, by a bus and a truck, while helmeted.

[Graunched]

What i reckon is more interesting is that if you wear sunglasses, drivers and pedestrians pull out/walk out in front of you less.

Its pretty strange but once they have made eye contact with you (when not wearing sunglasses) they just do as they wish but when they cannot see your eyes seem to be unsure of wether or not you have seen them and are a lot more cautious........:)

[Some Guy]

Its pretty strange but once they have made eye contact with you (when not wearing sunglasses) they just do as they wish

Really? You must have not perfected 'Yes-I've-seen-you-don't-you-dare-pretend-I'm-not-here' stare. I find that once I make eye contact I can be confident that the driver won't pull out in front of me or cut me off.

[Graunched]

Really? You must have not perfected 'Yes-I've-seen-you-don't-you-dare-pretend-I'm-not-here' stare. I find that once I make eye contact I can be confident that the driver won't pull out in front of me or cut me off.

Mmm but sometimes there is just too much happening around you take the time to stare at people. Might be a different style of riding in traffic or whatever but i am basing my experiences on 3 years of bicycle couriering and found consistantly that on days that i forgot my sunglasses the 'wanker' lvl of city drivers increased 3 fold.