Why would anyone cycle to work?

jack_pott wrote: »

which is what the American experiment did, and the result was that non-helmet was safer.

are we talking about this 1970s one about motorbikes? or is there another more relevant study?

I've never been able to make my mind up on whether it's safer to wear a helmet - taking EVERYTHING into account. I don't think the Walker research is conclusive.

My own view for my own personal riding style is this.

I ride ~7,000 miles a year outdoors excluding commuting miles. Those miles are exercise miles, therefore fairly intense - tempo/threshold miles.
My style of cycling is unlikely to cause anyone to question my ability and assertiveness on the bike, and I don't believe motorists would change their attitude to me if I wasn't wearing a helmet. I don't think whether I'm wearing a helmet or not would even register. So I don't believe that, in my circumstances, with the style of cycling I do and the rural nature of the roads I cycle on, the presence of a helmet is going to make any difference to motorists' behaviour around me.

I buy the risk homeostasis argument, but the only effect that is likely to have on me is to make me a little faster. If the helmet accommodates that extra risk, I'd rather have it on, and have an extra mile an hour.

Of all the cycle fatalities I've attended or been involved in the investigation of, they've all been road cyclists wearing helmets, bar one who was a drunk, cycling in the middle of a 70mph dual carriageway in the dark and in fog.
That is not a ringing endorsement for helmet safety, but it's perhaps more indicative of the proportion of road cyclists who now wear helmets.

What I don't see are road traffic collisions involving the town centre feral cyclists who ride rusty chained, flat tyred, brakeless bikes without helmets, lights etc, on the pavement and through red lights. It's a non-statistic. I think those are the type of cyclists that motorists will give a much wider berth to, primarily because they don't want their car damaged.

andrewf75 wrote: »

you're relatively unlikely to have a serious fall onto your head while walking. On a bike you're MUCH more likely to fall on your head and at a speed which can cause serious damage. The "going over the handlebars" crash, we all know it or have experienced it!

There are risks in everything we do, but when a risk can so easily be reduced then yes its silly!
I do respect your right to be silly though and as it doesn't endanger anyone other than yourself don't think I favour them being compulsory.

Lots of risks can be reduced incredibly easily, but do people take heed? The risk of killing someone reduces when motorists obey the speed limit. But are there any car drivers who can obey the speed limit for even ONE DAY a year?!

Risks can be reduced by using flashing orange lights to indicate when you wish to turn or change lane. How many people use those reliably?

Everyone who drives a car does silly, reckless things that increase the risks of injury. Why should cyclists be held to a much higher standard when cyclists are INCREDIBLY unlikely to injuries anyone else, unlike motorists.

I think motorists just hate to take responsibility for the danger and risks they cause, and want to project the responsibility for their desire to be reckless onto cyclists. By getting angry with cyclists who don't wear helmets, they can project the blame onto them, rather than recognising that THEY are the root of the problem.

The most ridiculous thing I see these days is four-year-olds on a bike with stabilisers, cycling round their gardens with a helmet on. People are crazy.

Stoke wrote: »

This morning, on the way into work, I saw a cyclist nearly get knocked off by two different cars in the space of 20 seconds.

Then, half an hour later, I saw another cyclist nearly get knocked off, again we're talking inches.

It's an absolute bloody minefield out there with all the crap drivers. It's a shame as cyclists do other road users and the world a favour in reality, but they aren't half treated with contempt.

I've always considered cycling to work, but nah, it's too risky tbh.

What are you going to do if you see some pedestrians knocked down, retire early?

When I cycled to work I was knocked off 3 times, it didn't stop me, it was far better than using public transport:

- It was 30 mins quicker (return journey)
- 50 mins daily exercise for free + 30 mins gain in time
- £70 cheaper per month (far less important than 1 and 2 above)

Rotor wrote: »

Anecdotes about how a helmet saved someone are not just pointless but positively misleading ( there'll be loads of 'helmet saved a bad head' tales)

Misleading because they will all go the same way - you won't , because you can't, hear the tales of how the cars came slightly closer because the cyclist had a helmet or the cyclist took (say)2 % more risks.

It can only be shown statistically

No. It's about how I evaluate risk based on my own experience and daily ride. It matters to me and it's how I will continue. I am an adult and I will decide.