Barclays/TFL cycle hire scheme in London

[editor]

There is no proof that cycle helmets make jot of difference to riders. There is a lot of evidence that wearing them just changes the injury they sustain.

There is also a lot of evidence to suggest that wearing helmets increases the risk-taking behaviour of cyclists, thus defeating the point of them in the first place.

The theories of risk homeostasis and risk compensation are well summarized by Gerald Wilde and John Adams. (Wilde 1994, Adams 1995, Adams 1999). Those who argue that risk compensation must be taken into account before bicycle helmets are adopted as a safety measure have said:

1) Encouraging helmet use would have serious adverse consequences on the public health, without making any significant difference to the dangers of riding.( Keatinge in Cochrane comment)

2) Wearing of a helmet influences cyclists' behaviour, thereby affecting the likelihood of them being involved in such an incident in the first place. (Hillman in reply to Cochrane) Cyclists are less likely to ride cautiously when wearing a helmet owing to their feeling of increased security. In this way, they consume some, if not all, of the benefit that would otherwise accrue from wearing a helmet.' (Hillman Cycling and Health)

There have been no systematic reviews of the evidence for the relevance of risk compensation to bike helmets. Mayer Hillman states the evidence for risk compensation is "overwhelming".

http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/info/tforum/mayer0601

 

[teuchter]

I was talking to an A&E doctor just the other day about this. It's not something I've read up on much until now. She was saying that it's fine if people don't want to wear helmets - that's their choice - but that she finds it frustrating when people try and justify this with arguments about wearing helmets making things more dangerous. As far as she is concerned it is simply not true to say that cycle helmets don't have a really significant effect on the chances of surviving a head injury.

There is no proof that cycle helmets make jot of difference to riders.

What about the summary of the Cochrane review -

Wearing a helmet dramatically reduces the risk of head and facial injuries for bicyclists involved in a crash, even if it involves a motor vehicle.

Cycling is a healthy and popular activity for people of all ages. Crashes involving bicyclists are, however, common and often involve motor vehicles. Head injuries are responsible for around three-quarters of deaths among bicyclists involved in crashes. Facial injuries are also common. The review found that wearing a helmet reduced the risk of head or brain injury by approximately two-thirds or more, regardless of whether the crash involved a motor vehicle. Injuries to the mid and upper face were also markedly reduced, although helmets did not prevent lower facial injuries.

There is a lot of evidence that wearing them just changes the injury they sustain.

Are you able to give a link for this?

There is also a lot of evidence to suggest that wearing helmets increases the risk-taking behaviour of cyclists, thus defeating the point of them in the first place.

Having read the link you provided, my impression is that there is lots of empirical evidence that wearing a helmet significantly reduces the chance of severe head injury. There seems to be a plausible theoretical argument that risk compensation is a real effect and should be looked at more, but there seems to be no actual evidence of the extent to which it is significant in the case of cycle helmets.

I think it's misleading to say there is "a lot of evidence to suggest that wearing helmets increases the risk-taking behaviour of cyclists, thus defeating the point of them in the first place".

For this to be true there would have to be evidence which quantified the effect of risk compensation in a way which allowed it to be balanced against the beneficial effects of wearing a helmet.

 

[editor]

I think it's misleading to say there is "a lot of evidence to suggest that wearing helmets increases the risk-taking behaviour of cyclists, thus defeating the point of them in the first place".

For this to be true there would have to be evidence which quantified the effect of risk compensation in a way which allowed it to be balanced against the beneficial effects of wearing a helmet.

I've posted other research links in this thread, but here's another that strongly links helmet wearing with increased risk taking.

Death and injury

Roughly 12 million people cycle in the United Kingdom during any given year and about 200 die annually. On average, 12 million years of cycling equates to 200 deaths - or one death per 60,000 years of average cycling.

In Australia, about 80% of cyclists wear helmets and about 80% die helmeted, meaning helmets have little effect on saving lives. Rodgers reported in 1988 that helmets are significantly associated with an increased fatality rate.

Research data varies regarding how effective helmets may be. Excessive claims of 85% protection have been made.

Other research suggests about 30% and for children in Melbourne a 10% or lower rate appeared to be the result. If 10,000 head injuries per year occurred in the U.K. from the 12 million people who cycle and helmets provided 30% protection, this would be an average one head injury saved per 4000 years of average cycling (12 million divided by 10000 = 1200 average years, divided by 0.3 = 4000 years).

If 60 years is the approximate average lifetime, then once in 66 lifetimes a helmet would save you from a serious head injury. The problem with this prediction is that helmet wearing increases the number of accidents and head impacts... therefore the benefit of once in 66 lifetimes may be overtaken by any slight increase in the number of accidents.

This is supported by Australian research. D. Robinson showed data in 1996 relating to accidents and surveys for children in New South Wales. Overall, the accident rate increased by an amazing 68% relative to cycle usage after the NSW mandatory helmet law was introduced. Having a legal requirement has reduced the safety of children as well as discouraging them from cycling... overall, a disastrous outcome.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_damage.html

 

[teuchter]

^ That's not any kind of peer reviewed study - it's some bloke's web page. Many of the references point to stuff from 15 or 20 years ago. The extrapolations from the starting point that "12 million people cycle in the United Kingdom any given year" seem dodgy to me. The calculations should be done on the basis of kms cycled, surely. And he ignores the number injured but not killed. He talks about the benefits of wearing helmets being overstated but his reference link is to something from 1989. And it seems to be contradicted by the cochrane review I posted the link to.

There might be some valid points in there but overall I don't find it very convincing.

 

[editor]

^ That's not any kind of peer reviewed study - it's some bloke's web page.

I wish you'd look back through this thread because this was discussed in depth some time ago, and links to several studies posted.

There's also been ample well-referenced articles about the subject.

CYCLISTS who wear helmets are more likely to be knocked off their bicycles than those who do not, according to research.

Motorists give helmeted cyclists less leeway than bare-headed riders because they assume that they are more proficient. They give a wider berth to those they think do not look like “proper” cyclists, including women, than to kitted-out “lycra-clad warriors”.

Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist, was hit by a bus and a truck while recording 2,500 overtaking manoeuvres. On both occasions he was wearing a helmet.

During his research he measured the exact distance of passing traffic using a computer and sensor fitted to his bicycle.Half the time Dr Walker, of the University of Bath, was bare-headed. For the other half he wore a helmet and has the bruises to prove it.

He even wore a wig on some of his trips to see if drivers gave him more room if they thought he was a woman. They did.

He was unsure whether the protection of a helmet justified the higher risk of having a collision. “We know helmets are useful in low-speed falls, and so are definitely good for children.”

On average, drivers steered an extra 3.3 in away from those without helmets to those wearing the safety hats. Motorists were twice as likely to pass “very close” to the cyclist if he was wearing a helmet.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article636281.ece

http://www.anweald.co.uk/cyclehelmets.html
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/helmet_research.html
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1182.html

 

[teuchter]

I think this is the key quote from the article about the guy who measured how closely people overtook:

He was unsure whether the protection of a helmet justified the higher risk of having a collision.

I'm willing to believe that there might be some additional risks resulting from wearing a helmet. But like I said earlier, that's fairly meaningless unless there's some way of quantifying those risks such that they can be balanced against the benefits.

You said there was a "lot of evidence" that wearing a helmet increased risks to such an extent that it resulted in "defeating the point of them in the first place". I can't see any clear evidence of this in any of the links posted so far.

 

[Crispy]

The evidence is poor, indeed.

All i can say, from my own experience, is that i ride the same whether i am or am not wearing my helmet, and that i get treated just the same by other road users.

 

[fredfelt]

If you cycle in Australia you now must by law wear a helmet. There is a cycle hire scheme in Melbourne which hardly anyone uses as people don't have access to helmets

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/bike-hire-schemes.html

I don't know if anyone's done any sums, but I bet you could prove that Melbourne is less safe for people not adopting the cycle scheme as people continue to drive - and pose a much greater risk to others. Cycling poses little threat to anyone. Any increased risk is more than offset than general increases in health.

After the mandatory cycle helmet law in Australia cycling is also a riskier activity. The reason is because there are far fewer cyclists on the road and drivers no longer look out for them.

- Argue that an individual should wear a helmet as it makes people safer and I'll tent to agree.
- Argue that helmets should be mandatory I'll strongly disagree

 

[snowy_again]

Have you ever tried cycling in Australia? I'd take Hyde Park Corner on a Monday morning over certain bits of Melbourne / Sydney / Gold Coast.
Gah! I'm getting involved in a helmet debate again! However Boris bikes are reaching further and further into South London.

 

[fredfelt]

Have you ever tried cycling in Australia? I'd take Hyde Park Corner on a Monday morning over certain bits of Melbourne / Sydney / Gold Coast.
Gah! I'm getting involved in a helmet debate again! However Boris bikes are reaching further and further into South London.

Yes, years ago I rented a bike while I was there. I hadn't ridden a bike for around a month so I just had to get out and ride!

 

[Ted Striker]

Joined the scheme and going to use it for the cross London commute home. Such a relief to just pick one up and not worry about tyres etc...It's no superfast route home, though is a pleasant gentle workout (especially due to it's weight) if nothing else

 

[teuchter]

- Argue that an individual should wear a helmet as it makes people safer and I'll tent to agree.
- Argue that helmets should be mandatory I'll strongly disagree

Yeah I think is what I'd say too.

How beneficial helmets are, and whether they should be mandatory, are really two different arguments.

 

[Open Sauce]

Why do you think a helmet would make any difference? Have you read any studies or is it "obvious"?

I will still stand by my point - helmets!

How long before someone sues after being hit by a lorry with no helmet?

How long before you answer my question regarding your faith in helmets?

 

[Open Sauce]

That's happened to me on a few occasions...put the key in, red light nearly instantly, same on all the other bikes in the rack. Sometimes I'll try it on another rack and it'll be OK, once or twice it's worked after waiting a few minutes and trying again. No idea why.

Less than 5 minutes after your last trip?

 

[teuchter]

Less than 5 minutes after your last trip?

Yes.

 

[teuchter]

Email from TfL

Dear Mr Sir Teuchter MacTeuchter,

I am writing to let you know that the Barclays Cycle Hire system will be upgraded this weekend. This work is planned to start at 16:00 on Sunday 7 November and to be completed by 04:00 on Monday 8 November.

During this time, the auto-renew service will not function via terminals or online. This means that if your membership is set up to auto-renew each time you hire a cycle, hiring a new one will not be possible. However, if you have already hired a cycle before the outage begins, you will still be able to return your cycle and this will be recorded.

In addition, the following terminal services will be unavailable:

* Balance enquiries
* Printing of recent journeys record
* Nearest docking station availability


Yours sincerely,
James Mead
James Mead
Operations Manager

 

[plurker]

Rumour has it that the software update they're doing during ^^^ that outage is to try and bring in PAYG functionality in the near(ish) future.

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

They are certainly taking their time over letting non-Londoners join in the fun. With winter closing in, it's looking like the new year for me

Hurry up guys.

 

[salem]

Non-Londoners can join, just gotta register.

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

Non-Londoners can join, just gotta register.

I realise this, but I wouldn't use it enough to warrant £45 a year.

And I've got a big bunch of keys already . It'd just be something else to worry about and something else to lose.

 

[teuchter]

you don't have to go for the £45 thing if you register. You can just opt to pay £1 for each 24hr period.

 

[Bungle73]

It's been opened up to casual users today! Just insert your credit or debit card and off you go!

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

It's been opened up to casual users today! Just insert your credit or debit card and off you go!

Yay!

 

[Badgers]

Till good news isn't it

 

[Crispy]

Not the best weather for it mind!

I'm guessing that you swipe, put your PIN in, then a light by an unlocked bike starts to flash?

 

[19sixtysix]

Not the best weather for it mind!

I'm guessing that you swipe, put your PIN in, then a light by an unlocked bike starts to flash?

And some local urchin swipes the bike before the tourist realises what's happened.

 

[Bungle73]

Not the best weather for it mind!

I'm guessing that you swipe, put your PIN in, then a light by an unlocked bike starts to flash?

From TfL website:

Go to terminal at docking station

Follow on-screen instructions

Pay by debit or credit card

Take a cycle release code slip for every cycle

Enter cycle release code at the docking point

The light will turn amber while your code is checked

Wait for the green light and take your cycle

And some local urchin swipes the bike before the tourist realises what's happened.

Do they not have a keypad to enter the code at each bicycle? I've never examined a docking station that closely.

 

[Crispy]

Ah yes, they have buttons labelled 1 2 3

 

[goldenecitrone]

Can't wait to give this a go. How much is it for one hour?

 

[joustmaster]

My friend couldn't find a docking station near his studio in soho so.ended up keeping the bike inside with him all day. It.cost him 60 quid.
Tfl refunded it all for him.