Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist from the University of Bath
Bicyclists who wear protective helmets are more likely to be struck by passing vehicles, new research suggests.
Drivers pass closer when overtaking cyclists wearing helmets than when overtaking bare-headed cyclists, increasing the risk of a collision, the research has found.
Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist from the University of Bath, used a bicycle fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor to record data from over 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol.
Dr Walker, who was struck by a bus and a truck in the course of the experiment, spent half the time wearing a cycle helmet and half the time bare-headed. He was wearing the helmet both times he was struck.
He found that drivers were as much as twice as likely to get particularly close to the bicycle when he was wearing the helmet.
Across the board, drivers passed an average of 8.5 cm (3 1/3 inches) closer with the helmet than without
The research has been accepted for publication in the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention.
Press Release from the University of Bath.
6 comments:
Four inches? Just enough to make a good headline, I suppose, but not enough to have any real meaning in the real world.
As PM knows very well, there isn't any clear OVERALL fatality effect, either way, due to helmet usage.
Why is this? Put simply, education is the MAIN factor and, as a group, cyclists nowadays are no better than they were 30 years ago. You get smacked by a car due to a stupid, unlawful maneuver, and you're a full OOM beyond the design point for a helmet. Squish under those truck wheels - and the answer to PM's question is "no!"
In the real world, wearing (or not) a helmet when riding a bicycle mostly depends on how your faith runs - unless you ride in Dallas where they have encoded the "wear a helmet or else" religion into the law of the land...
My experiences is that accidents are just that- accidents. I've been involved in just one since I started riding again last year. As it turns out, it was 6 days after buying my helmet which was cracked in the incident.
The other vehicle? The ground. During a moment's inattention my front wheel got stuck in a rut and I went over the handlebars. Classic endo resulting in a face plant.
I think lack of recent experience was a contributing factor, but my point is that you just don't know when an accident will happen and a helmet is just a good idea to me.
I would be interested in seeing this experiment repeated in different locations. A sample of one rider, in one geographic area, even with 2500 data points, may have biases built into it based on the cyclists behavior and local norms. Who knows, maybe Walker tends to ride more aggressively with a helmet without realizing it.
I've hit ruts twice.
Once, thirty years ago, I fell due to a RR track I didn't cross at enough of an angle. No helmet. Busted wheel but no other injury.
Second, three years ago crossing Hwy26. Busted cycle computer. Helmet but no damage to same. I did go back to get the computer, but the LCD was toast even though no cars ran it over.
I've had four other falls, all but one in the last three years. All on MUPs. None involved the head in any way.
The one common factor in all the falls - no cars involved...
@Dookie ...er, Doohickie ;-)
"My experiences is[sic] that accidents are just that- accidents."
I disagree. As I always tell my children, there are no "accidents"; only varying degrees of negligence.
Personal responsibility is the name of he game, not assigning blame to some supernatural force.
velociped said...
"I disagree. As I always tell my children, there are no "accidents"; only varying degrees of negligence."I've tried to remove that word from my vocabulary. It's hard work. I'm still struggling with the difference between bicycles and bicyclists, too. Where's Wittgenstein when I need him?
On a related note: Is Engrish the new Esperanto?
Back on topic: It's interesting to compare the University of Bath's Dr. Ian with the University of Texas's Dr. Ian (of "3' bike lanes make you safe" fame). Their respective research, covering some similar road behaviors, reaches some very different conclusions. Both studies are highly flawed (to these eyes), with some logical and methodological inconsistencies, although both might be useful for parlor games.
Post a Comment