For the cyclists
Sep. 30th, 2006 11:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lederhosenVia ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-syndicated.gif)
risks_digest, this story offers the first halfway convincing reason I've heard for cycling without a helmet:
Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist from the University of Bath in the UK, 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 study also found that large vehicles, such as buses and trucks, passed considerably closer when overtaking cyclists than cars. The average car passed 1.33 metres (4.4 feet) away from the bicycle, whereas the average truck got 19 centimetres (7.5 inches) closer and the average bus 23 centimetres (9 inches) closer. However, there was no evidence of 4x4s (SUVs) getting any closer than ordinary cars. Previously reported research from the project showed that drivers of white vans overtake cyclists an average 10 centimetres (4 inches) closer than car drivers.
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. Whilst wearing the wig, drivers gave him an average of 14 centimetres (5.5 inches) more space when passing.
I can think of some obvious questions about methodology, in particular preventing the cyclist's own behaviour from influencing the findings, but assuming those have been dealt with satisfactorily it's an interesting finding.
risks_digest, this story offers the first halfway convincing reason I've heard for cycling without a helmet:Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist from the University of Bath in the UK, 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 study also found that large vehicles, such as buses and trucks, passed considerably closer when overtaking cyclists than cars. The average car passed 1.33 metres (4.4 feet) away from the bicycle, whereas the average truck got 19 centimetres (7.5 inches) closer and the average bus 23 centimetres (9 inches) closer. However, there was no evidence of 4x4s (SUVs) getting any closer than ordinary cars. Previously reported research from the project showed that drivers of white vans overtake cyclists an average 10 centimetres (4 inches) closer than car drivers.
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. Whilst wearing the wig, drivers gave him an average of 14 centimetres (5.5 inches) more space when passing.
I can think of some obvious questions about methodology, in particular preventing the cyclist's own behaviour from influencing the findings, but assuming those have been dealt with satisfactorily it's an interesting finding.
