The Cult of Bike Helmets (slate.com)

hawkinspeter wrote:

. . . . . general public that consider it to be a sign of mental deficiency to cycle without a helmet .

Adam Sutton wrote:

It amuses me this eye rolling attitude "cult of bike helmets" jog on FFS. If you don't want to wear a helmet fine, but Christ on a bike (with a helmet? who cares) people can be way more preachy about not wearing helmets.

The other way around surely?   I've never heard anyone be criticised for wearing a helmet, but the helmet proponents are not shy in expressing their opinion of someone not wearing one, and I've been on the receiving end many times of their religious zealotry.

eburtthebike wrote:

Adam Sutton wrote:

It amuses me this eye rolling attitude "cult of bike helmets" jog on FFS. If you don't want to wear a helmet fine, but Christ on a bike (with a helmet? who cares) people can be way more preachy about not wearing helmets.

The other way around surely?   I've never heard anyone be criticised for wearing a helmet, but the helmet proponents are not shy in expressing their opinion of someone not wearing one, and I've been on the receiving end many times of their religious zealotry.

A guy on here was snippy with me once because my kids wear helmets when riding a bike... can't remember who it was. I suspect he would have been less snippy if he'd met my kids... they are muppets. Funny, but still muppets.

JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote:

A guy on here was snippy with me once because my kids wear helmets when riding a bike... can't remember who it was. I suspect he would have been less snippy if he'd met my kids... they are muppets. Funny, but still muppets.

I remember BehindTheBikeSheds/CyclingInBeastMode (or whatever he called himself) was very much an anti-helmet zealot and often referred to them as "noddy hats". I bet it was him. (I think he was banned after getting into heated arguments and possibly some racist/conspiracy claptrap that he posted. Shame as he also posted some very insightful comments about bikes and equipment) 

Oh it happens, and has done on here. Good ol' cycling mikey on twatter has cabal of idiots following him too that will jump on anyone. Glad i'm off that s***show of social media now.

In my experience those berated for being helmet proponents generally are just sharing personal experience like I have. I honestly couldn't give two flying .... if someone doesn't want to wear a helmet, but I will happily share a personal experience. I have seen people share photos of a helmet from an accident they walked away from with no serious injury that makes you think "yikes". Only to see them hounded and berated. 

Wear helmet, don't wear a helmet. Just ride your bike and enjoy it. 

Edit: I mean seriously. I posted this and then scrolled to some of the other comments here. LMFAO 

Quote:

Oh it happens, and has done on here. Good ol' cycling mikey on twatter has cabal of idiots following him too that will jump on anyone. Glad i'm off that s***show of social media now.

And conversely if someone posts a picture of themselves riding a bike whilst not wearing a helmet, the comments are full of "wear one", normally by people who haven't ridden a bike in years because "it is too dangerous". 

Adam Sutton wrote:

It amuses me this eye rolling attitude "cult of bike helmets" jog on FFS. If you don't want to wear a helmet fine, but Christ on a bike (with a helmet? who cares) people can be way more preachy about not wearing helmets.

In multiple bike groups on Facebook, there are two common kinds of posts that become about helmets.

1. Someone posts a pic of their cracked helmet with a paragraph about "my helmet saved my life, make sure you all wear your helmet."

2. Someone posts a nice photo of themselves on a ride with no helmet in the photo, and inevitably will get at least one of "where is your helmet?!" or "just trying to be helpful here, and I'd feel terrible if I didn't mention this, but you should probably be wearing a helmet." WE ALL KNOW ABOUT HELMETS!

I can't think of any time anyone has commented "why are you wearing a helmet, that looks like a nice safe bike path" or "I don't wear a helmet, you shouldn't either." Not a one.

I wear a helmet the vast majority of the time. I don't evangelize in either direction, but the helmet evangelists are by far the most annoying.

Adam Sutton wrote:

Same. Since starting cycling again a few years ago I have had two accidents, both at low speed and not involving a car. One where a bee flew into my face and I fell off, the other on a greasy road where the bikd slipped out on a corner and I hit my head on a kerb. Both instances I was glad I was wearing a helmet.

It amuses me this eye rolling attitude "cult of bike helmets" jog on FFS. If you don't want to wear a helmet fine, but Christ on a bike (with a helmet? who cares) people can be way more preachy about not wearing helmets.

I think you should stop preaching and stop making the straw man arguments about people being preachy about not wearing helmets. I don't think I have ever seen anyone say that cyclists should not wear helmets. I suggest you have conflated the argument for not enforcing people t wear helmets with your idea that people should not wear helmets. The ONLY preaching I've seen is by those who insist or suggest that people riding bikes should wear helmets.

It's simply a case of perceived need. 

Yep, on balance, if I was going to bang my head falling off a bike, I'd rather be wearing a helmet, certainly if I was sliding my head along a road / edge of a pavement. 

However, the reason I generally don't wear a helmet is down to my assessment of personal risk. Am I going to be doing anything that takes my risk of falling off higher than the base norm? If not, then the statistics strongly suggest that I'm not falling off, or if I do fall, it'll be due to a freak occurence. Then, should I fall off in that freak occurence, how likely am I to actually hit my head? 

As an aside, the one thing I can do to significantly increase the chance of hitting my head when falling off, is to wear a helmet. 

In summary, for general tottering about, I see the need for helmet wearing is no more greater than that required to walk to the shops / drive.... so I don't. 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

However, the reason I generally don't wear a helmet is down to my assessment of personal risk. Am I going to be doing anything that takes my risk of falling off higher than the base norm? If not, then the statistics strongly suggest that I'm not falling off, or if I do fall, it'll be due to a freak occurence. Then, should I fall off in that freak occurence, how likely am I to actually hit my head? 

And that's fine: it's your head, and not my place to tell you what to do with it. 

My assessment is of risk vs cost of mitigation. It's very unlikely that I will fall off and hit my head, true. But the consequences of my doing so could be very unpleasant. For me, sticking a helmet on to ameliorate those consequences is worthwhile: any expense or inconvenience is marginal. 

I only very rarely step in dogshit or on broken glass in normal daylight conditions. I always wear shoes though. 

Brauchsel wrote:

only very rarely step in dogshit or on broken glass in normal daylight conditions. I always wear shoes though. 

I always wear shoes when cycling, even though there's less risk of stepping on glass or in poo.

But do you wear a helmet when walking? If not, then why not? People fall over and hit their heads when walking. Surely it's no less onerous putting on a helmet for a walk to the shops, than it is for riding there on a bike?

HoarseMann wrote:

Brauchsel wrote:

only very rarely step in dogshit or on broken glass in normal daylight conditions. I always wear shoes though. 

I always wear shoes when cycling, even though there's less risk of stepping on glass or in poo.

But do you wear a helmet when walking? If not, then why not? People fall over and hit their heads when walking. Surely it's no less onerous putting on a helmet for a walk to the shops, than it is for riding there on a bike?

Far more important is the shower helmet, the stairs helmet and the lightbulb changing/ladder helmet

Having fallen off a (stationary) lorry and cracked my head resulting in a rather worrying spell of blindness, I would wear head protection if working at height. If I thought a sudden gust or passing car or icy patch was going to take me off an unstable stepladder, I wouldn't go up it. If I regularly walked at 15mph in the same carriageway as 2-tonne pedestrians passing me at 40mph, I'd wear a helmet. If I thought that my personal risk, as opposed to a population-level statistic, of having a serious head injury in the shower was significant I'd do something to address that too. 

You might be braver, or a better cyclist, or just plain luckier than me. That's fine, and you can do what you like. My experience is that hitting your head when falling off a bike a) happens regardless of how careful I am and b) hurts a lot less when wearing a helmet. That's enough for me. 

Brauchsel wrote:

Having fallen off a (stationary) lorry and cracked my head resulting in a rather worrying spell of blindness, I would wear head protection if working at height. If I thought a sudden gust or passing car or icy patch was going to take me off an unstable stepladder, I wouldn't go up it. If I regularly walked at 15mph in the same carriageway as 2-tonne pedestrians passing me at 40mph, I'd wear a helmet. If I thought that my personal risk, as opposed to a population-level statistic, of having a serious head injury in the shower was significant I'd do something to address that too. 

You might be braver, or a better cyclist, or just plain luckier than me. That's fine, and you can do what you like. My experience is that hitting your head when falling off a bike a) happens regardless of how careful I am and b) hurts a lot less when wearing a helmet. That's enough for me. 

I'm not trying to pass any judgement on personal decisions about wearing bike helmets, and I nearly always do wear a bike helmet when cycling (I may well be luckier as I've only ever hit my head/helmet on low hanging branches). It just bugs me that so many people think that bike helmets are anything to do with road safety when they are so very far down the list of what works.

Brauchsel wrote:

Having fallen off a (stationary) lorry and cracked my head resulting in a rather worrying spell of blindness, I would wear head protection if working at height. If I thought a sudden gust or passing car or icy patch was going to take me off an unstable stepladder, I wouldn't go up it. If I regularly walked at 15mph in the same carriageway as 2-tonne pedestrians passing me at 40mph, I'd wear a helmet. If I thought that my personal risk, as opposed to a population-level statistic, of having a serious head injury in the shower was significant I'd do something to address that too. 

You might be braver, or a better cyclist, or just plain luckier than me. That's fine, and you can do what you like. My experience is that hitting your head when falling off a bike a) happens regardless of how careful I am and b) hurts a lot less when wearing a helmet. That's enough for me. 

Its not the 2 ton pedestrians at 40mph that are your problem (they will crush your skull just as easily as a pedestrian or as a cyclist) its the distance between your head and the ground, that potential energy generates the sort of impact that a helmet can do some good with. I'm not suggesting that you should wear a helmet while walking, I don't so it would be hippocritical but I do think you should consider the situation rationally and not brush it off as being unrelated to cycling. 

Brauchsel wrote:

If I thought that my personal risk, as opposed to a population-level statistic, of having a serious head injury in the shower was significant I'd do something to address that too. 

I think we have arrived at the answer to your question, so be baffled no more: It's down to personal choice.

I actually think I'm probably at more risk of falling in the shower than falling off my town bike on the short trip to the shops. Both are risks I deem low enough to not worry about a helmet in either case.

I also think that sadly there is some peer pressure to wear a helmet cycling, certainly when I once forgot to bring my bike helmet mountain biking, I got some very disapproving looks! (yes, I deem the risks when pushing it on the mountain bike warrant it, but I just rode less recklessly that day)

I can imagine there's some peer pressure to not wear one walking to the supermarket, I've never tried it, but I assume I'd get the same disapproving looks! But your argument for wearing one on a bike still holds true for walking to the shops: surely it's safer, better than not wearing one at all and of no impediment? So why might you not wear one? Choice.

The helmet argument is not one of "for or against helmets", but one of "for or against choice" and the right to not be criticised for the choice you make.

Brauchsel wrote:

Having fallen off a (stationary) lorry and cracked my head resulting in a rather worrying spell of blindness, I would wear head protection if working at height. If I thought a sudden gust or passing car or icy patch was going to take me off an unstable stepladder, I wouldn't go up it. If I regularly walked at 15mph in the same carriageway as 2-tonne pedestrians passing me at 40mph, I'd wear a helmet. If I thought that my personal risk, as opposed to a population-level statistic, of having a serious head injury in the shower was significant I'd do something to address that too. 

You might be braver, or a better cyclist, or just plain luckier than me. That's fine, and you can do what you like. My experience is that hitting your head when falling off a bike a) happens regardless of how careful I am and b) hurts a lot less when wearing a helmet. That's enough for me. 

In a roundabout way, you've actually demonstrated the point quite nicely. You make a personal assessment of the risk - what is the likelihood of something happening, and what would the consequences be? You consider options for mitigating the risk - you could wear a helmet in the shower, or put down a grippy bath mat thing, or attach a grab handle. You consider the cost of doing so - the financial cost of purchasing those things and also the inconvenience of using them. In some cases (the shower) you might decide the risk is sufficiently low as-is and the cost sufficiently high that no mitigation is worthwhile; in other cases (the step ladder on ice) you might decide there is no mitigation that makes the risk acceptable and so you simply don't do it.

The point is that none of those assessments are made in a vacuum, and none of them are objective. Humans are really bad at estimating the risk of rare events - far more people are scared of getting in a plane than getting in a car. We use simple heuristics to assess risk - are other people scared? Are other people using safety equipment? Is there advice from The Authorities? 

All I ask is that you, or more pertinently policy makers, question the objectivity of some of those assessments when it comes to cycling and helmets, and admit that it's a matter of degree rather than any kind of clear distinction. There's little more infuriating in this debate than the words "if it saves just one life" because it's such an obvious double standard. The only difference is that when someone is rushed to A&E with a head injury after a car crash, no-one asks whether or not they were wearing a helmet.

And when it comes to policy-level decisions, it's important to remember that the biggest barrier to cycling is consistently that it is perceived to be too dangerous. And whilst you may think the "cost" of wearing a helmet is low, even minor "friction" costs can seriously impact behaviour. The result is that too many people choose the "simply don't do it" option. And that has serious implications for population health, because the evidence shows that if there's one thing that really is dangerous, it's inactivity (and pollution is on the list too). 

So whilst I am glad you are willing to cycle despite wearing a helmet, I think it would make it better for everyone if we stopped normalising helmet-wearing for local journeys by bike, and spread the message the cycling is a safe, everyday activity that does not require special protective equipment. There will still be rare crashes, including crashes in which a helmet might have helped - but just as there are car crashes in which wearing a helmet would have helped, I would like there to be no expectation for the people involved to have been wearing one, because we recognise the risk is sufficiently low, and the cost sufficiently high. And of course, we should continue to focus on delivering interventions that we know actually make cycling safer (and make cycling feel safer) such as high quality segregated infrastructure. 

hawkinspeter wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

Brauchsel wrote:

only very rarely step in dogshit or on broken glass in normal daylight conditions. I always wear shoes though. 

I always wear shoes when cycling, even though there's less risk of stepping on glass or in poo.

But do you wear a helmet when walking? If not, then why not? People fall over and hit their heads when walking. Surely it's no less onerous putting on a helmet for a walk to the shops, than it is for riding there on a bike?

Far more important is the shower helmet, the stairs helmet and the lightbulb changing/ladder helmet

You forgot the vheicle occupant helmet

OldRidgeback wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

Brauchsel wrote:

only very rarely step in dogshit or on broken glass in normal daylight conditions. I always wear shoes though. 

I always wear shoes when cycling, even though there's less risk of stepping on glass or in poo.

But do you wear a helmet when walking? If not, then why not? People fall over and hit their heads when walking. Surely it's no less onerous putting on a helmet for a walk to the shops, than it is for riding there on a bike?

Far more important is the shower helmet, the stairs helmet and the lightbulb changing/ladder helmet

You forgot the vheicle occupant helmet

Surely the pub chair helmet comes first!

Brauchsel wrote:

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

However, the reason I generally don't wear a helmet is down to my assessment of personal risk. Am I going to be doing anything that takes my risk of falling off higher than the base norm? If not, then the statistics strongly suggest that I'm not falling off, or if I do fall, it'll be due to a freak occurence. Then, should I fall off in that freak occurence, how likely am I to actually hit my head? 

And that's fine: it's your head, and not my place to tell you what to do with it. 

My assessment is of risk vs cost of mitigation. It's very unlikely that I will fall off and hit my head, true. But the consequences of my doing so could be very unpleasant. For me, sticking a helmet on to ameliorate those consequences is worthwhile: any expense or inconvenience is marginal. 

I only very rarely step in dogshit or on broken glass in normal daylight conditions. I always wear shoes though. 

Except that Jimmy Ray Will's assessment is right and yours is wrong.  Do you wear a helmet when walking?  Because that has the same risk of death per mile as cycling, so if your risk assessment is valid, you should either start wearing a walking helmet or ditch the cycling helmet.

Brauchsel wrote:

I don't think it should be a legal requirement, but I'm baffled by the mindset of those who see it as an impediment.

Because they have very little benefit and massive disbenefits?

Helmets were sold on the promise of saving thousands of lives, by using the worst of bad science, and yet the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase, rather the opposite, as the article points out; so they don't do what they are supposed to do.

The disbenefits are, relatively, huge.  They deter people from riding, they make cycling look much more dangerous than it is, cyclists who wear them have more collisions, and they are a distraction from what really works.  The people who don't ride lose the overwhelming health benefits, get sicker quicker and cost health services billions.  The people who drive a car rather than ride a bike pollute the planet and cause danger to the rest of us.  The overall effects of helmet compulsion and propaganda campaigns are massive and negative, and they don't even do what they are supposed to do.

It is no coincidence that in countries which have actually addressed the safety of cyclists e.g. Holland, no-one wears a helmet but cycling is much safer than in countries where helmets are compulsory.

By any rational measure, helmets are a failed policy, and like you, I'm baffled by the mindset of people who think they work, and even more baffled by people who think that they should be made compulsory.

I don't see it as an impediment, I just see it as pointless, and with winter hats that prvent wearing glasses over straps, quite uncomfortable.

Seeing as the risk of traumatic brain injury from walking 5km is higher than the risk of traumatic brain injury from cycling 5km. I don't see any reason to adopt a higher standard of protection for a cycle commute than would be expected if I walked.

Now, If I am ridin all day, or riding in a group with inhernet risk of wheel touches, or riding off road, then the risk profile changes. So I will wear a helmet, but for short distance utility cycling, i might or might not. And no one will convince me that I am accepting a risk significantly greater than the general population with no walking, driving, using the stairs, or showering helmets.

Cyclists are not the main source of head injuries presenting at A&E

I'm surprised all those police failed to stop an unlicensed driver riding what amounts to an illegal motorbike that is not taxed nor insured!

If they had managed to catch up with the miscreant, the vehicle should have been seized and crushed on the spot!

I'm sure they'll have words with the DVLA, the fine will be in the post and the points will be waiting for him when he applies for a provisional licence:

Firstly do squirrels bleat?

Secondly the article made some quite staggering statements without any evidence cited to back them up. In particular, riders with helmets are likely to be more cautious, riders without helmets are more likely to be drunk?

These seem ridiculously sweeping generalisations on a par with the most egregious assumptions/ assertions made by the compulsory helmet/ hi-vis/ registration advocates (oh Nige how we miss you).

I have also seen the argument that helmets don't work because they give riders a false sense of security.

Personally I shall continue to wear a helmet, but I have no problem with others not doing so

SimoninSpalding wrote:

Secondly the article made some quite staggering statements without any evidence cited to back them up. In particular, riders with helmets are likely to be more cautious, riders without helmets are more likely to be drunk?

The article didn't say riders with helmets are more likely to be cautious; it said the studies "don’t account for the simple fact that helmet-wearers may be more generally cautious". As you say, the opposite may be true - helmet wearers might take more risk. Either way, if helmet wearing and other aspects of rider behaviour have any kind of non-random relationship, it would affect the conclusion of any study.

The alcohol thing really should have provided a citation but google suggests it is true e.g. https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1262.html 

SimoninSpalding wrote:

Firstly do squirrels bleat?

Some do