Complaints over bare-headed Chris Boardman’s helmetless BBC Breakfast bike ride

It really is eye-opening how retarded some of you people are.

As far as I can tell, nobody in these comments has called for compulsary helmet wearing.

However, a lot of people have made irrational, nonsensical arguments against helmets - often employing irrelevant personal experiences or completely stupid analogies.

I'd have more respect for you idiots if you simply said you don't want to wear a helmet out of personal choice and shut the f#%k up, rather than trying to make logical arguments your pea sized brains are not equiped to make.

i would ask a simple question why can't the UK do as the Dutch did? Are the British really that different that there is no hope for improving the conditions of the towns and cities we live in?

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/01/stop-child-murder.html

We had a coronial inquiry last year here in NZ looking at 13 cycling deaths. About half didn't involve any interaction with a vehicle. Helmet compliance is about 93% here due to 11,000 infringement notices and $400,000 worth of fines coming from 1% of modal share (pop 4.4 mil).

2 of the deaths were from cyclists going downhill and hitting objects (power pole and rock). The speeds were 32 kph and 40 kph respectively; both riders were wearing helmets.

Hitting your head at 32 kph (19 mph) wearing a helmet kills you. That's very little additional protection from a helmet considering most vehicle speed limits are at least 50 kph.

The protection helmets provide is vastly oversold and the last thing I think about on my commute with narrow bridges and no shoulders with heavy traffic doing 100 kph is how safe I am because I'm wearing a helmet.

Commuting, I wear a helmet because people are in a rush including me. On the road bike I wear a helmet because 20mph + wall or telegraph pole = hurt. I wear one on the mountain bike because tree or rock = squashed head. Riding to town on Saturday not in a rush I don't wear one and I ride on residential roads, separate cycle paths and canal toe path. If my commute was all on segregated paths I wouldn't wear one but I have several busy junctions and roundabouts to negotiate at rush hour and I don't trust drivers.

The Dutch argument stands.

There has never been a proper study to ascertain the efficacy of cycle helmets. The pros and cons have never been robustly tested which is one reason why the government has not moved to introduce legislation, preferring to leave cyclists to chose to wear a helmet or not.
But there is one irrefutable fact:
promoting the use of cycle helmets does nothing to improve road safety.
And that remains a major concern, because by the far the greatest danger to cyclists comes from others, from motor vehicles generally moving at inappropriately high speed.
No cycle helmet is intended to withstand the force from a vehicle impact, although it may do so.
Prior to the first hard-shell helmets arriving in Britain from an American manufacturer over 20 years ago, cycling here was never considered to be a particularly dangerous activity.

@felixcat, some of the problems may well be risk compensation, i would never dream of riding the MTB without a helmet, but what protection will that helmet actually afford??

To be honest, not a great deal, it might stop me getting a few cuts when i clip a low branch, but if i crash into some rocks it is going to hurt! as the stitches on my face can testify to, my face did a good job of protecting the helmet which suffered no scuffs or marks.

As for mounting a light or camera!!! nice way of creating a stress riser and reducing the efficacy even further!

If it was me who had paid to license hats with his name on......I would be raging.

Unless of course the helmets are from Stan Boardman.

Helmets are rubbish! If you really feel that it's too damn dangerous to get out there without one, then you probably shouldn't be out there at all. Think about getting a life before a helmet.

My experience of many years of cycle commuting in London both wearing and not wearing a cycle helmet tells me that my head was just as uninjured in the spills I didn't have when I wasn't wearing a helmet as when I was. I wear a helmet when I'm racing or training because it's required and also good sense. I also wear a helmet when I'm riding my BMX at the skatepark or riding MTBs offroad. Other than that and for road riding, I don't bother.

Chris Boardman is of course right and very wrong. Wear a helmet may very well not be in the top 10 things to keep you safe cycling but that doesnt mean they are useless and it is sending the wrong message to youngsters. I grew up in an age when the only option was the laughable leather hair net and even then we only wore them road racing as it was compulsory. I have to say even despite my dislike of helmets i dont even go round the corner to the shops on the bike without one. I definitely wouldnt let my five year old go out without one. He doesnt complain, it doesnt put him off because he thinks its normal to wear a helmet.
a helmet wont save you if you get hit by a truck but it could in a wide range of collisions and falls i have seen. At the very least it could prevent some disfiguring cuts and scars.

Boardman is right that there are plenty of other things that cyclists should be focused on for safety. The thing that wasnt mentioned in the report which in my view, alongside situation awareness, is the biggest factor in keeping cyclists safe is bike handling. I see so many cyclists, even club riders who seem woefully incapable of riding in a straight line, who swerve at the last minute to avoid potholes and drains and cant a hand off the bars to signal without veering across the road.

If you ride in a steady predictable manner, observe the road well ahead, make smooth manouvres to avoid hazards you are much less likely to get into trouble or be hit. Add to that an understanding and practice of basic hazard recognition so that you stop potential dangers and yes stupid actions of other road users before they become life threatening and you are a whole lot safer. In the process you will have increased your chances of survival way more than wearing a helmet.

Yes other road users need educating, but lets not forget in a busy road scene a head on cyclist is very narrow and difficult to see. I am not excusing careless driving but we cyclists need to take responsibility for our own safety.

oh ffs, here we go again. Stop having spats and just ride your bloody bikes with or without a lid

just think, if the effort that was put into the helmet argument was directed towards arguing for improved infrastructure.

I'm relieved that this thread is now closed thanks to Godwin's law.

Well done everyone.

Over and out.

Chris Boardman is clearly an intelligent man. But now, I think this BBC appearance has showed him to be clever too!

Provoking a debate over this topic will be hugely valuable, especially if it reaches (transport) policy makers in this country. You only have to look at the number of responses on this item (exceeded only by free competitions!) to know how important the words and actions of CB are.

Just think, had he been wearing a helmet & hi-viz gear then this debate - the real debate over making our roads safer for cyclists - would be over....

I agree with Boardman helmets and high visibility clothing are way down on the list of things that are truly important for greater safety on the road for cyclists.

Helmets and high vis are Personal Protective Equipment. In UK industry PPE is seen as last resort for safety, employers are obliged to use safety system's to ensure employee safety at work. For example you cannot work more than a meter off the ground using a ladder. Scaffolding has to be erected!

It is strange to me that PPE as a first resort is acceptable on our roads but not in the work place.

From a personal point of view I wear a bright yellow reflective helmet when ever I cycle. This is due to the fact that I take warfarin and aspirin to thin the blood due to two different heart conditions, so I am at greater risk of brain haemorrhage in a minor head injury (before anybody asks no I don't wear it walking in the garden or in the car (that has air bags and seat belts), as I don't do 20mph on foot, neither am I perched on a cycle so don't behave like a tit) so a minor head injury for anybody else could be life threatening for me.

So helmets are a personal choice and worn for many reasons.

I also wear a high vis reflective tabard thingy no I don't feel any safer but it keeps my wife happy and it also means that a magistrate or judge cannot say I didn't take sufficient precautions to ensure my own safety on the road.
It also gives vehicle drivers a chance to see me if I am wearing dark clothing. Mind you that only helps if they are bothering to look!!

But the most effective thing I do for safety is to cycle mainly in France as I live there and being totally honest I would seriously consider giving up cycling for some other form of exercise if I moved back to the UK as the infrastructure for cycling and driver attitude towards other forms of transport is so negative and aggressive. This opinion is formed from personal experience when cycling on UK roads and observation of other drivers actions when driving in the UK.

Anyway enough witter have fun and be safe out there

[applause for felixcat]

The only time I wear a helmet or hi-vis is when I am waving a chainsaw around; usually up a tree. I have been cycling for fifty four years - including several spells as a ''pushie'' in London - I guess I have just been in possession of the most extraordinary good fortune having never suffered the slightest injury.
I did once experience an unplanned free-fall from a very unco-operative Chestnut; the helmet certainly prevented a serious head trauma but the bleddy hi-vis was bleddy useless - five broken ribs!!!! Ouch!!!

I choose to wear a helmet to ride. I saw a friend have an innocuous accident on a cycle path... he landed head first and then onto his arm. His head was fine, his elbow was smashed. My Dad suffered a serious head injury falling backwards from the 5th stair in his house. My point is nothing is predictable and we make our own choices based on our own circumstances and beliefs. I don't agree with compulsory and I would love to see the day we have a cycling infrastructure the likes of the Netherlands. I may even choose not to wear a helmet.

On the skiing thing, i am sure i read recently a study that made the point that helmets are getting more common but there is no change in rates of head injuries. Make of that what you will.

There is a very strong correlation between helmet wearing, low cycle use and high cycling casualty rates.

The helmet countries, USA, NZ, SA, Oz have low rates of cycling, and high cyclist casualty rates.

The cycling countries, like Denmark and especially the Netherlands have low rates of helmet wearing and of cyclist casualties.

We are somewhere between these groups. I know which way I would like us to change.

"Yes I do dispute that; it is a preposterous proposition that people might choose not to cycle because they might feel pressured into having to wear a helmet (which btw they don't)."

Actually, they do feel pressured into wearing a helmet. When I did my research into helmets, I lost count of the number of times I was told "I only wear it because the wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/mother/father insists."

Given that you're wrong about that, I can't say I have much faith in any of your other statements.

Small kids,moving slowly, don't weigh much, quite close to the ground, a bit wobbly, I think they work (no science)

Bigger, faster, higher, heavier, or contact with motor vehicles, I feel they're useless and by making your head bigger may make some accidents worse and cause neck injuries.

I only wear them coz they're pro...

Re: The Dutch report.

Interestingly of all of you who responded the unanimous focus was on the "85%" number they quoted. Actually that was the least interesting number to me because it was the least empirical. However, you can quite reasonably postulate that it is not 0% either, it is some percent. Take two extreme points and somewhere in between will lie the truth. That gives you enough to conclude therefore that use of helmets in some of those cases would have mitigated head trauma. It is inescapable and the case is made.

What was more interesting was the verifiable (i.e. hard) data that approximately 18,000 Dutch children (0.11% of the population @ average of ~50 per day) went to A&E in that year and ~25% of them had head injuries.

Sort of blows the side out of the purveyed image here and by Boardman that Dutch cycling is the problem free bicycling utopia to which we should all aspire and then illogically linking this, 'ipso facto', to the non use of helmets in the manner of cause & effect.

A number of the posts on here have many of the hallmarks of the lobbying that went on in the motor bike helmet wars. Same types of arguments from the traditionalists.

Like it or not, and most of you don't it seems, helmet use in cycling is growing, will continue to grow and is a forward gear only juggernaut that ain't turning around anytime soon. You can carry on arguing against the weather if you like but it's still going to happen.

Glad to see the debate rumbled on late in to the night without me! I had to cycle home (helmetless - I survived) and set fireworks off with the kids. RTB - it seems clear that we're not going to agree so I don't see any point carrying on the discussion. Then I noticed you've brought in climate change denial and James Cracknell, so I'm definitely out of here. I pretty much agree with Joeinpoole's assessment above, but would be too polite to actually say it, so I'll leave it as let's agree to disagree. I'm going to print out a copy of this cartoon from XKCD (http://xkcd.com/386/) and stick it up next to my desk to remind me not to get involved in online debates about bicycle helmets. There are more productive ways to spend my time.

To everybody quoting "facts" and figures, do your figures include the two crashes I had in September - one that sent me flying in to a ditch with the bike landing on top of me and the second (on the very next day) that threw me in to the path of on coming traffic? I only mention it, because I'm wondering how many of these official sounding stats include all the little accidents where people get up and walk away relatively unscathed and don't report the accident or seek medical assistance? I couldn't tell you with any degree of certainty if the helmet helped or not - it all happened so quickly and whatnot - but I can tell you I did go over head first and rolled a bit, but I didn't suffer any head injuries. It is hardly a stretch of the imagination to assume that there are people out there who have had accidents and their helmets have prevented an injury that would have required medical assistance and thus appearing on your figures.

'It is hardly a stretch of the imagination to assume that there are people out there who have had accidents and their helmets have prevented an injury that would have required medical assistance and thus appearing on your figures.'

It is hardly a stretch of the imagination to assume that there are likewise plenty of unreported minor crashes involving people not wearing helmets.

LOL this is still going!!

There's a fundamental problem with trying to use statistics to prove helmet efficacy or to 'win the argument', basically because we're unable to do tests with humans under controlled conditions which replicate real riding experience and conditions.

This leaves us with data such as head injury rates in general populations and trying to correlate with helmet use, which doesn't definitively prove a cause and effect. And anecdotal evidence, which, by definition, does not stand up to empirical scrutiny . Neither is ideal, so people make judgements on use of helmets based on perception of activity risk and some assumptions about their efficacy, (as well as their own beliefs, experiences etc)

So basically, nobody is in a position to trash the reasoning of those on the other side of the argument to them, based on their 'facts', since there really aren't any concrete ones.

The argument by Boardman in this article that using a lot of PPE might be putting some people off cycling is persuasive, but I'd wager that even greater factors are the volume of traffic and lack of decent cycling infrastructure, plus number of deaths reported recently, which conspire to make cycling on UK roads seem dangerous.

Oh, and don't mandate their use as that will have unintended consequences on cycling take up.

'So basically, nobody is in a position to trash the reasoning of those on the other side of the argument to them, based on their 'facts', since there really aren't any concrete ones.'

The concrete fact here is that *nobody* can prove that their helmet saved their life. That is indisputable, unless you're a complete idiot.

Quote:

So don't be a hypocrite now: Always wear your walking helmet. Always wear your bathing helmet. Always your drinking helmet!

I actually know someone who should have worn a drinking helmet. She was drunk, at night, fell down a bank and ended up with concussion and a couple of weeks off work with a bad headache. Back to normal now (oh so perhaps she didn't need a drinking helmet).