- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Chris Boardman being interviewedComplaints over bare-headed Chris Boardman’s helmetless BBC Breakfast bike ride
Chris Boardman’s appearance on BBC Breakfast this morning has provoked a flurry of complaints about his not wearing a cycle helmet – even though the segment began with him explaining why he chose not to do so. In a detailed explanation this afternoon, Boardman says that while the reaction was "understandable," it is also "unfortunate because it obscures what I believe are the real issues."
The early morning TV show is featuring a report on cycling each day this week. It is broadcast from Salford, close to the Manchester headquarters of British Cycling, where former Olympic champion Boardman is policy advisor.
Prior to going on a bike ride with him, presenter Louise Minchin asked Boardman, “Viewers will notice I will be wearing a helmet but you won’t. Why not?”
He replied: “It’s a very long answer and more time than we’ve got here," before summarising his position briefly.
“It discourages people from riding a bike, you’re as safe riding a bike as you are walking, statistically, you’re much safer than you are going in your own bathroom and you don’t wear a helmet there," he explained.
“There’s absolutely nothing wrong with helmets, but it’s not in the top ten things that you can do to keep safe.
“We’re going to look at all of those things, but for me, I want bikes to be for normal people in normal clothes.
“About 0.5 per cent of people wear one in the Netherlands, yet it’s the safest country in the world,” he added.
“There’s a reason for that.”
Despite his explanation, the backlash on social media was predictable, many pointing out that the Netherlands already has the type of infrastructure that Boardman and others are campaigning for in the UK.
One Facebook user, John Stimpson, said: “Chris Boardman wearing no helmet and riding in black jacket and jeans. For an item on cycling safety you can't get more stupid.”
Another, Toni Smith, said: “How can you show a piece about cycling safety when the ex-champion is not wearing any safety gear? This is not acceptable! Please in the future choose an ambassador who practices what they preach!”
Many others leapt to his defence, however, with Morgan Lewis saying: “For all those people expressing outrage, I wonder if you have spent the same amount of time looking at the evidence about helmets over the years as Chris Boardman has. His view is not idly held. There is a lot of knee-jerking in these comments.”
Jonathan Richards pointed out: “About two thirds of fatalities WITHIN cars are caused by head injuries - why not a call for compulsory helmets for those travelling in cars? And as for pedestrians ....”
Meanwhile, Chris Myrie couldn’t resist asking: “Does this mean his £80 endorsed helmets from Halfords are useless?”
There was a similar division in reaction to his comments on Twitter, where Boardman himself tweeted this morning after the show: “Hi All, rather than try to address the helmet debate (again) I'm going to pen something for people to read and point you to it this PM.”
That response has now been published on the British Cycling website. Boardman acknowledged the BBC Breakfast piece had “got a lot of people fired up,” and that “my riding a bicycle in normal clothing, looking like a normal person was greeted by some with cries of horror. It’s both understandable and unfortunate because it obscures what I believe are the real issues.”
Foremost among those issues is why some cyclists in the UK believe they should have to wear a helmet while cycling in the first place, he said.
“People wear helmets and high vis as they feel it’s all they can do to keep themselves safe. It shows just how far away Britain is from embracing cycling as a normal and convenient form of transport,” he added.
Pointing to the example of Utrecht in the Netherlands and providing a link to a video of people cycling there he went on: “I’m willing to bet that even those that swear by helmets and high vis would feel comfortable discarding their body armour in such an environment. And that’s the point; in Utrecht they have addressed the real dangers to cyclists.”
While he admitted that the situation in the UK is vastly different, he said helmet compulsion was not the answer, citing drops of between 30 and 50 per cent in countries such as Australia and New Zealand that had introduced such legislation.
“If cycling looks and feels normal, more people will cycle,” he said. The more people cycle, the safer they are - the safety in numbers effect. The more people cycle, the more lives will be saved from amongst the 37,000 that die each year from obesity-related illnesses. Never mind the more than 27,000 that die annually from pollution-related illnesses.”
Boardman said he understands “exactly why people feel so passionately about helmets or high vis,” and “why people wish to use them,” but said he would not promote helmets or hi-vis nor be drawn into a debate on a topic that he considers “isn’t even in the top 10 things that will really keep people who want to cycle safe.”
He added: “I want cycling in the UK to be like it is in Utrecht or Copenhagen and more recently New York City – an everyday thing that people can do in everyday clothes whether you are eight or 80 years old. I want cycling to be a normal thing that normal people do in normal clothes. Is that wrong?”
In the BBC Breakfast report itself, Boardman outlined his top tips for cycling safely including planning your route, how to negotiate junctions and roundabouts safely, road position, stopping at red lights and giving large vehicles plenty of space and not going up the left-hand side of them.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- hawkinspeter 1 sec ago
A group of Engineering professors were invited to fly in a plane. Right after they were comfortably seated, they were informed the plane was built...
- David9694 6 min 53 sec ago
Yeah, this whole thing can really just get to fuck. But that's what we're up against - the normalisation of the plucky chancer driver, the...
- don simon fbpe 1 hour 32 min ago
There are times when I think that these right whinger accounts are left wingers in drag, the aguments they espouse are so ridiculous, or don't...
- Cayo 1 hour 35 min ago
Or any non-drivist. A few years back, I was walking and crossing a side road not far from home. The road has particularly wide corners, especially...
- Backladder 1 hour 50 min ago
Doesn't quite meet the standard of "unavoidable" though does it?
- wtjs 2 hours 19 min ago
This was it in November 2022. Now you see the futility of reporting things to the police or DVLA
- katar_6 2 hours 24 min ago
I'm trying to login at my mobile and it says I need to subscreve. What should I do?
- wtjs 3 hours 49 min ago
I can tell you exactly what LC will be doing about that offence: nothing. I used to get letters like those- in fact, exactly like that. When you...
- Geoff Ingram 4 hours 56 min ago
I was trying to be funny. OK, I accept it was a pretty weak attempt.
Add new comment
287 comments
It's the age old tale.
A minority or simply people deemed as being different or of less worth are being persecuted and singled out for mistreatment simply because arse holes can get away with it.
When brought to task about the issue they quickly engage in victim blaming with various lovely comments such as
"they should try and act less gay in public and they won't be assaulted"
"you should not go out wearing a short skirt"
"they didn't have a hi-viz vest or helmet on"
"I pay road tax..."
It's the same attitude entirely.
Well, maybe you should think about it, and try and find out why some other people believe that helmets are useless and irrelvant.
cyclehelmets.org would be a start to your education.
Here is a quotation from the New York Times
"A Bicycling Mystery: Head Injuries Piling Up
By JULIAN E. BARNES
Published: July 29, 2001
"Millions of parents take it as an article of faith that putting a bicycle helmet on their children, or themselves, will help keep them out of harm's way.
But new data on bicycle accidents raises questions about that. The number of head injuries has increased 10 percent since 1991, even as bicycle helmet use has risen sharply, according to figures compiled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But given that ridership has declined over the same period, the rate of head injuries per active cyclist has increased 51 percent just as bicycle helmets have become widespread.
What is going on here? No one is very sure, but safety experts stress that while helmets do not prevent accidents from happening, they are extremely effective at reducing the severity of head injuries when they do occur. Almost no one suggests that riders should stop wearing helmets, which researchers have found can reduce the severity of brain injuries by as much as 88 percent.
Still, with fewer people riding bicycles, experts are mystified as to why injuries are on the rise. ''It's puzzling to me that we can't find the benefit of bike helmets here,'' said Ronald L. Medford, the assistant executive director of the safety commission's hazard identification office."
You have a very black and white view of the world. Real life does not always fit your limited understanding. I will have to accept I don't have your respect. I think I will live.
Here is some discussion of NZ's helmet law.
http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/17/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law/
http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/27/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-l...
The evidence is that the law is associated with a reduction in cycling and an increase in casualty rates. The same happened in Australia.
There have been some "experiments". Australian laws increased the wearing rate from about 33% to well over 90%. One might expect that if helmets work the effect would be very clear. It was not. The number of cyclists decreased considerably, and the rate of head injuries increased.
This may not be a proper study, but it looks pretty unequivocal to me.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
There is something called Freedom of Choice you fascist.
Why? He hasn't told people not to wear helmets, or not to buy his helmets, or that the helmets with his name on are rubbish. He's just said that there are more important things to worry about. Which is true.
The abuse is all from one side, and from one person.
I think that, more or less, is the point Boardman's making about the whole helmet debate - it's just a distraction from the real issues.
This is what you would expect if you looked at cycle helmet wearing. Neither compulsion nor voluntary wearing has had the hoped for effect.
Nobody claims that the Netherlands is a "problem free cycling utopia". What it represents in this discussion is a country with a cycling casualty rate a fraction of ours achieved not by wearing helmets. As opposed to certain other countries which have over 90% helmet wearing and casualty rates a multiple of ours. This makes it absolutely clear that helmets are not the answer.
The insistence on helmets is the product of a road culture which proritises driving and resists effective measures which work elsewhere, in favour of measures which work nowhere. This is perverse. The comment from Boardman repeated by several posters in this thread, that helmets are a diversion from relevant and effective policies is very much to the point.
Of course there are accidents in the Netherlands too. Nobody claims otherwise. Its interesting though that helmeted Dutch cyclists have a higher accident rate than the general population of cyclists.
The point about quoting the 85% effectiveness rate is that it shows a lack of regard for the science. Anyone still using it is either ill informed or unscrupulous.
Lets not get into arguing about motorbike helmets. That would be too much.
You are convinced GB will go the way of Oz and NZ, not the way of N or DK.
You may be right, but I think this would be a very bad thing. The Antipodes are places where many fewer people cycle at a much greater risk. Helmet wearing is not the way to go, and does not save lives or increase cycling. There is no reason why we cannot go in the Dutch direction, it is quite possible and much preferable.
You mention the weather. Climate change is another good reason to promote cycling.
Agreed. However, data aside, it is certainly acceptable to 'trash' another persons poor reasoning skills - especially if they lead somebody to make a decision that could impact their safety in a negative way.
There's been a lot of posts towards the end of this thread that I haven't read, but as far as I could tell, NOBODY here was mandating anything. If I've missed that post somewhere I apologise. Some people here have pushed logic and reasoning to the most extreme lengths because they seem to be under the impression that anybody who suggests that it's is beneficial to wear a helmet is automatically advocating for their enforcement - which simply is not the case.
Ha! Love it! That is a concrete fact. That there is no concrete proof to prove they *won't* save your life is a concrete fact too!
Or are you unwilling to accept that?!
Felixcat, any kind of rational discussion with you is a futile exercise. You are a moron.
I think the Austrailian studies and similar NZ discussions in the rdrf links are properly equivocal in that they put forward reasoned possible causes for the figures. What they don't do, and don't pretend to do, is deal in isolation with the ability of a cycle helmet to prevent certain injuries which is perhaps more what Condor flyer was talking about (apologies if not).
Helmets can arguably help in some cases, e.g. lacerations of the scalp, 'rebound' concussion injury and maybe equally arguably make things worse in others, e.g. concussion due to tangential strikes, neck injuries and so on. These studies deal with much broader, and probably more immediately important, issues. Fall off your bike on your tod and a helmet may make a much appreciated difference, get in an argument with a bus or van at any significantly velocity and it will probably make zero difference to the outcome, impose a blanket ban on riding without a helmet and you fuck things up for all manner of non-mechanical reasons.
Hey, that's my take on it anyway.
Wow, that sounds like an attack from a lofty height. Have I touched a nerve? First off, I never denied anybody their freedom of choice. Secondly, what the heck has "fascist" got to do with my statement?
You have not addressed the central point in this instance that 25% of 18k children suffered head trauma that could have been mitigated down by some percent (both numbers and severity) had they been wearing a helmet.
It is an inescapable conclusion both in Holland and everywhere else. Helmets are not a panacea and not anywhere have I stated that they are. Pure and simple wearing a helmet will reduce risk (some risk not all risk), mitigate some head trauma and in some cases save life. Even if just one life is saved or just one head trauma avoided it is enough to make the case.
Earth's climate has been in constant change for 5 Billion years another specious argument so let's not go there shall we.
No I am not convinced UK will go the way of Oz/NZ and nor do I care one way or the other. As I said way earlier my perspective is free choice.
I am not sure you can make a statement "helmet wearing does not save lives". James Cracknell for one would not and does not agree with such a statement. In his own words..."I wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for a helmet."
If you read some of the comments, some are arguing you are an idiot for not wearing a helmet, which is pretty close.
The issue as i see it, helmets are the wrong topic for discussion. As Boardman has said not even in the top 10 issues. If you want to make the roads safer deal with the problem, cars, and how cyclists interact with them. You don't begin solving a problem by looking at the victim and blaming them. If after making the roads safer, there is a issue with cyclists and head injuries then maybe have a look at helmets. In any workplace PPE is always the last remedy if no other solution can be found.
There is no evidence that a helmet will save your life, or not save your life, there are certification guidelines which demand performance that is no where near some of the demands being placed on helmets. So whilst a helmet MAY help, the impact in a car crash will be so much more than the helmet can cope with it is simply not possible to say a helmet will help.
Does ask the question, what is the point of certification that is basically not fit for purpose?
I am deeply wounded but I may well recover.
That is absolute fucking nonsense. By that measure we would also ban cars, trains, ferries, aircraft, etc ... because "if just one life is saved or just one head trauma avoided it is enough to make the case".
We should also ban drinking alcohol, stairs, meat-eating, skateboards, skiing, rock climbing, surfing, etc, too ... because "if just one life is saved or just one head trauma avoided it is enough to make the case".
You Sir are an idiotic wanker.
For a long time, bleeding was used to treat patients with a fever, since it obviously worked: the temperature of the body went down. Many people swore it saved (their) lives.
Then someone decided to do an experiment, checking the outcomes of patients that were bled and those that weren't. Bled patients died at an alarmingly higher rate (because as was later learned, a fever is part of how the body fights off infections). The people who claimed that bleeding helped them survive actually would have survived anyway, they just had less chance to do so.
The lesson here is that it is very easy to come to conclusions based on anecdotes and common sense that are completely false. People greatly overestimate how significant their personal experiences are, even though their observations are often flawed. An example is how the belief in global warming goes down during a cold winter, even though most places have far fewer cold winters than ever before. Yet many people overvalue their short-term experiences and fail to see the longer trend.
This is why anecdotal evidence is usually worthless.
@Joeinpoole
That last line is completely unnecessary and detracts from your argument.
Its also grammatically incorrect!
He had no argument, never did just lots of p*** & wind and a foul mouthed, insulting rant at the end. At least others engaged in rational, reasonable debate putting points and counter points with a modicum of respect. There will always be oiks though wherever you go in life.
One thing we do share common ground on is passion for cycling and a wish to see its growth.
Whoa there big man. Couple of pints and the true bloke emerges eh. Hope the wife/partner avoided a slapping from Mr. Angry.
He might not agree with the statement, but he's completely wrong in his own statement. Nobody, not Crackers, not his doctors, not you or I or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, know if he'd be alive or not had he not been wearing a helmet.
That's because 90% of the helmeted cyclists in Holland are on racing bikes or MTB's and take more risks than utility cyclists on Dutch bikes.
I expect newer accident rates to change though, as more people are using electric bikes without helmets. They have more speed and more often go at speeds beyond their control (especially the elderly). They also rarely wear helmets.
But the fact that the accident rates for helmets are mostly determined by the behavior of the group wearing them is a good indicator that their usefulness is not that significant.
PS. Shorthand for The Netherlands is NL, not N (which is Norway)
Pages