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

Joeinpoole wrote:

RTB wrote:

Helmet use in cycling is increasing and will contiue to do so whether legislated or not. The amount of cyclists on the roads, road and MTB, is increasing and most of those (high 90 percentile - anyone disagree?) will be wearing helmets so it is there in full glare every day for people to see for themselves and make their own conclusions and perceptions as to whether cycling is dangerous or not or more pertinently whether it is for them or not. This is why I say this whole debate around helmets is a moot point in your context.

Helmet use in cycling is a forward gear only juggernaut. You cannot stop it or put it in reverse. The genie is out of the bottle and the most disappointing thing about this recent action by Boardman, who I utterly adore in every other facet, is that he is stooping to grandstanding and stunts which just undermines his substance.

No, you're wrong. The lead in utility cycling is provided by The Netherlands, where helmet use is virtually unknown and yet also has by far the best cycling safety record.

*That's* what Boardman is trying to demonstrate ... but obviously it went straight over your helmeted head.

Cycling without a helmet is not a "stunt". It's a perfectly safe and normal thing to do. I've been cycling for 50 years and it has never even occurred to me to wear a helmet.

Tonight I'll be walking to the pub to have a few drinks and then walking back home. Statistically that's a far more dangerous activity than cycling whilst sober. I'm going to take a chance though and NOT wear a helmet.

Answer me this then. Why do you almost never see children (including Boardman's children) cycling without a helmet?

RTB wrote:

Answer me this then. Why do you almost never see children (including Boardman's children) cycling without a helmet?

I think you know the answer to this really. It is because of the continual barrage of propaganda convincing people that cycling is so dangerous that their children will die if they cycle without a helmet. You have been engaged in denying that there is any propaganda so you don't want to admit this.
I was a mature cyclist when the first plastic hats appeared from the U.S. In those days we all learned to ride with very few problems on roads that we are told were much more dangerous than todays. We had no idea that we needed a helmet. Nowadays we have been convinced that the roads are too dangerous and a helmet will make them safe!

RTB wrote:

Answer me this then. Why do you almost never see children (including Boardman's children) cycling without a helmet?

And the nature of children accidents and their height mean they are probably the only group where helmets are more useful than not.

mrmo wrote:

RTB wrote:

Answer me this then. Why do you almost never see children (including Boardman's children) cycling without a helmet?

And the nature of children accidents and their height mean they are probably the only group where helmets are more useful than not.

On the other hand, I see a huge number of children wearing their helmet incorrectly (too far backwards or forwards). The disadvantages are also more pronounced due to children having a smaller & lighter head, so the weight and size increases impact them far more than adults.

So it's not clear cut that they benefit more.

RTB wrote:

Answer me this then. Why do you almost never see children (including Boardman's children) cycling without a helmet?

You'll have to ask the parents __ I can't answer for them.

All I know is that I learnt to ride a bike when aged about 6 without wearing a helmet. Instead of helmets we learned to ride on grass first before progressing to pavements when competent.

When I was growing up every kid had a bike, helmets did not exist and personally I never heard of any child incurring a serious head injury whilst cycling.

Life was so much simpler before the Elf & Safety Nazis took charge. Accepting minor risk in daily activities was merely a consequence of being alive.

Joeinpoole wrote:

RTB wrote:

Answer me this then. Why do you almost never see children (including Boardman's children) cycling without a helmet?

You'll have to ask the parents __ I can't answer for them.

All I know is that I learnt to ride a bike when aged about 6 without wearing a helmet. Instead of helmets we learned to ride on grass first before progressing to pavements when competent.

When I was growing up every kid had a bike, helmets did not exist and personally I never heard of any child incurring a serious head injury whilst cycling.

Life was so much simpler before the Elf & Safety Nazis took charge. Accepting minor risk in daily activities was merely a consequence of being alive.

Me too and each to his own as I have said repeatedly in this thread. I choose helmet you choose not, perfectly fine by me.

Btw you just proved "Godwins Law".

RTB wrote:

Answer me this then. Why do you almost never see children (including Boardman's children) cycling without a helmet?

Did you watch Newsnight on BBC2 tonight? Interesting report on mental illness in adolescents (often leading to self-harm/suicide) with one of the expert professors determining a major factor in such events to 'today's risk-adverse society'.

Recreational or utility cycling is an incredibly safe activity. You really DON'T need PPE to enjoy it. The more you promote the (utterly useless) need for PPE in cycling the fewer people will adopt or accept it as a 'normal' activity.

RTB][quote=Joeinpoole wrote:

RTB wrote:

Answer me this then. Why do you almost never see children (including Boardman's children) cycling without a helmet?

For the same reason that people don't let their kids be the only ones that cross the road on their own, or the only ones playing in the park unattended. Because by standing out from the norm on risk perception you'd be labelled the irresponsible uncaring parent.

You really don't understand how much pressure even sensible parents come under if they don't follow the herd. Whatever the arguments on helmets and their usefulness the opposite would apply. If all the other kids didn't wear a helmet then the pressure would reverse, In that case you'd be the overprotective parent that was stunting your kids' development and sense of adventure.

Luckily I'm an informed adult but arriving at work on bike without helmet I am often asked by people that maybe have never ridden a bike on a road and have been alive several decades less than I have been a road cyclists why I am not wering a helmet. I'm lucky because I'm senior enough to tell most of them to politely and couteously to do one.

Parents are not in a position to do that and there is a small chance that some idiot would start mithering about child protection and neglect and some other risk averse box ticker that wanted to make sure they were seen to be taking child protection seriously might just start looking into it. Now that may not happen but enough parents think it might happen for them to keep their heads down and fall into line.

This my friend is how a risk averse play culture comes about.

Joeinpoole wrote:

RTB wrote:

Helmet use in cycling is increasing and will contiue to do so whether legislated or not. The amount of cyclists on the roads, road and MTB, is increasing and most of those (high 90 percentile - anyone disagree?) will be wearing helmets so it is there in full glare every day for people to see for themselves and make their own conclusions and perceptions as to whether cycling is dangerous or not or more pertinently whether it is for them or not. This is why I say this whole debate around helmets is a moot point in your context.

Helmet use in cycling is a forward gear only juggernaut. You cannot stop it or put it in reverse. The genie is out of the bottle and the most disappointing thing about this recent action by Boardman, who I utterly adore in every other facet, is that he is stooping to grandstanding and stunts which just undermines his substance.

No, you're wrong. The lead in utility cycling is provided by The Netherlands, where helmet use is virtually unknown and yet also has by far the best cycling safety record.

*That's* what Boardman is trying to demonstrate ... but obviously it went straight over your helmeted head.

Cycling without a helmet is not a "stunt". It's a perfectly safe and normal thing to do. I've been cycling for 50 years and it has never even occurred to me to wear a helmet.

Tonight I'll be walking to the pub to have a few drinks and then walking back home. Statistically that's a far more dangerous activity than cycling whilst sober. I'm going to take a chance though and NOT wear a helmet.

Interesting report (1st paragraph here) from Holland which would appear to show that I am perhaps not as wrong as you would like to portray:

Dutch Foundation Report on Bicycle Helmet Promotion

Stichting Consument en Veiligheid - Netherlands

Consumer and Safety Foundation

Reports: Bicycle helmets for young children: determinants for purchase and use

Establishment Number R265 - Publication date October 2003
Available on the Web only in the original Dutch version

Context
Approximately 18,000 children present to the emergency rooms of hospitals in the Netherlands each year. About one quarter of them have head injuries. Research indicates that wearing a bicycle helmet can reduce the probability of serious head injury by 85 per cent. But only a minority of young children wear helmets while cycling. The literature gives no clear picture of the factors that motivate parents to buy a bicycle helmet, nor of the factors that motivate them to be sure their child wears the helmet once purchased. To find out more about the factors that are important in helmet wearing by four to eight year olds an investigation was conducted by Consument en Veiligheid in conjuction with Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid (SWOV), the Verenigde Verkeers Veiligheid Organisaties (3VO) and the University of Maastricht.

RTB wrote:

Interesting report (1st paragraph here) from Holland which would appear to show that I am perhaps not as wrong as you would like to portray:

Dutch Foundation Report on Bicycle Helmet Promotion
[...]
Research indicates that wearing a bicycle helmet can reduce the probability of serious head injury by 85 per cent.

This part already shows that the report is based on false science. The report showing an 85% decrease has been discredited and any report using that figure is clearly biased. If you know the limited working range of helmets, that figure is quite absurd and simply cannot be true. It would mean that bicycle helmets are more effective than seat belts, which were proven to work by huge improvements in accident statistics when they were made mandatory. This in contrast to helmet laws, which had no clear positive impact on accident statistics. This simply doesn't compute.

In fact, the name of the report shows the bias already. Any report on 'Bicycle Helmet Promotion' will of course focus on promotion, not on evaluation.

BTW, there is a newer Dutch report from 2009 on helmets for children and it concludes that cycling helmets only work in one-sided accidents and not for car-bike collisions (first result when you google "Consument en Veiligheid helm" , click translate to read in semi-English). It also never mentions that 85% decrease, but 45%, so they already figured out that their previous claim was too obviously a lie.

RTB wrote:

... Research indicates that wearing a bicycle helmet can reduce the probability of serious head injury by 85 per cent. ....

That 85% figure is BS I've seen it bandied about before and I've heard that the study that led to it was flawed and biased.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html

http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/why-helmet-laws-fail/law-failure-4

The 85% figure was based upon totally faulty logic.

kie7077 wrote:

That 85% figure is BS I've seen it bandied about before and I've heard that the study that led to it was flawed and biased.

This figure comes from the Thompson, Rivara, Thompson 1989 Seattle study. Quoting the figure is a sign of wilful credulity or a lack of scruple. Even the authors have had to revise their figures down to 69% effectiveness.
It also needs to be asked, if helmets are so effective why can't we tell in whole population studies, like the "experiments" in NZ and Oz.
The study has the faults that case controlled studies are prone to, unless very carefully controlled.
Basically it compares two groups of cyclist, one helmeted the other not, and their accidents. A useful result depends on the two groups being alike in all other relevant ways except the variable being studied.
The helmeted cyclists tended to be middle class children with health insurance and relatively wealthy and educated parents. The helmetless were less likely to be riding as carefully or in a similar environment.
The figures and method used in the study can be used to show that helmets prevent 72% of non head injuries!

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html

RTB wrote:

Joeinpoole wrote:

RTB wrote:

Helmet use in cycling is increasing and will contiue to do so whether legislated or not. The amount of cyclists on the roads, road and MTB, is increasing and most of those (high 90 percentile - anyone disagree?) will be wearing helmets so it is there in full glare every day for people to see for themselves and make their own conclusions and perceptions as to whether cycling is dangerous or not or more pertinently whether it is for them or not. This is why I say this whole debate around helmets is a moot point in your context.

Helmet use in cycling is a forward gear only juggernaut. You cannot stop it or put it in reverse. The genie is out of the bottle and the most disappointing thing about this recent action by Boardman, who I utterly adore in every other facet, is that he is stooping to grandstanding and stunts which just undermines his substance.

No, you're wrong. The lead in utility cycling is provided by The Netherlands, where helmet use is virtually unknown and yet also has by far the best cycling safety record.

*That's* what Boardman is trying to demonstrate ... but obviously it went straight over your helmeted head.

Cycling without a helmet is not a "stunt". It's a perfectly safe and normal thing to do. I've been cycling for 50 years and it has never even occurred to me to wear a helmet.

Tonight I'll be walking to the pub to have a few drinks and then walking back home. Statistically that's a far more dangerous activity than cycling whilst sober. I'm going to take a chance though and NOT wear a helmet.

Interesting report (1st paragraph here) from Holland which would appear to show that I am perhaps not as wrong as you would like to portray:

Dutch Foundation Report on Bicycle Helmet Promotion

Stichting Consument en Veiligheid - Netherlands

Consumer and Safety Foundation

Reports: Bicycle helmets for young children: determinants for purchase and use

Establishment Number R265 - Publication date October 2003
Available on the Web only in the original Dutch version

Context
Approximately 18,000 children present to the emergency rooms of hospitals in the Netherlands each year. About one quarter of them have head injuries. Research indicates that wearing a bicycle helmet can reduce the probability of serious head injury by 85 per cent. But only a minority of young children wear helmets while cycling. The literature gives no clear picture of the factors that motivate parents to buy a bicycle helmet, nor of the factors that motivate them to be sure their child wears the helmet once purchased. To find out more about the factors that are important in helmet wearing by four to eight year olds an investigation was conducted by Consument en Veiligheid in conjuction with Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid (SWOV), the Verenigde Verkeers Veiligheid Organisaties (3VO) and the University of Maastricht.

Head injuries is pretty broad as a category. So let's break this down.

18,000 kids in NL go to A&E
25% of those have a head injury of some sort that's 4500 head injuries across the spectrum of head injuries.
As you know all head injuries of any serious at all are automatically sent to A&E if they come into the health system.
As a rugby coach I have routinely sent kids to A&E as is the recommended practice for any blow to the head.

So what we know is that in the netherlands where helmet use is far less prevailent only 4500 kids end up in A&E with any kind of head wound at all and that figure is exaggerated particularly at the lower end by the practice of routinely sending kids to A&E even for very minor head injuries. It's further inflated by the category "children" who are far more likely to suffer minor injuries in play and activity than adults. does the term "look mum no hands" mean anything to you.

Since I started cycling as a child I have suffered a broken collar bone, spokes going through my arm, countless bruises and cuts. Hardly any of those in the 80's 90's naughties apart from the odd off on ice and slippery paint. Almost all of them before I was 18. I have never had a head injury through cycling. Not on the road, commuting, racing, not in crits, on the track, through 7 season of CX (without a helmet). Or ten years messing about on an MTB (with a helmet) not in 41 years as a club cyclist and the last 5 commuting all seasons 25 miles a day.

Widespread helmet use is entirely irrelevant to road safety. About as useful as the splash of Holy Water my mum insisted on providing me whenever I went out on my bike or the double splash if I was racing.

Oh hang on a moment maybe it was the holy water that saved me from all those head injuries....? Hmmm Food for thought.

RTB wrote:

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). Either people want to cycle or not and if the suggestion that the only (or major) thing preventing them doing it is having to wear a helmet (or to spend 20, 30 etc quid on one) was the showstopper then I would suggest they were never that serious or motivated in the first place about wanting to cycle.

I don't think anyone has said that people are not choosing to cycle because they might feel pressured ... This is what is called a straw man.
What people are saying is that helmet promotion necessarily depends on convincing prospective cyclists that cycling is so much more dangerous than other methods of getting to work, the shops or to school, that they need to wear a special helmet.

This helmet is jeered at by many and some women don't want their hair do flattened. It is a mark of difference in our society and a pain in the bum when off the bike.

Some prospective cyclists may be unsure (not that serious as you put it) and wavering. We need to get them on their bikes too.

RTB wrote:

graham_f wrote:

RTB wrote:

You make the same mistake as so many others on here by confusing objectives, i.e. wanting to promote cycling (entirely laudable) with the use of helmets as an inhibitor (different subject entirely).

But the two are inextricably linked! The promotion (or worse, the mandating) of helmets for cycling reinforces the view that cycling is a dangerous activity, which in turn can and does discourage people from cycling, working against the promotion of cycling.

No Graham they are not "inextricably linked" they are tenuously (loosely) linked at the most.

So many posters on here seem to be peddling the argument, like Boardman, 'don't force people to wear cycling helmets lest you will disincentivise them from taking up cycling'. It is so lame it is naff.

It is big levers like Olympic & TdF success, increased TV exposure, high profile women's teams and stars like Vicky, Laura, Dani and Joanna that incentivise people (notably women) to take up the sport/pastime not in/out red-herrings like use of helmets which are, as most would acknowledge, an inherently sensible measure.

I agree with you on this but only when we are talking about encouraging cycling as a sport/pastime. For sports cyclists a helmet is part of the uniform and in this branch of cycling the helmet debate is a non-issue (does it even exist?). I honestly don't think there are many who choose not to race or ride sportives because of the helmet compulsion that exists.

However, when we are talking about getting people to cycle to work/school/the shops etc. it doesn't apply. I don't believe that the Olympics or the Tours are major drivers for utility cycling. If anything they probably do it a disservice by portraying cycling as something only for the super-fit who are brave enough to descend at 50+mph.

I'd also conceed that there is nothing unsensible about wearing a helmet when cycling. There's also nothing unsensible about wearing one when walking, driving, running, climbing stairs or binge-drinking. The important point is about net impact of helmet use/compulsion/psudo compulsion on the attidude of the general public towards cycling.

mrmo wrote:

700c wrote:

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.

Not quite, Boardman's argument is stop talking about PPE until we have sorted out the rest of the solution. Deal with traffic, deal with infrastructure, etc. Look at how much time and effort has been wasted in this thread, and countless other ones.

There is no evidence that helmets are a good thing overall, there is plenty of evidence that not being hit by a car is a good thing. However, rather than deal with the elephant in the room, everyone is focusing on the pointless solution that may not work.

Obviously cycle paths cost money, policing costs money, helmets, well the victim is picking up the tab and government takes the credit by being seen to do something.

Here here. Let's get on with the not being run over thing!