Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Almost 9 in 10 people back headphones ban and compulsory helmets for cyclists say survey

Support for both measures from majority of cyclists too in new YouGov poll

A poll conducted for The Sunday Times has found that almost nine in ten people (89 per cent) think cyclists should be banned from wearing headphones, and almost as many (85 per cent) believe cycle helmets should be compulsory.

The majority of respondents who describe themselves as “more cyclist than motorist” in the survey of 1,867 people conducted by YouGov agreed with those views.

59 per cent of those respondents agreed that wearing of helmets should be compulsory, an issue that is regularly the subject of fierce debate among riders, and 67 per cent of them said that there should be a ban on headphones.

The latter issue was in the news last week after Mayor of London Boris Johnson said in a radio interview about the safety of cyclists that he would be in favour of riders being banned from wearing headphones.

Other findings of the survey include that two thirds of all respondents – rising to three in four of those considered themselves cyclists first and foremost – believe that lorries should be banned from cities during rush hour, something British Cycling's Chris Boardman called for last week in an open letter to Mr Johnson.

Several things differentiate the YouGov survey from some others we have reported on road.cc.

First, respondents aren’t self-selected, as many opt-in internet-based polls are, and which tend to encourage only those with a strong opinion one way or another to respond.

Also, as well as splitting out responses by standard demographic breaks such as gender, age, social grade and region, it also divides them by voting intentions as well as by “motorists,” “people who regularly use a bicycle,” and those who are “more cyclist than motorist.”

How does YouGov separate those categories? Well, it’s based on a question that asks respondents to state:

I regularly drive a motor vehicle and do NOT regularly use a bicycle (60 per cent)

I regularly use both a motor vehicle and a bicycle, but I generally use my motor vehicle more often than my bike (9 per cent)

I regularly use both a motor vehicle and a bicycle, but I generally use my bicycle more often than my motor vehicle (3 per cent)

I regularly ride a bicycle and do NOT regularly drive a motor vehicle (4 per cent)

I do not regularly use either (25 per cent)

As a result, 60 per cent of YouGov’s weighted sample fall into the category it terms “motorists” and 15 per cent are “people who regularly use a bicycle,” including 7 per cent who are “more cyclist than driver.”

Asked, “What do you believe is the most common cause of cycling accidents [sic],” 36 per cent of people said “poor standards of cycling by cyclists,” while 22 per cent cited “poor standards of driving by motorists” and 11 per cent went for each of “badly designed roads” and “too many lorries and other large vehicles on the roads.”

Analysis of police reports in incidents in which cyclists were killed or injured carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory in 2009 found that reckless riding was responsible for only a small percentage of collisions, with police attributing blame to the motorist in around three out of four cases.

As happened across most of the questions, there was a polarity in responses among those considering themselves cyclists or drivers.

Some 41 per cent of motorists blamed poor standards of cycling, and just 20 per cent driving; among regular bike riders, 20 per cent said cyclists were to blame and 30 per cent drivers, and there was an even greater gap among those defined as more cyclist than motorist – 13 per cent versus 36 per cent.

Other responses highlight that different perceptions of road safety exist depending on whether you’re more used to being behind the steering wheel or on the saddle of a bike.

Only 1 per cent of motorists thought badly designed roads are the most common cause of cycling accidents, but that rose to 9 per cent of regular cyclists and 14 per cent of those who are more cyclist than motorist.

Bad upkeep of roads (e.g. potholes) was thought to be a factor by 4 per cent of motorists, but 8 per cent of regular cyclists and 10 per cent of those who are more cyclist than motorist; conversely, drivers were much more likely to see pedestrians as being to blame for cycling accidents than cyclists were, at 11 per cent versus 6 per cent of regular cyclists and 5 per cent of people who are more cyclist than motorist.

Other questions addressed issues including whether sentences for both drivers and cyclists breaking road laws are tough enough, presumed liability, publishing accident data and details of accident blackspots online, increasing the number of cycle lanes, and whether there should be early-start traffic lights for cyclists.

You can find the complete results of the YouGov survey, including the full breakdown of responses by demographic groups and voting intentions, here.

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.

Add new comment

126 comments

Avatar
felixcat | 10 years ago
0 likes

If helmets protect, why can't we tell? When wearing in Oz trebled because of the law casualty rates did not change.
What is the explanation for this.
In none of the jurisdictions where helmets have been made mandatory has there been a clear reduction in casualty rates. How can this be?

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde | 10 years ago
0 likes

You want a proof negative, which you can't tell. How do we know if air bags save lives, how do we know live boats save lives? Well you can't tell how many people survived an incident, unless there is statistics which show that following seat belts/live boats introduction that significant numbers have avoided dying by the same means. The problem with statistics around bike helmets is that it is likely that no one reports their bike accident because they survived and didn't require hospital treatment, and this is the trick.

But, do you really think a bike helmet does nothing? And has never helped? I don't think you can argue that it doesn't and never has. I'm not saying how significant it is, but you make yourself look ridiculous by saying that it doesn't protect. You can make your educated choice about wearing one every time you go out, I'm not stopping you. But you cannot deny 'a helmet affords a greater level of protection to your head, than not wearing a helmet at all'. The question over how effective it is warding against the average cycling injury is a different question. And whether the compulsory wearing of one has a positive effect on cycling is another. The debates by 'experts' generally come down to the later - trading off the safety aspect against the deterrent of an unwanted expense.

Repeated studies are roughly inconclusive, with a possible bias set into the study, with statistics difficult to obtain. ER and brain specialists have come out in favour, and other medical 'experts' not - I don't dispute that it is unclear, I just dispute the fact that people completely disregard them and say there is no benefit to wearing them. That is false - you'd have to tell me that my friends would not have smashed their heads open when they fell off their bikes and hit their helmets instead.

Avatar
hood | 10 years ago
0 likes

I saw someone wearing a cycling helmet backwards once, that was funny as f***!!!  4

Avatar
felixcat replied to Colin Peyresourde | 10 years ago
0 likes

The number of road deaths in a country, or any other population level statistic, can be forecast with a surprising degree of accuracy. Look at a graph of road deaths. Allowing for the general trend the number of, deaths is predictable, given a large number.
Any road safety intervention which is as sudden and as definite as putting a large number of cyclists into helmets who were not wearing them before ought to produce a corresponding reduction in injiries or deaths.
If someone has an accident which helmetless would have produced an injury, but now is saved by the hat there will be a reduction in the collected figures.
When the trend in casualties is unaffected by the large scale intervention the conclusion has to be that if some injuries were averted, then others must have been caused.
The difference in efficacy as calculated by case controlled studies and population level studies really does need an explanation.
The notorious 1989 Thompson, Rivara and Thompson study claimed that helmets could save 85% of head injuries. It is still quoted by helmet proponents. If this was true it would have made a huge impact on the national figures and put paid to any dispute.
No jurisdiction has produced a fall in casualties. It is highly unlikely that they all have coincidental confounding variables.
Published data from across Alberta shows how the province's child helmet law has reduced child cycling by around 56% while at the same time the absolute number of injuries has gone up.
For example, in the state of Western Australia where bicycle helmets have been mandatory for all ages since July 1992, the annual cyclist death toll from 1987 to 1991 (pre-law) averaged 7.6 fatalities per year. From 1993 to 1997 (post-law) it was 6.4 fatalities per year, representing a 16% reduction (Meuleners, Gavin and Cercarelli, 2003). However, Government cycling surveys show cycling declined in Western Australia by approximately 30% during the 1990s following mandatory helmet law enforcement . Thus, relative to cycle use, fatalities went up, not down.
Individual cases are anecdotal and superficially persuasive. It is impossible to prove benefit without repeating the accident without a helmet, and this is impossible too. They are scientifically equivalent to the healthy eighty year old chain smoker stories.

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde replied to felixcat | 10 years ago
0 likes

But are you saying a helmet has no safety benefit?

Fatalities and head injuries are two different things. You can correlate the figures regarding road deaths to helmet use, but again, you don't have statistics on reduction in hospitalised head injuries. I've read this about Australia, but the reports are inconclusive because of the proof negative problem. The only thing that is recognised is the fall in cycle usage. My Australian friends have told me how dangerous cycling in Australia is. I know how Matthew Pinsent feels about wearing a helmet after being hit by a truck in the head while cycling in the US. He still wears one now.

Avatar
felixcat replied to Colin Peyresourde | 10 years ago
0 likes

I am not saying that helmets have no protective effect. What the figures show is that if they do protect, then something must be cancelling it out. Maybe helmets cause an equivalent number of injuries. Perhaps risk compensation operates. What is your explanation?
It is those who say that helmets don't work who have the problem of trying to prove a negative. All we can say is that it is impossible to show they work. The pro-helmet people have a positive to prove.
It is not only in Oz that a law has failed to lead to demonstrable injury reductions. In none of the law countries has there been a reduction. I mention two in my last post.
I know that Oz is a dangerous country for cyclists. All the compulsion countries are. In none of them has the law changed this.
I have not posted citations and figures here, in an attempt to make the subject less tedious. You can find them at cyclehelmets.org. If you are really open minded I will dig them up for you. Enough to say that quibbling about "hospitalised head injuries" does not obscure the force of the figures.

Avatar
Ush replied to Colin Peyresourde | 10 years ago
0 likes
Colin Peyresourde wrote:

You want a proof negative, which you can't tell.

No. If the claim is that helmets reduce head injuries then it's a matter of comparing the head injury rate in high-helmet populations versus that in low-injury populations. We can do this, albeit with the proviso that there may be other variables to account for in the two populations, by comparing Australia, N.Z., Canada (N.S., B.C.) versus the USA. It is not possible to show that there is a difference.

Helmets have not been shown to have a clear protective effect (whether against their actual test scenario or the more fanciful magic capabilities such as deflecting trucks as you mention).

By all means wear one if you wish. But, please, don't talk ignorant rubbish. It matters because you're helping to convince the other eejits that don't know how to think. End of.

Avatar
a.jumper replied to Colin Peyresourde | 10 years ago
0 likes
Colin Peyresourde wrote:

You want a proof negative, which you can't tell.

No, I just want the A&E evidence that you made up... sorry, I mean that you mentioned.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

But, do you really think a bike helmet does nothing? And has never helped? I don't think you can argue that it doesn't and never has. I'm not saying how significant it is, but you make yourself look ridiculous by saying that it doesn't protect.

Well, a helmet does protect in a slow-speed gudied freefall onto a flat surface or a kerb, so it clearly does something and will help if you have that sort of silly crash. So I'm not saying either of those: I'm saying that, taking all effects together, it appears at best completely uncertain that helmets do more good than harm - in other words, I don't think there's any net benefit been shown yet.

We can dance around it by modifying the claim. You seem to have tried claiming that there's a net benefit to head injuries, but even that weaker claim doesn't seem clear from what I've read and there's been only hand-waving at A&E figures to support it in this discussion.

Avatar
GoingRoundInCycles | 10 years ago
0 likes

I am not surprised by the overwhelming opposition to the imposition of strict liability for motorists in the event of an accident involving a cyclist. There wasn't even a majority in favour amongst the 'more cyclist than motorist' group. I agree, it goes totally against the principle of innocent until proven guilty that is fundamental to the British justice system.

I did raise an eyebrow at the 59% who think that punishments should be harsher for cyclists that 'cause accidents'. If we are talking about pedestrians, perhaps fair enough. Otherwise, I would have thought that (serious) injury / death was probably a harsh enough outcome for the kamikaze cyclist.

Avatar
Neil753 | 10 years ago
0 likes

We can all see how this is going, can't we? The slow, insidious creep towards compulsory helmets. But there may be an answer.

If we are being forced down the "data shows that helmets will save cyclists' lives" route, then the same data gathering methodology will also show that drivers' lives will be saved too, if they also wear helmets. And far more drivers die directly as a result of head injuries than cyclists.

We should be using this clear and unequivocal fact, wherever this thorny issue is raised, because it's one of the most powerful arguments that we have at our disposal.

Avatar
a.jumper | 10 years ago
0 likes

So this YouGov "survey" contains between 75 and 280 cyclists, depending how you cut it. Rather a high risk of atypical results with such a small sample, so subdividing the responses like in this start of this road.cc article is rather inappropriate: the error margins are just too high once you do that.

Avatar
jarredscycling | 10 years ago
0 likes

Why can't this topic just be left alone and up to personal choice

Avatar
James Warrener | 10 years ago
0 likes

I completely agree about headphones.

The amount of other riders you say "morning" to who are really close but can't hear you is growing.

(unscientifically)

Avatar
Pub bike | 10 years ago
0 likes

Whilst I never wear headphones whilst cycling, it makes no sense that cyclists are somehow asking to be run over by wearing them. Surely the driver behind must take care to look where they are going?

If I’m rear ended, does it matter that I could hear that I was going to be rear-ended a few moments before it happens or should I just accept that motor vehicles can bully me off the road?

On the other hand it is too scary listening to the noise of cars accelerating behind me and motorcycles revving their engines impatiently trying to hint to me to get out the way because I don’t pay road tax have insurance etc. (yawn).

I think I’m going to start wearing headphones as it will my make commute more pleasant.  17

PS: How does wearing headphones make me less visible to motorists?

Avatar
allez neg | 10 years ago
0 likes

As an aside it'd be interesting to know of the incidences of head injuries in the pro peloton pre and post helmet compulsion and see if they've gone up or down.

Avatar
Martin Badger | 10 years ago
0 likes

As a regular commuter to work I play any music I want through the MP3 player and speaker on my phone. I play the volume at full blast. On the busy road I can just about hear it, but on the Canal banks its fine. I don't think it disturbs any pedestrians as they tend to have earbuds in anyway.

Avatar
zanf | 10 years ago
0 likes

Why is The (Sunday) Times running a poll like this which stirs up opinion contrary to its "Cities Fit For Cyclists" campaign? Just seems dumb and counter-productive.

Maybe they should have added in the question, "Knowing that Johnson has had multiple affairs outside of his marriage, one which resulted in a child that he has absolutely no participation in raising, do you think Boris should 'keep it in his pants' and stop being a dirty philandering bastard?"

Avatar
northstar | 10 years ago
0 likes

Yes it is (100% safe) next piece of rubbish?

Avatar
surreyxc | 10 years ago
0 likes

My vote: helmet should be a choice. lets remember cycling is not dangerous, but the car that hit you. 20yrs + of cycling and I can decide when to wear a helmet, commute in London or tearing down a slope in the alps 'yes', doing under 10mph on a tow path 'no'. Not sure why people have such an obsession intruding upon other peoples free will, I keep myself to myself so expect the same from others.

Avatar
surreyxc | 10 years ago
0 likes

Just as some days, I want to get all the gear on and others I just want to jump on the bike, in old shorts, a t-shirt, trainers, nothing more, to nip to shops or pub. Sure someone will say I am going to die any minute without a helmet, but 20yrs plus of me making my own mind up of where and when seems to work, just as when I have to make any other risk assessment. If you want to wear a helmet I will not be offended, mind the high viz is vile, but your choice, let me make mine. Think of how righteously smug you can be if I crash and die.

Avatar
brian@brianokel... | 10 years ago
0 likes

Could there possibly be any worse knee jerk reaction to divert attention away from the real issues for cyclists, shame on you Boris!

Ban earphones - we are outside so we can hear the traffic, not inside a noise-proof box, probably with earphones on listening to the radio and making phone calls. If you have ever ridden with earphones then you will know this is rubbish!

Compulsory helmets - would reduce the number of cyclists and thereby undo all the good done from the recent growth in cycling by increasing pollution and health costs. You will not make cycling safer by having less cyclists.....simples!

As a lifelong cyclist myself, the recent high level of fatalities is very sad, but it is not because of helmets, earphones, hi-viz or even running red lights for that matter.....it's because motorists and lorry drivers either don't look for us or can't see us.

Lack of a safe cycling infrastructure and poor driver awareness of cyclists is undoubtedly the main reason for fatalities, so in the meantime.....

Ride where you can be seen and always ride as though you haven't been seen.....simples!

Avatar
sean1 | 10 years ago
0 likes

The NHS deals with about 70,000 serious head injury incidents each year.

The most common causes of head injuries are falling over, motor vehicle crashes and assault. A significant proportion occur in the home or playground.

Cycling related head injuries are a small fraction of the thousands of head injuries the NHS deals with each year, probably less than 1%.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Head-injury-minor/Pages/Causes.aspx

About 65% of head injuries are also alcohol related.

So the most effective legislation to reduce the incidence of head injuries in the population are ;

1. Compulsory helmets when in a motor vehicle
2. Compulsory helmets when moving about the home
3. Compulsory helmets when drinking in the pub
4. Compulsory helmets for children when playing

Funny how the media, medical profession, and authorities never mention these.

On a wider scale, smoking causes 100,000 premature deaths a year in the UK.

So an outright ban on smoking would have a far greater impact than a helmet law. Funny how smoking is left to the individual's informed choice but cycling helmets must be forced upon people.

It is an odd world....

Avatar
martib | 10 years ago
0 likes

Another conveniently weighted poll that does not address the real problems, that is poor driving standards and a lack of enforcement of driving standards on the roads.  45

Avatar
freespirit1 | 10 years ago
0 likes

A lot of people die in bed perhaps they should wear helmets too.

Avatar
Flying Scot | 10 years ago
0 likes

I want to know what's coming behind me and can't understand why anyone would wear earphones, I suppose in the city there is always something coming up behind you though.

Helmets need to be a choice, because unlike seat belts airbags and motorcycle helmets, they really aren't life savers for anyone but kids, most of us ride too spastic to have the thing protect against anything serious.

I wear mine ONLY because they are compulsory for races, TTs and events, so train in one.

When out with the kids I don't wear one (they do) as I find the air noise around them affects my spatial awareness and I am on max alert looking out for the kids.....which brings back the headphone thing......

HOWEVER ....as advised by my uncle who was a pro in the 50s, I ALWAYS wear specs, as nothing is more dangerous than something getting you in the eye!

So make specs compulsory!

Avatar
hampstead_bandit | 10 years ago
0 likes

Regarding bells on bikes:

I have to say, having fitted 100's of bells to new bikes being build and sold off workshops in Evans and Cycle Surgery the past few years to meet BS6102 Pt.1

the "stock" bells are absolutely terrible and will either not be heard in the traffic, or will end up snapping or rotating around the handlebar

the only effective bells I have found are the oversized "Ding Dong" bells (stock on pashley bikes), the oversized bells often sold with a "I LOVE my bike" graphic or the awesome "air zound" compressed air system

years ago I saw a courier use an Air Zound which made a woman pedestrian fall over in shock when he parped the horn to warn her from stepping into the street

Avatar
Northernbike | 10 years ago
0 likes

'59 per cent of those respondents agreed that wearing of helmets should be compulsory'

that may be what the man in the street thinks but it's my head, not his, so it's none of his damn business. In the words of John Stuart Mill

“Over one's mind and over one's body the individual is sovereign.”

or to quote Sid Vicious

''I've met the man in the street and he's a c***t''

so he can keep his magic plastic hat of invincibility and stick up his a...e

Avatar
kie7077 | 10 years ago
0 likes

What part of 'freedom' do people not understand, we live in a free country, I'd like it to stay that way. Bans and mandatory helmet laws are nanny state gone mad.

We want safer routes for cycling, not passing oppressive laws that make people want to cycle less and cause them to think cycling it inherently dangerous - it isn't.

Avatar
Helidoc | 10 years ago
0 likes

I have really tried to stay away from this, but as a cycling Emergency Medicine Consultant in a large urban hospital that sees 100K patients a year and 25 % children, this is my view.

I see a lot of adults with head injuries, usually involving alcohol and interpersonal violence. Maybe they should put on a helmet before a great night out? Obviously those who misuse alcohol and drink at home who fall downstairs should helmet-up too, not that will prevent their broken neck.

Children over 2 with head injuries are either car v pedestrian, or falls from a height, usually trees or high walls. Maybe we shouldn't allow children to play out without a helmet and wrist protectors?

Reflecting on it, I can only remember two significant cycling injuries (both adults), one ice driven and one from a fork failure. There are many more prevalent causes of injury in children than cycling.

Helmets won't save you from multiple injuries from being run-over, nor will they save you from a spinal injury, but they do offer useful head protection. "Bulls-eye" to a car windscreen is nasty, and helmets are useful here. For what it's worth, I always wear a helmet, but I respect others choice not to. Personally I think if you riding involves going 40mph downhill, you are mad if you don't wear a helmet, and if in traffic then the risk of a car not seeing you and your head hitting the windscreen makes it the right choice.

So wear a helmet for:
Peloton speeds
Roads shared with cars
Something that might chuck you off, like ice

No point for:
Tow paths in decent weather
If you have cycle lanes separate from traffic, as you should.

Avatar
daddyELVIS | 10 years ago
0 likes

When can cycling go back to being something a weirdo minority do? I liked it that way, when the media and politicians left us alone.

Pages

Latest Comments