Chris Boardman on cycle helmets

[Earl Aelfheah]

Chris Boardman has prompted a deluge of complaints and vitriol after appearing on BBC Breakfast not wearing a cycle helmet. He's released a very clear statement explaining why he chose not to wear a helmet. Interested in people's thoughts. http://road.cc/content/news/134586-complaints-over-bare-headed-chris-boardman%E2%80%99s-helmetless-bbc-breakfast-bike-ride

[jimbo1964]

It actually doesn't take much of a knock on the head to cause a serious head injury. So I do wear one (mostly). I think most kids growing up now are probably just used to wearing a helmet so I don't think it will discourage cyclists of the future. I remember my dad taking terrible umbridge at being forced to wear a seat belt, but nobody even thinks that way now. On balance as an ambassador for cycling it wouldn't do any harm for him to wear a helmet on tv no matter what he personally believes.

[StraferJack]

"but nobody even thinks that way now"

hmmmmm

[Robert Poste's Child]

I agree with Chris Boardman and I hardly ever wear one either. Good lights, high-vis clothing and checking behind you both sides every few seconds are far more important day to day.

(Pedant-haters stop here.) I think you meant umbrage. The other one is a senior employee in the Ministry of Magic.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Not directly on topic, but whilst trying to find some evidence which actually puts the whole thing into context, I found this interesting analysis of the relative risks of cycling:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0050606

[Jeremy]

IMO saying that "if the roads were safer we wouldn't need to wear helmets, therefore I won't wear one" is just twisted logic. But I know there are plenty of people who'd agree with him. What can I say, cyclists are a strange bunch!

[Earl Aelfheah]

I'm not sure that is what he's saying Jeremy.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I think he's saying that cycling is a normal and relatively safe activity (compared to other modes of transport). Due to the fact that 'safety gear' (hi viz and helmets) give the impression that cycling is high risk (that in turn puts people off) and that the health benefits significantly out way the risks - it's not something he wants to promote.

It's a question of what is the real level of risk. If you accept that cycling is not significantly more dangerous than other modes of transport (and that you wouldn't call for pedestrians or young male drivers to wear helmets), then he has a point.

I'm not sure about the risks, or come to that, the effectiveness of cycle helmets. I know that there is research to suggest that drivers are less careful around cyclists wearing helmets. I also know that cycle helmets are ineffective in a large number of accidents and that cycling is not as dangerous as it's sometimes perceived to be.

But clearly helmets will help in minor falls etc. and I can't shake the feeling that if they're going to help, then you may as well wear them.

That said we're all very bad at estimating risk (read Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow) and so I tend not to trust my instincts on these things, but to look at the evidence. The research I've seen is very mixed and so I'm a bit of an agnostic, but I do admire Chris not being bullied into putting a helmet on if he doesn't believe their promotion is productive.

[Earl Aelfheah]

So this is the CTCs view on helmets: http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/cycle-helmets-evidencebrf.pdf

Nearly all this I agree with. That said, any individual cyclist must be safer wearing them?

[Jeremy]

To me he seems to be saying two things. Firstly that there are many other measures which are more important than helmets and high vis clothing. Secondly that in a safe environment, you don't really need those things anyway.

Both of these things may be true, but not convinced they're good reasons not to use them in London.

[jimbo1964]

I was run over from behind by a bus a few years ago on a bright sunny day in London. When it came to the court case both sets of barristers were obsessed with what I was wearing.. The defence that I wasn't wearing hi viz, therefore irresponsible so probably fair enough for a bus driver not to be able to see what's in front of him. The prosecution had to point out several times that I was wearing a helmet and therefore a responsible cyclist. I think it's assumed now that if you don't wear a helmet you are in some way reckless which is not the case. In that incident I've no idea if my head hit the pavement or not but I think on balance it's better that I was wearing a helmet.

[Gray]

With RPC here...

I wear a hi-viz, lights, take the prime location on the road etc, but no helmet. My take on what he is trying to say is he wants the normalisation of cycling, therefore protection of the cyclist - and thus, everyone - becomes second nature to everyone using the roads.

Idiots and morons will always be around, but that is across the board wether cyclist, xxx driver or pedestrian.

(I meant whether, not a castrated goat.)

[rodneybewes]

I do wear a helmet when I'm cycling. I know that statistically it's unlikely to save me from death but it makes me feel better and if I was to take things to their logical conclusion when it comes to safety I wouldn't cycle at all or leave the house in the morning. We all draw our lines somewhere. I shudder when I see kids on roads instead of pavements, and when they're in child seats on the back of bikes, but there you go.

I understand why people don't and I understand why Boardman doesn't. Where it's been made law there's been an instant drop in cycling. Better to concentrate on making roads safer for cyclists, pedestrians and drivers.

My uncle had a bit of a go at me about this last year, his point being that it will stop hundreds of cycling injuries a year, so surely it's a good thing. My point was that there are thousands of serious head injuries sustained in motor vehicles every year. Does that mean we should all have to wear helmets as well as seatbelts inside cars?

[StraferJack]

Any cycling I did in Australia (on Rotnest Island especially, where there were NO cars!) was ruined by having to wear a helmet. No cars but forced helmet wearing = serious downgrade of nature admiration

[Applespider]

I usually wear a helmet. I don't find it particularly onerous or weight to put on so why not? Since it is merely a piece of polystyrene, I have little faith that it will prevent really serious injury. However, as a vanity measure, it should help prevent road rash on the scalp and having to have my hair shaved off should I slip and skid along the road, then I'll wear it. Having said that, (touch wood), I've never skidded along the road on my commute (and we're into thousands of journeys) so how high risk is it? It is useful for attaching a high level light to.

A few weeks ago, I did manage to leave the house on my commute and only realised half a mile down the road that I'd left my helmet at home. It did feel surprisingly good to have the wind in my ponytail and, this might be coincidental, but it also felt like motorists gave me a little more room.

I don't always wear high-vis (I do in gloomy, foggy or dusky conditions) but I do always have reflectives on at dusk/night and several front/back lights.

[Robert Poste's Child]

I also worry that to some drivers (not all, of course) a helmet on a cyclist may in the moment be taken to mean that you're protected and can't be seriously hurt so no need for them to give you enough space.

Past experience probably plays a part for some of us too. I rode horses a lot when I was younger and I've used a bike most days for 15 years. I've fallen off both many times and only hurt my head once, coming off a horse while wearing a hat, not actually hitting my head but getting a whiplash concussion on the way down. I'm not suggesting this is a reasoned decision on my part, but arms and legs tend to worry me more as I've had more injuries to those.

[Loz]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Any cycling I did in Australia (on Rotnest Island especially, where there were NO cars!)

... but lots of vicious quokkas.

[Loz]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So this is the CTCs view on helmets:

> http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/cycle-helmets-evidencebrf.pdf

The 'key points' are an affront to statistics.

[StraferJack]

Savage loz, savage!

[Earl Aelfheah]

Loz - which bits are an affront? From what I've seen the central claim (that the health benefits of regular cycling far outweigh the risks) is a pretty robust conclusion. So is the evidence that introducing a legal requirement to wear a helmets significantly reduces the numbers cycling. So I'm pretty clear that laws to force individuals to wear a helmet are probably not in the public interest.

However, this doesn't necessarily mean that for any individual it is not a good idea to wear a helmet.

[miga]

.

[Loz]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz - which bits are an affront?

The Government has endorsed estimates that the health benefits outweigh the risks of cycling

on Britain?s roads by a factor of 20:1 (n.b. estimates from other countries place this ratio higher

still).

Based on this 20:1 ratio, it can be shown that telling people to wear helmets would result in a

net increase in early deaths (due to physical inactivity etc) if there was more than 1 person

deterred from cycling for every 20 who continue, even if helmets were 100% effective at

preventing ALL cycling injuries

There is no way you can deduce the second para from the first.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Hmmm - yes, they have overstretched a little there, but *on average* it is true. A small decrease in cycling, resulting from the introduction of mandatory helmet laws would likely see an increase in 'early death'. There is quite a lot of research evidence that this is the case - that the health benefits of regular cycling far outweigh the risks. But that is to do with the introduction of mandatory helmet laws and doesn't really tell you anything about whether or not (as an individual) you would be better off wearing a helmet.

[El Pibe]

I reckon if you're the type of cyclist who'll bleat on about how you don't need a helmet, you're probably far enough in that a mandatory law won't make a difference.

And of course a drop in cycling uptake doesn't necessarily equate to a drop in exercise, there *are* other possibilities in this world you know ;)

But overall my response to boardman is that I really don't...oooh....a shiny penny

[Earl Aelfheah]

I struggle to see how a cyclist wouldn't be safer wearing a helmet, but then you could probably say the same for a pedestrian - I guess it comes down to how dangerous cycling really is - which I'm not clear on. Most of the studies talk about cycling generally, which is not the same as cycling in London specifically.