- 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
Chris Boardman at the Get Britain Cycling InquiryChris Boardman: "Helmets not even in top 10 of things that keep cycling safe"
British Cycling policy advisor Chris Boardman says it’s time for the cycling community to put the debate about mandatory cycle helmets to bed and get across the message that helmet use is one of the least important cycling safety measures.
Even talking about making helmets mandatory “massively puts people off” cycling, Boardman said, and likened the culture of helmet use among keen cyclists to people wearing body armour because they have got used to being shot at.
Talking to road.cc at the London Bike Show, Boardman said, “I think the helmet issue is a massive red herring. It’s not even in the top 10 of things you need to do to keep cycling safe or more widely, save the most lives.”
You’re being shot at, put on body armour
Boardman returned to an analogy he has made before, and which even he admits is a bit melodramatic, though it gets the point across
“It’s a bit like saying ‘people are sniping at you going down this street, so put some body armour on,’” he said.
Government encouragement to wear helmets was therefore “a big campaign to get people to wear body armour, by the people who should be stopping the shooting.”
Widespread use of helmets, he said, sends the wrong message.
“Once you see somebody wearing body armour, even if there’s no shooting, you think ‘Christ I’m not going down there if they’re wearing body armour to go down that street.’ It scares people off.”
There’s a better solution to the problem of cycle safety, Boardman said. In the Netherlands, just 0.8 percent of cyclists wear helmets yet the Dutch have the lowest rate of cycling head injury, thanks to segregated cycling infrastructure. Thirty percent of journeys in the Netherlands are made by bike, he said, and 50 percent of children’s journey to school.
”The best way to deal with [the head injury issue] is what the Dutch have done,” he said. “Where you have the Highest rate of helmet use, you also have the highest rate of head injury: us and the US.”
Yet there’s also an almost-fanatical, knee-jerk devotion to helmet use among enthusiast and sporting cyclists.
Boardman said: “People who are wearing body armour get used to being shot at, when it’s the getting shot at that’s the problem.”
A distraction
Talking about helmets had become a time-consuming distraction, he said. “We’ve got to tackle the helmet debate head on because it’s so annoying,” he said. “It gets a disproportionate amount of coverage. When you have three minutes and someone asks ‘Do you wear a helmet’ you know the vast majority of your time when you could be talking about stuff that will make a difference, is gone.”
He said the focus on helmets had made cycling seem more dangerous than it really is.
“We’ve gone away from the facts,” he said. “We’ve gone to anecdotes. It’s like shark attacks - more people are killed building sandcastles than are killed by sharks. It’s just ludicrous that the facts aren’t matching up with the actions because the press focus, naturally, on the news stories, and [the notion that cycling is dangerous] becomes the norm, and it isn’t the norm.
“You can ride a thousand times round the planet for each cycling death. You are safer than gardening.”
Cycling’s image
Like many cycling advocates, Boardman wants to see cycling presented as a normal, everyday activity.
“I saw two people riding down the hill to my village. One person coming down the hill to go for the train in high-viz, helmet on.
“A few moments later another guy came down, in shirt sleeves, with a leather bag on his back, just riding his bike to the station.
“Which one of those makes me want to [ride]?”
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- momove 1 min 46 sec ago
As a public body, they are....
- mitsky 12 min 24 sec ago
Intersting article in The Spectator advocating drivers who have a dashcam to "snitch" on littering/flytipping by other drivers....
- mitsky 13 min 28 sec ago
Intersting article in The Spectator advocating drivers who have a dashcam to "snitch" on littering/flytipping by other drivers....
- mitsky 13 min 43 sec ago
Intersting article in The Spectator advocating drivers who have a dashcam to "snitch" on littering/flytipping by other drivers....
- mitsky 16 min 12 sec ago
Is the clip of drivers illegally using the cyele lane in Shadwell meant to be their (drivers) response to the clip from Ludgate Hall...?
- Patrick9-32 28 min 38 sec ago
Nobody knows what it means but its provocative! Gets the people going!
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 15 min ago
May not be in her manifesto but she has frequently said in interviews that she will remove any cycle lane that impedes traffic flow - obviously a...
- andystow 1 hour 37 min ago
My granny started driving before driving tests were implemented. When they were, she was grandfathered (grandmothered?) in, and she ticked all the...
- Hirsute 1 hour 47 min ago
Road was closed so I had no choice https://youtu.be/NV7XHFiXhyU
- Bungle_52 2 hours 22 min ago
Thank you for all the considered comments. I have thought about what happened a great deal over the last few days....
Add new comment
198 comments
Am I missing something here? Should I stop wearing a helmet, and give up on the hi vis jacket?
I have to to be honest, I just don't get CB's comments...should I fall from my bike with/without a helmet would the result be the same, should I hit my head? Are we being fooled about the value of cycle helmets, are they in fact all but useless? Would this explain why every time I read a review, of a helmet, it's about the look, number of vents, fit...as opposed to security/impact protection? Is there a rating for the safety of helmets, if so I've missed it.
If I wear a head cam whilst gardening will it show as many near misses as when I'm cycling in traffic? As for sand castles and sharks....is this something from the Eric Cantona philosophy about seagulls and trawlers???
I emailed the article to my brother in Afghanistan, suggested he take off the body armour, as perhaps this gave him a false sense of security.
Sarcasm apart....I just don't get CB's comments.....simple as this to me....any point in buying/wearing a helmet? Will wearing one, in any event, help prevent serious injury? Is there any research/evidence proving the safety of a helmet?
Should I worry about my 12 year old daughter wearing a helmet when we ride? Seriously.
Each road fatality costs about £500,000 to the UK's economy overall. Investing in road safety intelligently would save losses to the UK's GDP. When you start explaining that to politicians they start taking note. A lot of the time, the safety measures are really cheap.
Clarkson certainly has a lot more inches around his waist. And his mouth is bigger too. But in terms of common sense and intelligence, Boardman wins out. It's just a pity so many hang on Clarkson's words. He's an ignorant oaf.
Although the Netherlands is probably the safest country in the world for cycling, helmet wearing among Dutch cyclists is rare. It has been estimated that only about 0.5 percent of cyclists in the Netherlands are helmeted.
However, according to Dutch Government data (Rijkswaterstaat, 2008), 13.3 percent of cyclists admitted to hospital were wearing helmets when they were injured. Why does wearing a helmet appear to increase the risk of being injured so substantially?
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html
So helmets do not seem to make the sports cyclists as safe as the utility cyclists. It is their right to choose.
I did take your suing remark as a rhetorical device, not a threat.
I cannot believe that the reporter has spun his report as much as would be necessary to produce such a distortion.
Perhaps he will enlighten us.
I'd love to ask her why she didn't do the more obvious thing and go round the country campaigning to ban cars? After all, a car could still have killed her son, even had he been wearing a helmet.
Ok, I can guess why, but the utter failure of logic still irritates me.
You wanna be careful doing that
Do you also carry a lucky rabbit's foot - after all, what's the harm?
So you're a confident idiot who claims he can read the road. I think that comes under the risk compensation umbrella.
Case for the defence rests, m'lud.
Everything Chris says is true.But have an accident (not your fault) get a head injury and when the case makes court and you win your case you will still lose one third of your claim because you ( failed) to wear a helmet.Trust me right now that's the way it is.Put a lid on then join the debate.Driver ed is the way forward but don't hold your breath.Great Britain is still living in the past when it comes to cycle safety and I don't see change coming anytime soon.
Don,t say you weren't warned.It cost me £300,000 but hay I talk nonsense right?Lawyers love people not wearing helmets.They can save there clients big money.The real world (court rooms) are a harsh cold place and FAILED to wear a helmet makes you look iresponsible and in a world where car drivers wear seat belts motorcyclist wear helmets in the eyes of a judge you look foolish not protecting yourself.In court I was asked" why don't you cyclist wear motorcycle helmets" that's what you are up against.Nonsense for sure but for non cyclists it seems to make sense.Real world hard place and we all need to get real.I know cycle helmets are shite and when flattened by a lorry no helmet would save you but like I say Don't say you weren't warned.I can take a horse to water but can't make it drink right.Oh just more nonsense for sure right? Sorry but it's all true sorry to say.
Try http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ and, for balance http://www.bhit.org/
Especially his helmet business. That'd take a battering.
I am wary of Boardman's roles as both a businessman and an activist; but despite this, I have never seen a public figure make more grounded, sensible and insightful comments about cycling in Britain; on both its present and its future.
I have trust in his judgement, and respect for his ability to deliver it in such an open, honest and inviting manner. You raise valid point about potential ulterior motivations given his two roles, but as neither is a detriment to the other, I don't think it's a problem; they're not conflicting interests.
Also, unlike most businessmen, Boardman at least produces something worthwhile. I don't like the idea that you're only allowed to make something decent so long as you don't get payed for it.
If Boardman was promoting magical Boardman bits that everyone should buy, I'd be suspicious, but he's not. He's shooting down compulsory helmet laws as a distraction from a greater issue, despite his business selling helmets. I think it's quite clear from his comments that his views on this matter have little to do with business.
If he does profit from this, it'll only be because more bicycles are being sold overall, and that is something that I assume everyone here is in favour of, business interests or not.
With regards to his overall judgement, I think his transition from athlete to designer to champion of simple everyday cycling only serves to round him more as a voice of reason; and I think few people have quite as much depth OR breadth in the field of cycling as Chris Boardman. 'Wisdom' is not a word that's thrown around a lot in relation to bicycles, but I think Boardman's combination of experience and level-headedness afford him the quality in bucket-loads.
But that's enough idolatry from me. I'll stop when he says something stupid, although I don't expect that to come soon.
Hi, interesting comments.....do you have the evidence, research or qualifications to back them up? I'm genuinely not trying to be contentious about this, but bold statements need backing up.
Erm.... Only the bit that says there are at least 10 things more important than wearing a helmet... i.e. the whole point of the story.
[/quote]
Although the Netherlands is probably the safest country in the world for cycling, helmet wearing among Dutch cyclists is rare. It has been estimated that only about 0.5 percent of cyclists in the Netherlands are helmeted.
However, according to Dutch Government data (Rijkswaterstaat, 2008), 13.3 percent of cyclists admitted to hospital were wearing helmets when they were injured. Why does wearing a helmet appear to increase the risk of being injured so substantially?.[/quote]
The actual helmet has no bearing on this at all. In the Netherlands like here cycle racing requires the use of a helmet. People who race or who are racers ie those travelling fast have more chance of being in an accident. The real statistic is the speed of travel (type of cycling) versus injury. Helmet use is just a proxy for type of cycling being done.
Just not true. The case that had people worried was Reynolds v Strutt and Parker in 2011 in the High Court. This though was a case about a cycle race organised as an away day event by an employer. The case is more akin to the liabilities on a motor racing circuit than a road. in those circumstances the organiser may be liable if they put a novice in a fast car and let them go as fast as they like. Because the organiser knows the risks and the novice doesn't. If your are talking about racing drivers though that doesn't really apply. They would be deemed to be fully aware of the risk on a motor racing circuit and to have consented.
In this case the claimant Reynolds who was injured in the bike race and who wasn't wearing a helmet was also the architect of the crash through aggressive riding and blocking another competitor in a sprint. He did compensation awarded because the employer did not make enough effort to encourage or insist on wearing a helmet. It doesn't have any bearing on cyclists using the road in the normal way.
Logically how could it? If you run over a pedestrian you can't claim they should have been wearing a helmet and have the compensation reduced.
Big Mick, was your case reported? Can you give us a link? I've never come across any case remotely like yours. This needs investigating.
Huh? How exactly did not wearing a helmet cost you £300K? I've never worn a helmet and it has cost me absolutely nothing. On the contrary I've saved the cost of said helmet ... and enjoyed the wind in my hair too ... which is half the point of cycling anyway IMHO.
The damages award was reduced by £300,000 because not wearing the helmet was deemed to be contributory negligence...
Big Mick. Big Mick, are you there? This question of contributory negligence is important.
Can you give uis any details which might help us to find out more about your case?
Speed has nothing to do with it. Road cyclists traditionally like to imitate what the pros are riding/wearing. The helmet is just part of the uniform, it makes them look "right".
Depends if a motor vehicle is involved - in most cases where one is, then yes, the outcome is unlikely to be much different.
But you're ignoring the most important question: will wearing a helmet make it more likely that you have the crash in the first place? The answer tot his is very likely to be yes, there's a lot of evidence pointing to this being exactly what happens.
No, it is the event rules that determine if competitors wear helmets for an event. Wheelrunners (I'm using the Dutch term here) are the ones who like to go fast and in Holland, they're the only helmet riders at all except very young children just starting to learn.
Fietsters (ordinary cyclists to you an me) should not ever need to where a helmet.
Just what exactly is a "road cyclist" anyway? I cycle on roads to work on my MTB, does that make me a "road cyclist"? No, I consider myself to belong to the Dutch class of "Fietster", not "Wheelrunner".
If that's true then it is a stark illustration of the complete failure of logic that pervades this debate. Helmets are tested up to about 12mph, no more. If you are going to go faster than that then you are operating outside of its design parameters and cannot rely on it.
My view is that keen sports cyclists wear helmets 'cos the pros do. Pros wear them because they're paid to. Read Sean Kelly's account of his last win in Milan San-Remo - going back to the team car to get his helmet for the last 50k because he would get a bonus from the manufacturer for wearing it if he won.
He's not talking about whether, on an individual basis, it's better to be wearing a helmet when your head hits the ground or not. I don't think that's generally something that people dispute (as long as you're talking about an MTB-style crash, not being hit by a car).
He's talking about cycling safety in general, in the context of getting more people out on their bikes and normalising it, and IMO he's right to suggest that the focus needs to be on issues way upstream of the point at which an individual's head is a couple of inches away from hitting the ground.
These two things are not contradictory. And when evidence suggests that helmet compulsion does nothing to affect the rates of injury for cyclists at a population level, that's a completely different question from whether a helmet is a good thing or not once an individual incident is underway.
It's not a fall from your bike that's going to kill you, that's more likely to happen if you're hit by a motor vehicle and motor vehicles pass helmeted cyclist more closely than bare headed cyclists.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html
https://www.eta.co.uk/2011/04/01/safest-bicycle-helmet-has-built-in-wig/
Not so long ago, popular opinion was that the earth was flat.
I've just re read the article. Perhaps he's not as sensible as I first thought. Is he seriously suggesting that people in the UK would be safer if they didn't wear helmets? More people would cycle if they didn't wear helmets and highly visible clothing?
He sells the bloody things!
I understand what he's getting at but this is the UK and not Holland
He seems to be making dangerous leap of logic and confusing cause and effect.
Or perhaps he's been quoted out of context. There is a strong anti helmet spin to this article and I am aware that the author is not a helmet supporter, based on previous articles
WHY?
a very very simple question, why can't the UK follow the Dutch? the Danes? and actually improve the environment for cyclists.
Pages