- 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
- Rendel Harris 13 min 49 sec ago
So when you said "all Jews" you didn't actually mean all Jews, just religious ones. However even that distinction is erroneous, as you must surely...
- IanMK 36 min 39 sec ago
Sounds like the APPGCW report is going to be interesting reading.
- grasen 47 min 51 sec ago
are you a complete numpty??? it doesn't have disk brakes......
- andystow 53 min 9 sec ago
Isn't that basically what we did to our High Streets & Main Streets in the 1960s?
- Dnnnnnn 1 hour 7 min ago
Almost - but apparently not quite. There are in Northern Ireland.
- john_smith 2 hours 5 min ago
If you'd read it a bit more carefully you'll see that it also requires each new home to have at least three parking spaces. So it shouldn't be a...
- FionaJJ 2 hours 28 min ago
It took me ages to make sense of the story, because the bit about having bike parking is irrelevant to the issue about access. ...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 8 min ago
But how on earth do you expect people to know that's not allowed?...
- David9694 3 hours 36 min ago
Man flees after crashing into grade II listed Dorset home https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/24263845.man-flees-crashing-grade...
Add new comment
198 comments
Some stats from the NHS from those that like that sort of thing. In the majority of head injuries they deal with (65%) alcohol is a factor. I don't hear anyone baying for mandatory helmets for drinkers...
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/head-injury
And the helmet debate in Road.CC rolls on into it's 6th year. Zzzzzzzz.
In other news: Chris is right. If only he was bigger than Clarkson we would live in a better country.
I'm sure the we have more tubbies - in terms if entire populations over 20 - than the Danes and Dutch put together.
So he said the truth, how many didn't like that?
As usual, the truth of the matter is probably more complex and simpler.
In Holland, no one who uses his bike for simple day to day short distance transport wears a helmet, even the most foul weather. Equally, almost no one who rides a bike for sport goes without a helmet, even in the brightest sunshine. The difference? Speed.
Now try to legislate (and implement) that. The answer? Common sense and education and... an infrastructure, both physical and mental, geared to bike mobility.
Cheers.
@felixcat I was being facetious about suing him! Just pointing out the apparent contradictions between Boardman the helmet decrier and Boardman the helmet purveyor!
I suspect his valid points about mandatory helmet law and using helmets as an excuse to be lax about safety had been spun to meet anti helmet views of the author
Well done Chris, by telling people not to debate helmets you have created road.cc's longest helmet debate thread since.... the last one.
Just to highlight the one area which nobody really wants to talk about: risk compensation.
Nobody accepts that actually wearing a lid may increase your chances of getting into a crash in the first place. This may be partly because of the less careful behaviour of other road users, but mostly because of a slight, subtle, but nevertheless definite reduction in your own level of care.
This would apply to those who swear blind that they will never cycle without one, possibly the gentleman who thinks that WRITING IN BLOCK CAPITALS will make us believe his case and happens to have smashed 3 -4 (which is it? 3 or 4?) helmets in recent years. Could this rather high rate of head (or what's on it) collisions have something to do with his level of care?
To take one example, if as the wonderful Chris Boardman points out, 0.8% of Dutch cyclists wear helmets, and 13% of hospitalised cyclists were wearing lids - even allowing for more mileage done by these (presumably racing) cyclists , doesn't it suggest that wearing helmets is associated with a higher rate of collisions?
Not that (IMO) you shouldn't be allowed to wear a helmet and crash about as much as you want.
But please do think of the red herring role the helmet plays. it gets in the way of dealing with motorists do to cyclists (and other road users) and makes it more difficult to reduce danger on the road.
If I may take the liberty of referring you to my explanation of why the helmets law in New Zealand had the effect it had: http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/27/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-l...
This is how we (in NZ) ended up with mandatory helmets.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4031829/Aarons-tragedy-spurred-Helmet-La...
She went round the country in an Andrew Wakefield-style fervour and pushed for helmets.
Article: There's more to safety than debates about helmets.
Comments: helmet-helmet-helmet-helmet-helmet-helmet-helmet-helmet-helmet-helmet-helmet-helmet-helmet.
I've never preferred riding without a helmet unless it's to the shops. On a dedicated ride, I'll take anything that could actually save my life if ahit hits the fan, especially as it weighs so little I barely know it's there so what's the harm?
Now with statistics stating drivers are more cautious around non helmeted cyclists, that could be a valid point toward non mandatory helmets. Otherwise it should be up to the individual
Once we have segregated cycle lanes I will remove my helmet and hi-viz clothing. Until then, they stay on if I intend on cycling on either a main road that is not in a 30mph limit area, or where there is heavy traffic and risk of SMIDSY accidents.
The one time I did fall off and bash the back of my head on the tar, I was glad of my helmet. But maybe that's just me?
So, some of my mates asked what are the Top Ten Things which affect cycling safety which will have a greater effect on safety than polystyrene bananas strapped loosely to your cranium?
Here's my list:
1) Speed limits for cars based on risks to others, starting with 40mph outside towns on minor A and B roads, 20mph in town with speeds up to 70mph only on dual carriageways/motorways where there is a cycling alternative.
2) Anti entanglement barriers built into lorries to prevent human bodies from being mangled horribly
3) Effective legal means to curb drivers who show little consideration to other road users
4) All junctions to have greater visibility of pedestrians built in by design
5) All major roads to have segregated pedestrian path/cycleways built in
6) Large vehicles to have reduced blind spots by design
7) Vehicles to have injury reducing sides rather than skull splitting edges
8) Fill those potholes and grit roads/cyclepaths/pavements
9) Allow cycles to turn left on a red in a square junction when no oncoming traffic
10) Ban the Daily Fail and Jeremy Clarkson for the bad attitudes they espouse.
Last night a DJ saved my life.
This is about as true as your helmet story.
In all (almost) seriousness, I think that bicycling is still percieved as a bit odd here in the UK, a perception that is diminishing slightly now perhaps, but that wet weather, a lack of fitness in the general population, and insecure bike parking in general and transport hubs in particular stop people riding far more than percieved dangers.
When I was doing an 8 mile each way cycle commute I did deliberately choose a less traffic-heavy route and lit myself up like Blackpool to aid my safety, but it was the rain and cold that sapped my enthusiasm for it, not fear.
This is great... CB says "Stop talking about helmets, you idiots". Cue massive idiotic discussion of helmets.
I wear a helmet because I know I'm capable of idiocy...I'd rather wear one and give myself a bit of a chance!
I don't wear all that hi-vi gear though, there's rarely any real need for that if you're a confident cyclist and can read the road.
Fuck me, how many more times will it take before people grasp the basics of this? I despair of the repetition of the countless 'helmet saved my life' stories every time the H word enters this forum.
CB is right. Move on.
Here's an idea, lets stop perpetuating this argument, because it's clearly irritating the majority of people.
How about :
No more stories on it from road cc and an agreement from readers not to post comment on this subject?
I choose to wear a helmet. Wife fell off and hit her head on icy road a few weeks ago, helmet saved her - hit to side of head.
I dont think helmets should be mandatory. Why should i impose my choice on others? It is not clear that helmet wearers are achieving a public good in the way seatbelt wearers do.
If you think people should be protected from themselves you are wrong and possibly an evil dictator.
It's all very simple.
If you wanna wear a lid and think it makes you feel safer, fine wear one. If you dont, then don't. Personal choice.
the problem is the people arguing that helmets are the magic bullet to cycling safety, which they are not. CB is right they are a distraction.
Compulsion is WRONG. simple.
Insisting that cyclists in publicity shots & media wear helmets, like BBC do & ASA tried to enforce is WRONG. Simple.
Boardman bikes is a business and I have no issue with them floggin lids. I would have an issue with hard-selling them at bike sale time, or "don't ride without a helmet" stickers on the bikes.
More nonsense...
'So when doctors and surgeons say "I've seen many cyclists in my hospital, and I am sure helmets save lives"'
This is ok, because they are expressing *their opinion*. Not a fact. Take out the 'I am sure' and you're into 'old quack who needs striking off' territory. I'd imagine very few doctors actually do go down that route, because they understand how the whole 'fact' thing works, unlike Mr and Mrs Numpty on the Daily Mail comments page.
Unfortunately people hear the 'I am sure...' bit and jump straight to 'my doctor said...'
A Cunning Plan
For those who feel the need to tell us they find helmet discussions boring.
Do not click on topics which are clearly about helmets.
"Everyone should be banned from wearing helmets!"
...Said nobody. So can we please arguing against it?
Helmet saved your life? Great, keep it up. But we can create towns in which lives aren't threatened at all. This is a better depiction of a cycling Utopia than one in which we force cyclists to try and 'take the battering'.
It is in realising this - entirely achievable - vision that the narrative should be heading. The helmet debate lacks scope. The 'compulsory helmet law' has also reduced uptake in both the countries that have passed it, which is completely counterproductive. Discussing it will not further this vision one jot. It is a distraction from making a real difference. It is simply a complete 'red herring'.
And on the topic of anecdotes; it's worth noting that those who's lives a helmet didn't save are generally less vocal about their experiences.
Chris Boardman is a sporting icon whose opinions deserve respect and I realize he's had a fairly consistent view on helmets over the years.
However, I can't help thinking that his opinions would carry more weight here if he wasn't also profiting from selling bicycles. Any move to increase helmet use certainly has potential to hurt his business.
My helmet saved my life... yes it did, but I was on a motorcycle and the motorbike landed on top of my head in the crash and split the helmet in two... It was a Bell Tourstar and it cost me some £120 back in 1982.
Now a cycle helmet? They're next to useless in any form of cyling impact unless you are hitting your head at right angles to the ground with absolutely NO translational velocity at all... If you are sliding when you hit the ground, then the helmet WILL grab the road and spin your brain inside your skull. Cycle helmets are designed for one thing only, to pass the certification test to gain the kitemark or whtecer it is they are claiming. And the certification test does NOT relate to the kind of impact that they usually encounter.
Personally the old skool cycle helmets that consisted of leather tubes filled with kapok were far more effective than modern cycle helmets... at least they slid along and you didn't have to throw them away after an impact...
Still got mine from 1972...
Big Mick, presumably you were found against for "contributory negligence" ? I am aware of plenty of cases for reduction in damages on this basis for failure to wear a seatbelt but not cycling helmets. Could you give us a case name to research further ? Thanks.
As a youngster, I never wore a helmet but, returning to cycling as an old git, I got used to wearing a helmet before I knew anything of this argument. I'd hate to think I was putting people off by wearing a helmet but my wife would go spare with me if I left the house without it. Genuinely confused.
Pages