Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Error message

An illegal choice has been detected. Please contact the site administrator.

Chris Boardman: "Helmets not even in top 10 of things that keep cycling safe"

British Cycling policy advisor says it's time to stop distracting helmet arguments and concentrate on real safety issues...

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.

Add new comment

198 comments

Avatar
teaboy | 10 years ago
1 like

To those advocating helmet use - do you also wear body armour? What about elbow and knee pads? Or motorbike leathers and a full-face helmet? After all, if you get hit by a car you'll be better off wearing it than not.

Boardman is absolutely correct - in every situation PPE is the last line in injury prevention after everything else has been done to remove the danger and reduce the impact of any potential injury. With cycling the danger comes from motor vehicles. Remove these by segregation by mode. Reduce the risk of injury by lowering motor vehicle speed where segregation is not possible or desirable.

It really isn't difficult to understand.

Avatar
Saintlymark | 10 years ago
1 like

Honestly, i get what Boardman is saying here (I get irritated myself by the constant call for hi viz clothing), but I myself feel much more confident on a bike with a helmet on, even when riding on empty streets, or off road. the point that bad driving is a menace is well made though and for me is a real issue. In my view the benefit of doubt in road crashes involving a bicycle should always rest with the motorised vehicle.

Avatar
Giles Pargiter | 10 years ago
1 like

Yep; the man is completely right.

Next step is to ban the term "cycle helmet" as a mis trade description and instead allow them to be called; hats for the neurotically paranoid.

Ban them from cycle shops. Sack the risk assessors at cycling events that insist on them, as not able to make evidence based risk assesments, and are therefore incompetent.

Ban them from road use as they endanger both the user and others by giving a fraudulent impression.

Just about the only thing that kills cyclists are motor vehicles.

Avatar
Jeemahn | 10 years ago
0 likes

I wear a helmet not because it makes cycling safer but because (I believe) it makes crashing safer. My Giro Atmos definitely saved my skull (possibly my life) when I was hit by a van at speed.

Wouldn't drive without my seatbelt....
 26

Avatar
BrianL51 | 10 years ago
1 like

People in cars suffer head injuries too. It's never (to my knowledge) been suggested that people in cars should have to wear "driving helmets". What a furore that would cause if it were seriously suggested!

Avatar
brakesmadly | 10 years ago
1 like

Ironic that a piece saying that the helmet debate distracts from the real issues then we go on to have a massive helmet debate...

Avatar
felixcat | 10 years ago
1 like
BrianL51 wrote:

People in cars suffer head injuries too. It's never (to my knowledge) been suggested that people in cars should have to wear "driving helmets". What a furore that would cause if it were seriously suggested!

Don't be too sure about that! There are driving helmets for normal motoring, and campaigns for them.

http://www.drivingwithoutdying.com/

http://drivetoworkday.org/2012/10/26/better-safe-than-sorry/

And, whilst I'm typing.

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/08/walking-helmet-is-good-helmet.html

Somehow driving and walking helmets don't seem to have caught on, though head injury rates are pretty similar to cyclists'.

Avatar
FBinNY | 10 years ago
1 like

I congratulate CB for trying to move the debate from helmets to other safety issues. Too much of the bicycle safety message in the USA and UK has been "wear a helmet" and not much else.

You'd think that helmets were magic amulets that could protect cyclists from the evil of accidents and injuries.

It's refreshing to hear someone suggest that maybe the focus should shift from reducing the injuries that result from accidents to preventing those accidents in the first place.

Let's hope this signals the start of a broad approach to improved safety through a variety of measures from infrastructure changes to rider and driver education.

fb

Avatar
mutron3k | 9 years ago
1 like

How many racers died in the Tour de France, etc. in all the helmet-less years of racing - millions of kilometers? Not many if any. I'll keep mine on, even though it does mean it creates more inertia for my neck muscles to resist in a fall.

Avatar
bawheid | 8 years ago
0 likes

Choices. The only time I've ever bashed my noodle was by hitting a heras panel fence at the bottom of a hill. I put a dent in it a good few inches deep, leading with my head. Other things hurt more, but the lack of a helmet resulted in a really interesting cross-hatched pattern in my scalp. No recommended and now, like most Iwear a helmet when I'm furious and don't when I'm not.

Avatar
mrmo replied to laterrehaute | 10 years ago
0 likes
laterrehaute wrote:

What are the top ten things that are more important to cycle safety than a helmet?

To start with proper paths, and proper control of drivers, then cyclist education, education of drivers, design of road junctions and roundabouts, control of hate speak in the media, health benefits, perception that cycling Is dangerous.

Any risk assessment tells you PPE is the last line of defence, as far as cycling is concerned in the UK it seems to be the first and only topic!

Avatar
mrmo replied to thehairs1970 | 10 years ago
0 likes
thehairs1970 wrote:

I find CB's comments unhelpful. Being put off cycling because of helmets is like being put off driving because of seat belts. Silly. I wear a helmet in case I fall off not in case someone hits me. I've had three bad falls. One resulted in a helmet split front to back. Better that than my head. Another caused a front somersault and broken collarbone. The most recent, a split chin, chipped tooth and bruises. My brother in law is 2 years into recovery after a majorr cycling injury but he's alive. I don't think helmets should be compulsory but you won't find me or my cycling friends out without one.

would you wear a helmet to walk to the shop. This is not about sport cycling, it is about utility cycling. For which helmets are not really an issue, certainly not as important as the space devoted to discussing them.

Avatar
mrmo replied to xcstu | 10 years ago
0 likes
xcstu wrote:

Boardman your an idiot!

You can argue all you like but helmets regardless of their minimum protection might be the difference that saves a life!

I also ride offroad were I don't have to worry about drivers attitudes, drivers education, drivers awareness, safer road layouts etc... If I get it wrong it's my mistake ( no one else's) and whatever precautions I take can only help but to rule out as not important due to fashion and putting people of cycling is crazy!

would you ride off road without a helmet? I wouldn't, risk compensation at work.

Helmets are pretty much only good at deflecting branches, oh and giving you whiplash when your helmet light gets caught by a branch you didn't see!

Avatar
Joeinpoole replied to fret | 10 years ago
0 likes
fret wrote:

Why are people so anti helmet? I'm not talking about making them mandatory, that's daft and unenforceable. Helmets are there to absorb the initial impact even if they may not prevent extreme damage in some cases.
I know of one person who hit their head on the kerb, the helmet cracked, their head was OK.
Last week in the Olympics a female snowboarder went down heavy which resulted in a split helmet, she was OK.
So what? I hear people say.
I'll just throw this in. In 1977 when the only helmets were those leather things that did nothing I had the misfortune to have my chain come off which resulted in a nasty kerb to bike interface.
I lost control as I was going full chat standing up accelerating so had little chance to stop. The last thing I remember is "Oh, shit, I'm going to get my hands dirty putting the chain back on"
I hit a concrete bus stop sign with by head and shoulder. I fractured my skull, ripped my ear off and broke my collarbone. I lost a pint of blood, 30 stitches and was in and out of consciousness for a couple of days. I cannot hear properly out of my ear either.
Had I been wearing a modern helmet I don't think the first two injuries would have occurred.

That's my two-pennorth, go ahead and mock me and tell me of all the people who have come off and never had a head injury and tell me why the construction is similar to motorcycle helmets, which as we all know are useless too.
I will happily show you my scars and ignore you with my deaf ear.

I think you're missing the point. There exists a truly *massive* misconception that cycling is a 'more dangerous activity' than other perfectly 'normal' activities like having a drink, walking down some stairs, being a pedestrian or driving a car.

Statistics prove that that simply isn't the case.

Fine if you *want* to wear head-protection when cycling ... but, if your objective is to be as safe as possible, then you really *should* wear your helmet when drinking, driving or descending stairs. All of those activities are, statistically speaking, far more likely to result in a head injury than cycling.

I think you'd look a bit of a dork wearing a helmet as PPE whilst having a pint in your local ... but that *is* the activity that is most likely (by a fucking country-mile) to result in a serious head injury.

Avatar
levermonkey replied to levermonkey | 10 years ago
0 likes
levermonkey wrote:

The Golden Rule Here is 'Whatever's Comfortable'.

If you feel safer wearing a helmet - wear a helmet.
If you feel safer wearing hi-vis - wear hi-vis.

It's YOUR choice. Although wearing a helmet does save you from having to nail your helmet cam to your head.  24

I know it's bad form to quote yourself. But...

It is not a matter of being anti-helmet BUT of being pro-choice.

When I'm off road on a MTB then I wear a helmet. When I'm commuting I don't. When I'm riding for fun I don't. When I'm riding in a sportive or similar I do, because the organisers ask me to (I still have the choice; I can choose whether I enter or not).

I'm over 21 (Ok! With interest, VAT and then some  3 ), I don't need my mothers permission. The information is out there, read it and come to your own decision!

Having said all that I do think children under 10 should wear a helmet. Please note I said should NOT must. I won't think any less of you as a parent if you decide your child doesn't need a helmet.

Remember cyclists are goats not sheep.  4

Avatar
felixcat replied to unclebadger | 10 years ago
0 likes
unclebadger wrote:

Anyone who has ever crashed and hit their head will attest to the fact that a helmet can save your life. .

The only time I have hit my head I was lucky enough to be wearing a Festina cap.
I was hardly bruised. I urge all riders to wear a cotton cap, though I'm not sure the Festina design was important.

Avatar
felixcat replied to Condor flyer | 10 years ago
0 likes

[quote=Condor flyer
I recall hearing one nutter of an MP - at a hearing of the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport some years ago - come out with the following line: he said, "...if cyclists were made to wear helmets surely there would be no need to slow traffic."[/quote]

Dead right. I suspect that is why so many non cyclists are prominent in the campaign to make us wear foam. Fatties Angie Lee and Eric Martlew are good examples.

Avatar
ColT replied to nitram | 10 years ago
0 likes
nitram wrote:

He is plain wrong, would you drive a new car without airbags - no, I just a month ago would have died from a serious head injury if it were not for my helmet. Helmets are a not brainer.. excuse the pun. Martin McGrevy

Jesus H Christ. How difficult is it to understand?

CB is not saying 'do not wear a helmet'. Have you read and understood the article? Have you read and understood the other comments, particularly those pertaining to assertions that 'my helmet saved my life'?

May I respectfully suggest that you have a(nother) look and come back with details of those bits you don't understand?

Avatar
Chuck replied to mrmo | 10 years ago
0 likes
mrmo wrote:

Any risk assessment tells you PPE is the last line of defence, as far as cycling is concerned in the UK it seems to be the first and only topic!

+1

Avatar
Lord Fishface replied to mrmo | 10 years ago
0 likes
mrmo wrote:

This is not about sport cycling, it is about utility cycling. For which helmets are not really an issue, certainly not as important as the space devoted to discussing them.

This is the key distinction. I'd be classified as a 'sport cyclist' (or, if you prefer, the recreational cycling I do would be called 'sport cycling', even when it's not competitive). I wear a helmet when I train and when I race. I also wear one when I'm cycling to barracks of a morning, trundling into town for the shopping, or out for a gentle jaunt with Mrs F. Why? Because I'm so used to doing so that I feel more comfortable with my trusty Giro Savant on my bonce, and because whether or not it is in the least effective, the opportunity cost to wearing it is zero. I also don't need to use my SPDs, nor do I need to be riding a lightweight CX racer, but still I do.

There shouldn't be in people's minds a binary pro- or anti- stance to helmet-wearing; we shouldn't, as Chris Boardman says, be talking about them at all. I - like the majority here - am against compulsory helmet legislation, and accept the evidence-based arguments that for most cyclists, a helmet is unnecessary. However, for the kinds of cycling some of us here do, wearing one is a worthwhile investment; doing so has certainly saved me a few times from what would otherwise have been a nasty knock on the head.

Avatar
MartinH replied to laterrehaute | 10 years ago
0 likes
laterrehaute wrote:

What are the top ten things that are more important to cycle safety than a helmet?

Pretty much all the things that prevent an accident in the first place rather than just trying to limit the damage when it happens, so:

1. Driver attitude
2. Driver education
3. Driver awareness
4. Cyclist attitude
5. Cyclist education
6. Cyclist awareness
7. Roadworthiness of car
8. Roadworthiness of bike
9. Safe road design
10. Cyclist visibility

You could argue about the order of importance of those, but there's ten things I'd put above wearing a helmet right away.

Avatar
felixcat replied to thehairs1970 | 10 years ago
0 likes
thehairs1970 wrote:

Being put off cycling because of helmets is like being put off driving because of seat belts. .

Whatever you think, every compulsion law has been followed by a drop in cycling.

"Edmonton – 59% reduction in children’s cycling by 2004

Cyclists were counted in Edmonton (a city in Alberta), in 2000 (pre-law) and 2004 (post-law). The percentage of cyclists under 18 fell from 26% in the pre-law survey, to 15% post-law (Hagel et al, 2006), suggesting that the law discouraged substantial numbers of youngsters from cycling. Compared to adults who were not required to wear helmets, children’s cycling (<13 years) fell by 59%, with a 41% reduction for teenagers aged 13-17 (Hagel et al, 2006).

At the time, great concerns were also expressed that injuries per cyclist had increased after the introduction of Alberta’s helmet law (BHRF, 1055).

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1250.html

"Only two states - Victoria and NSW - attempted to measure the effect of the laws on cycling activity by pre- and post-law surveys at the same sites, observation periods, time of year and, where possible, the same observers. In NSW, data from identical pre- and post-law surveys were available only for children. Both surveys were conducted in excellent weather. Table 1 shows that the increase in numbers wearing helmets was only about half the decrease in cyclists counted, with similar outcomes for cycling in recreational areas, through road intersections, or to school. Reductions in rural NSW (35%) and in the Sydney Metropolitan area (37%) were almost identical. Another survey was carried out a year later, under fine and generally sunny conditions. Even fewer cyclists were counted.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1242.html

"February 2012: The New Zealand Medical Journal published Evaluation of New Zealand's bicycle helmet law (PDF 209kb) by former British Cycling Federation coach and road safety instructor Colin F Clarke, showing a massive plunge in cycling levels and a 20% higher accident rate since helmet law enforcement.

Public on-road cycling participation in New Zealand fell by 26% between 1989 and 1998, according to the Land Transport Safety Authority Cyclist Travel Survey (PDF 108kb page 42). New Zealand's population increased by 406,390 - or 11% - during that time. In the five years prior to 1994, average annual cyclist injury totals were 991. In the five years after 1994, average annual injury totals were 707 - a reduction of 29%.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1022.html

It seems likely to me that helmet promotion necessarly entails
claiming that cycling is exceptionally dangerous. Perhaps you remember BHit, the British pro helmet charity promoting helmets to schoolchildren with an X-ray of a skull.

Avatar
Kadenz replied to levermonkey | 10 years ago
0 likes

I agree with levermonkey. Wear a helmet & hi-viz if you want to; don't if you don't.

Personally, I wear both. I'd be very reluctant to cycle without a helmet: you never know in advance when you'll need it.

I certainly didn't find my helmet a 'distraction' when I fell heavily going round a corner on my bike and hit my head on the edge of the kerbstone. I got a big dent in my helmet, not in my skull.

Nor was it a 'distraction' when another cyclist came out of a side road just as I was passing at 18mph, causing me to somersault over my handlebars and hit the back of my head on the Tarmac as I landed. The helmet took the force of the blow, not my head.

Personally, I was very glad to have been wearing a helmet on both occasions. But if other cyclists would prefer their unprotected head to take the full force in such full force of the blow, at's up to them.

I certainly agree, though, that the bigger issue is careless, reckless and cycle-hating drivers.

Avatar
giff77 replied to nitram | 10 years ago
0 likes
nitram wrote:

He is plain wrong, would you drive a new car without airbags - no, I just a month ago would have died from a serious head injury if it were not for my helmet. Helmets are a not brainer.. excuse the pun. Martin McGrevy

My car is very old and has no air bags or any of the features that many vehicles have now days. I am of the opinion that driving skills have deteriated massively as a result of these new features. People rely hugely on the computer to control traction, braking etc. and also have a misguided perception that the air bags, crumple zones and roll cages are going to protect them. That's why we see idiots bombing up the motorway in torrential rain and zero visibility at 100mph. It's why we see the same idiots braking at the last minute.

The issue of safety on our roads is poor skills and behaviour towards other road users. NOT wearing Hi Viz and helmets - of which there is nothing wrong with. It's just that non-cyclists seem to think that this is the answer to road safety and is the easiest option rather than deal with the real issues which means upsetting the motoring lobby.

Boardman is correct in saying that the helmet debate is a red herring. Oh, and if you watch the TdF when Chris is talking about stages you see him wearing a helmet when on the road. So he is not anti-helmet

Avatar
OldRidgeback replied to nitram | 10 years ago
1 like
nitram wrote:

He is plain wrong, would you drive a new car without airbags - no, I just a month ago would have died from a serious head injury if it were not for my helmet. Helmets are a not brainer.. excuse the pun. Martin McGrevy

Neither of my motorbikes have airbags. My current car does but the last one didn't. As for ABS, it doesn't work on ice or snow or diesel spills, which is when you need it most. A lot of this new car control technology encourages people to drive to the limits of their vehicle and not use key driving skills such as cadence braking or braking in a straight line. Increased vehicle performance and that fat twerp Jeremy Clarkson also encourage people to drive too fast for their ability or road conditions.

I wear a helmet when I'm racing my bicycle because I'm pushing the limits. But I don't bother when I'm on the road.

Avatar
Ross K | 10 years ago
0 likes

I'm against mandatory helmet wear but I wear one whenever I'm on the bike because it keeps my wife happy, and anything that adds to the brownie points bank ultimately means more road miles for me.

The reality is I have two young children so I think making myself visible (reflectives and lights at night and bright colours (not necessarily fluro) by day) and protecting my head for the 0.0001% likely event is the least I can do, along with being as proactively safe as I can by "good riding", even if the helmet is effectively a placebo for my family.

If you do decide to wear one, a lightweight, well-ventilated helmet is hardly a major discomfort.

Each to their own.

Avatar
arfa | 10 years ago
0 likes

Boardman is totally right as usual. Neither he nor anyone else is disputing that a helmet might offer some degree of additional protection. However the range as shown on this forum is that it goes from "it saved my life" to as "much use as a chocolate teacup". Ooozavered's statistics say it all 75 joules of protection vs 200,000 to dissipate in a small car collision.
CB is right because lot's of people already choose to wear them, so what is the benefit of compulsion ? Evidence from Oz is that it's detrimental. As has been pointed out above, it's mums, children, potterers etc that we need out there and I'd go as far as saying that the helmet argument is like that political strategist's dead cat thrown on a table; a total distraction.
We have to move on and shine the spotlight on badly driven vehicles and lack of safe infrastructure which cause far more accidents than anything else on our highways and address this with far greater urgency.
I've posted elsewhere about acting as a witness in a hit & run but what was shocking that here was an open and shut case where a driver was prepared to lie all the way and didn't see he'd done anything wrong. What does that say about the primacy of our car culture and our justice system ?
More power to your elbow Mr Boardman.

Avatar
Neil753 | 10 years ago
0 likes

Given that more drivers die of head injuries than cyclists, maybe we should be calling for drivers to be forced to wear them first. It's only fair, after all  16

Avatar
Stumps | 10 years ago
0 likes

Rather than really muddy the waters here i've started another forum topic entitled

Why there is no money for safer road infrastructure....

Its an eye opener and would lead on quite well from CB's comments.

Avatar
Manchestercyclist | 10 years ago
0 likes

Chris Boardman is my hero, if only he was given the column inches Clarkson has.

Pages

Latest Comments