Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Fabian Cancellara sparks helmet debate on Twitter, says all cyclists should wear one

Trek Factory Racing rider shocked by number of bare-headed riders — in the Netherlands

Fabian Cancellara has this morning sparked a revival on Twitter of the eternal helmet debate, after saying that all cyclists should wear the headgear – his comments prompted by the sight of bare-headed people riding bikes in the Netherlands, where he is currently taking part in the Eneco Tour.

The Trek Factory Racing rider tweeted:

 

 

Shortly afterwards, he added:

 

 

The fact Cancellara was tweeting about the Netherlands, which together with Denmark has the highest levels of cycling in Europe but one of the best safety records, did not escape attention:

 

 

 

 

Some also pointed out that everyday cycling is an entirely different proposition from racing, where helmets have been compulsory since 2003 – although the speeds that racers travel at means that the velocity of any impact would in all likelihood be well above the maximum stipulated under EU standards for cycle helmets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While Cancellara’s original posts were widely retweeted and favourited, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Twitter users doing that were endorsing his views.

One person who lives in the town where Cancellara noticed the lack of helmets happened to be visiting the rider’s home country, Switzerland, and said:

 

 

Not everyone took exception to Cancellara’s stance. One Twitter user said:

 

 

Another added:

 

 

Finally, this tweet sums up an opinion shared by many:

 

 

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

110 comments

Avatar
HarryCallahan replied to rggfddne | 9 years ago
0 likes
nuclear coffee wrote:
HarryCallahan wrote:

If the helmet isn't there where does the energy that cracks the helmet go?

It gets focussed into a raw concentrated form of idiocy that's then handed out to people like you.

Tell me, how much energy, in J or kCal if you like, is required to create a few square inches of crack in expanded polycarbonate?

Do you know there's a difference between cracking and instantaneous disintegration?

The damaged, compressed, helmet structure sat between the head and hard ground (wall, pole, windscreen etc) and took some of the impact.

Go do a simple experiment using a hammer, a helmet and your head. Which hurts more, with or without helmet?

Avatar
surly_by_name | 9 years ago
0 likes

Was Fabian paid to tweet about helmets by cycling websites eager to get clicks?

We've been here before. Many, many times. Please make it stop.

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to rggfddne | 9 years ago
0 likes
nuclear coffee wrote:
HarryCallahan wrote:

If the helmet isn't there where does the energy that cracks the helmet go?

It gets focussed into a raw concentrated form of idiocy that's then handed out to people like you.

Tell me, how much energy, in J or kCal if you like, is required to create a few square inches of crack in expanded polycarbonate?

It's not the energy in the crack creation/propagation itself which is the main factor (although I guess some enterprising engineer might tell us as the Youngs modulus, fracture toughness, surface energy etc are probably easily available).

If the crack occurs but the foam underneath is not compressed then it's likely that the fracture itself provided little protection (it may have slowed things a little or hardly at all).

If the foam is compressed then the helmet will likely have slowed the impact - although that may not be sufficient to prevent injury (or maybe irrelevant to the outcome).

Avatar
rggfddne replied to HarryCallahan | 9 years ago
0 likes
HarryCallahan wrote:
nuclear coffee wrote:
HarryCallahan wrote:

If the helmet isn't there where does the energy that cracks the helmet go?

It gets focussed into a raw concentrated form of idiocy that's then handed out to people like you.

Tell me, how much energy, in J or kCal if you like, is required to create a few square inches of crack in expanded polycarbonate?

Do you know there's a difference between cracking and instantaneous disintegration?

The damaged, compressed, helmet structure sat between the head and hard ground (wall, pole, windscreen etc) and took some of the impact.

Go do a simple experiment using a hammer, a helmet and your head. Which hurts more, with or without helmet?

MSCi in materials science, so yes, I do. The post just above this one is pretty relevant. Unlike your answer, which *completely* ignored my question, suggesting you don't have a clue.

Avatar
antigee | 9 years ago
0 likes

rode to school with my daughter today as we do most days - live in Melbourne, Victoria and helmets are mandatory
we rode defensively and dealt with one illegal right turn across us, a fast approach no look and hard accelerate thru a stop line in front of us and a fail to give way at a crossing when turning at lights (busy junction and legal for us to use crossing) a pretty average 15minute ride at rush hour

a helmet might have mitigated some of the injuries if we'd failed to assess the poor driving and failed to react in time
- the helmets didn't make the ride to school any safer.

Avatar
fukawitribe replied to rggfddne | 9 years ago
0 likes
nuclear coffee wrote:
HarryCallahan wrote:
nuclear coffee wrote:
HarryCallahan wrote:

If the helmet isn't there where does the energy that cracks the helmet go?

It gets focussed into a raw concentrated form of idiocy that's then handed out to people like you.

Tell me, how much energy, in J or kCal if you like, is required to create a few square inches of crack in expanded polycarbonate?

Do you know there's a difference between cracking and instantaneous disintegration?

The damaged, compressed, helmet structure sat between the head and hard ground (wall, pole, windscreen etc) and took some of the impact.

Go do a simple experiment using a hammer, a helmet and your head. Which hurts more, with or without helmet?

MSCi in materials science, so yes, I do. The post just above this one is pretty relevant. Unlike your answer, which *completely* ignored my question, suggesting you don't have a clue.

To be fair, I think Harry might have been saying much of what I was, but in a different way. I might well be wrong about that mind.

Avatar
batch2103 | 9 years ago
0 likes

The debate on helmet wearing should never go away. It has to be kept very much in the publics consciousness ... otherwise we might not have any conscious to ponder?

Avatar
Joeinpoole replied to batch2103 | 9 years ago
0 likes
batch2103 wrote:

The debate on helmet wearing should never go away. It has to be kept very much in the publics consciousness ... otherwise we might not have any conscious to ponder?

Don't be ridiculous. The 'helmet debate' most definitely *should* go away as there is no evidence whatsoever that helmets do anything to reduce injury rates.

We've been running 'studies' of compulsory helmet-wearing in Australia, New Zealand and some parts of Canada for nearly 20 years now. If helmets really did help, then it should have shown up in the statistics by now.

Avatar
HarryCallahan replied to rggfddne | 9 years ago
0 likes
nuclear coffee wrote:
HarryCallahan wrote:
nuclear coffee wrote:
HarryCallahan wrote:

If the helmet isn't there where does the energy that cracks the helmet go?

It gets focussed into a raw concentrated form of idiocy that's then handed out to people like you.

Tell me, how much energy, in J or kCal if you like, is required to create a few square inches of crack in expanded polycarbonate?

Do you know there's a difference between cracking and instantaneous disintegration?

The damaged, compressed, helmet structure sat between the head and hard ground (wall, pole, windscreen etc) and took some of the impact.

Go do a simple experiment using a hammer, a helmet and your head. Which hurts more, with or without helmet?

MSCi in materials science, so yes, I do. The post just above this one is pretty relevant. Unlike your answer, which *completely* ignored my question, suggesting you don't have a clue.

Well back to your irrelevant question then.

You could drive a steam roller over helmet foam and not crack it in the sense of large visible separations. Concentrated force on a section can cause separation at the edge, say a high heal creating a sharp indentation. Then again pushing a cricket ball into it won't necessarily cause separation because the impact force reduces smoothly over a distance.

In the end it's just a dumb irrelevant question which doesn't have a precise answer as requested because there are too many unknowns.

And also, as an MSc whatever, surely you know that an impact is measured in terms of FORCE and PRESSURE not energy??

The foam is there to lengthen the deceleration by way of compression, so our concern is compressibility, thickness, not "what 'energy' is required to crack it" .

Avatar
Joeinpoole | 9 years ago
0 likes

I visited Bern recently and I was surprised by how few motorists were wearing helmets.

Avatar
Must be Mad | 9 years ago
0 likes

Wow, its hard to argue with the anti-helmet brigade when physics are being applied so rigorously..

Avatar
gareth2510 | 9 years ago
0 likes

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh not this boloody topic again ffs  102

Avatar
oozaveared | 9 years ago
0 likes

Fabian cancellara is sponsored by Bell. he has his name all over a range of their premium helmets.

You should wear a helmet he says.

Call it performance pay shall we?

Avatar
rggfddne replied to fukawitribe | 9 years ago
0 likes
fukawitribe wrote:
nuclear coffee wrote:
HarryCallahan wrote:
nuclear coffee wrote:
HarryCallahan wrote:

If the helmet isn't there where does the energy that cracks the helmet go?

It gets focussed into a raw concentrated form of idiocy that's then handed out to people like you.

Tell me, how much energy, in J or kCal if you like, is required to create a few square inches of crack in expanded polycarbonate?

Do you know there's a difference between cracking and instantaneous disintegration?

The damaged, compressed, helmet structure sat between the head and hard ground (wall, pole, windscreen etc) and took some of the impact.

Go do a simple experiment using a hammer, a helmet and your head. Which hurts more, with or without helmet?

MSCi in materials science, so yes, I do. The post just above this one is pretty relevant. Unlike your answer, which *completely* ignored my question, suggesting you don't have a clue.

To be fair, I think Harry might have been saying much of what I was, but in a different way. I might well be wrong about that mind.

Yes, you provided useful information. He asked a rather stupid leading question and looked smart.

Avatar
Paul J | 9 years ago
0 likes

Excellent bike racer (ignoring rumours). Bit of an idiot off the bike, it seems.

Avatar
rggfddne replied to HarryCallahan | 9 years ago
0 likes
HarryCallahan wrote:
nuclear coffee wrote:
HarryCallahan wrote:
nuclear coffee wrote:
HarryCallahan wrote:

If the helmet isn't there where does the energy that cracks the helmet go?

It gets focussed into a raw concentrated form of idiocy that's then handed out to people like you.

Tell me, how much energy, in J or kCal if you like, is required to create a few square inches of crack in expanded polycarbonate?

Do you know there's a difference between cracking and instantaneous disintegration?

The damaged, compressed, helmet structure sat between the head and hard ground (wall, pole, windscreen etc) and took some of the impact.

Go do a simple experiment using a hammer, a helmet and your head. Which hurts more, with or without helmet?

MSCi in materials science, so yes, I do. The post just above this one is pretty relevant. Unlike your answer, which *completely* ignored my question, suggesting you don't have a clue.

Well back to your irrelevant question then.

You could drive a steam roller over helmet foam and not crack it in the sense of large visible separations. Concentrated force on a section can cause separation at the edge, say a high heal creating a sharp indentation. Then again pushing a cricket ball into it won't necessarily cause separation because the impact force reduces smoothly over a distance.

In the end it's just a dumb irrelevant question which doesn't have a precise answer as requested because there are too many unknowns.

And also, as an MSc whatever, surely you know that an impact is measured in terms of FORCE and PRESSURE not energy??

The foam is there to lengthen the deceleration by way of compression, so our concern is compressibility, thickness, not "what 'energy' is required to crack it" .

Too much stupid to bother replying to everything.

Look up "impact test" about anywhere really. Energy is absolutely relevant, as is stress. And no, you absolutely cannot drive a steamroller over a helmet and have it survive, idiot.

Avatar
Simon E | 9 years ago
0 likes

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

http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-1...

I'm with the William Bradley tweet quoted above. Just because Fabian Cancellara says something doesn't mean he is better informed about it than the rest of us.

Avatar
congokid replied to HarryCallahan | 9 years ago
0 likes
HarryCallahan wrote:

Go do a simple experiment using a hammer, a helmet and your head. Which hurts more, with or without helmet?

No. Since you're the one with such faith in the powers of this supposed safety intervention in bike accidents, you go and do it, then get back to us with the results.

Not that it will mean anything if you do, of course, as it's got nothing to do with cycling.

Avatar
Beaufort | 9 years ago
0 likes

Famously, Merckx & Hinault both died awful deaths racing on the road....except they didn't. Wear or don't wear, your call.

Avatar
HKCambridge replied to congokid | 9 years ago
0 likes
congokid wrote:
HarryCallahan wrote:

Go do a simple experiment using a hammer, a helmet and your head. Which hurts more, with or without helmet?

No. Since you're the one with such faith in the powers of this supposed safety intervention in bike accidents, you go and do it, then get back to us with the results.

Not that it will mean anything if you do, of course, as it's got nothing to do with cycling.

Well, quite. The actual analogy here is that my head will be much better off not being hit by the hammer at all, never mind whether I'm wearing a helmet.

Hence spending my energy campaigning for better cycle infrastructure, rather than the marginal intervention of encouraging helmet use.

Avatar
Paul J | 9 years ago
0 likes

The UK has 7 times the rate of KSI amongst its cyclists as the Netherlands does.

Clearly the Netherlands is doing something better than the UK when it comes to cycling safety.

The UK has quite high rates of helmet use amongst cyclists - circa 30% if I remember right. This is in the order of a factor of 10 higher than in the Netherlands, where very few cyclists wear helmets (circa 2% overall).

Clearly, the UK's obsession with making cyclists wear polystyrene is, in the grand scheme of things, not very effective at actually making them safe. If the goal is cycling safety then clearly helmets aren't at all the solution.

It's so damn inarguable that helmets are (in the grand scheme of things) shit at keeping cyclists safe, and it's so damn obvious what it is needed. Which makes it so frustrating to have to listen to the "But my friend fell of his bike and his helmet cracked, so he must have been saved!" brigade.

Another tidbit, just over half of the KSIs in the Netherlands are old people. Many of these (I don't have figured) are not dying because of anything to do with cycling, but dying cause they're old, had some health problem and just happened to be on a bicycle. They probably lived several years longer than they would have lived without having regular cycling in their lives.

E.g., this happened to a dutch friend of my mothers this year. She fell off her bicycle because of chest pain, and died later that evening from a heart attack.

But yeah, cyclists wearing helmets, keep obsessing over that UK. So long as you do, you'll never have *actual* safe cycling.

Avatar
ChairRDRF | 9 years ago
0 likes

For what happens when lots more people start to wear cycle helmets, see http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/17/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law/ and for the possible explanations, see http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/27/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-l...

Avatar
ChairRDRF | 9 years ago
0 likes

On the physics of impacts on cycle helmets see http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html

Avatar
ChairRDRF | 9 years ago
0 likes

Fabian Cancellara is not the first racing cyclist to get cycling as transport all wrong. See our beloved Wiggo on helmets here: http://rdrf.org.uk/2012/08/09/why-bradley-wiggins-is-so-wrong-part-three..., here http://rdrf.org.uk/2012/08/03/why-bradley-wiggins-is-so-wrong-part-one-s... and other posts under
http://rdrf.org.uk/category/bradley-wiggins/

Avatar
ChairRDRF | 9 years ago
0 likes

I yield to nobody in my admiration for Cancellara. Take a look at this, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxXqQqAc2pA&feature=player_embedded.

Thing is - if he had to come to grief doing this, just how much good would a lid have done, and of course he would have been elss likely to do it lidless.

And should he actually be lecturing those of us who ride in urban areas with a far lower casualty level per time spent cycling than Tour de France riders, even in the UIK, let alone the Netherlands? On cyclist safety?

Avatar
ChairRDRF | 9 years ago
0 likes

Whoops, last post should read "less likely to do ti lidless" to refer to risk compensation

Avatar
noether | 9 years ago
0 likes

Check out the entrance to the bike shed at Rotterdam Central railway station at 8:00 am. Neither young nor old wears a helmet, and they all ride like hooligans, barely respecting the code. One almost gets a heart attack fearing for their life. And zero crashes with cars. Why? Probably because the car drivers themselves are also regular cyclists, and therefore utterly respectful of cyclists (with the helping hand of Draconian laws protecting cyclists). Safe cycling is a matter of numbers, infrastructure, legislation, mentality. Did I mention helmets?

By the way, from the discussion on the (lack of) shock absorption of helmets upon impact, it seems MIPS makes sense. Right or wrong?

Avatar
Joeinpoole replied to ChairRDRF | 9 years ago
0 likes
ChairRDRF wrote:

I yield to nobody in my admiration for Cancellara. Take a look at this, for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxXqQqAc2pA&feature=player_embedded.

Thing is - if he had to come to grief doing this, just how much good would a lid have done, and of course he would have been elss likely to do it lidless.

And should he actually be lecturing those of us who ride in urban areas with a far lower casualty level per time spent cycling than Tour de France riders, even in the UIK, let alone the Netherlands? On cyclist safety?

Exactly. Can I be alone in thinking that a nice wicker basket, mounted on the *front* of his bike, would have saved him from having to reach backwards into his jersey pockets too __ much safer. Mr Cancellara needs to demonstrate safe cycling in his own actions before lecturing anyone else.

Avatar
truffy | 9 years ago
0 likes

I just love it when people quote stats in favour of not adding to safety. It's utter bollocks.

The pont is, whether any given safety device is proven effective 100% of the time, or not using said device is proven effective 0% of the time, is irrelevant. Its use shifts the odds in your favour.

That's not to say that wearing safety devices should be compulsory. But we shouldn't shed tears for those given plenty of warning/encouragement but who decide not to heed it. In a free society we should be free to make our choices. And that includes the right to forfeit one's own life when a simple safety feature MIGHT be beneficial.

But do carry on.

Avatar
jacknorell replied to truffy | 9 years ago
0 likes
truffy wrote:

I just love it when people quote stats in favour of not adding to safety. It's utter bollocks.

The pont is, whether any given safety device is proven effective 100% of the time, or not using said device is proven effective 0% of the time, is irrelevant. Its use shifts the odds in your favour.

That's not to say that wearing safety devices should be compulsory. But we shouldn't shed tears for those given plenty of warning/encouragement but who decide not to heed it. In a free society we should be free to make our choices. And that includes the right to forfeit one's own life when a simple safety feature MIGHT be beneficial.

But do carry on.

I take it you disagree with scientific concepts such as proof then too?

Wearing a rabbits foot MIGHT actually help too, so do you have one of those? Or a dreamcatcher hanging from your handlebars, they're good luck. Or armoured shoes, just in case your feet get run over?

No?

I love it when people use emotional arguments not backed up by facts or study: Unless about their love lives, they're commonly quite wrong.

Pages

Latest Comments