Complaints over bare-headed Chris Boardman’s helmetless BBC Breakfast bike ride

LinusLarrabee wrote:

I don't need to make a convincing case.

Then I can safely ignore every single comment you make, as you are obviously not interested in the facts.

None of the small seemingly pro-helmet minority have produced any evidence to back up their wild claims. I'd be genuinely interested in a pro-helmet post if that person could explain their reasoning (and not just slag off the opposition).

Perhaps there is a correlation between the most irrational, personal, nasty (and pointless) comments and a complete lack of interest in reality. Do these people have a fear of anything that challenges their point of view or do they just like to bicker and throw stones?

felixcat wrote:

700c wrote:

Most people walk at around 3-4 mph at a steady pace. I tend to cycle at speeds between 10-35 mph on my commute

So you're not comparing like with like. A helmet may offer protection from a fall at cycling speeds. They're fairly redundant when walking.

so a bike helmet may be use to you if you come of your bike, whether through your own fault or that of other road users. They're particularly useful when mountain biking, as the chances of an 'off' are probably higher.

If you are unlucky enough to suffer a direct head injury from two tonnes of vehicle, then the helmet is unlikely to help you, whether walking, cycling, or in a vehicle itself

Is this meant to be an argument for wearing bike helmets but not car helmets or walking helmets?
The figures show that the head injury rates for all three modes are roughly the same. The rates are certainly not different enough to make a distinction in risk levels.
The question remains: is cycling so much more dangerous that a helmet is needed? Or is there something about being on a bike that makes a helmet so much more effective?
Boardman was not riding off road, or talking about riding off road. (and no one posting above mentioned mountain biking) He is being attacked for going lidless on the highway.
Cycling on the road is not so uniquely dangerous that it needs a helmet, and all the fuss about lids only makes it seem to be something that the average citizen should avoid.

See above post, where I think I've addressed most of the points, but it's an argument about applying common sense more than anything I think!

I think if someone wants to wear a helmet, or chooses not to, for any given activity it is based on their evaluation and perception of risk. I don't think using statistics, which can of course be misleading or lead to erroneous conclusions, is going to persuade anyone either way, since it is a personal choice

I certainly agree that mandating the use of helmets or special clothing would be detrimental to cycling take up, if that's the point you're making? Cyclists come in all shapes sizes and outfits, and I wouldn't enforce helmets any more than i would ban them, I think 'normal' cycling should encompass everything from lycra pro style to jeans/ hipster / suit /casual whatever.

Freedom of choice will encourage the most amount of people to cycle, rather than expecting them to confirm to a certain type.

Certainly some non cycling drivers are guilty of this by expecting hi viz and helmets, riding in the gutter etc, but hopefully most of us are more enlightened on here?

oldstrath wrote:

Gus T wrote:

Tinternet_tim wrote
"If on the other hand this discussion was about cyclist who cycle in the dark on the public highway with no lights, then that would be a different matter. This really annoys me as you are not only putting your own safety at risk but also the safety of others you might run into (pedestrians) and also risk ruining someones else's life if they knock you off and kill you. I mention this as the 'no-light' brigade are out in force again due to the clocks changing."

Now that is something I agree with, we bang on about how great Copenhagen, Holland etc are but forget these places legislate that bikes must have lights fitted at point of sale, it's only road bikes & MTB's that don't have them fitted as standard by manufacturers, both of Mrs G's town bikes have lights fitted as standard but there again one is a Dutch steel town bike and the other is a Belgian town bike that she bought especially in Belgium because you can't get it in the UK. Maybe the Government can actually do some positive legislating for once & require bike manufacturers to fit lights as standard, it's not a massive cost and might actually keep someone alive plus think of the fun you could have speccing your lights as part of your bike choice.

The other side of that though, at least for Germany, is that the regulations specify lights that are utterly and completely inadequate for rural riding, and probably not enough to waken the average half-asleep texting nobber (aka the normal car driver). The main motivation is 'we must not dazzle the poor motorist', with the implied threat that if they are dazzled most of them are too thick to stop, and indeed so lacking in control they'll drive straight into the source.

Ah, but in my experience, admittedly on French motorways, every German driver is convinced they are Michael Schumaker and drive as if the are participating in a F1 GP.

felixcat wrote:

Don't you think a helmet might occasionally help a car user or pedestrian? If you think like this surely you wear a helmet in the car or walking?

bendertherobot wrote:

There were 700 stair deaths in 2010. It seems to me that wearing a helmet on stairs is not detrimental to safety but may well benefit you. Ergo we should all wear helmets on stairs.

As a purely logical exercise, then yes, it would be beneficial to wear a helmet in these circumstances. But, as I clearly wrote above, determining if something is beneficial is completely different from determining if something should be compulsory. But those amongst us who are cerebrally challenged seem incapable of understanding that difference - which is probably why you are making the irrational argument that helmets are not beneficial when what you really want to say is you just don't want to be forced to use them or you are just feeling silly when you arguments don't hold water.

Simon E wrote:

Then I can safely ignore every single comment you make, as you are obviously not interested in the facts.

That would be fine by me, except for your complete misrepresentation of what I've said so far. But even then, given how you have irrationally extrapolated that everything I say is irrelevant based on a specific answer to a direct comment to me taken out of context, it is clear that your opinion is of no value at all.

Guys, I can go all day - I've got all the time in the world. I'm happy to sit here making you look stupid and quite frankly I'm having fun doing it. So bring it on.

700c wrote:

That's interesting, and of course there are all kinds of reasons why someone might fall from stationary without protecting their head (serious and sudden illness, loss of consciousness etc), many of which are unpredictable and unexpected. You judge the risk and and choose your 'PPE' equipment based on the likelihood of injury occurring, how serious it may be and the type of injury that might occur.

EXACTLY! THANK YOU! This issue is not whether it will save one life, but whether it is a reasonable response to the level and nature of the danger.

We, correctly in my view, assess that the disadvantages of wearing a helmet while going about our daily lives, even if it only amounts to inconvenience, outweigh the potential benefits that it might prevent some damage in the event of an accident, if that accident involves damage to the head, and that something else worse doesn't happen at the same time to nullify the benefit.

Cycling is something I do every day. My boyfriend does it. My housemate does it. Most of my friends do it. Many of my acquaintances and colleagues do it. It is a normal, everyday activity to get from A to B.

Quote:

Sensible debate should respect individual choice rather than characterising the other side's position or arguments, which unfortunately happens a lot when talking about helmets

I might respect your choice to wear a helmet while walking down the street, but I'll probably assume you're on your lunchbreak from a building site, or you're a bit strange.

Wearing a helmet while doing everyday low-risk activities is a bit strange. The reason we don't think the same thing when it comes to cycling is that for decades we've been working on making cycling at all a bit strange.

Helmet and hi-vis is cultural anathema to wide-spread cycle use. You don't get it in the Netherlands and Denmark. There's a lot less helmets and hi-vis in Cambridge, where cycling is something the majority of the adult population do. Tackling the helmet question absolutely is a part of the battle for normalising cycling as everyday transport.

That said, feel free to wear a helmet. But don't tell me I should do the same, or that I'm stupid for not doing it, because you are feeding into the culture that makes what we do strange, and undeserving of national recognition and funding.

700c wrote:

See above post, where I think I've addressed most of the points, but it's an argument about applying common sense more than anything I think!

I think if someone wants to wear a helmet, or chooses not to, for any given activity it is based on their evaluation and perception of risk. I don't think using statistics, which can of course be misleading or lead to erroneous conclusions, is going to persuade anyone either way, since it is a personal choice

We obviously agree on many points, but I cannot share your willingness to dismiss statistics.
If common sense or personal impressions were a good guide to the truth we would not need science. Science uses statistics to validate theories, (or otherwise). Medicine assesses the effectiveness of drugs with studies which are statistically evaluated. I expect you take the drugs prescribed by your doctor. For all I know you may believe in homeopathy, but I don't. I believe what the science (statistics) tells me.
When we add up the numbers we find that sitting in a car or walking the streets leads to head injuries at much the same rate as cycling.
Cycling really is not so much more dangerous than other everyday activities that it needs a helmet.
The Netherlands has a much lower rate of cycling injury per mile ridden not because of helmet wearing, but because of different road conditions.
Oz and NZ kill cyclists at several times our rate in spite of near universal helmet wearing.
So expanded polystyrene is also irrelevant.

HKCambridge wrote:

Helmet and hi-vis is cultural anathema to wide-spread cycle use. You don't get it in the Netherlands and Denmark. There's a lot less helmets and hi-vis in Cambridge, where cycling is something the majority of the adult population do. Tackling the helmet question absolutely is a part of the battle for normalising cycling as everyday transport.

I have no idea if this is true or not, but could it be that in areas where there are larger cycling populations that drivers and pedestrians are more aware of the cyclists presence? And inversely, in areas where less cyclists are present, drivers are less aware and wearing these things might be more beneficial?

HKCambridge wrote:

Wearing a helmet while doing everyday low-risk activities is a bit strange. The reason we don't think the same thing when it comes to cycling is that for decades we've been working on making cycling at all a bit strange.

Helmet and hi-vis is cultural anathema to wide-spread cycle use. You don't get it in the Netherlands and Denmark. There's a lot less helmets and hi-vis in Cambridge, where cycling is something the majority of the adult population do. Tackling the helmet question absolutely is a part of the battle for normalising cycling as everyday transport.

That said, feel free to wear a helmet. But don't tell me I should do the same, or that I'm stupid for not doing it, because you are feeding into the culture that makes what we do strange, and undeserving of national recognition and funding.

This. 1000 times this.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

Guys, I can go all day - I've got all the time in the world. I'm happy to sit here making you look stupid and quite frankly I'm having fun doing it. So bring it on.

You are deluded on this as well. Your arguments have been exploded.

700c wrote:

felixcat wrote:

700c wrote:

Most people walk at around 3-4 mph at a steady pace. I tend to cycle at speeds between 10-35 mph on my commute

So you're not comparing like with like. A helmet may offer protection from a fall at cycling speeds. They're fairly redundant when walking.

so a bike helmet may be use to you if you come of your bike, whether through your own fault or that of other road users. They're particularly useful when mountain biking, as the chances of an 'off' are probably higher.

If you are unlucky enough to suffer a direct head injury from two tonnes of vehicle, then the helmet is unlikely to help you, whether walking, cycling, or in a vehicle itself

Is this meant to be an argument for wearing bike helmets but not car helmets or walking helmets?
The figures show that the head injury rates for all three modes are roughly the same. The rates are certainly not different enough to make a distinction in risk levels.
The question remains: is cycling so much more dangerous that a helmet is needed? Or is there something about being on a bike that makes a helmet so much more effective?
Boardman was not riding off road, or talking about riding off road. (and no one posting above mentioned mountain biking) He is being attacked for going lidless on the highway.
Cycling on the road is not so uniquely dangerous that it needs a helmet, and all the fuss about lids only makes it seem to be something that the average citizen should avoid.

See above post, where I think I've addressed most of the points, but it's an argument about applying common sense more than anything I think!

I think if someone wants to wear a helmet, or chooses not to, for any given activity it is based on their evaluation and perception of risk. I don't think using statistics, which can of course be misleading or lead to erroneous conclusions, is going to persuade anyone either way, since it is a personal choice

I certainly agree that mandating the use of helmets or special clothing would be detrimental to cycling take up, if that's the point you're making? Cyclists come in all shapes sizes and outfits, and I wouldn't enforce helmets any more than i would ban them, I think 'normal' cycling should encompass everything from lycra pro style to jeans/ hipster / suit /casual whatever.

Freedom of choice will encourage the most amount of people to cycle, rather than expecting them to confirm to a certain type.

Certainly some non cycling drivers are guilty of this by expecting hi viz and helmets, riding in the gutter etc, but hopefully most of us are more enlightened on here?

I agree. The phenomena about helmet wearing reducing the take up of cycling and thereby making cycling in general less safe has a proper category of dicursive thought.

It's an aggregation paradox. An individual cyclist may see wearing a helmet as a logical and benign way to improve even very marginally their own safety. But if lots of cyclists adopt that attitude they may unwittingly contribute to the idea that cycling is not essentially safe. The idea that cycling is not safe may reduce the number of people cycling. That there are fewer cyclists on the road increases the risk for all cyclists including them. The latter point arises from the fact that other road users are better at dealing with and are safer around cyclists when they are used to and are expecting them to be there.

That's the paradox. It also arises is the scare about MMR vaccines for example. A significant but small number of parents assessed the risk to their child from the MMR jab as high. They therefore did not get their child vaccinated. In so doing they reduced the overall level of vaccination for the three diseases. And that in some places has lead to increased risk for all children including theirs.

If you're just cycling for transport do the right thing. Leave the helmet at home and help contribute to a safer cycling environment.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

HKCambridge wrote:

Helmet and hi-vis is cultural anathema to wide-spread cycle use. You don't get it in the Netherlands and Denmark. There's a lot less helmets and hi-vis in Cambridge, where cycling is something the majority of the adult population do. Tackling the helmet question absolutely is a part of the battle for normalising cycling as everyday transport.

I have no idea if this is true or not, but could it be that in areas where there are larger cycling populations that drivers and pedestrians are more aware of the cyclists presence? And inversely, in areas where less cyclists are present, drivers are less aware and wearing these things might be more beneficial?

To be honest, I'd be surprised if it was a rational response to weighing up the pros and cons of the situation, in the same way that people don't actually take time to weigh up the pros and cons of wearing a helmet while walking. It's just normal.

wildnorthlands wrote:

Helmet debates always end in tears. Perhaps more to the point, did he have to wear completely black clothing? Was he in stealth mode?

Was he cycling at night? Silly to wear black whilst cycling on roads at night, but it could well make you more visible during daytime.

700c wrote:

To those comparing walking with cycling as similarly low risI appreciate statistically the risk of head injury when cycling is small. I also appreciate there's a sk activities, which merit the same choice of PPE, my points have clearly fallen on deaf ears - If I fall or hit an object when i walk, I'm likely to avoid head injury. If I fall over or hit something when cycling I'm likely to avoid head injury. HOWEVER I cannot walk at up to 35mph, but I do cycle at this speed on my commute to work. The impact on my head onto tarmac or other stationary object is going to be worse at higher speed.

Your points have NOT fallen on deaf ears. You, with reason, say that the extra speed of cycling is likely to cause injury in the event of something going wrong. I counter that nevertheless the figures show that the RATE of head injury to cyclists and pedestrians is pretty similar. The risk is more or less the same.
I guess that this is because the four wheeled elephant in the room does not discriminate. It even runs down pedestrians on the pavement, never mind crossing the road.
Long may it remain your choice, but I see little reason to wear a helmet cycling, walking or driving.

700c wrote:

To those comparing walking with cycling as similarly low risk activities, which merit the same choice of PPE, my points have clearly fallen on deaf ears - If I fall or hit an object when i walk, I'm likely to avoid head injury. If I fall over or hit something when cycling I'm likely to avoid head injury. HOWEVER I cannot walk at up to 35mph, but I do cycle at this speed on my commute to work. The impact on my head onto tarmac or other stationary object is going to be worse at higher speed.

I appreciate statistically the risk of head injury when cycling is small. I also appreciate there's a small window of 'usefulness' where a helmet is efficacious (limited object mass, low speeds, etc). I still choose to wear one when cycling but not when walking, following my evaluation of the risk including potential severity. See above. i also choose to wear reflective clothing in winter months. Anyone who comes to a different conclusion is fine by me.

I applaud CB's efforts to normalise cycling by wearing regular clothing. That he respects and understands my choice to wear other clothing/ equipment is also good to hear.

35mph Occasionally. It's not like you're doing that all the time. That's a fast downhill bit even for most regular cyclists. And you're rather missing the point. We're talking about cycling for transport, The people that ride bikes who aren't "cyclists". They'll have the brakes on going down that hill. 35mph would scare the bejeezus out of a lot of commuters.

OK so mostly on here we're all experienced cyclists and a lot of us do or used to race. We're probably confident about our bike and controlling it and confident in traffic. But Boardman is taliking about getting people like my wife to regard cycling as normal and to not be scared and tales of derring do at 35mph on your way to work make it seem like another planet and extremely alarming. Bikes are still very useful at 10mph you know. That 5 mile car drive some of it sitting in traffic that takes 15 mins by the time you've parked or the 20 mins bus journey because of the walk to the bus stop and the wait and then the bus going the less direct route is now a cheap predictable half hour ride away. No special safety equipment or clothing required.

That's what we want to get people to buy into,

HKCambridge wrote:

Wearing a helmet while doing everyday low-risk activities is a bit strange. The reason we don't think the same thing when it comes to cycling is that for decades we've been working on making cycling at all a bit strange.

This is spot on.

I don't think many people here are claiming that riding your bike will never lead to a situation where you'd be better off wearing a helmet than not. But this situation is basically no more likely to arise than it is doing any number of other things.
So it's frustrating when the helmet debate dominates any discussion of cycling when it doesn't dominate any discussion of those other things (e.g. head injuries in cars) which isn't rational- and a strategy to increase the number of cycling journeys needs to be rational and not based on pandering to public perception.

It also reinforces the idea that safety on the roads is all about what the potential victims do, not what the people with the potential to do all the damage do. This is pretty much the opposite of the way we would treat any other situation where there's the potential for people to get hurt, and I think the reason cycling is a special case in this respect is largely for the reasons HKCambridge mentions.

oozaveared wrote:

A friend of mine likes to mount lights and a head cam on his and says that's the only reason he wears one.

I wear one in the winter commuting for this very reason. I have a front and rear light attached and find it very useful for sitting up and looking across lines of traffic & junctions and letting drivers know you are there before they commit an unadulterated dick move.

Attaching lights to a casquette is hassle I can't be hooped with.

felixcat wrote:

The four wheeled elephant in the room does not discriminate. It even runs down pedestrians on the pavement, never mind crossing the road.
Long may it remain your choice, but I see little reason to wear a helmet cycling, walking or driving.

I don't wear a helmet to protect myself from the direct impact of a car, as I've previously said.

Rate of injury among peds & cyclists may be similar (not sure), that doesn't mean the severity of the injury will be similar, and in fact I would be surprised if it was, given likely speed differentials of the mode of transport.

Anyway, I've made my peace with the helmet debate; i do respect individual views but obviously want to ensure my rationale and argument is properly understood and not misquoted, hence my posting here. I've been on here long enough to realise I'm not going to change others views though!

felixcat wrote:

The four wheeled elephant in the room does not discriminate. It even runs down pedestrians on the pavement, never mind crossing the road.
Long may it remain your choice, but I see little reason to wear a helmet cycling, walking or driving.

I don't wear a helmet to protect myself from the direct impact of a car, as I've previously said.

Rate of injury among peds & cyclists may be similar (not sure), that doesn't mean the severity of the injury will be similar, and in fact I would be surprised if it was, given likely speed differentials of the mode of transport.

Anyway, I've made my peace with the helmet debate; i do respect individual views but obviously want to ensure my rationale and argument is properly understood and not misquoted, hence my posting here. I've been on here long enough to realise I'm not going to change others views though!

Yes and that's why I wear a seat belt when in a car! How about you??

Storck Rider wrote:

Yes and that's why I wear a seat belt when in a car! How about you??

Don't you use a flameproof suit and full face helmet?

This was the point that Chris was trying to make. If he wore dark clothes and no helmet in Holland or Denmark no one would think it odd, because the infrastructure is designed for cyclists to arrive at their destination safely Wearing a helmet or fluoro clothes in the UK do not make you safe but they do, theoretically, reduce your risk of being injured. There is a big difference in designing a cycling infrastructure that enables people to ride in safety from one where you ride along a blue strip of paint in bright clothing, with lights and a helmet in hope that you are reducing your risk factors to make it in one piece to the end of your journey

Storck Rider wrote:

Yes and that's why I wear a seat belt when in a car! How about you??

Seatbelt? Judging by your nonsensical posts I think the best safety feature you should be using is someone running in front of your car waving a flag.

Did the cab behind him have to be painted black? Was it in stealth mode?