- 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
news
Chris Boardman being interviewedComplaints over bare-headed Chris Boardman’s helmetless BBC Breakfast bike ride
Chris Boardman’s appearance on BBC Breakfast this morning has provoked a flurry of complaints about his not wearing a cycle helmet – even though the segment began with him explaining why he chose not to do so. In a detailed explanation this afternoon, Boardman says that while the reaction was "understandable," it is also "unfortunate because it obscures what I believe are the real issues."
The early morning TV show is featuring a report on cycling each day this week. It is broadcast from Salford, close to the Manchester headquarters of British Cycling, where former Olympic champion Boardman is policy advisor.
Prior to going on a bike ride with him, presenter Louise Minchin asked Boardman, “Viewers will notice I will be wearing a helmet but you won’t. Why not?”
He replied: “It’s a very long answer and more time than we’ve got here," before summarising his position briefly.
“It discourages people from riding a bike, you’re as safe riding a bike as you are walking, statistically, you’re much safer than you are going in your own bathroom and you don’t wear a helmet there," he explained.
“There’s absolutely nothing wrong with helmets, but it’s not in the top ten things that you can do to keep safe.
“We’re going to look at all of those things, but for me, I want bikes to be for normal people in normal clothes.
“About 0.5 per cent of people wear one in the Netherlands, yet it’s the safest country in the world,” he added.
“There’s a reason for that.”
Despite his explanation, the backlash on social media was predictable, many pointing out that the Netherlands already has the type of infrastructure that Boardman and others are campaigning for in the UK.
One Facebook user, John Stimpson, said: “Chris Boardman wearing no helmet and riding in black jacket and jeans. For an item on cycling safety you can't get more stupid.”
Another, Toni Smith, said: “How can you show a piece about cycling safety when the ex-champion is not wearing any safety gear? This is not acceptable! Please in the future choose an ambassador who practices what they preach!”
Many others leapt to his defence, however, with Morgan Lewis saying: “For all those people expressing outrage, I wonder if you have spent the same amount of time looking at the evidence about helmets over the years as Chris Boardman has. His view is not idly held. There is a lot of knee-jerking in these comments.”
Jonathan Richards pointed out: “About two thirds of fatalities WITHIN cars are caused by head injuries - why not a call for compulsory helmets for those travelling in cars? And as for pedestrians ....”
Meanwhile, Chris Myrie couldn’t resist asking: “Does this mean his £80 endorsed helmets from Halfords are useless?”
There was a similar division in reaction to his comments on Twitter, where Boardman himself tweeted this morning after the show: “Hi All, rather than try to address the helmet debate (again) I'm going to pen something for people to read and point you to it this PM.”
That response has now been published on the British Cycling website. Boardman acknowledged the BBC Breakfast piece had “got a lot of people fired up,” and that “my riding a bicycle in normal clothing, looking like a normal person was greeted by some with cries of horror. It’s both understandable and unfortunate because it obscures what I believe are the real issues.”
Foremost among those issues is why some cyclists in the UK believe they should have to wear a helmet while cycling in the first place, he said.
“People wear helmets and high vis as they feel it’s all they can do to keep themselves safe. It shows just how far away Britain is from embracing cycling as a normal and convenient form of transport,” he added.
Pointing to the example of Utrecht in the Netherlands and providing a link to a video of people cycling there he went on: “I’m willing to bet that even those that swear by helmets and high vis would feel comfortable discarding their body armour in such an environment. And that’s the point; in Utrecht they have addressed the real dangers to cyclists.”
While he admitted that the situation in the UK is vastly different, he said helmet compulsion was not the answer, citing drops of between 30 and 50 per cent in countries such as Australia and New Zealand that had introduced such legislation.
“If cycling looks and feels normal, more people will cycle,” he said. The more people cycle, the safer they are - the safety in numbers effect. The more people cycle, the more lives will be saved from amongst the 37,000 that die each year from obesity-related illnesses. Never mind the more than 27,000 that die annually from pollution-related illnesses.”
Boardman said he understands “exactly why people feel so passionately about helmets or high vis,” and “why people wish to use them,” but said he would not promote helmets or hi-vis nor be drawn into a debate on a topic that he considers “isn’t even in the top 10 things that will really keep people who want to cycle safe.”
He added: “I want cycling in the UK to be like it is in Utrecht or Copenhagen and more recently New York City – an everyday thing that people can do in everyday clothes whether you are eight or 80 years old. I want cycling to be a normal thing that normal people do in normal clothes. Is that wrong?”
In the BBC Breakfast report itself, Boardman outlined his top tips for cycling safely including planning your route, how to negotiate junctions and roundabouts safely, road position, stopping at red lights and giving large vehicles plenty of space and not going up the left-hand side of them.
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.
Latest Comments
- Dnnnnnn 1 sec ago
Yes, if only we could something that would encourage people to - for example - reduce their reliance on fossil-fuelled vehicles for short trips...
- David9694 39 min 51 sec ago
I like how drivers make the case for making monitoring covert, not overt.
- andystow 52 min 5 sec ago
She seemed a bit upset about a minor misjudgement that could have killed someone and is going to cause months of stress and inconvenience.
- Backladder 57 min 45 sec ago
No we don't agree, personally I would take primary, even if only for a short period although I can understand why some riders might not want to...
- brooksby 1 hour 19 min ago
And which looks very like the bag produced by indy bag manufacturer Wizard Works…...
- HoarseMann 1 hour 30 min ago
If it was a 'no vehicles' sign (all white circle centre), it would mean cyclists could ride in the hours that HGVs and disabled drivers are allowed...
- stonojnr 3 hours 28 sec ago
The bit at the start and end looks like a cycle lane, but the bit they drive on looks just like a patched filter lane for traffic lights.
- JOHN5880 3 hours 51 sec ago
Hey, you 4 execs helped run a company into the ground and have no jobs anymore... Come work for us because you have great experience in the...
- Oakhambike 3 hours 45 min ago
£11.5k for a bike weighing over 8kg that's 2 fingers to customers let alone UCI
- Dnnnnnn 4 hours 58 sec ago
I'm going to show my bike a picture of this shed and tell it, "If you don't behave..."
Add new comment
287 comments
To everybody quoting "facts" and figures, do your figures include the two crashes I had in September - one that sent me flying in to a ditch with the bike landing on top of me and the second (on the very next day) that threw me in to the path of on coming traffic? I only mention it, because I'm wondering how many of these official sounding stats include all the little accidents where people get up and walk away relatively unscathed and don't report the accident or seek medical assistance? I couldn't tell you with any degree of certainty if the helmet helped or not - it all happened so quickly and whatnot - but I can tell you I did go over head first and rolled a bit, but I didn't suffer any head injuries. It is hardly a stretch of the imagination to assume that there are people out there who have had accidents and their helmets have prevented an injury that would have required medical assistance and thus appearing on your figures.
'It is hardly a stretch of the imagination to assume that there are people out there who have had accidents and their helmets have prevented an injury that would have required medical assistance and thus appearing on your figures.'
It is hardly a stretch of the imagination to assume that there are likewise plenty of unreported minor crashes involving people not wearing helmets.
LOL this is still going!!
There's a fundamental problem with trying to use statistics to prove helmet efficacy or to 'win the argument', basically because we're unable to do tests with humans under controlled conditions which replicate real riding experience and conditions.
This leaves us with data such as head injury rates in general populations and trying to correlate with helmet use, which doesn't definitively prove a cause and effect. And anecdotal evidence, which, by definition, does not stand up to empirical scrutiny . Neither is ideal, so people make judgements on use of helmets based on perception of activity risk and some assumptions about their efficacy, (as well as their own beliefs, experiences etc)
So basically, nobody is in a position to trash the reasoning of those on the other side of the argument to them, based on their 'facts', since there really aren't any concrete ones.
The argument by Boardman in this article that using a lot of PPE might be putting some people off cycling is persuasive, but I'd wager that even greater factors are the volume of traffic and lack of decent cycling infrastructure, plus number of deaths reported recently, which conspire to make cycling on UK roads seem dangerous.
Oh, and don't mandate their use as that will have unintended consequences on cycling take up.
'So basically, nobody is in a position to trash the reasoning of those on the other side of the argument to them, based on their 'facts', since there really aren't any concrete ones.'
The concrete fact here is that *nobody* can prove that their helmet saved their life. That is indisputable, unless you're a complete idiot.
Agreed. However, data aside, it is certainly acceptable to 'trash' another persons poor reasoning skills - especially if they lead somebody to make a decision that could impact their safety in a negative way.
There's been a lot of posts towards the end of this thread that I haven't read, but as far as I could tell, NOBODY here was mandating anything. If I've missed that post somewhere I apologise. Some people here have pushed logic and reasoning to the most extreme lengths because they seem to be under the impression that anybody who suggests that it's is beneficial to wear a helmet is automatically advocating for their enforcement - which simply is not the case.
Not quite, Boardmans argument is stop talking about PPE until we have sorted out the rest of the solution. Deal with traffic, deal with infrastructure, etc. Look at how much time and effort has been wasted in this thread, and countless other ones.
There is no evidence that helmets are a good thing overall, there is plenty of evidence that not being hit by a car is a good thing. However, rather than deal with the elephant in the room, everyone is focusing on the pointless solution that may not work.
Obviously cycle paths cost money, policing costs money, helmets, well the victim is picking up the tab and government takes the credit by being seen to do something.
Ha! Love it! That is a concrete fact. That there is no concrete proof to prove they *won't* save your life is a concrete fact too!
Or are you unwilling to accept that?!
Ha! Love it! That is a concrete fact. That there is no concrete proof to prove they *won't* save your life is a concrete fact too!
Or are you unwilling to accept that?!
If you read some of the comments, some are arguing you are an idiot for not wearing a helmet, which is pretty close.
The issue as i see it, helmets are the wrong topic for discussion. As Boardman has said not even in the top 10 issues. If you want to make the roads safer deal with the problem, cars, and how cyclists interact with them. You don't begin solving a problem by looking at the victim and blaming them. If after making the roads safer, there is a issue with cyclists and head injuries then maybe have a look at helmets. In any workplace PPE is always the last remedy if no other solution can be found.
There is no evidence that a helmet will save your life, or not save your life, there are certification guidelines which demand performance that is no where near some of the demands being placed on helmets. So whilst a helmet MAY help, the impact in a car crash will be so much more than the helmet can cope with it is simply not possible to say a helmet will help.
Does ask the question, what is the point of certification that is basically not fit for purpose?
I don't think we're in disagreement, mrmo.
Now get back to your safe infrastructure planning and road safety policy implementation and stop posting on this thread!
There is only so many times you can abuse Worcestershire and Gloucestershire county councils before they take out a restraining order
I actually know someone who should have worn a drinking helmet. She was drunk, at night, fell down a bank and ended up with concussion and a couple of weeks off work with a bad headache. Back to normal now (oh so perhaps she didn't need a drinking helmet).
Here here. Let's get on with the not being run over thing!
There are *plenty* of examples of deaths in people wearing helmets, so no, I can't accept that as it is written. I will however accept that there is a chance that they *might* save your life. And this is why I wear one.
I have just realised why you keep bringing up compulsion.
Its certainly true that a lot of us are anti compulsion, whether believers in helmet efficacy or not.
But the reason why I mention states which have a helmet law is that their cases make the failure of wearing to achieve casualty reduction much clearer.
In Australia the wearing rate jumped from about a third to over 90% overnight, without any change in casualty rate but with a big reduction in cycling. The sudden change in wearing rates makes these bad effects much plainer, whereas a gradual increase in wearing because of propaganda may fail in the same way, but is more difficult to pick out against other gradual changes.
It's the age old tale.
A minority or simply people deemed as being different or of less worth are being persecuted and singled out for mistreatment simply because arse holes can get away with it.
When brought to task about the issue they quickly engage in victim blaming with various lovely comments such as
"they should try and act less gay in public and they won't be assaulted"
"you should not go out wearing a short skirt"
"they didn't have a hi-viz vest or helmet on"
"I pay road tax..."
It's the same attitude entirely.
Pages