Spokes, Scotland’s leading cycle campaign group which covers Edinburgh and the wider Lothian area, has announced that it is to stop publicising events that require participants to wear a helmet in the face of what it describes as “the creeping growth of semi-compulsion.” The group’s stance regarding making helmets mandatory is in line with that of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RosPA), which says it is impractical to make use of helmets compulsory.
According to Spokes, the increasing requirement of organisers of events such as sportives and other rides for participants to wear a helmet – in some cases applicable to all riders, in others only to those below a certain age – fails to take into account arguments against helmet compulsion.
It also believes that the requirement to use a helmet reinforces the perception that cycling is an inherently dangerous activity, and is calling upon government-funded bodies such as Cycling Scotland and other organisations to cease using images in promotional material that only show cyclists wearing helmets.
Spokes maintains that in some types of crashes, wearing a helmet can actually lead to an increased risk of injuries, and also points out that research has established that drivers give less space to cyclists wearing helmets than those without – as established, most famously in a study carried out by Dr Ian Walker of the University of Bath.
Instead of forcing cyclists to wear helmets, Spokes insists that the best way to improve the safety of cyclists would be to encourage more people to get riding, something that it claims is being undermined by there being too much emphasis on using a helmet.
Spokes’ position was outlined in the latest edition of the bulletin sent to its members, in which it said: “We are concerned at the creeping growth of semi-compulsion, for example charity bike rides insisting on helmets for young adults and government-funded websites picturing all or nearly all cyclists helmeted, thus creating a climate in which total compulsion could eventually happen.
“Helmet advertisers, promoters and government agencies bombard us with the benefits but, disgracefully, we are never told of the risks – although there is evidence on both sides, and crashes and injuries occur as a result of the risks of helmets.
“Compulsion, or one-sided promotion, is very wrong – even more so as they put people off the healthy choice of getting about by bike. Therefore, Spokes will not, after this [bulletin] issue, publicise charity rides or other events involving helmet compulsion. We call on all other organisations concerned about public health to do the same.
“Helmet manufacturers and sales outlets, in the interest of public safety, should have to make clear on boxes and in sales literature a helmet’s impact design speed (usually around 12mph) and the potential risks as well as benefits.”
In news report on Spokes’ move, The Scotsman pointed out that road safety charity Brake supports helmets being made compulsory, quoting senior campaigns officer Ellen Booth as saying: “We encourage cyclists to do everything they can to reduce risks, including wearing a helmet and high-visibility gear, and choosing the safest routes possible.”
However, Michael Corley, campaigns manager at RoSPA, argued against compulsion, saying “We do not believe it is practical to make the use of cycle helmets mandatory.”
In the section of its website devoted to the issue of helmets and the arguments for and against compulsion, national cyclists’ organisation CTC – itself strongly opposed to any such measures – points out that “several recent reports (including four papers in peer-reviewed medical journals) have found no link between changes in helmet wearing rates and cyclists' safety – and there are even cases where safety seems to have worsened as helmet-wearing increased.”
Helmets are mandatory for under-18s on all sportives registered with British Cycling, with the governing body’s guidelines adding that “senior riders are encouraged to wear helmets” and that “the organiser is at liberty to make it a requirement of the event that all participants wear helmets.”
The terms and conditions of Cycling Scotland’s own Pedal for Scotland ride say that “cycle safety helmets are recommended but not compulsory.”
It should be noted that in many instances the issue of whether helmets should be compulsory or not for all riders is out of organisers’ hands, with the requirement for participants to wear a helmet imposed by insurers.
Use of a helmet is recommended in the Highway Code, which says: "You should wear a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened."

61 thoughts on “Cycle campaign group Spokes stops publicising events requiring participants to wear helmets”
Finally -some sanity seems to
Finally -some sanity seems to prevail. I should be looking forward to doing the Manchester Ride tomorrow but “the creeping growth of semi-compulsion” (brilliant phrase) means im not allowed to enter because im a responsible adult who after careful consideration of all the facts has made a conscious decision, that is well within my legal rights, not to wear a helmet and therefore barred from entering.
Kudos to Spokes for taking a sensible approach on this issue and i now fully expect a endless wave of people now telling me what a reckless idiot i am. (|:
The Dartmoor Classic sportive
The Dartmoor Classic sportive website states that as a UCI event you must wear a helmet. Obviously creaping compulsion isn’t a problem for the UCI.
SideBurn wrote:The Dartmoor
The UCI is the world racing organisation. To win races, you may have to take risks.
Audaxes, club runs, randoneés, Sunday rides to a country pub for lunch, commutes and trips to the shops are not races. There are no prizes or jerseys at stake, so you do not need to take risks.
SideBurn wrote:The UCI is the
I am on the anti-helmet side of the debate, don’t wear one when not racing and agree with your point that social rides don’t require one.
However, while I’ve not done so so far, I am tempted to wear one when doing sportives. As generally you end up in a group with a couple of friends and a couple of randoms.
No idea who they are, how they ride, how they point out obstacles (if at all), their bike handling in groups etc.
It is an added element of risk to be considered when choosing when & where to wear a helmet.
SideBurn wrote:The Dartmoor
The pre-entry bumf for the 2009 edition made no mention of helmets. Once we had paid and received our entry packs, suddenly there was a requirement to wear one. I considered refusing to ride but ended up riding without one. No-one said anything, which was fortunate, because the resulting argument would have been unpleasant. X(
Good for Spokes. Cycling isn’t dangerous and events shouldn’t be about promoting the sale of PPE with dubious benefits.
Rob Simmonds wrote:Cycling
I think Andrei Kivilev would disagree with you there…
iammarcmason wrote:Rob
I think you’ll find the late Andrei was engaged in a professional sport when he was killed, not riding down a country lane for a pint at the Limping Whippet or around town to the office.
SideBurn wrote:Obviously
My understanding is that helmets compulsion in racing came in at the behest of the manufactures, not the riders, the teams or the doctors.
I remember watching on TV the rider protests in the TdeF where some (/many ?) refused to wear them and got fined. Of course in the end the UCI won out !!
SideBurn wrote:The Dartmoor
The helmet rule has not stopped head injuries in UCI events, or deaths. Wouter Weylandt died after suffering several injuries including a fractured skull, and he wore a helmet.
Of course, neither the Road.cc or Scotsman article mentioned what has happened in Australia. A cycle scheme like the London one is virtually unused because of the helmet law. if you search the web, the pictures of helmets attached to hire bikes have disclaimers inside. Plus several towns in Australia are passing by-laws allowing cyclists to ride without a helmet and there is a big passive resistance campaign. Mexico and Israel have repealed their legislation
This does not mean helmets do not save cyclists from severe injury, I also know several cyclists who have survived serious crashes because they were wearing a helmet, and I’ve seen the pictures to prove it.
I wear a helmet through choice. It needs to be left to the rider’s choice. You don’t get safer cycling by forcing cyclists to wear helmets.
snowcycle wrote:This does not
No picture can prove such a thing. A picture of a broken helmet proves that the helmet broke. It doesn’t prove that serious injury was prevented, because a helmet can be severely damaged without having done its job. The helmet may only have prevented superficial damage (often the case, since just like modern cars, helmets are designed to easily crumple) or the head might not even have hit something (head + helmet is substantially bigger than just a head). Furthermore, a helmetless head is better at preventing rotational injuries, so in some crashes, helmets are more dangerous.
If you look at actual research, there is very limited evidence of bicycle helmet effectiveness. Researchers have to work the statistics very hard and then some studies show no effect and some a very limited one, which shows that at best, the effect of helmets is fairly limited. It’s certainly not in the same league as motorcycle helmets (which are designed way more effectively than bicycle helmets) or seat belts, where the proof of effectiveness is overwhelming.
Aapje wrote:The helmet may
Actually bicycle helmets are not designed to crumple. They would be much better if they did. They are made from expanded polystyrene foam, which is strong in compression. It fails by cracking open, which doesn’t absorb much shock. I can’t believe that bicycle helmet manufacturers haven’t come up with better materials.
It’s OK to say that you don’t
It’s OK to say that you don’t agree with making helmets compulsory (is anyone actually saying this?) but saying “a helmetless head is better at preventing rotational injuries, so in some crashes, helmets are more dangerous.” and “there is very limited evidence of bicycle helmet effectiveness” weakens your argument and make you sound like a nutter. Deriding anecdotal evidence is also illogical. I went over the handlebars at speed and hit the back of my head and shoulder on the road. Compound fracture of collar bone requiring surgery and a titanium plate and a helmet that looked as it it had been hit with a sledgehammer. Medical team said my helmet saved my life. No doubt you will disagree. I didn’t suffer any “rotational injuries” and I don’t need any further “proof of effectiveness”.
The logical argument against compulsory helmet use (which I don’t think many propose or support) is personal choice not illogical arguments about helmets being ineffective or worse dangerous. My head, my helmet, my choice.
Good for Spokes! It’s about
Good for Spokes! It’s about time we saw some common-sense about helmet wearing in events. I don’t object to wearing one in a race, but a requirement to wear one in anything else is a sure-fire way to lose my entry.
Sam
head + concrete = poorly
head + concrete = poorly head. head + helmet + concrete = no poorly head. it’s not rocket science. and yes you should be allowed to choose what you want to do, but i can’t see why taking a couple of seconds to stick a very light, comfortable, smart helmet on your nut is a big problem.
matt637 wrote:…but i can’t
Some of the ‘why’ is contained in the main article above !!
matt637 wrote:head + concrete
Head (with or without helmet) without concrete is even better. Crashes are very rare and can be avoided (even if you’re bring paid to ride like a nutter i.e are a professional racing cyclist).
BTW, Why do helmet evangelists insist on referring to the head in children’s language, with words like “nut” or “bonce”?
so that childish morons who
so that childish morons who can’t spell can understand what i’ve written.
matt637 wrote:so that
I see you’ve also been influenced by ee cummings with regard to punctuation.
I wear a skate lid (and elbow and knee pads) when I’m at the skatepark on my BMX. Getting a bike airborne over concrete jumps does come with a risk of hard impacts if you mistime a landing and I’ve collected enough bruises over the years to know I’m right. I also wear an MX lid when I’m training or racing my BMX or my cruiser whether on the local track (which I know like the back of my hand) or others in the South Region, because hard landings on those surfaces can be damaging. If you’re pushing a BMX to your own personal limits, then there’s every chance you’re going to come off at some point (if you don’t, you’re not trying hard enough) and head (and leg and elbow) protection is just common sense.
Pretty much the same goes for serious off-road mountainbike riding. The terrain can be challenging and if you’re in a wood or a forest, there is that risk of headbutting a tree if you mess up. Clearly, a lid makes sense.
But one of the very few times I’ll wear a lid when riding on the road is when I’m going to or from the skatepark. When I’m riding on the road, I don’t see the risk of head injury as being that acute. I’m a grown up and I’ve been cycling seriously since the 1970s, long enough to know the risks. The health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by a factor of 20:1 and crash data shows that most injuries to cyclists are to the limbs rather than the skull. In the case of serious injuries that are crippling or fatal, the wearing of a helmet would be of no benefit in the vast majority of instances according to crash data.
OldRidgeback wrote:
I see
OldRidgeback wrote:
I see you’ve also been influenced by ee cummings with regard to punctuation.
well spotted oldridgeback – he is a heavy influence on much of my work.
Crashes are very rare and can
Crashes are very rare and can be avoided
:O
Crashes may be rare but are often not avoidable, whether it be mechanical failure, loss of concentration, poor weather or road conditions etc. I’ve had a couple of falls where more serious injury was definitely prevented by my wearing a helmet. That doesn’t mean I think helmets should be compulsory though.
However, race organisers can make rules as they see fit and the choice is left to riders whether or not they wish to enter. This ‘action’ by Spokes will have no effect whatsoever and just makes them look stupid.
paulfg42 wrote:However, race
The rides which Spokes are promoting are not races.
JohnS wrote:Head (with or
You’re absolutely right, all crashes are avoidable. That’s why I took so much time and effort planning each and every one of my spills over the years; would’ve been tragic if I’d missed a good opportunity for skin loss or concussion. That said, I’m getting on a bit now so reckon I’ll take the easy option and just choose not to have any more accidents.
The majority of head injuries
The majority of head injuries have nothing to do with cycling.
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Head-Injury.htm
Would you enforce helmet wearing on, say, pedestrians, people doing DIY or people who have been to the pub?
matt637 wrote:head + concrete
Absolutely agree. I crashed my bike at 28 mph, no one else involved, my slipped off the pedal, I went down, injured my shoulder and broke my “Catlike whisper plus” helmet. I hate to think what the result would have been without a helmet, a couple of seconds to fit on my head.
matt637 wrote:head + concrete
Absolutely agree. I crashed my bike at 28 mph, no one else involved, my slipped off the pedal, I went down, injured my shoulder and broke my “Catlike whisper plus” helmet. I hate to think what the result would have been without a helmet, a couple of seconds to fit on my head.
matt637 wrote:head + concrete
Wrong, because there is some science to it, the correction is:
Head + cycling accident = rotational brain injury, non-lethal.
Head + helmet + cycling accident = Worse rotational brain injury = fatal.
That is the whole point, rotational brain injuries are the most common fatal accidents for cyclists and wearing a helmet makes these injuries worse, the helmet adds surface area so when your head hits the ground spinning, it gets a worse rotating shock which can be deadly. At least that’s my understanding of the situation.
Not so simple as just nutting the ground.
Another factor is that some drivers drive worse around cyclists that are wearing helmets, that alone makes wearing a helmet more dangerous. Approx 25% of cyclist deaths are caused by someone driving too close to the cyclist.
Sticking a lump of insulating
Sticking a lump of insulating polystyrene on your head, no matter how well it is designed for comfort is sometimes an unpleasant experience. Although I almost always wear one these days, in the recent hot spell, I had a couple of outings without the lid and remembered just how pleasant it can be to go cycling and feel the wind in (what is left of) my hair.
Responsible adults should have the choice of whether or not they wish to wear a helmet, hi-vis clothing or any of the other gear that cyclists are increasingly expected to wear. Knee and elbow pads anyone?
After eight years in
After eight years in australia, being forced to wear a helmet, i came home and while rejoicing in helmet freedom suffered a bizarre pedal failure/ foot into front wheel accident. I landed on the back of my head without a helmet, two months later i still have taste and smell problems, most things taste of nothing, just wrong or incredibly bitter, they say it may go back to normal, it may not. I was always against helmets, i wear one now (bit late), but the resentment of being forced to wear one is very detrimental on Australian cycling, we are all grown ups let us choose.
Quite true but cycling is
Quite true but cycling is cycling, just saying. =]
(BTW I’m neither in favour or against the helmet movement, I wear one when I feel like it’s needed and don’t on other occasions.)
P.S. the Limping whippet, awesome name for a pub.
iammarcmason wrote:Quite true
Courtesy of Alan Plater’s Beidebecke Affair/Tapes/Connection series.
The redundant planning officer who helps uncover the police corruption (after being knocked off his bike, while wearing a deerstalker, by Sergeant Hobson BSc) spends his redundancy money setting up a jazz club called The Village Vanguard in The Singing Room at The Limping Whippet. It lasts one night, but it’s a good night.
Surrealism is all.
you’re wasting your time
you’re wasting your time lolol – no matter how many peolpe we get on here who say they have had serious or semi serious bonce (for you johns) injuries which could have been avoided by wearing a helmet you will still get the selfish muppets who only seem to think that it’s their problem and doesn’t effect anyone else. I had a mate who hit a pot hole at 40mph downhill, front wheel folded and he was certainly glad he had his helmet on. I got side swiped by a car last year, thrown up and landed on my nut (for you again johns) and was glad to have my lid on (childish word for helmet). I don’t know how some people on here ride, or where they ride, but i feel there’s a good risk of an accident every time i go out these days with the state of roads / drivers etc.
matt637 wrote: you will still
Well, why isn’t it my problem? If I had kids I would understand that logic completely – but I don’t. I have a wonderful girlfriend, who doesn’t own a helmet because she doesn’t want to – I would be devastated if she died, but I realise that protecting her for my happiness isn’t love, it’s possession – and that feeling is reciprocated when I’m lidless. Potentially you might argue I’m costing the NHS more – but if we’re going to restrict freedom of choice to save the NHS money, frankly i’d rather they charged for operations. I mean that: a ‘free’ NHS is far more than simply one which does not charge at point of use.
Not to mention that if I (or gf) had to choose between using a helmet for every trip and taking the car… frankly, I’d probably take the car. Being left to my own business is one of the things that attracted me to cycling – take that away, and then make day-to-day trips more of a hassle (especially once you add compulsory hi-vis – and I just don’t believe anyone who says campaigners would make helmets compulsory and then stop), and you can’t be suprised when car use and attendant heart disease rockets. So we end up passing more badly thought-out laws to make up for the previous badly though-out laws – do the campaigners not ever think it would be simpler just to let people make their own mind up? Give the masses an ounce of respect and trust occassionally?
I’m also – like many others – annoyed by this ‘I crashed whilst wearing a helmet and didn’t die, therefore it must have saved me life’. Apart from the simple fact that, going by my anecdotal evidence and that logic, wearing a helmet will give you brain damage (seen several friends crash – only one brain-damaged was only one wearing helmet)… such poor logical thinking makes me not wear one, just to illustrate that poor arguments do not persuade me. That, and I don’t want brain damage – or to become the sort of person who thinks that badly.
And Spokes are absolutely
And Spokes are absolutely right. Since helmet wearing is not associated, in a scientific sense, with reduced risk, why are some event organisers demanding helmets? Perhaps this explains it:
“It should be noted that in many instances the issue of whether helmets should be compulsory or not for all riders is out of organisers’ hands, with the requirement for participants to wear a helmet imposed by insurers.”
Along with the urban myth that helmets are effective, there is the one about “the insurers demanded it.” except they didn’t. The last time I entered one of these rides, and was firmly told that I’d have to wear a helmet, I asked why, to be told that “the insurers tell us we have to make riders wear helmets.” So I asked who their insurers were, and then asked their insurers whether they demanded helmets, and, lo and behold, they didn’t. Insurance demands are just BS piled on BS.
The only effects of helmet compulsion is fewer cyclists and obscene profits for the helmet manufacturers, with no reduction in risk to cyclists. Since cycling confers such huge health benefits, regular cyclists live longer, and are fitter and healthier than the general population, it’s more dangerous not to ride a bike than to ride one. By deterring some people from cycling helmet promotion denies the health benefit to them and increases ill health and premature death.
Any organisation demanding that helmets have to be worn is lying through their teeth, and you should either not enter, or ride without one. It’s time we stopped the H&S zealots ruining our lives with their absurdities.
The ultimate stupidity is the British Heart Foundation demanding that helmets be worn on rides to raise money for them. The best way of reducing your risk of a heart attack is by getting more exercise, so by demanding helmets, the BHF is increasing the risk of heart attacks!
Check out cyclehelmets.org for a few facts rather than organisers’ assumptions.
matt637 wrote:i can’t see why
One word: compulsion.
Did you actually read the article?
I always wonder at the intelligence of people who throw insults at those who have the opposing point of view to their own. People are putting the case against being forced to wear a helmet, why is that such a problem for you?
Also, anecdotes do not make good foundation for arguments. I’m not saying wearing a helmet is necessarily a bad idea but, as demonstrated in the main article above, it’s not a simple case of adding a helmet is necessarily better than a bare head. This has been discussed on road.cc before, there are lots of constructive comments in these two threads, for example:
http://road.cc/31956
http://road.cc/35876
I also recommend http://www.cyclehelmets.org to anyone who wants a balanced point of view on the subject. I respect people’s choice, whether they wish to wear one or not.
I support Spokes’ point of view. I don’t want people to feel they should wear one and I don’t want them to feel cycling is a dangerous activity that requires safety equipment. The single biggest change to improve cyclists’ safety is driver behaviour. If being hit by a car, 4×4 or larger vehicle is the biggest risk we cyclists take then a half-inch thick polystyrene hat full of holes isn’t really going to make much difference to the outcome.
The problem we have here is
The problem we have here is that some will flatly refuse to wear one cos it doesnt look cool or they cant be arsed to wear one, whether thats through cost or whatever whereas the other side will wear one even if they nip to the local shop.
Spokes has brought it back into discussion by saying they wont advertise a race if the organisers state that you have to wear a lid. To me that reminds me of a saying my mam said of “cutting your nose off to spite your face”.
The whole idea is to promote cycling and get it more attention which will ultimately lead to better roads etc etc, whereas their adoption of this policy will have people saying cyclists cant even get their own house in order.
There’s another way to look
There’s another way to look at Spokes’ stance. They might be saying (not verbally, but hinting at):
Our mandate is to increase overall cycling public. If your event is dangerous enough to require compulsory helmets for all, then it must be for people already into serious cycling (racing / timed sportives), and not new comers. Thus it falls outside the scope of our mandate and we shall not advertise it.
As for my personal take on
As for my personal take on helmets, it should be a personal decision. I never wear one when riding to/from work or the pool. I always wear one when heading out for a sportive or a century ride, whether required or not.
Others should be left to make their own choices as well, without prejudice.
Herewith links to:
* CTC
Herewith links to:
* CTC policy briefing on helmets
* Helmet evidence overview
* Other helmet links
* Website of the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (provides wide-ranging links, references and commentaries on helmet research literature)
Roger Geffen
Campaigns & Policy Director, CTC
The CTC resources on helmets
The CTC resources on helmets are now here:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaign/cycle-helmets-evidence
As Tim Berners-Lee says, “Cool URIs don’t change.” Hope this one will survive future server reorganisations.
I think the issue here is the
I think the issue here is the strange gap that sportives fill. Road racing is dangerous and involves taking risks, hence why we wear helmets. It’s what helmets are designed for. Social rides or riding to the shop doesn’t necessarily involve risk taking, we want to encourage cycling participation so compulsory helmet wearing would be a net negative, hence we don’t have a helmet law in this country.
Sportives are in the middle, I’ve ridden some where the guys at the front are taking it v seriously, whereas the guys at the back are enjoying a social ride. I guess it’s for the organisers to decide if they are promoting more of a social ride or a race.
As for the choice argument I don’t really understand, the organisers have a choice whether to make helmets compulsory, and the riders have a choice whether to enter!
I ride with my kids a lot and
I ride with my kids a lot and my youngest, like me, races BMX and goes to the skatepark to get as much air as he can. When we’re racing or training or at the skatepark, i ensure he’s wearing his helmet, just as I do. But I don’t enforce helmet wearing when he’s going here and there on his bike because I don’t think a head injury is the biggest risk he, or his elder brother, face should they have a cycle accident. Now some people would give me a hard time for not ensuring my sons wear helmets all the time when they’re on their bikes, but I think there’s too much health and safety crap going on. Too many children are so cocooned that by the time they become young adults and leave home, they’ll have little experience of the risks they face out in the big bad world.
I would point out that it’s
I would point out that it’s often the insurance companies underwriting these events, rather than the event organisers themselves, who are responsible for the requirement to wear a helmet. they see it as mitigating their risk, no doubt, whether it actually is or not.
i would say that if it’s so obvious that helmets are the major factor in the incidence of head injuries among cyclists, that you’ll obviously be able to see that correlation between helmet wearing and head injuries from all the data around the world. i won’t though 😀
They need to find a different
They need to find a different insurance company, like the ones the CTC and CTT use!
If I can legally ride a motor
If I can legally ride a motor trike all day at 70MPH and not need a helmet I sure can ride my trike at 20 (well I used to be able to) without one. I’ve fallen and been knocked off a bike many times, broken several bones but never ever hit my head on anything. (that includes an “Imperial Crowner” off a high bicycle into the stand at Herne Hill. Landed shoulder first, Ouch! I always claim you can’t FALL off a trike, you get thrown off, like off a horse.
My son, then 12 and I very publicly via a front page news item in our then local paper, declined to enter a charity ride because we were both required to wear helmets and as ‘under 16’ he HAD to be accompanied by an adult. “What utter nonsense” I said. “He is (was still then) allowed with my written consent to ride a 25 mile time trial on the main A1 dual carriageway (motorway standard)without a helmet”. I now will not officiate in any event where helmets are compulsory, risk assessment is the responsibility of the rider (or parent/guardian.
The objection is compulsion.
More car occupants suffer from head injuries than cyclists and pedestrians in spite of seat belts (that encourage recklessness). Should they be forced to wear safety helmets too?
steve oxbrow wrote:More car
No, I think that safety helmets should be made compulsory for car drivers and passengers, but not for cyclists. It might reduce car use, which would be a good thing.
I have cycled for the last 35
I have cycled for the last 35 years and can happily report I have never had an accident. I have been an A & E nurse for six years and seen the results of cyclist wearing and not wearing helmets. I have seen helmet wearers walk out with cuts and grazes, and I have seen non-helmet wearers who became kidney donors. I wear a helmet. It’s my choice. I do believe it should be personal choice but people should be armed with the right information in order to make an informed choice.
In answer to an earlier thread, I believe it was the death of Andrea Kivilev that brought about the UCI decision to make helmet wearing compulsory in races. Not pressure from helmet manufacturers.
Psycling wrote:I have been an
I totally agree that people should be armed with the right information to make an informed choice, but I hope you aren’t implying that your anecdotes are this “right information”. You have to show that your helmeted and helmetless cyclists are sampled from the same population, and this is very hard to do. Do the two groups have the same age and sex profile, and are they cycling the same routes? There are loads of possible biases. Young males are massively more risk taking (ask motor insurers). Are they less likely to wear a helmet? More sensible, experienced riders might be more likely to wear a helmet, and at the same time choose safer routes. Children from poorer families may be less likely to wear helmets whilst at the same time find themselves living and playing on more dangerous streets. Are your better outcomes for helmeted cyclists in A&E due to the protective effects of helmets, or are the helmets simply labelling a less risky part of the population?
How about the “big metal
How about the “big metal spike” argument?
If all car airbags were replaced by a big spike that shot out impaling the occupants then people would drive more carefully and casulties would drop.
Cyclist are more careful without helmets? 😕
I don’t think cyclists should
I don’t think cyclists should be compelled to wear a helmet but simply don’t follow the rabid “I’d rather take the car than wear a helmet”, “I’ve had accidents and never landed on my head”, or “wearing a helmet could even make injury more likely” arguments. 😕 I can’t think of a single logical (rather than emotional) reason not to wear my helmet every time I get on my bike. Be it round the lake, off to work or “completing not racing” the Tour of Wessex last weekend. Alone or in a group – I wear my helmet. 😀
If the rules say you have to wear a helmet and you don’t want to – don’t enter the event. If you want to organise a “non-creeping growth of semi-compulsion” event good for you. Can I come and ride it with my helmet on? My head, my bike, my helmet, my choice. Your head, your choice. 🙂
Its all right. If you dont
Its all right. If you dont want to wear a helmet on the road – that’s up to you. I’m willing to speculate that those that dont wear helmets have not yet had a crash. And when you do (crash)- it will be proof that Darwin was right. Natural selection will reduce the number of MORONS.
There are risks in everything
There are risks in everything (even in writing this post…) but my head has the scars to prove that wearing a helmet is worthwhile.
Even if cycling isn’t inherently dangerous (compared for example to angling) other road users definitely are. There have even been cases where drivers have deliberately driven into cyclists (at least one in is prison now for murder).
Also, it gives a very bad impression of cycling if they don’t wear a helmet. There was never this amount of fuss against motorcycle helmets and they are a lot heavier.
hairyairey wrote:Also, it
Why does it give a “very bad impression of cycling”? I have no idea what you mean.
Because a motorcycle has a motor, you don’t have to pedal it, so you don’t get hot. Indeed the problem on a motorcycle is often to keep warm, as you have a lot of cooling air flowing over you. Motorcycle helmets are completely enclosed, cover the back of the head and temples (arguably the more vulnerable parts of the head, which are not protected by bicycle helmets), giving much more protection. And they need to, since the speeds involved are so much higher.
Having just returned from a
Having just returned from a short break in a country where cycling participation is much more widespread – and next-to-nobody was wearing a helmet – I’d offer the following observations:
1. The UK has relatively few utility cyclists; here cycling is more of a lifestyle choice, rather than just a way of getting from one place to another cheaply and effectively. In more enlightened areas, most who cycle don’t see themselves as ‘cyclists’ any more than I’m concsiously aware of being a ‘pedestrian’ when I’m walkking to the shops.
2. The UK’s cycling facilities really are laughably awful.
3. The above factors push UK cyclists into becoming ‘vehicular’, and exposing themselves (or rather, ourselves, for I am one) to much greater risk by sharing roads with dangerous road users and, by necessity, travelling at higher speeds.
So, I always wear a helmet. I’ve personal experience of the benefits, and I’m yet to be convinced that the evidence against helmet-wearing makes sense. UK roads are dangerous. If I lived in Copenhagen or Amsterdam or Berlin or Barcelona – places that make real steps to integrate cyclists into their trasnport infrastructure – then I’d be happy to pootle along at 8mph in my segregated cycle lane with the wind in my hair. Very happy indeed.
However, I live in Manchester. A wonderful place in many other respects, but not a cyclists’ safe-haven. I share the roads with all manner of morons and must constantly be aware of inattentive pedestrians, road-hog bus-drivers, flamboyant u-turn artistes, swinging car-doors, red-light jumpers, pot-holes, broken glass swathes, mobile-phone addicts, indicator-forgetters, cutter-uppers and mindless-abuse-hurlers, among other hazards. For these reasons, I wear a helmet.
But mandatorily? No – we must aspire to the state of affairs which would not require cyclists to feel as I do. To give way to mandatory helmets would be to concede that cycling in the UK will always be far more dangerous than it should be. Therefore, I’m with Spokes on this. We’re in danger of a sleepwalking our way towards legislation, and this is an important prod in the chest to cycling activists.
two of my friends have been
two of my friends have been involved in bad crashes recently, one wearing helmet was in a coma for two days also broke their collarbone the other not wearing helmet broke his shoulder and cracked a vertebrae in his neck. i do not wear a helmet and i am sick of people telling me that i should wear one otherwise i will die or get brain damage. the worst offenders for this are healthcare workers who quite often after telling you that you will surely die go outside for a smoke! i have been riding a bike for over 40 years now and have been knocked off by cars and a hgv and fallen off through stupidity and have never hit my head. the only morons are the people who think they have a right to tell other people what to do.
Personally I love the ‘iron
Personally I love the ‘iron spike argument’ (veseuner above). My father in law always said that to reduce accidents drivers should be in a glass bowl in front of the car, difficult to argue with! Not saying it is practical! I think that the safer you feel the more risk you take; simple. That said I have got used to wearing a helmet and always wear one. I just don’t think they should be compulsory. It makes no sense to me to have police officers enforcing rules for peoples own safety and this goes for seat belts and motorcycle helmets. I would much rather see them investigating/preventing incidents like the 8yo who died or the stolen bikes (Today’s top stories). When this sort of thing never happens then the authorities could consider rules for our own safety. Hot topic this isn’t it!
Choice. Cracknell puts it
Choice. Cracknell puts it well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=nu4QzAIayTU
Personally i always wear one. But Choice is important. They should not be made compulsory but can understand why Event Organisers would say this is so, they are trying to cover themselves in every way they can.
6654henry wrote:Choice.
Are the James Cracknell that goes on about helmets & wears an Alpina helmet
[url]http://bit.ly/rsVEdV[/url]
& the James Cracknell that state his Alpina helmet saved his life but doesn’t “have a commercial relationship with the manufacturer”
[url]http://tgr.ph/ea9H2t[/url]
related to the James Cracknell that is a sponsored by Alpina
[url]http://bit.ly/qCGi0V[/url]
and rides a bike while not wearing a helmet
[url]http://bit.ly/eZpxtk[/url] ?
Anecdote #4,583: 2 and a
Anecdote #4,583: 2 and a half years ago I was taken off on Duke St Hill in that London and although my chin was only slightly scuffed the polystyrene of my helmet was visibly squashed flatter where it took the brunt of my fall. That would have been goodnight Vienna without the helmet.
Unfortunately the rest of me wasn’t covered in polystyrene so I broke both hands and did so much damage to my knees that I still can’t even rearrange the fridge without a cushion.
Well done Spokes! About time
Well done Spokes! About time someone showed a bit of guts and challenged the creeping compulsion.
Nobody has yet proven that helmets make a significant difference (“I fell off and skinned my knees and the helmet saved my life” anecdotes do not count, even if they are true!) Boris bikes have been making thousands of helmetless journeys in some of the most unpleasant traffic in the country and guess what, there have been no queues of head injuries in A&E, not a blip on the statistical radar… but what is easily provable is that selling lumps of polystyrene is a HUGE moneyspinner, no brainer for the big companies to push them hard then, even though teaching proper use of primary would do far more to improve peoples safety…
Now all that probably comes across as rabidly anti-helmet, but surprise, I’m not, I wear one almost always when MTB’ing and often in traffic, but I’m a grown up and get to choose.
Spokes are bang on and have gone up massively in my estimation for making this stand for commonsense.
I work in A and E.
Cyclists
I work in A and E.
Cyclists injured are surprisingly rare, and most commonly injuries are of the limbs. 1 or 2 a month
Night time alcohol related head injuries are very common, 4 – 6 a week
Heart attacks are very common, 4 -6 a day, about half are in people who should have a healthy heart due to age.
Sports related injuries including head injuries are pretty common, especially in the football season. 2 -3 a week on average.
Car crash related injuries are also very common, and involve the most serious trauma frequently encountered. Head trauma easily preventable by protective headgear is astonishingly common.
In none of the high risk activities are helmets promoted or required, except motorcycling and building sites. Severe motorcyclist injuries are spinal, the head is usually well protected. Building site head injuries are still the most common cause of injury from that type of work place.
Why the fuss about cyclists and helmets is a mystery to me, it seems like a conspiracy to make cycling seem unattractive.
Good call Spokes
In response to the “helmet
In response to the “helmet saved my life” brigade: I’m glad it did. A friend of a friend was told that the only reason she didn’t die (rather than receive severe injuries) in the car crash that killed her husband who was driving was that she was drunk. So being drunk saved her, so everyone should be drunk when in a car? If the driver is drunk, s/he is more likely to crash, but also more likely to survive the crash.
Some people who wear cycle helmets may risk compensate and therefore be more likely to be involved in an incident and be injured in the helmet vicinity. If they are not wearing the helmet properly, this is even worse.
If everyone wore a helmet and had perfect (not over ambitious) expectations of what benefits it could deliver, perhaps there would be no risk compensation by the helmetee, but there would still be risk compensation by other road users. If we could eliminate that, on paper or in real life, we would be left with the balance between injuries that helmets make worse or more likely, and injuries that they reduce the impact of.
So, whilst experience teaches that helmets have been beneficial in some crashes, it does not follow that helmets are a benefit overall. They may or may not be and we should not pretend otherwise however much we would like it to be true.