- 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
London cyclist approaching junction.jpgAlmost 9 in 10 people back headphones ban and compulsory helmets for cyclists say survey
A poll conducted for The Sunday Times has found that almost nine in ten people (89 per cent) think cyclists should be banned from wearing headphones, and almost as many (85 per cent) believe cycle helmets should be compulsory.
The majority of respondents who describe themselves as “more cyclist than motorist” in the survey of 1,867 people conducted by YouGov agreed with those views.
59 per cent of those respondents agreed that wearing of helmets should be compulsory, an issue that is regularly the subject of fierce debate among riders, and 67 per cent of them said that there should be a ban on headphones.
The latter issue was in the news last week after Mayor of London Boris Johnson said in a radio interview about the safety of cyclists that he would be in favour of riders being banned from wearing headphones.
Other findings of the survey include that two thirds of all respondents – rising to three in four of those considered themselves cyclists first and foremost – believe that lorries should be banned from cities during rush hour, something British Cycling's Chris Boardman called for last week in an open letter to Mr Johnson.
Several things differentiate the YouGov survey from some others we have reported on road.cc.
First, respondents aren’t self-selected, as many opt-in internet-based polls are, and which tend to encourage only those with a strong opinion one way or another to respond.
Also, as well as splitting out responses by standard demographic breaks such as gender, age, social grade and region, it also divides them by voting intentions as well as by “motorists,” “people who regularly use a bicycle,” and those who are “more cyclist than motorist.”
How does YouGov separate those categories? Well, it’s based on a question that asks respondents to state:
I regularly drive a motor vehicle and do NOT regularly use a bicycle (60 per cent)
I regularly use both a motor vehicle and a bicycle, but I generally use my motor vehicle more often than my bike (9 per cent)
I regularly use both a motor vehicle and a bicycle, but I generally use my bicycle more often than my motor vehicle (3 per cent)
I regularly ride a bicycle and do NOT regularly drive a motor vehicle (4 per cent)
I do not regularly use either (25 per cent)
As a result, 60 per cent of YouGov’s weighted sample fall into the category it terms “motorists” and 15 per cent are “people who regularly use a bicycle,” including 7 per cent who are “more cyclist than driver.”
Asked, “What do you believe is the most common cause of cycling accidents [sic],” 36 per cent of people said “poor standards of cycling by cyclists,” while 22 per cent cited “poor standards of driving by motorists” and 11 per cent went for each of “badly designed roads” and “too many lorries and other large vehicles on the roads.”
Analysis of police reports in incidents in which cyclists were killed or injured carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory in 2009 found that reckless riding was responsible for only a small percentage of collisions, with police attributing blame to the motorist in around three out of four cases.
As happened across most of the questions, there was a polarity in responses among those considering themselves cyclists or drivers.
Some 41 per cent of motorists blamed poor standards of cycling, and just 20 per cent driving; among regular bike riders, 20 per cent said cyclists were to blame and 30 per cent drivers, and there was an even greater gap among those defined as more cyclist than motorist – 13 per cent versus 36 per cent.
Other responses highlight that different perceptions of road safety exist depending on whether you’re more used to being behind the steering wheel or on the saddle of a bike.
Only 1 per cent of motorists thought badly designed roads are the most common cause of cycling accidents, but that rose to 9 per cent of regular cyclists and 14 per cent of those who are more cyclist than motorist.
Bad upkeep of roads (e.g. potholes) was thought to be a factor by 4 per cent of motorists, but 8 per cent of regular cyclists and 10 per cent of those who are more cyclist than motorist; conversely, drivers were much more likely to see pedestrians as being to blame for cycling accidents than cyclists were, at 11 per cent versus 6 per cent of regular cyclists and 5 per cent of people who are more cyclist than motorist.
Other questions addressed issues including whether sentences for both drivers and cyclists breaking road laws are tough enough, presumed liability, publishing accident data and details of accident blackspots online, increasing the number of cycle lanes, and whether there should be early-start traffic lights for cyclists.
You can find the complete results of the YouGov survey, including the full breakdown of responses by demographic groups and voting intentions, here.
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
- chrisonabike 1 sec ago
Fair pedantry, though as HP said there may be a slight difference - my point was not the relative merits of ICE / EV braking and tyre wear...
- David9694 26 min 58 sec ago
I like how drivers make the case for making monitoring covert, not overt.
- andystow 39 min 12 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 44 min 52 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 6 min ago
And which looks very like the bag produced by indy bag manufacturer Wizard Works…...
- HoarseMann 1 hour 17 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 2 hours 47 min 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 2 hours 47 min 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 32 min ago
£11.5k for a bike weighing over 8kg that's 2 fingers to customers let alone UCI
- Dnnnnnn 3 hours 48 min ago
I'm going to show my bike a picture of this shed and tell it, "If you don't behave..."
Add new comment
126 comments
My vote: helmet should be a choice. lets remember cycling is not dangerous, but the car that hit you. 20yrs + of cycling and I can decide when to wear a helmet, commute in London or tearing down a slope in the alps 'yes', doing under 10mph on a tow path 'no'. Not sure why people have such an obsession intruding upon other peoples free will, I keep myself to myself so expect the same from others.
What if another cyclist wants to overtake you ... if you aren't aware, then you might have a side-on collision if you drift across the path. It is definitely NOT safe to cycle with headphones on as you won't be fully aware of your surroundings.
As to wearing a helmet ... most cyclists already do. I don't think it should be compulsory as the only person who's safety is affected is the rider, and it should be their choice if they wish to wear one.
It is certainly foolish to drift sideways without looking behind. Even with earphones I tend to be fully aware I am cycling on a road, and would never change line without looking. If you don't look, but rely on hearing, that is when you might cause a collision with a silent bicycle.
I would have preferred to see the helmet question worded,
"I'm aware that a compulsory helmet law would cause more deaths than it saves, as a result of inactivity among those who subsequently choose not to cycle, and I know that it will cause increased car use and more congestion, making cycling more dangerous for those continuing to cycle, but, since I have a tendency not to think things through in the longer term, I still think compulsion is a good idea".
Here's a quick link to Jeff Brewster's well documented University of Bath study into the effects that helmets have on overtaking vehicles, http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf,
in which he concludes that,
"the helmet effect is likely the result of drivers judging cyclists' skill levels from their appearance and adjusting their overtaking accordingly",
and that ,
"drivers of buses and heavy goods vehicles got significantly closer than other vehicles".
Just as some days, I want to get all the gear on and others I just want to jump on the bike, in old shorts, a t-shirt, trainers, nothing more, to nip to shops or pub. Sure someone will say I am going to die any minute without a helmet, but 20yrs plus of me making my own mind up of where and when seems to work, just as when I have to make any other risk assessment. If you want to wear a helmet I will not be offended, mind the high viz is vile, but your choice, let me make mine. Think of how righteously smug you can be if I crash and die.
Could there possibly be any worse knee jerk reaction to divert attention away from the real issues for cyclists, shame on you Boris!
Ban earphones - we are outside so we can hear the traffic, not inside a noise-proof box, probably with earphones on listening to the radio and making phone calls. If you have ever ridden with earphones then you will know this is rubbish!
Compulsory helmets - would reduce the number of cyclists and thereby undo all the good done from the recent growth in cycling by increasing pollution and health costs. You will not make cycling safer by having less cyclists.....simples!
As a lifelong cyclist myself, the recent high level of fatalities is very sad, but it is not because of helmets, earphones, hi-viz or even running red lights for that matter.....it's because motorists and lorry drivers either don't look for us or can't see us.
Lack of a safe cycling infrastructure and poor driver awareness of cyclists is undoubtedly the main reason for fatalities, so in the meantime.....
Ride where you can be seen and always ride as though you haven't been seen.....simples!
The NHS deals with about 70,000 serious head injury incidents each year.
The most common causes of head injuries are falling over, motor vehicle crashes and assault. A significant proportion occur in the home or playground.
Cycling related head injuries are a small fraction of the thousands of head injuries the NHS deals with each year, probably less than 1%.
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Head-injury-minor/Pages/Causes.aspx
About 65% of head injuries are also alcohol related.
So the most effective legislation to reduce the incidence of head injuries in the population are ;
1. Compulsory helmets when in a motor vehicle
2. Compulsory helmets when moving about the home
3. Compulsory helmets when drinking in the pub
4. Compulsory helmets for children when playing
Funny how the media, medical profession, and authorities never mention these.
On a wider scale, smoking causes 100,000 premature deaths a year in the UK.
So an outright ban on smoking would have a far greater impact than a helmet law. Funny how smoking is left to the individual's informed choice but cycling helmets must be forced upon people.
It is an odd world....
Dear Tomawest,
If helmets were "better than nothing", then you might have a point. Reality, as assessed by studies of real-world and societal-level outcomes, very strongly suggests otherwise:
a) Compulsory helmets only result in, at best, a small level of improvement in head injury rates amongst cyclists and *no* significant difference overall in injury rates.
b) Compulsory helmets have a strong detrimental effect on cycling participation. Fewer people cycle. Certain demographics see extreme drops in cycling participation, e.g. teenage girls. (Girls already do less exercise than boys, so this makes things worse).
c) Any societal gains from reduced head injuries are outweighed, by at least an order of magnitude, by the increased lifetime health problems from reduced exercise, due to compulsory helmet laws.
Basically, the benefits to society would be, at best, small (though, even those are not at all strongly proven - see NL as counter-point), while the harms would be *great* and *certain*.
I have a longer overview on my blog, and I try to collate any further good studies I find in the comments of it: http://paul.jakma.org/2011/10/28/the-case-against-bicycle-helmets-quick-...
Alternatively, go read back through the comments on previous road.cc helmet compulsion articles.
A much better way to make cyclists safe AND which would result in MORE people cycling would be to *FIX THE FUCKING ROAD SYSTEM* to minimise the chances and consequences of motorists hitting cyclists (which is what's doing the fucking damage in the first place). Several other countries have *proven* that this is far, *FAR* more effective than helmets & hi-viz.
Another conveniently weighted poll that does not address the real problems, that is poor driving standards and a lack of enforcement of driving standards on the roads.
And how is someone supposed to attract your attention if you're not listening? I don't think you could argue that you would be more aware of your surroundings (and therefore safer) without the earphones...
The job of the overtaken is to keep a consistent line and speed. The rest of the onus is on the overtaker. S/he should not depend on any other action by the overtaken.
You've missed the point completely ... this isn't simply about overtaking ... that was only an example. Its about awareness of your surroundings and others being able to attract your attention if necessary.
No I haven't. I was dealing, quite effectively I think, with a point you were making, which was about overtaking.
Most of those who want to ban earphones resort to vague generalisations about awareness of your surroundings. I find it difficult to imagine any real life problem. The only idea with any traction at all, seems to me that one might be distracted and lost in what one is listening to. This applies to drivers too, but I find that it is not a problem. I find that reality quickly overides the voice in my ear.
Sight is by far the most important sense for safety.
Can you give me a scenario where lack of hearing might lead to an accident? And at the same time the extra sense that the deaf are said to have would save them?
In real life I find that the problem with listening whilst I ride is that traffic can drown out "From Our Own Correspondent", not vice versa.
A lot of people die in bed perhaps they should wear helmets too.
I'm with Felix on this one. When I pass other cyclists I pass wide. Not within inches as motorists are prone to do. Also find a bell is usefull. The high pitch usually cuts through all types of noise.
I want to know what's coming behind me and can't understand why anyone would wear earphones, I suppose in the city there is always something coming up behind you though.
Helmets need to be a choice, because unlike seat belts airbags and motorcycle helmets, they really aren't life savers for anyone but kids, most of us ride too spastic to have the thing protect against anything serious.
I wear mine ONLY because they are compulsory for races, TTs and events, so train in one.
When out with the kids I don't wear one (they do) as I find the air noise around them affects my spatial awareness and I am on max alert looking out for the kids.....which brings back the headphone thing......
HOWEVER ....as advised by my uncle who was a pro in the 50s, I ALWAYS wear specs, as nothing is more dangerous than something getting you in the eye!
So make specs compulsory!
Regarding bells on bikes:
I have to say, having fitted 100's of bells to new bikes being build and sold off workshops in Evans and Cycle Surgery the past few years to meet BS6102 Pt.1
the "stock" bells are absolutely terrible and will either not be heard in the traffic, or will end up snapping or rotating around the handlebar
the only effective bells I have found are the oversized "Ding Dong" bells (stock on pashley bikes), the oversized bells often sold with a "I LOVE my bike" graphic or the awesome "air zound" compressed air system
years ago I saw a courier use an Air Zound which made a woman pedestrian fall over in shock when he parped the horn to warn her from stepping into the street
So deaf people should be banned from cycling too?
I'm not commenting on the main topic because it makes me too angry.
But on bells - I can never figure this out. Half the pedestrians you encounter get annoyed if you ring the bell, even just one 'ding', because they see it as aggressive and imperious, but the other half reproach you for not having rung your bell to warn them you are behind them.
'59 per cent of those respondents agreed that wearing of helmets should be compulsory'
that may be what the man in the street thinks but it's my head, not his, so it's none of his damn business. In the words of John Stuart Mill
“Over one's mind and over one's body the individual is sovereign.”
or to quote Sid Vicious
''I've met the man in the street and he's a c***t''
so he can keep his magic plastic hat of invincibility and stick up his a...e
What part of 'freedom' do people not understand, we live in a free country, I'd like it to stay that way. Bans and mandatory helmet laws are nanny state gone mad.
We want safer routes for cycling, not passing oppressive laws that make people want to cycle less and cause them to think cycling it inherently dangerous - it isn't.
Mrmo - my point is that while bike tech and advances in training have possibly made racing faster, better doping control will have balanced that out, so one could argue that the pro peloton may be the closest we can get to a control group, where any variation in the risk in severity of head injury may be attributable to helmet use.
I can remember an ad showing a thoroughly mashed Specialised Sub 6 lid crashed into a traffic island by a pro racer (I want to say Abdoujhapharov but am not sure)
fair enough, but if you consider the full history of pro racing, the actual numbers who have died isn't that great, the odd down a ravine, high speed crash.
Most injuries aren't head but legs, arms, collar, that sort of thing. Not saying that helmets haven't ever helped, just not enough cases either way. and unless you repeat the crash you can never know what would have happened.
I have really tried to stay away from this, but as a cycling Emergency Medicine Consultant in a large urban hospital that sees 100K patients a year and 25 % children, this is my view.
I see a lot of adults with head injuries, usually involving alcohol and interpersonal violence. Maybe they should put on a helmet before a great night out? Obviously those who misuse alcohol and drink at home who fall downstairs should helmet-up too, not that will prevent their broken neck.
Children over 2 with head injuries are either car v pedestrian, or falls from a height, usually trees or high walls. Maybe we shouldn't allow children to play out without a helmet and wrist protectors?
Reflecting on it, I can only remember two significant cycling injuries (both adults), one ice driven and one from a fork failure. There are many more prevalent causes of injury in children than cycling.
Helmets won't save you from multiple injuries from being run-over, nor will they save you from a spinal injury, but they do offer useful head protection. "Bulls-eye" to a car windscreen is nasty, and helmets are useful here. For what it's worth, I always wear a helmet, but I respect others choice not to. Personally I think if you riding involves going 40mph downhill, you are mad if you don't wear a helmet, and if in traffic then the risk of a car not seeing you and your head hitting the windscreen makes it the right choice.
So wear a helmet for:
Peloton speeds
Roads shared with cars
Something that might chuck you off, like ice
No point for:
Tow paths in decent weather
If you have cycle lanes separate from traffic, as you should.
When can cycling go back to being something a weirdo minority do? I liked it that way, when the media and politicians left us alone.
Drivers wearing ear buds is now on the rise, why are we not looking at a ban on wearing these in cars whilst driving? I wear ear buds whilst commuting, and the noise level is never loud enough that I cannot hear what is going on around me. I probably make more effort at looking around when I am wearing these. Helmet as always I say personal choice. There are always going to be poor cyclists/drivers and pedestrians, lets not try and vilify each other, but look out for each other!
@fluffykitten
I've never understood the reaction many UK pedestrians have to a cyclist using a bell as a polite warning.
In other countries I have not had this reaction, and riding off-road I found many ramblers appreciated the friendly warning that I was coming through
Using the bell on my commuting in London, I've had people swear at me, spit at me, make sarcastic "ding ding" comments (usually drunk men in the evening)
as far as I am concerned, the bell is an essential part of my commuting bike, and I'd rather annoy someone, than have a collision with a pedestrian who walks out in the road without looking
The old-fashioned brrrrring bells have less of this effect, but still have some of it.
Today I had a 4x4 force pass in a lane with inadequate width, honking as he drove at me, pretty clearly prepared to clip me if needed, then pointing at the (closed by police due to an RTC) cycle track. No helmets or open ears would have stopped that. It needs either redesigned roads without dangerous-width lanes or tougher policing of motor vehicles - those should be the next steps.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513730/Miraculous-moment-16-yea...
Just goes to show, you never know when you might need one.
Not saying it should be compulsory, but I bet this lad wishes he'd put one on.
Pages