Earlier this week, as I’m sure most of you know by now, the broadcaster Dan Walker was involved in a nasty collision with a motorist while riding his bike.
Footage has since emerged of the terrifying spill, captured on a motorist’s rear-view camera, which shows the Channel 5 presenter riding on the busy Moore Street roundabout near Sheffield’s city centre, before a driver veers across into his lane, clipping him from behind and sending him clattering to the ground.
Dan Walker hit by driver on multi lane roundabout “wear a helmet!” pic.twitter.com/TrQyqzGoky
— Hackney Cyclist (@Hackneycyclist) February 22, 2023
A clear case, then, of careless, or some may argue dangerous, driving, which left Walker with a bloodied and bruised face and feeling “glad to be alive”.
> Dan Walker “glad to be alive” after being hit by a driver while cycling
So, why then did the former BBC Breakfast host become the centre of a social media storm this week, one which appears to have divided cyclists into two distinct camps?
The whole furore, which Walker has himself addressed both on Twitter and in an article for the Sunday Times, stems from a seemingly innocent comment he made on the day of the collision concerning the usefulness of his helmet.
The helmet I was wearing saved my life today so – if you’re on a bike – get one on your head.
Smashed my watch & phone, ruined my trousers, my bike is a mess but I’m still here 🙏🏻
Currently eating soup through a straw and being looked after by this gorgeous, tired nurse ❤️
3/3 pic.twitter.com/slELcbFJdL— Dan Walker (@mrdanwalker) February 20, 2023
The 45-year-old claimed that a police officer and paramedics who attended the scene told him that he wouldn’t be here now if it weren’t for his helmet, a revelation that prompted Walker to inform his Twitter followers to “get one on your head” when riding their bikes.
The fact that the presenter chose to focus on his helmet as the one variable that affected the outcome of the collision appeared to some on social media to suggest that, in Walkers’ eyes, bike helmets are an integral component of cycling safety, and that if everyone wore one more lives would be saved on the road.
That suggestion provoked two distinct sets of responses, crudely summarised as follows:
- ‘Yes, helmets are extremely important – why would you not leave the house without one?’
- ‘Prioritising the importance of helmets is just another example of our car-brained, victim-blaming culture.’
It’s odd to get lectured by people telling me that bike helmets aren’t important when the emergency services at the scene yesterday told me I probably wouldn’t be here if I wasn’t wearing one.
Funny old world! I hope you’re having a good Tuesday.
Soup through a straw for lunch⛑️— Dan Walker (@mrdanwalker) February 21, 2023
The presenter addressed these two points of view in a Sunday Times article about the incident (which also touched on the anti-cyclist reaction from motorists unhappy that Walker was riding on “their roundabout”) and in particular the claim that, by urging others to wear helmets, he was “doing the heavy lifting for militant drivers”.
“My helmet is smashed and I’m glad that it wasn’t my head,” Walker writes. “I have always worn a helmet since I attended an awful traffic accident in Manchester when I first started out as a journalist.
“Every police officer can tell you about a cyclist’s head they have had to try to put back together at a road traffic accident so they can be identified by their loved ones. They are never wearing a helmet.”
The presenter concluded the article by suggesting a new campaign slogan for cyclists, based on a message sent to him by a well-wisher this week: “Don’t be a helmet. Wear a helmet”.
While it’s clear that Walker never intended to provoke such a heated debate with what on the face of it seemed a fairly innocuous comment, relayed to him by an emergency services member in the wake of a traumatic crash, the backlash that followed his tweet – and the presenter’s own response to it – has nevertheless highlighted the complicated and often confusing relationship between helmets and road safety.
Should everyone riding a bike, as Walker claims, wear a helmet to keep them safe? And, to stretch the presenter’s point to its logical conclusion, should helmet wearing be made mandatory?
Chris Boardman, the former Olympic champion-turned-active travel champion, doesn’t think so. In fact, back in 2014, the then-British Cycling policy advisor described the “helmet issue” as a “massive red herring” which is “not even in the top ten of things you need to do to keep cycling safe or more widely, save the most lives”.
> Chris Boardman: “Helmets not even in top 10 of things that keep cycling safe”
There are a number of case studies which support Boardman’s stance, perhaps the most famous – and hotly-debated – of which was conducted by psychologist Dr Ian Walker of the University of Bath, who concluded that motorists tend to give more space to cyclists not wearing helmets, therefore lowering the possibility of a collision, and the potentially grisly consequences outlined in Dan’s Sunday Times piece, in the first place.
So, what role, if any, do helmets play in keeping cyclists safe? This most divisive of issues can be split into two discrete factors: the scientific and the societal.
The science
When it comes to the science around helmets, the answer is: it’s complicated.
A 2017 review by statisticians at the University of New South Wales found that, based on 40 separate studies, helmet use significantly reduced the odds of head injury, and that the probability of suffering a fatal head injury was lower when cyclists wore a helmet (though, the authors noted, helmets cannot eliminate the risk of injury entirely).
Another study from the same year, this time from Norway’s Institute of Transport Economics, concluded – based on an overview of almost 30 years’ worth of analysis – that bike helmets reduced head injury by 48 percent, serious head injury by 60 percent, traumatic brain injury by 53 percent, facial injury by 23 percent, and the total number of killed or seriously injured cyclists by 34 percent.
The protective ability of helmets has also increased in recent years, thanks to the use of different materials in the design process and the advent of technologies such as MIPS, designed to reduce rotational motion to the brain in the event of a crash.
However, while they are certainly useful when it comes to lessening the potential severity of a serious head injury, helmets have proved markedly less effective when it comes to preventing concussion, a reality of their protective limitations recognised by only one in five competitive cyclists, according to a recent study.
“Our conclusions are not that cycling headgear doesn’t afford protection, but that more independent research underpinning new technologies marketed for reducing concussion is needed,” said the study’s lead, and former racing cyclist, Dr Jack Hardwicke last year.
However, perhaps the most important limitation associated with helmets – and one that is particularly pertinent in Dan Walker’s case – is their ability, or rather, their inability to protect riders involved in collisions with a vehicle.
In 2020, Eric Richter, the senior brand development manager at helmet manufacturer Giro, sought to clarify the “many misconceptions” about helmets.
“We do not design helmets specifically to reduce chances or severity of injury when impacts involve a car,” Richter said.
Current bike helmet testing procedures are fairly rudimentary, involving helmets being dropped from different heights on either a flat or an angled surface, and do not take into account collisions with vehicles.
According to Richter, “the number of variables” – including the speed, mass, and profile of the vehicle, as well as the angle of impact – “is too great to calculate”.
Despite their ability to prevent serious head injuries, helmets then, as Giro points out, are not designed to protect cyclists from dangerous drivers. Which brings us onto the second major factor influencing the role of the helmet in the wider road safety discussion: societal and cultural norms.
Societal factors: Where do helmets sit on the safety pyramid?
In the UK, a nation where proper, protected cycling infrastructure is in its infancy, and can at best be described as geographically variable, helmets have long played a central role in cycling culture.
Right from the time your parents popped off the stabilisers on your first bike, the call to ‘wear your helmet’ has been a constant one. So, it stands to reason that helmet use must lead to safer cycling, right?
In 2016, a study by the Toole Design Group analysed the correlation between helmet use and fatality rates amongst cyclists on the roads in eight countries.
The Netherlands – the world leader for safe cycling infrastructure with a strong bike riding culture – reported the lowest rates of helmet use and the lowest cycling fatality rate per distance travelled.
On the other hand, the USA, of the eight countries examined, reported the highest rate of helmet use. But it also reported the highest fatality rates too.
In his Sunday Times article, Dan Walker noted the gulf in infrastructure and culture between the Netherlands and the likes of the UK, which he argues provides all the more reason for British cyclists to don helmets out on the road.
“I have cycled in Amsterdam where ‘hardly anyone wears a helmet’ and it’s great, but the whole transport culture revolves around two wheels,” he says.
“In the UK, we don’t have the same respect for vulnerable road users. I have witnessed terrible driving and awful cycling everywhere. We desperately need better infrastructure, better training, and more respect for other road users, but a bike is never going to win a tussle with a car and the questions always seem to be centred around what a cyclist should do to stop getting killed, rather than safer driving.”
On the other hand, the kind of figures presented by the Toole Design Group could also be used to add credence to Ian Walker’s theory that, in some motorists’ eyes, helmets can represent a kind of protective shield which seemingly permits them to drive dangerously around lid-wearing cyclists – despite, as Giro have said, their dubious effects when on the receiving end of a two-tonne vehicle.
Another study from 2019, presented at the National Road Safety Conference, also suggested “a higher accident/injury rate may result from helmet usage” and argued that “there is strong evidence that helmeted cyclists suffer a higher rate of upper body limb injuries than non-wearers, suggesting a higher rate of falls than non-wearers.”
> Wearing a cycle helmet may increase risk of injury, says new research
As Chris Boardman noted over nine years ago, it’s clear that simply reinforcing the notion that reactive protective gear such as helmets and hi-vis clothing are an essential element of everyday cycling cannot simply act as a replacement to proactively building safe cycling infrastructure and addressing driver behaviour.
“It’s a bit like saying ‘people are sniping at you going down this street, so put some body armour on,’” Boardman said in 2014.
Chris Boardman cycling in Copenhagen, sans helmet
Encouragement to wear helmets, either from governments or TV presenters on Twitter, are according to Boardman’s analogy “a big campaign to get people to wear body armour, by the people who should be stopping the shooting.”
The chair of the Road Danger Reduction Forum, Dr Robert Davis, was one of the most prominent critics of Walker’s claim that his helmet “saved” his life, and has argued that such a claim feeds into society’s inherent anti-cyclist bias and acts as a “red herring”.
Culturally defined safety measures such as helmets, lights, and hi-vis, Davis says, “can act as a diversion from what needs to be done for real road safety”, placing the onus once again on the more vulnerable road user to be wholly responsible for their safety.
Davis’ vocal criticism of Walker’s call for cyclists to wear helmets is, in many respects, a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.
With cyclists – a group, you would imagine, united in the goal of making the act of riding a bike as safe as possible – at loggerheads over a safety issue such as helmets, attention naturally was diverted from the dangerous driving that caused the Channel 5 presenter to clatter to the ground with an unceremonious thump.
By focusing on helmets (and their contentious ability to mitigate the effects of a collision with a car, such as the one suffered by Walker), the ability and desire to tackle dangerous driving, as well as creating suitable, safe spaces for cyclists, is impeded – and the blame shifted away from the dangerous driver and back onto the vulnerable road user.
Societal factors: Should we all wear helmets?
Finally, the implication, spread by Walker, that his helmet was crucial in saving his life raised the inevitable question: Should all cyclists wear helmets at all times?
That was certainly the argument put forward this week by Nick Freeman, the lawyer nicknamed ‘Mr Loophole’ for his ability to obtain not guilty verdicts for celebrities charged with motoring offences.
Speaking to BBC Three Counties Radio’s Jonathan Vernon-Smith in the wake of Walker’s crash, Freeman called on bike helmets to be made compulsory for cyclists.
“Cyclists are so vulnerable,” he said. “They are exposed to massive dangers on the road from motorists, from the road surface itself, and it just seems to be common sense to say you need to wear these items to protect yourself.
“It’s going to be a mandatory requirement because, as Dan Walker very happily said, it saved his life. Irrespective of blame.
“We all make mistakes when we’re cycling, we all make mistakes when we’re driving, but if those mistakes could be fatal and that could be avoided by simply wearing something, then surely as a society we have no choice, we have to adopt that.”
However, despite Freeman’s claims, the issue around mandatory helmets is not quite as simple as that.
In December, the Department for Transport insisted that the UK government has “no intention” of making wearing a helmet while cycling a legal requirement.
Minister of state for the department, Jesse Norman, responded to a question on the matter in the House of Commons by pointing out that the issue had been considered “at length” during the cycling and walking safety review in 2018.
Norman said that while the Department for Transport “recommends that cyclists wear helmets”, the “safety benefits of mandating cycle helmets are likely to be outweighed by the fact that this would put some people off cycling”.
> Government shuts down mandatory cycling helmets question from Conservative MP
The UK government’s approach to mandatory helmets is in line with a school of thought which suggests that mandatory bike helmets – and their apparently inherent association with danger and the need to protect yourself – could discourage cycling, which on balance is much healthier for the population to practice without protective equipment, rather than simply not doing it at all.
In Australia and New Zealand, two of only four countries in the world to have implemented a universal, nationwide helmet requirement (the others being Argentina and Cyprus), the number of people cycling has fallen in the thirty years since the laws were introduced.
A recent analysis of census data found that, since New Zealand made helmets mandatory in 1994, children’s cycling “reduced from 23 million hours to 13.6 million hours in less than a ten-year period and currently is about four to five million hours per year”.
A 2019 article by law professors Julia Quilter and Russell Hogg argued that Australia’s mandatory helmet laws “have become a tool of disproportionate penalties and aggressive policing”, with failure to wear a cycling helmet the most-commonly issued on-the-spot fine in New South Wales.
In the US city Seattle, mandatory cycling helmet laws were dropped in February last year after officials expressed concerns about the laws unfairly impacting black people and the homeless.
One of Australia’s most prominent opponents of the mandatory helmet laws, Sue Abbott, says that “it beggars belief that in the 21st century we take something as benign and beneficial as bike riding and we punish people.”
Todd added: “We accept that a helmet might help in the event of an accident … [but] you must distinguish between crash data and population data. It hasn’t had any measured safety benefit at the population level. Across population, the reduction in injuries was no more than the drop in cycling.”
Meanwhile, Edward Hore, the president of the Australian Cycle Alliance, argued that wearing a helmet “should be a choice”.
“We’re not talking about banning helmets, we’re talking about making them optional,” he said.
“If you’re in a peloton down a beach road, and you’re not wearing a helmet, you’re a bloody idiot, let’s be frank.
“But we’re talking about the rider in the park with a family, the local commuter, the gentle ride down the street. Once you’ve measured your risk you can decide whether or not you want to don a helmet.”
Conclusion: One group, two debates
In many respects, the fierce social media debate that arose in the wake of Dan Walker’s call for cyclists to wear helmets is evidence of one group engaging in two separate conversations at the same time.
Yes, helmets are certainly beneficial, and in some cases essential, and can play a key role in preventing and reducing serious head injuries and fatalities.
But they cannot be viewed as a simple like-for-like replacement for safe infrastructure and addressing dangerous driving at its source.
By placing the helmet at the centre of a discussion concerning a high-profile and well-reported collision between a cyclist and a motorist, the onus for road safety – as Walker himself noted in his Sunday Times piece – is once again “centred around what a cyclist should do to stop getting killed, rather than safer driving”.
The social media storm that engulfed Walker’s bike helmet advocacy is perhaps indicative of the fact that most cyclists are unaware of the two-sided nature of the debate – he clearly didn’t intend it to be a loaded statement, it’s his opinion and choice to wear a helmet while cycling, and he meant no harm by what he said.
However, as we’ve noted above, there is plenty of evidence to support the view that he could have used his profile to promote things that are shown to improve cyclists’ safety much more than protective equipment.
Nevertheless, there could have been a whole host of reasons why he didn’t though, and it’s understandable that after such a nasty and traumatic experience he was just thankful for the equipment that he was told prevented his injuries from being much worse.
There’s nothing wrong with wearing a bike helmet – as odd as calling for all cyclists to wear a helmet is, it’s arguably just as weird to be actively against helmet wearing in all instances – and lots of studies have outlined their benefits.
Cycling overall though is a relatively low risk activity, especially when riding on designated cycling infrastructure at low speeds, and, as has been the case in Australia and New Zealand, mandating helmet use only puts people off riding their bikes.
To paraphrase Dan Walker himself, don’t be a helmet – make your own choice.
151 thoughts on “Why is Dan Walker’s claim that a bike helmet saved his life so controversial?”
“Every police officer can
“Every police officer can tell you about a cyclist’s head they have had to try to put back together at a road traffic accident so they can be identified by their loved ones. They are never wearing a helmet.”
its statements like that which make it a controversial topic, Ive never heard any police officer state that before for a cyclist, a motorcyclist maybe, but so where is his source for that ?
and why doesnt that concern extend to all people involved in a road traffic accident, maybe pedestrians would benefit from wearing a helmet too, or how about car passengers, bus passengers ? are cyclists the only ones with loved ones ?
Awavey wrote:
Fairly sure police officers don’t have the job of piecing people’s heads back together (before anyone gets smart police surgeons, or more properly these days forensic physicians, are civilians). Even if they did, I’m fairly sure that they wouldn’t do it at the scene. Such hyperbole does the cause of helmet advocacy no favours at all (for the record I wear one for every ride and believe that they will help protect me in many circumstances; I don’t believe that if I was in an incident bad enough that my head would have to be pieced back together if I wasn’t wearing one it would help in any way at all).
Well, I did some rudamental
Well, I did some rudamental maths on this.
Looking at cycling fatalities over recent years, it seems to average out at roughly 100 deaths each year.
There is an average of around 125,000 police officers in the UK.
If you take an average career as being 25 years, that means there will be ~2500 cycling fatalities, that a bobby might be called out to during the course of their career.
Depending on how many officers attend such an incident, it means the chances of a police officer seeing a crushed cyclist’s head is between 1 in 50 and 1 in 5. Whichever way you cut it up, its not ‘every police officer’
Why are you giving any space
Why are you giving any space to someone whose work is to increase road danger by trying get his clients off road traffic offences on technicalities ?
As of this moment we have 6
As of this moment we have 6 years 4 months 26 days 23 hours 53 minutes and 15, no 14, no 13, no…. seconds left to get to net zero!
And we’re debating fucking cycling helmets???
(No subject)
Meanwhile the real story is
Meanwhile the real story is
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/government-department-for-transport-dft-grant-shapps-cycling-uk-b1063142.html
ah the good old IAM survey
ah the good old IAM 🙂 survey finds 2/3rds of drivers are barking mad more like.
Clearly, the most important
Clearly, the most important factor with Dan’s incident was that the following driver did not know how to drive on a roundabout or at least was paying no attention to their surroundings. The motor industry wants society to focus on bike helmets as that distracts from the real problem – not everyone is a safe driver and we need to stop assuming that everyone should be using cars to get about.
I’m concerned that the cultural attitude towards bike helmets is having a similar effect to having them be mandatory.
And yes, Nick Freeman can fuck off with his statements as his actual job is to allow the rich to continue driving dangerously – he is clearly the antithesis of safe roads.
Good article from road.cc,
Good article from road.cc, more understanding is always a good thing however unfortunately this topic generates vastly more heat than light. So it’s as Chris Boardman says – the issue is a “massive red herring” which is “not even in the top ten of things you need to do to keep cycling safe or more widely, save the most lives”.
In my experience of falling
In my experience of falling off and being attended to by a variety of blue light professionals several times over the years the helmet thing is all part of the usual patter. Most recent crash each person along the care pathway mentioned it from copper to junior doctor who stitched me up. It’s unintentional bias based on what they think cyclists should be doing, in part due to lobbying/publicity from Headway and campaigns like the one that’s now grown up around Dan Walkers incident. Thing is. In that recent tumble of mine my helmet didn’t touch anything, yet they just assumed that every bike crash involves a head injury. Fact that Walker was knocked out shows that the helmet played a limited role, clearly it didn’t protect him from a head injury.
Huh? Thats like saying my
Huh? Thats like saying my shinpads didn’t protect me because my shin still hurts after someone tried to snap my leg. Helmets aren’t supposed to be an all or nothing item. They aren’t going to stop your head getting hurt completely. If your helmet gets smashed and your skull doesn’t, what do you think might have got smashed if you weren’t wearing it…
I have come off my bike a few times and hit my head and every time my head has been sore afterwards. What is hasn’t been is seriously damaged or split open.
No its not going to save your life in some situations but it damn well has helped me a number of times.
Helmets aren’t supposed to be
Helmets aren’t supposed to be an all or nothing item. They aren’t going to stop your head getting hurt completely
This comment illuminates the exceedingly stupid statement designed to misinform which is current on another topic: ‘the utter failure of Covid vaccines‘ when they are one of the great triumphs of modern bioscience.
If they think helmets don’t
If they think helmets don’t save lives, why do drivers have to use a safety belt these days as cars & vans have crumple zones & airbags to save them from death or injuries? They did in the early days but now there is no need for any safety belt. My helmet saved my head & face from injuries last year on the ice.
nordog wrote:
There’s a nice little piece by the BBC here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zgn82hv/revision/11
Bike helmets work quite well for decreasing superficial injuries and skull fractures. With Dan’s incident, I’d expect the helmet did protect to some extent as he was travelling slowly and the car didn’t directly hit his head (I believe – haven’t watched the video due to it being on a shady site) which are the kind of collisions that bike helmets are tested for (although his concussion does demonstrate the limitations of them). It’s unlikely that that kind of crash would lead to someone’s death unless the following car hadn’t stopped in time and in that scenario, it’s not reasonable to expect a bike helmet to make much difference.
Slipping on ice is the kind of fall that helmets should work well for, so I’d recommend people wear helmets when it’s icy (pedestrians included).
“Road rash” should also be
“Road rash” should also be reduced – not just by keeping your skin away from the hard surface but also as the shell is much more slippery than hair and skin.
I’d certainty agree with Dan Walker as far as the helmet likely saved his scalp from getting scraped up. Quite happy to nod along to that without needing peer reviewed studies. Although it might still be worth doing to confirm that intuition *actually* matches reality – surprisingly often it is confidently wrong.
Apples and oranges much?
Apples and oranges much?
An 80kg cyclist at 20 kph will have a kinetic energy of around 1300 J, as a car driver at 50 kph the same person will have about 7700J, 6 times as much
nordog wrote:
After reading the article you believe a cycle helmet is comparable with a car occupant’s seat belt? Did you actually read it?
By all means wear a helmet but – and I really shouldn’t have to repeat what’s already been said – there really isn’t much strong evidence to show that they save lives.
BTW the 2021 road casualty stats showed that not wearing a seatbelt contributed to 30% of road deaths that year so perhaps crumple zones and airbags aren’t as miraculously life-saving as you appear to suggest.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/consumer/no-seatbelt-factor-30-uk-road-deaths-2021
nordog wrote:
Literally nothing useful in that post. Except accidentally showing that airbags and seatbelts still result in most head injuries occuring within motorvehicles.
Seatbelts continue to be
Seatbelts continue to be required due to the laws of physics. All the crumple zones do is protect the occupants from crush injuries. A seatbelt stops you been thrown into the path of the airbag being deployed and more importantly from being catapulted through the windscreen or front occupants of the vehicle on a sudden stop.
Personally I’ve noted that people drive faster, carelessly and more aggressively since the introduction of these features. I would challenge anyone to drive a 1970’s mini in the same way they would drive a modern mini.
Replace the steering wheel
Replace the steering wheel airbag with a 150mm nail … you’ll be surprised at just how carefully people will drive then …
“Every police officer can
“Every police officer can tell you about a cyclist’s head they have had to try to put back together at a road traffic accident so they can be identified by their loved ones. They are never wearing a helmet.”
Presumably because the helmet disintegrated?
Yeah that’s clearly a made up story, he’s just trying to sell papers.
Regulations don’t lie: bike helmets are only rated to protect you from falling off your bike, not for saving your head from being crushed by a multi-tonne machine. If you want to survive a motor vehicle collision wear a motorbike helmet.
I ride some big climbs
I ride some big climbs (nearest to me is 1000m vertical in 12km) and these are fast descents, it’s easy to get up to 60kph, and I wear a helmet whenever I ride, the times I have fallen I have needed to replace my helmet because of damage, and about half the time still had concussion. I have never had the misfortune to interact with a car, my falls have been caused mostly by punctures and bizarrely dogs.
But in truth the real reasons I wear a helmet are habit and fear. I used to ride motorbikes and I can count in my head the number of times I rode a bike more than ten meters without putting my helmet on. It’s the same with seat belts, try driving a car without one on – it’s scary. Even skiing, I can go faster with a helmet on because I feel safer. Didn’t help Schumacher much….
We all have some kind of internal risk assessment going on, and a helmet let’s me trick mine into accepting riding down a hill wearing lycra at speeds I know will hurt if anything goes wrong. How dumb is that.
I gather skiing is a good
I gather skiing is a good example of the helmet issue;
We can get near perfect data on helmet usage (count how many lift users have helmets and compare to gate counts for total users).
Significant increases in helmet usage has made minimal difference to accident stats;
Initially they worked well when the users were primarily racers – I suspect the risk ski helmets protect against for racers isn’t falls, its hitting course marker poles head first instead of pushing them out of the way – a massive improvement to safety because while hitting the poles itself isn’t that harmful (sprung and flexible to minimise risk from hitting them), it can cause loss of control which does cause serious injuries… But this isn’t a risk your average recreational skier will ever have…
And just like bike helmets
And just like bike helmets the social pressure is now on to wear ski helmets.
Actually the biggest reason to wear one now imo is in case a helmeted skier runs into you…
Had he been wearing a full
Had he been wearing a full face helmet then his face would have been protected and then he wouldn’t be eating soup through a straw.
A Hövding may even have prevented him from being knocked out.
Yet it was his choice not to be wearing these protective gear.
I could claim that it is his fault for not wearing either of these options, but that would be victim blaming.
Don’t forget the cyclist
Don’t forget the cyclist airbag vest he chose not to wear:
https://heliteuk.co.uk/product/helite-bsafe/
Risk compensation seems a big
Risk compensation seems a big factor for that.
I think people just accept
I think people just accept that if x was a risk and didn’t happen, then *something* must be the reason for it. (People aren’t strong believers in random happenings). That’s reinforced because whether or not you believe that everyone else around you probably will.
My take on all the noise about “choice”: this is about “societal norms”.
Or even more basic: humans are the “mimic chimpanzee”. When deciding how to do something people copy other people.
I suspect most decisions are based more on things like that and also a heuristics of “how it feels” rather than much rational calculation (not many experts on cycle crashes out there or suitably trained epidemiologists). Reason is something that is mostly used to explain your choice to others after the fact
In NL, most people on bikes don’t wear a helmet *. So most people continue not wearing helmets. They may give reasons like “why should I buy that? I’ve never needed one” or “it makes my head hot”. But I bet 99% of this is just that cycling has never *felt like* a particularly risky activity so the sellers of helmets never got a good start.
Conversely – in NL most “cyclists” – e.g. people out on “sporty” bikes for more vigorous exercise, or taking part in a cycling sport – wear a helmet. (In NL I believe this is a “wielrenner” as opposed to a “fietser”). That is the norm for “sporting cyclists”. If you ever see the real racers they’re wearing lycra and helmets. So people copy that – and the community of sporty cyclists has that as its norm.
As is well known the “norm” isn’t only set by the community of people practicing that activity:
In the UK – society at large mostly don’t cycle and very few do regularly for transport. So the majority have decided that because they view cycling as a risky activity (which is partly why most don’t cycle) suitable PPE is required **. Cycling – while statistically still a very safe activity in UK! – certainly *feels* more risky and much less relaxed in the UK than in NL.
That’s self-reinforcing. I doubt the perception in the UK would change unless we have a large group who do cycle ** and find they are happy that they don’t *feel* unsafe. So we have a “norm” which is set by people who don’t cycle. Finally I suspect that since humans are extremely poor at accurately estimating risks / probabilities but are quite risk-averse there’s an inherent bias towards being willing to consider activities risky – especially those we don’t regularly participate in.
* Interestingly there’s some anecdata about that after some time in NL people who formerly wore helmets while riding tend to discard them. No idea the reason, whether the “social conformism” or whether people *feel* safer and more relaxed so don’t feel the need etc.
** Mass cycling would require vastly fewer cars and / or much more convenient protected infra anyway…
Very good post! Did I say
Very good post! Did I say this is an excellent post? Brilliant post by the way.
Social pressure/norms is the main reason for anything happening/not happening, and is in itself the outcome of all sorts of biases.
“Finally I suspect that since humans are extremely poor at accurately estimating risks / probabilities but are quite risk-averse there’s an inherent bias towards being willing to consider activities risky – especially those we don’t regularly participate in.”
This. Ad infinitum.
Helmets for sport vs no
Helmets for sport vs no helmets for tootling around town makes sense to me – I would never go out on a long ride for exercise without a helmet, but I never wear one if I’m jumping on a hire bike to pootle into central London. That’s partly because I’m usually going out socially and don’t want to lug a helmet around with me to a restaurant, bar or the theatre, and often I won’t cycle home.
That said, if I’m cycling for an errand, as opposed to exercise, on one of my own bikes I do tend to stick my helmet on, because they’re somewhat faster than a hire bike and thus any accident would be more likely to cause me injury (because physics).
But it’s all my personal choice and my own risk assessment, and we should all be allowed to make that risk assessment.
That all sounds like how I
That all sounds like how I might operate. However my point is that most people take their cues from the social norm, and go with the flow. (Apart from those particularly given to evaluating things or the contrarian – who simply go against the flow without much thought). So I suspect neither most of those cycling in the UK NOR most in the Netherlands (whether fietsers or weilrennen) are making a decision based on a thorough analysis of risk.
Which in itself suggests that while we should study things “but evidence!” isn’t what actually might settle the “debate”.
Also I am almost certain that the fact this whole “debate” keeps getting air time is nothing to do with actually making things safer for the rather few people who cycle in the UK. Even cyclists weighing in appear to have more to say about the behaviour of other cyclists – after all they themselves can just make their own decisions and do what they want.
For what it’s worth the Dutch might* be at a point where doing more to encourage helmet use. If only for certain higher-risk populations e.g. the old / the young. For them given the large numbers cycling and how effectively they’ve made cycling safe it might actually be one of the more effective interventions they could make if they wished to reduce injury. However making it compulsory might also be an own-goal in health terms – if it affected numbers of trips. That could happen if e.g. people didn’t want to go out in the evening and then have to do something with their helmet.
I suspect the same intervention in the UK would not change very much. Certainly not in terms of absolute numbers simply because most people don’t cycle.
* All in Dutch but worth the effort – from the page here there are both infographics on cycling and general traffic safety in NL and a very detailed dive into powered bike (e-bikes, pedelecs and low-power mopeds) safety. It appears that in terms of numbers single-vehicle crashes (e.g. someone fell off / ran into an object) is the main issue. Of course this doesn’t say (and it’s not recorded I think) whether the overall harm from this outweighs e.g. rarer collisions with motor traffic.
most people don’t cycle [in
most people don’t cycle [in the UK]
This is greatly understating the point- the vast majority of people in the UK don’t cycle, ever, even for journeys so trivial you wouldn’t count them as a journey.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Yes, entirely true – and in some ways I do go with the flow, because most people on hire bikes don’t wear helmets, although some do.
He should really have been
He should really have been wearing the sort of body armour I wear for BMX racing as well as a full face helmet, in which case his injuries would’ve been far slighter. I think this should be compulsory for all pedestrians and vehicle occupants also, along with high visibility apparel, a life vest in case of water immersion and a handy whistle, plus emergency flares, a litre of water and emergency rations.
OldRidgeback wrote:
I don’t think a life vest on its own is sufficient for motorists, if they become trapped in the vehicle when it is submerged then they will need full scuba gear plus the training to use it.
What! Motor cars aren’t
What! Motor cars aren’t hermetically sealed or have onboard oxygen tanks with the possibility of this incident occurring.
Backladder wrote:
You make a good point. Having sufficient scuba training should be a requirement to be allowed a driver’s licence.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Recreational SCUBA dives are performed using the “buddy” system, so to be safe, drivers should always have another SCUBA trained person in the vehicle and never be driving alone by themselves.
Clearly, road.cc’s
Clearly, road.cc’s advertising contracts are up for renewal and they want to attract some extra traffic.
Nothing better than a helmet vs no helmet article, -a topic that has been beaten to death and then some- to make that happen.
Everything that needs to be
Everything that needs to be said has been here:
https://www.renehersecycles.com/helmets-wars-missing-the-point/
This would seem to be the
This would seem to be the relevant study to review. In part, it picks apart the statistical bias of other studies (like how hospital data is not sound as many people have accidents who don’t go to hospital), then adds in some further comment based on good understanding of how helmets actually work.
They also explain the nature of different sorts of bike accidents.
Worth a read.
https://trl.co.uk/publications/ppr446
Every police officer can tell
Every police officer can tell you about a cyclist’s head they have had to try to put back together at a road traffic accident so they can be identified by their loved ones. They are never wearing a helmet
I have every sympathy with Walker, but this is obviously tripe which casts some doubt on his ‘presenter of the news’ credentials. More anger than is apparent should be directed at the expletive-deleted driver- where is the police action? I wear a helmet almost all the time (when cycling, ho! ho!), not only because it’s a good reproducible means of wearing a camera. I believe that wearing a helmet-cam increases my risk of head injury compared with cycling with a helmet but without a camera (which I do often), but I don’t know about the comparison with the risk incurred without a helmet or camera (which I virtually never do). Wearing a headcam without a helmet is probably very rare anywhere.
It’s utter bollocks that a
It’s utter bollocks that a professional journalist (as he is) should be ashamed to have uttered. It’s not true and it’s classic fearmongering.
kil0ran wrote:
Except it’s not as has been demonstrated by studies including one IanMSpencer posted just below your own comment.
“Imagine Dan Walker had been
“Imagine Dan Walker had been attacked by a dog. Now, instead of talking about muzzling dangerous dogs, we were telling people to wear bite proof jackets and check they weren’t carrying sausages. That’s where we are just now.”
hirsute wrote:
10 likes and counting for this obvious false equivalence. What a joke.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
“Imagine Dan Walker had been attacked by a dog. Now, instead of talking about muzzling dangerous dogs, we were telling people to wear bite proof jackets and check they weren’t carrying sausages. That’s where we are just now.”
— ShutTheFrontDawes 10 likes and counting for this obvious false equivalence. What a joke.— hirsute
13 and counting right now. Please can you explain why its a false equivalence?
brooksby wrote:
If you’re too dense to realise that wearing PPE to reduce the risk associated with every-day hazards in a dangerous environment is not the same thing as wearing PPE to reduce the risk associated with an event that occurs so rarely every occasion makes BBC news, then explaining it to you is just wasted effort. Including this comment.
I find a number of over 7 and
I find a number of over 7 and a half thousand hospital admissions per year for dog related injuries. Not really rare then is it…
marmotte27 wrote:
It just shows how poor people are at estimating risks.
I’d say 3.3 dog-related
I’d say 3.3 dog-related deaths per year and >100 cyclist deaths per year is a false equivalence.
I’d say wearing a helmet when you go cycling and wearing a bite-proof jacket whenever you leave the house is a false equivalence.
I’d say the risk-reward balance is a false equivalence.
If you disagree, that’s up to you.
Sources:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36652787/#:~:text=Results%3A%20In%20total%2C%20there%20were,on%2Dyear%20change%20in%20incidence.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2021/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2021
We’renot only talking about
We’re not only talking about deaths. And injuries by dogs are not rare.
Pretty sure by the way that not far from 100% dog-related deaths are due to biting, but far less than 100% of cycling related deaths are due to head injuries.
marmotte27 wrote:
I’m not sure what you’re talking about and frankly I don’t care. Dan Walker has been talking about helmets saving his life. Much of the article above talks about the efficacy of helmets saving one’s life. So yes, I’m taking about deaths.
If you think that wearing a helmet when you cycle on the highway is equivalent to wearing a bite-proof jacket when you leave the house I feel sad for you.
My wife’s step-mum got
My wife’s step-mum got attacked by a dog when cycling, losing a chunk of calf. It got horribly infected and became what is known as a “life-changing injury”. It stopped her long distance cycling, where they would leave home in inner London and merrily cycle around the UK, stopping off at various family members spread around the length and breadth of the UK. So don’t be so dismissive of dog attacks. I reckon I have many more bad interactions with dogs than I have with cyclists either on foot, in the car or cycling.
IanMSpencer wrote:
I’m not being dismissive of dog attacks. As I previously stated, people die from them. 3.3 people a year.
But let me ask you a question: Does she now leave the house with a bite-proof jacket at all times, or does she think that the risk is insufficient to warrant such a restrictive measure?
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
“Imagine Dan Walker had been attacked by a dog. Now, instead of talking about muzzling dangerous dogs, we were telling people to wear bite proof jackets and check they weren’t carrying sausages. That’s where we are just now.”
— ShutTheFrontDawes 10 likes and counting for this obvious false equivalence. What a joke.— brooksby
13 and counting right now. Please can you explain why its a false equivalence?
— ShutTheFrontDawes If you’re too dense to realise that wearing PPE to reduce the risk associated with every-day hazards in a dangerous environment is not the same thing as wearing PPE to reduce the risk associated with an event that occurs so rarely every occasion makes BBC news, then explaining it to you is just wasted effort. Including this comment.— hirsute
You’re really mean, aren’t you? At least Martin remains (generally) polite…
brooksby wrote:
If you’re too dense to realise that wearing PPE to reduce the risk associated with every-day hazards in a dangerous environment is not the same thing as wearing PPE to reduce the risk associated with an event that occurs so rarely every occasion makes BBC news, then explaining it to you is just wasted effort. Including this comment.— ShutTheFrontDawes
You’re really mean, aren’t you? At least Martin remains (generally) polite…— hirsute
I thought sticking with something as light-hearted as “dense” in response for something so completely moronic was being polite.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
You could have contributed something useful but instead you resorted to insults (yet again). Suggesting that you’re not half as smart or as well-informed as you think you are.
Where did I insult anyone? If
Where did I insult anyone? If someone fails to put two and two together, is it an insult to say that they’re bad at maths?
People who are dense as a concrete block or as thick as two short planks can live perfectly acceptable lives, for example as a Tory peer, or a Brexit supporter, or as someone who spends their life watching YouTube dashcam videos and then posting cycling-related ones on Road.cc.
It takes all sorts to make a world.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
If you’re so convinced that we’re (I’m?) so beneath your intellectual level, then why didn’t you just explain your point (as I’d politely asked) instead of going straight in with the snark?
brooksby wrote:
If you’re so convinced that we’re (I’m?) so beneath your intellectual level, then why didn’t you just explain your point (as I’d politely asked) instead of going straight in with the snark?— ShutTheFrontDawes
If you liked Hirsute’s comment and/or agree with it, it shows that you are unable to distinguish between two obviously very different things. You should be able to make the distinction on your own. You should not need it explaining to you.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
If you’re so convinced that we’re (I’m?) so beneath your intellectual level, then why didn’t you just explain your point (as I’d politely asked) instead of going straight in with the snark?
— brooksby If you liked Hirsute’s comment and/or agree with it, it shows that you are unable to distinguish between two obviously very different things. You should be able to make the distinction on your own. You should not need it explaining to you.— ShutTheFrontDawes
And if you have the time to post so much snark, you shouldn’t mind taking the time to help all us poor dimwits understand your lofty chain of thought…
brooksby wrote:
He won’t. It’s all bluster and bullshit. I bet he only has a Level 2 in H&S from a local FE college where you only had to turn up for 2 lectures a week to pass. Or was that the First Aid course?
brooksby wrote:
It’s not my job to educate you, nor my desire to.
I’m just calling out the flagrant false equivalence. I don’t know if it’s been caused by ignorance, or an active desire to misinform. I don’t know whether you know better, and frankly I don’t care. I’m just calling it out as the BS that it is.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Wow, have we met or were they just lucky guesses?
Who cares. If that is what he
Who cares. If that is what he thinks, so what. If you agree – great. If you disagree – great. His view and he is entitled to say so as much as you are allowed to disagree. Storm meet teacup.
Yes, exactly! I really don’t
Yes, exactly! I really don’t get the angst people show because someone suggests people wear a helmet…..
I don’t wear a helmet in case a car hits me, I wear one in case I come off on my own, or when I’m riding off road…..
Dan was also in a position to
Dan was also in a position to highlight the dangers presented by inattentive and aggressive motorists. He also had the opportunity to increase awareness of how poor infrastructure is- this roundabout being a classic example.
Instead he choose to put the emphasis on the wearing of a helmet while falling back on police and medical comments of “it was a good job he was wearing one”. I have not seen one comment on mainstream media pointing out that the motorist was at fault when you clearly see them drift across the lanes and into the back of Dan. They’ve all been a pile on of anti cyclist bingo.
This x100
This x100
I’d love to hear prominent
I’d love to hear prominent health experts/campaigners say something like –
“If you are going cycling, I’d suggest you wear a helmet, because it can offer some protection. However, it’s a personal choice and the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks. From a physical and mental health viewpoint you are better off cycling without a helmet than not cycling at all.”
I think it’s important to
I think it’s important to separate out a few key points that tend to get all jumbled together, since a lot of the helmet “debate” is really just people talking past each other.
(However, if for whatever reason you personally don’t want to wear a helmet, go ahead and cycle anyway! Although cycling isn’t as safe as it should be, it’s still safe enough that your mental and physical health will be better for doing it.)
I don’t often descend to
I don’t often descend to personal slurs in response to other’s posting, but honestly ejocs, you must be utterly sane to espouse such rational views.
That sums up my view
That sums up my view perfectly and much more eloquently than I could manage! I always wear a helmet when I take a bike out with me even though I am not convinced they offer huge amounts of protection. I don’t take a helmet with me every time I go in to the city in case I want to hire a bike to get to and from the station instead of taking a taxi. Mandating helmets would simply mean I took a taxi every time. Great for the taxi trade I suppose, not so good for my health, congestion or the environment. A far more effective societal response to concerns over vulnerable road user safety would be to educate all road users on their obligations and then strictly enforce breaches of existing road laws with meaningful punishment for those who break them.
A Helmet DID NOT Save My Life
A Helmet DID NOT Save My Life
I wish we could put Helmets (and Hi-vis) away for ever, but as we are going around the loop again I will add my ten penn’orth.
Several years ago I came off my bike when I was not wearing a helmet. The result was not nice, I went over the bars at about 18mph, landed on my head and lost a piece of my scalp about the size of a Jaffa Cake. That was my only injury, if I was wearing a helmet I think I would have walked away and become a member of the “A helmet saved my life club”. As it was I lost a whole summer of cycling thanks to a wound which refused to heal.
Some time later I had a helmet which was way over it’s use by date. Rather than throw it away I put some sand into a garden refuse bag to make a sphere about the size of my head, put the helmet onto it, then set about it with a length of 3×3. I was surprised how much punishment it took to break the helmet and this scientific experiment left me with the feeling “I’ll have some of that (protection)”
My personal advice :-
Always Wear a Helmet But Ride Like You Are NOT.
Hear hear. What’s your view
Hear hear. What’s your view on bite-proof jackets? Asking for a friend 😉
You *should* wear one before
You *should* wear one before posting on road.cc – but of course we’re not saying the moderators should enforce that?
(It’s the dangerous cynics…)
A poo-proof jacket would be
A poo-proof jacket would be more useful in here. That way I might be able to just let the BS wash over me without feeling the need to call it out.
The car that hit Dan is a
The car that hit Dan is a 2019-21 Nissan Qashqai. These come with Automatic Emergency Braking as standard – including pedestrian detection.
Watching the video again, the vehicle applies instant and harsh braking immediately there is contact. This could be the driver reacting very quickly, but could it also have been the AEB system kicking in?
What definitely saved Dan’s life, was not getting run over by the vehicle. It would be interesting to know if AEB played a part in that.
Looking at a video of the system in action, it does seem to brake in a similar way:
https://youtu.be/FTKxCE5qmQM?t=116
Backside sorted anyhow
Backside sorted anyhow
https://www.airbagjeans.com/
hirsute wrote:
Pffft! You can make a homemade version by cable tying your ankles and eating a whole bunch of beans.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Pffft indeed. And paaarp too. But you risk being turned away from Edinburgh hostelries.
https://metro.co.uk/2023/02/07/tourists-turned-away-from-edinburgh-pub-for-wearing-jobby-catchers-18240430
Dnnnnnn wrote:
“Jobby catchers” – am I immature if that makes me chuckle?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Yes. As much as many of us.
Reminds me of the old joke
Reminds me of the old joke
Doctor: when did you realise you were suffering from diarrhea?
Cyclist: when I took off my trouser clips.
Bike helmets are so light,
Bike helmets are so light, well ventalated, unobtrusive and for the more cycling fashion conscieous of us, it completes the look… There’s no viable reason not to wear one, just hot-air and opinions. God forbid, if you ever need the protection you’ll be glad you had when you did.
Well that’s all good. However
Well that’s all good. However I just read the article above so aren’t you worried the presenter’s message will be lost amongst the thousands of news articles where presenters who’d survived crashes were urging motorists to drive to the conditions, or not drive on the pavement, or not run red lights, or saying that cycling infra saved their life, or that junctions in the UK were a major safety issue, or we need to fix potholes, or that people should keep up with their bike’s maintenance…
Nothing to stop you taking some small safety precautions. I’m pretty sure that helmets in the UK are not an unknown safety silver bullet – they’re pretty salient, don’t worry on that score. Seems odd that this one issue always gets so much noise and *mainstream media publicity* though, would you not say?
PhilipH wrote:
Well I find them hot, noisy and uncomfortable so that is why I avoid using one wherever possible.
Yesterday I wore a helmet.
Yesterday I wore a helmet. Today I’m having a meal in London with friends so I didn’t.
If I die at some point on my travels, it will almost certainly be because a dickhead motorist was on his* phone or not paying attention in some other way and a helmet will make not a jot of difference.
It’s my risk assessment to make and no other fuckers business. It’s absolutely outrageous that should I die, a shit-ton of arseholes will be hyper ventilating over my choice of bike, clothes, lights, lid, road-position, life choices, size of my arse and god knows what else. The driver will quite literally get away with murder.
*it will probably be someone who identifies, very strongly, as male.
JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote
You are cycling to a meal with friends?? Don’t tell Martin…
brooksby wrote:
You are cycling to a meal with friends?? Don’t tell Martin…— JustTryingToGetFromAtoB
I think the PBU is off his meds, so he’d have trouble distinguishing where in the intersection of things he disapproves of/doesn’t believe can happen to focus on.
JustTryingToGetFromAtoB wrote
How can you possibly know this? There are so many variables, it’s certainly true to say that it might make a difference to the outcome. But then again, it might not.
If you really think it won’t make a difference, I don’t understand why you’d bother wearing a helmet at all.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
For the cycling I do, the risk comes from concussion and being flattened by a motorist so the liklihood of helmet saving me seems pretty low. Certainly lower than the benefits I get from cycling when a helmet is inconvenient.
I wear a lid most of the time because
A) I love, really really love, showing up a motorist who thinks I appeared out of nowhere despite being head to toe hi-vis including a helmet that looks like a day-glo knob.
B) should I get flattened, the insurance will try to scam my family despite my injuries in no way preventable by a helmet.
Neither of us will change each others mind.
Well the important thing is
Well the important thing is you wear a helmet. I hope that if you have an accident, it helps you.
I have no problem with people
I have no problem with people not wearing a helmet when riding a bike – their freedom, their choice.
However, with free actions come consequences… suppose, for example, someone falls off a bike due to their own negligence, and they suffer head injuries due to not wearing a helmet.
Under those circumstances, I believe the NHS would have a moral obligation to ignore any call out and respond to someone more deserving. Why should someone who selfishly causes their own calamity risk the lives of others?
Except the NHS does not work
Except the NHS does not work like that nor should anyone want it to.
hirsute wrote:
If it did, presumably driving a car would be considered excessively dangerous, so we’d park the injured to die at the side of the road?
Or people who use their car for short journeys instead of walking or cycling will be refused treatment for diabetes and heart disease?
Weird logic but there’s always one (even if representation by multiple user profiles)
But just think of all the
But just think of all the money we could save, we could ignore smokers and drinkers, in fact probably 90% of the NHS patients could be declared to have caused their illness or injury themselves and be left to die.
Bit different though, as
Bit different though, as those people you mention have indirectly paid for their care through the taxes paid on their addiction, an insurance policy if you like.
Bit strange how you got to
Bit strange how you got to 177 comments without me really noticing your username, given the enormity of the shite you spout.
It is entirely possible that
It is entirely possible that they have changed their username, as strangely this is a user function rather than admin.
marmotte27 wrote:
Suspect a name change which can be done by users without opening a new account or getting admin permission: Nigel/Great Eastern/TTDanger and all the other aliases were all on the same account. It would be a great benefit to the honesty of the site if this feature was turned off, as it is a troll’s charter.
P.S. Nigel was an accountant, by the way. Just saying.
Ah ok thanks, not having
Ah ok thanks, not having tried this myself I was not aware. Rather unusual, as you say.
Post count too low for Nige.
Post count too low for Nige. Possibly new account but flying below the radar until some of the more vocal individuals scale back then they step in. Bit like a tag team.
Too low for his original
Too low for his original account, yes – that was definitely completely deleted at his own request – but he did open at least one after supposedly leaving, the Rakia account, which was then itself deleted for racism.
With ~ 160-170 posts before
With ~ 160-170 posts before today, either been dormant for a long while or took advantage of the option to change the username.
Since in the case of that
Since in the case of that poster someone found a / some very similar account(s) going at it with the same MO on Wikipedia I think the notion of “yes, renaming the account and yes, returning under new cover when booted off – but only using one account at a time” might be naive? AFAIK if you were minded there’d be nothing to stop you creating a bunch back in time, possibly making a few general posts and then at a later date renaming and bringing one of those back into use. Rinse and repeat (presumably for the “dislikes”?)
As rich_cb said – if not interested don’t play. (Also ublock).
Yet when I pay for a bike,
Yet when I pay for a bike, components, repairs and clothing I pay VAT which indirectly goes to the NHS. I also pay VAT on food consumed at coffee stops. So going by your argument I’m also entitled to treatment if I’m minus helmet and have a mishap.
In addition a regular cyclist
In addition a regular cyclist – even one who doesn’t wear a helmet – has a considerable credit with the NHS in terms of, on average, being much less likely to require treatment for obesity, diabetes, heart disease and depression, amongst other things, compared to those with a sedentary lifestyle. Cyclists also account for very little of the estimated £36BN (DoT) that incidents on the road cost the Exchequer, nor does cycling create illnesses, via pollution, in other people that have to be treated by the NHS. Of course it shouldn’t be, and thankfully isn’t at present, a silly game of “you don’t deserve treatment because…” but if it ever came to that cyclists, whether helmeted or not, should be one of the least penalised groups.
Won’t be treating any
Won’t be treating any children who have made stupid decisions and say, have fallen out of trees. And they haven’t paid any taxes.
hirsute wrote:
Pensioners as well, risky behaviour by getting old, significant proportion under the Nil Rate Band and on average, half of them paid less in tax than took out of the system. Parasites the lot of them.
Why’s that then? Deliberately
Why’s that then? Deliberately put yourself in harm’s way, expect to get harmed. Cause and effect.
Suppose a young child was an innocent victim of a road collision, shortly after some bloke who couldn’t be bothered to wear a helmet crashed.
In your world you’d save the negligent bloke over the child? Or do you think there are infinite ambulances and resources so that everyone lives happily ever after?
The same applies for all kinds of risky activities by the way, it’s just we’re on the topic of cycling helmets. It should also apply to drug taking, driving without a seatbelt, mountain climbing/hill walking without proper equipment (just to pick out a few random examples). There is a huge list of things that people do with excessive risk because they know they are backstopped by a compliant and complicit “free” health service.
The Accountant wrote:
If you want to change the way the NHS works, BTL on a cycling forum us not the place to do it. Good luck though.
I look forward to your
I look forward to your extensive list and criteria.
The Accountant wrote:
Not wearing a helmet (I do, religiously, by the way) is not deliberately putting oneself’s in harm’s way. It may be argued that once you come to harm a helmet may mitigate it to some extent in some circumstances, but it makes not the slightest difference to the chances of encountering harm.
We had better ban all sports then as all of them apart from maybe croquet and bowls (I bet someone is going to find an example of a croquet disaster now) carry some inherent dangers. It’s well known that DIY and gardening are both major contributors to A&E attendance levels, so no treatment for victims of them. Driving cars or motorbikes, hugely dangerous, sorry, no treatment for you. Anyone who eats red meat, smokes, drinks alcohol, doesn’t eat their five a day, all major contributors to A&E workloads, rule them out. Or we could stop being bloody stupid and accept that everything in life has risks and that the NHS is there for every member of society, whether they have made a mistake or not and whether or not their choices and lifestyle meet with some form of bizarre official approval.
Rendel Harris wrote:
I know it’s all very droll to put up these silly straw man arguments, but all the things you’ve mentioned are easily solvable through insurance.
Play a sport, get insured, and the insurance will pay out if you’ve been behaving in a competent manner.
There are already nudges via sugar taxes and more could be done on diet, again amounting to an insurance system. I’ve also already stated that the tax on alcohol and tobacco is a proxy form of insurance.
Cars etc are slightly different: as an engine of economic growth and productivity, they produce positive externalities to society which outweigh the risks and negative outcomes (congestion, pollution, accidents) they also produce. Car insurance is also a proxy for driving competence.
So none of the things you (or anyone else has offered) are a barrier to this.
Slightly off topic, but the main issue I see with the NHS is it being free at the point of use. Entirely ridiculous. Block up A&E with a sniffle, that’ll be £495 please. An a GP appointment should cost £20, rising to £100 if you don’t turn up. Job sorted.
Should I say “welcome back”?
Should I say “welcome back”?
Sadly the numbers apparently are exactly the opposite – motoring is a net cost to society. (all taxpayers pay, but motorists are not paying the full costs of that activity – they’re subsidised by general tax).
Again, that might be something we want to pay for because it unlocks something else / it’s just handy – but we should be up-front that we’re all paying for it – even non-drivers who don’t get into a motor vehicle!
The Accountant wrote:
We could make it compulsory for all risky activities (eg living) and call it National Insurance
People have broken an ankle
People have broken an ankle tripping over a stop board playing croquet
One lady put her foot through a sprinkler cover and badly fractured her ankle as she then fell with her leg stuck in the hole
People have also badly gashed their ankle when mis swinging the mallet when attempting a very hard shot.
Not quite in the same category, but at Surbiton, a driver crashed through the fence, demolished the BBQ and ended up mid court. Fortunately, no one was playing. George the groundsman was very upset over the loss of his brick BBQ !
hirsute wrote:
That is fortunate and clearly an argument for croquet players to wear helmets at all times during play; it might be a small risk but the incident to which you refer proves that the risk is there nonetheless, and if they don’t take proper measures to mitigate it they really shouldn’t expect any treatment from the NHS.
It was from this road. It was
It was from this road. It was a repalcement car and it was thought the driver hit the accelerator instead of the brake at the junction give way.
Well it’s happy fishing today
Well it’s happy fishing today!
I particularly like the vision of the health service as a sinister party in this plot to ruin all the sensible people’s lives / wealth by encouraging foolishness – is this “risk compensation”?
I’d suggest that’s precisely the situation we’re in with mass motoring, what with all those safety features?
Ignoring the bait, I think the issue here is simply one of “well that’s what I call unnecesary risk that ought be restricted / managed!” vs. er… doing the accounting.
One such set of numbers to look at are what would the actual outcomes of any proposed change be? Reality often doesn’t let you change just one thing without others also changing – because human behaviour! So changes to injury numbers / rates and overall societal cost – including the admin costs of police, assessors etc. That’s always an estimate but I believe this is exactly what governments do when considering changes in law. I believe the UK government have done this when they looked at mandatory helmets / licencing for cycling.
Finally – the apples and oranges and tomatoes here are that e.g. Mountain climbing is a recreational activity (and there isn’t “standard kit” – D of E expeditions, fell runners, rock climbers and alpinists will all have different specs). Cycling is both a recreational activity AND a mode of transport. Driving assumed to be almost entirely a mode of transport – although I’d disagree, recreational driving exists – AND it’s a net cost to all taxpayers even though it’s expensive. That’s partly because of negative health outcomes for everyone we pick up the tab for.
There’s a new principle!
There’s a new principle!
Walking at night and got run over? Wearing dark coloured clothes? No ambulance for you!
Maybe there could be consequences for people who e.g. chose to cause calamity for themselves and others by driving too fast? Perhaps the fire and rescue service should ignore callouts where joyriding was suspected? Or maybe on arriving at a scene where someone has crashed into people on the pavement ignore the driver trapped in the car and just treat everyone else?
I passed by a village green
I passed by a village green the other day with a handily placed bench so I sat down for a bit. There was a note on the bench which said ” This is a happy bench – sit here if you don’t mind someone stopping by to say hi!” Nobody stopped to say hi. I felt quite sad – Quite ironic really. I wasn’t wearing a helmet.
I got a letterbox put on my
I got a letterbox put on my door. A week later, I still haven’t received any letters. Should I be complaining to the post office?
You have a letterbox? We only
You have a letterbox? We only have a catflap. i’ve not had any post for ages. And we haven’t got a cat.
Ah – that’ll be your problem
Ah – that’ll be your problem then. I had a cat and even without a catflap he’d bring me the post. Unfortunately he never learned to distinguish between junk mail and important letters. I replaced him with a dog but then I just got papier-mache.
I have both a cat and a
I have both a cat and a catflap, but I also need more catflaps for the internal doors because he refuses to close them after himself and the house is drafty. I usually do not wear a helmet whilst fitting catflaps and I don’t have catflap fitting insurance. So I’m putting it off. I don’t need the extra embarrassment of being refused treatment at A&E if I have an accident whilst undertaking any aspect of the project.
I didn’t want to install
I didn’t want to install catflaps – I’m worried about it causing congestion coming out of the house. Also I think because there are lots of dogs around I’ll just find dogs left in the catflap so the cat won’t be able to get through. “But cats don’t even use the catflaps” said the owner of 3 staffies and an alsation to me, pointing at his letter box, “I put that in, cost me 30 quid and I’ve never even seen a cat in the house”.
It wasn’t your lack of helmet
It wasn’t your lack of helmet, it was your lack of high viz, it’s been thoroughly established by experts that without it you are completely invisible. Go back in an orange gilet and you’ll be mobbed.
Well it really won’t look
Well it really won’t look good with my brown belt and black shoes.
perce wrote:
Ah well, if you were sitting there looking like an explosion in the Decathlon aisle no wonder nobody said hi. It’s a wonder you weren’t seized by the village constable and hurled in the duckpond, frankly.
And it would be no more than
And it would be no more than I deserved for my sartorial faux-pas.
Bingo!!!
Bingo!!!
Do we now have a new bridge
Do we now have a new bridge dweller?
giff77 wrote:
99.9% it’s PBU
with that no nonsense logic
with that no nonsense logic maybe the NHS should also not treat smokers, people that do not do some form of exercise to keep themselves healthy, people that eat too much junk food…shall I go on you moron?
Dan Walker was wearing a
Dan Walker was wearing a helmet yet the front of his head (his face) is still injured.
Why wasn’t he wearing a scuba (/Iron Man) helmet?
(Sarcasm, for those that don’t get it.)
mitsky wrote:
Or a Mandalorian helmet, cos that would be cooler 😀
I have a soft spot for the
I have a soft spot for the great helm. Much more protective than the offerings we have for our own protection. Not sure about the visibility though.
Interesting reading this
Interesting reading this article. I am a keen and one time club cyclist. I am now a commuter cyclist but still ride at other times for fun and fitness. I never used to wear a cycle helmet until, around a quarter century ago, I was hit by a car and my head hit the pavement. Thankfully a glancing blow to the pavement, resulting in a cut to my forehead but a helmet would have prevented this. The car hitting my pelvis and lower back and the resultant severe bruising, seeing me off work for a month, could only have been prevented by better and more alert driving by the motorist who hit me. I wear a cycle helmet for my own peice of mind but do not preach. The crash has made me extra aware on the road. And thankfully my reactions are still good otherwise I would not have been hit just the once!
I see shocking examples of road use by everyone from pedestrians to HGVs. No one user type is to blame, although in my experience, HGV drivers tend to be those amongst the best around cyclists and taxi drivers the worst. There does seem to be a number of motorists who have to get past cyclists at all costs. There are a number of cyclists who one cannot imagine seeing old age due to the way they ride! I drive as well as cycle so not trying to be anti motorists, just anti bad road users. What’s needed? Better education? Better instruction? Better policing? It’s multifaceted. One of the things that sticks in my mind from when I was learning to drive was basically told to always expect the unexpected. Adjust one’s driving style to the conditions. Too many seem to drive as if they are never expecting another road user on the road!
Ending on a postive note, I am often pleasantly surprised by those motorists who will wave me on although they have the right of way. We are a mixed bag on the road!
Things are proportionate
Things are proportionate
walking speed: scull
cycling speed: light foam helmet
motor speed: hard shell helmet or huge steel cage
aircraft speed: sperm freeze
In Netherlands they don’t wear helmet not only because the speeds are lower, but segregated speeds enable you to ride safer. If you want no helmets, advocate for such infrastructure.
Truth
Truth
Although you now have me wondering if Martin Baker make bike saddles..
I dream of riding a Martin
I dream of riding a Martin Baker (or Zvezda) saddled aircraft but I would have to cycle for years to pay off the carbon footprint, so maybe in a couple of generations after my death incarnation where powerful hydrogen jets will provide a similar experience.
It’s a wonder there’s only
It’s a wonder there’s only been two cyclists in 120 years of the Tour de France who have died of head injuries…
Why does it have to be a
Why does it have to be a “wonder”. Maybe it’s just logic.
jestriding wrote:
Whether pro-, anti- or neutral on helmet use that’s clearly not a particularly telling statistic for any argument; when you have the best bicycle riders/handlers in the world racing on closed roads you’ve got a pretty big statistical outlier, given that the vast majority of cycling fatality head injuries arise from conflict with motor vehicles with non-professional riders on open roads.
Indeed. Interesting how this
Indeed. Interesting how this is apparently reversed by “sustainable safety” policies in NL – rather than eg. mandatory helmets and / or other “make those cyclists take more responsibility” ones.
So that’s infra, different rules, lower speed / volume of motor traffic where mixing takes place, possibly more accountability for local governments / road organisations in keeping people safe etc.
Obviously not a direct comparison (deaths vs. injuries, with different demographic etc) but there a majority of all *casualties* are “single vehicle” e.g. crashed or even just fell over by themselves.
They do still have death by driver – just that their numbers for this given the large numbers / greater proportion of more vulnerable people cycling (young, old, those with disabilities etc) are very impressive.
It seems incredible to me
It seems incredible to me that anybody should push back on the assertion that it’s just sensible to wear a helmet – and not sensible to not wear one.
It’s got sod-all to do with “car-brained” or “victim blaming” or any of those culture-led opinionated so-called arguments; to me it seems to be more to do with somebody’s “right” to do they want to do – the have the freedom not wear a helmet if they don’t want to and to die of a head injury if that’s what they feel so strongly about (sorry, maybe uncalled for preaching, but really…).
My experience is that I had a fall some years ago that may or may not have been caused by a black-out or some other non-car or external interference-related incident. I wasn’t travelling fast, there were no other people or cars around I just hit the deck – no recollection, retrograde amnesia as suggested by my cardiologist (I’d never seen a cardiologist before this incident). Some kindly other cyclist helped me up off the road – I had to track him down from Strava Flybys to find out what happened as I can”t remember that bit either. What I do know, from the state of my helmet after the crash, is that I’d have been in a much worse state if I wasn’t wearing it – cracked skull for sure. There was nobody else to blame – the risk, the danger, was me, the distance between my head and the road and gravity. Nothing else – the risk is mitigated by wearing a helmet. Simple as that. Luckily for me I was already on the “stupid to not wear a helmet” wave…and that I live in Australia where they are mandatory.
I get it that 99% of the population of the Netherlands don’t wear a helmet. I still think that they all should, but the culture and the associated supporting infratructure is different in that country as pointed out by other commenters on this thread.
I wear one skiing, on an e-scooter, cycling, mountain biking go-karting. I just think, “Why would you not wear one?”.
The Maso wrote:
I had an off a couple of years ago, broken clavicle, damaged adductor and concussion. I still accept that it’s a person’s individual choice. There is no conclusive answer from studies and government have not made it mandatory (yet). In spite of their incompetence, I’m sure they would. The mandatory wearing of helmets would be a simple and effective way for tories to win over more motorists and increase division between groups (something they love to do as it helps keep them in power).
Even today, I don’t always wear a helmet.
I just don’t get the so called fact that are only supported with non-professional anecdotal “evidence”.