Ten years ago, I was cycling home on a sunny afternoon and got hit by a car driver, giving me a bad concussion that I still live with to this day. My helmet could well have saved my life. As such, I have what some might see as a strong stance on bike helmets, given the circumstances.
That stance is, frankly, that I still don’t mind if people wear them or not. They are a bit of a sideshow when it comes to serious discussions of road safety, and I don’t feel my experience gives me much moral authority on the subject one way or the other.
I shall explain. One autumn night in 2015 I had woken up in hospital, confused, with no idea where I was or why I was there. A nurse told me I had been hit by a car, had broken the bones around my eyesocket and cheek, and had a bad concussion. She pointed to a table by my bed, on which sat my bike helmet, which was almost broken in two. I had been unconscious for 10 hours.
Strange as it might sound, my immediate feeling was a euphoric rush at still being alive, almost a religious experience.
A policeman came and took my statement. He said a car had hit me from behind and the driver fled the scene, having knocked me out cold and left me in the middle of the road.
I sometimes wonder what went through that driver’s head as they sped off. Was it a stolen car? No insurance? Had a drink? Or a normally responsible motorist that just panicked in the moment, maybe thinking they’d killed me?
I was discharged the next morning, and took the bus home wearing the same bloodsoaked clothing I’d been hit in. My injuries meant I couldn’t open my mouth more than half an inch, and I had several loose teeth that made chewing agony. I bought a blender and drank all my meals through a straw.
The brain is an amazing thing, and will blank out memories it thinks are too traumatic to be relived. My memory of that crash came back to me a few days later, but only as vague glimpses, like bits of a ripped-up watercolour. The sense of a driver passing too close on my right, the first gasp of fear, the initial impact, and then nothing.
A fortnight later I was back in hospital having a titanium plate fitted to reinforce all the broken bits of skull, some of which had lodged themselves in my nasal passages and had to be removed. I asked if I could keep some bits of skull as a souvenir, but was politely told no, with the nurse repeating the word “biohazard”.
Within a few weeks the physical injuries from the crash were manageable. I could eat normally, and the physical evidence of the cuts and bruises faded.
But the side effects of the concussion stayed. I had almost no short-term memory, to the point where I couldn’t remember what I’d done, conversations I’d had, people I’d met. I am a journalist, and would sometimes write a story in the morning, forget I’d written it by lunchtime then write it all over again in the afternoon.
I was fatigued every day just trying to keep on top of everything. I could not focus, and I think my personality changed too, at least for a few months afterwards. I was angrier, more reclusive.
Friends would swear blind we had had conversations about something, or plans to do something, and I just could not remember. Each time it happened was like a sickening inner lurch. I would feel like a tourist in my own life, able to get a vague understanding of my experiences but unable to fully comprehend them.
Ten years on, and the side effects of that concussion are still with me, albeit reduced. I get exhausted easily and struggle to focus, then struggle with guilt that I cannot focus. I often feel like I cannot make sense of the world the way I could before. When the brain fog descends I can’t work, and all I want to do is lie down and rest. I feel I am blunter as a person, perhaps a coping technique to dumb down the world and make it easier to deal with. My memory remains awful, though I have developed ways of managing it.
Despite all this, I still feel lucky. I got hit by a driver and survived, and that sense of elation that I have been given a second chance at life has never left me. It is like a beam of light inside me. I take so much more joy in little things, and it has given me a lot of perspective.

I do not need to tell road.cc readers that helmet use, like high-viz, has developed a huge gravity in discussions about cyclists’ safety. It has an unavoidable pull, sucking attention away from more important topics like driving behaviour, car size, and bike lanes.
A lot of people, when hearing my story, immediately ask if I was wearing a helmet, which always gets my back up. There is an implication that, if I wasn’t, that somehow my injuries become more my fault. Like I would have deserved to be hurt because I hadn’t taken enough precautions. It’s funny how quickly some people focus on the importance of a polystyrene hat rather than the responsibilities of the reckless driver in a big metal box.
I do not claim to be an expert on road safety, and I can say nothing on helmets that the likes of Chris Boardman have not said better, louder and for longer. I just think now what I always did, that wearing a helmet is a personal choice and should remain so. My choice is to always wear one, because I feel it would help if I fall off, which is what they are designed to do, after all. If you are hit by a car, a helmet provides minimal protection. To me, improving road safety should focus on reducing car-on-bike impacts, not pitting a lightweight bike helmet against tonnes of steel and hoping for the best.
So wear a helmet, or don’t. I hope one day, like the Dutch, we get to live in a country where they are seen as more of an afterthought.



























41 thoughts on “Perhaps my helmet did save my life — but that doesn’t mean you need to wear one”
Helmets or no helmets. Not
Helmets or no helmets. Not the issue.
the issue is why people think it is acceptable to wear black socks with white cycling shoes.
I thought the issue was
I thought the issue was whether or not your helmet was allowed to be aero.
Polystyrene helmets are
Polystyrene helmets are pretty much like Aero, but without the taste.
Really heartening to hear you
Really heartening to hear you’ve come through it with little sense of anger or bitterness.
A really thoughtful and well articulated article on the distraction which helmet and hi-viz have become.
Nicely written piece, but
Nicely written piece, but where’s the pictures of Meg?
Anyhow, I think it speaks volumes as to the motornormativity in our culture that so much attention is given to safety equipment rather than outrage at the awful standards of driving and the inhuman reactions of some drivers when they inevitably cause a collision through their own stupidity.
Quote:
My initial question would be – did the police manage to find the driver?
I completely understand the
I completely understand the argument that talking about helmets is avoiding the real issue in some way but I don’t understand how someone who hit their head so hard that it gave them brain damage can suggest that they aren’t sure their helmet saved their life.
No one thinks a helmet will save your life if you are flattened by a truck or the accident is serious enough, its just stacking the odds a little more in our favour if we do come of the bike for whatever reason.
No I don’t think they should be mandatory but I 100% think that people should wear them. Like everything cycling safety related, we have to deal with the reality, not what should be the reality.
I shouldn’t have to crawl through busy traffic in the bike lane in case someone randomly cuts across the bike lane and I splat into their car. I shouldn’t have to take the lane to stop bad overtakes when there isn’t room. I shouldn’t have to run a camera to capture the inevitable occasion someone finally knocks me off my bike.
We can demand safer roads without dismissing the idea that we can make ourselves safer at the same time and mitigate some of the risk.
mctrials23 wrote:
A cycle helmet tends to provide protection against skull fractures and doesn’t do much to protect the brain itself. Concussion and brain damage typically occur because the brain “sloshes” against the inside of the skull, rather than being directly damaged. Helmets can reduce the magnitude of the brain deceleration to some extent as their material compresses, but usually not enough to help with avoiding concussion.
If you plan on having a collision, then it’s going to be better to wear a helmet (also gloves and knee/elbow pads), but the big problem is people spending time and effort discussing PPE rather than dealing with the elephant on the road – driving standards and traffic policing.
Yup – anecdotal of 1 but I
Yup – anecdotal of 1 but I would have been better served by body armour than the helmet I used to always wear but tend not to now – various minor cycling injuries over my life up to a broken shoulder.
…on the other hand, I’m sure the helmet saved a few minor knocks (from branches) which perhaps might have distracted me enough to cause a crash?
And maybe it changed my behaviour?
I’ve never had more than scuffs on the couple I’ve owned. OTOH I’ve seen someone avoid a likely badly lacerated scalp (a sliding off, the tough outer plastic getting mangled)…
Over a population what is the cost benefit analysis (including perhaps even lighter versions / motorbike helmet level protection)? Some of the Dutch seem to think it would be sufficient benefit to start public campaigning – but then they’ve more of the young, old and those with disabilities cycling than in other countries. Plus they’ve done more work on safety in general (main type of crash is “person fell off” there with nobody else involved, according to stats I’ve seen there).
mctrials23 wrote:
Because they aren’t sure? The death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase, despite all the thousands of “helmet saved my life” stories. All those people with those stories are sure, but they’re wrong.
I think all cyclists should
I think all cyclists should wear a helmet in order to mount a camera so drivers will not get away with hit and runs. You wouldn’t have to wear one if you had a camera mounted on your bike. Eventually the word might get around and many drivers would take more care knowing there was a record of their actions. Now that would improve cyclist safety.
Only if it had an impact in
Only if it had an impact in terms of prosecutions, convictions etc. Which would require a LOT more “changing the world” work that merely convincing more cyclists to pay more cash / take more pains in the hope that this *might* (no guarantee) end up providing a modicum of comfort to relatives/ altruistic benefit to other cyclists after it’s too late for them…
Unless you’re being stealthy here and hoping that this will lead to more grieving families getting outraged at the legal system as they watch it reject “but it’s right there on camera! ” evidence. Or somehow continue to find drivers not culpable because “they obviously didn’t intend to kill”.
There’s a fair bit of cctv / dashcam already in existence – do you feel that makes a big difference to driving safety? I don’t know but I’d be a little surprised if it was a major factor (the “once a lifetime” folks think their driving is fine anyway, it seems the truly reckless don’t care. And drivers are killing *themselves* / their passengers in numbers reach year through reckless driving…).
Bungle_52 wrote:
I’m not convinced that helmet mounted cameras are a good idea as they might compomise the integrity of the helmet in a crash.
I’m not convinced that helmet
I’m not convinced that helmet mounted cameras are a good idea
Whereas I am; the big risk is cycling on the road at all and the extra risk of a Schumacher-type injury is exceedingly small. In Lancashire, the probability of detecting yet another No MOT vehicle (MW63 CCN) is much higher- the argument would then be: what’s the point?, as the police are determined to ignore these, and most other, offences
Bungle_52 wrote:
Oxymoronic. All cyclists should wear a helmet, but not those who have one mounted on the bike.
I think on balance, it is
I think on balance, it is better to wear a helmet.
TBH, the main reason I wear one is because I take part in time trials in which they are mandatory (as well as making you more aero). Wearing a helmet during all cycling gets me used to the feel of wearing one.
Mr Blackbird wrote:
Can’t say that I’ve noticed that wearing a helmet makes any difference to my balance.
Yes, but that’s because it’s
Yes, but that’s because it’s really your head (as previous chat)!
Mr Blackbird wrote:
I wear one for TTs but don’t feel the need or desire to wear one at any other time.
I’m always surprised at how many people, mostly strangers, offer unsolicited advice that I should be wearing a helmet. They seem to think that they must know better than me, even though I bet most of them don’t even ride a bike regularly. I really ought to tell them to piss off and mind their own business, since I have already made an informed decision about whether to use a non-mandatory piece of so-called ‘safety equipment’.
If they were genuinely concerned about my safety they could easily mention road positioning and visibility, safer routes or – by far the most effective measure – how drivers need to treat other road users and the Law with greater respect. But no, I should wear a little hat and magically be safer. It’s a fucking joke.
The focus on helmet wearing
The focus on helmet wearing as also give the motorist extra ammunition to aim at the cyclist when they want to winge and then it seems to show that a helmeted rider are given more close passes than one without proberbly reasoning that they have more protection so i can pass them closer.
I used to serve on an ISO
I used to serve on an ISO committee that wrote and reviewed standards for a safety-critical industry. When I came back to cycling and read EN1078 I decided it was so weak and had so little relevance to the kind of cycling I was doing that I decided not to wear a helmet.
Now I wear one every trip. What changed my mind was not an incident on the road but that, in the event of such an incident, the fact that the legal profession could argue for “contributory negligence” on my part – even if injuries were to other parts of my body than the head.
Thanks for publishing this article which illustrates so much that is wrong with our motonormative society today.
PpPete wrote:
As far as I know, there is a single instance of failure to wear a helmet being classed as contributory negligence, but in unique circumstances and not applicable to normal riding. The myth that not wearing one is contributory negligence is just one of the many untruths spread by the helmet zealots.
So, given your analysis of the lack of relevance to EN1078, you can go back to riding without one.
That’s the single instance
That’s the single instance that has gone through the courts.
As anyone who has had a serious bike accident knows, the *other* parties insurance will always ask if you were wearing a helmet.
Oh … and if you were wearing brights / hi-viz and had lights on at the time.
Source: questions asked by the other parties insurance company to my legal team, September 2018.
Oldfatgit wrote:
That particular incident was unusual in that it was a corporate organised off-road event (“team building”) and the participant refused to wear the provided helmet. IIRC it was a single person crash and they were blaming the organisers, but were found partially at fault due to them not wearing the helmet.
I believe that if the defense try to blame the cyclist for not wearing a helmet, the onus is on them to demonstrate that the helmet would have provided a material difference to the injuries and I don’t think that’s happened in Britain (might be different in Ireland).
I’ve said before: I wear a
I’ve said before: I wear a helmet because my wife is a great believer in their efficacy and has told me that if I suffered an injury and wasn’t wearing a helmet then she’d kill me

Public policy: Do whatever
Public policy: Do whatever you want. Our communities are better off–in terms of physical health, mental health, and community livability–when more people cycle, regardless of whether they wear helmets or not. Let’s not put up unnecessary barriers to achieving good outcomes.
My personal policy for myself: Wear a helmet. No, it’s not the main issue regarding cyclist safety, and no it won’t protect me in all crashes, but the downsides are minimal and there are plenty of crashes where it will prevent further harm to my noggin area (for example, when my friend accidentally took me down and shattered my collarbone a few months ago, I’m quite glad it’s my helmet that cracked and not my skull). Furthermore, when it comes to danger from motorists, just because they should drive better doesn’t mean they will, and although a helmet won’t protect me perfectly in a crash, should won’t protect me at all.
Personal advice to other people: Probably a good idea to wear a helmet if you’re willing to, but if you hate it for whatever reason don’t let helmets and fear keep you away from cycling. You’re far better off cycling without a helmet than not cycling at all. Again, let’s not put up unnecessary barriers to achieving good outcomes.
As with many things, the key is to be guided by the facts and to be pragmatic rather than doctrinaire.
Sympathies to the author. I
Sympathies to the author. I’ve been knocked off my bike twice car drivers. And I know in both cases my helmet definately protected my head especially when I see the damage to the rear.
I do, however, feel he gets too drawn into the idea that helmets are only protecting against being hit by a car and if people drove better we would all be safe. I have seen many people seriously hurt in crashes where there were no 3rd party involvement. No driver to blame.
I will always maintain wearing a helmet should be down to choice and not mandated. But I will always advocate their use. Making it sound like they are only viable because of drivers being the problem is foolish.
Although it’s always possible
Although it’s always possible for manufacturers to make them to a higher standard of protection than the most common legal spec., that spec is basically for a “pedestrian helmet” e.g. gives you reasonable protection for falling over when stood up.
I think most will also save you from some contusions as their hard surface will tend to slide over surfaces which would otherwise tear your scalp (and also apply rotational forces) – but IIRC that isn’t in the testing standard.
So I would agree that the usual arguments by the less knowledgeable (or plain ignorant) have it exactly backwards. Helmets are probably *most* useful for people who are more likely simply to fall over when mounting / come off at low speeds. Once you add “mixing with fast moving traffic”* to the equation it would be a greater average health benefit to the population ** to fix that “mixing” issue!
In the UK – as e.g. Chris Boardman has noted – there are plenty of things which could be addressed that are of far more importance.
None of the above stops helmets still offering the protection they do of course. Nor the fact that you may be more likely come off your bike due to the actions of others you’re mixing *. I haven’t seen any numbers on types of cycle crashes in the UK which have this level of detail though. (For NL they do at least seem to have reasonable quality numbers showing that the biggest category is “single-vehicle” cycle crashes e.g. fell over / rode into something).
* Where “fast” is probably “over 20mph”. And in fact perhaps “mixing” in general is an issue – that might increase the rate of coming off even if it’s just dodging people / dogs on a “shared use” path? On the flip side there may be a substantial fraction of collisions due to drivers of motor vehicles which aren’t unsurvivable regardless of helmet or other PPE e.g. “driver pulled out on me” / some left hooks etc. where a bit more PPE would be helpful?
** The greatest health benefits would be simply getting the population a bit more active. We know that having lots of motor vehicles driving everywhere / it being so easy to drive suppresses active travel in multiple ways, so that would be the place to start – even if it just means “making it more pleasant to walk some places” / “making driving some short journeys less convenient”.
chrisonabike wrote:
I have no desire to make helmet mandatory, but so many of the ‘cycle helmets are pointless’ arguments miss the point, and the tone is so often needlessly rude, and in many cases not nearly as rational as they claim to be, that I instinctively find myself arguing the case for wearing a helmet.
Most of my cycling is away from cars, and while it might still hurt if I come off dodging a dog, or skidding on some grit, a helmet, like gloves and long sleeves could save me a world of pain. The helmet could also save me from an extended stay in hospital.
I recall a statistic from COVID vaccine discussions, which was that most people who died in traffic collisions were wearing seatbelts. Seatbelts reduce the risk of death, but don’t eliminate it, for those wearing them who are involved in collisions. But the high proportion of those wearing seatbelts means that it’s easier to find people who have died wearing a seatbelt than haven’t.
Only a fool would interpret that data as meaning that wearing a seatbelt made you more likely to die in a car crash (or that having a COVID vaccination put you at greater risk of death from COVID).
It’s all very well to argue against a safety measure on the grounds that the safety improvement is not enough to justify the downsides, but anyone against a risk reduction measure because it is not risk elimination is daft, and it does no favours to cyclists when the most ardent anti-helmet advocates lead with ‘a bit of foam won’t protect you if a lorry hits you at 50mph’, or quoting stats from the Netherlands where as well as different infrastructure, the culture, and types of bikes used is very different to the experience of those in the UK who are new to or returning to cycling for the first time in years.
Safety always involves a number of factors, only some of which you can control. In my safety engineering classes the phrase was “Safety in Depth”, but I like the “Swiss Cheese model” concept which is easier to visualise.
Agreed. There’s so much more that could and should be done. Arguing about helmets has become a distraction, and in more extreme cases, far more off-putting than the hassle of wearing a helmet in the first place.
When the issue is raised it is worth pointing out that helmets are more comfortable than they used to be, that they offer some protection, but don’t make you invincible.
I for one will not ride
I for one will not ride without a helmet (I’ve broken two). However, this is a slippery slope to total government control. Who paid for you hospital stay and treatment? “I” did in a sense — Through my taxes for healthcare. But where does it stop? Are obese people “required” to lose weight and exercise? If you’re diabetic are you ticketed for eating sweets?
Geoff H wrote:
It’s not so much government control, but more victim blaming in my opinion. Unfortunately, it’s gotten so popular that the first question asked in many incidents is “were they wearing a helmet”, rather than e.g. “why was the driver in the bike lane”.
Well done on your recovery
Well done on your recovery Sam.
I was hit in 2018, and part of my extensive injuries was a TBI.
I was wearing a helmet at the time; the TBI could have been caused when my head smashed in to the windscreen / roof join on the car, or when I hit the floor. No idea which … all I now is that at 1755 I didn’t have one, and at 1800 I was getting CPR …
I believe that the helmet *reduced* the severity of my TBI; however, like the disparagers, I’m exceptionally reluctant to relive the event to relive the event sans helmet. [Strange how the anti-helmet brigade won’t do it …]
I won’t go out on the bike without a helmet on, and while it’s still not a legal requirement *not* to wear one, fully support adults choice in this.
Wear one or not … its down to individuals. After all … its their brain.
[quot]It’s funny how quickly
I do wish people would grow out of this childish habit of calling bicycle helmets “polystyrene hats” in a clearly pejorative manner. There are plenty of arguments both for and against bicycle helmets, but the fact that they have expanded polystyrene cores is not the killer blow against them that some people seem to think. EPS is also used in Moto GP helmets where it has to protect the head in crashes over 200 mph and in helmets worn by fighter pilots. Not noticed many people saying that MotoGP riders and fighter pilots shouldn’t bother with their headgear because it’s only a “polystyrene hat”.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Quite right. “Foam hairnet” is much better.
I’m in agreement with Sam, it
I’m in agreement with Sam, it’s the cyclist choice to wear a helmet. I’ve had a bad accident where a helmet saved me from worse injury, it was cracked and is concussion after a dog crossed the road in front of me.
mid just this discussion a few days ago with a cyclist pal who think they should be mandatory because if I fall off the bike and hit my head on the kerb that could be me, game over. That could happen to a pedestrian who slips off the edge of the pavement.
I don’t want helmets legislated in as mandatory and any insurance company who uses it as contributory to any injuries should be chased out of court. F’ing vultures.
mikecassie wrote:
The Allison/Briggs case is a perfect example of where a pedestrian helmet would have had a very good chance of saving Mrs Briggs’ life.
I was riding home along a
I was riding home along a dual carraigway when I got a close pass from a car. There was a shared path alongside the road which I had decided not to use, Deciding that discretion was the better part of valour I did a bunny hop ont the path. Totally misjudged it, went straight over the bars and landed on my head. As i was not wearing a helmet the result was not very nice, I removed a piece of scalp about the size of a ginger nut biscuit from my head. Fortunately the “accident” happend close to a major hospital. They were much more worried aout the inside of my head than the outside. If I was wearing a helmet I would have become a member of the “Helmet Saved My Life Club”. As it was I lost a whole season which probably would have been prevented by a helmet. Can of Worms.
A lot of people would ask if
A lot of people would ask if you were wearing a helmet when hearing your story because they believe that helmets will prevent all forms and degrees of head injuries. At least you can use the opportunity to educate them that that is not true and that bike helmets are not designed for such types of extreme impacts. They may help a little, but having cars not hit you would help a whole lot more.
Chris RideFar wrote:
The problem is that there’s the narrative that cyclists are idiots if they don’t wear a helmet. This is repeated so often online (typically by non-cyclists) because it gives people a feeling of superiority over the “stupid cyclist” and means that they can feel justified in blaming cyclists for any collisions that may happen. This means that attempts to educate those people are doomed to fail as they’ve had their beliefs reinforced many, many times and they’re not going to listen to a cyclist (“they just weave all over the road anyway”).
Isn’t it:
Isn’t it:
“You shouldn’t take your toy on the road”.
“It’s not a toy, it’s just my transport and I’m perfectly entitled to…”
“Entitled – that describes you! It might be legal but with everyone else in cars it’s not sensible. Not even if you’re wearing a helmet!”
“I don’t always wear a helmet.”
“You’re an idiot and you’ve only yourself to blame for the inevitable. If I could avoid paying to clean you off the road I would.”
He was wearing a helmet, and
He was wearing a helmet, and he has metal plates in his head with memory loss. The helmet did not save him. If the driver had given adequate consideration and overtaken safely, he would not have a metal plate in his head. That is where the focus should be to improve cyclist safety. All reported close passes should result in penalties for the driver, using AI and automation if necessary rather than biased police judgement with a 2wk time limit. Any driver involved in a crash that has previous reports of bad driving (e.g. close pass) should have their licence taken away and be fined significantly more. The stick has to be sufficient to reduce this driver behaviour. Demanding hi-viz, helmets, cyclist proficiency will do nothing except give insurers reasons for not paying out and enable thugs in cars to believe it’s ok to drive like a c@@t. Sam’s life has been severely affected, despite wearing a helmet. Sure, his life may have been ended by that accident if he had not been wearing one.