- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Chris Boardman being interviewedComplaints over bare-headed Chris Boardman’s helmetless BBC Breakfast bike ride
Chris Boardman’s appearance on BBC Breakfast this morning has provoked a flurry of complaints about his not wearing a cycle helmet – even though the segment began with him explaining why he chose not to do so. In a detailed explanation this afternoon, Boardman says that while the reaction was "understandable," it is also "unfortunate because it obscures what I believe are the real issues."
The early morning TV show is featuring a report on cycling each day this week. It is broadcast from Salford, close to the Manchester headquarters of British Cycling, where former Olympic champion Boardman is policy advisor.
Prior to going on a bike ride with him, presenter Louise Minchin asked Boardman, “Viewers will notice I will be wearing a helmet but you won’t. Why not?”
He replied: “It’s a very long answer and more time than we’ve got here," before summarising his position briefly.
“It discourages people from riding a bike, you’re as safe riding a bike as you are walking, statistically, you’re much safer than you are going in your own bathroom and you don’t wear a helmet there," he explained.
“There’s absolutely nothing wrong with helmets, but it’s not in the top ten things that you can do to keep safe.
“We’re going to look at all of those things, but for me, I want bikes to be for normal people in normal clothes.
“About 0.5 per cent of people wear one in the Netherlands, yet it’s the safest country in the world,” he added.
“There’s a reason for that.”
Despite his explanation, the backlash on social media was predictable, many pointing out that the Netherlands already has the type of infrastructure that Boardman and others are campaigning for in the UK.
One Facebook user, John Stimpson, said: “Chris Boardman wearing no helmet and riding in black jacket and jeans. For an item on cycling safety you can't get more stupid.”
Another, Toni Smith, said: “How can you show a piece about cycling safety when the ex-champion is not wearing any safety gear? This is not acceptable! Please in the future choose an ambassador who practices what they preach!”
Many others leapt to his defence, however, with Morgan Lewis saying: “For all those people expressing outrage, I wonder if you have spent the same amount of time looking at the evidence about helmets over the years as Chris Boardman has. His view is not idly held. There is a lot of knee-jerking in these comments.”
Jonathan Richards pointed out: “About two thirds of fatalities WITHIN cars are caused by head injuries - why not a call for compulsory helmets for those travelling in cars? And as for pedestrians ....”
Meanwhile, Chris Myrie couldn’t resist asking: “Does this mean his £80 endorsed helmets from Halfords are useless?”
There was a similar division in reaction to his comments on Twitter, where Boardman himself tweeted this morning after the show: “Hi All, rather than try to address the helmet debate (again) I'm going to pen something for people to read and point you to it this PM.”
That response has now been published on the British Cycling website. Boardman acknowledged the BBC Breakfast piece had “got a lot of people fired up,” and that “my riding a bicycle in normal clothing, looking like a normal person was greeted by some with cries of horror. It’s both understandable and unfortunate because it obscures what I believe are the real issues.”
Foremost among those issues is why some cyclists in the UK believe they should have to wear a helmet while cycling in the first place, he said.
“People wear helmets and high vis as they feel it’s all they can do to keep themselves safe. It shows just how far away Britain is from embracing cycling as a normal and convenient form of transport,” he added.
Pointing to the example of Utrecht in the Netherlands and providing a link to a video of people cycling there he went on: “I’m willing to bet that even those that swear by helmets and high vis would feel comfortable discarding their body armour in such an environment. And that’s the point; in Utrecht they have addressed the real dangers to cyclists.”
While he admitted that the situation in the UK is vastly different, he said helmet compulsion was not the answer, citing drops of between 30 and 50 per cent in countries such as Australia and New Zealand that had introduced such legislation.
“If cycling looks and feels normal, more people will cycle,” he said. The more people cycle, the safer they are - the safety in numbers effect. The more people cycle, the more lives will be saved from amongst the 37,000 that die each year from obesity-related illnesses. Never mind the more than 27,000 that die annually from pollution-related illnesses.”
Boardman said he understands “exactly why people feel so passionately about helmets or high vis,” and “why people wish to use them,” but said he would not promote helmets or hi-vis nor be drawn into a debate on a topic that he considers “isn’t even in the top 10 things that will really keep people who want to cycle safe.”
He added: “I want cycling in the UK to be like it is in Utrecht or Copenhagen and more recently New York City – an everyday thing that people can do in everyday clothes whether you are eight or 80 years old. I want cycling to be a normal thing that normal people do in normal clothes. Is that wrong?”
In the BBC Breakfast report itself, Boardman outlined his top tips for cycling safely including planning your route, how to negotiate junctions and roundabouts safely, road position, stopping at red lights and giving large vehicles plenty of space and not going up the left-hand side of them.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 7 sec ago
Nothing snobbish about it, it's simply an empirical observation based on my experience of dealing with many people working as council enforcement...
- Secret_squirrel 6 min 22 sec ago
I think thats the nuclear option but its certainly one to keep on the table and think about at the end of the week as this plays out....
- chrisonabike 37 min 36 sec ago
Important bar safety feature (obvs. excepting stilettos)?
- Jogle 48 min 6 sec ago
This is one that was posted in the comments of the live blog by Mr Hoopdriver. You have to read the comments........
- chrisonabike 59 min 46 sec ago
I think I saw something like that at a Welsh international - it looked a bit leeky though.
- dreamlx10 1 hour 11 min ago
Ah, Endura the company owned by the man who told his employees to vote against Scottish independence as it would result in Scotland having to leave...
- Mr Rodgers 1 hour 20 min ago
My money would go to the Giant Defy range. The Mrs has a 2023 model last year which has 105 di2, capably handled bike-packing LEJOG, and has lots...
- stonojnr 1 hour 25 min ago
No that's Señor Sainz Sr.
- hawkinspeter 3 hours 25 min ago
You don't?
- Andrewbanshee 3 hours 31 min ago
Tbh I ride cautiously at night when in dimly lit areas. I do have very bright front and rear lights too. It is true that many people seem oblivious...
Add new comment
287 comments
Answer me this then. Why do you almost never see children (including Boardman's children) cycling without a helmet?
I think you know the answer to this really. It is because of the continual barrage of propaganda convincing people that cycling is so dangerous that their children will die if they cycle without a helmet. You have been engaged in denying that there is any propaganda so you don't want to admit this.
I was a mature cyclist when the first plastic hats appeared from the U.S. In those days we all learned to ride with very few problems on roads that we are told were much more dangerous than todays. We had no idea that we needed a helmet. Nowadays we have been convinced that the roads are too dangerous and a helmet will make them safe!
And the nature of children accidents and their height mean they are probably the only group where helmets are more useful than not.
On the other hand, I see a huge number of children wearing their helmet incorrectly (too far backwards or forwards). The disadvantages are also more pronounced due to children having a smaller & lighter head, so the weight and size increases impact them far more than adults.
So it's not clear cut that they benefit more.
You'll have to ask the parents __ I can't answer for them.
All I know is that I learnt to ride a bike when aged about 6 without wearing a helmet. Instead of helmets we learned to ride on grass first before progressing to pavements when competent.
When I was growing up every kid had a bike, helmets did not exist and personally I never heard of any child incurring a serious head injury whilst cycling.
Life was so much simpler before the Elf & Safety Nazis took charge. Accepting minor risk in daily activities was merely a consequence of being alive.
Me too and each to his own as I have said repeatedly in this thread. I choose helmet you choose not, perfectly fine by me.
Btw you just proved "Godwins Law".
Did you watch Newsnight on BBC2 tonight? Interesting report on mental illness in adolescents (often leading to self-harm/suicide) with one of the expert professors determining a major factor in such events to 'today's risk-adverse society'.
Recreational or utility cycling is an incredibly safe activity. You really DON'T need PPE to enjoy it. The more you promote the (utterly useless) need for PPE in cycling the fewer people will adopt or accept it as a 'normal' activity.
For the same reason that people don't let their kids be the only ones that cross the road on their own, or the only ones playing in the park unattended. Because by standing out from the norm on risk perception you'd be labelled the irresponsible uncaring parent.
You really don't understand how much pressure even sensible parents come under if they don't follow the herd. Whatever the arguments on helmets and their usefulness the opposite would apply. If all the other kids didn't wear a helmet then the pressure would reverse, In that case you'd be the overprotective parent that was stunting your kids' development and sense of adventure.
Luckily I'm an informed adult but arriving at work on bike without helmet I am often asked by people that maybe have never ridden a bike on a road and have been alive several decades less than I have been a road cyclists why I am not wering a helmet. I'm lucky because I'm senior enough to tell most of them to politely and couteously to do one.
Parents are not in a position to do that and there is a small chance that some idiot would start mithering about child protection and neglect and some other risk averse box ticker that wanted to make sure they were seen to be taking child protection seriously might just start looking into it. Now that may not happen but enough parents think it might happen for them to keep their heads down and fall into line.
This my friend is how a risk averse play culture comes about.
Interesting report (1st paragraph here) from Holland which would appear to show that I am perhaps not as wrong as you would like to portray:
Dutch Foundation Report on Bicycle Helmet Promotion
Stichting Consument en Veiligheid - Netherlands
Consumer and Safety Foundation
Reports: Bicycle helmets for young children: determinants for purchase and use
Establishment Number R265 - Publication date October 2003
Available on the Web only in the original Dutch version
Context
Approximately 18,000 children present to the emergency rooms of hospitals in the Netherlands each year. About one quarter of them have head injuries. Research indicates that wearing a bicycle helmet can reduce the probability of serious head injury by 85 per cent. But only a minority of young children wear helmets while cycling. The literature gives no clear picture of the factors that motivate parents to buy a bicycle helmet, nor of the factors that motivate them to be sure their child wears the helmet once purchased. To find out more about the factors that are important in helmet wearing by four to eight year olds an investigation was conducted by Consument en Veiligheid in conjuction with Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid (SWOV), the Verenigde Verkeers Veiligheid Organisaties (3VO) and the University of Maastricht.
This part already shows that the report is based on false science. The report showing an 85% decrease has been discredited and any report using that figure is clearly biased. If you know the limited working range of helmets, that figure is quite absurd and simply cannot be true. It would mean that bicycle helmets are more effective than seat belts, which were proven to work by huge improvements in accident statistics when they were made mandatory. This in contrast to helmet laws, which had no clear positive impact on accident statistics. This simply doesn't compute.
In fact, the name of the report shows the bias already. Any report on 'Bicycle Helmet Promotion' will of course focus on promotion, not on evaluation.
BTW, there is a newer Dutch report from 2009 on helmets for children and it concludes that cycling helmets only work in one-sided accidents and not for car-bike collisions (first result when you google "Consument en Veiligheid helm" , click translate to read in semi-English). It also never mentions that 85% decrease, but 45%, so they already figured out that their previous claim was too obviously a lie.
That 85% figure is BS I've seen it bandied about before and I've heard that the study that led to it was flawed and biased.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html
http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/why-helmet-laws-fail/law-failure-4
The 85% figure was based upon totally faulty logic.
This figure comes from the Thompson, Rivara, Thompson 1989 Seattle study. Quoting the figure is a sign of wilful credulity or a lack of scruple. Even the authors have had to revise their figures down to 69% effectiveness.
It also needs to be asked, if helmets are so effective why can't we tell in whole population studies, like the "experiments" in NZ and Oz.
The study has the faults that case controlled studies are prone to, unless very carefully controlled.
Basically it compares two groups of cyclist, one helmeted the other not, and their accidents. A useful result depends on the two groups being alike in all other relevant ways except the variable being studied.
The helmeted cyclists tended to be middle class children with health insurance and relatively wealthy and educated parents. The helmetless were less likely to be riding as carefully or in a similar environment.
The figures and method used in the study can be used to show that helmets prevent 72% of non head injuries!
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html
Head injuries is pretty broad as a category. So let's break this down.
18,000 kids in NL go to A&E
25% of those have a head injury of some sort that's 4500 head injuries across the spectrum of head injuries.
As you know all head injuries of any serious at all are automatically sent to A&E if they come into the health system.
As a rugby coach I have routinely sent kids to A&E as is the recommended practice for any blow to the head.
So what we know is that in the netherlands where helmet use is far less prevailent only 4500 kids end up in A&E with any kind of head wound at all and that figure is exaggerated particularly at the lower end by the practice of routinely sending kids to A&E even for very minor head injuries. It's further inflated by the category "children" who are far more likely to suffer minor injuries in play and activity than adults. does the term "look mum no hands" mean anything to you.
Since I started cycling as a child I have suffered a broken collar bone, spokes going through my arm, countless bruises and cuts. Hardly any of those in the 80's 90's naughties apart from the odd off on ice and slippery paint. Almost all of them before I was 18. I have never had a head injury through cycling. Not on the road, commuting, racing, not in crits, on the track, through 7 season of CX (without a helmet). Or ten years messing about on an MTB (with a helmet) not in 41 years as a club cyclist and the last 5 commuting all seasons 25 miles a day.
Widespread helmet use is entirely irrelevant to road safety. About as useful as the splash of Holy Water my mum insisted on providing me whenever I went out on my bike or the double splash if I was racing.
Oh hang on a moment maybe it was the holy water that saved me from all those head injuries....? Hmmm Food for thought.
I don't think anyone has said that people are not choosing to cycle because they might feel pressured ... This is what is called a straw man.
What people are saying is that helmet promotion necessarily depends on convincing prospective cyclists that cycling is so much more dangerous than other methods of getting to work, the shops or to school, that they need to wear a special helmet.
This helmet is jeered at by many and some women don't want their hair do flattened. It is a mark of difference in our society and a pain in the bum when off the bike.
Some prospective cyclists may be unsure (not that serious as you put it) and wavering. We need to get them on their bikes too.
I agree with you on this but only when we are talking about encouraging cycling as a sport/pastime. For sports cyclists a helmet is part of the uniform and in this branch of cycling the helmet debate is a non-issue (does it even exist?). I honestly don't think there are many who choose not to race or ride sportives because of the helmet compulsion that exists.
However, when we are talking about getting people to cycle to work/school/the shops etc. it doesn't apply. I don't believe that the Olympics or the Tours are major drivers for utility cycling. If anything they probably do it a disservice by portraying cycling as something only for the super-fit who are brave enough to descend at 50+mph.
I'd also conceed that there is nothing unsensible about wearing a helmet when cycling. There's also nothing unsensible about wearing one when walking, driving, running, climbing stairs or binge-drinking. The important point is about net impact of helmet use/compulsion/psudo compulsion on the attidude of the general public towards cycling.
Here here. Let's get on with the not being run over thing!
Note that the daytime running lights on cars can make other road users, with less bright lights or no lights, less visible.
Good to see we have the "A helmet saved my life" brigade in attendance. Note: If you consistently wear a helmet walking, in the bath or shower, or when you go out drinking, you will end up with the same tale in time.
So don't be a hypocrite now: Always wear your walking helmet. Always wear your bathing helmet. Always your drinking helmet!
I'm feeling this pro / anti helmet debate will never end!! I'm also loving how defensive and personal each side of he debate get towards the other side! Why does it bother so many what others do (who I'm guessing are complete strangers to you?)
I personally choose to wear one. I don't expect to be judged by others for doing so...however, having read the above it would appear people do.
If on the other hand this discussion was about cyclist who cycle in the dark on the public highway with no lights, then that would be a different matter. This really annoys me as you are not only putting your own safety at risk but also the safety of others you might run into (pedestrians) and also risk ruining someones else's life if they knock you off and kill you. I mention this as the 'no-light' brigade are out in force again due to the clocks changing.
Tinternet_tim: It bothers some of us, because the other side often lobbies to have laws passed to make helmets compulsory to wear. Successfully in places.
Once that type of idiocy got going, the other side had no choice but to get very vocal.
I no longer wear a helmet, instead I wear a St Patricks Day Guinness hat.
And I don't wear hi viz. I wear a full Mapei team kit.
So far I have not been knocked off my bike.
Agree with Chris entirely. The sole reason for protective gear is to try and minimise damage caused by, principally with rare exception, idiots in steel cages propelled by increasingly fast engines.
To ridicule and berate Chris for his choice of no helmet (bearing in mind a camera car was obviously present no doubt invoking the 'look at my safe driving, aren't I a little cherub' response seen whenever a police car is in view is the same as criticising a rape victim for not wearing a metal chastity belt.
If we sort the aggressor out there will be little need for helmets and body armour. Seems this concept is wasted on many MPs who find it very inconvenient.
Pity the man whose pleasure depends upon the wearing of a helmet
Many commentators focus on the fear that wearing a helmet when riding abike will be made compulsory. They are totally right. Once such law passes, it will be extremely diffcult to repel it. Therefore the usage of bikes as a means of transportation for "normal" people in "normal" clothes must be accelerated in order to create enough momentum to relegate the wearing of helmets to realm of personal choice.
I suspect that the helmet regulation lobby is disingenuous, trying to smother the "bike as means of transport movement" at birth, lest it encroaches on the disproportionate privileges of the motoring industry at large. Which of course it will, if succesful.
But again, can helmet regulators not look over their shoulder at Germany and the NL, countries with an almost pathetic affection for the car, but which nevertheless have made cycling mainstream, without clothing regulations?
Boardman, the helmet debate has been raised yet again as a direct result of the fact that you refuse to wear one. You harp on about getting to the real issues but surely by virtue of the fact we are sat here discussing it now and of all of the criticism you have had this makes it a real issue.
Chris Boardman, JUST WEAR A HELMET AND STOP BANGING YOUR OWN LITTLE DRUM! and then you could actually move on to discuss those 'real' issues.
You'd make a s**t politician!
Boring…….. in other news.
Meanwhile, Nick Clegg and a chubby bloke were offering this essential safety advice for cyclists.
I do hope he checked where it was made this time.
Aside from the pro/anti helmet debate, isn't this also the "what you must be seen to be wearing whether you agree with it or not" uniform-on-television debate? You don't see many presenters on the telly at the moment without a poppy...
If he had showed up on a DH bike with a full face helmet and goggles I bet they would have asked him to take it off.
1,713 people died and 21,657 were seriously injured on Britain's roads in 2013. 46% of the deaths were car occupants, 23% were pedestrians and 19% motorcyclists. But that's just, what... bad luck?
Yet there are howls of indignation because a normal person rides a bicycle without a piece of vented polystyrene on his head while on the telly.
What a screwed-up set of priorities!
@ Storck Rider all you've done a fine job of demonstrating how ignorant you are. Your mum really shouldn't let you play on the internet unattended.
Today I wore a helmet, yesterday I didn't, on Sunday I wore during a race, on Saturday I didn't when I was checking my maintenance out. Go figure.
The only people who cared were my wife and someone in our post room who felt compelled to berate me at length about something to do with Eamonn Holmes that I couldn't work out.
Pages