Complaints over bare-headed Chris Boardman’s helmetless BBC Breakfast bike ride

truffy wrote:

How about not having compulsory wearing of helmets with the proviso that a cyclist with head injuries who does not wear a helmet is kept alive only long enough to harvest the organs?

What about if they impale them selves on a post? Same line as they were not wearing body armour?

RTB wrote:

Surely the baseline questions that should be asked are:

1. Can head injuries be caused through the pursuit of motoring or walking?

2. If yes, can the impact of any of those head injuries be mitigated through the use of a helmet?

I think Boardman has put in a bit more effort looking into the question of helmets than you have. You haven't even bothered to read the discussion above.

I have altered your questions to try to make it clear to you that things are not quite as simple as you think.

kevinmorice wrote:

And on the same day as he posted that load of utter cr4p he also posted that he wouldn't let his 10 year old ride not only on roads but also on an approved cycle path! Hypocritical tw4t!!

The hypocracy is? CB is aware that helmets are next to useless when hit by a car so doesn't want to risk his kids being killed.

and i suggest you read the statement because you have completely misread it, and got the age wrong.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/chris-boardman-says-woul...

don simon wrote:

Quote:

We should enforce stabilisers too. Most incidents occur when people fall off their bikes. Stabilisers make it harder to fall off bicycles, and so reduce risk of injury. I don't see why people don't use them. If enforcing them saves one life, it's worth it.

I once had to turn a corner on my bike. When I turned it, I felt the stabilisers come to my rescue and stop me tipping dangerously far over. I'm sure I would have fallen off, and died, if the stabilisers hadn't caught me. Stabilisers saved my life, and they might save yours too.

I see many adults not riding with stabilisers every day, and sometimes even children!!! It's really riles me up! Irresponsible!!! We cyclists should do everything we can for our own safety, and that includes using proper safety equipment while riding so we can stay stable. You never know when you might have to turn a corner, just like I did. Just remember folks, 'Stay Safe - Stay Stable'. Simple enough, right!?

Unfortunately I have a different story involving stabilisers. While driving through town I got caught behind a young cyclist with stabilisers. In my need to get to the tail of the queue that was up ahead, I just had to get past this cyclist. I made the judgment call that I could get past safely even if it was a bit of a squeeze. I caught the stabiliser and broke it with my front wheel, the modern 4x4 is indeed a heavy old beast, this in turn threw the youngster under my rear wheels and caused an explosion in which we all died.
How safe are your stabilisers now?
The youngster wasn't wearing a helmet either.

That's dreadful! Especially the bit where you died! We must ban stabilisers at once before more of these terrible instances occur!

andyp wrote:

I wear a seatbelt in a car because a) it's a legal requirement, and b) there is evidence to suggest that they actually have some impact on safety. Neither of which could be argued about cycle helmets.

The other point to make about seatbelts is that if their compulsory use put people off driving that would be a good thing. Mandating (or even just encouraging) helmet use has been shown to put people off cycling, and that's a bad thing for everyone.

Gus T wrote:

Tinternet_tim wrote
"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."

Now that is something I agree with, we bang on about how great Copenhagen, Holland etc are but forget these places legislate that bikes must have lights fitted at point of sale, it's only road bikes & MTB's that don't have them fitted as standard by manufacturers, both of Mrs G's town bikes have lights fitted as standard but there again one is a Dutch steel town bike and the other is a Belgian town bike that she bought especially in Belgium because you can't get it in the UK. Maybe the Government can actually do some positive legislating for once & require bike manufacturers to fit lights as standard, it's not a massive cost and might actually keep someone alive plus think of the fun you could have speccing your lights as part of your bike choice.

The other side of that though, at least for Germany, is that the regulations specify lights that are utterly and completely inadequate for rural riding, and probably not enough to waken the average half-asleep texting nobber (aka the normal car driver). The main motivation is 'we must not dazzle the poor motorist', with the implied threat that if they are dazzled most of them are too thick to stop, and indeed so lacking in control they'll drive straight into the source.

Storck Rider wrote:

I'll stop wearing a helmet when somebody can prove to me they haven't saved a single life!

Will you be applying that thinking to walking and driving, or do you save it for cycling?

felixcat wrote:

LinusLarrabee wrote:

Sadly, these comments provide yet more examples of how stupid and irrational people can be.

It's best not to insult those who disagree with you. It does not make your case more convincing.

I don't need to make a convincing case. I'm quite happy laughing at mugs like you.

felixcat wrote:

The four wheeled elephant in the room does not discriminate. It even runs down pedestrians on the pavement, never mind crossing the road.
Long may it remain your choice, but I see little reason to wear a helmet cycling, walking or driving.

I don't wear a helmet to protect myself from the direct impact of a car, as I've previously said.

Rate of injury among peds & cyclists may be similar (not sure), that doesn't mean the severity of the injury will be similar, and in fact I would be surprised if it was, given likely speed differentials of the mode of transport.

Anyway, I've made my peace with the helmet debate; i do respect individual views but obviously want to ensure my rationale and argument is properly understood and not misquoted, hence my posting here. I've been on here long enough to realise I'm not going to change others views though!

Quince wrote:

don simon wrote:

Quote:

We should enforce stabilisers too. Most incidents occur when people fall off their bikes. Stabilisers make it harder to fall off bicycles, and so reduce risk of injury. I don't see why people don't use them. If enforcing them saves one life, it's worth it.

I once had to turn a corner on my bike. When I turned it, I felt the stabilisers come to my rescue and stop me tipping dangerously far over. I'm sure I would have fallen off, and died, if the stabilisers hadn't caught me. Stabilisers saved my life, and they might save yours too.

I see many adults not riding with stabilisers every day, and sometimes even children!!! It's really riles me up! Irresponsible!!! We cyclists should do everything we can for our own safety, and that includes using proper safety equipment while riding so we can stay stable. You never know when you might have to turn a corner, just like I did. Just remember folks, 'Stay Safe - Stay Stable'. Simple enough, right!?

Unfortunately I have a different story involving stabilisers. While driving through town I got caught behind a young cyclist with stabilisers. In my need to get to the tail of the queue that was up ahead, I just had to get past this cyclist. I made the judgment call that I could get past safely even if it was a bit of a squeeze. I caught the stabiliser and broke it with my front wheel, the modern 4x4 is indeed a heavy old beast, this in turn threw the youngster under my rear wheels and caused an explosion in which we all died.
How safe are your stabilisers now?
The youngster wasn't wearing a helmet either.

That's dreadful! Especially the bit where you died! We must ban stabilisers at once before more of these terrible instances occur!

It was a tad inconvenient to say the least.

Reply to: posted by felixcat [272 posts]
4th November 2014 - 19:10

The original questions posed:

" 1. Can head injuries be caused through the pursuit of cycling?

2. If yes, can the impact of any of those head injuries be mitigated through the use of a helmet? "

ARE valid and it is inescapable that the answers are "yes" and "yes". It is illogical to argue otherwise or as you did alter to other things that are not the subject.

I most certainly did read the board (look before you leap cat!) as it is precisely the reason why I posted given the amount of muddled and mixed objective thinking. In regards to expertise I rather think the Snell Foundation has vastly more substance and experience to offer on the subject than Chris "try to avoid lorries" Boardman.

oldstrath wrote:

The other side of that though, at least for Germany, is that the regulations specify lights that are utterly and completely inadequate for rural riding, and probably not enough to waken the average half-asleep texting nobber (aka the normal car driver). The main motivation is 'we must not dazzle the poor motorist', with the implied threat that if they are dazzled most of them are too thick to stop, and indeed so lacking in control they'll drive straight into the source.

I prefer my Philips Saferide 80 to my Lezyne Mega Drive. So am selling the latter. Much better lighting overall.

felixcat wrote:

Storck Rider wrote:

I'll stop wearing a helmet when somebody can prove to me they haven't saved a single life!

Will you be applying that thinking to walking and driving, or do you save it for cycling?

Most people walk at around 3-4 mph at a steady pace. I tend to cycle at speeds between 10-35 mph on my commute

So you're not comparing like with like. A helmet may offer protection from a fall at cycling speeds. They're fairly redundant when walking.

so a bike helmet may be use to you if you come of your bike, whether through your own fault or that of other road users. They're particularly useful when mountain biking, as the chances of an 'off' are probably higher.

If you are unlucky enough to suffer a direct head injury from two tonnes of vehicle, then the helmet is unlikely to help you, whether walking, cycling, or in a vehicle itself

LinusLarrabee wrote:

I don't need to make a convincing case. I'm quite happy laughing at mugs like you.

I can see I have touched a nerve. You do seem to need to tell us your views (and your claimed amusement!) Why don't you just refrain from posting?

RTB wrote:

Reply to: posted by felixcat [272 posts]
4th November 2014 - 19:10

The original questions posed:

" 1. Can head injuries be caused through the pursuit of cycling?

2. If yes, can the impact of any of those head injuries be mitigated through the use of a helmet? "

ARE valid and it is inescapable that the answers are "yes" and "yes". It is illogical to argue otherwise or as you did alter to other things that are not the subject.

I most certainly did read the board (look before you leap cat!) as it is precisely the reason why I posted given the amount of muddled and mixed objective thinking. In regards to expertise I rather think the Snell Foundation has vastly more substance and experience to offer on the subject than Chris "try to avoid lorries" Boardman.

The Snell Foundation started out in motorsport. It's standards for motorsport helmets are no doubt worthy. It does have standards for cycle helmets because it's a logical extension of that work. But cycle helmets and motorcycle helmets and particularly motorsport certified helmets are completely different things. The Snell foundation would tell you that. Cycle helmets are not scaled down motorcycle helmets. They are made and function completely differently. The protection rating for a cycle helmet wheth BSI EC or ASI is 50 joules of impact protection.

ipso facto they are not designed to provide any level of protection in a collision with a vehicle. None. They will fail by splitting. That's not them working and saving your head. They work up to 50j by compressing the polstyrene foam. It's a one use effect. Once it's compressed already or old it doesn't even protect that much. If it splits it's because the impact was to gtreat for the styrofoam to compress. It has failed.

50j is the sort of impact a small child might suffer at very low speed. The calculation is the standard one for impact that you learned at schools ie half mass times velocity squared over two.

A 6 year old weighing an average 22Kg and travelling at say 5mph (2.3 m/s) let's do that calc

11 (ie 22/2) x (3.1squared) 9.61 = /2 = 52.85

So if you are six and you promise not to go faster than your parent can jog alongside you then a helmet could be of some use.

Just for fun though let's say you're me. 70kg and commuting your 20miles to work at an average 15mph and you come off and hit your head.

Let's do that calc

35 x (6.7 squared) 45 = 1575 / 2 = 787 Joules. And that's just me falling off and impacting my head at that speed. helmet overmatched 15 times.

But hey you're worried about cars right?

You're tootling along at 15mph and you're hit from by a vehicle travelling at 30mph.

relative speed of impact 15mph (6.7m/s) Let's make that very small car so you can't say i fixed the figures to prove a point. Let's make it a smart car. That has a kerb weight of 750kg.

let's do the calc

375 x (6.7 squared) 45 = 16875 / 2 = 8437.5 joules of impact. or an overmatch for your helmet by 168 times. That's a very small car at quite low speed.

Cycle helmets may stop you getting a scuff or a bruise but they do not protect you against serious impact. As a road safety measure they are worthless. For protecting yourself from falling off doing MTB and the like ie low speed non-direct impact then fine. Being on the deck in a bunch sprint fine (stops a pedal wound).

But for everyday ordinary cycling they have no value. Just as well wear a St Christopher or keep a rabbits foot in your saddlebag. Cycling is safe and they don't do any harm or any good either but they nmake some superstitious sorts feel safe.

Oh and the organisation for cycle helmets is not Snell (that's motorsport) it's Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

700c wrote:

felixcat wrote:

Storck Rider wrote:

I'll stop wearing a helmet when somebody can prove to me they haven't saved a single life!

Will you be applying that thinking to walking and driving, or do you save it for cycling?

Most people walk at around 3-4 mph at a steady pace. I tend to cycle at speeds between 10-35 mph on my commute

So you're not comparing like with like. A helmet may offer protection from a fall at cycling speeds. They're fairly redundant when walking.

so a bike helmet may be use to you if you come of your bike, whether through your own fault or that of other road users. They're particularly useful when mountain biking, as the chances of an 'off' are probably higher.

If you are unlucky enough to suffer a direct head injury from two tonnes of vehicle, then the helmet is unlikely to help you, whether walking, cycling, or in a vehicle itself

A lot injuries are in fact attributed to low speed falls when hardly moving. You tend to bounce at speed, dead falls from stationary seem to result in more head injuries.

oozaveared wrote:

If it splits it's because the impact was to gtreat for the styrofoam to compress. It has failed.

Oh god not this again - yes it has structurally failed, no you can't say whether it had any benefit unless you examine the foam structure near the rupture and even then it's not that simple.

oozaveared50j wrote:

is the sort of impact a small child might suffer at very low speed. The calculation is the standard one for impact that you learned at schools ie half mass times velocity squared over two.

That's for total conversion of kinetic energy to impact energy.... you know that. Collisions with cars, yep - almost certainly bloody useless. Stand-alone accidents (such as the fall you talked about at 15mph) may or may not impart more energy - but you don't know because you don't know the strike details - but the helmet may (or not) absorb a significant amount of the potential impact energy anyway and/or may have reduced the deceleration of the head.

MKultra wrote:

700c wrote:

felixcat wrote:

Storck Rider wrote:

I'll stop wearing a helmet when somebody can prove to me they haven't saved a single life!

Will you be applying that thinking to walking and driving, or do you save it for cycling?

Most people walk at around 3-4 mph at a steady pace. I tend to cycle at speeds between 10-35 mph on my commute

So you're not comparing like with like. A helmet may offer protection from a fall at cycling speeds. They're fairly redundant when walking.

so a bike helmet may be use to you if you come of your bike, whether through your own fault or that of other road users. They're particularly useful when mountain biking, as the chances of an 'off' are probably higher.

If you are unlucky enough to suffer a direct head injury from two tonnes of vehicle, then the helmet is unlikely to help you, whether walking, cycling, or in a vehicle itself

A lot injuries are in fact attributed to low speed falls when hardly moving. You tend to bounce at speed, dead falls from stationary seem to result in more head injuries.

That's interesting, and of course there are all kinds of reasons why someone might fall from stationary without protecting their head (serious and sudden illness, loss of consciousness etc), many of which are unpredictable and unexpected. You judge the risk and and choose your 'PPE' equipment based on the likelihood of injury occurring, how serious it may be and the type of injury that might occur.

So before embarking on a bike ride, you will have different expectations of risk and reach different conclusions about taking precautions than before going for a walk.

I still maintain that likely speed of travel and impact is a factor that could determine ones choice of head 'protection' as well as likely gravity of the injury, when that impact happens.

It is everyone's individual choice to evaluate those risks and take action accordingly (thankfully helmets are not mandatory and I agree with CB's argument here) but there's room for some common sense

Sensible debate should respect individual choice rather than characterising the other side's position or arguments, which unfortunately happens a lot when talking about helmets

700c wrote:

That's interesting, and of course there are all kinds of reasons why someone might fall from stationary without protecting their head (serious and sudden illness, loss of consciousness etc), many of which are unpredictable and unexpected. You judge the risk and and choose your 'PPE' equipment based on the likelihood of injury occurring, how serious it may be and the type of injury that might occur.

EXACTLY! THANK YOU! This issue is not whether it will save one life, but whether it is a reasonable response to the level and nature of the danger.

We, correctly in my view, assess that the disadvantages of wearing a helmet while going about our daily lives, even if it only amounts to inconvenience, outweigh the potential benefits that it might prevent some damage in the event of an accident, if that accident involves damage to the head, and that something else worse doesn't happen at the same time to nullify the benefit.

Cycling is something I do every day. My boyfriend does it. My housemate does it. Most of my friends do it. Many of my acquaintances and colleagues do it. It is a normal, everyday activity to get from A to B.

Quote:

Sensible debate should respect individual choice rather than characterising the other side's position or arguments, which unfortunately happens a lot when talking about helmets

I might respect your choice to wear a helmet while walking down the street, but I'll probably assume you're on your lunchbreak from a building site, or you're a bit strange.

Wearing a helmet while doing everyday low-risk activities is a bit strange. The reason we don't think the same thing when it comes to cycling is that for decades we've been working on making cycling at all a bit strange.

Helmet and hi-vis is cultural anathema to wide-spread cycle use. You don't get it in the Netherlands and Denmark. There's a lot less helmets and hi-vis in Cambridge, where cycling is something the majority of the adult population do. Tackling the helmet question absolutely is a part of the battle for normalising cycling as everyday transport.

That said, feel free to wear a helmet. But don't tell me I should do the same, or that I'm stupid for not doing it, because you are feeding into the culture that makes what we do strange, and undeserving of national recognition and funding.

HKCambridge wrote:

Helmet and hi-vis is cultural anathema to wide-spread cycle use. You don't get it in the Netherlands and Denmark. There's a lot less helmets and hi-vis in Cambridge, where cycling is something the majority of the adult population do. Tackling the helmet question absolutely is a part of the battle for normalising cycling as everyday transport.

I have no idea if this is true or not, but could it be that in areas where there are larger cycling populations that drivers and pedestrians are more aware of the cyclists presence? And inversely, in areas where less cyclists are present, drivers are less aware and wearing these things might be more beneficial?

LinusLarrabee wrote:

HKCambridge wrote:

Helmet and hi-vis is cultural anathema to wide-spread cycle use. You don't get it in the Netherlands and Denmark. There's a lot less helmets and hi-vis in Cambridge, where cycling is something the majority of the adult population do. Tackling the helmet question absolutely is a part of the battle for normalising cycling as everyday transport.

I have no idea if this is true or not, but could it be that in areas where there are larger cycling populations that drivers and pedestrians are more aware of the cyclists presence? And inversely, in areas where less cyclists are present, drivers are less aware and wearing these things might be more beneficial?

To be honest, I'd be surprised if it was a rational response to weighing up the pros and cons of the situation, in the same way that people don't actually take time to weigh up the pros and cons of wearing a helmet while walking. It's just normal.

This was the point that Chris was trying to make. If he wore dark clothes and no helmet in Holland or Denmark no one would think it odd, because the infrastructure is designed for cyclists to arrive at their destination safely Wearing a helmet or fluoro clothes in the UK do not make you safe but they do, theoretically, reduce your risk of being injured. There is a big difference in designing a cycling infrastructure that enables people to ride in safety from one where you ride along a blue strip of paint in bright clothing, with lights and a helmet in hope that you are reducing your risk factors to make it in one piece to the end of your journey

Trackal wrote:

Wearing a helmet or fluoro clothes in the UK do not make you safe but they do, theoretically, reduce your risk of being injured.

As Yogi Berri said, in theory, practice and theory are the same but in practice they're different. And so it is that research at Nottingham and Bath shows that visibility aids do not reduce the risk but may increase it while research from Plymouth and Cambridge show that helmets in the UK at least give no safety benefit. C'est la vie

HKCambridge wrote:

Wearing a helmet while doing everyday low-risk activities is a bit strange. The reason we don't think the same thing when it comes to cycling is that for decades we've been working on making cycling at all a bit strange.

Helmet and hi-vis is cultural anathema to wide-spread cycle use. You don't get it in the Netherlands and Denmark. There's a lot less helmets and hi-vis in Cambridge, where cycling is something the majority of the adult population do. Tackling the helmet question absolutely is a part of the battle for normalising cycling as everyday transport.

That said, feel free to wear a helmet. But don't tell me I should do the same, or that I'm stupid for not doing it, because you are feeding into the culture that makes what we do strange, and undeserving of national recognition and funding.

This. 1000 times this.

HKCambridge wrote:

Wearing a helmet while doing everyday low-risk activities is a bit strange. The reason we don't think the same thing when it comes to cycling is that for decades we've been working on making cycling at all a bit strange.

This is spot on.

I don't think many people here are claiming that riding your bike will never lead to a situation where you'd be better off wearing a helmet than not. But this situation is basically no more likely to arise than it is doing any number of other things.
So it's frustrating when the helmet debate dominates any discussion of cycling when it doesn't dominate any discussion of those other things (e.g. head injuries in cars) which isn't rational- and a strategy to increase the number of cycling journeys needs to be rational and not based on pandering to public perception.

It also reinforces the idea that safety on the roads is all about what the potential victims do, not what the people with the potential to do all the damage do. This is pretty much the opposite of the way we would treat any other situation where there's the potential for people to get hurt, and I think the reason cycling is a special case in this respect is largely for the reasons HKCambridge mentions.

700c wrote:

Most people walk at around 3-4 mph at a steady pace. I tend to cycle at speeds between 10-35 mph on my commute

So you're not comparing like with like. A helmet may offer protection from a fall at cycling speeds. They're fairly redundant when walking.

so a bike helmet may be use to you if you come of your bike, whether through your own fault or that of other road users. They're particularly useful when mountain biking, as the chances of an 'off' are probably higher.

If you are unlucky enough to suffer a direct head injury from two tonnes of vehicle, then the helmet is unlikely to help you, whether walking, cycling, or in a vehicle itself

Is this meant to be an argument for wearing bike helmets but not car helmets or walking helmets?
The figures show that the head injury rates for all three modes are roughly the same. The rates are certainly not different enough to make a distinction in risk levels.
The question remains: is cycling so much more dangerous that a helmet is needed? Or is there something about being on a bike that makes a helmet so much more effective?
Boardman was not riding off road, or talking about riding off road. (and no one posting above mentioned mountain biking) He is being attacked for going lidless on the highway.
Cycling on the road is not so uniquely dangerous that it needs a helmet, and all the fuss about lids only makes it seem to be something that the average citizen should avoid.

Reply to: posted by oozaveared [677 posts]
5th November 2014 - 12:45

I have a degree in engineering and your calculations are wrong. Far too simplistic for a start (you cannot simply use F=ma =>/2 = E (in joules) to work out the force and energy imparted to the head in an impact) and your implicit assumptions are so incorrect to make it fundamentally flawed.

Kinetic energy in this case, as measured in joules, is applied to (and dissipated across) the whole object, i.e. not just the head (primary assumption that you made incorrectly). In order to correctly calculate it you would probably need to do a FEA using a range of scenarios around that - as the professionals do.

Of course a helmet will do you no good in an impact with a car - an air filled Michelin suit wouldn't help you either. Why would you argue the obvious? Not once did I argue or suggest they would.

Snell standards do cover cycling btw if you care to visit their site. A simple look inside your cycle helmet, if you have one will confirm that to you.

felixcat wrote:

The question remains: is cycling so much more dangerous that a helmet is needed?

Shocking.

The question, if a person is deciding to wear a helmet, should be: are there any instances where wearing a helmet is beneficial to safety and are there any instances where doing so is detrimental to safety. After weighing up this question you then decide if you have a net benefit or a net detriment. It doesn't matter how small the overall benefit is, or how far down the list of safety considerations it appears to be (outside Boardman's top 10 clearly), if wearing one is beneficial then it is better to wear one than not. Neutral instances, i.e. instances where wearing a helmet is ineffectual, are completely irrelevant to determining if one should be used. It's as simple as that. The same considerations apply to wearing hi-vis clothing or any other action a person can take to make cycling safer.

It is a different question entirely if you are asking if people should be forced to wear one. This seems to be where people lose their minds - so much so that even the mere mention of helmets sends them off into bizarre irrational rants. Personally, I don't think they should be compulsory.

RTB wrote:

Snell standards do cover cycling btw if you care to visit their site. A simple look inside your cycle helmet, if you have one will confirm that to you.

Not if you bought it recently, it probably won't! Most helmet producers now prefer to pass only the minimum CPSC or EN standards and not the tougher Snell tests. The biggest difference is that Snell simulate falling onto a large rock - an idealised smooth rock, but still better than no rock.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

felixcat wrote:

The question remains: is cycling so much more dangerous that a helmet is needed?

Shocking.

The question, if a person is deciding to wear a helmet, should be: are there any instances where wearing a helmet is beneficial to safety and are there any instances where doing so is detrimental to safety. After weighing up this question you then decide if you have a net benefit or a net detriment. It doesn't matter how small the overall benefit is, or how far down the list of safety considerations it appears to be (outside Boardman's top 10 clearly), if wearing one is beneficial then it is better to wear one than not. Neutral instances, i.e. instances where wearing a helmet is ineffectual, are completely irrelevant to determining if one should be used. It's as simple as that. The same considerations apply to wearing hi-vis clothing or any other action a person can take to make cycling safer.

It is a different question entirely if you are asking if people should be forced to wear one. This seems to be where people lose their minds - so much so that even the mere mention of helmets sends them off into bizarre irrational rants. Personally, I don't think they should be compulsory.

There were 700 stair deaths in 2010. It seems to me that wearing a helmet on stairs is not detrimental to safety but may well benefit you. Ergo we should all wear helmets on stairs.