- 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
- Oldfatgit 2 sec ago
It's always been a source of frustration that I cannot connect apps such as VeloViewer or Headwind directly to Garmin, that I have had to use a 3rd...
- chrisonabike 7 min 56 sec ago
Important bar safety feature (obvs. excepting stilettos)?
- wtjs 8 min 41 sec ago
The police in N Lancashire can't enforce against anti-social cyclists, because there aren't any cyclists except around Lancaster Uni. Their anti...
- Jogle 18 min 26 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 30 min 6 sec ago
I think I saw something like that at a Welsh international - it looked a bit leeky though.
- dreamlx10 41 min 35 sec 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 51 min 9 sec 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 55 min 28 sec ago
No that's Señor Sainz Sr.
- hawkinspeter 2 hours 55 min ago
You don't?
- Andrewbanshee 3 hours 1 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
Did the cab behind him have to be painted black? Was it in stealth mode?
How about these as baseline questions
1. should we be discouraging laziness and inactivity in general life?
2. would compulsory helmets discourage cycling?
Of course we'll also withhold care for people who play rugby at the weekend as well without protective headgear, right? Or drive their cars without helmets? After all, it's common knowledge you can get head injuries from doing those things so if they don't wear helmets, well...
[RTB] Irrelevant for reasons previously stated.
No it is a totally relevant question. Are roads dangerous? Are roads dangerous because of how some use them?
If you mandate helmets and reduce number of cyclists, as studies show it is what happens, journeys will still be made, but by car, more cars will make the roads MORE dangerous for those that remain cycling and for pedestrians.
There is nothing black and white in this argument, helmets might help IF you crash, will do precious little if a car hits you, mandating helmets will reduce cycling numbers. Will make a declaration that cycling is dangerous and not something that "normal" people should do.
Where did I say "mandate helmets" or where have I said/suggested a helmet will protect you when hit by a car? If you believe I said either of these you either misread or misunderstood.
Re-read your points, you are suggesting at every point that everyone should wear a helmet that there are no down sides.
Most people here are arguing that helmets are bad for UTILITY cycling, As far as sport cycling goes the UCI set the rules, which means helmets, even if the standards are crap.
Nope didn't say that either. As I did say I believe in free choice including whether to wear a helmet or not. I would always wear a helmet and support the case that wearing a helmet is a good thing irrespective of cycling type.
Why would you possibly say "helmets are bad for UTILITY cycling". How could they be bad (other than some tenuous argument that they put people off cycling)?
Further why would you say "UCI set the rules, which means helmets, even if the standards are crap"?
See, you are saying wear a helmet, everyone else is saying it isn't clear cut.
There is precious little evidence that helmets really work. There is plenty of evidence that helmets are detrimental to people cycling.
Not tenuous at all. Helmet laws have been followed by a reduction in cycling everywhere they have been enacted.
Laws have a date of enactment so it is easier to show the effect on cycling when compared with helmet promotion, but there is evidence that promotion affects cycling rates.
Do you remember BeHIT's poster for schools, showing a skull in a helmet?
Yeah but (other than cycling rates) how are they "bad" and why are the UCI rules on helmets "crap"?
Isn't the point of promoting cycling to increase rates of cycling? Isn't it enough that they're bad for cycling rates?!
I don't accept the premise of the argument and I have not seen a single killer point from anyone that lands it, not even close. Either people want to cycle or they don't and the suggestion that a major obstacle is the perceived peer pressure to wear a helmet is poorly conceived; it's a specious argument. There are far more fundamental reasons than that and if anyone offers it up it's an excuse not a reason.
Or, they want to cycle but are put off by being lead to believe it's more dangerous than it actually is. I believe that's the conclusion surveys that have been done point to. I not sure anyone's mentioned the obstacle being perceived peer pressure. The obstacle is perceived danger.
Like I said in another post "danger" is a mostly a personal perception/threshold and people will make their own judgements and conclusions on that for themselves. You cannot control that one nor why would you want to.
I took "bad for utility cycling" to mean "diminish the amount of utility cycling". I thought this was pretty clear from what I and others wrote. What is your quibble here?
You are (understandably) confused about the UCI. It was not I who mentioned them.
"You are (understandably) confused"
Come on Felix that's condescending and unwarranted.
I assure you it was not meant to be. What I was referring to was the number of different conversations with different people you are engaged on. I was in fact trying to soften what I said. Don't be so touchy.
Fair enough makes sense now. Btw I'm not the touchy type (ex rugger-bugger so all my touchy-feely stuff got pulverised long ago)
You are missing the point completely. This isn't about the people who want to cycle and those who don't, it's about the people who want to and do and those who want to and don't. For this latter group, safety and convenience are major obstacles. Both are strongly influenced by the helmet debate, as it:
- Makes cycling look much more unsafe than it is
- Makes the media, politicians and ordinary citizens ignore actual pro-cycling measures (which increase both safety and convenience) to instead bash cyclists for not making themselves safe (even though helmets do not achieve this)
- Makes utility cycling very inconvenient when you have to carry around a helmet, get your hairdo ruined, etc.
- Gives cycling an uncool image, which pushes people who care about their looks/image towards cars.
Fact is that countries that focus on helmets fail. Those who don't care about that and focus on good infrastructure succeed. If you want to argue the benefit of helmets, you basically have to argue that the big advantage of helmets was completely negated by other factors in those countries, which immediatly undermines the point that helmets are important. After all, then those other factors are much more important for safety and cycling rates.
I think he was agreeing with you, in that he did not see how the UCI is a major factor when it comes to helmet use in utility cycling. I didn't read it as condescension.
I get the point alright, it has been repeated enough times. I happen to disagree with premise and the claims, especially those around scientific based data being cherry picked and spun to support pre-desired outcomes. The supposition of the premise is not proven as you and others appear to claim.
The facts of the matter could not be clearer (and I think I can safely say we will agree on many):
1. Growing obesity related diseases are a ticking timebomb in terms of cost, suffering, lifespan, public health, load on services etc.
2. People need to eat less, especially processed foods and red meat (which btw are massive factors in so called greenhouse gas increases) and exercise more.
3. Cycling is one of many ways in which people can address the exercise part of the equation.
4. Promotion and growth of cycling is desirable. There are many ways to achieve this as there are many possible factors to inhibit it.
5. Infrastructure for and safety in cycling is equally if not more desirable.
6. Some degree of danger exists at all levels of cycling in which many contributory factors are involved.
7. Wearing a helmet for cycling will give you more protection than wearing no helmet.
8. Wearing a helmet for cycling does not give absolute protection.
Project a image that cycling is dangerous when it is not, are we arguing drivers should wear helmets where strong evidence exists to suggest there would be a benefit. Put the onus on the victim that they are to blame in the event of a crash. Give drivers less reason to overtake properly. Increase the differentiation between "us" and "them"
UCI rules are based on helmet standards that are inadequate, a drop test from 1-2m does not equate to the real world by any stretch of the imagination. The UCI are playing politics and giving lip service rather than trying to improve safety.
Because they unnecessarily reinforce the view that cycling is a dangerous activity, and that puts people off cycling. It's not tenuous.
He's trying to sell cycling as an everyday, low cost, low effort means of transportation.
If he does that in helmet and hi-vis, he instantly 'others' cycling and turns people off it, shooting himself in the foot.
And while I might be heartily sick of the helmet debate, it's hardly mainstream. Putting on a piece of protective gear does seem like a 'common sense' solution to danger, until you actually look at the larger picture of issues and stats. If we have to go through this all again so that some of those people who don't currently cycle start to understand why those who do are resistant to it, then good.
"work out where you want to go" or "give space to lorries"
What's wrong with those suggestions?
You have to remember that most people are morons.
Yes, that's fine as long as the same rules apply to pedestrians, car drivers, drunks, people slipping the shower, people falling off ladders, and all the other frequent and avoidable causes of head injury.
Is that okay?
I'm (un)lucky enough to almost be as old as Chris Boardman and therefore started cycling when no-one wore a helmet, yes, that's right, no-one. Even the pro's fought against them being made compulsory when racing. I feel this has given me a very different attitude towards wearing helmets to people who've started cycling since then.
I don't have a fear of being safe on the road and I've had a number of accidents like most cyclists. I don't wear a helmet all the time or hi-viz. I've only worn a helmet when it's been required by an event I'm taking part in and feel no safer with one on, just the opposite, I find other road users treat me differently and give me less space, but that's just my own opinion and my own choice for me.
If you choose to wear a helmet and hi-viz because you've weighed up the pro's and con's and feel that's right for you, chapeau.
Having said all that, when they bring in the airbag suits like MotoGP I'm having one and saving my collarbone
Hey, Look. Chris Boardman got loads of people talking about cycling again. Nice one!
...
withnail.jpg
wearing a helmet is not safe - it improves safety but does not make cycling safe
we all know that being taken out from the back or not being seen at on coming junctions are the things that will kill us
and until we have a system of perceived liability then nothing will change
i cycle without a helmet all the time - i also use them when am out for long all day cycles
cyclists biggest problem is the car lobby
Pages