Tour de France winner Geraint Thomas believes that cycle helmets should be compulsory when riding a bike in the UK, saying that there is “no reason not to” wear one.
In an interview in the Sunday Times Magazine, the Team Sky rider said: “I would certainly make helmets compulsory. I always wear a helmet, I’ve put on a helmet more times than I’ve buckled a seatbelt.
“Helmets have come on a lot – well ventilated, not too hot, you don’t look stupid – no reason not to.”
Thomas’s comments unsurprisingly stirred up a fair bit of discussion on social media, which came as something as a surprise to the Welshman.
Wow! This was one question in an hour interview. It’s nothing I’ve ever thought about. So when asked I thought… I always wear one and I’d advise all children to wear them so Didn’t realise people felt so passionately about helmets!! #thisaintacampaign #calmdown
— Geraint Thomas (@GeraintThomas86) August 26, 2018
While the Highway Code recommends that cyclists wear a helmet, campaign groups including Cycling UK believe that it should be down to the individual to choose whether or not to wear one, and cite studies showing that in countries such as Australia where they have been made mandatory there has been a downturn in the number of people cycling, which has a negative impact on public health generally.
Among those responding to Thomas’s comments was former world and Olympic champion Chris Boardman, who has said that making helmets compulsory is not among the top 10 things that could make cycling on Britain’s roads safer.
He told Thomas via Twitter that making helmets compulsory for all cyclists was an opinion he shared when he was racing, but he changed his mind after becoming involved in cycle campaigning and assessing the evidence.
@GeraintThomas86 Exactly what I thought when I was a pro. It’s an intuitive stance until you research levels of danger compared to other things we do helmet-less and crucially, the unintended consequences.
Here’s a 2min read (again) https://t.co/ysiqlydhzW
— Chris Boardman (@Chris_Boardman) August 26, 2018
Thomas’s remarks were made as part of his views on how cycling in Britain has changed over the past decade.
He said: “Things have improved a lot since 2008 and 2012, after the Olympics, when cycling really caught on.
“When I was a kid I was always being beeped and told to get off the effin’ road. The problem is that cyclists and drivers see each other as enemies.
“A cyclist can get cut up by a car and the driver has been an idiot, but 10 minutes later that cyclist is jumping a red light. You’ve got to share the road.”
He added: “London is different. I’ve never ridden a bike in London, apart from in a race. I’ve watched from a taxi and it does seem a bit crazy.”
Thomas isn’t the only high-profile cyclist to have recommended helmets be made compulsory and have suffered a backlash on social media, with Sir Bradley Wiggins among those to have called for them to be mandatory, as did Laura Kenny, although she later changed her mind on the issue and said it should be a matter of “personal discretion.”
91 thoughts on “Geraint Thomas says cycle helmets should be compulsory”
Thomas earlier today
Thomas earlier today
Why even ask him? Do they ask
Why even ask him? Do they ask motor racing drivers about their views on road safety? It’s stupid. It’s borderline insulting.
And I would like it to be
And I would like it to be compulsory for British sports people to pay full and proper tax in Britian. I’m thinking more Chris Froome and Lewis Hamilton rather than Geraint.
ktache wrote:
Do you think Geraint lives in Monaco for the sea view?
ktache wrote:
Erm not sure what this has to do with the price of petrol but you do realise Thomas lives in Monaco.
john1967 wrote:
Right. And I’m sure he chose to “live” there for the sea air.
Boardman’s common sense
Boardman’s common sense comments so valid!
fixation80 wrote:
Would be happy if he was running the country.
Beecho wrote:
Not sure where MBE fits in the rankings or whether he cares about that sort of thing but how isn’t he a Lord by now?
Succesful sporting career, built an employing/exporting business with Boardman bikes, countless years on road safety and all round really nice guy by the sounds of it.
Considering more vehicle
Considering more vehicle occupants than cyclists suffer head injuries on British roads, I wonder if Geraint Thomas has considered wearing a helmet every time he gets in a car? I think the statistics for head injuries amongst pedestrians are also rather troubling. So using his logic, pedestrians should also be required to wear helmets (and high viz).
Given the statistics on cyclists suffering injuries while riding that show the most common injuries are to the limbs or that most fatalities are due to major body trauma, I’m curious why he isn’t calling for BMX/MTB racing body armour including shin/kneepads and forearm/elbow protection to be a requirement, not to mention BMX/MTB style full face helmets.
Seeing the speeds he achieves on downhill stretches, he should surely know that neither the lycra kit he’s wearing or the plastic hat he has on his head will do anything at all to protect in the event of something going seriously wrong.
Just because he’s a race winning cyclist, it doesn’t mean he has much in the way of common sense or an understanding of road safety issues.
The vast majority of folk in
The vast majority of folk in the UK who don’t wear helmets are neds on 29ers or crusty old club fuds who think they’re the real deal (how wrong they are) with the occasional fixie t*t and Pashley Tabitha thrown in. Any sensible parent has their child wearing a helmet these days (rightly so) while the rest of the cycling population is out on the road or in the wilds with a lid on. We’re constantly trying to look Pro and the Pro look means you wear a helmet. On the very rare occasion you see someone (and they’ll be male 100% of the time) in full lycra on a road bike with no helmet on it just looks odd. You don;t think ‘oh look, he’s expressing his rights’, no, you think ‘tool’.
See 59 wrote:
So you wear a helmet because it’s part of the uniform and “looks right”? Not because of some nugget of data you’ve found that might finally put The Debate to bed?
brooksby wrote:
Yip.
See 59 wrote:
Speaking as a ” tool” I wear lycra because it’s more comfortable and doesn’t flap around in the wind, dries out quickly etc. These are real benefits that I reap on every ride (or most, some days the rain never stops).
A foam lid on the other hand offers minimal protection to a tiny part of my body, a benefit only may be obtained in the event of a crash the likelihood of which is smaller than many other activities (walking, passenger in car).
I can cope with people who wear a helmet because they think it makes them safer (although i disagree) but if you ask me, the tool is the person who wears a helmet just to look pro.
See 59 wrote:
I have an opinion on both the content and the writer, I shall keep both to myself.
See 59 wrote:
I’ve seen these sensible parents, usually two adults, two little kiddywinks all wearing helmets and cycling at little over walking pace. If they fall and hit their heads it would be like falling over when walking or running. Why don’t these “sensible” parents make their precious ones wear helmets the rest of the time? What’s so special about falling off a bike? It’s a mystery, isn’t it?
See 59 wrote:
I wear a cap; I don’t care if someone else (who I’ll never even meet) thinks that I look like a tool, because I’m not going for the “pro look”. I’m just riding my bike in the way that I feel most comfortable.
We’re not all as insecure and concerned with how others perceive us as you are.
srchar wrote:
Yes you are, just the 1968 one.
Beecho wrote:
I actually model my look on Tyres from Spaced, like Dan Martin obviously does.
srchar wrote:
Bingo, I’ve never ridden any other way, I don’t often wear a cap tbh but if I’ve shaved my hair to a 4 all over for the summer and it’s really baking hot I might otherwise it’s au naturel but I wear
I love riding a nice bike that makes riding a bike easier for whatever you’re using it for, who doesn’t, but it’s the insecure who feel the need to look like something they’re not, too often they are the ones that are condescending should someone turn up to a TT, club ride or event because the bike and gear they have isn’t ‘de-rigueur’.
I look at a person on a bike and think great they’re not in a car, have a casual glance at bike to see what it is, even an old 3 speed shopping bike is interesting and can be a talking point in a positive way. What does grate me though is when someone
I honestly never understand why anyone would want to wear a plastic hat when on a racing bike, it makes no sense whatsoever, it makes you ride more dangerously/doesn’t give you much protection at all at racing speeds , it makes your head hotter and sweatier, it’s less aero in most instances so slows you down/takes more effort for same speed, surely you’d want to be more ‘pro’ and go faster right?
Quick, Sunday Times, surely
Quick, Sunday Times, surely you’ve got someone in Belgium, send them to buttonhole Lewis Hamilton after the grand prix, and ask him whether little old ladies driving down the supermarket should wear full-face helmets, fire-proof overalls, four-point harnesses, and HANS devices.
I wear a helmet in case I run
I wear a helmet in case I run out of talent and skid into a wall. I’m under no illusions that it’ll help me if I get left hooked by a van on the way to work. A helmet is probably of most use in any subsequent court case, so the jury don’t see the cyclist as irresponsible. How depressing.
vonhelmet wrote:
Then you’re just as well informed about court cases as you are about helmets generally. There has been a single court case where it was found that not wearing a helmet was contributory negligence, in such unique and peculiar circumstances that it does not make case law. In many other cases, drivers’ insurance companies threaten to reduce damages because of lack of helmet, but these have always been withdrawn before it goes to court because they know they will lose.
I saw this on the BBC website
I saw this on the BBC website this morning and responded by return at some length via email – much good may it do, but you never know.
I thought at this level, you had a publicist to help stop you making foot-in-mouth comments like this – and after a lifetime of cycling too – where – on the Moon*, or something?? Someone was asleep at the wheel there?
I don’t buy the Sunday Times, so I haven’t seen the full interview.
In practice, I wear a helmet in my bike, but there’s a post-Alliston, post-truth principle here. we’re in burqua debate territory: There’s much more pressing issues than this to concern ourselves with in terms of bandwidth, energy and priorities.
In a country whose national values include themes of live & let live and tolerance, it surprises me how quick some are to say “x should be made to do y, or shouldn’t be allowed to do z”.
*helmets compulsory
I don’t wear a helmet,
I don’t wear a helmet, because cycling is not dangerous.
A 40 year cyclist, Time Trialist, Tourer, … recent LEJOG’er …. helmet free.
Why do i need one …..
Why not spine protector, elbow protectors … etc …
However i have had a cycling accident that resulted in concussion … knocked off by a cyclist. … 30 years ago …..
Anyone heard of Fault Case Analysis …… ??
See 59 taking his Merc for a
See 59 taking his Merc for a spin
The helmet thing is getting
The helmet thing is getting stupid. I got my 18 month old son a sit on scooter the other day (one of the Micro Scooters with the seat) and they wanted me to get a helmet. He is sat on it. It has three wheels and he scoots it along with his feet. He is lower down, slower and more stable than when he is running around the garden. It has made him slower and more stable.
John Smith wrote:
My wee lad ended up in A&E after a scooting event at his school nursery. Of course he was wearing a helment during the event, it was on his way back to class that he tripped while carrying the scooter and helmet (he was fine, minor cut that the school wanted checked in case it needed a stitch)
All kids should wear helemets at all times I say!!
And all OAPs, they fall over sometimes too.
TheHungryGhost wrote:
The only time my son has been to have medical attention for a bump was when he ran headlong in to a wall when he first started walking and got over confident. Helmets when not on scooters is probably better.
John Smith wrote:
Well, quite. The whole attitude to kids and risk is bizarre.
Go to any playground and you’ll see small kids 6 – 10 feet off the ground, clinging precariously to climbing frames, monkey bars and slides with not a helmet in sight. Yet as soon as little Johnny wants to pootle around at ground level, at walking speed, on a stabilised bike, it’s all “OMG, put on a helmet before you die!”.
I stand corrected. Pay your
I stand corrected. Pay your taxes.
Yet another know nowt
Yet another know nowt sportsman, great cyclist but just like wiggins, a right tool when it comes to other matters he has zero understanding of. he doesn’t even understand the massively negative impact of helmet in pro and amateur road riding.
Sorry but you couldn’t be more Geraint and are doing damage and ultimately costing lives all the whilst you publicise your stance in exactly the same way others have before you and will do after.
Shocked at the response, that’s because you’re totally out of touch sonshine and haven’t got a clue about risk or the facts!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Please, enlighten me and point me to the source of this “massive negative impact” that helmets are having on pro riding.
Welsh boy wrote:
Hair loss, judging by the amount of caffeine shampoo that seems to be around the sport.
Welsh boy wrote:
More deaths, more crashes, more injuries since the UCI forced helmet wearing, oh wait, you want to ignore that that’s despite better on course safety protocols, better brakes, better tyres, more marshals, more barriers. And that’s repeated in cricket, boxing, gridiron, skiing.
Any country you like to pick injury rates have not gone down since helmets were introduced, they’ve all got worse including the UK and even including Denmark where governemnt are starting to put pressure on parents to force their kids to wear helmets.
Yes, kids should not wear them either, or are you also ignorant of study after study done on kids regarding risk homeoestasis, ignorant of the fact that more kids die on motorvehicles solely of head injuries in E&W than do all children on bikes by all injury types?
Ignorant of the 1.3MILLION reported head injuries in the UK every year, 160,000 so bad they have to stay in hospital, people on bikes present 800-1200 serious head injuries annually, most of them due to criminal motorists. Even if you take only the 160,000 as the only serious head injuries (it isn’t) the cycling number is miniscule, yet you’re only interested in helmets for a group that suffers fewer head injuries than most!
You’re as ignorant of the problem as Thomas is, he should stay out of matters that don’t concern him or that he has not an iota of an idea as to the facts. That he doesn’t outs him as the know nowt I said he was. His naivety that he can’t understand the fallout (nor the massive negative impact) is simply dumb beyond belief!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
You keep saying this and that the amount of deaths as gone up as a consequence – every time i’ve looked at the stats in professional racing i’ve not seen any obvious trend in the last 15 years beyond maybe an increase in collisions with support / media vehicles. The deaths look incredibly stocastic or bursty to me over several decades, and unfortunately a reasonable percentage of them appear to due to cardiac issues of some type, directly or indirectly as well as incidents with other vehicles.
I’ve tried over a few years looking for more detailed data related to UCI sanctioned events that might reveal more information on these injuries, crashes and deaths and perhaps any correlation between rates, causes, severity or type between them and technical changes in the UCI rules in the last 100-120 years but it’s mainly slim pickings to be frank. I’d appreciate it if you could share what you have so we can all have a closer look at the full details. Cheers.
fukawitribe wrote:
I’ve looked at the data too, and it is pretty well impossible to detect a trend, but there is one thing which can be said: the risk does not appear to have reduced since the helmet rule was introduced, or at least there is no detectable effect. If a rule isn’t working and doesn’t do what it is supposed to, should it exist?
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Come on, cite your sources for these numbers.
Rapha Nadal wrote:
2015: Barrios and colleagues published in the International Journal of Sports Medicine a descriptive epidemiological study of sports injury changes over time in world-class road cyclists. This study compared two groups of male elite road cyclists (a ‘historical’ group of 65 professionals surveyed from 1983 to 1995, and a ‘contemporary’ group of 65 active elite racers reporting injuries from 2003 to 2009). The authors found that the still active group is exposed to double the risk of traumatic injuries than riders from the 80s and early 90s
Pro deaths are easy to add up for yourself but I’ll grab a forum link to someone who actually spent a lot time analysing pre/post helmet death stats, it’s three TIMESas many for same period of time.
Headway have the uk head injury numbers, i actually got them from the biggest study done in the UK (as did headway) you should look it up.
There are many estimates regarding cycling head injuries of a serious nature, these go from 26% to 40% based on total cycling serious injuries that’s in the range of 800-1200, even compared to admissions never mind what would be classed as a serious head injury -somewhere between 160,000 & 1,300,000, it’s a tiny fraction.
let’s see your stats.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
…he doesn’t even understand the massively negative impact of helmet in pro and amateur road riding.
— BehindTheBikesheds
Please, enlighten me and point me to the source of this “massive negative impact” that helmets are having on pro riding.
— Rapha Nadal
More deaths, more crashes, more injuries since the UCI forced helmet wearing, oh wait, you want to ignore that that’s despite better on course safety protocols, better brakes, better tyres, more marshals, more barriers. And that’s repeated in cricket, boxing, gridiron, skiing.
Any country you like to pick injury rates have not gone down since helmets were introduced, they’ve all got worse including the UK and even including Denmark where governemnt are starting to put pressure on parents to force their kids to wear helmets.
Yes, kids should not wear them either, or are you also ignorant of study after study done on kids regarding risk homeoestasis, ignorant of the fact that more kids die on motorvehicles solely of head injuries in E&W than do all children on bikes by all injury types?
Ignorant of the 1.3MILLION reported head injuries in the UK every year, 160,000 so bad they have to stay in hospital, people on bikes present 800-1200 serious head injuries annually, most of them due to criminal motorists. Even if you take only the 160,000 as the only serious head injuries (it isn’t) the cycling number is miniscule, yet you’re only interested in helmets for a group that suffers fewer head injuries than most!
You’re as ignorant of the problem as Thomas is, he should stay out of matters that don’t concern him or that he has not an iota of an idea as to the facts. That he doesn’t outs him as the know nowt I said he was. His naivety that he can’t understand the fallout (nor the massive negative impact) is simply dumb beyond belief!
— BehindTheBikesheds
Come on, cite your sources for these numbers.
— Welsh boy
2015: Barrios and colleagues published in the International Journal of Sports Medicine a descriptive epidemiological study of sports injury changes over time in world-class road cyclists. This study compared two groups of male elite road cyclists (a ‘historical’ group of 65 professionals surveyed from 1983 to 1995, and a ‘contemporary’ group of 65 active elite racers reporting injuries from 2003 to 2009). The authors found that the still active group is exposed to double the risk of traumatic injuries than riders from the 80s and early 90s
Pro deaths are easy to add up for yourself but I’ll grab a forum link to someone who actually spent a lot time analysing pre/post helmet death stats, it’s three TIMESas many for same period of time.
Headway have the uk head injury numbers, i actually got them from the biggest study done in the UK (as did headway) you should look it up.
There are many estimates regarding cycling head injuries of a serious nature, these go from 26% to 40% based on total cycling serious injuries that’s in the range of 800-1200, even compared to admissions never mind what would be classed as a serious head injury -somewhere between 160,000 & 1,300,000, it’s a tiny fraction.
let’s see your stats.
— BehindTheBikesheds
Stats for what, exacrly, given that I’m not the one chucking numbers around nor advocating a for/against argument for the wearing of a helmet?
Rapha Nadal wrote:
Please, enlighten me and point me to the source of this “massive negative impact” that helmets are having on pro riding.
— BehindTheBikesheds
More deaths, more crashes, more injuries since the UCI forced helmet wearing, oh wait, you want to ignore that that’s despite better on course safety protocols, better brakes, better tyres, more marshals, more barriers. And that’s repeated in cricket, boxing, gridiron, skiing.
Any country you like to pick injury rates have not gone down since helmets were introduced, they’ve all got worse including the UK and even including Denmark where governemnt are starting to put pressure on parents to force their kids to wear helmets.
Yes, kids should not wear them either, or are you also ignorant of study after study done on kids regarding risk homeoestasis, ignorant of the fact that more kids die on motorvehicles solely of head injuries in E&W than do all children on bikes by all injury types?
Ignorant of the 1.3MILLION reported head injuries in the UK every year, 160,000 so bad they have to stay in hospital, people on bikes present 800-1200 serious head injuries annually, most of them due to criminal motorists. Even if you take only the 160,000 as the only serious head injuries (it isn’t) the cycling number is miniscule, yet you’re only interested in helmets for a group that suffers fewer head injuries than most!
You’re as ignorant of the problem as Thomas is, he should stay out of matters that don’t concern him or that he has not an iota of an idea as to the facts. That he doesn’t outs him as the know nowt I said he was. His naivety that he can’t understand the fallout (nor the massive negative impact) is simply dumb beyond belief!
— Rapha Nadal
Come on, cite your sources for these numbers.
— BehindTheBikesheds
2015: Barrios and colleagues published in the International Journal of Sports Medicine a descriptive epidemiological study of sports injury changes over time in world-class road cyclists. This study compared two groups of male elite road cyclists (a ‘historical’ group of 65 professionals surveyed from 1983 to 1995, and a ‘contemporary’ group of 65 active elite racers reporting injuries from 2003 to 2009). The authors found that the still active group is exposed to double the risk of traumatic injuries than riders from the 80s and early 90s
Pro deaths are easy to add up for yourself but I’ll grab a forum link to someone who actually spent a lot time analysing pre/post helmet death stats, it’s three TIMESas many for same period of time.
Headway have the uk head injury numbers, i actually got them from the biggest study done in the UK (as did headway) you should look it up.
There are many estimates regarding cycling head injuries of a serious nature, these go from 26% to 40% based on total cycling serious injuries that’s in the range of 800-1200, even compared to admissions never mind what would be classed as a serious head injury -somewhere between 160,000 & 1,300,000, it’s a tiny fraction.
let’s see your stats.
— Welsh boy
Stats for what, exacrly, given that I’m not the one chucking numbers around nor advocating a for/against argument for the wearing of a helmet?— BehindTheBikesheds
The way you talk about the subject matter it comes across as you being pro helmet wearing, thus I’m intrigued that someone who gives the impression they are pro helmet wearing or indeed wears a helmet (same thing in my opinion) questions the figures given and requests where the facts come from (despite them being easily available on the net) but won’t make a counter argument with their own facts.
So do you wear a helmet for cycling, If so do you think it protects you? If yes, do you apply the same thinking/reasoning as to why you wear it to other more dangerous/riskier aspects of your life as I’ve given evidence of above and elsewhere?
Do you accept that head injury risks to people riding bikes are a miniscule ‘problem’ compared to everything else we do (in the UK at least) that results in head injuries?
To be fair, if I fell off my
To be fair, if I fell off my bike as much as Thomas does, I’d wear a helmet too.
Since this broke in the news
Since this broke in the news i’ve done a little data collection thingy and counted how many people i saw on bikes and who were and weren’t wearing a helmet.
In the last day i’ve seen 97 people cycling and of those, 83 were on the road with all but one wearing a helmet. Of the 14 i saw rdiing along the pavement the vast majority were young uns on mountain bikes and none were wearing a helmet.
Draw from it what you will but it appears that all this mumbo jumbo about what a helmet can and cant do for you is having very little effect on the road cycling public around where i live.
As for Thomas he’s allowed his view just as much as Boardman, Wiggins et al and just because you dont agree with something someone says it doesn’t mean its wrong. Look at the recent horse and close pass cyclist account, people had their views whether they were right or wrong is immaterial as its their view.
Thomas doesn’t spout facts and figures he’s only giving his view. Perhaps when he reads what Boardman claims he might change his mind but then again he might not.
Pitbull Steelers wrote:
Rightly or wrongly top sportsman are role models, and most of their money comes from sponsorship not from prize money, because of his status as a role model. People do listen to what he says, and his words do have an impact. He should think about them, especially when given a platform like he has been. If he does not want that then he should stick to just taking the prize money and not getting paid thousands for interviews and promotional work.
Pitbull Steelers wrote:
But unless you’ve run a parallel test in your neighbourhoods in a universe where helmets don’t exist, and one in which they’re mandated, you can’t possibly say what effect they’ve had. You’ve only tested one set of conditions.
So we look to places that have mandated them, and there we see, invariably, a fall in numbers of cyclists following them being mandated.
Pitbull Steelers wrote:
I don’t see what the point is of saying what you just said. All it does is suggest you are confused about what the word ‘disagree’ means.
If you disagree with something someone says, that means you believe that it’s wrong. The usual thing is to put forward arguments and evidence as to why you believe that, then the other side responds with counter-arguments. Just retorting ‘that you’ve argued against it doesn’t mean it’s wrong’ is not an argument. It’s just being irritating.
Also, what do you mean he’s “allowed his view”? Has anyone said he should be sent to prison for saying what he said? Nobody has said he isn’t “allowed his view”. They’ve disagreed with it and explained why it’s a harmful view. All you are doing is acting as if you can ignore all counter-arguments and cling to the original claim regardless.
Also, what have those stats you came up with have to do with the topic? Why does it matter how many existing cyclists wear helmets?
Note I’m not arguing about helmets. I’m arguing about arguing.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
What i’m saying about disagreeing is that just because you disagree with what Thomas said it doesn’t mean he is wrong, you might think otherwise but who’s to say you are the one who’s not wrong, hope that clears it up.
As for his views, there’s quite a few on here who have said he should shut up and mind his own business. Whether he’s right or wrong is not the point, he’s allowed to make his point which is what i’m getting at.
Personally i dont think helmets should be made compulsory as, going by my one day of looking nigh on everyone wears one in any case.
Pitbull Steelers wrote:
People have equal right to an opinion. But the idea that all opinions are equal is utter horseshit. You don’t have your car serviced by a lawyer and you don’t see your pub landlord when you’ve got a chest infection.
Thomas strayed into an area he knows nothing about, and is being pulled up for overlooking the consistent evidence regarding the unintended consequences of helmet compulsion. I can’t believe he intends to decrease cyclist numbers, and yet that’s what mandating helmets does.
I think he’s been careless and not malicious, and hopefully the backlash will mean that he caveats, or plain avoids, opinions on shakey topics, when he’s on record in future.
But frankly, I’m glad we live in a society where wallies spouting off have the social media equivalent of rotten fruit thrown at them, because I really don’t want to live in the politically correct dystopia where everyone’s opinion about everything is equal.
.
.
Of course, lack of helmets is
Of course, lack of helmets is the reason that Dutch and Danish hospitals are full of people with concussion and fractured skulls? This must be the case with such high rates of cycling?
The strange thing is that countries with compulsory helmet laws in some states are also the countries with the highest rates of head injuries – i.e. Australia and USA. These laws have also had a detrimental effect on the numbers of people cycling and the benefits that accrue to the individuals and society from cycling.
IMO, helmets make your head bigger and heavier and therefore more likely to hit the ground, and hit it harder. What they don’t do is stop your brain rattling around in your skull (which is a pretty effective protective mechanism itself) and this is when the damage occurs.
Helmets make sense when cycling off-road or racing when the risk of a severe head knock is higher, but for normal, non-competitive cycling the risk is very low and a helmet has little proven benefit.
grumpygramp wrote:
All the above, and that helmets increase the size and radius of the head, making the most serious injury, rotational, much more likely.
There is a great statistic
There is a great statistic that we don’t know, how many people have been in an accident and walked away because they didn’t get a head injury.
as someone who works at cycle events where we see lots of injuries, the answer to that question is lots. I have seen many a broken helmet but the person is fine, no trip to hospital required, saving our over stretched nhs, it would definitely not be the case had the helmet not been there.
As always your choice, but ask any A&E doctor and they will say wear head protection and that goes for many things, not just cycling.
wknight wrote:
Sigh, there’s a big difference between a cycle event and cycle commuting. For BC run cycling events, helmet use is compulsory.
As a BMX racer, I wear a lid when I’m training and competing. There’s a reason for that as racing or training means by its very nature that you’re riding close to the limit. And when you ride close to the limit, things go wrong. Bear in mind too that my BMX lid is a full-face MX style helmet (and is actually road legal for use on my motorbike). It offers rather a lot more protection than some crappy bit of foam and plastic.
I don’t wear a lid for commuting, because it’s an entirely different way of riding.
wknight wrote:
You’ve said yourself that no one knows that statistic, yet you seem happy to base an argument on it, presumably because you assume – without evidence, as you’ve said – that it is significant. Do a real study then get back to us.
wknight wrote:
Wow! So many misconceptions in a single post, congratulations.
We have quite a lot of data about the difference between competitive cycling and the effects of helmets, but I’m guessing you haven’t checked them, because helmets don’t seem to make competitive cycling safer, with at least as many pros dying after the helmet rule as before, possibly more but the figures are so small as to make certainty impossible.
We are also well endowed with data about the death rates of non-competitive cyclists after the introduction of helmet laws, and similarly, they show no beneficial effect. There are many thousands of these “helmet saved my life” stories, but how can they be true if the death rate of cyclists doesn’t fall as helmet wearing rates increase?
So there are a great number of statistics that we do know about helmets, and they show clearly that helmets make no difference at best, and at worst increase risk. Basing your argument on a non-existent statistic which is disproved by all the other long term, large scale, reliable data might look good for a minute or two, but it doesn’t actually work.
A&E doctors are good at one thing: A&E. Their experience colours their perceptions and they make invalid assumptions based on a tiny dataset and complete ignorance of the actual performance of helmets, well documented phenomenon known as observation bias. They know nothing about epidemiological studies which completely disprove what they believe and make statements, rather like the unfortunate Geraint, with no basis in fact.
This whole debate just bores
This whole debate just bores me to tears. If you want to wear a helmet, wear one. If you dont, dont. But for the love of jebus fucking christ stop with all the evangelical crusading “my thoughts are better than yours” bullshit.
Personally I dont always wear a helmet. If Im just bimbling around on the bike then I usually just put on a cap. If (and this is really rarely now) I go out to ride for fun then I’ll wear a lid.
My kids always wear lids when on bike or in bike trailer. Does that make me a hypocrite? Yes it probably does.
But I would rather be a hypocrite that keeps to himself than a mouthy fucker who wants to tell everyone else what they should do and then go on to outline how stupid everyone who disagrees is.
Innit.
Mission creep has already
Mission creep has already started …
3 years ago Jules and I where staying in a resort hotel in Cuba, well away from the tourist areas, such as they are in Cuba. At the hotel where a party of German hill walkers … each morning while cool they would assemble and head off for 4-5 hours walking trails in the mountains behind the hotel .. with their rucksacs, walking poles and wearing their cycle helmets !!!!
Chatting with them in the bar it seems the wearing of a cycle helmet while walking in the hills and mountains is now widespread … after all you may trip and bang your head !!
landsurfer74 wrote:
They’d be better off with a climbing hat in case of rock fall…
landsurfer74 wrote:
Germans, that’s all you had to say, they are obessed with them, the Dutch and Danes say how do you spot a German tourist, they’re the ones wearing helmets and hi vis on cycle lanes.
Better to be thought a fool
Better to be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.
G is now level with Wiggins in my opinion. Apparently it doesn’t take brains to win bike races.
Everybody seems to focus on
Everybody seems to focus on helmets and head injuries. Has no one thought about the cosmetic damage they can prevent? I can recall an acquaintance who is a plastic surgeon who specialises in rebuilding people’s faces after accidents saying that despite more people wearing helmets than not the worst facial injuries are generally from cyclists who don’t wear one. I myself had an accident earlier in the year when riding fixed and a tractor pulled out without looking from a gateway which was surprisingly well hidden. It was a completely empty, wide, smooth piece of road and thus I was riding on the tops, therefore didn’t reach the brakes in time and hit the deck. Had I not had my helmet on, ignoring the fact I’d have almost certainly been concussed, I’d have probably broken my nose and skinned quite a large area of my face. And for me, that is plenty reason to wear a helmet all the time.
OrangeRidley wrote:
You’re making an argument for cyclists to wear BMX/MTB style full face lids there. I’ve seen plenty of crashes at BMX tracks and skateparks of people naive enough to believe a shell type lid will protect them. Catching a face full of track/skatepark without a full face lid makes a mess. Sorry, but shell type lids do not offer protection to the face.
OrangeRidley wrote:
How many facial injuries would a helmet save motorists and pedestrians frpm, what about children in playgrounds, why not facial injury saving helmets there?
Again, if you say it does X for one group and yet there are more injuries harm presented in other parts of society why are you not making the same statement and making waves to have that ‘protection’ worn? As it is we know the ‘ protection’ makes people take more risk in the first instance, or are you going to ignore stufy after study including that of children who are awful at risk assessment and found to be hugely influenced when they think they are safer through wearing a protective device?
Even that state sponsored bullshitter Jale Olivier included a split lip as a preventable (serious) head injury in his study. If you’re not having the incident in the first instance preventable facial injuries (which are still a massively low number compared to injuries in the wider population) then again wearing a helmet is simply not adding up to improve matters. Again hence why helmets never show up as working to improve safety.
Sorry but the whole helmet debate uses anecdotal evidence and spurious claims for on the pro side and fact based evidence on the pther to refute their effectiveness. Emotive bullshit seems to work wonders though for the pro lobby group all the while they fail to understand the damage they have done and continue to do including more lives lost, more people in vegetative states, more life changing injuries, more people put off cycling all so they could ‘save’ a notional number of lives whilst ignoring lives lost elsewhere from non helmet wearing.
Fucking ridiculous and dangerous.
OrangeRidley wrote:
Oh great, so now it’s not only the “helmet saved my life” stories we’ve got to suffer, it’s the “helmet saved my face” stories too. Why not stay home in bed and avoid all the risk?
OrangeRidley wrote:
Anecdote is not evidence. The jury should ignore this bollocks.
So perhaps you’ve learnt that it would be wise to cover the brakes in future when a large, noisy vehicle is emerging from a gateway.
— See 59It’s not odd. What happens if that same cyclist wears jeans/baggies and a t-shirt for the same journey on a different day? Call me all names you like, I care even less than zero about what you think. In fact your judgemental stance suggests that it is in fact it’s you that is the ‘tool’.
OrangeRidley wrote:
But everyone takes the piss out of me down the pub!
Wear a helmet.
Don’t wear a helmet.
Don’t evangalise the helmet wearing side, especially with anecdotal evidence. Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing.
Oh deep joy another helmet debate.
I don’t think Thomas was asking for compulsion, just saying he reckons people should wear a lid when riding a bike. I agree, compulsion is a bad idea, riding with a lid is a great idea.
Judge dreadful wrote:
First two lines of the article, which bit are you having difficulty understanding? 😉
The Tour de France champion, Geraint Thomas, has called for cyclists to be forced to wear helmets.
“I would certainly make helmets compulsory,” Thomas said. “I always wear a helmet.”
.
.
If you want to wear an helmet
If you want to wear an helmet, for whatever reason, wear it. If you don’t, don’t!
If you want to wear a pink pyjama, wear it. If you like Hi-Viz, wear it.
If you are a knob car driver and you never cycle, don’t tell me what to do.
If you are Harry Potter and you want to go to school on a flying car, just do it.
If you are still reading and find it boring, stop reading.
If you like your freedom, use it well, don’t restrain other’s.
And yet it’s always reported
And yet it’s always reported whether the deceased was wearing a helmet or hi vis boxer shorts, so unless you’re suggesting the jury aren’t told that and it only gets published afterwards, I’d say my point stands.
vonhelmet wrote:
You seem to be confusing media reports with court cases; they are very, very, very different.
burtthebike wrote:
I’m pretty certain I’ve read media reports referring to “the court heard” and so on…
burtthebike wrote:
Ok, example… https://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/killed-cyclists-helmet-smashed-to-bits-by-slow-moving-van-court-hears-39617/
Are you saying the line “The court heard how Irving, who was wearing an orange high-visibility jacket, an LED trouser clip and a helmet, was on a three-lane road when he was hit by a Ford Transit minibus” means that the court heard he was hit by the bus, but not the details of what he was wearing at the time? I find that unlikely. Perhaps one of us can look up the court transcript to prove the point one way or the other.
Ah, here we go… https://road.cc/content/news/109784-minibus-driver-cleared-over-southampton-cyclist-death
The same story, reported by this very website, which says even more specifically “During the trial, Rufus Taylor, prosecuting, said Mr Irving was wearing an orange high-visibility jacket, an anklet with LED lights and lights on his bicycle at the time of the crash.”
So guess what, they do tell jurors those things during a trial.
vonhelmet wrote:
Great. When you find a case where damages have been reduced by failure to wear a cycle helmet, please feel free to post again.
burtthebike wrote:
Not a cycle helmet but hi-viz. See:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-21351438
Not settled yet. But definitely a reason to avoid Churchill.
atgni wrote:
— atgni Not a cycle helmet but hi-viz. See: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-21351438 Not settled yet. But definitely a reason to avoid Churchill.— burtthebike
Oh yes, the insurance companies will try anything to avoid paying out, but as far as I know, lack of hi-viz has never been found to be contributory negligence, and it is difficult to see how it could be, unless the government is going to pass a law that everyone outside of a car has to wear it so the blind, stupid drivers can see them. Which is, in this car-driven country, entirely possible.
Anyone who is insured with Churchill might like to consider the morals of paying someone who has none themselves, then swapping their insurance to another company, and telling Churchill why.
burtthebike wrote:
from this page https://www.simpsonmillar.co.uk/news/who-is-at-fault-when-a-cyclist-is-injured-without-a-helmet-4179 a discussion of two cases where not wearing a helmet was deemed, and not deemed, contributory negligence.
Reynolds v Strutt & Parker LLP [2011]
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/2263.html
And here an essay from the cyclists defence fund describing how insurers routinely go for 20% reductions in payouts if the cyclist wasn’t wearing a helmet.
https://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence/recent-cases
I’m not making any statement one way or the other, merely presenting ‘just the facts’.
burtthebike wrote:
Why? I never actually made that claim. I said that having worn a helmet would be useful in a court case as otherwise the jurors would judge the cyclist to be irresponsible.
Then you told me that jurors weren’t privy to information about whether cyclists were even wearing helmets, and I showed you an example where they were.
Are we having the same conversation?
vonhelmet wrote:
Obviously not. Jurors can hear any evidence, but unless that evidence shows contributory negligence, it is irrelevant.
burtthebike wrote:
Right, and I’m sure jurors always only judge based on what is and isn’t relevant.
Don Simon, good change of
Don Simon, good change of picture.
I made a mistake in not doing enough research and assuming that Geraint had not earned enough yet to decide to stop contributing to the society in which he was raised and became who he is. I was wrong. So now all he seems to be adding to our nation is ill judged comments on the compulsion on wearing helmets in a country he has decided to leave, or at least avoid for long enough so that he doesn’t have to pay tax.
ktache wrote:
Cheap and nasty sangria, but I’ll still accept the respect when people call me Don.
“…those to have called for
“…those to have called for them to be mandatory, as did Laura Kenny…”
Laura Trott I think. I didn’t know she had changed her view but good on her.
Also interesting comment from Chris Boardman that he had changed his view after leaving pro cycling and getting involved in cycle advocacy. Moving from ignorance to knowledge.
I won’t name names, but…
I won’t name names, but…
An F1 quadruple World Champion followed me down the A4/M4 out of London the Thursday before last (he was driving a rather rapid Mercedes).
I can confirm that you should not seek the opinions of World Champions on road safety, he was all over the road, incessantly looking at his phone every 10 seconds, no doubt looking at everything on Twitter.
I note that he wasn’t wearing a helmet!
Has he (or any other F1 World Champion) ever been asked by the press whether it should be mandatory for all car occupants to wear helmets?
If cycling helmets are made
I’m happy with compulsion for cycling helmets, as long as the law is enforced with the same rigour as the ban on using a mobile phone while driving.
srchar wrote:
…and if they bring in a compulsory pedestrian helmet law and a compulsory motorist helmet law as well.
hawkinspeter wrote:
and for people using ladders, or taking a shower.
burtthebike wrote:
Exactly. We might as well all benefit from the proven protective effects of helmets – they’re not just for cyclists, you know.
srchar wrote:
Unfortunately nicking cyclists not wearing helmets is so easy and super simple to see non compliance. The phone thing takes a lot more effort.
But if the “safety review” does call for mandatory helmet and Hi Viz then I shall be investing in a helmet cam, a better laptop and broadband and submitting a lot of videos of phone use, red light jumping by motorists and all of the close passes that I am subjected to. Don’t expect a lot of even letters for the close passes, but a lot of drivers will be losing half their licences for the smartphone thing.
ktache wrote:
Indeed. It’s also much easier to stop a bike than a car. This laziness is why we get periodic crackdowns on cyclists, rather than periodic crackdowns on drivers.