Dutch government and neurologists call on cyclists to wear helmets – but cyclists’ union says “too much emphasis” on helmets discourages cycling and “has an air of victim blaming”

Good points well made. My solution to the shopper problem is to have cheap cameras permanently attached to the bike. I can leave them on when in the shop and not have to carry a helmet. Charging them is a little inconvenient when compared to a helmet cam. For other rides I use a helmet cam so I can hop onto whichever bike I am using and have a camera with me.

One other consideartion is the fact that hi-viz and helmet wearing are advised in the highway code. This means that in the event of a collision the fact that you are not wearing one can be, and often is, interpreted as not using the road in accordance with the highway code in an attempt, often successful, to divert blame. I am willing to take the risk but I would be happier if this section were reworded or removed.

Bungle_52 wrote:

One other consideartion is the fact that hi-viz and helmet wearing are advised in the highway code. This means that in the event of a collision the fact that you are not wearing one can be, and often is, interpreted as not using the road in accordance with the highway code in an attempt, often successful, to divert blame. I am willing to take the risk but I would be happier if this section were reworded or removed.

Yes, it's funny that isn't it.  Your fault for not wearing a helmet or high vis.

The HC also says look out for vulnerable road users and take special care round them which seems never to be raised to cancel out the helmet/high-vis gambit.

There's two whole pages on speed limits.

You forgot a few other experts:

• NEW!  Sweary TV show presenter and sometime chef (above).
• Former gynaecology professor and director
• "Top lawyer" and road safety troll expert lawyer

To be fair on the other side there are:

• Former Olympic (track) cyclist
• Er... lots of other folks but they don't tend to get much airtime.

Boardman was quite a good road rider too.

Not sure how much expertise is really needed. If you want to wear a lid you wear one. If you don't you don't. Either way you might be lucky or you might not.

john_smith wrote:

Not sure how much expertise is really needed.

A lot.  Because the debate is dominated by people who have no expertise whatsoever, but lots of attitude.  And attitude wins over facts.

If the threads on this site are anything to go by, I'd say it's the opponents of helmet wearing who've got an attitude problem. For all their claims of expertise, they contribute little but rudeness.

There are no (or very few) opponents of helmet wearing.

What people are opposed to is the constant messaging that you shouldn't be cycling without a helmet.

Being constantly told that your personal choices are invalid/wrong or even in some cases immoral can give rise to a frustration that can come across as rudeness. But it's a pretty rude thing to say to someone in the first place.

In my comment above I expressed pretty much the exact opposite of what you describe. I don't know who you feel has repeatedly told you you are wrong.  If you disagree with them I suggest you ignore them. That is what I would do.

I wasn't referring to myself, or to you.

I choose to wear a helmet, not so much to protect me from head impacts, as to protect me from such tedious comments.

You don't have to look very far for people saying this kind of thing - there are some in the very article these comments are under, and Gordon Ramsey is another very current example.

You choose to wear a helmet because of tedious comments from strangers?

Sometimes it's simply for a quiet life. It gets tedious trying to explain it all. In the same way. It's tedious trying to explain why cyclists don't use cycle lanes. Hold a strong road position. People refuse to see that reasoning. I once explained why cycle lanes don't get used. The individual said that makes sense but you should still use them. 

No - not just strangers - people I know too.

mdavidford wrote:

There are no (or very few) opponents of helmet wearing.

There are some, and there ought to be more.  Wearing a bicycle helmet when not racing is deleterious to collective cyclist safety, and neutral to individual cyclist safety, and should be avoided.  Those helmets do not work to save lives, but they do work to broadcast the falsehood that cycling is a dangerous activity suitable only for daring young men with little to lose.  That depresses cyclng adoption, which is a negative for all manner of reasons.

If you are genuinely too scared to ride a bicycle without a helmet, you should first undertake a project to analyze that unfounded fear, but if that fails, you should be wearing a proper helmet like those worn (sometimes) by motorcyclists.  A ~2 kg motorcycle helmet stands a chance of aiding you in a crash.  A 250g bicycle helmet does not, which is why people die wearing them at the same rate at which they wear them -- just like a placebo.

To be fair there are other options.  A cap or wooly hat may protect you against abrasions and certainly keeps your head warm (a cold bonce can be distracting - and you don't want to be distracted while cycling).  A hat with a brim can provide protection against UV radiation (trust me on the sunscreen).

eburtthebike probably has the figures on this (and no doubt these will vary markedly for each starting point) but ... I idly wonder exactly how off-putting "dangerising cycling" or even mandating helmets is?  (In the Australian case I suspect attitudes of drivers and society at large had influence, along with a dearth of good cycle infra or even pleasant and convenient places to cycle.  Perhaps an Australian expert could comment?)

In any case - as Chris Boardman noted (as do the Fietsersbond) these aren't in most informed groups' top 10 of things to address on the topic of "safety".  It's also perhaps interesting to ponder on how people assess "safety" when considering transport (and that's without getting into "salient issues" e.g. if something bad happened connected with this in your life / the news etc).

chrisonabike wrote:

To be fair there are other options.  A cap or wooly hat may protect you against abrasions and certainly keeps your head warm (a cold bonce can be distracting - and you don't want to be distracted while cycling).  A hat with a brim can provide protection against UV radiation (trust me on the sunscreen).

I know, I have all three of those, although brimmed hats are only used when paddling, not pedaling.

chrisonabike wrote:

I idly wonder exactly how off-putting "dangerising cycling" or even mandating helmets is?

Precipitous drops resulting from mandatory helmet laws have been well-studied, and the average is around a 30% reduction in cycling overall -- typically more in younger groups, so the effect probably gets worse over time, to boot.

"Dangerising" is more difficult to quantify, but every study that I have seen has found that 'Fear' is the number one reason that non-cyclists are non-cyclists.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/10/05/three-reasons-that-people-dont-bi...

No one who considers themself "pro cycling" should be contributing either to the misguided idea that cycling is dangerous or that bicycle helmets have any benefit to whatever the safety situation is.  Both of those positions are demonstrably and completely wrong.  Unfortunately, apart from Chris Boardman, almost all other cyclists prefer to brag about how dangerous their transport is, and how safe they are due to ~250 grams of plastic.

Sorry tablet so posting pics more complex, but there are two fine pictures in the article of an Aussie cyclist, who has to wear a helmet, legally, and has a very wide brim.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/31/more-australians-...

dh700 wrote:

"Dangerising" is more difficult to quantify, but every study that I have seen has found that 'Fear' is the number one reason that non-cyclists are non-cyclists.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/10/05/three-reasons-that-people-dont-bi...

Hmm, more bedtime reading.

I'm a little cautious about these surveys (although it's trickier to find other ways).  It does seem that sometimes people report things at some variance to what really motivates them.  Particulary when asked about something e.g. like cycling which they likely haven't considered doing before.

Indeed the article makes mention of other factors.   Certain things seem necessary (like "places that seem safe and convenient to cycle" and "secure places to store / leave bike") but are likely not sufficient.  Other things e.g. facilitating the convenience of motoring may act to suppress demand for other modes (have car, will drive it).  And obviously upgrading roads for motor infra and filling them with motor traffic is a good way to reduce the desirability for cycling there (and indeed walking).

I think the more tricky ones are "social" (not that building suitable infra, modifying laws and ensuring availability of suitably-priced "practical bikes" and places to park them are easy).  And that can vary a lot depending on the country / region / population under study. 

I think "representation" may be important also.  People tend to emulate those they aspire to or flock to bigger groups - and who's a notable transport cyclist / where is that clan?

People also seek to align with their close groups but if your friends, family, coworkers etc. wouldn't be seen dead on a bike you may be othering yourself and reducing your own status (as a weirdo).  We're usually strongly motivated to avoid that!  If others aren't cycling it can be a bit lonely also.  Of course in the UK there are effective strictures against social travel on bikes, unique among transport modes.

While it's apparently "unfashionable" in some circles to dwell on The Netherlands I think that this kind of study might be interesting there - since the "infra" and "availability" barriers are very much reduced compared to everywhere else *.  And also as they own a LOT of cars.  And in fact they do drive a lot and driving is still convenient.

* Essentially they're the "most cyclingest" sizeable country.  Of course that's outside of the UK ... in the past (1920s-1930s)!  And then places going through the level of development we were at then e.g. China more recently etc.

dh700 wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

There are no (or very few) opponents of helmet wearing.

There are some, and there ought to be more.  Wearing a bicycle helmet when not racing is deleterious to collective cyclist safety, and neutral to individual cyclist safety, and should be avoided.

I did consider setting out this argument as a caveat to my comment but decided it would make it too long-winded, and would be irrelevant to the main point, since very few people propound it in relation to people on that side of the debate in general - the large majority are of the 'it should be a personal choice - just stop telling me I should/must be wearing one' viewpoint.

Strange that. Anytime I've politely commented I've always been called names and what not by those on the pro helmet side.
 

My issue is that far too many commentators within cycling forums and beyond tend to believe that a helmet is the panacea of road safety. Many of the views tend to fall on the "a helmet saved my life" line. I've come off my bike a handful of times in the last 50 years or so and have only suffered grazed elbows and knees and sprained wrists. I once asked someone if their driving behaviour would change if helmet wearing was made mandatory. They had no answer. 

Wear one or not is entirely up to the individual. The wearing of one is not going to stop a distracted motorist driving through you. 

I don't imagine anyone thinks a helmet is going to help if a motorist drives over you. The fact that you have never banged your head, or that there will be many, many cases in which a helmet won't help, isn't incompatible with occasional claims that "a helmet saved my life" (whether or not they are exaggerated, which is a different question).

The unwillingness of opponents of helmet wearing to tolerate dissent reminds me a bit of that of brexiters.

john_smith wrote:

opponents of helmet wearing

Again, not opponents of helmet wearing; opponents of being told to wear a helmet.

You'd be pretty surprised how many seem to think that a helmet offers protection to the rider in the event of a collision. When I was t- boned the first statement made by some folk was if I was wearing a helmet. My dry answer was quizzing them if it would have protected me from fracturing my clavicle , busting my ribs and severe tissue damage that prevented me from walking unaided for 6 weeks. 

When you read about cycling fatalities the media are at pains to highlight the rider was sans helmet yet when the cyclist was wearing one they make no mention of it. 

Every thread I read on this subject many commentators announce that a helmet saved their life and make derisory remarks about those who don't. There is as much if not more intolerance and an unwillingness to discuss rationally from helmet advocates. 

john_smith wrote:

I don't imagine anyone thinks a helmet is going to help if a motorist drives over you. The fact that you have never banged your head, or that there will be many, many cases in which a helmet won't help, isn't incompatible with occasional claims that "a helmet saved my life" (whether or not they are exaggerated, which is a different question).

Damage to a helmet is not proof it helped. Any delicate item strapped to the head would, by that logic, be a useful safety device.

It's also clear to me that the number of helmet wearers with "The helmet saved my life!" claims greatly outweighs the possible number of cyclist deaths from head injuries that there could be if there were no helmets. Every other helmet wearer seems to have these stories, it just does not add up statistically - as deaths by "head injury alone" are vanishingly rare even amongst non-helmet-wearing cyclists.

It's just bullshit.

Paul J wrote:

Damage to a helmet is not proof it helped. Any delicate item strapped to the head would, by that logic, be a useful safety device..

I carry an egg in my shirt pocket, amazing how many times it saved me from broken ribs/punctured lungs.

eburtthebike wrote:

Given that the only detectable effect of helmet compulsion is a fall in the number of cyclists, who then lose the overwhelming benefits, the costs would massively outweigh the benefits.

Only casual cyclists would be deterred by the "helmet is inconvenient" idea.

eburtthebike wrote:

Regular cyclists live longer and suffer less from all forms of illness, and even a small fall in their numbers would immediately wipe out any gain from the unproven reduction in ksis.

Regular cyclists will have considered which part of their life will be better with a brain injury and how likely they are given the rides and behaviour involved.

Interesting to see what a high proportion of incidents are single vehicle, which suggests that better training and experience is required.

Obviously the main cause of Road danger are drivers of motor vehicles where helmet use is probably helping to dehumanise riders and incidental to being hit by several tonnes at speed.

My non-representative experience being that close passes are not prevented by wearing a helmet. I use other means..

lonpfrb wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

Given that the only detectable effect of helmet compulsion is a fall in the number of cyclists, who then lose the overwhelming benefits, the costs would massively outweigh the benefits.

Only casual cyclists would be deterred by the "helmet is inconvenient" idea.

...who are exactly those we want.

We don't want a nation of casual (careless) drivers - damaging others and themselves (even allowing for all the safety features in cars and our road infra).  We want a nation of casual cyclists.  Even though they'll still be falling over and injuring themselves. (Apparently at a fairly similar rate that they would on foot - albeit cyclists travel further and there is some data suggesting head injuries are more frequent).  That would be vastly less problematic for us all, for a whole range of reasons.

lonpfrb wrote:

Regular cyclists will have considered which part of their life will be better with a brain injury and how likely they are given the rides and behaviour involved.

Interesting to see what a high proportion of incidents are single vehicle, which suggests that better training and experience is required.

Helmets can reduce the likelihood and severity of some brain injuries - in the currently available form they're not a "fix".  (Indeed - they're probably less suited to protecting the heads of "regular cyclists" - by which I guess you mean the more sports-oriented - than people just falling over getting on and off their bikes).

I think you're overestimating the consideration people give most choices.  It seems to me that most cyclists go with a compromise that suits them.  Starting with "I'm going to cycle".  Don't forget - don't cycle, no cycling-related brain injuries!  Whether it's that cycling is considered "dangerous" so people look around for "protection" OR it's just that there's a "standard uniform" which gets approval I don't know.  But I think people mostly just do what other people do (or others tell them they should do because that's "standard").

Unless you're aware of many people seeking out "safety-improved helmets" - perhaps going to custom safety-helmet-builders?  I mean - that would be the informed choice, right?

As for training - the Dutch already get quite a bit of training and experience as children IIRC [1] [2].  So while that's a thought I suspect "diminishing returns" here.  You've got to provide it AND make people *do it*.

Note the crash rate from "trained and licenced" drivers and the enthusiasm for further training or even testing (not).