- 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
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
White cycle helmetScotland’s active travel minister criticised – for not wearing a helmet while cycling
Scotland’s newly-appointed active transport minister – the first person to be appointed to such a position in any national government in the UK – has faced widespread criticism after he was photographed riding a bicycle without wearing a helmet.
Patrick Harvie was appointed the Scottish Government’s minister for zero carbon buildings, active travel and tenants’ rights after the Green Party, for which he is MSP for Glasgow, entered a shared agenda agreement with the Scottish National Party last month.
Pictures of the MSP emerged after he attended Glasgow Pride on Saturday, with some road safety campaigners, including from the charity Headway which backs compulsory cycle helmets, insisting he should have worn one, reports Express.co.uk.
While the Highway Code recommends that cyclists should wear helmets, there is no legal compulsion to do so, and Harvie has said that sporting one is “not my style,” adding that it made him feel as though he were participating in an extreme sport.
But Peter McCabe, chief executive of Headway, said: “Using negative language that discourages the use of helmets puts lives at risk.
“As a charity that helps people to rebuild their lives after sustaining brain injuries, including those acquired through cycling accidents, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss with Mr Harvie the overwhelming body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence that proves the effectiveness of helmets in reducing the risk of brain injuries and fatalities.
“Rather than tweeting anti helmet messages suggesting their use neither looks nor feels normal, we should be working together to normalise cycle helmet use, as has happened in numerous countries including Australia and the USA.”
While some states in the US do in indeed require cyclists, and in particular children, to wear helmets while riding their bikes, there is no nationwide law compelling people to do so.
It is also well documented that the introduction of mandatory helmet laws in Australia led to fewer people – and younger ones in particular – cycling at all. Opponents of compulsion maintain that the benefits to public health by encouraging people to ride bikes outweigh any perceived benefit of making them wear a helmet while doing so.
Some have also claimed that wearing a cycle helmet may in fact increase the risk of sustaining a head injury, as asserted in a paper presented in 2019 at the National Road Safety Conference.
> Wearing a cycle helmet may increase risk of injury, says new research
But Neil Greig, policy and research director at the road safety charity IAM Roadsmart, also hit out at the Scottish Green Party co-leader’s choice not to wear a helmet while riding his bike, insisting: “Even a low speed fall from a bike can lead to permanent brain damage so it’s simply not worth the risk in our view, and particularly for growing young children it’s vital to protect the head.
“Many activists claim helmets put people off cycling and we are all for choice but choosing to avoid lifelong disability seems the right one to make,” he added.
In the UK, wearing a cycle helmet is of course a matter of choice, and under EU and UK safety standards, at best they are rated to protect against a head injury while falling from a bike at a very low speed – and certainly not to protect against those sustained in a collision with a motor vehicle.
There are regular calls for them to be made compulsory in the UK – something successive governments have said they have no plans to do – and the issue often deflects from other interventions that could make the roads safer for people on bikes.
Indeed, back in 2014, British Cycling policy advisor Chris Boardman, now Greater Manchester cycling and walking commissioner, told road.cc: “I think the helmet issue is a massive red herring.
> Chris Boardman: "Helmets not even in top 10 of things that keep cycling safe"
“It’s not even in the top 10 of things you need to do to keep cycling safe or more widely, save the most lives,” he said.
A 2015 study from Canada found that rather than force cyclists to wear helmets, putting protected infrastructure in place would make a far greater contribution to their safety.
> Study finds no link between cycling helmet laws and head injury rates
Which brings us full circle to the policy Mr Harvie is tasked with implementing after his party agreed shared policy goals with the SNP – namely, putting into effect the biggest investment per head per year in active travel ever seen in any part of the UK.
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
- Geordiepeddeler 4 hours 37 min ago
Cycling infrastructure does not force drivers to break the law, drivers are the reason they break the law, no one else.
- chrisonabike 4 hours 50 min ago
Ah but taking pictures of things to defy the man (avoid a fine) is righteous. Taking pictures of people to grass on them to the cops (perhaps...
- ktache 6 hours 40 min ago
But getting paid for it is the very definition of professional....
- ktache 6 hours 49 min ago
Never had a Shimano QR fail on me. They just work. And the top end ones look good too....
- Backladder 7 hours 35 min ago
If you're only looking at the guy in front of you then you're going to crash whatever brakes you have, you need to look beyond them to anticipate...
- jaysa 8 hours 43 sec ago
As a woman, this works great for me! My chain broke once, and a kind guy stopped with a chain breaker and sorted it all out for me. We stopped at a...
- andystow 8 hours 52 min ago
Same. I also have gone through a bunch of their tyres, and only the extralight disappointed (torn sidewall) but the standards are fantastic....
- chrisonabike 10 hours 49 min ago
Indeed - but it's no more inconsistent than our current road design - very often UK high streets are "for shopping" and also a busy through route....
- mike the bike 12 hours 20 min ago
If you ask the world's leading economic commentators how many people have been rescued from abject poverty by capitalism the average answer would...
Add new comment
89 comments
Hmmm.
I am now placed in the virtually unknown position of having to approve of something done by a Scottish Government Minister.
It's going to be one of those days, I can tell.
Not just a Scottish Government minister but a green as well, you just can't trust politicians to do the wrong thing anymore
.
True nuff, but just wait until Scotland gets a Lay Bah gov, a LAAAAAAAY Bah gov.
.
Making helmets mandatory then reduces the number of cyclists so saves lives. Less cyclists on the roads then less accidents.
I know that more cyclists increases motorist's awareness but if people are so fickle that wearing a helmet stops them cycling so be it. Wearing a seatbelt never put me off driving. If you want to ride a bike then just ride it with your helmet and stop moaning about it.
You're missing the point that getting people cycling is desirable and massively improves their health. By reducing the number of cyclists with things like mandatory helmets, you'd be increasing the deaths through illnesses such as heart disease etc. (that's not even considering the effects of increased pollution through increased motor journeys).
Maybe if you're so keen on helmets, you should start with yourself and always wear one whilst driving to see if you're still keen on the idea - your comparison between seatbelts and helmets is laughably ridiculous. Also, you may notice that it's helmet proponents that keep banging on about bike helmets and often they're not even cyclists.
Don't forget a walking helmet as well as head injury rates for that are at least as bad as for cycling!
I support the Scottish Minister's stand.
As an avid and daily Australian town bike rider I can tell you that when helmets were made compulsory 30 years ago the number of riders noticiably fell and our Federal Government initiative to get more people riding has actually led to annual decreases in the number of people riding (as a % of pop.).
The numbers do not lie, since Helmet Laws:
1. The number of cyclists has fallen.
2. The mix of riders has firmly moved from the "practical use" rider to the Sport Rider.
3. The overall serious injury rate per distance travelled has not improved.
4. The main "promoters" of mandatory helmets are Government funded Academics (number of "papers").
5. Government has not kept up with safety related infrastructure; their message is "you are safe on a bike if you wear a helment".
Nutshell: Mandating bike helmets to protect cyclists from cars and poor infrastructure is akin to fixing the USA gun problem by mandating bullet proof vests.
Although backpacks are marketed to the parents of school aged US children, which includes a kevlar panel to make the thing "bulletproof" in case of a school shooting incident...
I wonder how effective those are? It's a horrible marketing strategy though e.g. "Do you love your child enough to protect them from being shot?"
They should have guns themselves, then they could defend themselves.
Maybe limit the kids to only being allowed hand-guns and then provide the teachers with semi-automatic assault rifles in case of any spontaneous outbreak of shooting following announcements of extra maths homework.
Now you are talking.
[insert open licence squirrel with gun pic]
(CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 licensed courtesy of zcopley https://www.flickr.com/photos/22823034@N00)
I know you're joking, but a lot of school districts in 'certain parts' of the US encourage their teachers to carry handguns just in case...
I don't know what happens when it's the teacher who goes postal?
I thought the main problem is that it gives the 'perp' a guarantee of there being a weapon.
I have given up trying to understand that country.
It's perhaps logical in a country with banana republic law, law enforcement and crime rates around firearms.
Since you are here, can I ask the situation on camera reporting of motoring crimes in Oz. UK seems to have an interestingly different legal assumption to other European countries that makes it possible.
What would happen in Oz if you supplied the police with video evidence of a motorning crime?
I think arguments about whether appropriate headgear saves lives misses the point entirely.
To help clarify your thoughts; Ought vulnerable road users be legally or morally obliged to protect themselves from the manifest danger posed by motorists, by wearing appropriate headgear? And if so, was Ella's mother guilty of contributory negligence?
Does it matter to the argument which headgear we are thinking about, helmets or respirators?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-56801794
WARNING
The link in the article (text: reports Express.co.uk) takes you to the Express 'news'paper. People should be warned about these things... you're welcome.
This just goes on and on; I'm not about to start believing stupid things. Wearing a helmet does not make me cycle more 'boldly'- hazards for me are entirely governed by drivers who couldn't care less about cyclist safety. In particular, they obviously don't modify their driving behaviour according to whether the cyclist is wearing a helmet. Their self-image does not permit them to consider cyclists at all. However, I do believe that painted cycle lanes, unless they are uncommonly wide, are more dangerous than no cycle lane at all- as has been said on here 'they drive to the line, not the cyclist'
"In particular, they obviously don't..."
How did you come to that conclusion ?
"Wearing a helmet does not make me cycle more 'boldly'"
Might be true for you but is it true for the population ? Risk compensation is a behavioural theory.
You forgot to say, "While making you look like someone out of the Asterix comics".
Too late; the rest of your post disproves the first sentence. You might like to check the difference between anecdote, opinion and proven facts.
My personal anecdata begs to differ. I have 3 severely damaged helmets. I strongly believe each incident would have resulted in a nasty head injury and a trip to A&E. Each incident occured whilst I indulged in taking a risk that I otherwise would not have done without the perceived protection of wearing a helmet.
This revelation came to me after a similar online discussion with the much missed SuperPython59.
I now make a point of not wearing a helmet unless engaged in activities that my experience tells me it might protect me from superficial harm. I.e a bit of a tumble from a moving bicycle in circumstances where not falling off means you are not trying hard enough. I have no belief that it would protect me from severe brain trauma in anything resembling the forces involved in a vehicle impact.
Other people's personal experiences lead them to different conclusions. Some people take out extended warranties, others don't.
Risk compensation is certainly part of the problem, as evidenced by the fact that helmeted riders have more collisions. Most people deny that their behavior changes when they put on a helmet, but as my extremely small experiment with my fellow MSc students showed, it does. Behaviour change relative to perceived risk, risk compensation, is a clear and proved phenomenon, undeniable except to those who deny science and believe in magic hats.
Risk compensation is very much not a "clear and proved phenomenon".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
Wikipedia has a good summary if you're interested in the actual evidence.
It goes the other way as well, e.g. the effect of anxiety or even observation. If we're talking about potential emboldening effects due to risk compensation, then we might be less open to confirmation bias if the flip side is also considered.
A couple of years ago, an old fella driving a Mondeo knocked me off my bike, where I sustained life changing injuries.
My helmeted head hit the join of the windscreen and roof, roughly in the centre of the car.
Substantial chunks of my helmet were found inside the car.
I have absolutely no doubt that the helmet prevented my scalp from breaking the windscreen, saved my face from turning into something that Freddy Krueger would be proud of, and reduced the seriousness of the brain injury I sustained.
I have no doubt that without the helmet, the several efforts made to resuscitate me would have failed.
But ... I still fully support the riders choice to wear a helmet, especially adults who are competent to make their own decisions.
Young children, upto say 10 I would prefer to see in a helmet, but that's due to their off-rate (especially when learning) being comparatively high. There are normally riding at a slow enough pace for the helmet to work as well.
I'm happy with freedom of choice.
I'm glad you're alive to tell the tale, but as that old saw says "the plural of anecdote is not data." The long term, large scale, reliable research shows that helmets don't save lives, despite all the "helmet saved my life" stories like yours.
Wouldn't you rather have had the old fella prevented from driving when he was no longer capable than having him knock you off? Prevention is better than cure, and preventing collisions is much, much better than armouring the victims.
Although mine is not a helmet saved my life story.
The paramedics who restarted my heart 3 times saved my life .
The helmet prevented my head from coming into direct contact with the windscreen.
It is likely that the helmet reduced the severity of the brain injury I sustained.
While anecdotes such as mine are not data, I'm yet to meet anyone who is prepared to replicate the collision I was involved in, without wearing a helmet, to see if they came away in a better or worse condition than me.
Yes, I would much rather people over 60 have to have medicals and retake their driving test every 5 years, and every 2 years for over 80.
That'll happen right?
Pages