[road]

Every time helmets get mentioned a crowd of people come out frothing at the mouth to declare that they’re a big boy who doesn’t want to wear a helmet. Why is it such a touchy subject?

Topic

[Rendel Harris]

I apologise for getting

I apologise for getting somewhat swept up in the trolling, unfortunately when somebody throws my name into a discussion for no purpose whatsoever and then attempts to make spiteful and untrue comments about my relationship with my wife I am not of a nature to take that lying down.

[brooksby]

Dear road.cc admins

Dear road.cc admins

Please can you give Martin73 and Rendel Harris their own forum to play in?

Thanks!

[NotNigel]

…

…

[KDee]

40 years ago I was using a

40 years ago I was using a helmet, when I was a junior BMX racer. Now I look back at that, it seems so weird that a helmet was mandatory for a BMX race in the 1980’s, but took so long to become normalized on mountain bikes, then road bikes. I guess us BMX kids were ahead of our time!

I’m the lucky position of being able to choose, as most of us on here are. I choose to wear a helmet on the road bike, but not when I’m on my city bike. I have the benefit of some amazing infrastructure here in NL, and my own risk assessment based purely on perception is that I’m more likely to have an off on the road bike at higher speed, than on the commute to the office (must admit to one or two incidents cycling home from the cafe late at night).

[Steve K]

Beatnik69 wrote:

 

Also, if I have to wear a seatbelt, you should have to wear a helmet

Which seems to be the basis of so many of motorists’ gripes about cyclists – I have to do x, so you should have to do x or something a bit like it.  No recognition that a car and a bike are rather different things.

[Beatnik69]

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

I am interested by the post title, but far less interested in the subtutle context.

Why do people care so much about other people wearing helmets?

1. Motorists

For motorists, I think its because a cyclist wearing a helmet dilutes the level of responsibility a driver feels for that cyclist. ‘It’s OK if I should knock him off as he won’t be killed because… helmets’ 

Likewise, cyclists not wearing a helmet is grating for many motorists as they perceive the cyclist to be not taking responsibility for their safety and therefore the motorist has to assume full responsibility for their own actions; ‘stupid cyclist, I could kill him if I knock him off’

If you have an opportunity, stop and think about how twisted that logic is!

 

Also, if I have to wear a seatbelt, you should have to wear a helmet

[Anonymous]

This kind of furious response
This kind of furious response what I was referring to

[ShutTheFrontDawes]

Backladder wrote:

Backladder wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Backladder wrote:

we usually make the argument the other way round, if you think we should wear helmets when cycling then why aren’t you wearing one for this other dangerous activity (walking).

Is it dangerous though, or is it just that helmet use has been effective for cycling? One would think that cycling, with greater speeds and more interaction with motor vehicles (for to being on the road more) would result in higher rates of head injury, but according to the data posted, the rates are actually lower – What’s causing that? Helmets would provide a logical causal relationship.

I would suggest that at a rate of one death per billion vehicle miles that cycling is not actually a dangerous activity, if you want to wear a helmet then that is fine by me but I’m not going to bother at that level of risk.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

But perhaps you’re right and wearing a helmet as a pedestrian would be logical – I don’t know. What I do think however, is that I don’t look stupid wearing a helmet as a cyclist, but I think I would look stupid wearing one as a pedestrian.

If you took your current helmet back in time 40 years you would have looked stupid wearing it as a cyclist, would you stop wearing it just because you got caught in a time warp?

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

I do also subscribe to the same logic as Martin in that the highway code says I should wear one, therefore I wear one. I refuse to hold others to a higher standard than I hold myself to, and I want other road users to overtake safely and give me space, and abide by all the other ‘should’ statements in the highway code.

Wearing or not wearing a helmet only changes the risk to yourself, if close passing only risked the driver then you might have a point.

If you want to differentiate between should statements in the highway code and say that some are more important than others, or that some apply but others don’t, that’s entirely up to you.

I am saying I refuse to do that.

[Backladder]

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Backladder wrote:

we usually make the argument the other way round, if you think we should wear helmets when cycling then why aren’t you wearing one for this other dangerous activity (walking).

Is it dangerous though, or is it just that helmet use has been effective for cycling? One would think that cycling, with greater speeds and more interaction with motor vehicles (for to being on the road more) would result in higher rates of head injury, but according to the data posted, the rates are actually lower – What’s causing that? Helmets would provide a logical causal relationship.

I would suggest that at a rate of one death per billion vehicle miles that cycling is not actually a dangerous activity, if you want to wear a helmet then that is fine by me but I’m not going to bother at that level of risk.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

But perhaps you’re right and wearing a helmet as a pedestrian would be logical – I don’t know. What I do think however, is that I don’t look stupid wearing a helmet as a cyclist, but I think I would look stupid wearing one as a pedestrian.

If you took your current helmet back in time 40 years you would have looked stupid wearing it as a cyclist, would you stop wearing it just because you got caught in a time warp?

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

I do also subscribe to the same logic as Martin in that the highway code says I should wear one, therefore I wear one. I refuse to hold others to a higher standard than I hold myself to, and I want other road users to overtake safely and give me space, and abide by all the other ‘should’ statements in the highway code.

Wearing or not wearing a helmet only changes the risk to yourself, if close passing only risked the driver then you might have a point.

[ShutTheFrontDawes]

Backladder wrote:

Backladder wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

Rates of fatal head injury per bnkm in males aged 17+ for cycling, walking, and driving were 11.2 (95% CI 9.7–12.9), 23.4 (21.8–25.0) and 0.7 (0.6–0.7) respectively

Can I just check my understanding of this… The head injury rate for cyclists, an activity where it is recommended that people wear helmets, and indeed where many people do wear helmets is lower than the head injury rate for walking, where no-one wears a helmet. And you think this supports an argument that cyclists shouldn’t wear helmets? Perhaps you should rethink that one?

we usually make the argument the other way round, if you think we should wear helmets when cycling then why aren’t you wearing one for this other dangerous activity (walking).

Is it dangerous though, or is it just that helmet use has been effective for cycling? One would think that cycling, with greater speeds and more interaction with motor vehicles (for to being on the road more) would result in higher rates of head injury, but according to the data posted, the rates are actually lower – What’s causing that? Helmets would provide a logical causal relationship.

But perhaps you’re right and wearing a helmet as a pedestrian would be logical – I don’t know. What I do think however, is that I don’t look stupid wearing a helmet as a cyclist, but I think I would look stupid wearing one as a pedestrian.

I do also subscribe to the same logic as Martin in that the highway code says I should wear one, therefore I wear one. I refuse to hold others to a higher standard than I hold myself to, and I want other road users to overtake safely and give me space, and abide by all the other ‘should’ statements in the highway code.

[Backladder]

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

Rates of fatal head injury per bnkm in males aged 17+ for cycling, walking, and driving were 11.2 (95% CI 9.7–12.9), 23.4 (21.8–25.0) and 0.7 (0.6–0.7) respectively

Can I just check my understanding of this… The head injury rate for cyclists, an activity where it is recommended that people wear helmets, and indeed where many people do wear helmets is lower than the head injury rate for walking, where no-one wears a helmet. And you think this supports an argument that cyclists shouldn’t wear helmets? Perhaps you should rethink that one?

we usually make the argument the other way round, if you think we should wear helmets when cycling then why aren’t you wearing one for this other dangerous activity (walking).

[chrisonabike]

Thread created by a wind-up

Thread created by a wind-up merchant – although there have been some thoughtful rejoinders this was always unlikely to be a profitable exercise!

[ShutTheFrontDawes]

wycombewheeler wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

Rates of fatal head injury per bnkm in males aged 17+ for cycling, walking, and driving were 11.2 (95% CI 9.7–12.9), 23.4 (21.8–25.0) and 0.7 (0.6–0.7) respectively

Can I just check my understanding of this…

The head injury rate for cyclists, an activity where it is recommended that people wear helmets, and indeed where many people do wear helmets is lower than the head injury rate for walking, where no-one wears a helmet.

And you think this supports an argument that cyclists shouldn’t wear helmets?

Perhaps you should rethink that one?

[ShutTheFrontDawes]

Did you miss the bit where I
Did you miss the bit where I said “I also advocate for improved road safety awareness for all road users, stricter enforcement to clamp down on dangerous driving, and a change in licencing approach to require continued competence from drivers.”

There are lots of things I think should be done to improve the safety of cyclists. Not wearing a helmet isn’t one of those things.

It’d be like saying “gee this job site hasn’t got any safety protections in place! No toe boards, no lanyards, no mesh panels, no safe systems of work! Better take off your helmets lads!”.

Daft.

[Jimmy Ray Will]

I am interested by the post

I am interested by the post title, but far less interested in the subtutle context.

Why do people care so much about other people wearing helmets?

1. Motorists

For motorists, I think its because a cyclist wearing a helmet dilutes the level of responsibility a driver feels for that cyclist. ‘It’s OK if I should knock him off as he won’t be killed because… helmets’ 

Likewise, cyclists not wearing a helmet is grating for many motorists as they perceive the cyclist to be not taking responsibility for their safety and therefore the motorist has to assume full responsibility for their own actions; ‘stupid cyclist, I could kill him if I knock him off’

If you have an opportunity, stop and think about how twisted that logic is!

2. Helmet Wearing Cyclists

Let’s be honest, in an ideal world none of us would wear cycling helmets. By that I mean we wouldn’t feel the sport was dangerous, our riding skills aren’t going to let us down at any minute and our bikes aren’t going to suddenly fail. Helmets wouldn’t be ‘needed’.

Alas that’s not the case… or maybe, just maybe it is? Nearly everytime we ride, we don’t fall off. Our bikes don’t fail, everything goes swimmingly. Perhaps cycling isn’t this wild ride, avoiding certain death at every turn, that we are told it is.

When wearing helmets, many feel it is the right thing to do, indeed the only thing to do. Therefore when they see a cyclist without a helmet on, cycling, living, thriving, it challenges their viewpoint.

Cycling evangelists aren’t passionate about saving non-helmet wearers from certain death, they simply want to stop people challenging their personal beliefs.

3 Non-cycling others

Cycling makes sense on so many levels; its healthy, convenient, liberating and even fun. So why do so many people still not do it? Because they can’t be bothered.

To these people, the helmet is a perfect talisman for why cycling is bad and enables them to continue ignoring common sense and the bicycle. A helmet represents danger… cycling is dangerous; it represents discomfort and inconvenience… it’ll ruin my hair, where do I keep my helmet when I’m out?; it represents stupidity… cycling and cyclists look naff. 

Much like helmet wearing evangelists, when seeing a cyclist without a helmet, it challenges their viewpoint. They want cyclists to wear helmets so that they can continue to justify not cycling. 

Flipping that around, why are non helmet wearers so passionate about refuting pro-helmet adoption? Its because helmets compromise our safety in traffic, they perpetuate a false narrative around cycling dangers, and they put non-cyclists off cycling. 

[Author]

Replies