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.
93 thoughts on “Scotland’s active travel minister criticised – for not wearing a helmet while cycling”
Presumably the minister’s
Presumably the minister’s role is to normalise cycling and walking, not helmet wearing. He should be congratulated. As to health risks, I think the case is overwhelmingly proved; you stand a better chance of staying alive if you cycle regularly than if you wear a helmet!
“Even a low speed fall from a
“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”
I guess we should all be wearing helmets every time we use the stairs or a vehicle. And always walk on the flat, don’t try walking on hills without a helmet.
Definitely wear one when playing rugby.
Why do people go for PPE as the first step ?
hirsute wrote:
Only for cycling, which is no more productive of head injuries than walking, but hey, they’ve got a multi-billion dollar helmet industry to support.
hirsute wrote:
don’t forget the shower
If people want to wear a
If people want to wear a helmet, that’s fine by me or if they do not want to, the same. But to say it isn’t worth the risk ignores people’s own risk appetite.
How many people use vehicles despite the risk of death or injury? In that instance, they have decided it is worth the risk.
If anyone is serious about road safety, we would have repeat training and testing and a change in vehicle design coupled with infrastructure changes.
Of course all of those would be strongly resisted.
“Some have also claimed that
I’d love to know the prestigious journal that research was published in – care to share anyone?
Or do you mean some random anti-helmet campaigner literally handed in a piece of paper in 2019 to the National Road Safety Conference?
Well, it does say “asserted”.
Well, it does say “asserted”. One can assert anything one likes.
One certainly can, but a
One certainly can, but a journalist should be careful not to give that assertion false equivalence with the respectable evidence base presented by Headway.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
On a respectiable evidence base with most head injuries presenting at A&E coming from car occupants, what is headway’s position on car helmets for all?
I’ve no idea – perhaps Road
I’ve no idea – perhaps Road.cc could ask Headway if they could send someone in to discuss helmets for the next podcast?
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Hee, hee, hee. Great idea. But they’ll be too busy, and anyway, they know all the answers so why should they bother talking to anyone else?
Quote:
Might want to re-read that bit.
Peter McCabe, Headway “…we
Peter McCabe, Headway “…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.”
Funny, I’ve been asking for that for the past twenty years, but they haven’t been interested. Headway only looks at evidence that supports their pre-determined position that helmets are effective, and refuse to look at or feature research that doesn’t support it. If they were really interested in preventing brain injuries and deaths, they’d be demanding the wearing of helmets for the biggest class of head injuries; car occupants, but their agenda is nothing to do with safety, it’s to attack cyclists.
That they use Australia to prove their case is the perfect demonstration of their failure to look at the data, facts and peer-reviewed research, as it is the quintessential example of how helmet laws don’t work.
They seem to think that because they are seeking to reduce human suffering, they are beyond criticism, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, except that I’m far from convinced their intentions are good. Ignoring the reliable evidence and blindly following your chosen path even when proved wrong is showing arrogance and stupidity, not humanity, and their intentions seem to be to stop people cycling, not to make it safe.
I’m betting if Mr Harvie were to take up their offer, in a public forum where their evidence could be challenged, they’d suddenly decide that they had something better to do that evening, like take out the bins, or wash their hair.
eburtthebike wrote:
Depends on what the actual intention of those helmet laws was…
Is Headway also campaigning
Is Headway also campaigning for high quality, segregated, Dutch-style cycling infrastructure? I had a quick glance through their website, and there is no mention of this. Which is odd, given that it would have a far bigger impact on head injuries than mandatory helmets.
the little onion wrote:
Well, they have said they are in favour of such infra, but all their campaigning goes into helmets. So they ignore the evidence and campaign for the least effective option while ignoring the highly effective ones, completely reversing what any rational, logical organisation would do. Does that make them hypocrites?
If you just called Peter
If you just called Peter McCabe & Neil Greig non-helmet-wearing-while-driving-a-car sanctimonious hypcritical tossers, I am right behind you and applaud you!
joe9090 wrote:
Brilliant! I’m stealing that too.
I seem to remember seeing a
I seem to remember seeing a breakdown of how much headway spent on cycle helmet promotion vs every other measure to prevent/treat head injuries…
It made their claims that they are trying to reduce all head injuries (of which cycling head injuries are a rounding error) rather than a campaign group for cycle helmets look insane given cycle helmet promotion was the majority of their expenditure…
Good for him, they’re way
Good for him, they’re way ahead of us, the Scots
Oi many of us Scots are here
Oi many of us Scots are here too, please don’t make us into an “out” group with your “them and Us” attitude
Quote:
If someone gets put off from cycling due to helmet shenanigans, then surely that’s a lifelong disability
I see the story quotes Neil
I see the story quotes Neil Greig of the “road safety charity IAM Roadsmart” (otherwise known as the Institute of Advanced Motorists). I believe that Neil is the person leaning out of the car in this photo, and helping to launch the dreadful “Nice Way Code” campaign by showing how to park your car over the stop line when stopping at a pedestrian crossing:
https://d193ppza2qrruo.cloudfront.net/production/images/nicewaycode2.jpg
kcr wrote:
I googled the “Nice Way Code” and wished I hadn’t. As already pointed out here, there isn’t much mutual respect between a rhino and a mouse, and expecting drivers to suddenly become respectful of other, lesser, road users is probably rather optimistic; but I hope I’m wrong.
eburtthebike wrote:
I think the whole ‘respect’ issue is just misdirection. What I’d like to see is a focus on driver competency and better education about how to safely drive around cyclists.
The big problem is that our society has bet all-in on personal motor vehicles as a mass transit solution, but it’s just not scalable beyond a certain population density. However, as there’s so much money invested in making and promoting cars, it’s an uphill battle to persuade people that our best interests lie in promoting active travel and instead there’s a huge pushback by drivers that are scared of change (not to mention media outlets pushing a divisive us v them narrative).
hawkinspeter wrote:
Exactly. This is not about “why can’t we just …get along“. This is a public health issue. The current controls are simply not sufficient to prevent the road carnage that this country experiences daily, and “cyclists! wear a helmet” will not reduce 5 deaths a day
The Nice Way Code was an ill
The Nice Way Code was an ill conceived waste of public money (which Cycling Scotland should hang its head in shame for). It was ripped to shreds at the time by anyone who actually rode a bike, and quietly forgotten about as soon as possible.
I just like dredging it up whenever I see Neil Greig pontificating about cycling on behalf of the Institute of Advanced Motorists. I think the photo illustrates the tone deaf nature of the whole thing quite nicely.
“Now make sure you stop your bike at the line, because we know that cyclists are always riding through pedestrian crossings, and we don’t want to send the wrong message. Oh, we can’t really see Neil properly. Why don’t you drive the car forward over the dotted line until it is almost touching the crossing? Perfect”
Was the Nice Way Code that
Was the Nice Way Code that awful Scottish campaign a couple of years ago?
(or was it the one about cyclists=horses?)
Can we stop giving airtime to
Can we stop giving airtime to those helmet fanatics at headway.
Remember
If a driver kills a teenager on a bike who isn’t wearing a helmet, there is a campaign for cyclists to wear helmets.
If a cyclist kills a pedestrian there is a campaign to regulate cyclists
If a driver kills a pedestrian – no reaction at all.
Why are we not consistent in all cases in looking at the cause of the harm?
Once again I, a determined
Once again I, a determined helmet wearer for decades, support Boardman’s position, and that of the Scottish Minister. Cycling helmets do work, but cycling helmet laws don’t.
wtjs wrote:
Interesting; how can you support St Chris’s position, which is that helmets are not effective, and say that helmets do work?
I expected this one to come
I expected this one to come up! Easily! Boardman’s position is that helmet laws are a bad idea. I support that. I have no doubt whatsoever that wearing a cycling helmet is beneficial to me. I have encouraged my daughter to wear a helmet today as she scrambles around The Cioch on Skye for the same reason: there might be rockfall and the helmet might prevent serious injury. Non-fanciful downside to wearing a helmet ?: nil.
wtjs wrote:
St Chris’s position is that helmets are not effective, not just that helmet laws are bad.
Actual downsides to wearing a helmet; false sense of security, drivers pass you closer, you have more collisions.
If I was expecting something to come up, I think I would have worked out some valid arguments.
Actual downsides to wearing a
Actual downsides to wearing a helmet; false sense of security, drivers pass you closer, you have more collisions
As I said: non-fanciful.
wtjs wrote:
Really? They’ve all been proved. Perhaps your definition of non-fanciful is your own and not the one recognised in all the English dictionaries.
They’ve all been proved
They’ve all been proved
Your unshakeable belief in your own cleverness is entirely unwarranted and your repeated use of trite nonsense such your ‘anecdote and data’ and other ‘proven facts’ demonstrates limitations indicating the correctness of your assertions that repeated traumatic brain injury would not further adversely affect your mental capacities.
eburtthebike wrote:
It’s quite simple:
IF you have a crash, it’s better to be wearing a helmet than not.
However, you are far less likely to be injured if you’re not in a crash in the first place. Therefore, the most effective way to prevent injuries to cyclists is to implement policies and infrastructure that reduces the chances of crashes occuring.
What’s more, inactivity and air pollution are both major contributors in morbidity and mortality in this country. If we want to be effective at keeping people healthy, then we need policies/infrastructure that make cycling (and other forms of active transport) attractive. That means ensuring people feel safe on the roads.
OnYerBike wrote:
Got any data to support that? Since helmets do not reduce the risk of death at a population level, and they increase the risk of the most damaging injury, rotational, I’d be very interested to see the evidence.*
*Excluding anything from Rivara, Thompson or Olivier of course; I meant real research.
Are the studies by Rivara,
Are the studies by Rivara, Thompson or Olivier wrong or are they just focusing on a very narrow question and therefore not helpful to the broader conversation? Taking one of Olivier’s most frequently cited papers (https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/46/1/278/2617198?login=true or for a lay summary https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds) my very brief reading is that the conclusions are reasonable given that they are only looking at cyclists who have been in a crash. As I think we both agree, not crashing is preferable, and there is some evidence that wearing a helmet might increase the chances of a crash occuring, but neither of those points refutes the suggestion that if you have a crash, you’re better off wearing a helmet than not.
In terms of other studies, I recall there was a story a few weeks ago (https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-involved-8-10-sports-related-spinal-injuries-285925) about spinal injuries and helmet use, and I had a quick google then and found these four papers:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33045673/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02688697.2020.1731425?journalCode=ibjn20
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318151176_Fatal_Cervical_Spine_Injury_Following_a_Bicycle_Crash
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29677686/
None are authored by your blacklisted authors, and all suggest that helmets don’t reduce, and may even increase, the risk of spinal injuries. But all concluded that overall wearing a helmet does overall reduce serious injury and mortality in crashes.
Don’t get me wrong, it is a very narrow question and I fully agree it’s not a very helpful one. But I still think the weight of evidence does support the assertion that if you have a crash it’s better to be wearing a helmet than not.
OnYerBike wrote:
I believe that the criticism of helmets is that they can cause rotational damage which would not have been caused in the absence of the helmet.
As I understand it, RT&O kind of went out there looking for evidence that supported their hypothesis and that their methodology and their conclusions have been systematically rubbished and held up as an example of how not to do a meta study.
OnYerBike wrote:
If you have a fall and hit your head on the ground, better to be wearing a helmet than not. If you are hit at speed by a vehicle it’s beyond the design of the helmet. If you land on arm or shoulder the helmet will do nothing.
Over the many years i have had offs while wearing and while not wearing helmets. It’s interesting that I never injured my head when I was not wearing one. While I have been wearing one sometimes i have damaged the helmet and sometimes not. I wonder if the additional width leads to impacts which would not have occured otherwise. In the same was as wearing a hard hat leads to conflicts with overhead obstructions which would have been higher than the head otherwise.
If you hit your head – but as
If you hit your head – but as you outline, your head is bigger so there is more chance of an impact. There are also concerns about the extent of rotational injuries. I thought there had been a link previous which showed a small increase in risk (but as usual I forgot to bookmark it).
Then there is the behavioural side of whether motorists react differently in terms of space given and the risk compensation of the rider.
None of it is black and white. And it is the bottom of the control hierarchy.
hirsute wrote:
but being able to see better in the dark is a great boon to safety, and it’s hard to attach my exposure joystick directly to my head. So on balance I’ll keep wearing my helmet.
(I do also have a handlebar mounted light)
Exposure headband.
Exposure headband.
(Not sure your post quite follows on from what I posted though).
wycombewheeler wrote:
I don’t think anyone’s ever said (and I certainly haven’t) that helmets will protect you from all injuries. That said, if you told me a car was going to drive into me at 30mph and asked would I like a helmet, I would still say yes.
Yeah, I’m sure this is a contributory factor to many of the “a helmet saved my life” anecdotes!
I don’t think Boardman has
I don’t think Boardman has ever said that helmets don’t work on an individual level.
He’s said many times that, on a systemic level, there are many things that are more effective at reducing cycling related deaths.
There is some benefit to a
There is some benefit to a helmet at low speed. You also came up with the link to accident/recovery stats where in a rural situation, wearing a helmet was beneficial. This seemed to be due to the time it takes for an ambulance to get to you and helmet helped with the longer time before treatment could start.
I still have no faith in a helmet doing much at a 25-30 mph crash though !
(think you misread wtjs as he said helmet laws).
Rich_cb wrote:
He has said that helmets are not effective, not even in the top ten of things that make cycling safer. Now you could assume that he meant at a group level, not individual, but that would be an assumption, and unless you’ve checked it with him personally, there is no valid basis for that assumption.
I dont recall him saying they
I dont recall him saying they weren’t effective, simply that there are other things we can do which make things far safer for cyclists, which I think everyone here largely agrees with and we shouldn’t let the helmet row always dominate the debate.
eburtthebike wrote:
Here is what he said:
https://chrisboardman.com/blog/index_files/e67d4b8aac0c709c5801ce466bdcd90e-1.html
Nothing in his argument says that a helmet won’t protect your head. It is all about whether helmet laws save lives, and he argues persuasively that they do not.
His “top 10 things” quote is also clearly about cycling in general:
[I]”Talking to road.cc at the London Bike Show, Boardman said, “I think the helmet issue is a massive red herring. It’s not even in the top 10 of things you need to do [b]to keep cycling safe or more widely, save the most lives[/b].”[/i]
https://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-10-things-keep-cycling-safe
If he believed that helmets
If he believed that helmets were not effective on an individual level that would be a very strange way of expressing it.
Example:
Does wearing a hat made of blancmange stop you getting Covid?
Potential answer 1:
Hats made of blancmange are not one of the top ten ways to reduce your risk of Covid.
Potential answer 2:
No.
Both ‘can’ mean the same thing but it would be rather odd to give answer 1 rather than answer 2.
It’s pretty obvious he was talking on a systemic level as in that context his statement makes perfect sense
Rich_cb wrote:
Rather a strange argument. If helmets aren’t effective at a population level, they can’t be effective at an individual level, or if they are effective in some cases, they must also make outcomes worse in others, else the population figures would show they were beneficial.
Cycle helmets might be beneficial in some extremely limited circumstances, but if they might equally be likely to kill you, what would be the point of wearing one as an individual? Unless you thought that the population figures didn’t apply to you of course.
Now now Burt.
Now now Burt.
You’re deliberately misrepresenting what I said there. Nowhere have I said that helmets are ineffective at the population level. I’ve said there are more effective interventions at the systemic level.
That is very much not the same thing.
In order to understand the helmet debate you’ve got to be able to interpret the data. You’ve shown many, many times that you’re either unwilling or incapable of doing so.
To demonstrate an effect at the population level you have to compare two populations which are very similar. Otherwise it is impossible to eliminate confounding factors and the data is worthless.
There is, therefore, no reliable population level data about the efficacy of helmets.
The only data we have is at the individual level which shows that they are effective at reducing injury. There are multiple examples of high quality, peer reviewed papers which show this. The balance of evidence in those same papers does not currently support the theory that helmets increase the risk of neck injury.
In contrast the evidence to support risk compensation is of very low quality where it exists at all.
The evidence to support the notion that drivers pass more closely if you’re wearing a helmet is, again, unreliable. One unblinded study supported the hypothesis whilst other studies (albeit with smaller numbers) by the same author have not shown the same effect.
eburtthebike wrote:
Chris’ position is that Helmets are not in the top 10 things that would make cycling safer, he has never said (to my knowledge) that they provide no benefit.
It’s easy to get carried away with the “I had a crash and the helmet saved my life”, but the numbers do not bear this out. The reduction in deaths when helmets are used more widely (if there even is one) is a tiny fraction of the people who claim they have been saved by one.
wycombewheeler wrote:
While he’s never said they provide no benefit, by the time you get to the 8th, 9th and 10th thing on the list of things that make cycling safer, those things have very little effect at all, so anything less than their efficacy is going to be, by definition, not very effective.
A couple of years ago, an old
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.
Oldfatgit wrote:
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
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?
Oldfatgit wrote:
Without entering the ‘do they / don’t they protect’ debate or the ‘should we/ shouldn’t we mandate them’ debate, I shall respectfully correct you:
– anecdotes are data; they just need to be expressed, interpeted and considered very carefully
GMBasix wrote:
Without entering the ‘do they / don’t they protect’ debate or the ‘should we/ shouldn’t we mandate them’ debate, I shall respectfully correct you:
– anecdotes are data; they just need to be expressed, interpeted and considered very carefully— Oldfatgit
I’m quite happy for anecdotes to be data … The poster above me seemed to be reluctant to accept them.
It is an easy way for the
It is an easy way for the poster to ignore ‘evidence’ that doesn’t support his position. That ‘evidence’ may be weak or strong, but it is a simple way to ignore your point. I don’t usually post on helmet debates as they are pretty futile and quickly move away from the obvious fact that we pretty much all agree on one thing
I don’t think anyone that has posted thinks that Patrick Harvie shouldn’t have a right to choose whether he wears a helmet or not.
I think it will be more interesting to see how much change he can have in the Active Travel area. It feels like something he really does care about. The Green Party going into Government alongside the SNP may have many consequences, good or bad. This one may be good.
Oldfatgit wrote:
Have you met anyone willing to replicate it with a helmet?
mdavidford wrote:
Have you met anyone willing to replicate it with a helmet?— Oldfatgit
The “with helmet” outcome has already happened and provides some kind of baseline.
If you’d like to provide the “without helmet” result, feel free.
I’m happy to provide the GPX so you can replicate my track … But you’ll have to find a Mondeo. The one that hit me was written off (100kg at 30mph does a fair bit of damage).
But you appear to be
But you appear to be presenting the fact that no-one’s volunteering to do it without a helmet as if it’s evidence that it’s really ‘common sense’ that a helmet makes a difference. Unless you can find people to volunteer to do it with a helmet, it’s not. It’s just evidence that people don’t much fancy being hit by a car, helmet or no helmet.
I think I’d like to see a
I think I’d like to see a mandatory retest for every driver every 5 years.
This just goes on and on; I’m
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
“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.
It says that wearing a helmet
It says that wearing a helmet makes you more bold, but that wearing a wig with pigtails makes you less bold.
Therefore, wearing a helmet and a wig with ponytails simultaneously will balance each other out, while simultaneously conferring the benefits of helmet safety and male attention.
Hope that helps.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
You forgot to say, “While making you look like someone out of the Asterix comics”.
wtjs wrote:
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
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.
Mungecrundle wrote:
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
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.
Rich_cb wrote:
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.
WARNING
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.
I think arguments about
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
I support the Scottish
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.
Gippslander wrote:
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…
brooksby wrote:
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
They should have guns themselves, then they could defend themselves.
hirsute wrote:
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.
Now you are talking.
[insert open licence squirrel with gun pic]
hirsute wrote:
(CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 licensed courtesy of zcopley https://www.flickr.com/photos/22823034@N00)
hawkinspeter wrote:
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.— hirsute
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
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
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
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?
Making helmets mandatory then
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.
randonneur wrote:
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
Don’t forget a walking helmet as well as head injury rates for that are at least as bad as for cycling!
Hmmm.
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
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.
.