“Half of UK cyclists admit to not wearing a helmet due to worries like bad hair”… Halfords claims; Bizarre meltdown over cyclist not using bike lane… even though it’s still being built; Wins for MvdP and Vingegaard + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
"Half of UK cyclists admit to not wearing a helmet due to worries like bad hair"... claims Halfords
A rather curious email from Halfords dropped into our inbox this morning, Britain’s largest cycling retailer claiming half of cyclists “admit” to not wearing a helmet, with “worries about getting bad hair one of the top reasons”… apparently.
So, there’s a lot to unpack here. Halfords says it conducted research among adults who regularly ride a bike.
According to the retailer: “The most common reason for avoiding the protective head gear is because many feel the vital piece of safety equipment is not needed for short distances (31%). Meanwhile a fifth (20%) say it is too much hassle to carry one around when they’re not cycling.
“But perhaps most surprisingly, nearly one in seven (13%) admit to not wearing one because they want to avoid getting bad hair – rising to almost a fifth (18%) of women.”
Halfords also reckons “many riders could benefit from a quick refresher on the rules of the road”.
“A quarter of cyclists in the study (26%) didn’t even know there was a section in the Highway Code for cyclists,” Halfords claimed. “This covers a variety of road laws to keep cyclists safe, including what equipment they are required to use and where they should cycle.
“One of the biggest areas of confusion include knowing where to cycle; With more than half (53%) believing you can cycle on pavements up until the age of 18 – despite the laws suggesting that no one should cycle on pavements, and a quarter (21%) admitting they regularly ride on footpaths.
“More than a quarter (28%) think you can’t cycle in bus lanes, but the code suggests cyclists can go in most of them. While 10% cycle through red lights often or all the time when taking to the road.
“On the other hand, 39% don’t believe you must obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals and a similar amount think you can cycle on motorways (40%) – both of which are required by the Highway Code.
“Meanwhile, one in six (15%) have ridden their bike while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, despite it being against the law – something 43% didn’t know was included in the Highway Code.”
According to the retailer, 70 per cent of the cyclists they surveyed reckon people “should take a cycling test before riding a bike on public roads”.
As I said at the start, plenty to unpack there… thoughts?
“No longer can cyclists endanger pedestrians with impunity”: British legal ‘first’ as e-bike rider handed suspended sentence for killing 91-year-old while cycling on pavement due to near misses with drivers
Jonas Vingegaard wins Paris-Nice stage with stunning long-range attack
In complete control 😮💨
Jonas Vingegaard cruises to a second stage win in as many days with a dominant ride at Paris-Nice. pic.twitter.com/a056OdsFh0
— Cycling on TNT Sports (@cyclingontnt) March 12, 2026
It seems to be the way GC racing goes in 2026, Tadej Pogačar battering the field or, when the world champion is absent, Jonas Vingegaard dishing out the beating. A crushing attack with 20km to go and the Dane’s advantage was more than two minutes by the line. We can basically wrap the GC up tonight.
“A tax on smaller riders”: Do pro cyclists feel safer following the UCI’s introduction of new bike setup regulations? We asked several riders for their opinions
Mathieu van der Poel wins Tirreno-Adriatico thriller
Mathieu van der Poel wins a thrilling, full-gas finish to Tirreno-Adriatico with attacks flying left, right, and centre 💥 pic.twitter.com/D5CuaOKv0H
— Cycling on TNT Sports (@cyclingontnt) March 12, 2026
Attack after attack after attack, but it was Mathieu van der Poel who got in front at just the right moment. The fourth stage of Tirreno-Adriatico was one of those near-perfect stages where there were riders from almost every profile contesting the finish. Isaac del Toro had attacked on the final climb, before Ben Healy also tried his luck, and there was even time for a late attack by Filippo Ganna. The Italian perhaps practising for a last-kilometre stealth move at Milan-San Remo?
Giulio Pellizzari earned some bonus seconds by finishing second, the result taking him into the race lead as Del Toro drops to second.
"Officers gearing up for the Tour de France, arresting offenders by any means necessary"
POV: You’re a Special Constable borrowing a bike to catch a thief. @MPSCamden officers gearing up for the Tour de France, arresting offenders by any means necessary 🚲 👮♂️ pic.twitter.com/leVSN7kFwV
— MPSSpecials (@MPSSpecials) March 10, 2026
Jonas Vingegaard’s dungaree look reminded us why cycling is the greatest sport in the world – and why Paris-Nice is its best race
"Wondering why Jonas wore his bibs so fashionably?": Visma-Lease a Bike have some answers
Visma-Lease a Bike have the answer to the question everyone’s asking this lunchtime…
The team revealed that, to keep warm, Vingegaard was wearing extra bib tights over the top of his normal bibs.
“We prepared so that two teammates could easily rip them off,” he explained. “After that, I could just take the parts on my legs off like leg warmers. That was the plan.”
However, with crosswinds ripping the racing apart early and the brutal finish to the stage dropping all Visma helpers, Vingegaard ended up alone. With no time to get rid of the extra layer, he ditched his jacket and raced the finale with double bibs and the tights dungaree-d over his jersey.
Major Merseyside bike shop Formby Cycles to close after three decades in business
Formby Cycles, a major bike shop in Merseyside that has been trading for more than three decades, is to close after a three-week closing down sale.
The news appeared in the local press, store manager Phil Harvey explaining the bike industry has “changed significantly in recent years”.
“Formby Cycles has been a huge part of the local community for more than three decades and it’s incredibly sad for us to be closing the doors after so many years. We’ve met thousands of customers along the way, from families buying their children’s first bikes to dedicated cyclists who have supported us for years,” he said.
“However, the cycling industry has changed significantly in recent years, and the wider retail landscape has become increasingly challenging with rising costs and shifts in how people shop. It ultimately became the right time for us to step away.
“We’d like to thank everyone who has supported Formby Cycles over the years and invite customers to visit us during our closing down sale as we say goodbye.”
Lidl-Trek confirm Juan Ayuso avoided fractures in his Paris-Nice crash, will continue recovery at home
Juan Ayuso crashed out of the leader’s jersey at Paris-nice yesterday, the Spaniard absent from the finale as crosswinds split the race and Jonas Vingegaard claimed a dominant victory.
Lidl-Trek confirmed their rider was taken to hospital and X-rays found he had not suffered any fractures in the crash.
A team doctor then ruled out any other serious injuries in a follow-up assessment at the hotel that evening. Ayuso will continue to be monitored by medical staff but is expected to return home to continue his rehab.
Jonas Vingegaard explodes into action at Paris-Nice... but all anyone can talk about are those bibs
We’ve already had calls for cycle lane police this morning, yesterday it was the turn of the fashion police…
“Maybe you can call me a trendsetter with the long pants.”
Jonas Vingegaard after winning Paris-Nice Stage 4 with bibs over his jersey. 😅 #ParisNice pic.twitter.com/Ydk96hfK0t
— NBC Sports Cycling (@NBCSCycling) March 11, 2026
The oldest spinners in town — senior pro racers who went toe-to-toe with the young guns (and some who are still going)
"Where are the cycle path police when you need them?": Bizarre meltdown over cyclist not using bike lane... even though incomplete cycle route blocked off and still being built
Look at the picture below and try to work out why this person has opted to ride on the pavement, not along the cycle path:
If you answered ‘well, because the cycling route is still being built, is barriered off and is not yet complete’ then you are in the minority of observant onlookers apparently. If, however, you answered something along the lines of ‘what a waste of taxpayer money, there’s no reason cyclists shouldn’t use cycle lanes’ then you probably would be best served finding a Facebook comments section to rant in.
Quite regularly a picture of a cyclist riding on a road next to a cycle lane will get lots of attention on the social media site. It’s normally in some sort of local town page and, might we add, the cyclist involved is of course always perfectly legal and entitled not to use said cycling infrastructure.
The Highway Code suggests cyclists use bike lanes that make their journey easier or safer, but (preaching to the choir here) many routes can be a pain to use, be littered with debris, put faster riders in close proximity with pedestrians etc. etc. and there is no legal obligation to use them.
I thought we’d start with the usual ‘why don’t cyclists always use cycle lanes’ disclaimer although, in this case, the answer should be fairly obvious… it’s not actually a cycle lane yet…
There were 150 comments, the majority in opposition to the bike lane and money being invested in cycling, many directing their anger towards the rider not using the cycle lane.
Exhibit A, B, C, D…
“If they prosecute cyclists who ride on the pavements it may stop. As the police are not interested and the council not bothered nothing will happen. The real way to expose the nonsense of these council vanity projects is have an audit as to how many people actually use them.”
“It’s a much better surface. You can’t blame him. Bloody stupid waste of money!! It will be a worse surface when finished.”
“It basically acts as a run-off for all the debris, that will be full of twigs and leaves and rubbish before you know it – great to cycle in…”
“That kerbing work is absolutely diabolical”
Now, we’d like to think this will be fully swept of all that construction debris before the route opens (although maybe that’s optimistic thinking), at which point it’s hard to see a reason why you’d opt for lugging your bike onto the pavement over the infrastructure provided.
As one solitary voice of reason explained:
“Not a waste at all. Safer for cyclists and pedestrians. I will be using it when it’s finished, less chance of people being injured.”
Anyway, for now the outrage seemingly at this cyclist not bunny-hopping construction barriers to use an incomplete cycle lane continues…
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £2.49. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
40 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
There wouldn't have been a peloton in that era (aside from Christophe Bassons) if they had instigated night-time testing.
The article states that: "The term E-bike refers to an electrically assisted pedal cycle (EAPC)" YES & NO. It can refer to any electrically powered cycle or motorbike. That would include EAPCs. An "E-bike" is not a legally defined thing.
It occurred to me that this could be fitted to an older rim brake bike as well but it would involve for example building a new rear wheel with a disc hub and rim brake rim.
@Paul J Please show me any reliable evidence. EPO tests already detect levels far below the minimum effective dose. With the recent state of the art, microdosing simply does not make any sense.
@tomlew microdosing EPO most definitely does "work" in terms of stimulating RBC production.
This is what the media frenzy about the "dangers of e-bikes" led us to. Meanwhile, drivers kill one pedestrian a day in general indifference.
As far as I understand it, specific evidence against a rider (or of actual doping in general) isn't required for the judge's approval - they just have to convince them that, on balance, the need for them to do this to maintain an effective anti-doping program outweighs the riders' rights to privacy. The "serious suspicion" stuff comes from a comment to the UCI's internal rules (and is contradicted by another set of rules) and isn't really relevant to the judicial process.
After nearly 40 years of living in France and listening to thé démented chauvinism of French commentators I have to wonder if French riders would have had thé same treatment
There's no demonstrable link between the test and Vingegaard crashing out of the race - just some rather overblown speculation.
@Simon Withers I've not managed to buckle a wheel on tour although I have had to adjust spokes occasionally to keep my wheels true so I carry spare spokes and a spoke key anyway. My concern is getting to my destination and then having to straighten the disc because it got bent in transit. Would I need to carry heavy tools to do this?
40 thoughts on ““Half of UK cyclists admit to not wearing a helmet due to worries like bad hair”… Halfords claims; Bizarre meltdown over cyclist not using bike lane… even though it’s still being built; Wins for MvdP and Vingegaard + more on the live blog”
Q Why isn’t that bloody cyclist using the cycle path?
A Because he was as killed last week by a drunk SUV driver.
Q Why isn’t that bloody cyclist using the cycle path?
A He didn’t see it. The sun was in his eyes and the “Cycle Path” sign came out of nowhere.
Q Why isn’t that bloody cyclist using the cycle path?
A Because it is only runs for 25 yards before it crosses the road at a pelican crossing.
Q Why isn’t that bloody cyclist using the cycle path?
A: He’s just nipping to Maccies/Greggs/Starbucks – it’ll only take a minute, get a life & focus on real crime.
Correction
“…focus on crime.”
Q Why isn’t that bloody cyclist using the cycle path?
A: He’s just nipping to Maccies/Greggs/Starbucks – it’ll only take a minute, get a life & focus on real crime.
My editing tactics clearly need some work
Do my eyes and a small phone screen deceive me, or is there a car half parked in that unfinished cycle lane? Looks like the grey vehicle in the background is definitely straddling the kerb to me.
When I zoom in it looks like the car is parked mostly on the new footpath to the right of the cycle path but two car wheels will be on the cycle path!
You can pretty much guarantee that everyone working themselves into a frothing rage about cyclists on the pavement is fine with bumping two wheels of their car onto the same pavement.
Putting two wheels on the pavement and completely blocking the path for people with push chairs or wheelchairs*
Where else do you expect people to park? Further away? More in the road putting their precious car at risk? I think not!
When this incident results in “no charges were brought against the driver.”, it is no wonder the KSI rate is what it is.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07jyrexr9zo
Bloody hell, that video! It’s dumb luck on behalf of the driver that nobody was KSI, so the decision not to bring charges is baffling.
I’m also astonished that the speed limit along a narrow road through a village lined with houses that open out onto a narrow pavement is 40mph. Nobody should be driving at more than 20mph along such a road.
I think there are two kinds of driver in this regard. There are those like – presumably – the denizens of the road.cc comments section who would drive down that street at 20mph even if there were no speed limit, because that’s just the sensible and obvious thing to do, and those who will just drive to the maximum speed they can get away with regardless of conditions.
Does anyone know (I don’t) what a self-driving car would do? Presumably something like 40mph if that was the limit and there were no obvious obstacles?
That is a very good question.
If self-driving cars do become available to the general public and for whatever reason, the speed limits on roads like these are found to be too high (due to unexpectedly high collision rates involving them) my hope is that the authorities will act and lower the limits.
You would hope, but they haven’t on this road despite it apparently being an “accident hotspot”
I think that’s exactly what will happen, because the common (erroneous) assumption is that machines are more likely to to make an error of judgement than a human being so Something Must Be Done.
In case anyone cares, I’m very pro- self driving cars becoming affordable and accepted because I’d very much like to remain independent, mobile and not reliant on public transport or taxis in my impending old age. There are no useful amenities within walking distance of where I live now (because of widespread car ownership I guess) and what I consider walkable is only going one way …
I would like to think that self driving cars won’t be one available to the general public – after all, they are effectively driverless taxis, and there is no real need to own one.
This approach will result in a massive reduction in parked vehicles, making travel more efficient for the vehicles that are on the road, provide less restricted sight lines for pedestrians etc.
Our obsession with car ownership needs to be addressed.
The energy involved makes it look like more than 40 to me.
From watching the video on the local news today, it may be that the driver couldn’t see properly because they were driving into the sun at the same speed they would unclear visibility.
It is time that something is done about the sun. It regularly trips up unfortunate motorists.
I believe Reform UK have got plans in hand to do away with the sun (it represents costly green energy). Just think of the savings in electricity used in air conditioning.
From my watching of the BBC’s, the sun looks as though it’s between the drives 5 an 6 o’clock.
Reply to: Mr Blackbird
Why does that remind me of the episode of The Simpsons when Montgomery Burns blocked the view of the Sun?
From the footage shown, the driver didn’t deviate from their course. Nor did they come round a corner too fast, find a car parked on their side and oncoming traffic in the other lane giving them nowhere to go.
Wonder what was distracting the driver?
From the footage shown, the driver didn’t deviate from their course…Wonder what was distracting the driver?
No deviation or even a sideways glance as this distracted driver charged straight onto my roundabout and would have hit me had I not avoided her. Very likely there’s a small mobile cupped in her right hand, and I know the exact time, but no response from Lancashire Constabulary
reply to mitsky
From the BBC web site “A spokesperson for the force said its investigation concluded “with a referral for a driver awareness course and a medical referral to the DVLA”.
Sound like it may be another medical episode. Are they becoming more common or is it me?
Can you pass the vision test with a phone in front of your eyes?
[Q]: Why did the ‘lycra-clad cyclist’ ride on the footway?
[A]: To visit the village idiot.
[Q]: Knock knock!
[Frothing Facebook anti-cyclist]: Who’s there?
[Q]: The ‘lycra-clad cyclist’.
I think a lot of motorists like giving orders to cyclists – it makes them feel superior and important.
The Halfords thing smells of one of those “take this survey to earn a voucher/enter a competition” type ‘pieces of research’. If it is, then it’s dubious how many of the respondents are actually adults or regular bike riders, and probably a good chunk of them are just clicking on answers at random.
Even worse, they missed entirely the many people, who, like me, wear a helmet to hide their bad hair. Causes a certain amount of sniggering in the spray tan salon, but worth it on balance.
Or those, like me, who use it to cover up a lack of hair.
Hair is overrated.
+1
Is that a comment on Jonas’ sartorial choices for today’s stage?
According to the retailer [Halfords], 70 per cent of the cyclists they surveyed reckon people “should take a cycling test before riding a bike on public roads”.
And a theory test. The vast majority of adult cyclists drive cars. On two wheels or behind the wheel, they don’t seem to know what’s inside the Highway Code.
Cycling and driving tests should be mandatory every 5 years, and every 3 years after 70.
Safety on
Well, actually it isn’t: RTA Section 30 states it is an offence to be “under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle”. You can be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, just not to the state where you can’t control the bike, and you can’t be breathalyzed without voluntary consent either. No comment on whether that’s a sensible law or not, and obviously riding when off your face is just plain stupid, but to say it’s against the law to ride under the influence of drugs or alcohol is simply untrue.
I’ve downloaded and read the parts of the California Highway Code that pertain to cyclists. It’s worth doing (if you live in California, that is). I have also met CHP officers who clearly haven’t. Which is depressing.
There were 150 comments, the majority in opposition to the bike lane and money being invested in cycling, many directing their anger towards the rider not using the cycle lane
I was cycling with my trailer out of Worcester towards Malvern 4 days ago, approaching a mega-roundabout which some readers may know. The Edge 1040 was directing me way off right to a cycle lane which crossed a duel carriageway on a special bridge, but I knew that the lane was diverted onto a narrow pavement because of flood damage to a small bridge, and wasn’t much use, so I stayed on the road. There was a loud irate horn blaring behind me followed by a close pass by an archetypal driver of a large Audi. He was then stopped by the traffic coming from his right at the roundabout. I bashed on the window and to my surprise he opened it- I let him have it with maximum volume shouting including ‘Ponce Boy’ so he didn’t have chance to get out what I anticipated to be a ‘get on the cycle lane’ Morons Charter and he was so taken aback that he just zoomed off with a ‘and you’ve got a crap bike’
I’m a slap head, but I don’t wear “the vital piece of safety equipment” if I’m riding in a context where they’re not, ummm, vital. Much as I don’t typically wear a flameproof suit to drive or wear a life jacket on a ferry.
More often I wear a soft hat (casquette or a bucket hat) to keep sun/rain/cold at bay because for the slow, low risk contexts I usually ride in it’s more comfortable, works better and pops in my pocket off the bike.
The trade and the public (including quite a few pushy cyclists) needs to accept that “cycling” covers a lot of bases and helmets are not “vital” in a lot of them and that trying to shame people into wearing them if they’d rather not bother is a public health own-goal.
You’re extremely unlikely in a modern car to be involved in a conflagration, and absolutely vanishingly unlikely if you’re on a ferry to end up in the water, and I don’t know anyone to whom either of those things have happened, but everyone I know who rides a bike has either fallen off or been knocked off, usually more than once. By all means argue that helmets are not efficacious but your examples are not really analogous. A more cogent example might be do you not wear a seatbelt when you drive?
Their examples are perfectly analogous, in that all the examples are of safety equipment you’re extremely unlikely to need in those situations. Since the Helmet Cult have almost as much faith in anecdote as a method of proof as they do their foam hats to protect them from lorries, here are mine: of the seven times I’ve come off my bike, in six of them my bonce didn’t come anywhere near the ground and I was either basically unhurt or the casualty was my creaky knees or ribs, and in the one where I did actually sustain a head injury *I was wearing a helmet*.
And no it didn’t “save me life cor blimey I do swear”, in yet another example of why they’re statistically pointless when I came off I rolled(skidded really, took ages for all the skin on my back and upper arms to heal) a couple of times and went forehead-first into a kerb, which snapped strap clip of the foam hat at the same time it took a big chunk out of my forehead meat.
Seatbelts, by contrast, have demonstrated they actually can save your life in a scenario that is meaningfully statistically likely to happen. In fact a better question to ask is this: do you wear a helmet when you drive your car? I’d guess not since you aren’t Colin sodding McRae, but statistically you’re at least as likely to get a head injury while driving as you are while riding a bike.
Who did Halfords get to do that research?
Thompson, Rivara and Thompson presumably, the grandaddies of appalling helmet research, whose methodology and conclusions have been described as the worst of bad science: still the most quoted and referenced though.