He's had this stance (and been lambasted for it) for years.

His point is if you force cyclists to wear helmets, less people will get on their bikes.

Obviously I have not paid enough attention.

I understand his stance. I just think it is highly irresponsible.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

USA has highest helmet compliance but is the worst and most dangerous country to ride. Netherlands and Denmark have negligible helmet compliance but are the safest.

Yep. Cycling safety is linked to how many other cyclists area also on the road. This is part infrastructure, but its also about cars knowing that cyclists are on the road and according them safe space.

I agree with his first point. Just not his second one.

Reading this makes my head hurt:

https://www.cyclinguk.org/...idence_cuk_brf_0.pdf

Nearly every paragraph leaves me trying to figure out how to connect the dots in whatever conclusion they are trying to present.

I don't think you can justify saying he is highly irresponsible if he has put some thought into the decision, looked at some statistics, and truly believed that some greater good would come from this position based on those facts.

As tangential example, I think back to Ironman Tahoe in 2014. There I believe there was one professional who donned a masked consistently at the race venue with the smoke. That individual knew the health hazards of racing at a possible smoked venue and had his fingers crossed the organization made the right decision and cancelled the event. The event was cancelled, but then you had numerous age-groupers and pros who were emotional, then they made an emotional decision and went out on the course anyway and road their bikes in said smoking venue. Not sure what you classify that as. IMHO that was highly irresponsible and emotional. But this, I can at least along with this.

I know Brad might chime in and mention TBI, which is obviously very serious, but we all have to draw a risk/probability line somewhere otherwise we would be wearing helmets while driving, running, even in the bedroom... If you can wear a helmet, awesome. Then again, it was always my plan if I did a crit to look more like a football player with pads everywhere, than a skin baring cyclist.

---

---

Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset

Everything on that link is spot on.

Helmet laws are bullshit.

I think my charge of irresponsibility is dead-on. I couldn't care less if any adult decides that they do not want to wear a helmet themselves. But if they are going to participate in a publicity campaign to try to convince others to not wear a helmet, they have a responsibility to correctly interpret data themselves and they have a duty to present that data accurately and fully. If they make an mistake and mis-analyze the data and honestly believe that it indicates that wearing helmets is less safe, they do not get a pass. When one takes on a public safety-critical role, whether as an engineer, a pilot, or whatever, you do not get to say, "oh, I really thought I did that analysis correctly - not my fault" when the bridge collapses and kills people.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

I do not agree with the final argument but I can understand and support the first point.

In my opinion you can combine supporting this cause and defuse the reinforcement of law and still wear a helmet.

How many times has his head hit the tarmac without a helmet on?

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

Boardman is a data guy, and he's making a data based argument, one that goes like this: Helmet use may improve outcomes in some circumstances, but mandatory helmet laws have a profound depressing effect on cycling participation. The impacts on public health that occur due to the decrease in cycling participation attendant upon mandatory helmet use outweigh the positive impact to overall public health that result from mandatory helmet use.

I respect the hell out of him for taking an incredibly unpopular stance on an issue that he clearly believes is important, and where he believes the data supports a non-obvious conclusion.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

He is also making the argument that helmets do not prevent injury and may in fact increase the likelihood of injury. Every piece of data I have seen people try to present to make that argument is fundamentally flawed. Just like the argument above that rates of cycling injures are higher in the US than in Amsterdam.

He's a data guy, but he is not analyzing this data correctly.

I do not know if he is analyzing the data for the argument you articulated correctly because he does not present any data. He just makes an unsupported statement. Maybe he shared data elsewhere, I don't know.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

He has. He's been outspoken on this issue for years.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

How so? I reached the conclusion that the data trying to prove the efficacy of helmets is seriously flawed.

I didn't want to believe it (I've always worn a helmet and still do), but they really don't do much if anything to reduce fatalities. Injuries are impossible to tell, since they aren't really tracked.

Cycling UK has their "data report" that I linked above. Its a long, difficult read. As I said, every position and link to a study leaves me with more questions than answers. Using studies conducted in geographically, and culturally different locations to draw conclusions about the UK...is not obvious on the surface. Maybe its valid, maybe its not. Without reading every linked study, and hoping to have enough expertise in each to evaluate the validity of the conclusions and relationship to UK society...its just hard to know.

Further, the authors of the Cycling UK paper aren't listed, and obviously its not published / peer reviewed. So, I'm just left with more questions....

No idea who "Chris Boardman" is but he's my new hero

I lived in a state where motorcycle helmets are optional and the same arguments are made there.

Sadly I have had 2 acquaintances die on motorcycles where I think a helmet would have prevented the deaths.

I ride with a helmet but don't know how much good it would do on a crash at 50mph (Brockway summit for those who know it) but think that at a low speed it will the brain cells from rattling around too much.

I also ride with a helmet to set an example for my son, same goes for gloves.

Does anyone really think that Sergio Higuita would have just gotten up from this fall: https://www.rtbf.be/...x-chutes?id=10583121, watch the head bounce in the slow mo.

what a ridiculous statement. he has never campaigned to convince people not to wear a helmet.

he has only campaigned that it should not be made mandatory to wear a helmet - which would create another barrier to people riding their bikes for simple journeys, instead of using their cars.

as part of the campaign, he has campaigned for improved infrastructure for cycling, which would make it safer for people to use their bikes for journeys and get them out of their cars. this would be a practical step to prevent accidents in the first place and provide an incentive, rather than a barrier for using bikes as a means of transport.

do you tell people on bikes that it was their fault a car hit them, because they weren't wearing a helmet?

---

Feel the Speed

OK RowToTri: show us your best piece of scientific evidence that wearing helmets prevents head injuries on bikes.

How many times has your head hit the tarmac?

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

Maybe restate the question clearly. There have already been a couple of post where people have misrepresented other's arguments.

OP didn't say that wearing helmets prevents head injuries on bikes (as far as I read it). I don't agree with how he read Boardman's argument though.

Here's my take: Let people do what they want with helmets, just like seatbelts. if they crash, they can deal with the consequences of their choices.

However, there should absolutely be laws around forcing children to wear helmets. They should not suffer because of poor decisions by their parents.

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

I agree with this.

I also disagree with promoting helmet-free role models.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...ing%20head%20injury.

" This review included five well conducted case‐control studies and found that helmets provide a 63–88% reduction in the risk of head, brain and severe brain injury for all ages of bicyclists. Helmets were found to provide equal levels of protection for crashes involving motor vehicles (69%) and crashes from all other causes (68%). Furthermore, injuries to the upper and mid facial areas were found to be reduced by 65%, although helmets did not prevent lower facial injuries. The review authors concluded that bicycle helmets are an effective means of preventing head injury"

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

But he is trying to convince people not to wear helmets. One of their goals is to promote "helmet-free role models" and they disseminate poorly interpreted data to argue that helmets are at best useless and maybe worse than no helmet at all.

I think advocating for bike lanes and more cycling is great.

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding blaming a cyclist being hit by a car. Nothing I have said could be construed to supporting that statement.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Even if the result is they don't then ride a bike, get fat, get obese, get diabetes and have life long health problems that could have been averted by being more active in childhood via biking and then continuing that into adulthood?

That is part of the bigger picture in balancing the risks thst CB points to.
Because riding bikes IS suppressed by being forced to wear a helmet.
Plenty of evidence of that in Aus after helmet laws got passed.

(Said by someone who always does wear a helmet and so does my daughter... but I don't give a fheck about my hair or getting a sweaty head, unlike many normal people).

I read the detailed data position paper. Those links are tenuous. There are a lot of "dots" to connect between the various studies spread around the globe between differing cultures and timeframes, to be able to definitively make that case. Several logical leaps appeared to being made.

Presuming that's true, its another leap to say that there is some causal link between reduced cycling, and increased health issues. "If only we hadn't passed helmet laws...everyone would still be healthy." Seems VERY thin. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say THAT problem is WAY more complex than "helmet laws".

what he's promoting is to not increase the barriers to using a bike as a means of transport by making helmets compulsory.

we should be doing everything possible to get people out of their cars and using bikes for short journeys, for both environmental and health reasons.

we shouldn't be telling people that if they want to use a bike for a 5 minute journey down the street to the bakery to pick up their bread that they must wear a helmet to do so!

we should be encouraging it and making it as easy as possible to do it, along with providing the infrastructure to make it safe to do so.

boardman's mum was killed while cycling after being hit by a car driver, and guess what, she was wearing both a helmet and high visibility clothing.

make it safe for people to cycle, not force them to wear a helmet which may or may not help them if they're hit by negligent drivers.

---

Feel the Speed

I wear a helmet 100% of the time. I also believe that a helmet can prevent serious injury. That said, I am emphatically okay with not wearing one if it gets more people out on bikes.

.

These are pros, just 2 days ago. I wonder how likely this is to happen in group rides or grand fondos... or IM 70.3 draftfests. I've lost 2 friends to bike crashes. I've seen many go down. I had a female rider go down on loose gravel, in front of me, a few years ago, and her helmet slit in half, and she got up dazed, but alive and ok. I wouldn't be here, or maybe would be, but impaired, if I didn't wear a helmet. I don't need science anything, and don't care about statistics. I've been riding over 50 years, and if you keep riding, your number could come up at any time. All I need is my memories and experience, to wear my helmet, and I still have those, because I wore my helmet. I don't care what anyone else does, but I do get uncomfortable riding close to someone without a helmet. I would hate to be the guy to cause a crash, that kills or maims someone .

---

Athlinks / Strava

I think it's great he wants to get people out of cars and on bikes.

I think it's fine to be against helmet laws (though I really think it should be required for children).

It's not fine to make up fake science to try to convince people that they are safer without a helmet on.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

You are making the leap from using people without helmets in promotions to convincing people not to wear helmets. They are not the same thing.

I agree. If you are riding anywhere close to the level you show here a helmet should be mandatory. However most people are riding on vacation, with friends, or around the neighborhood at very slow speeds. Regardless of if they have a helmet or choose to wear one or not, let’s get them out riding first. I bet once they get into the sport and ride regularly they’ll choose wear a helmet. But even if they don’t it’s my opinion the health benefits outweigh the risks.

No, they are not limiting their actions to just publishing photos of helmetless people. Tom Hampton posted this earlier where they try to make psuedo-scientific arguments against the use of helmets for health and safety:

https://www.cyclinguk.org/...idence_cuk_brf_0.pdf

Even their very first argument is absurdly misleadingly worded:

" You are in fact as unlikely to be killed in a mile of cycling as in a mile of walking."

Except in cycling you are travelling 7 to 15 times faster than when walking. So if we take on faith that their statement is accurate, it means in an hour of cycling, you are 7 to 15 times more likely to be killed than in an hour of walking.

And even then, they did not say anything about whether that stat is controlled for helmet use or not.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

While I'm a moderate on the helmet debate and willing to accept some of the arguments, I disagree that everything on that link is spot on.

Some of it is purely speculative. And some of it is downright misleading.

I'll just pick one example: the risk compensation argument. This is the argument that wearing helmets promotes greater risk-taking behavior and reduces overall safety.

The link says, "Some evidence suggests they may in fact increase the risk of cyclists having falls or collisions in the first place, or suffering neck injuries."

It's not a lie. The first part - "more falls" - probably banks on the 2016 study, "Wearing a Bicycle Helmet Can Increase Risk Taking and Sensation Seeking in Adults." But that article was a bit suspect. As a metric it used scores from an eye tracking device mounted to either a helmet or baseball cap. It wasn't a direct measure of either risk nor risk-taking behavior from actual collisions. But a more recent literature survey of this topic from 2019, "Bicycle helmets and risky behaviour: A systematic review", studied 23 papers on the topic. Of those 23 studies, 18 found no increased risk, 3 were mixed, 2 supported the notion of increased risk. And 10 suggested that cycling behavior actually *improved* with helmet use.

So the link picked one (or 2) of those 23 studies and doesn't even bother mentioning that the preponderance of evidence goes in the other direction.

But it's not a lie. Some evidence *does* suggest. Right?

That site is pretty dogmatic, as almost all helmet debates, unfortunately, are.

A good friend was very active in Transportation Alternatives in NYC. If it were up to him, cars would be illegal. He was against helmet mandates because it meant less people would ride bikes.

I used to live 1.6 miles from work, with a bike share station one block away. I never used it once, because I didn't want to wear a helmet, and I would never ride without a helmet.

I was also walking on a sidewalk once, when a person was riding his bike towards me, despite the presence of a nice bike lane - a real pet peeve of mine. I said "bike lane" as he passed, and he responded "I'm not wearing a helmet, asshole!".

There are costs and benefits to either approach. A lot depends on the specific area, but I do feel that motorists (with insurance implications), pedestrians, and cyclists must all be considered. It's probably the case that lots of urban/commuter cyclists with no helmets are safer than a few with helmets, which I think is what the county-based differences show.

I do feel strongly that everyone SHOULD wear a helmet, but I don't know what that means for a mandate, especially since enforcement is sure to be lacking. I certainly wouldn't support a smear campaign on helmets.

I can support this argument. With that being said, I'm not sure who Chris Boardman is going to be a role model to these days. Anyone that follows Chris Boardman has to be old enough to make a logical conclusion for themselves. I do think it is probably a good idea to encourage helmets where possible. However, we also have to be careful that we don't get to a point where that stance becomes social and brand suicide and we lose sight of greater good goal... Get more people healthy, get more people outside, get them on bikes, less cars, less pollution, less obesity, more happiness.

---

---

Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset

I don't know what the stats are regarding bike head injuries relating to speed. Obviously the faster you are going the bigger the injury, potentially. But I do have a couple of mates and mates kids that have had bad injuries when moving at a slow speed. My schoolmate died popping a wheelie,. flipped back and cracked his head, a guy I used to train with, rode his TT bike to the shops, came off as he clipped a kerb at 10km/hr and fractured his skull etc it's not a huge PITA to put a helmet on.

haha... can you provide me with a piece of data showing that the sky is blue? This is called data run amok

The way I see it, we know that excessive sun exposure causes skin cancer. But we don't have the police going down to the beach and arresting people for not wearing sunscreen. And it should be the same for cycling helmets.

I choose to wear a helmet while road riding, because I am aware of the risks if I do crash. But I object to it being mandatory.

Sorry I was busy earlier so it took me a while to see this.
(1) The paper you cite is not the original study. The original study is from 1999: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...articles/PMC7025438/
(2) The 1999 study is essentially the only study out there that has this finding, and IDK if you are a scientist or not but I am and I can tell you this study is garbage. It is akin to the "red meat takes years off your life" studies you read in the papers all the time. It's an observational study. They compare 145 children from Seattle hospitals who were treated for head injuries, to a different sample of 450 children who simply fell off their bikes. Then they try to "control" for observed differences between the two groups. The helmet wearers were very different from the non-helmet wearers: predominantly white, middle class, etc, whereas the non-wearers were more often black or other races riding alone on busy city streets. Here's the real proof the study is wrong: if the study's assumptions are true you can use their data to estimate the effect of wearing a helmet on crashing. The answer you get is that (again if the study were correct but it very clearly is not) the mere fact of putting on a helmet CAUSES a 700% increase in crashes. Now I don't believe that for a second, but if you want to hang your hat on the 63-88% number then you have to eat that one too. I.e. helmets are very very dangerous and you are WAY better off not wearing one. The problem, of course, is that the helmet wearers are different from the non-helmet wearers and they have different crashes, and you can't easily control for that especially in their sample, which is wildly biased. You really don't learn anything from this study.

Let me also address the bigger issue: no one is saying that helmets do absolutely nothing. They help a bit in some circumstances. It turns out that those circumstances are so rare that you can't find anything if you do a high quality study. The signal is lost in the noise. The question is: is the benefit worth the cost? Well it probably is if you are riding crits, and probably is not if you are toodling around town.

Here's a related question: should people wear helmets in cars? It's clear that helmets would help protect their heads, right? Motor vehicle accidents are a far far larger source of head injuries than bike accidents. If your answer to that question is "no", then why not? Is it because you think the cost is too high relative to the benefit? Well then, I guess maybe you can see Chris Boardman's point, no? Furthermore, in the case of bike helmets, the biggest risk is cars. No foam hat is going to help you if you get run over by a car. Focusing on helmet use is missing the point. It really doesn't help much. We need to make our streets safer and hold drivers accountable.

Does anyone remember what was said of Gerry Ford (the President)

It applies.

Good post and includes a lot of what I was going to write, so no need now!

Sadly that argument doesn't hold up over here in the UK, where the community funds the care that this person will need to receive if they smash their noggin.

Cheers, Rich.

I don't think you understand his stance. He is trying to get people on bikes and and make bike riding safer. He is not trying to convince people not to wear helmets, he's trying to eliminate helmets as an obstacle to mass use of bikes, and to eliminate the red herring that a cyclist who's not wearing a helmet deserves whatever they get.
Look at ANY open public discussion about facilitating cyclists and keeping them safe and there's a pattern where every non-cyclist, and angry motorists in particular, fixate on the perception that cyclists are reckless, self important rule breakers who have no respect for the rules of the road and have only themselves to blame for the rate of accidents. The 4 arguments that always seem to crop up first are:

1. Lots of cyclists don't wear helmets, so it's their own fault if they get hurt.
2. Cyclists don't pay road tax so they shouldn't be on the roads.
3. All cyclists ride through red lights and break a multitude of other rules of the road.
4. Cyclists are inconsiderate to motorists which is patently obvious by their riding two abreast or trying to stay in the middle of the road instead of getting out of the way.

This is all garbage, and almost any cyclist can explain why, but huge numbers of people don't realise that. Far more lives will be saved or improved by changing these perceptions of cycling and cyclists and increasing bike use, than by forcing those who do cycle to wear helmets. It's not even close.

It's pretty certain that helmets increase the likelihood of an accident. It's less clear whether they offer sufficient protection when a crash does occur to make them a net benefit. I always wear one, but I'm aware things are not as clear cut as most would suggest.

Obesity, sedentary living, and pollution have a massive impact on health in society. The mental health aspect is significant too. Even if reduced helmet use does result in worse outcomes from accidents, the proliferation of cycling will have benefits that massively overshadow this. Also, the proliferation of cycling can be expected to reduce the rate and severity of cycling accidents due to better infrastructure and more aware and more tolerant motorists.

If this is his stance, and you consider it irresponsible, can you explain your definition of irresponsible?

Absolutely spot on

The research shows that less than 5% of people in Germany, Netherlands and Denmark ride with a helmet....OK, so this may be true, however, on fast group rides, everyone I know from Netherlands, Germany and Denmark ride with a helmet. There is a difference between a trip to the local shop on a bike path and a group ride on the road

I am a committee member of a bike club with more than 170 riders, we have probably 10-15 accidents per year. I recall one accident that involved a car, and another with a motorbike, all the others have been hitting the curb, hitting other riders, taking corners too fast or losing control at speed. We have had a number of broken collar bones, ribs and concussion injuries, air ambulance called out once. No one has had any serious injury. A number of riders have destroyed their helmets (including me, twice in past 5 years.

I challenge anyone to argue that a fall, serious enought to crack a helmet did not prevent a significant head injury

It is utter bullshit to say that cars take more care passing riders without helmets. Likewise cyclists wearing helmets do not take more risks

What is it with people dismissing "science" and "statistics" because they don't understand them, while at the same time trying to make arguments based on nothing more than anecdotes. The irony!


What do you think science is?
You deride science, but then say you'll put your faith in conclusions you've gleaned from your own observations.
Do you understand that science is all about making observations and drawing conclusions? The difference between what you're suggesting and good science, is that good science tries to eliminate assumptions or bias, and realise what it knows and what it doesn't.

Anecdotes are worthless in isolation. They are where science begins but you think they are the conclusion.
I was going to write more, but honestly what's the point.....

Wut?

It's probably quite safe to assume that a normal walking pace is something like 10 minutes for a km, so that's 6 km/h. Are you actually suggesting that people using bikes as a means of transportation regularly ride at 42-90 km/h?

---

Greetings from the German Wine Route,
Roland

How should this argument work given that you've agreed science is BS? As much as I'd like to participate, I don't understand the rules.
Maybe if I just state that a helmet made of foam, and with a significantly greater projection beyond the torso is quite different to the smaller footprint skull made from bone, with a coating of hair and skin? There are numerous circumstances where a helmet may be cracked and not signify it's saved you from certain serious injury.
It's demonstrably NOT bullshit.
It's also a well known phenomenon for people to take more risks when they feel safer. I don't know why you feel it's valid to just claim otherwise. I will admit I don't know if evidence has been compiled for the specific case of cycle helmet use, but I'd be astonished if the same principle does not apply. It has been well proven in the rather comparable areas of car safety devices, namely seat belts and ABS brakes, both of which increase the average speed at which drivers feel comfortable. Also studies in the UK have shown that reduced signage and removing the line from the middle of the road makes drivers significantly more careful, the inference being that it's due to a reduced false sense of security.

Don’t need, and don’t care, do not mean don’t understand. Don’t read something into a post that’s not there. None of the bullshit in this thread, will bring my friends back.

---

Athlinks / Strava

How many accidents happen when people take risks? it seems to me that most bike accidents happen when people lose concentration. However, I guess there are some situations where people would be more cautious when not wearing a helmet, for example downhill mountain bike riding. When I ride through the centre of a big city, the biggest risk takers, jumping lights, weaving in and out of traffic, mounting pavements tend to be people not wearing helmets. My annecdotal experience is that people who cycle a lot, are more likely to wear a helmet and are more likely to obey traffic regulations

When it comes to cars passing and giving more space to people without helmets, where is the research to back this up? The only thing I can think of that may make this claim true is that people not wearing helmets often ride more erratically and therefore drivers give them more space

I am not in favour of compelling people to wear a helmet, however, I really disagree with applying a hypothosis, with little evidence, to discredit the effectiveness of wearing a helmet. It is a fact that it is safer to ride with a helmet than without one. It may be debatable how much safer it is.

In the context of your post I think they do actually. They either mean "don't understand" or "have an opinion I'm not willing to examine".
Of course not, and no-one said otherwise. And I'm sorry about your friends.
I'm not sure what I'm reading that's not there.
Boardman saying helmets are an obstacle to mass adoption of cycling is not an insult to your friends' memories.

There was a study published a few years ago that cars specifically gave more space to riders without helmets. Thus is something that's reasonably easy to control for but you'd have to repeat in different countries and cities to make the evidence comprehensive. Shows that the argument has merit. Dismissing it as B.S. based on gut feeling is not right.

I think a hell of a lot of accidents happen when people take risks.
Drafting very close and tipping a wheel
Braking very late for corners and misjudging one or encountering poor surface conditions that leave you sliding out
Descending very fast which makes the above much more serious
Weaving between other traffic and making contact
I'm sure there's any number of other examples!

The fact that some safety devices tend to inspire confidence and influence people to take more risks does not mean that the riskiest people use most safety devices. Your logic is faulty here, unless I misunderstand what you're trying to say?

I have read reports of studies on this but I'll have to go look for them another time, sorry. Nevertheless, do you actually find that suggestion surprising? It's fundamental human behaviour that anything which identifies someone as one of "us", or different, or stronger, or weaker, changes our behaviour towards them. Whether it's accent, skin colour, attire, hairstyle, body language, almost anything....

So, yes, a rider moving erratically will change driver behaviour but so will an infinite number of other factors that affect the perception of vulnerability, likeability, humanity, etc...
I reckon it's likely the following connections are typical:
Lycra = one of those cyclist types = annoyance/aggression = less consideration
Lycra = serious cyclist = unlikely to fall off in front of me = less attention/caution
Helmet = less vulnerable = less anxiety about doing harm = less attention/caution
Casual street clothes = more like me = more identification with potential risks = more caution
Casual street clothes = maybe less experienced = more risk of incident = more caution
Erratic movement = less experienced/less able/obvious issue = more risk of incident = more caution
Child = less experienced/less able/more vulnerable = more risk of incident and worse consequences = more caution

Are you sure?
I act on the basis that it is, and for the type of riding I do I think this is more likely true. However, I'm not aware of any objective evidence that makes this a FACT. I don't think it currently exists. Feel free to correct me with supporting evidence or at least some sort of argument.

Don't forget that there is a difference in every day cyclists who are cycling to work, school, shopping versus people cycling for sport. In the latter category the vast majority of people does wear helmets in The Netherlands, but very few people in the first category wear helmets.

Indeed there was was a study published in 2007 by Ian Walker "Bicycle helmet wearing is associated with closer overtaking by drivers". Olivier and Walter (2013 – ‘OW’) concluded their re-analysis of Walker’s (2007 – ‘W7’) data with the strong statement “helmet wearing is associated with a small difference in passing distance and is not associated with close passing”


The original study considered around 2400 passes on a single rider, riding near Bath in the UK. This study has been used extensively to underpin the statement that drivers are more likely to pass, more closely, riders with helmets.


It seems to me that the original paper was a very small sample, based on single rider in a very limited geographical area. There is also some dispute regarding the statistical validity of the original research.

Everyone in this thread thinks Boardman is saying to go out for group rides without a helmet, which not the argument being made by CB. I wear a helmet 99% of my rides, but if I am riding a couple blocks to grab something at the liquor store or gas station, I am not wearing a helmet.

---

Pactimo brand ambassador, ask me about promo codes

Are you suggesting that not wearing a helmet increases the risk of injury?

Ah yes, my bad on the US centric thinking, it is a good point that people should not pay for one person's poor decision making.

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

I think they should. However, the individual should bear in mind that the provision of this safety net gives society an interest everyone's safety. Individuals are still responsible for themselves but society is entitled to hold a dim view of reckless self endangerment and individuals owe some respect to their community for the supports if affords them.

Cycle helmets aren't compulsory in the UK.

There are a lot of cyclists maybe new who don't wear helmets.

Its one of those factors UK media often used when there's a collision with a car.

He may feel that advocating helmet usage could be a barrier prevent cycling uptake

Disagree entirely with central line removed on roads.

In west London there are a few roads without lines and drivers just literally drive down the middle of the bloody road creating danger.

That's pretty much how some of the media especially the Daily Mail stance on accidents..

Common sense sadly lacking in this thread.

Is it likely that during a fall, where your head is going to connect with the ground, a helmet would at least prevent some injury....YES. Is a compulsory helmet law likely to put people off cycling....YES? So I will carry on wearing a helmet but I hope they don't ever make them compulsory. You don't need to be an academic or analyse data to see this.

Most people walk much closer to 3kph

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

I fail to see the relevance.
I said "There are numerous circumstances where a helmet may be cracked and not signify it's saved you from certain serious injury." It wasn't an accident, that's what I intended to say. I didn't say is "Helmets don't make a difference to accident outcomes" or "No-one should wear a helmet", or "Medical professionals say helmets are useless". If I'd said any of those things I'd understand your response, but as it is, I don't. I'm glad yourself and your clubmate have both survived your accidents but I don't see what bearing it has on the subject at hand.

I've already stated in earlier posts that I always wear a helmet myself and that I think this is wise for the type of riding I do (fast solo and group training rides, often in the mountains and mostly quiet roads). If I rode in urban areas close to a lot of traffic I think it's a trickier one, but I'd probably still wear it. I'm confident the likelihood of an accident is higher when wearing a helmet. The question for me is whether the helmet is sufficiently likely to reduce resulting injuries to be a net gain. It's not straight forward to answer in some circumstances, easier in others.

But that's not really the point of this thread. The point is whether insisting on helmets and painting non helmet wearers in a negative light is harmful. That seems to be Chris Boardman's view and I largely agree. Getting people on bikes is a huge benefit to public health, whether they wear helmets or not. So don't make helmets an obstacle.

No everyone doesn't think that. A few people seem to have interpreted it that way which may be where much of the disagreement is coming from.

Chris Boardman lost his mother to a distracted driver; no helmet can protect you against a car
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLNcQB1TSgE


pro career:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLNcQB1TSgE


On cycling in the Netherlands vs UK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq28fU2AuMU

---

Anne Barnes
ABBikefit, Ltd
FIST/SICI/FIST DOWN DEEP
X/Y Coordinator
abbikefit@gmail.com

Except the consequences don’t end with them. They also flow to us.

What justifies your "YES"
I take it you see this as being obvious, but it's not a given.

As I recall, while helmets do help with direct impacts where they reduce probability of skull fractures and reduce maximum acceleration of the head, they can make indirect impacts worse.
A helmet increases the radius of your head and many have protrusions, especially at the top and back. Both elements increase the risk of the helmet snaging and the ground violently rotating your head one direction or the other. It's my understanding that these rotations are among the most dangerous movements as they often cause rupture of blood vessels in the cranium and can also lead to severe spinal injuries. My choice of helmets has always been partially guided by the shape for this reason. Helmets that are more spherical will generally be safer but less aerodynamic.

Maybe it's not just simple common sense. Maybe there's more to it than you realise.

Just reiterating the point made by earlier posters, but it's a very different thing to insist or legally mandate helmet use for common general riders going down the block at like 7-10mph on their casual bike, vs an aggressive racing rider going 25+mph, and often in a pack. One should obviously use them helmet, but the other it's honestly overkill for and does discourage general bicycling.

As I recall this study was aimed mostly at roads through smaller towns where drivers would tend to drive too fast. However when the median line was removed they tended to slow down. The conclusion was that drivers felt less secure and were more alert and cautious. I can see how the effect may be different under different circumstances and I've seen the behaviour you mention in some parts of Dublin myself.

So those people bike at 21-45 km/h? Not where I live.

---

Greetings from the German Wine Route,
Roland

If you mean the Walker study, they effectively retracted that. Here is the re-analysis: Bicycle Helmet Wearing Is Not Associated with Close Motor Vehicle Passing: A Re-Analysis of Walker, 2007

Here is the conclusion: "After re-analysis of Walker's data, helmet wearing is not associated with close motor vehicle passing. The results, however, highlight other more important factors that may inform effective bicycle safety strategies."

No helmet can offer complete protection, but if my head is going to go through a car windshield, I'd prefer a helmet to no helmet.

I don't believe that's a fair characterization of the literature.



That's just sophistry. Made irrelevant by seatbelts and airbags, which serve the same purpose (mitigating the transfer of energy from a collision from being absorbed by the skull), but are more convenient due to the obvious advantage cars have in terms of having the space for gear. But effectively impossible on bikes (though I believe some company has experimented with bike helmet airbags.)

So I'll flip that back around at you: should seatbelts and airbags be legally mandated in cars? Even for just a slow trip to the neighborhood store?

I totally disagree. It is not sophistry and it's not irrelevant. I don't have time to get into this much, but cars are much more of a head injury risk than you think, and bikes are much less. You as a bike racer should probably wear a helmet. There really is no reason for people tootling around town to wear one. There's tons of evidence that it doesn't do anything (despite many people seemingly just *knowing* otherwise without any evidence).

I don't know the data on this but it's a reasonable question. Cars are deadly to everyone around them: the occupants, pedestrians, cyclists, etc. (Bikes are not BTW.) If seat belts and airbags save enough lives to be worth the cost (low for the former, high for the latter), then yeah I think they should be mandated. If there was any evidence bike helmets saved a lot of lives I would think they should be mandated too, but there isn't. Same standard for both.

:) I worked at Nissan Basic Research in car safety, risk analysis. Bring it.

Cars are so unlike bikes in so many ways - speed, mass, etc. - I'm holding that you're just playing a "win the internet argument" game, not really engaging in a meaningful analysis of relative risk between the two activities.

Edit: And I'm not even pro helmet mandate for recreational riding. I'm just calling out both sides for grossly exaggerating how science supports their "side"of this dogmatic debate.

I certainly do it. I trust a rider with a helmet (and probably other gear, and a decent rode bike, etc.) knows what they are doing and are more likely to hold their line and not doing something stupid. I give more room to riders who don't look competent or look likely to do something stupid, lack of a helmet is part of that picture much of the time.

I agree, without evidence, that the single biggest factors in managing overall risk while riding are probably skill, experience, and awareness. Far more important than helmets. Some of the safest riders I know are non-helmet wearers (except when required by race rules).

There's also scant-to-no evidence that helmet laws benefit overall "public good" in terms of injury prevention.

On the other hand, my reading of the preponderance of the literature is, if you do happen to fall off your bicycle, you're measurably better off with a helmet.

So one solution is to make a helmet that people would use, not that I have a design but I'm sure if we got some <b>influencer</b> level support to make helmets cool it would help.

We need a helmet that folds up and can be stashed into a backpack/purse/etc.

Also in some US stages it's against the law to ride without a seat belt and if in an accident and the insurance company finds out (as in it's logged) then they won't pay out.

2012 just called, it wants its news story back.

And I'm sure Chris will be gutted by your new found lack of respect. Not sure how he will sleep at night now. 🙄

Thanks Ed, an interesting review study. Seems pretty conclusive to me.

Also to Chris Boardmans' point,
"None of the studies included in the review measured pre‐ and post‐legislation cycling participation rates, and so it was not possible to comment on the potential adverse effect of helmet legislation."
my gut says mandatory helmet laws would likely reduce participation, but I've learned not to trust my gut on anything..

was riding around the cul-de-sac last week after twiddling the shifting on son's MTB, the ER nurse up the road yelled at me, 'go home and put on a helmet, I don't want to see you in the ER'. So I did, it was easier than arguing..

I think probably the single because factor is how many vehicles are in your proximity. I generally ride at first light because I'm up, and therefore very few cars at intersections or overtaking me. Just riding an hour or two later probably effectively doubles or triples the number of vehicle interactions. Riding later in the day just seems sort of crazy risky when used to the scant traffic of early morning.

Not always. Its safer to ride in Amsterdam than out in the sticks. Also true of London.

Numbers from Denmark:

In serious bike accidents reported to the police:

16% serious head injuries among cyclists wearing helmet
33% if not wearing helmet

Helmet use in Denmark is voluntary, but school kids have the highest percentage of use (e.g., 89% in 2015 for kids aged 6-9, 70% for 10-12 and 35% for 12+).
From 2004-2015 percentage of head injuries have dropped from 26% to 17% for the age group 0-14. For people aged 15 and above where the helmet use percentage is lower, the drop is only 24% to 22%.

I think it shows that helmet use has value if you’re involved in an accident.

I ride with a helmet 100% of the time, but I am against mandatory helmet use as it will very likely reduce the number of peoples on bikes (studies from Denmark show 16% of current cyclists will bike less or never if helmet was mandatory). This will ultimately reduce my safety (less investment in cyclist infrastructure; less visibility).

Sweden has had mandatory helmet use for school kids 0-15 since 2005, but Denmark actually has a higher helmet use percentage for the same age group!

Edit: my son crashed on the trails on his MTB and broke his helmet (and lost some teeth). It is a no-brainer to wear helmet for higher risk activities than cycling to school or work.

Interesting, but generally most people have a choice about what time of day they ride, not so much in riding in drastically different locales. I would guess even Amsterdam and London are safer at 6 am as opposed to 6pm?

Yeah, I'll keep my skid lid..........thx......and nobody should be offended if they're dis-invited from a group for not wearing one. However, I think if you're not riding a tandem with them and they're forcing you to not wear one......keep your opinion to yourself on the road and don't be a Karen.

Ai_1 wrote:

It's fundamental human behaviour that anything which identifies someone as one of "us", or different, or stronger, or weaker, changes our behaviour towards them. Whether it's accent, skin colour, attire, hairstyle, body language, almost anything....

Unfortunately, yes.
https://phys.org/news/2019-03-offcyclists-human-drivers.html

If you add - sometimes - to your sentence then yes I agree (... you're sometimes better off with a helmet). There are some cases where the helmet can exacerbate the injury. Others when it could save you from major injury.

No need to rely on your guts. When mandatory helmet laws were introduced in Australia they had a negative impact on cycling participation/usage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q47nzyBrENM&ab_channel=MashableDeals


There are several "instant" helmets and a folding paper helmet (like a Christmas Paper ornament)

The lack of "sometimes" does not imply "every time." Just statistical risk measurement as a whole.

Don't forget to add that those laws may have had an effect in reducing cycling injuries, at least according to this study, "The impact of bicycle helmet legislation on cycling fatalities in Australia" : ": In the absence of robust evidence showing a decline in cycling exposure following helmet legislation or other confounding factors, the reduction in Australian bicycle-related fatality appears to be primarily due to increased helmet use and not other factors."

Also the studies that found a negative impact on cycling participation studies were countered by other studies. Such as this one. "Anti-helmet arguments: lies, damned lies and flawed statistics" -which concluded that you can't conclude anything about Australia's laws.


I have no read any of the studies well enough to comment. Just pointing out that it's super easy for either side of the argument to point out a few studies and then claim it's correct "because science."

To encourage bike usage, not having helmet requirements makes sense. But after breaking 20 bones and merely sustaining a concussion as opposed to scrambling my eggs, from a common sense standpoint I’ll stick to a lid.

What a fantastic piece. The PDF linked at the bottom of the article is excellent. Great to see folks using data rather than feelings to inform policy.

I'll still wear a helmet, but good to know someone is looking into the actual big-picture effects of policy-making, rather than myopic or one-stage thinking only.

---

Dr. Alex Harrison | Founder & CEO | Sport Physiology & Performance PhD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
📱 Check out our app → Saturday: Pro Fuel & Hydration, a performance nutrition coach in your pocket.
Join us on YouTube → Saturday Morning | Ride & Run Faster and our growing Saturday User Hub