Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [mattsurf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mattsurf wrote:
....I challenge anyone to argue that a fall, serious enought to crack a helmet did not prevent a significant head injury
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.
mattsurf wrote:
....It is utter bullshit to say that cars take more care passing riders without helmets. Likewise cyclists wearing helmets do not take more risks
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [Ai_1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [Ai_1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [Dean T] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dean T wrote:
Don’t need, and don’t care, do not mean don’t understand....
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".
Dean T wrote:
...Don’t read something into a post that’s not there. None of the bullshit in this thread, will bring my friends back.
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [mattsurf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [mattsurf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mattsurf wrote:
How many accidents happen when people take risks? it seems to me that most bike accidents happen when people lose concentration.
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!

mattsurf wrote:
...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...
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?

mattsurf wrote:
...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 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

mattsurf wrote:
...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.
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [Ai_1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ai_1 wrote:
mattsurf wrote:
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.

2 weeks ago we had a crash in the club, Guy was traveling at around 60kph (40mph) on a descent when he came off. Air Ambulance was called, luckily the rider only suffered concussion, was kept in Hospital overnight, and had to take a week and a half off work. His helmet was intact, but seriously damaged, in all probability, had he not been wearing a helmet he would have suffered more serious injuries, which could have been fatal. This is a pretty typical accident scenario, a few years ago a similar thing happened to me, air ambulance, badly damaged helmet, moderate concussion. I believe that the helmet saved my life, the doctors told me that the helmet probably saved my life. Bike helmets are not perfect, we know that, they offer limited protection, however, that protection is often sufficient to make a big difference to the outcome in an accident
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [timbasile] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
timbasile wrote:
carlosflanders wrote:
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.

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.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [carlosflanders] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Last edited by: mattsurf: Sep 16, 20 7:27
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [TriStart] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [Dean T] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dean T wrote:
.

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 .

Are you suggesting that not wearing a helmet increases the risk of injury?
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [knighty76] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
knighty76 wrote:
hadukla wrote:
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.

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.

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
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [hadukla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
hadukla wrote:
knighty76 wrote:
hadukla wrote:
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.


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.


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.
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RowToTri wrote:
Obviously I have not paid enough attention.

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

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
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [Ai_1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ai_1 wrote:
mattsurf wrote:
....I challenge anyone to argue that a fall, serious enought to crack a helmet did not prevent a significant head injury
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.
mattsurf wrote:
....It is utter bullshit to say that cars take more care passing riders without helmets. Likewise cyclists wearing helmets do not take more risks
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.

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.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [FtStri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
FtStri wrote:
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?

That's pretty much how some of the media especially the Daily Mail stance on accidents..
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [RolandG] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Most people walk much closer to 3kph

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [mattsurf] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mattsurf wrote:
Ai_1 wrote:
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.


2 weeks ago we had a crash in the club, Guy was traveling at around 60kph (40mph) on a descent when he came off. Air Ambulance was called, luckily the rider only suffered concussion, was kept in Hospital overnight, and had to take a week and a half off work. His helmet was intact, but seriously damaged, in all probability, had he not been wearing a helmet he would have suffered more serious injuries, which could have been fatal. This is a pretty typical accident scenario, a few years ago a similar thing happened to me, air ambulance, badly damaged helmet, moderate concussion. I believe that the helmet saved my life, the doctors told me that the helmet probably saved my life. Bike helmets are not perfect, we know that, they offer limited protection, however, that protection is often sufficient to make a big difference to the outcome in an accident

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.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [Sulliesbrew] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sulliesbrew wrote:
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.
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [Traphaus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RowToTri wrote:
hadukla wrote:
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.

I agree with this.

I also disagree with promoting helmet-free role models.

Except the consequences don’t end with them. They also flow to us.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [Joss1965] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Joss1965 wrote:
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.
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [Traphaus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Traphaus wrote:
Dean T wrote:
.

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 .


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

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.
Quote Reply
Re: Chris Boardman is apparently anti-helmet. [cowboy7] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
cowboy7 wrote:
Ai_1 wrote:
mattsurf wrote:
....I challenge anyone to argue that a fall, serious enought to crack a helmet did not prevent a significant head injury

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

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.


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.
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.
Quote Reply

Prev Next