Complaints over bare-headed Chris Boardman’s helmetless BBC Breakfast bike ride

700c wrote:

andyp wrote:

'So basically, nobody is in a position to trash the reasoning of those on the other side of the argument to them, based on their 'facts', since there really aren't any concrete ones.'

The concrete fact here is that *nobody* can prove that their helmet saved their life. That is indisputable, unless you're a complete idiot.

Ha! Love it! That is a concrete fact. That there is no concrete proof to prove they *won't* save your life is a concrete fact too!

Or are you unwilling to accept that?!

There are *plenty* of examples of deaths in people wearing helmets, so no, I can't accept that as it is written. I will however accept that there is a chance that they *might* save your life. And this is why I wear one.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

There's been a lot of posts towards the end of this thread that I haven't read, but as far as I could tell, NOBODY here was mandating anything. If I've missed that post somewhere I apologise. Some people here have pushed logic and reasoning to the most extreme lengths because they seem to be under the impression that anybody who suggests that it's is beneficial to wear a helmet is automatically advocating for their enforcement - which simply is not the case.

I have just realised why you keep bringing up compulsion.
Its certainly true that a lot of us are anti compulsion, whether believers in helmet efficacy or not.
But the reason why I mention states which have a helmet law is that their cases make the failure of wearing to achieve casualty reduction much clearer.
In Australia the wearing rate jumped from about a third to over 90% overnight, without any change in casualty rate but with a big reduction in cycling. The sudden change in wearing rates makes these bad effects much plainer, whereas a gradual increase in wearing because of propaganda may fail in the same way, but is more difficult to pick out against other gradual changes.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

It really is eye-opening how retarded some of you people are.

As far as I can tell, nobody in these comments has called for compulsary helmet wearing.

However, a lot of people have made irrational, nonsensical arguments against helmets - often employing irrelevant personal experiences or completely stupid analogies.

I'd have more respect for you idiots if you simply said you don't want to wear a helmet out of personal choice and shut the f#%k up, rather than trying to make logical arguments your pea sized brains are not equiped to make.

"When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff."
Marcus Tullius Cicero

Yes, accidents could be minimised by much smarter road and cycle path design, competent other users, and limited speed where sensible; however nasty accidents can WTF occur even at low speeds and it is only a matter of time before you injure your head, as I eventually learned the nasty way after years of cycling and only limb graze and bruise crashes, so it is tempting fate not to wearing a helmet.

The killed NZ cyclists were probably either wearing "lid" helmets or suffered other fatal momentum impact injuries e.g. a broken neck.

Most people who wear bicycle helmets wear "lids". All "lid" bicycle helmets compromise dent resistance and helmet area for lightness and ventilation, for often negligent protection standards; this compromises impact injury protection by limiting the area an impact is cushioned and spread over the skull, so limits protection from head injury, including brain impact on the inside of the skull; they also provide inadequate protection for the front and lower back of the skull, because I know 1st hand that a chin strap will not completely stop a helmet moving on the head during a crash!

Helmets with less ventilation area, a tougher skin, larger head area protection and more padding, can make head injury less likely; the best of these are proper full face MTB downhill helmets. FYI: from personal crash experience, the MET Parachute is a "lid" excuse for a full face MTB helmet (the 2014 model looks little different), so best avoided.

700c wrote:

The argument by Boardman in this article that using a lot of PPE might be putting some people off cycling is persuasive, but I'd wager that even greater factors are the volume of traffic and lack of decent cycling infrastructure, plus number of deaths reported recently, which conspire to make cycling on UK roads seem dangerous.

Not quite, Boardmans argument is stop talking about PPE until we have sorted out the rest of the solution. Deal with traffic, deal with infrastructure, etc. Look at how much time and effort has been wasted in this thread, and countless other ones.

There is no evidence that helmets are a good thing overall, there is plenty of evidence that not being hit by a car is a good thing. However, rather than deal with the elephant in the room, everyone is focusing on the pointless solution that may not work.

Obviously cycle paths cost money, policing costs money, helmets, well the victim is picking up the tab and government takes the credit by being seen to do something.

andyp wrote:

'So basically, nobody is in a position to trash the reasoning of those on the other side of the argument to them, based on their 'facts', since there really aren't any concrete ones.'

The concrete fact here is that *nobody* can prove that their helmet saved their life. That is indisputable, unless you're a complete idiot.

Ha! Love it! That is a concrete fact. That there is no concrete proof to prove they *won't* save your life is a concrete fact too!

Or are you unwilling to accept that?!

Tony wrote:

"When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff."
Marcus Tullius Cicero

Having made my argument much earlier today in these comments, and having had nobody actually argue against what I said - only what some morons misconstrued from my comments - your pointless little quote is, well, pointless. I will concede that I was rude and quite happily so - that was the intention. However, I can always stop being rude any time i choose to, but as the great Ron White said, "you can't fix stupid", "stupid is forever!" - "there isn't a pill you can take or a class you can go to". So you're pretty much stuck. How about that for a quote that has no meaning to this discussion, but quite aptly sums up the problem people will have dealing with the likes of you and muppets like felixcat?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F-tHAPfhTtA

urbane wrote:

however nasty accidents can WTF occur even at low speeds and it is only a matter of time before you injure your head, as I eventually learned the nasty way after years of cycling and only limb graze and bruise crashes

I think your statement tells us more about your proficiency as a cyclist, with your frequent limb grazes and bruise crashes, than about whether helmets make you safer.

There has been no clear statistical evidence that helmets make people safer, unlike car seat belts or motorcycle helmets or separate cycling paths. Actual scientists have actual proof that those work, unlike bicycle helmets. We do know that helmet-laws cause less cycling and more injuries. Cyclists are also often blamed for their injuries when they don't wear one.

So the unscientific claims about the usefulness of helmets bolster the enemies of cycling. It allows them to pretend to care for cyclists while doing something that doesn't cost any tax-payer money and just inconveniences cyclists. It's the classic strategy of doing something that doesn't work, but seems logical and has solid support by the less-informed among your enemy. So you divide the opposition, to weaken them. At the same time, the even less informed general population gets convinced that plenty has been done, so support for measures that actually work is eroded.

mrmo wrote:

700c wrote:

The argument by Boardman in this article that using a lot of PPE might be putting some people off cycling is persuasive, but I'd wager that even greater factors are the volume of traffic and lack of decent cycling infrastructure, plus number of deaths reported recently, which conspire to make cycling on UK roads seem dangerous.

Not quite, Boardmans argument is stop talking about PPE until we have sorted out the rest of the solution. Deal with traffic, deal with infrastructure, etc. Look at how much time and effort has been wasted in this thread, and countless other ones.

There is no evidence that helmets are a good thing overall, there is plenty of evidence that not being hit by a car is a good thing. However, rather than deal with the elephant in the room, everyone is focusing on the pointless solution that may not work.

Obviously cycle paths cost money, policing costs money, helmets, well the victim is picking up the tab and government takes the credit by being seen to do something.

I don't think we're in disagreement, mrmo.

Now get back to your safe infrastructure planning and road safety policy implementation and stop posting on this thread!

LinusLarrabee wrote:

"you can't fix stupid", "stupid is forever!"

Oh, the irony.

Aapje wrote:

urbane wrote:

however nasty accidents can WTF occur even at low speeds and it is only a matter of time before you injure your head, as I eventually learned the nasty way after years of cycling and only limb graze and bruise crashes

I think your statement tells us more about your proficiency as a cyclist, with your frequent limb grazes and bruise crashes, than about whether helmets make you safer.

There has been no clear statistical evidence that helmets make people safer, unlike car seat belts or motorcycle helmets or separate cycling paths. Actual scientists have actual proof that those work, unlike bicycle helmets. We do know that helmet-laws cause less cycling and more injuries. Cyclists are also often blamed for their injuries when they don't wear one.

So the unscientific claims about the usefulness of helmets bolster the enemies of cycling. It allows them to pretend to care for cyclists while doing something that doesn't cost any tax-payer money and just inconveniences cyclists. It's the classic strategy of doing something that doesn't work, but seems logical and has solid support by the less-informed among your enemy. So you divide the opposition, to weaken them. At the same time, the even less informed general population gets convinced that plenty has been done, so support for measures that actually work is eroded.

You really should do more research before you make such unsubstantiated (or worse misleading) statements. As a starter check out the Snell Foundation:

http://www.smf.org/helmetfaq#aWhyHelmet

700c wrote:

Now get back to your safe infrastructure planning and road safety policy implementation and stop posting on this thread!

There is only so many times you can abuse Worcestershire and Gloucestershire county councils before they take out a restraining order

Aapje wrote:

urbane wrote:

however nasty accidents can WTF occur even at low speeds and it is only a matter of time before you injure your head, as I eventually learned the nasty way after years of cycling and only limb graze and bruise crashes

I think your statement tells us more about your proficiency as a cyclist, with your frequent limb grazes and bruise crashes, than about whether helmets make you safer.

There has been no clear statistical evidence that helmets make people safer, unlike car seat belts or motorcycle helmets or separate cycling paths. Actual scientists have actual proof that those work, unlike bicycle helmets. We do know that helmet-laws cause less cycling and more injuries. Cyclists are also often blamed for their injuries when they don't wear one.

So the unscientific claims about the usefulness of helmets bolster the enemies of cycling. It allows them to pretend to care for cyclists while doing something that doesn't cost any tax-payer money and just inconveniences cyclists. It's the classic strategy of doing something that doesn't work, but seems logical and has solid support by the less-informed among your enemy. So you divide the opposition, to weaken them. At the same time, the even less informed general population gets convinced that plenty has been done, so support for measures that actually work is eroded.

You really should do more research before you make such unsubstantiated (or worse misleading) statements. As a starter check out the Snell Foundation who will provide some enlightenment for you.

You make the same mistake as so many others on here by confusing objectives, i.e. wanting to promote cycling (entirely laudable) with the use of helmets as an inhibitor (different subject entirely).

RTB wrote:

You make the same mistake as so many others on here by confusing objectives, i.e. wanting to promote cycling (entirely laudable) with the use of helmets as an inhibitor (different subject entirely).

But the two are inextricably linked! The promotion (or worse, the mandating) of helmets for cycling reinforces the view that cycling is a dangerous activity, which in turn can and does discourage people from cycling, working against the promotion of cycling.

graham_f wrote:

RTB wrote:

You make the same mistake as so many others on here by confusing objectives, i.e. wanting to promote cycling (entirely laudable) with the use of helmets as an inhibitor (different subject entirely).

But the two are inextricably linked! The promotion (or worse, the mandating) of helmets for cycling reinforces the view that cycling is a dangerous activity, which in turn can and does discourage people from cycling, working against the promotion of cycling.

No Graham they are not "inextricably linked" they are tenuously (loosely) linked at the most.

So many posters on here seem to be peddling the argument, like Boardman, 'don't force people to wear cycling helmets lest you will disincentivise them from taking up cycling'. It is so lame it is naff.

It is big levers like Olympic & TdF success, increased TV exposure, high profile women's teams and stars like Vicky, Laura, Dani and Joanna that incentivise people (notably women) to take up the sport/pastime not in/out red-herrings like use of helmets which are, as most would acknowledge, an inherently sensible measure.

RTB wrote:

graham_f wrote:

RTB wrote:

You make the same mistake as so many others on here by confusing objectives, i.e. wanting to promote cycling (entirely laudable) with the use of helmets as an inhibitor (different subject entirely).

But the two are inextricably linked! The promotion (or worse, the mandating) of helmets for cycling reinforces the view that cycling is a dangerous activity, which in turn can and does discourage people from cycling, working against the promotion of cycling.

No Graham they are not "inextricably linked" they are tenuously (loosely) linked at the most.

So many posters on here seem to be peddling the argument, like Boardman, 'don't force people to wear cycling helmets lest you will disincentivise them from taking up cycling'. It is so lame it is naff.

It is big levers like Olympic & TdF success, increased TV exposure, high profile women's teams and stars like Vicky, Laura, Dani and Joanna that incentivise people (notably women) to take up the sport/pastime not in/out red-herrings like use of helmets which are, as most would acknowledge, an inherently sensible measure.

"so lame it's naff"? Isn't it backed up by the figures from places that have brought in helmet laws?

I suspect that being forced or encouraged to wear a helmet has a stronger influence on people's desire to start utility cycling than seeing lycra-clad sports men and women competing in the Olympics. The levels of influence are probably different for people taking up cycling as a sport, but what CB is talking about is normal people in normal clothes, cycling to get around. Very different things.

RTB wrote:

No Graham they are not "inextricably linked" they are tenuously (loosely) linked at the most.

Out of interest, which bit would you dispute - that telling people that they should wear a helmet reinforces the view that cycling is dangerous, or that holding the view that cycling is dangerous makes people less likely to cycle?

graham_f wrote:

RTB wrote:

No Graham they are not "inextricably linked" they are tenuously (loosely) linked at the most.

Out of interest, which bit would you dispute - that telling people that they should wear a helmet reinforces the view that cycling is dangerous, or that holding the view that cycling is dangerous makes people less likely to cycle?

Neither of these paradigms is my point or concern. I have a libertarian perspective: free speech; free choice. There is no law or planned law (that I know of) to compulsorise the use of cycling helmets nor would I push for one - in fact I am very ambivalent about this part of the debate.

RTB wrote:

graham_f wrote:

Out of interest, which bit would you dispute - that telling people that they should wear a helmet reinforces the view that cycling is dangerous, or that holding the view that cycling is dangerous makes people less likely to cycle?

Neither of these paradigms is my point or concern. I have a libertarian perspective: free speech; free choice. There is no law or planned law (that I know of) to compulsorise the use of cycling helmets nor would I push for one - in fact I am very ambivalent about this part of the debate.

But you were disputing the promotion of helmet wearing having a detrimental effect on the promotion of cycling:

RTB wrote:

graham_f wrote:

But the two are inextricably linked! The promotion (or worse, the mandating) of helmets for cycling reinforces the view that cycling is a dangerous activity, which in turn can and does discourage people from cycling, working against the promotion of cycling.

No Graham they are not "inextricably linked" they are tenuously (loosely) linked at the most.

So many posters on here seem to be peddling the argument, like Boardman, 'don't force people to wear cycling helmets lest you will disincentivise them from taking up cycling'. It is so lame it is naff.

My argument is that by promoting helmet use you put people off cycling. That is based on the two premises above - that promoting helmet use reinforces the view that cycling is dangerous, and that thinking cycling is dangerous puts people off doing it. If you disagree with my argument, that suggests that you disagree with one or both of those premises, or the link between them. I'm curious to know which it is.

graham_f wrote:

RTB wrote:

graham_f wrote:

Out of interest, which bit would you dispute - that telling people that they should wear a helmet reinforces the view that cycling is dangerous, or that holding the view that cycling is dangerous makes people less likely to cycle?

Neither of these paradigms is my point or concern. I have a libertarian perspective: free speech; free choice. There is no law or planned law (that I know of) to compulsorise the use of cycling helmets nor would I push for one - in fact I am very ambivalent about this part of the debate.

But you were disputing the promotion of helmet wearing having a detrimental effect on the promotion of cycling:

RTB wrote:

graham_f wrote:

But the two are inextricably linked! The promotion (or worse, the mandating) of helmets for cycling reinforces the view that cycling is a dangerous activity, which in turn can and does discourage people from cycling, working against the promotion of cycling.

No Graham they are not "inextricably linked" they are tenuously (loosely) linked at the most.

So many posters on here seem to be peddling the argument, like Boardman, 'don't force people to wear cycling helmets lest you will disincentivise them from taking up cycling'. It is so lame it is naff.

My argument is that by promoting helmet use you put people off cycling. That is based on the two premises above - that promoting helmet use reinforces the view that cycling is dangerous, and that thinking cycling is dangerous puts people off doing it. If you disagree with my argument, that suggests that you disagree with one or both of those premises, or the link between them. I'm curious to know which it is.

"promotion of helmet wearing having a detrimental effect on the promotion of cycling"

Yes I do dispute that; it is a preposterous proposition that people might choose not to cycle because they might feel pressured into having to wear a helmet (which btw they don't). Either people want to cycle or not and if the suggestion that the only (or major) thing preventing them doing it is having to wear a helmet (or to spend 20, 30 etc quid on one) was the showstopper then I would suggest they were never that serious or motivated in the first place about wanting to cycle.

RTB wrote:

Yes I do dispute that; it is a preposterous proposition that people might choose not to cycle because they might feel pressured into having to wear a helmet (which btw they don't). Either people want to cycle or not and if the suggestion that the only (or major) thing preventing them doing it is having to wear a helmet (or to spend 20, 30 etc quid on one) was the showstopper then I would suggest they were never that serious or motivated in the first place about wanting to cycle.

Look at the evidence from NZ, Australia, et al.

Compulsory helmets mean less cycling.

If your racing, helmets are not an issue, if your utility cycling then they are.

mrmo wrote:

RTB wrote:

Yes I do dispute that; it is a preposterous proposition that people might choose not to cycle because they might feel pressured into having to wear a helmet (which btw they don't). Either people want to cycle or not and if the suggestion that the only (or major) thing preventing them doing it is having to wear a helmet (or to spend 20, 30 etc quid on one) was the showstopper then I would suggest they were never that serious or motivated in the first place about wanting to cycle.

Look at the evidence from NZ, Australia, et al.

Compulsory helmets mean less cycling.

If your racing, helmets are not an issue, if your utility cycling then they are.

Really, was that the conclusion? The only factor? I doubt it very much. Like I said elsewhere helmets are an excuse in the whole piece not a reason.

RTB wrote:

Really, was that the conclusion? The only factor? I doubt it very much. Like I said elsewhere helmets are an excuse in the whole piece not a reason.

Law passed, helmet use mandated, cycling levels fall, injury levels per cyclist per km remain constant.

i.e. less cyclists and no benefit to the cyclists left.

mrmo wrote:

RTB wrote:

Really, was that the conclusion? The only factor? I doubt it very much. Like I said elsewhere helmets are an excuse in the whole piece not a reason.

Law passed, helmet use mandated, cycling levels fall, injury levels per cyclist per km remain constant.

i.e. less cyclists and no benefit to the cyclists left.

Really? So all those cycles of people who now had to use a helmet are currently rusting away in sheds and garages (assuming none of them would be on anything carbon) and the people are now doing what?

Just not credible at all and you also have to ask in those countries (to reiterate I am ambivalent about helmet wearing being compulsory) why it was introduced as law.

RTB wrote:

mrmo wrote:

RTB wrote:

Really, was that the conclusion? The only factor? I doubt it very much. Like I said elsewhere helmets are an excuse in the whole piece not a reason.

Law passed, helmet use mandated, cycling levels fall, injury levels per cyclist per km remain constant.

i.e. less cyclists and no benefit to the cyclists left.

Really? So all those cycles of people who now had to use a helmet are currently rusting away in sheds and garages (assuming none of them would be on anything carbon) and the people are now doing what?

Just not credible at all and you also have to ask in those countries (to reiterate I am ambivalent about helmet wearing being compulsory) why it was introduced as law.

But it was measured by respected scientists who concluded that it actually happened. So when you say that it is 'Just not credible,' we are getting at the point where your beliefs are not consistent with scientifically established fact.

That is the point where you either change your mind or decide that the things that 'feel right' are more important than the actual truth. Your call.

RTB wrote:

Just not credible at all and you also have to ask in those countries (to reiterate I am ambivalent about helmet wearing being compulsory) why it was introduced as law.

Why was it introduced, because car driving politicians can claim they have done something without having to spend money, and the exact argument you are using, surely a helmet is better than no helmet.

It allows politicians to claim they are doing something, but rather than enforce traffic laws, which cost them money, or cycle paths, which cost them money, helmets cost the government nothing, in fact until recently the government charged VAT so made money!

RTB wrote:

Yes I do dispute that; it is a preposterous proposition that people might choose not to cycle because they might feel pressured into having to wear a helmet (which btw they don't). Either people want to cycle or not and if the suggestion that the only (or major) thing preventing them doing it is having to wear a helmet (or to spend 20, 30 etc quid on one) was the showstopper then I would suggest they were never that serious or motivated in the first place about wanting to cycle.

You're (I suspect deliberately) missing the point of what I'm writing, but hey-ho, I'll try again. Being told that you should wear a helmet to take part in an activity reinforces the view that that activity is dangerous. In the case of utility cycling the statistics don't back that up, and the level of risk isn't significantly different from other everyday activities like walking and driving. I'm not suggesting people are put of cycling by having to wear a helmet (although some may be) or having to spend £20-30 on one. I'm suggesting that being told they should wear a helmet makes them think it's dangerous, and the perceived danger puts them off doing it.

graham_f wrote:

RTB wrote:

Yes I do dispute that; it is a preposterous proposition that people might choose not to cycle because they might feel pressured into having to wear a helmet (which btw they don't). Either people want to cycle or not and if the suggestion that the only (or major) thing preventing them doing it is having to wear a helmet (or to spend 20, 30 etc quid on one) was the showstopper then I would suggest they were never that serious or motivated in the first place about wanting to cycle.

You're (I suspect deliberately) missing the point of what I'm writing, but hey-ho, I'll try again. Being told that you should wear a helmet to take part in an activity reinforces the view that that activity is dangerous. In the case of utility cycling the statistics don't back that up, and the level of risk isn't significantly different from other everyday activities like walking and driving. I'm not suggesting people are put of cycling by having to wear a helmet (although some may be) or having to spend £20-30 on one. I'm suggesting that being told they should wear a helmet makes them think it's dangerous, and the perceived danger puts them off doing it.

"I'm suggesting that being told they should wear a helmet makes them think it's dangerous, and the perceived danger puts them off doing it"

I don't buy that at all and more to the point I have seen nothing empirical to support it. It is all about perception and it is in the eye of the beholder what constitutes danger and at what threshold.

Helmet use in cycling is increasing and will contiue to do so whether legislated or not. The amount of cyclists on the roads, road and MTB, is increasing and most of those (high 90 percentile - anyone disagree?) will be wearing helmets so it is there in full glare every day for people to see for themselves and make their own conclusions and perceptions as to whether cycling is dangerous or not or more pertinently whether it is for them or not. This is why I say this whole debate around helmets is a moot point in your context.

Helmet use in cycling is a forward gear only juggernaut. You cannot stop it or put it in reverse. The genie is out of the bottle and the most disappointing thing about this recent action by Boardman, who I utterly adore in every other facet, is that he is stooping to grandstanding and stunts which just undermines his substance.

RTB wrote:

"I'm suggesting that being told they should wear a helmet makes them think it's dangerous, and the perceived danger puts them off doing it"

I don't buy that at all and more to the point I have seen nothing empirical to support it. It is all about perception and it is in the eye of the beholder what constitutes danger and at what threshold.

OK, which bit don't you buy - that being told they should wear a helmet makes people think cycling's dangerous, or that thinking it's dangerous puts them off cycling?

RTB wrote:

Helmet use in cycling is increasing and will contiue to do so whether legislated or not. The amount of cyclists on the roads, road and MTB, is increasing and most of those (high 90 percentile - anyone disagree?) will be wearing helmets so it is there in full glare every day for people to see for themselves and make their own conclusions and perceptions as to whether cycling is dangerous or not or more pertinently whether it is for them or not. This is why I say this whole debate around helmets is a moot point in your context.

Helmet use in cycling is a forward gear only juggernaut. You cannot stop it or put it in reverse. The genie is out of the bottle and the most disappointing thing about this recent action by Boardman, who I utterly adore in every other facet, is that he is stooping to grandstanding and stunts which just undermines his substance.

No, you're wrong. The lead in utility cycling is provided by The Netherlands, where helmet use is virtually unknown and yet also has by far the best cycling safety record.

*That's* what Boardman is trying to demonstrate ... but obviously it went straight over your helmeted head.

Cycling without a helmet is not a "stunt". It's a perfectly safe and normal thing to do. I've been cycling for 50 years and it has never even occurred to me to wear a helmet.

Tonight I'll be walking to the pub to have a few drinks and then walking back home. Statistically that's a far more dangerous activity than cycling whilst sober. I'm going to take a chance though and NOT wear a helmet.