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

a.jumper wrote:

Not if you bought it recently, it probably won't! Most helmet producers now prefer to pass only the minimum CPSC or EN standards and not the tougher Snell tests. The biggest difference is that Snell simulate falling onto a large rock - an idealised smooth rock, but still better than no rock.

I think, that Specialized are the only mainstream brand still using Snell and they use an old snell standard rather than the newer harder one.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

The question, if a person is deciding to wear a helmet, should be: are there any instances where wearing a helmet is beneficial to safety and are there any instances where doing so is detrimental to safety.

Don't you think a helmet might occasionally help a car user or pedestrian? If you think like this surely you wear a helmet in the car or walking?

felixcat wrote:

Don't you think a helmet might occasionally help a car user or pedestrian? If you think like this surely you wear a helmet in the car or walking?

bendertherobot wrote:

There were 700 stair deaths in 2010. It seems to me that wearing a helmet on stairs is not detrimental to safety but may well benefit you. Ergo we should all wear helmets on stairs.

As a purely logical exercise, then yes, it would be beneficial to wear a helmet in these circumstances. But, as I clearly wrote above, determining if something is beneficial is completely different from determining if something should be compulsory. But those amongst us who are cerebrally challenged seem incapable of understanding that difference - which is probably why you are making the irrational argument that helmets are not beneficial when what you really want to say is you just don't want to be forced to use them or you are just feeling silly when you arguments don't hold water.

Simon E wrote:

Then I can safely ignore every single comment you make, as you are obviously not interested in the facts.

That would be fine by me, except for your complete misrepresentation of what I've said so far. But even then, given how you have irrationally extrapolated that everything I say is irrelevant based on a specific answer to a direct comment to me taken out of context, it is clear that your opinion is of no value at all.

Guys, I can go all day - I've got all the time in the world. I'm happy to sit here making you look stupid and quite frankly I'm having fun doing it. So bring it on.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

Guys, I can go all day - I've got all the time in the world. I'm happy to sit here making you look stupid and quite frankly I'm having fun doing it. So bring it on.

You are deluded on this as well. Your arguments have been exploded.

felixcat wrote:

700c wrote:

Most people walk at around 3-4 mph at a steady pace. I tend to cycle at speeds between 10-35 mph on my commute

So you're not comparing like with like. A helmet may offer protection from a fall at cycling speeds. They're fairly redundant when walking.

so a bike helmet may be use to you if you come of your bike, whether through your own fault or that of other road users. They're particularly useful when mountain biking, as the chances of an 'off' are probably higher.

If you are unlucky enough to suffer a direct head injury from two tonnes of vehicle, then the helmet is unlikely to help you, whether walking, cycling, or in a vehicle itself

Is this meant to be an argument for wearing bike helmets but not car helmets or walking helmets?
The figures show that the head injury rates for all three modes are roughly the same. The rates are certainly not different enough to make a distinction in risk levels.
The question remains: is cycling so much more dangerous that a helmet is needed? Or is there something about being on a bike that makes a helmet so much more effective?
Boardman was not riding off road, or talking about riding off road. (and no one posting above mentioned mountain biking) He is being attacked for going lidless on the highway.
Cycling on the road is not so uniquely dangerous that it needs a helmet, and all the fuss about lids only makes it seem to be something that the average citizen should avoid.

See above post, where I think I've addressed most of the points, but it's an argument about applying common sense more than anything I think!

I think if someone wants to wear a helmet, or chooses not to, for any given activity it is based on their evaluation and perception of risk. I don't think using statistics, which can of course be misleading or lead to erroneous conclusions, is going to persuade anyone either way, since it is a personal choice

I certainly agree that mandating the use of helmets or special clothing would be detrimental to cycling take up, if that's the point you're making? Cyclists come in all shapes sizes and outfits, and I wouldn't enforce helmets any more than i would ban them, I think 'normal' cycling should encompass everything from lycra pro style to jeans/ hipster / suit /casual whatever.

Freedom of choice will encourage the most amount of people to cycle, rather than expecting them to confirm to a certain type.

Certainly some non cycling drivers are guilty of this by expecting hi viz and helmets, riding in the gutter etc, but hopefully most of us are more enlightened on here?

RTB wrote:

Reply to: posted by oozaveared [677 posts]
5th November 2014 - 12:45

I have a degree in engineering and your calculations are wrong. Far too simplistic for a start (you cannot simply use F=ma =>/2 = E (in joules) to work out the force and energy imparted to the head in an impact) and your implicit assumptions are so incorrect to make it fundamentally flawed.

Kinetic energy in this case, as measured in joules, is applied to (and dissipated across) the whole object, i.e. not just the head (primary assumption that you made incorrectly). In order to correctly calculate it you would probably need to do a FEA using a range of scenarios around that - as the professionals do.

Of course a helmet will do you no good in an impact with a car - an air filled Michelin suit wouldn't help you either. Why would you argue the obvious? Not once did I argue or suggest they would.

Snell standards do cover cycling btw if you care to visit their site. A simple look inside your cycle helmet, if you have one will confirm that to you.

Of course it's a simplistic formula. I pointed you at the website with the full research findings and references. Oh you didn't look at that? Thought you'd get the "I'm an engineer" card out. Look we can make it as complicated as you like but it doesn't change the fact that the helmet is only rated for 50 J and please tell the boys and girls in as complex way as you like whether that's quite a lot of impact protection or sweet FA: ie more like the amount to protect a small child in a relatively low speed crash. or the sort of amount that might benefit an adult in a much faster crash?

and I mention that it won't protect you in a crash with a vehicle because that's the reason why people, generally non cyclists, advocate their use on the road. Yes incredible as it seems a lot of people advocate compulsory helmet use because they think it protects cyclists when they are hit by vehicles. Look at the news reports. Cyclist killed by left turning lorry. Not wearing a helmet. Cyclist killed in dual carriageway hit at 60mph by a lorry - not wearing a helmet. The implication being that you can survive being hit by a 38 tonne lorry at 60mph generating an impact force of nearly 7,000,000 joules if only you were wearing a styrofoam helmet rated for 50.

Now Mr "this is ever so complicated I'm an engineer you know" are you telling us dunces that a helmet will make a blind bit of difference if you get hit by a vehicle.

Use complicated words if you like but what's the answer?

700c wrote:

See above post, where I think I've addressed most of the points, but it's an argument about applying common sense more than anything I think!

I think if someone wants to wear a helmet, or chooses not to, for any given activity it is based on their evaluation and perception of risk. I don't think using statistics, which can of course be misleading or lead to erroneous conclusions, is going to persuade anyone either way, since it is a personal choice

We obviously agree on many points, but I cannot share your willingness to dismiss statistics.
If common sense or personal impressions were a good guide to the truth we would not need science. Science uses statistics to validate theories, (or otherwise). Medicine assesses the effectiveness of drugs with studies which are statistically evaluated. I expect you take the drugs prescribed by your doctor. For all I know you may believe in homeopathy, but I don't. I believe what the science (statistics) tells me.
When we add up the numbers we find that sitting in a car or walking the streets leads to head injuries at much the same rate as cycling.
Cycling really is not so much more dangerous than other everyday activities that it needs a helmet.
The Netherlands has a much lower rate of cycling injury per mile ridden not because of helmet wearing, but because of different road conditions.
Oz and NZ kill cyclists at several times our rate in spite of near universal helmet wearing.
So expanded polystyrene is also irrelevant.

oozaveared wrote:

RTB wrote:

Reply to: posted by oozaveared [677 posts]
5th November 2014 - 12:45

I have a degree in engineering and your calculations are wrong. Far too simplistic for a start (you cannot simply use F=ma =>/2 = E (in joules) to work out the force and energy imparted to the head in an impact) and your implicit assumptions are so incorrect to make it fundamentally flawed.

Kinetic energy in this case, as measured in joules, is applied to (and dissipated across) the whole object, i.e. not just the head (primary assumption that you made incorrectly). In order to correctly calculate it you would probably need to do a FEA using a range of scenarios around that - as the professionals do.

Of course a helmet will do you no good in an impact with a car - an air filled Michelin suit wouldn't help you either. Why would you argue the obvious? Not once did I argue or suggest they would.

Snell standards do cover cycling btw if you care to visit their site. A simple look inside your cycle helmet, if you have one will confirm that to you.

Of course it's a simplistic formula. I pointed you at the website with the full research findings and references. Oh you didn't look at that? Thought you'd get the "I'm an engineer" card out. Look we can make it as complicated as you like but it doesn't change the fact that the helmet is only rated for 50 J and please tell the boys and girls in as complex way as you like whether that's quite a lot of impact protection or sweet FA: ie more like the amount to protect a small child in a relatively low speed crash. or the sort of amount that might benefit an adult in a much faster crash?

and I mention that it won't protect you in a crash with a vehicle because that's the reason why people, generally non cyclists, advocate their use on the road. Yes incredible as it seems a lot of people advocate compulsory helmet use because they think it protects cyclists when they are hit by vehicles. Look at the news reports. Cyclist killed by left turning lorry. Not wearing a helmet. Cyclist killed in dual carriageway hit at 60mph by a lorry - not wearing a helmet. The implication being that you can survive being hit by a 38 tonne lorry at 60mph generating an impact force of nearly 7,000,000 joules if only you were wearing a styrofoam helmet rated for 50.

Now Mr "this is ever so complicated I'm an engineer you know" are you telling us dunces that a helmet will make a blind bit of difference if you get hit by a vehicle.

Use complicated words if you like but what's the answer?

WTF?! I was just correcting your bad physics, sorry if you put yourself out of your depth, you did that to yourself.

700c wrote:

felixcat wrote:

700c wrote:

Most people walk at around 3-4 mph at a steady pace. I tend to cycle at speeds between 10-35 mph on my commute

So you're not comparing like with like. A helmet may offer protection from a fall at cycling speeds. They're fairly redundant when walking.

so a bike helmet may be use to you if you come of your bike, whether through your own fault or that of other road users. They're particularly useful when mountain biking, as the chances of an 'off' are probably higher.

If you are unlucky enough to suffer a direct head injury from two tonnes of vehicle, then the helmet is unlikely to help you, whether walking, cycling, or in a vehicle itself

Is this meant to be an argument for wearing bike helmets but not car helmets or walking helmets?
The figures show that the head injury rates for all three modes are roughly the same. The rates are certainly not different enough to make a distinction in risk levels.
The question remains: is cycling so much more dangerous that a helmet is needed? Or is there something about being on a bike that makes a helmet so much more effective?
Boardman was not riding off road, or talking about riding off road. (and no one posting above mentioned mountain biking) He is being attacked for going lidless on the highway.
Cycling on the road is not so uniquely dangerous that it needs a helmet, and all the fuss about lids only makes it seem to be something that the average citizen should avoid.

See above post, where I think I've addressed most of the points, but it's an argument about applying common sense more than anything I think!

I think if someone wants to wear a helmet, or chooses not to, for any given activity it is based on their evaluation and perception of risk. I don't think using statistics, which can of course be misleading or lead to erroneous conclusions, is going to persuade anyone either way, since it is a personal choice

I certainly agree that mandating the use of helmets or special clothing would be detrimental to cycling take up, if that's the point you're making? Cyclists come in all shapes sizes and outfits, and I wouldn't enforce helmets any more than i would ban them, I think 'normal' cycling should encompass everything from lycra pro style to jeans/ hipster / suit /casual whatever.

Freedom of choice will encourage the most amount of people to cycle, rather than expecting them to confirm to a certain type.

Certainly some non cycling drivers are guilty of this by expecting hi viz and helmets, riding in the gutter etc, but hopefully most of us are more enlightened on here?

I agree. The phenomena about helmet wearing reducing the take up of cycling and thereby making cycling in general less safe has a proper category of dicursive thought.

It's an aggregation paradox. An individual cyclist may see wearing a helmet as a logical and benign way to improve even very marginally their own safety. But if lots of cyclists adopt that attitude they may unwittingly contribute to the idea that cycling is not essentially safe. The idea that cycling is not safe may reduce the number of people cycling. That there are fewer cyclists on the road increases the risk for all cyclists including them. The latter point arises from the fact that other road users are better at dealing with and are safer around cyclists when they are used to and are expecting them to be there.

That's the paradox. It also arises is the scare about MMR vaccines for example. A significant but small number of parents assessed the risk to their child from the MMR jab as high. They therefore did not get their child vaccinated. In so doing they reduced the overall level of vaccination for the three diseases. And that in some places has lead to increased risk for all children including theirs.

If you're just cycling for transport do the right thing. Leave the helmet at home and help contribute to a safer cycling environment.

oldstrath wrote:

The other side of that though, at least for Germany, is that the regulations specify lights that are utterly and completely inadequate for rural riding, and probably not enough to waken the average half-asleep texting nobber (aka the normal car driver). The main motivation is 'we must not dazzle the poor motorist', with the implied threat that if they are dazzled most of them are too thick to stop, and indeed so lacking in control they'll drive straight into the source.

I've clearly dreamt that my German-spec lights are suitable for rural riding, then. I can see fine, but I didn't buy the bog standard which probably aren't unsuitable, but then a £3 blinky wouldn't be suitable either. My old British Standard lights were far worse.

Not dazzling the motorist - or indeed, other cyclists - is a fine motivation. Many of them do seem to be too thick to stop, but anyway, dazzling lights are illegal and I hope you get fined for inadequate lights if you use them.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

I don't need to make a convincing case.

Then I can safely ignore every single comment you make, as you are obviously not interested in the facts.

None of the small seemingly pro-helmet minority have produced any evidence to back up their wild claims. I'd be genuinely interested in a pro-helmet post if that person could explain their reasoning (and not just slag off the opposition).

Perhaps there is a correlation between the most irrational, personal, nasty (and pointless) comments and a complete lack of interest in reality. Do these people have a fear of anything that challenges their point of view or do they just like to bicker and throw stones?

Yes and that's why I wear a seat belt when in a car! How about you??

RTB wrote:

Reply to: posted by felixcat [272 posts]
4th November 2014 - 19:10

The original questions posed:

" 1. Can head injuries be caused through the pursuit of cycling?

2. If yes, can the impact of any of those head injuries be mitigated through the use of a helmet? "

ARE valid and it is inescapable that the answers are "yes" and "yes". It is illogical to argue otherwise or as you did alter to other things that are not the subject.

I most certainly did read the board (look before you leap cat!) as it is precisely the reason why I posted given the amount of muddled and mixed objective thinking. In regards to expertise I rather think the Snell Foundation has vastly more substance and experience to offer on the subject than Chris "try to avoid lorries" Boardman.

It appears I failed to make myself clear. Sorry.

The answers to your questions are indeed inescapapable. The point I tried to make was that your questions can just as fairly be asked of using a car or walking. They would be just as valid and the answers the same. I assumed that you would see that this means car and walking helmets are just as reasonable. You did not show that cycling is significantly more dangerous (which would be difficult, since it is not).
My argument is that cycling is not so uniquely dangerous that helmets are justified, if they are not justified for other means of road transport, and indeed for many other everyday activities for which helmets are unthought of.
If you think walking, driving , stair climbing, going out drinking helmets should be worn I shall have to admit I was wrong about my understanding of your position.
This point, that cycling is not unusually dangerous, had already been made in the discussion thread, by me and others, and since you neglected to address it I wrongly assumed you had not read the thread.
The Snell Foundation concerns itself with testing helmets in laboratories. It assumes, like many other helmet proponents, that this is a good proxy for helmet performance in the real world. This assumption underlies the many huge overestimates of the utilty of helmet wearing and helmet laws. As the various "experiments" in compulsion show, the mechanical analysis of helmet effectiveness is utterly mistaken. Nowhere in the world has compulsion been followed by a reduction in the rate of head injury. The Snell Foundation does not concern itself with this. As far as they are concerned, if a helmet has the correct mechanical properties that is enough. The real world does not bear this out, but the SF has nothing to say about this. It just goes on with the same testing regime, without enquiring into why helmets don't work on the roads.
Boardman is probably well aware of this failure.

Storck Rider wrote:

Yes and that's why I wear a seat belt when in a car! How about you??

Don't you use a flameproof suit and full face helmet?

Felix how can you write "helmets don't work on the roads" at the end whilst at the beginning write "The answers to your questions (about helmets mitigating potential head trauma caused through cycling) are indeed inescapapable".

It is a contradiction!

A better comparison for cycling, seeing as you want to peddle that line, is skiing. Speeds are similar (non-propelled common mass (weight) object acting under the forces of gravity) and even though the incidents of crashes, actually and statistically, are higher for skiing than cycling the impacts of head traumas are not dissimilar. Very few, if any, of the posts, have referenced medical expert data for head trauma.

It is inconceivable for me to cycle without a helmet and most of the races/events or groups I cycle with will not allow riders to participate without using helmets.

I wish I had applied the same criteria to my skiing when several years ago I hit an ice block in poor light and endured a high speed crash (flipped in the air) without a helmet bouncing my skull heavily on the downslope. I was lucky that I escaped with only mild concussion but it hurt like **** with headaches for weeks. The two medics that I saw in the aftermath left me in little doubt that I had acted negligently by not wearing a suitable helmet. They should know, they see the outcomes every day.

RTB wrote:

A better comparison for cycling, seeing as you want to peddle that line, is skiing. Speeds are similar (non-propelled common mass (weight) object acting under the forces of gravity) and even though the incidents of crashes, actually and statistically, are higher for skiing than cycling the impacts of head traumas are not dissimilar. Very few, if any, of the posts, have referenced medical expert data for head trauma.

It is inconceivable for me to cycle without a helmet and most of the races/events or groups I cycle with will not allow riders to participate without using helmets.

I wish I had applied the same criteria to my skiing when several years ago I hit an ice block in poor light and endured a high speed crash (flipped in the air) without a helmet bouncing my skull heavily on the downslope. I was lucky that I escaped with only mild concussion but it hurt like **** with headaches for weeks. The two medics that I saw in the aftermath left me in little doubt that I had acted negligently by not wearing a suitable helmet. They should know, they see the outcomes every day.

You say yourself that the likelihood of crashing while skiing is higher. Therefore the risk of a head injury is higher, so the use of the use of helmets is more justified. For the most part people who take part in skiing are doing it as a sporting activity, so a fairer comparison would be with sport cycling, as opposed to utility cycling which is the main focus of what CB is talking about. There will always be exceptions (as there are with skiers) but I'd say the majority of people cycling as a sport use a helmet regularly. A better comparison for utility cycling might be cross country skiing. How many people do you see cross country skiing with a helmet on? Very few, because the risks are much smaller. Yes - there is a chance that you could fall and hit your head while cross country skiing, just as there is a chance (as has been pointed out several times above) that you could sustain a head injury walking along the street, climbing the stairs, driving a car. If you go down the road of any risk of head injury, however small, being justification for wearing a helmet, then we'd all put one on when we got out of bed in the morning and not take it off until we go to bed at night.

graham_f wrote:

RTB wrote:

A better comparison for cycling, seeing as you want to peddle that line, is skiing. Speeds are similar (non-propelled common mass (weight) object acting under the forces of gravity) and even though the incidents of crashes, actually and statistically, are higher for skiing than cycling the impacts of head traumas are not dissimilar. Very few, if any, of the posts, have referenced medical expert data for head trauma.

It is inconceivable for me to cycle without a helmet and most of the races/events or groups I cycle with will not allow riders to participate without using helmets.

I wish I had applied the same criteria to my skiing when several years ago I hit an ice block in poor light and endured a high speed crash (flipped in the air) without a helmet bouncing my skull heavily on the downslope. I was lucky that I escaped with only mild concussion but it hurt like **** with headaches for weeks. The two medics that I saw in the aftermath left me in little doubt that I had acted negligently by not wearing a suitable helmet. They should know, they see the outcomes every day.

You say yourself that the likelihood of crashing while skiing is higher. Therefore the risk of a head injury is higher, so the use of the use of helmets is more justified. For the most part people who take part in skiing are doing it as a sporting activity, so a fairer comparison would be with sport cycling, as opposed to utility cycling which is the main focus of what CB is talking about. There will always be exceptions (as there are with skiers) but I'd say the majority of people cycling as a sport use a helmet regularly. A better comparison for utility cycling might be cross country skiing. How many people do you see cross country skiing with a helmet on? Very few, because the risks are much smaller. Yes - there is a chance that you could fall and hit your head while cross country skiing, just as there is a chance (as has been pointed out several times above) that you could sustain a head injury walking along the street, climbing the stairs, driving a car. If you go down the road of any risk of head injury, however small, being justification for wearing a helmet, then we'd all put one on when we got out of bed in the morning and not take it off until we go to bed at night.

Good point on the analogy with nordic/alpine skiing but where it breaks down is that most nordic skiers I have seen are highly competent (skilled) and I do not see anywhere near the same level of competence with occasional cyclists, quite a few of whom look decidedly unstable and not in total control of their bikes.

I had such an incident last week in the Great Park where I was riding steadily at over 40kmh and a lady cycling with family group wandered (wobbled) from their side of the road (flat section btw) right across the road. I always stay alert for such situations and called out from a good distance away whereupon she unnecessarily jerked the bike back the other way nearly coming a cropper with her own group. She was at relatively low speed and without a helmet (just the kids had them interestingly). It was all safe in the end and I thanked them as I passed by but she could have been another statistic without even coming into contact with me.

RTB wrote:

graham_f wrote:

RTB wrote:

A better comparison for cycling, seeing as you want to peddle that line, is skiing. Speeds are similar (non-propelled common mass (weight) object acting under the forces of gravity) and even though the incidents of crashes, actually and statistically, are higher for skiing than cycling the impacts of head traumas are not dissimilar. Very few, if any, of the posts, have referenced medical expert data for head trauma.

It is inconceivable for me to cycle without a helmet and most of the races/events or groups I cycle with will not allow riders to participate without using helmets.

I wish I had applied the same criteria to my skiing when several years ago I hit an ice block in poor light and endured a high speed crash (flipped in the air) without a helmet bouncing my skull heavily on the downslope. I was lucky that I escaped with only mild concussion but it hurt like **** with headaches for weeks. The two medics that I saw in the aftermath left me in little doubt that I had acted negligently by not wearing a suitable helmet. They should know, they see the outcomes every day.

You say yourself that the likelihood of crashing while skiing is higher. Therefore the risk of a head injury is higher, so the use of the use of helmets is more justified. For the most part people who take part in skiing are doing it as a sporting activity, so a fairer comparison would be with sport cycling, as opposed to utility cycling which is the main focus of what CB is talking about. There will always be exceptions (as there are with skiers) but I'd say the majority of people cycling as a sport use a helmet regularly. A better comparison for utility cycling might be cross country skiing. How many people do you see cross country skiing with a helmet on? Very few, because the risks are much smaller. Yes - there is a chance that you could fall and hit your head while cross country skiing, just as there is a chance (as has been pointed out several times above) that you could sustain a head injury walking along the street, climbing the stairs, driving a car. If you go down the road of any risk of head injury, however small, being justification for wearing a helmet, then we'd all put one on when we got out of bed in the morning and not take it off until we go to bed at night.

Good point on the analogy with nordic/alpine skiing but where it breaks down is that most nordic skiers I have seen are highly competent (skilled) and I do not see anywhere near the same level of competence with occasional cyclists, quite a few of whom look decidedly unstable and not in total control of their bikes.

and it further breaks down because Ski helmets are very substantially more protective than cycle helmets. they are designed and constructed differently and they work differently.

Of course if you want to wear a ski helmet or a motorcycle helmet tell me how that works for you cycling. I suspect the enthusiasm would soon wear off. But you don't mind wearing a cycle helmet because it's light and comfortable almost designed as if lightness and comfort were the main criteria and not protection.....oh wait a minute.

Then of course there's the fact that you were high speed skiing in the dark. So again we have this idea that cycling is an extreme sport practiced by very fit people travelling quite fast. Further missing the whole point of what Chris Boardman is saying ie that if cycling were like it was in NL then it would be a heck of a lot of people travelling quite sedately as a form of completely benign transport. Why don't you mention the fact that whole hoards of people from young to old go skiing and are quite content to ski nicely down a slope without pushing the limits. You know just travelling along nicely.

But every time we have to come back to people that want to push the sporting line that because they ride fast or ski difficult slopes in the dark that Mrs Jones popping to the shop for some chops for dinner has to be kitted out like she's on an adventure.

Some of you guys aren't getting this are you?

oozaveared wrote:

RTB wrote:

graham_f wrote:

RTB wrote:

A better comparison for cycling, seeing as you want to peddle that line, is skiing. Speeds are similar (non-propelled common mass (weight) object acting under the forces of gravity) and even though the incidents of crashes, actually and statistically, are higher for skiing than cycling the impacts of head traumas are not dissimilar. Very few, if any, of the posts, have referenced medical expert data for head trauma.

It is inconceivable for me to cycle without a helmet and most of the races/events or groups I cycle with will not allow riders to participate without using helmets.

I wish I had applied the same criteria to my skiing when several years ago I hit an ice block in poor light and endured a high speed crash (flipped in the air) without a helmet bouncing my skull heavily on the downslope. I was lucky that I escaped with only mild concussion but it hurt like **** with headaches for weeks. The two medics that I saw in the aftermath left me in little doubt that I had acted negligently by not wearing a suitable helmet. They should know, they see the outcomes every day.

You say yourself that the likelihood of crashing while skiing is higher. Therefore the risk of a head injury is higher, so the use of the use of helmets is more justified. For the most part people who take part in skiing are doing it as a sporting activity, so a fairer comparison would be with sport cycling, as opposed to utility cycling which is the main focus of what CB is talking about. There will always be exceptions (as there are with skiers) but I'd say the majority of people cycling as a sport use a helmet regularly. A better comparison for utility cycling might be cross country skiing. How many people do you see cross country skiing with a helmet on? Very few, because the risks are much smaller. Yes - there is a chance that you could fall and hit your head while cross country skiing, just as there is a chance (as has been pointed out several times above) that you could sustain a head injury walking along the street, climbing the stairs, driving a car. If you go down the road of any risk of head injury, however small, being justification for wearing a helmet, then we'd all put one on when we got out of bed in the morning and not take it off until we go to bed at night.

Good point on the analogy with nordic/alpine skiing but where it breaks down is that most nordic skiers I have seen are highly competent (skilled) and I do not see anywhere near the same level of competence with occasional cyclists, quite a few of whom look decidedly unstable and not in total control of their bikes.

and it further breaks down because Ski helmets are very substantially more protective than cycle helmets. they are designed and constructed differently and they work differently.

Of course if you want to wear a ski helmet or a motorcycle helmet tell me how that works for you cycling. I suspect the enthusiasm would soon wear off. But you don't mind wearing a cycle helmet because it's light and comfortable almost designed as if lightness and comfort were the main criteria and not protection.....oh wait a minute.

Then of course there's the fact that you were high speed skiing in the dark. So again we have this idea that cycling is an extreme sport practiced by very fit people travelling quite fast. Further missing the whole point of what Chris Boardman is saying ie that if cycling were like it was in NL then it would be a heck of a lot of people travelling quite sedately as a form of completely benign transport. Why don't you mention the fact that whole hoards of people from young to old go skiing and are quite content to ski nicely down a slope without pushing the limits. You know just travelling along nicely.

But every time we have to come back to people that want to push the sporting line that because they ride fast or ski difficult slopes in the dark that Mrs Jones popping to the shop for some chops for dinner has to be kitted out like she's on an adventure.

Some of you guys aren't getting this are you?

Oh dear oozaveared did I touch a nerve when I degaussed your physics lesson? It was you afterall who went into that space not me and it did cry out to be addressed given how incorrect it was.

Sorry to hijack your monicker (Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand) 'Physics' is like a church - many attend, but few understand... Btw FWIW I don't understand physics properly either but it is nice to go back to church once in a while

RTB wrote:

oozaveared wrote:

RTB wrote:

graham_f wrote:

RTB wrote:

A better comparison for cycling, seeing as you want to peddle that line, is skiing. Speeds are similar (non-propelled common mass (weight) object acting under the forces of gravity) and even though the incidents of crashes, actually and statistically, are higher for skiing than cycling the impacts of head traumas are not dissimilar. Very few, if any, of the posts, have referenced medical expert data for head trauma.

It is inconceivable for me to cycle without a helmet and most of the races/events or groups I cycle with will not allow riders to participate without using helmets.

I wish I had applied the same criteria to my skiing when several years ago I hit an ice block in poor light and endured a high speed crash (flipped in the air) without a helmet bouncing my skull heavily on the downslope. I was lucky that I escaped with only mild concussion but it hurt like **** with headaches for weeks. The two medics that I saw in the aftermath left me in little doubt that I had acted negligently by not wearing a suitable helmet. They should know, they see the outcomes every day.

You say yourself that the likelihood of crashing while skiing is higher. Therefore the risk of a head injury is higher, so the use of the use of helmets is more justified. For the most part people who take part in skiing are doing it as a sporting activity, so a fairer comparison would be with sport cycling, as opposed to utility cycling which is the main focus of what CB is talking about. There will always be exceptions (as there are with skiers) but I'd say the majority of people cycling as a sport use a helmet regularly. A better comparison for utility cycling might be cross country skiing. How many people do you see cross country skiing with a helmet on? Very few, because the risks are much smaller. Yes - there is a chance that you could fall and hit your head while cross country skiing, just as there is a chance (as has been pointed out several times above) that you could sustain a head injury walking along the street, climbing the stairs, driving a car. If you go down the road of any risk of head injury, however small, being justification for wearing a helmet, then we'd all put one on when we got out of bed in the morning and not take it off until we go to bed at night.

Good point on the analogy with nordic/alpine skiing but where it breaks down is that most nordic skiers I have seen are highly competent (skilled) and I do not see anywhere near the same level of competence with occasional cyclists, quite a few of whom look decidedly unstable and not in total control of their bikes.

and it further breaks down because Ski helmets are very substantially more protective than cycle helmets. they are designed and constructed differently and they work differently.

Of course if you want to wear a ski helmet or a motorcycle helmet tell me how that works for you cycling. I suspect the enthusiasm would soon wear off. But you don't mind wearing a cycle helmet because it's light and comfortable almost designed as if lightness and comfort were the main criteria and not protection.....oh wait a minute.

Then of course there's the fact that you were high speed skiing in the dark. So again we have this idea that cycling is an extreme sport practiced by very fit people travelling quite fast. Further missing the whole point of what Chris Boardman is saying ie that if cycling were like it was in NL then it would be a heck of a lot of people travelling quite sedately as a form of completely benign transport. Why don't you mention the fact that whole hoards of people from young to old go skiing and are quite content to ski nicely down a slope without pushing the limits. You know just travelling along nicely.

But every time we have to come back to people that want to push the sporting line that because they ride fast or ski difficult slopes in the dark that Mrs Jones popping to the shop for some chops for dinner has to be kitted out like she's on an adventure.

Some of you guys aren't getting this are you?

Oh dear oozaveared did I touch a nerve when I degaussed your physics lesson? It was you afterall who went into that space not me and it did cry out to be addressed given how incorrect it was.

Sorry to hijack your monicker (Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand) 'Physics' is like a church - many attend, but few understand... Btw FWIW I don't understand physics properly either but it is nice to go back to church once in a while

I think you're just suffering from analysis paralysis. The desire to overly complicate matters so as to avoid reaching a conclusion. You can always add complaxity but it very rarely changes the actualite. Same here. Whatever way you add complexity to the anlysis you will always have to conclude that cycle helmets aren't much use. You can demonstrate quite easily as I did that the forces involved in collisions vastly out match the force protection offered by the helmet. But you can keep adding layers of different types of and angles of and directions of force and make it direct and indirect. and it doesn't change the basic fact that they aren't very useful.

Analysis Paralysis
The phrase describes a situation where the opportunity cost of decision analysis exceeds the benefits that could be gained by enacting some decision, or an informal or non-deterministic situation where the sheer quantity of analysis overwhelms the decision-making process itself, thus preventing a decision. The phrase applies to any situation where analysis may be applied to help make a decision but in which the volume of data and analysis creates a dysfunction in the ability to make a decision.

oozaveared wrote:

RTB wrote:

oozaveared wrote:

RTB wrote:

graham_f wrote:

RTB wrote:

A better comparison for cycling, seeing as you want to peddle that line, is skiing. Speeds are similar (non-propelled common mass (weight) object acting under the forces of gravity) and even though the incidents of crashes, actually and statistically, are higher for skiing than cycling the impacts of head traumas are not dissimilar. Very few, if any, of the posts, have referenced medical expert data for head trauma.

It is inconceivable for me to cycle without a helmet and most of the races/events or groups I cycle with will not allow riders to participate without using helmets.

I wish I had applied the same criteria to my skiing when several years ago I hit an ice block in poor light and endured a high speed crash (flipped in the air) without a helmet bouncing my skull heavily on the downslope. I was lucky that I escaped with only mild concussion but it hurt like **** with headaches for weeks. The two medics that I saw in the aftermath left me in little doubt that I had acted negligently by not wearing a suitable helmet. They should know, they see the outcomes every day.

You say yourself that the likelihood of crashing while skiing is higher. Therefore the risk of a head injury is higher, so the use of the use of helmets is more justified. For the most part people who take part in skiing are doing it as a sporting activity, so a fairer comparison would be with sport cycling, as opposed to utility cycling which is the main focus of what CB is talking about. There will always be exceptions (as there are with skiers) but I'd say the majority of people cycling as a sport use a helmet regularly. A better comparison for utility cycling might be cross country skiing. How many people do you see cross country skiing with a helmet on? Very few, because the risks are much smaller. Yes - there is a chance that you could fall and hit your head while cross country skiing, just as there is a chance (as has been pointed out several times above) that you could sustain a head injury walking along the street, climbing the stairs, driving a car. If you go down the road of any risk of head injury, however small, being justification for wearing a helmet, then we'd all put one on when we got out of bed in the morning and not take it off until we go to bed at night.

Good point on the analogy with nordic/alpine skiing but where it breaks down is that most nordic skiers I have seen are highly competent (skilled) and I do not see anywhere near the same level of competence with occasional cyclists, quite a few of whom look decidedly unstable and not in total control of their bikes.

and it further breaks down because Ski helmets are very substantially more protective than cycle helmets. they are designed and constructed differently and they work differently.

Of course if you want to wear a ski helmet or a motorcycle helmet tell me how that works for you cycling. I suspect the enthusiasm would soon wear off. But you don't mind wearing a cycle helmet because it's light and comfortable almost designed as if lightness and comfort were the main criteria and not protection.....oh wait a minute.

Then of course there's the fact that you were high speed skiing in the dark. So again we have this idea that cycling is an extreme sport practiced by very fit people travelling quite fast. Further missing the whole point of what Chris Boardman is saying ie that if cycling were like it was in NL then it would be a heck of a lot of people travelling quite sedately as a form of completely benign transport. Why don't you mention the fact that whole hoards of people from young to old go skiing and are quite content to ski nicely down a slope without pushing the limits. You know just travelling along nicely.

But every time we have to come back to people that want to push the sporting line that because they ride fast or ski difficult slopes in the dark that Mrs Jones popping to the shop for some chops for dinner has to be kitted out like she's on an adventure.

Some of you guys aren't getting this are you?

Oh dear oozaveared did I touch a nerve when I degaussed your physics lesson? It was you afterall who went into that space not me and it did cry out to be addressed given how incorrect it was.

Sorry to hijack your monicker (Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand) 'Physics' is like a church - many attend, but few understand... Btw FWIW I don't understand physics properly either but it is nice to go back to church once in a while

I think you're just suffering from analysis paralysis. The desire to overly complicate matters so as to avoid reaching a conclusion. You can always add complaxity but it very rarely changes the actualite. Same here. Whatever way you add complexity to the anlysis you will always have to conclude that cycle helmets aren't much use. You can demonstrate quite easily as I did that the forces involved in collisions vastly out match the force protection offered by the helmet. But you can keep adding layers of different types of and angles of and directions of force and make it direct and indirect. and it doesn't change the basic fact that they aren't very useful.

Analysis Paralysis
The phrase describes a situation where the opportunity cost of decision analysis exceeds the benefits that could be gained by enacting some decision, or an informal or non-deterministic situation where the sheer quantity of analysis overwhelms the decision-making process itself, thus preventing a decision. The phrase applies to any situation where analysis may be applied to help make a decision but in which the volume of data and analysis creates a dysfunction in the ability to make a decision.

"and it doesn't change the basic fact that they (helmets) aren't very useful"

Ergo but more useful than 'no helmet' and isn't this the basic point?

And please don't drag it down on that specious and tenuous argument that more people will die from obesity related diseases by not getting on a bike (which is true) because they were put off by the perception of having to wear a helmet (which is false/unproven). It is a fallacy.

RTB wrote:

"and it doesn't change the basic fact that they (helmets) aren't very useful"

Ergo but more useful than 'no helmet' and isn't this the basic point?

That is still unproven and you may actually have a greater chance of injury even if the helmet makes you marginally safer when you get into an accident. For instance, if cars make closer passes, your chance to get an accident increases. If you ride more dangerously due to the feeling of safety that the helmet provides, you will get more accidents and more serious ones.

Both of these downsides can easily overwhelm the advantages of wearing a helmet. The fact that no solid scientific proof can be found in real life that helmet use makes people safer, shows that the net effect is so minimal that it cannot be proven either way.

But clearly you are wedded to the idea that helmets must work. Probably due to the classic human tendency to want to control our faith. When confronted by a risk, people want to feel that they are in control, which explains the prevalence of superstitious behavior which allows people to feel that can control what happens. Cyclists have only limited control over whether they get into an accident or not and helmets allow people to delude themselves into thinking they substantially improve their survival chance in those situations. It's pretty much the same as wearing a lucky charm, although it seems much less irrational because it is common sense that a helmet ought to work. Unfortunately reality doesn't always do what it ought to do and common sense is regularly wrong.

RTB wrote:

Felix how can you write "helmets don't work on the roads" at the end whilst at the beginning write "The answers to your questions (about helmets mitigating potential head trauma caused through cycling) are indeed inescapapable".

It is a contradiction!

It is impossible to be sure that helmets could not mitigate some injuries, just as it is impossible to be sure that they do not exacerbate others. All we can be sure is that in the countrywide experiments in helmet compulsion no net benefit can be shown, only a small possible disbenefit. Why this is is debatable. My own belief is that risk compensation plays a large part, as well helmets making very little difference in the event of a crash.
As to skiing, I would want to see much better statistics before making any conclusions. I suspect skiers, like cyclists and indeed any sentient being absorb safety benefits as performance benefits. That is, they do things with helmets that they would not do without.
Your medics may see many injuries but they are trained in repair, not in avoidance of injury. I would no more take a doctor's views on injury prevention than a panel beater's, especially since a doctor may have an inflated idea about his omniscience.

Storck Rider wrote:

Yes and that's why I wear a seat belt when in a car! How about you??

Seatbelt? Judging by your nonsensical posts I think the best safety feature you should be using is someone running in front of your car waving a flag.

oldstrath wrote:

Gus T wrote:

Tinternet_tim wrote
"If on the other hand this discussion was about cyclist who cycle in the dark on the public highway with no lights, then that would be a different matter. This really annoys me as you are not only putting your own safety at risk but also the safety of others you might run into (pedestrians) and also risk ruining someones else's life if they knock you off and kill you. I mention this as the 'no-light' brigade are out in force again due to the clocks changing."

Now that is something I agree with, we bang on about how great Copenhagen, Holland etc are but forget these places legislate that bikes must have lights fitted at point of sale, it's only road bikes & MTB's that don't have them fitted as standard by manufacturers, both of Mrs G's town bikes have lights fitted as standard but there again one is a Dutch steel town bike and the other is a Belgian town bike that she bought especially in Belgium because you can't get it in the UK. Maybe the Government can actually do some positive legislating for once & require bike manufacturers to fit lights as standard, it's not a massive cost and might actually keep someone alive plus think of the fun you could have speccing your lights as part of your bike choice.

The other side of that though, at least for Germany, is that the regulations specify lights that are utterly and completely inadequate for rural riding, and probably not enough to waken the average half-asleep texting nobber (aka the normal car driver). The main motivation is 'we must not dazzle the poor motorist', with the implied threat that if they are dazzled most of them are too thick to stop, and indeed so lacking in control they'll drive straight into the source.

Ah, but in my experience, admittedly on French motorways, every German driver is convinced they are Michael Schumaker and drive as if the are participating in a F1 GP.

felixcat wrote:

The four wheeled elephant in the room does not discriminate. It even runs down pedestrians on the pavement, never mind crossing the road.
Long may it remain your choice, but I see little reason to wear a helmet cycling, walking or driving.

I don't wear a helmet to protect myself from the direct impact of a car, as I've previously said.

Rate of injury among peds & cyclists may be similar (not sure), that doesn't mean the severity of the injury will be similar, and in fact I would be surprised if it was, given likely speed differentials of the mode of transport.

Anyway, I've made my peace with the helmet debate; i do respect individual views but obviously want to ensure my rationale and argument is properly understood and not misquoted, hence my posting here. I've been on here long enough to realise I'm not going to change others views though!

Storck Rider wrote:

You guys are special!

I can see very well what his end game is and why he makes his points BUT, AGAIN, the fact we are here debating this takes away from what he is trying to achieve.

I'll stop wearing a helmet when somebody can prove to me they haven't saved a single life!

I'll stop wearing a lucky rabbits foot when somebody can prove to me they haven't saved a single life!

No-one is telling you not to wear a helmet, the problem is the possibility of compulsion, why do people keep insisting cyclists wear helmets but not pedestrians and vehicle occupants? This promotes the perception that cycling is inherently dangerous and puts people off of cycling.

I'd really like to shut up about helmets, but I can't and won't until the ignorant people who keep telling others how to lives their lives off of the basis of their helmet religion.

We should enforce stabilisers too. Most incidents occur when people fall off their bikes. Stabilisers make it harder to fall off bicycles, and so reduce risk of injury. I don't see why people don't use them. If enforcing them saves one life, it's worth it.

I once had to turn a corner on my bike. When I turned it, I felt the stabilisers come to my rescue and stop me tipping dangerously far over. I'm sure I would have fallen off, and died, if the stabilisers hadn't caught me. Stabilisers saved my life, and they might save yours too.

I see many adults not riding with stabilisers every day, and sometimes even children!!! It's really riles me up! Irresponsible!!! We cyclists should do everything we can for our own safety, and that includes using proper safety equipment while riding so we can stay stable. You never know when you might have to turn a corner, just like I did. Just remember folks, 'Stay Safe - Stay Stable'. Simple enough, right!?

Storck Rider wrote:

Boardman, the helmet debate has been raised yet again as a direct result of the fact that you refuse to wear one. You harp on about getting to the real issues but surely by virtue of the fact we are sat here discussing it now and of all of the criticism you have had this makes it a real issue.

Chris Boardman, JUST WEAR A HELMET AND STOP BANGING YOUR OWN LITTLE DRUM! and then you could actually move on to discuss those 'real' issues.

You'd make a s**t politician!

Bingo - you win the 'Totally and deliberately missing the point' award this year.

...in case you didn't notice, thousands of people who understand the nuanced, intertwined issues support Boardman's stance. Noting it's not even *his* stance - I have thought this for decades, as have many others. The only 'little drum' being banged here is your own.

700c wrote:

To those comparing walking with cycling as similarly low risk activities, which merit the same choice of PPE, my points have clearly fallen on deaf ears - If I fall or hit an object when i walk, I'm likely to avoid head injury. If I fall over or hit something when cycling I'm likely to avoid head injury. HOWEVER I cannot walk at up to 35mph, but I do cycle at this speed on my commute to work. The impact on my head onto tarmac or other stationary object is going to be worse at higher speed.

I appreciate statistically the risk of head injury when cycling is small. I also appreciate there's a small window of 'usefulness' where a helmet is efficacious (limited object mass, low speeds, etc). I still choose to wear one when cycling but not when walking, following my evaluation of the risk including potential severity. See above. i also choose to wear reflective clothing in winter months. Anyone who comes to a different conclusion is fine by me.

I applaud CB's efforts to normalise cycling by wearing regular clothing. That he respects and understands my choice to wear other clothing/ equipment is also good to hear.

35mph Occasionally. It's not like you're doing that all the time. That's a fast downhill bit even for most regular cyclists. And you're rather missing the point. We're talking about cycling for transport, The people that ride bikes who aren't "cyclists". They'll have the brakes on going down that hill. 35mph would scare the bejeezus out of a lot of commuters.

OK so mostly on here we're all experienced cyclists and a lot of us do or used to race. We're probably confident about our bike and controlling it and confident in traffic. But Boardman is taliking about getting people like my wife to regard cycling as normal and to not be scared and tales of derring do at 35mph on your way to work make it seem like another planet and extremely alarming. Bikes are still very useful at 10mph you know. That 5 mile car drive some of it sitting in traffic that takes 15 mins by the time you've parked or the 20 mins bus journey because of the walk to the bus stop and the wait and then the bus going the less direct route is now a cheap predictable half hour ride away. No special safety equipment or clothing required.

That's what we want to get people to buy into,