- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
London cyclist approaching junction.jpgAlmost 9 in 10 people back headphones ban and compulsory helmets for cyclists say survey
A poll conducted for The Sunday Times has found that almost nine in ten people (89 per cent) think cyclists should be banned from wearing headphones, and almost as many (85 per cent) believe cycle helmets should be compulsory.
The majority of respondents who describe themselves as “more cyclist than motorist” in the survey of 1,867 people conducted by YouGov agreed with those views.
59 per cent of those respondents agreed that wearing of helmets should be compulsory, an issue that is regularly the subject of fierce debate among riders, and 67 per cent of them said that there should be a ban on headphones.
The latter issue was in the news last week after Mayor of London Boris Johnson said in a radio interview about the safety of cyclists that he would be in favour of riders being banned from wearing headphones.
Other findings of the survey include that two thirds of all respondents – rising to three in four of those considered themselves cyclists first and foremost – believe that lorries should be banned from cities during rush hour, something British Cycling's Chris Boardman called for last week in an open letter to Mr Johnson.
Several things differentiate the YouGov survey from some others we have reported on road.cc.
First, respondents aren’t self-selected, as many opt-in internet-based polls are, and which tend to encourage only those with a strong opinion one way or another to respond.
Also, as well as splitting out responses by standard demographic breaks such as gender, age, social grade and region, it also divides them by voting intentions as well as by “motorists,” “people who regularly use a bicycle,” and those who are “more cyclist than motorist.”
How does YouGov separate those categories? Well, it’s based on a question that asks respondents to state:
I regularly drive a motor vehicle and do NOT regularly use a bicycle (60 per cent)
I regularly use both a motor vehicle and a bicycle, but I generally use my motor vehicle more often than my bike (9 per cent)
I regularly use both a motor vehicle and a bicycle, but I generally use my bicycle more often than my motor vehicle (3 per cent)
I regularly ride a bicycle and do NOT regularly drive a motor vehicle (4 per cent)
I do not regularly use either (25 per cent)
As a result, 60 per cent of YouGov’s weighted sample fall into the category it terms “motorists” and 15 per cent are “people who regularly use a bicycle,” including 7 per cent who are “more cyclist than driver.”
Asked, “What do you believe is the most common cause of cycling accidents [sic],” 36 per cent of people said “poor standards of cycling by cyclists,” while 22 per cent cited “poor standards of driving by motorists” and 11 per cent went for each of “badly designed roads” and “too many lorries and other large vehicles on the roads.”
Analysis of police reports in incidents in which cyclists were killed or injured carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory in 2009 found that reckless riding was responsible for only a small percentage of collisions, with police attributing blame to the motorist in around three out of four cases.
As happened across most of the questions, there was a polarity in responses among those considering themselves cyclists or drivers.
Some 41 per cent of motorists blamed poor standards of cycling, and just 20 per cent driving; among regular bike riders, 20 per cent said cyclists were to blame and 30 per cent drivers, and there was an even greater gap among those defined as more cyclist than motorist – 13 per cent versus 36 per cent.
Other responses highlight that different perceptions of road safety exist depending on whether you’re more used to being behind the steering wheel or on the saddle of a bike.
Only 1 per cent of motorists thought badly designed roads are the most common cause of cycling accidents, but that rose to 9 per cent of regular cyclists and 14 per cent of those who are more cyclist than motorist.
Bad upkeep of roads (e.g. potholes) was thought to be a factor by 4 per cent of motorists, but 8 per cent of regular cyclists and 10 per cent of those who are more cyclist than motorist; conversely, drivers were much more likely to see pedestrians as being to blame for cycling accidents than cyclists were, at 11 per cent versus 6 per cent of regular cyclists and 5 per cent of people who are more cyclist than motorist.
Other questions addressed issues including whether sentences for both drivers and cyclists breaking road laws are tough enough, presumed liability, publishing accident data and details of accident blackspots online, increasing the number of cycle lanes, and whether there should be early-start traffic lights for cyclists.
You can find the complete results of the YouGov survey, including the full breakdown of responses by demographic groups and voting intentions, here.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- wtjs 6 min 40 sec ago
I'm pleased to say I didn't 'do' Latin, but I was also pleased to learn the origin of 'laconic'
- Surreyrider 11 min 36 sec ago
Looks like Specialized dusted off their blueprint for the Tarmac circa 2012-14 to 'create' the Aethos.
- Hirsute 15 min 40 sec ago
I think you'll find it's the Church of England who are responsible for the obesity crisis....
- Tom_77 18 min 11 sec ago
Was looking for things to do in Winchester and came across this - Adrenaline Comedy Bike Tour Experience at B3335...
- hutchdaddy 22 min 58 sec ago
I expected there to be a rush of comments from drivers holding solidarity with cyclists saying things like: this is another part of the war...
- username983 27 min 54 sec ago
I have a set of the the Scribe 50D and they are a great wheel. Especially for the price. But be warned, the freehub is insanely loud. And not a...
- whosatthewheel 50 min 21 sec ago
A re-offender too, having been disqualified for speeding in the past. I don't believe in the "reaching for a chewing gum" bollocks either. More...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 55 sec ago
Of course this kind of stuff is entirely to be expected from humans where mass motoring exists. The con is we don't factor this in sufficiently...
- S.E. 3 hours 23 min ago
Even online-shops offer very limited discounts... I waited for this week to get a 10-25% but nothing on the articles I need....
Add new comment
126 comments
Ush, I know you're upset, but it's an open forum. She has a right to her thoughts.
The only stat that I'm aware of that suggests helmets are unhelpful is that they deter cycling and so 'make people less healthy active' which suggests they don't run, swim or do other activities as a result. Helmets provide protection against head trauma, but how often cyclists are subject to this is not exactly apparent. Wearing a helmet is probably a good idea.
And how is someone supposed to attract your attention if you're not listening? I don't think you could argue that you would be more aware of your surroundings (and therefore safer) without the earphones...
fair enough, but if you consider the full history of pro racing, the actual numbers who have died isn't that great, the odd down a ravine, high speed crash.
Most injuries aren't head but legs, arms, collar, that sort of thing. Not saying that helmets haven't ever helped, just not enough cases either way. and unless you repeat the crash you can never know what would have happened.
I don't see the relevance of your last question - motorbikes and their helmets are entirely different beasts to bikes and bike helmets, so whats the point of the question? My answer is "I wouldn't ride a motorbike - too dangerous and environmentally damaging for my taste - and most of all, too bloody loud!".
The "venom" you refer to is, insofar as it actually exists, a bit unfortunate. I also wear a helmet and also leave it up to others to decide.
But as with high-viz its pretty obviously a reactive venom to that spouted by the judgementalists and assorted victim-blamers and compulsionists on the other side. The recent Met police "Operation Victim Blame", for example, almost made me want to stop wearing a helmet, just to annoy them.
Also - are you really saying you never get a distracting itch under your helmet? Or that you never set off, then realise something's missing and have to go back for the damn thing? They _do_ add another inconvenience, another thing to forget or mislay when cycling.
Helmets do not provide protection and that's a myth that fuels accusations of risk compansation. Helmets merely lessen a very specific type of head trauma. They are not a magical protective cloak for the head.
Other stats about unhelpfulness that one should consider include increased risks of accidental hanging (Bicycle helmets and accidental asphyxia in childhood, Byard RW, Cala A, Ritchey D, Woodford N.. Medical Journal of Australia, MJA 2011;194(1):49. 2011.), rotational injuries (Assessment of current bicycle helmets for the potential to cause rotational injury, StClair VJM, Chinn BP. Transport Research Laboratory, PPR213. 2007) and concussion because the increased size of helmets hits things when a thin hat wouldn't (I can't find the reference for this just now, but it might be The Effectiveness of Bicycle Helmets, Henderson M, Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales. 1995.)
The job of the overtaken is to keep a consistent line and speed. The rest of the onus is on the overtaker. S/he should not depend on any other action by the overtaken.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2513730/Miraculous-moment-16-yea...
Just goes to show, you never know when you might need one.
Not saying it should be compulsory, but I bet this lad wishes he'd put one on.
You fall in to the trap of how good the helmet design is. I didn't say they protect from all head trauma for a reason. But they do provide protection. I have friends with cracked helmets from falls (without incurring any damage themselves) with illustrates that they have been protected. I'm not saying they cover every area, but they do better than fresh air.
The 'no helmet' brigade come out with this idea that they don't protect against certain accidents, and potential torsional injuries make them worse, but the evidence from A&E departments show that they do help, not in every case, but in some. Some protection is better than none. I'm not even saying that helmets be compulsory, but based on the evidence that is provided the biggest case against them (because other studies are inconclusive) is that they affect cycle usage negatively whether that be cost or fashion.
If you can afford a helmet it is probably worth wearing (and really is no trouble to wear) and if you can't carry on and hope for the best. No one can tell you when you will need a cycle helmet, seat belt, life vest or lifeboat - some people take comfort that they, some will never need them. But denying that they do anything isn't right. Argue all you like about it but some people will always choose to wear them and this will make those that don't appear cavalier with their safety and they would be right - even though the perception of how useful they are is misunderstood.
You've missed the point completely ... this isn't simply about overtaking ... that was only an example. Its about awareness of your surroundings and others being able to attract your attention if necessary.
Sometimes you seem like a rational, evidence-driven person. Other times you post stuff like the above.
What evidence do you have that a helmet would have helped with the above? Do you even have the specific aetiology of the above accident?
More than likely a helmet would have made no difference.
And you fall into the traps of attempting proof by assertion (it's not protection in general until it's proven and let's see that A&E evidence... hospital returns have some interesting quirks when it comes to supposed protective personal equipment, including that the equipment would be reducing A&E attendance if it worked) while ignoring the negative effects of the equipment that you don't like or can't explain away.
I would suggest considering helmet use on a trip-by-trip basis. I don't even carry a puncture repair kit on every journey, after all.
No I haven't. I was dealing, quite effectively I think, with a point you were making, which was about overtaking.
Most of those who want to ban earphones resort to vague generalisations about awareness of your surroundings. I find it difficult to imagine any real life problem. The only idea with any traction at all, seems to me that one might be distracted and lost in what one is listening to. This applies to drivers too, but I find that it is not a problem. I find that reality quickly overides the voice in my ear.
Sight is by far the most important sense for safety.
Can you give me a scenario where lack of hearing might lead to an accident? And at the same time the extra sense that the deaf are said to have would save them?
In real life I find that the problem with listening whilst I ride is that traffic can drown out "From Our Own Correspondent", not vice versa.
I'm with Felix on this one. When I pass other cyclists I pass wide. Not within inches as motorists are prone to do. Also find a bell is usefull. The high pitch usually cuts through all types of noise.
I disagree. Someone handing out advice and calling for laws interfering with other people's choices has a responsibility to spend a long time sorting out the basics. Otherwise they deserve to be called on it. Strongly.
Then you need to look at the population-level data in high helmet use areas and attempt to discern whether there is a correlation between the treatment and the response. It is highly questionable whether this can be seen. To say the least.
If helmets were a new drug being tested on the population there would be howls of outrage from the public about a bogus drug being sold. One of the reasons I find this subject so offensive is that the basis for it is pseudo-science resting on folklore and "common sense" for its basis. It's like hearing someone bang-on about how their naturopathy should be compulsory for every one else and anyone that doesn't take powered rhino horn is a fool.
As do hats.
RoSPA and other organizations have plenty of data as to the incidence of serious head injuries broken down by activity and age. You'll find the cycling head injuries are in the same ballpark as pedestrian injuries.
For what exactly? What specific injuries do you expect it to mitigate?
As you ask for specifics, i'll give you a couple. I had an off last year, front wheel wipe-out whilst turning to exit a roundabout (seemingly on some oil). Speed was pretty much exactly 20mph. I went down on my right side - head, upper arm, hip, knee and ankle were definitely in contact with the ground, secondary compression injury to the ribs.
I later examined my helmet and noticed the following.
- There were a number of small (~2mm), relatively deep (2-4mm) indentations in the shell. The tarmac on that part of the road is pretty rough, and the indentations looked to be consistent with the lumps of exposed aggregate.
- There was an overall compression of the shell on the upper right side.
- There was a crack entirely thought one of the internal foam structs.
In addition, there was the 'normal' scratches and grazes over the right-hand side, such as you might expect to see on a shiny surface after being run across a rough surface.
So, in my case, the helmet has in all likely-hood prevented quite an amount of abrasive injury and lacerations to my head (little to no hair) including the ear. Judging by the small, puncture-type indentations some of these may have been quite deep - although consideration has to be given to the extent to which the helmet extends beyond the skull line. Given the abrasive injury to other parts of my body, I would suggest that I have a reasonable idea as to what I could have expected without a helmet.
The breakage of the structure of the helmet tells me that a reasonable amount of energy was also adsorbed by the helmet - which may have otherwise been transmitted into my skull in part or in whole. From the direction and location of the crack, it would also indicate that it may have provided a very small amount of reduction in deceleration. From discussions with my doctor, the amount of force inflicted on the ribs via my arm was not inconsiderable - and would more than likely have resulted in a significant whip-lashing of my head towards the ground as the arm made contact with it. The extent of the helmet beyond the skull line may have helped here by reducing the time the skull had to accelerate and by providing an energy adsorbing layer.
In summary, as best as I tell, the helmet has apparently saved a fair amount of lacerations to my head - which I consider justification enough for me to choose to keep wearing one - and may have reduced the total load and deceleration of my head against the road. The effect of the latter is impossible to ascertain, but I personally feel it may have been to my benefit, rather than anything else. This was an opinion backed up by two physicians.
I will continue riding with a helmet, but I have no wish to enforce that on anyone else - it's their body and they can treat it how they like. I'm not saying this applies to your comments, which are more general, but I do consider people telling me 'oooo - you can't be sure it helped you' not only bloody irritating but irrational. I'm damn sure it helped me in a crash situation that I do not consider extraordinary, in a manner that I consider worth other risks. In particular, in this case I do not believe it would have been possible for my head NOT to have contacted the road - so at least part of the energy adsorption and damage to the helmet must have been necessarily taken by my head.
Now, as far the statistics go, I know i'm potentially exposing to, or exacerbating , other injuries because of wearing a helmet. On balance, I still choose to wear it. I hope this example has been specific enough for you.
Agree about helmets, but in my experience, headphones are not conducive to great riding.
(Unscientifically)
Myth! They're only tested up to 12.42mph (5.52m/s) and even then, only in a guided freefall - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EN_1078 for the helmet test standard most common in the UK. It's pathetic.
I wear a helmet but I'm going to stop as soon as I get a thick enough beanie to deflect the branches from the hedges and trees that the councils no longer cut... and actually, some of those have felt really nasty when they hit the helmet. Then I may still wear a helmet when it's icy and a free fall onto the ground is more likely.
I was thinking about the recent London cycling deaths over the weekend and whilst tragic, I think there is a whole world of perspective that needs to be applied. What do I mean?
Well, put simply, the fact that a cyclist death in London is new, added to the fact that multiple cycling deaths create a whole barrage of knee jerk reaction to me simply proves how safe cycling is.
The day cycling deaths are no longer news, is the day that I dred... Put it this way, how many people have you read about getting killed in their car this week?
The likely reality is, there have been more than six. Its no longer news... people die in cars all teh time, thats what happens. The fact that cyclists don't get killed is the very reason it is news when tragically cyclists are killed.
This is a safe sport, this is a safe mode of transport, cycling is safe. We do not need laws 'protecting' cyclists by restricting their activity.
If there should be a law applied to cyclists it should be that everyone should go through a cycle proficiency course. Drivers need to have it before they drive, kids should have it before being let out alone. It shuld be taught at school.
As someone said 'There's a dead cat on the table!'.
The politicians have swiftly moved the story from '6 dead cyclists' to 'cyclists need to do something about their safety'. This is all very 'The thick of it'.
This is probably for two reasons:
1) Because the clamour over the 6 dead is reactionary (i.e. It is a reaction to a series of events which don't (per se) have any connection).
2) Because it means they don't have to do anything.
I mention the reactionary response, because if, in May, you had gone to politicians about Lee Rigby and asked them to do something to protect soldiers or radicalised muslims they would do the same thing: throw a dead cat on the table. But the reactionary demand is do something about the situation, when actually it is an isolated incident - the UK is not full of radicalised muslims wishing this sort of thing.
Now, if after a year soldiers are regularly being killed by radicalised muslims they would know that there was a real problem, they would then be bound to do something for many many reasons, and mostly that the story would not go away. This is the danger of jumping on something like the unfortunate spate of deaths in the capital and demanding action, the 'cluster' of deaths has the effect of discouraging cyclists and therefore less cyclists are likely to put themselves in danger and so no more deaths, no more media attention.
The politicians are actually hand-tied to do anything. They have their policies, and they have allocated their budgets already to cycle safety (and other areas), and so they're unlikely to do anything unless it can be proven (with some significant statistics) that cycle deaths are increasing, and there is some way of addressing it….so to make your point you need to have the data to show it - after a year, if you have 24 deaths, with an increase of 50% that they can't ignore things. But we're not at that yet.
Basically the politicians (Boris/Cameron/whomever) have out manoeuvred those cyclists campaigners wishing to use these tragic events to persuade further funding for infrastructure or road legislation. Better to organise yourself into a political organisation/opposition will to steal votes from them and expose them for their lack of action - point out their hypocrisy at a time when it counts. A typical case of careful what you wish for….cycling lobbyists will now be distracted into campaigning against high viz, helmets and ear phones, and this will be on the table every time until statistics show a clear trend of events - this can only ever be shown after full inquests into the cycling accidents. Such is the reality of politics and urban living.
I think this is probably the root of it. A cluster of deaths don't prove anything. And people that see themselves as cycle campaigners need to be very careful about shouting "look how terrible it is, it's so bad that we need X". There are multiple possible outcomes from convincing the public that cycling is terribly dangerous... most of them are ones which I don't want.
Evidence based policy making sounds like an indisputably good idea.
Policy made on the basis of this survey would be the reverse.
In another study....
"Public wrong about nearly everything"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-public-wrong-abou...
Compromise; use iphone ear buds, the sound leak is so high you can't hear the music anyway!
There would be less accidents if there was less traffic, better roads, more cycle paths between towns, better road lighting, less use of in car sat nav/stereos/mobiles/smoking, better on board viability technology in large vehicles, speeding, a ban of excessively wide 4wd's, wider roads, sensible road behaviour, young drivers curfew, enforced use of winter tyres, pedestrians learning to look, no winter or dark nights, introduction of foam tarmac, rubber cars, badgers/fox/deer road awareness courses, American drivers who can't understand roundabouts, rush hour and reach down for a packet of mints instead of looking where you are going.....
No, lets just attack the cyclist, they are easy to go for & won't annoy the voting motorist.
So, which one shall we pursue...?
When I drive a car I often have some music on.
When I ride my motorbike I have ear plugs in to protect what's left of my hearing.
When I cycle at a decent pace the wind noise makes me deaf anyway.
When the electric car becomes more common you wont hear it coming.
If you rely on your hearing for any road use you are an idiot.
If you ban it for one you must ban it for all.
As for helmets, the specification and protective capability's place them in the toy category at best.
good for holding a camera tho.
ah, a government think tank is going to make a 5mph cycling limit to eliminate wind noise, don't worry, they have got it covered.
the thing that concerns me about "helmets" and "high vis" is the political agenda behind it?
when I went to hospital just under 2 weeks ago, after being run over by a white van driver who simply did not bother checking the road before pulling out into traffic from behind a parked bus (he then fled the scene)
the first things the women at the A&E intake desk asked me:
"where you wearing a helmet?" (answer:yes, but i did not fall over or hit my head, I broke my right hand on the side of his vehicle when I impacted it at 20kph)
"where you wearing high-vis?" (answer:yes, but this was 09.30am in the morning in sunlight, and he did not bother checking his mirrors before pulling out in front of me)
-WHO has tasked A&E staff to ask these questions?
-Is this is a survey of cycling accidents?
-WHO is using the data from this survey?
-To what purpose?
I find this somewhat creepy.
And the lack of resources put into tackling illegal drivers (no license/ mot / insurance) which I can only assume includes the guy who caused my accident because he did everything in his power to escape the scene before anyone could accost him
FFS
FFS
FFS
FFS
FFS
FFS
FFS
FFS
FFS
Since the last big debate about helmets and the article about lights i have kept a count myself of cyclists (road, mtb and bmx style bikes) using the roads and pavements around where i live and work.
Its far from being scientific but just a bit of fun for myself. The resukts are quite interesting:
I counted 745 cyclists in total of which 434 were road bikes, 219 mtb and the rest (92) were bmx style bikes.
Of the 434 none were ridden on the pavement and of those 401 were wearing helmets - 92%.
Of the 219 MTB less than 5% were wearing a helmet and nearly 80% were on the pavement when i saw them.
Of the bmx riders none had a helmet on and all were on the pavement BUT nearly every one of them was a youngster - upto 14yrs.
Obviously i dont know there ages, where they were going or anything about them and its just for a bit of fun but from what i saw it appears that if your on the road the vast majority will wear a helmet yet those on pavements wont.
As for lights it's quite frightening how many dont have a light on their bike during darkness. In the end it proves nothing, just thought i would pass it on.
Stupid people are stupid shocker.
Shows more education is required. Although for the 11% who are intending to vote UKIP, I fear that they are beyond help, and the only kind thing to do would be to take them out the back and blow their brains out with a shotgun.
Your assuming they have brains
Pages