- 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
Better facilities, like these in the Netherlands, woiuld encourage people to cycle more (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 licenced by MarkA:Flickr)Dutch government and neurologists call on cyclists to wear helmets – but cyclists’ union says “too much emphasis” on helmets discourages cycling and “has an air of victim blaming”
The Dutch Cyclists’ Union has admitted that it may be a “wise decision” to wear a bike helmet on a voluntary basis, but urged against placing too much emphasis on helmet use – which the group argued can actually discourage cycling and instil a victim blaming culture in the famously cycling-friendly nation – after local authorities, the government, and neurologists urged people in the Netherlands to don a helmet when travelling around by bike.
Next month, the Netherlands’ transport ministry will introduce new guidelines on voluntary helmet use, after provinces such as Utrecht ran a campaign in May offering a €25 discount on helmet purchases.
Gelderland, meanwhile, is currently in the midst of its own campaign which attempts to raise awareness of helmet use and promote “behaviour change” in elderly cyclists, with people over 60 accounting for almost half of all seriously injured cyclists in the Netherlands.
> Dutch surgeons call on people to wear helmets while cycling
In a country with a distinct, deeply embedded cycling culture and where 28 per cent of all journeys are made by bike, only 3.5 per cent of Dutch cyclists wear helmets, which are usually confined to the nation’s sport or leisure cyclists.
However, calls for the Netherlands’ fietsers, its everyday cyclists, to wear helmets while out and about have been increasing in volume in recent years, as the number of cyclists seriously injured each year has risen by 27 per cent over the past decade, according to injury prevention organisation Veiligheid NL.
The Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research has also claimed that if all Dutch cyclists wore helmets, fatalities on the road would drop by 85 each year, and the number of serious injuries reduced by 2,500.
In 2022, 88,000 cyclists were injured in the Netherlands, making up 66 per cent of all casualties on the road. Around half of those collisions involved a motorist.
> Cyclists wearing helmets seen as "less human" than those without, researchers find
In light of these figures, two of the Netherlands’ leading road safety researchers, Fred Wegman and Paul Schepers, questioned whether the country could truly be said to support Vision Zero and similar initiatives without addressing the problem of head injuries suffered by cyclists not wearing helmets – even calling on the Netherlands to potentially follow Australia’s lead by introducing an obligatory helmet law.
“Modifications to cars can reduce injury in a collision, but in single-bicycle crashes, a helmet is one of the few possible measures to prevent serious head injuries,” Wegman and Schepers said.
“In case of a fall or crash, the use of a bicycle helmet was found to reduce serious head/brain injury by 60 per cent and fatal head/brain injury by 71 per cent on average, while it is found that the protective effect is the same for children and adults.
“In summary, wearing a helmet while cycling reduces the risk of head and brain injuries, and this reduction is higher for more severe injuries. A helmet obligation could be more effective than encouraging voluntary wearing.
“Perhaps the latter may be needed to increase support in the Dutch society for an obligation. Helmet use by cyclists seems to be a very relevant contribution towards zero cycle casualties in the Netherlands.”
> Why is Dan Walker’s claim that a bike helmet saved his life so controversial?
Meanwhile, a number of medical experts have also called for more frequent use of helmets, with Evert Pronk, the deputy editor of the Medical Contact journal, declaring his support for the campaign by admonishing those who purportedly refuse to wear helmets “because they don’t look good” in an article that featured the headline: “Looks good on you, a skull fracture”.
“I’m a huge fan of cycling but it’s important to protect ourselves,” neurologist Myrthe Boss, whose mother died after being hit by a motorist on a roundabout while cycling in 2019, told the Guardian this week.
“The brain is a very vulnerable organ with limited capacity to recover. If you fall from a bike and sustain a brain injury, this has long-term consequences. And a large proportion of people who fall while cycling have brain injury.
“A helmet doesn’t prevent everything but it does ensure there is less impact from the street on your head,” Boss said. “You see what it does in your family when you lose someone that way.”
Responding to the increasing calls for helmet use, the Dutch Cyclists’ Union, Fietsersbond, admitted that helmet use has its benefits – but warned against placing too much emphasis on one aspect of bike safety.
“We have the position that helmets don’t prevent accidents but it can be a wise decision to wear one on a voluntary basis,” the union’s director, Esther van Garderen, said.
“Emphasising too much that you should wear a helmet would discourage people from cycling sometimes, though, and has the air of victim blaming.
“I think it’s coming slowly, although there’s no such thing as a society with zero danger and we value our culture where you can cycle safe and free.”
Back in the UK, meanwhile, the bike helmet debate once again made national headlines, after celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay said his helmet meant he was “lucky to be standing here” after crashing heavily while cycling in Connecticut.
“Honestly, you’ve got to wear a helmet,” Ramsay said in an Instagram video in which he showed off the severe bruising to his side caused by the crash.
“I don’t care how short the journey is, I don’t care the fact that these helmets cost money, but they’re crucial. Even with the kids, [on] a short journey, they’ve got to wear a helmet.
“Now I’m lucky to be standing here. I’m in pain, it’s been a brutal week. I’m sort of getting through but I cannot tell you the importance of wearing a helmet. Please, please, please, please wear a helmet – because if I didn’t, I wouldn’t be here now.”
After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- Bill H 3 min 9 sec ago
It's not just sportsmen and women who get ripped off by their accounts and advisors. Kevin Bacon lost his money to Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme,...
- quiff 10 min 56 sec ago
I still use a Garmin 800 (of the plug it in and hope the Windows app works generation) and that is a bit of a pain. My c. 3 year old entry level...
- mattw 14 min 48 sec ago
Sorry, but WTF on some of that?...
- chrisonabike 35 min ago
Good point, I'd probably conveniently forgotten that due to my part in that (voting, "I paid a lot of tax and bought a fraction of a bomb" etc.)
- the little onion 2 hours 55 min ago
Rather artistic photo of this (driverless) car that has ended up on its roof on a dead straight road in Bradford....
- slc 4 hours 36 min ago
No doubt it will catch on in Plymouth, but it is Devon, where everything happens 10 years later. Not least the buses....
- mctrials23 5 hours 17 min ago
GCN just did a cool video on this. All I could think by the end was that perhaps if you got to do what the presenter did and mince around Italy in...
- ravenbait 5 hours 25 min ago
I missed that, thanks for pointing it out. I can't comment, as that's outside my area of expertise. Apologies to Rendel. This is why they should be...
Add new comment
192 comments
It's (not) funny how after helmet use became mandatory in Australia and New Zealand, the annual numbers of cycling fatalities actually increased.
I would class myself a socialist and I am very against the proliferation of unnecessary rules and prohibitions. I am absolutely against compulsory helmet rules, but also think that people who argue that helmets offer no protection are complete idiots akin to those who used to claim that seatbelts would prevent them being thrown to safety in the event of a collision.
Oh god is this another group I have to pay subs to? I already have to pay the evil cycling lobby, cycling mafia, and cycling brigade. Now the cycling socialists as well - I thought cycling was supposed to be cheap. Johnny Tightlips never warned me about this.
Johnny Tightlips never warns anyone about anything
It's shocking, especially as the membership fee of the Tofu-eating Wokerati has almost doubled in the last year as well. I'm not going to be able to carry on being a fully-paid-up Bike Nonce if this sort of proliferation continues.
You don't say, It's even worse for me who comments on this topic in three languages. My fees include all of the above plus
- die linksgrün versifften Quinoafresser
- Kampfradler
- Radlrambos
- Fahrradlobby
and also
- les bobos-écolos bouffeur de quinoa
- les bobos gauche caviar
- la dictature du vélo
- les khmer verts
- les donneurs de leçons
and so on and so forth...
Yeah, they lied to you about the cheapness...
If helmets were compulsory, people would be less likely to hire a shared bike unless it was a preplanned hire. They would then have to hire a taxi. Perhaps that's the underlying motive. Helmets are a good idea, making them compulsory isn't.
sometimes
I think these paired comments should be posted by the mods whenever "helmet row" appears, then further comments blocked.
Difficult to think of an occasion riding on a bike when the wearing of s helmet isn't a good idea! Easter bonet parade perhaps? That of course doesn't mean compulsion with all the negatives that would bring is a good idea.
Difficult to think of an occasion taking a shower, climbing stairs or a ladder, driving a car... when the wearing of s helmet isn't a good idea!
Getting a haircut?
Days gone by a pudding bowl would be used so not much difference. A mate who served in the navy juked that anything below the cap line belonged to the navy while anything above was his.
It is not at all difficult to think of occasions when bicycle helmets are not a good idea.
First off, bicycle helmets do not actually work to save lives, for a variety of reasons but chiefly that they are not designed to. The engineering priorities for cycling helmets are "Light, cool, cheap, attractive, aerodynamic, and safe" in that specific order. As a result, we wind up with 250 grams of plastic that are ineffectual -- to no one's surprise who has actually considered the matter. Even motorcycle helmets, which are vastly superior in construction, only show a small effectiveness signal.
This is why the percentage of bicycle helmet wearers matches the percentage of cyclists who are helmeted when killed. In other words, the statistical signature of a placebo.
Meanwhile, wearing such a decorative helmet when not racing your bicycle sends a message to all observers that cycling is incredibly dangerous -- which it is not, statistically. It is healthier than sitting on your couch, for most. Reinforcing that false notion of danger depresses cycling uptake, which is a net negative for our collective safety.
Anyone wearing a bicycle helmet and preaching about its necessity is, unfortunately, a hypocrite. If you really wanted to be safe, you'd be wearing a proper helmet like motorcyclists do.
"This is why the percentage of bicycle helmet wearers matches the percentage of cyclists who are helmeted when killed. In other words, the statistical signature of a placebo."
This is good!
"If you really wanted to be safe, you'd be wearing a proper helmet like motorcyclists do."
I hope, given that (it would appear) all the helmet zealots (on here) are incapable of seeing the obvious, no-one takes you up on that to make it the object of hundreds or thousands of road.cc posts, twitter contributions, BBC articles, law proposals and whatnot...
It's really not good. It would be outstanding if humans possessed the technology to build bicycle helmets that are wearable and effective -- but we do not. So we build helmets that people will tolerate wearing, and we pretend that they have utility beyond virtue signalling.
Unfortunately, they do not, which is why, for example, 32% of US cyclists wear helmets today, and 32% of US cyclist fatalities were helmeted when they crashed. And those two numbers have marched in lockstep since anyone first thought to track them, each ticking up a point every couple years. Many will recognize that as the statistical signature of a placebo.
So much sturm and drang is and has been wasted on the topic of helmets, while the root problem -- road user behavior -- goes virtually ignored by comparison. There is no reason that human beings cannot be trained and incentivized to cooperate safety on roads. We can teach dogs to drive, so we can teach most humans, if we decide to.
Not arguing for or against helmets but that statistic is only valuable for discussion if you can say how many of the deceased helmeted died of head injuries and how many of the non-helmeted did. Nobody is claiming a helmet will protect you from a car running over your torso. If the same proportion of helmeted deceased die of head injuries as those without, that's definitely a point in favour of the anti argument. If a significantly lower percentage of the helmeted deceased died of head injuries, that would be a point for the pros.
No. If helmets work there would be a gap between usage and usage by fatalities. There is not, and there never has been.
We see this gap with other safety devices that do work. Motorcyclist helmet usage is 65%, and 54% of motorcyclist fatalities were helmeted when killed. That's not a huge benefit, but it exists. Seatbelts, on the other hand, work quite well -- 92% adoption and only 40% of fatalities were belted.
That's not necessarily the case, because you're ignoring other variables such as the number of helmet-wearers in different environments, e.g. people are more likely to wear helmets in an urban environment where there are higher numbers of fatalities. You certainly can't ignore the cause of death when quoting a parity between numbers of deaths and numbers of helmet wearers, if 20% of helmet wearer fatalities were caused by head injuries and 80% of non-wearer fatalities were caused by head injuries that would be a strong argument for helmets, and the same vice-versa; it's only a relevant statistic if you can show that. As above, I'm not arguing for or against helmets, but that stat is definitely meaningless unless you know the other variables with which it's associated.
In which case, we would see a decrease in urban fatalities if helmets worked -- but they do not, and we do not.
Again no. You are failing to understand the statistics-in-question. I did not quote "parity between number of deaths and number of helmet wearers". I quote parity in the percentage of cyclists who wear a helmet, and the percentage of cyclists who are killed that were helmeted at their end (ignoring subsequent hospital stays).
The match between those percentages is precisely the statistical signature of a placebo -- a device that has no impact on the outcome.
It does not matter how many were killed by which injuries. We do not observe a reduction in fatalities with the increase in helmet usage. If they worked to save lives, we must necessarily observe that change. We do not. We never have. In your example, if the helmet usage percentage is 20%, your "strong argument for helmets" precisely matches the statistical signature of a placebo.
In order for your claim to find support, there would have to be some other unknown lethality factor that only effects helmet-wearers, that precisely counterbalances the imagined benefit that those helmets provide -- and if that imaginary scenario were true, that would still mean that bicycle helmets do not work.
Put simply, if bicycle helmets save lives, we need to see lives being saved. And we do not. And we never have. Ergo...
Yes it does. If 100% of helmeted cyclist fatalities died of non-head-related injuries, and 100% of non-helmeted cyclist fatalities died of head injuries, that would be highly significant. The same vice-versa. If you have statistics that show that the same proportion of deaths from head injuries occur for both helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists that would be extremely significant, just quoting the overall death figures without including the cause of death variable is meaningless.
Again, no. Please take a few moments and attempt to understand the relevant statistics being discussed, because you are not doing so yet.
Your abdandonment of your previous imaginary scenario and creation of a new imaginary nonsensical scenario does not change reality. In reality, we can identify no lives saved by the use of bicycle helmets.
How about you attempt to explain a mechanism by which bicycle helmets can save lives without those lives-saved ever appearing in fatality statistics? In other words, again, as I previously explained, identify this mysterious force that precisely counterbalances helmet effectiveness. And then explain why you believe that helmets work when there exists said force which entirely counterbalances their alleged benefit.
Again, if bicycle helmets save lives we have to see that effect in fatality statistics. We do not. We never have. The more people wear helmets, the more people die wearing them, at exactly the same rate. That cannot be the case if they work as advertised, or even at all.
Suggest you go and have a think about that one and perhaps you'll be able to understand that people who aren't killed don't appear in fatality staistics.
It's you who is failing to understand I'm afraid, or rather is, I suspect, being deliberately obtuse. Once again, I am not arguing for or against helmet use, I am simply pointing out that your statistics are meaningless without further explanation. Nobody is claiming that helmets prevent death or injury from any other cause than head trauma, so the relevant statistic would be what proportion of fatalities from head injury occur amongst helmet wearers and is that proportion the same amongst non-helmet wearers. Additionally, you have totally ignored the point that some environments are more dangerous than others and so may have a higher proportion of helmet wearers.
If you have such figures and they support your argument, great, let's see them. If you just want to keep repeating the same raw data without any examination of influencing variables and patronisingly accusing anyone who asks for a more sophisticated analysis of the data of a lack of understanding, don't bother.
That's the point, the fatality rate does not change with increased helmet adoption. Why, exactly?
I understand exactly what you are claiming -- but you are just wrong, as I have repeatedly explained to you.
Again, for now the n-th time, we find no statistical support -- anywhere -- for the claim that bicycle helmets save lives. The more they are used, the more people die wearing them. That cannot happen if they work effectively. Explain this dichotomy, or stop wasting my time.
Again, for the n-th time, those variables would not cause the fatality rate to stay the same with increased helmet adoption. Which is exactly what we find. Again, the more people who wear helmets, the more people die in them -- at exactly the same rate. This situation is not explicable by your environmental excuses. It is, however, the precise signature of a placebo.
And the injured body part still does not matter. Dead is dead. Even if your imaginary scenario were true, and helmets prevent fatal head injuries but the riders still die at precisely the same rate, what difference does that make? None at all. The point stands -- bicycle helmets do not save lives.
Oh, so you are attempting to pontificate here despite being totally unfamiliar with the relevant data? Color me not that surprised.
I note that you declined to make any attempt to explain this mysterious force that you propose, which perfectly counterbalances the benefit provided by helmets, and also to explain why you still believe that helmets are effective, despite the existence of this mysterious balancing force that results in no safety benefit being identifiable, statisically.
If you have never bothered to study the problem, perhaps consider choosing a different topic to wade into, perferably one in which you possess the necessary grounding.
Ah, I see you've chosen the option not on the ballot paper, to simply repeat your previous statements without any further evidence. Quite extraordinary that you think that the efficacy of helmets is demonstrated by raw data about fatalities without any reference to the cause of death and whether or not head trauma was involved. According to your manner of interpreting data, if someone's run over by a truck and has both their legs cut off and bleeds to death, if they're wearing a helmet that proves helmets don't work. That alone is enough to invalidate anything you say, however snotty and superior you try to be. Good day to you, no further comment from me, it's you who's wasting my time.
Looks like you have a bit of a habit ending debates that don't go your way in that manner. Maybe you should work on that...
I'm not a mathematician, who'd surely explain this far quicker but it's actually not that difficult:
In a non helmeted cyclist population, x % of cyclists die in accidents, of which y% from head injuries.
When by and by a certain percentage of that population adopt helmets, we get two populations, one helmeted, H, the other not, NH.
So there's population NH, x(nh)% of whom die, and thereof y(nh)% from head injuries,
and in population H x(h)%, and y(h)%, where, if helmets were effective, y(h)% would have to be necessarily smaller than y(nh)%.
These percentages "y of x" do not show up in the statistics cited by dh700, but if helmets were at least somewhat effective against death by head injury, at some stage of helmet adoption there'd have to be a visible decrease in y(h) which would necessarily lead to a decrease in x(h) as opposed to x(nh), and that would show up in the statistics.
But that's not actually the case, x(h) remains the same as x(nh) whatever the degree of helmet wearers.
At least the decrease in y(h) is so small, that it never shows up in any population studies, and certainly so small that it doesn't warrant incessant helmet appeals, law proposals, forum threads and whatever.
Looks like you have a habit of holding a long-standing grudge just because somebody refused to continue debating with you when you got rude, aggressive and personal. Maybe you should work on that…
Seems to me you're arguing past each other about, on the one hand
a) Are helmets effective against head injuries?
and on the other hand
b) Are helmets effective at reducing fatalities?
Given an equal rate of fatalities in each population, it's quite possible for the answer to (a) to be 'Yes' and the answer to (b) to be 'No', if all those who would have died from head injuries but didn't because they were wearing a helmet died anyway from other injuries.
[There are other potential routes to the same answer - e.g. perhaps helmeted riders get hit at a higher rate, that happens to cancel out the benefit from the helmet, but I don't think that argument was advanced.]
Pages