- 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
- chrisonabike 4 min 39 sec ago
You're going to have to add "new / shiny" to that list. My new Cube was nicked from "secure" storage for my flats *....
- brooksby 6 min 14 sec ago
I wear jeans for my six mile each way commute, during the colder months. I have chinos too....
- quiff 6 min 24 sec ago
I think momove's middle paragraph was sarcastic....
- Velophaart_95 6 min 48 sec ago
For that money you can buy a Mason, a Fairlight and still have plenty of change.........
- brooksby 8 min 9 sec ago
I think that they're saying they won't feel guilty for driving a car instead of cycling for so long as we continue to build new buildings. Or...
- brooksby 16 min 40 sec ago
Now they need to put that arrested individual in one of those hanging cages alongside the Path and perhaps next to one of the CCTV cameras, pour...
- mdavidford 24 min 4 sec ago
I'm not sure commercial success is even particularly high on his list of priorities for it - it's much more about the leverage it gives him for...
- mdavidford 31 min 15 sec ago
Well, that or gambling. Though arguably that's a fine distinction.
- the little onion 3 hours 41 min ago
Rather artistic photo of this (driverless) car that has ended up on its roof on a dead straight road in Bradford....
- slc 5 hours 21 min ago
No doubt it will catch on in Plymouth, but it is Devon, where everything happens 10 years later. Not least the buses....
Add new comment
192 comments
Hmmm. I only ever wore a helmet when out on my road bike putting in some miles and going a fair lick. On my pootles to the shop, commutes I never wore one, on my heavier, pannier laden bike. Unfortunately I now do wear a helmet for the sole purpose to have a helmet cam attached. That's it. Not to protect my head, but to record the instance when I am getting wiped out by a drivist. Just so that my wife has evidence to present for the vein hope that it might add a further £10 fine if it went to court, if the police decide to do anything of course.
Good points well made. My solution to the shopper problem is to have cheap cameras permanently attached to the bike. I can leave them on when in the shop and not have to carry a helmet. Charging them is a little inconvenient when compared to a helmet cam. For other rides I use a helmet cam so I can hop onto whichever bike I am using and have a camera with me.
One other consideartion is the fact that hi-viz and helmet wearing are advised in the highway code. This means that in the event of a collision the fact that you are not wearing one can be, and often is, interpreted as not using the road in accordance with the highway code in an attempt, often successful, to divert blame. I am willing to take the risk but I would be happier if this section were reworded or removed.
Yes, it's funny that isn't it. Your fault for not wearing a helmet or high vis.
The HC also says look out for vulnerable road users and take special care round them which seems never to be raised to cancel out the helmet/high-vis gambit.
There's two whole pages on speed limits.
Dutch government: largely neoliberal and main parties currently negotiating coalition with fascists
Neurologists: Experts on neurology and nothing else
Not the first people I would go to for advice on transport choices and policies...
You forgot a few other experts:
trollexpertlawyerTo be fair on the other side there are:
Boardman was quite a good road rider too.
Not sure how much expertise is really needed. If you want to wear a lid you wear one. If you don't you don't. Either way you might be lucky or you might not.
A lot. Because the debate is dominated by people who have no expertise whatsoever, but lots of attitude. And attitude wins over facts.
If the threads on this site are anything to go by, I'd say it's the opponents of helmet wearing who've got an attitude problem. For all their claims of expertise, they contribute little but rudeness.
There are no (or very few) opponents of helmet wearing.
What people are opposed to is the constant messaging that you shouldn't be cycling without a helmet.
Being constantly told that your personal choices are invalid/wrong or even in some cases immoral can give rise to a frustration that can come across as rudeness. But it's a pretty rude thing to say to someone in the first place.
In my comment above I expressed pretty much the exact opposite of what you describe. I don't know who you feel has repeatedly told you you are wrong. If you disagree with them I suggest you ignore them. That is what I would do.
I wasn't referring to myself, or to you.
I choose to wear a helmet, not so much to protect me from head impacts, as to protect me from such tedious comments.
You don't have to look very far for people saying this kind of thing - there are some in the very article these comments are under, and Gordon Ramsey is another very current example.
You choose to wear a helmet because of tedious comments from strangers?
Sometimes it's simply for a quiet life. It gets tedious trying to explain it all. In the same way. It's tedious trying to explain why cyclists don't use cycle lanes. Hold a strong road position. People refuse to see that reasoning. I once explained why cycle lanes don't get used. The individual said that makes sense but you should still use them.
No - not just strangers - people I know too.
There are some, and there ought to be more. Wearing a bicycle helmet when not racing is deleterious to collective cyclist safety, and neutral to individual cyclist safety, and should be avoided. Those helmets do not work to save lives, but they do work to broadcast the falsehood that cycling is a dangerous activity suitable only for daring young men with little to lose. That depresses cyclng adoption, which is a negative for all manner of reasons.
If you are genuinely too scared to ride a bicycle without a helmet, you should first undertake a project to analyze that unfounded fear, but if that fails, you should be wearing a proper helmet like those worn (sometimes) by motorcyclists. A ~2 kg motorcycle helmet stands a chance of aiding you in a crash. A 250g bicycle helmet does not, which is why people die wearing them at the same rate at which they wear them -- just like a placebo.
To be fair there are other options. A cap or wooly hat may protect you against abrasions and certainly keeps your head warm (a cold bonce can be distracting - and you don't want to be distracted while cycling). A hat with a brim can provide protection against UV radiation (trust me on the sunscreen).
eburtthebike probably has the figures on this (and no doubt these will vary markedly for each starting point) but ... I idly wonder exactly how off-putting "dangerising cycling" or even mandating helmets is? (In the Australian case I suspect attitudes of drivers and society at large had influence, along with a dearth of good cycle infra or even pleasant and convenient places to cycle. Perhaps an Australian expert could comment?)
In any case - as Chris Boardman noted (as do the Fietsersbond) these aren't in most informed groups' top 10 of things to address on the topic of "safety". It's also perhaps interesting to ponder on how people assess "safety" when considering transport (and that's without getting into "salient issues" e.g. if something bad happened connected with this in your life / the news etc).
I know, I have all three of those, although brimmed hats are only used when paddling, not pedaling.
Precipitous drops resulting from mandatory helmet laws have been well-studied, and the average is around a 30% reduction in cycling overall -- typically more in younger groups, so the effect probably gets worse over time, to boot.
"Dangerising" is more difficult to quantify, but every study that I have seen has found that 'Fear' is the number one reason that non-cyclists are non-cyclists.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2022/10/05/three-reasons-that-people-dont-bi...
No one who considers themself "pro cycling" should be contributing either to the misguided idea that cycling is dangerous or that bicycle helmets have any benefit to whatever the safety situation is. Both of those positions are demonstrably and completely wrong. Unfortunately, apart from Chris Boardman, almost all other cyclists prefer to brag about how dangerous their transport is, and how safe they are due to ~250 grams of plastic.
Sorry tablet so posting pics more complex, but there are two fine pictures in the article of an Aussie cyclist, who has to wear a helmet, legally, and has a very wide brim.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/31/more-australians-...
Hmm, more bedtime reading.
I'm a little cautious about these surveys (although it's trickier to find other ways). It does seem that sometimes people report things at some variance to what really motivates them. Particulary when asked about something e.g. like cycling which they likely haven't considered doing before.
Indeed the article makes mention of other factors. Certain things seem necessary (like "places that seem safe and convenient to cycle" and "secure places to store / leave bike") but are likely not sufficient. Other things e.g. facilitating the convenience of motoring may act to suppress demand for other modes (have car, will drive it). And obviously upgrading roads for motor infra and filling them with motor traffic is a good way to reduce the desirability for cycling there (and indeed walking).
I think the more tricky ones are "social" (not that building suitable infra, modifying laws and ensuring availability of suitably-priced "practical bikes" and places to park them are easy). And that can vary a lot depending on the country / region / population under study.
I think "representation" may be important also. People tend to emulate those they aspire to or flock to bigger groups - and who's a notable transport cyclist / where is that clan?
People also seek to align with their close groups but if your friends, family, coworkers etc. wouldn't be seen dead on a bike you may be othering yourself and reducing your own status (as a weirdo). We're usually strongly motivated to avoid that! If others aren't cycling it can be a bit lonely also. Of course in the UK there are effective strictures against social travel on bikes, unique among transport modes.
While it's apparently "unfashionable" in some circles to dwell on The Netherlands I think that this kind of study might be interesting there - since the "infra" and "availability" barriers are very much reduced compared to everywhere else *. And also as they own a LOT of cars. And in fact they do drive a lot and driving is still convenient.
* Essentially they're the "most cyclingest" sizeable country. Of course that's outside of the UK ... in the past (1920s-1930s)! And then places going through the level of development we were at then e.g. China more recently etc.
I did consider setting out this argument as a caveat to my comment but decided it would make it too long-winded, and would be irrelevant to the main point, since very few people propound it in relation to people on that side of the debate in general - the large majority are of the 'it should be a personal choice - just stop telling me I should/must be wearing one' viewpoint.
Strange that. Anytime I've politely commented I've always been called names and what not by those on the pro helmet side.
My issue is that far too many commentators within cycling forums and beyond tend to believe that a helmet is the panacea of road safety. Many of the views tend to fall on the "a helmet saved my life" line. I've come off my bike a handful of times in the last 50 years or so and have only suffered grazed elbows and knees and sprained wrists. I once asked someone if their driving behaviour would change if helmet wearing was made mandatory. They had no answer.
Wear one or not is entirely up to the individual. The wearing of one is not going to stop a distracted motorist driving through you.
I don't imagine anyone thinks a helmet is going to help if a motorist drives over you. The fact that you have never banged your head, or that there will be many, many cases in which a helmet won't help, isn't incompatible with occasional claims that "a helmet saved my life" (whether or not they are exaggerated, which is a different question).
The unwillingness of opponents of helmet wearing to tolerate dissent reminds me a bit of that of brexiters.
Again, not opponents of helmet wearing; opponents of being told to wear a helmet.
You'd be pretty surprised how many seem to think that a helmet offers protection to the rider in the event of a collision. When I was t- boned the first statement made by some folk was if I was wearing a helmet. My dry answer was quizzing them if it would have protected me from fracturing my clavicle , busting my ribs and severe tissue damage that prevented me from walking unaided for 6 weeks.
When you read about cycling fatalities the media are at pains to highlight the rider was sans helmet yet when the cyclist was wearing one they make no mention of it.
Every thread I read on this subject many commentators announce that a helmet saved their life and make derisory remarks about those who don't. There is as much if not more intolerance and an unwillingness to discuss rationally from helmet advocates.
Damage to a helmet is not proof it helped. Any delicate item strapped to the head would, by that logic, be a useful safety device.
It's also clear to me that the number of helmet wearers with "The helmet saved my life!" claims greatly outweighs the possible number of cyclist deaths from head injuries that there could be if there were no helmets. Every other helmet wearer seems to have these stories, it just does not add up statistically - as deaths by "head injury alone" are vanishingly rare even amongst non-helmet-wearing cyclists.
It's just bullshit.
I carry an egg in my shirt pocket, amazing how many times it saved me from broken ribs/punctured lungs.
Given that the only detectable effect of helmet compulsion is a fall in the number of cyclists, who then lose the overwhelming benefits, the costs would massively outweigh the benefits. Regular cyclists live longer and suffer less from all forms of illness, and even a small fall in their numbers would immediately wipe out any gain from the unproven reduction in ksis.
Only casual cyclists would be deterred by the "helmet is inconvenient" idea.
Regular cyclists will have considered which part of their life will be better with a brain injury and how likely they are given the rides and behaviour involved.
Interesting to see what a high proportion of incidents are single vehicle, which suggests that better training and experience is required.
Obviously the main cause of Road danger are drivers of motor vehicles where helmet use is probably helping to dehumanise riders and incidental to being hit by several tonnes at speed.
My non-representative experience being that close passes are not prevented by wearing a helmet. I use other means..
...who are exactly those we want.
We don't want a nation of casual (careless) drivers - damaging others and themselves (even allowing for all the safety features in cars and our road infra). We want a nation of casual cyclists. Even though they'll still be falling over and injuring themselves. (Apparently at a fairly similar rate that they would on foot - albeit cyclists travel further and there is some data suggesting head injuries are more frequent). That would be vastly less problematic for us all, for a whole range of reasons.
Helmets can reduce the likelihood and severity of some brain injuries - in the currently available form they're not a "fix". (Indeed - they're probably less suited to protecting the heads of "regular cyclists" - by which I guess you mean the more sports-oriented - than people just falling over getting on and off their bikes).
I think you're overestimating the consideration people give most choices. It seems to me that most cyclists go with a compromise that suits them. Starting with "I'm going to cycle". Don't forget - don't cycle, no cycling-related brain injuries! Whether it's that cycling is considered "dangerous" so people look around for "protection" OR it's just that there's a "standard uniform" which gets approval I don't know. But I think people mostly just do what other people do (or others tell them they should do because that's "standard").
Unless you're aware of many people seeking out "safety-improved helmets" - perhaps going to custom safety-helmet-builders? I mean - that would be the informed choice, right?
As for training - the Dutch already get quite a bit of training and experience as children IIRC [1] [2]. So while that's a thought I suspect "diminishing returns" here. You've got to provide it AND make people *do it*.
Note the crash rate from "trained and licenced" drivers and the enthusiasm for further training or even testing (not).
Pages