- 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
Lazer "brain-design" helmet, to be used by Jumbo Visma at Paris Roubaix 2023Jumbo-Visma to wear helmets with “healthy brains” at Paris-Roubaix to encourage helmet wearing
Jumbo Visma, one of the dominant teams of the 2023 spring classics campaign, has teamed up with its Belgian helmet suppliers Lazer to produce and promote a special “brain-design” helmet, which will be worn by members of the Dutch squad at this weekend's much anticipated Paris-Roubaix races, to encourage all cyclists to wear a “helmet”.
“This year's Paris-Roubaix cycling classic is all about raising awareness to wear a helmet while cycling,” said the Dutch outfit, led by pre-Roubaix favourites Wout van Aert, Dylan van Baarle, and Marianne Vos. “The riders of Team Jumbo-Visma are drawing attention to this initiative.”
The team has been working with Lazer for several years to develop the best protective bicycle helmet, and said that it “supports this message and is happy to use its authority to raise awareness”.
Likewise, Lazer mentioned that the partnership with Jumbo Visma gives them the opportunity to draw attention to the importance of wearing a helmet during a major World Tour race not only for professional cyclists, but also for every cyclist worldwide, “whether you’re riding a kids bike or an e-bike”.
Sean van Waes, CEO of Lazer said: “We would rather see a lot more bicycle helmets being sold worldwide, even from other brands. After all, this is about protection for cyclists and their health.”
Jumbo Visma has seen a flurry of cobbled success this season with back-to-back victories at Opening Weekend in February, and last month at E3 Saxo Bank and Gent-Wevelgem — with their leader Wout van Aert winning the former in a dazzling sprint where he beat Tadej Pogačar and his long-time rival Mathieu van der Poel, while Christophe Laporte and Van Aert took a dominant (and somewhat controversial) one-two in a grisly day at Gent-Wevelgem.
Van Aert, however, missed out on the podium places in last week’s Tour of Flanders and will be hoping for a return to winning ways in his new lid at Sunday's Hell of the North — although his Red Bull sponsorship may be plastered over the “healthy brains” on his helmet.
🧠 Wout van Aert dokkert al een keer over de kletsnatte kasseien van Parijs-Roubaix. Mét een bijzondere helm voor zondag.https://t.co/Eb6CrQiMJi pic.twitter.com/nzOw0d1oqi
— Sporza 🚴 (@sporza_koers) April 6, 2023
Last month, Endura designed four helmets featuring CAT scans of cyclists' brain injuries to encourage helmet wearing. Coinciding with Brain Awareness Week, the Scottish-based manufacturer auctioned them for The Brain Charity, with the cyclewear brand hoping to "encourage the entire cycling community" to wear helmets.
One of the helmets featured the scan of Ian Charlesworth, 62, who was struck by the driver of an HGV in 2019, while another featured John Moroney's, a cyclist injured in a collision with the driver of a 4x4 in Bristol.
Both men were cycling without head protection, Endura is quick to point out, and suffered skull fractures, brain injuries and neurological abnormalities such as haemorrhage and contusion, leading to cognitive impairment struggles including memory loss, fatigue and vertigo.
Use your head. Wear a helmet every time you cycle. 🧠
Together with our partner @lazersport, we are raising awareness of the importance of wearing a helmet with a goal to increase helmet use.#useyourhead #parisroubaix
— Team Jumbo-Visma cycling (@JumboVismaRoad) April 6, 2023
As our readers would know by now, helmet safety is a passionately contentious issue. Several researchers, including psychologist Dr Ian Walker of the University of Bath, have found that motorists tend to give more space to cyclists not wearing helmets, therefore lowering the possibility of a collision.
In 2014, former Olympian and now active-travel advocate Chris Boardman had described the "helmet issue" as a "massive red herring" which is "not even in the top ten of things you need to do to keep cycling safe or more widely, save the most lives".
There are also calls for clearer helmet marketing and mention their limitations in offering protection during a collision. A recent study had found that only one in five competitive cyclists are aware that helmets do not protect from concussion, which researchers say may lead them to ignore the potential consequences of what cyclists may view as a ‘minor’ crash.
However, a 2017 review by statisticians at the University of New South Wales found that, based on 40 separate studies, helmet use significantly reduced the odds of head injury, and that the probability of suffering a fatal head injury was lower when cyclists wore a helmet (though, the authors noted, helmets cannot eliminate the risk of injury entirely).
Another study from the same year, this time from Norway's Institute of Transport Economics, concluded – based on an overview of almost 30 years' worth of analysis – that bike helmets reduced head injury by 48 per cent, serious head injury by 60 per cent, traumatic brain injury by 53 per cent, facial injury by 23 per cent, and the total number of killed or seriously injured cyclists by 34 per cent.
More recently, Channel 5 presenter Dan Walker said he was “glad to be alive” after being hit by a driver while cycling at a roundabout in Sheffield. Walker said his helmet "saved my life" and told his social media followers “if you're on a bike — get one on your head”.
> Why is Dan Walker’s claim that a bike helmet saved his life so controversial?
The 45-year-old claimed that a police officer and paramedics who attended the scene told him that he would not be here now if he was not wearing one, but in the inevitable debate that ensued others suggested prioritising helmets is an example of 'car-brained' victim-blaming culture, with safe infrastructure and action on dangerous and careless driving more important.
Adwitiya joined road.cc in 2023 as a news writer after graduating with a masters in journalism from Cardiff University. His dissertation focused on active travel, which soon threw him into the deep end of covering everything related to the two-wheeled tool, and now cycling is as big a part of his life as guitars and football. He has previously covered local and national politics for Voice Wales, and also likes to writes about science, tech and the environment, if he can find the time. Living right next to the Taff trail in the Welsh capital, you can find him trying to tackle the brutal climbs in the valleys.
Latest Comments
- Simon E 21 min 3 sec ago
A SuperSix is definitely not an all-rounder....
- JLasTSR 27 min 31 sec ago
Since most of.my clothes come.from.charity shops.or the eBay nearly for.nothing clothing section I don't tend.to.worry if they wear out, I am also...
- chrisonabike 1 hour 12 min ago
Just get them to walk a treadmill - or better, ride exercise bikes to power path lighting.
- AidanR 1 hour 48 min ago
So his advisers were trying to move funds around to cover losses, but in a way that needlessly created additional liabilities? It would have been...
- levestane 1 hour 50 min ago
Reading this and watching the GCN review has made me realise that, for me, it's not the bike being steel (narrow tubes) that is the critical...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 57 min ago
Given that the property is private a more elegant and less vandalistic approach would be to lock the bikes away somewhere and contact Lime to...
- David9694 3 hours 23 min ago
Try https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/24739976.overturned-car-chat...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 47 min ago
Yes - or:...
Add new comment
75 comments
On the subject of helmets I've just received an e-mail from Trek claiming their new Ballista helmet will shave seconds off my rides and help me set personal records. Apparently it's their fastest helmet ever. Wow.
At one time I did have an aero helmet that claimed to save 75 seconds over 40km compared to a standard road helmet. It wasn't very comfortable and extremely hot. I gave it away and now when I'm going for a 40km ride I just leave 75 seconds earlier.
I dont know the pros cope with those virtually enclosed aero helmets they wear thesedays, no wonder they ride in short sleeves/shorts when its still barely above 10degrees.
youd like to hope aero wasnt the prime thing a bike company were focussing on whilst selling this "safety equipment/ppe"
As long as it passes the relevant helmet standards, then companies are going to look for other ways of differentiating between their product and others.
maybe differentiate on colour,styling or on price then, but dont try to sell me stuff that "protects my brain" by saying its primary selling feature is, it lets me ride faster
That's what I'd do too. I'm in no hurry.
I thought you were so fast you sometimes arrived before your helmet had left?
That was when I was using wheels that haven't been invented yet.
Apropos nothing, anybody got any thoughts/opinions on whether disc brakes make much of a difference to helmet efficacy?
Discs and headgear are more dangerous when combined.
When did you ever hear an Accident and Emergency doctor ever recommend not to wear a helmet? When did you ever hear somebody say not wearing a helmet saved me from injury? Never that's when.
If cycle helmets were a genuinely effective intervention then there would be no shortage of evidence to prove it. But that is not the case, as these endless disagreements demonstrate.
An A&E medic is not qualified to say whether a cycle helmet has made a difference to the injuries the casualty is presenting with. They are also unlikely to be able to be objective. Lots of medical staff have biases, beliefs and have even been taught things that others would strongly disagree with or have subsequently been disproved.
All true: a phenomenon known as "observation bias".
The bigger argument is not whether an individual is better served by wearing a helmet, but whether the population is better served by making helmets compulsory. You might think that the former justifies the latter, but you'd be wrong. It terms of risk to life and health overall, enforcing helmet wearing has a net deleterious impact on the population, since it costs more in health improvement forgone than it yields in injury prevention.
Seems to me that the medical profession are very quiet about recommending helmets for many normal activities that, when a mishap occurs, result in head trauma.
Why cycling gets picked out as an activity that vehemently gets the "helmet will protect you from serious brain injury" treatment is a bit of a mystery, especially given the complete lack of compelling science led data to back that assertion up.
Whilst many of us do wear helmets, it's mainly because we have given up having a rational debate about the issue. Not in the hope that they will make us less susceptible to serious injury.
Actually, the only time I came close to hitting my head in a bike crash, I'm very glad I WASN'T wearing a helmet. I landed flat on my back, and the effort of keeping my head off the road gave me a mild whiplash. Had I been wearing a helmet - especially one of the ones with a sticking out bit at the back which were fashionable at the time - it's quite likely that would have hit the tarmac and caused a head injury or worse neck injury. And no doubt I'd have heard all about how much worse it could gave been if I wasn't wearing a helmet!
Don't get me wrong, although I choose not to wear one myself (and made that decision long before I discovered all the discussions on the subject), I am aware that it might be useful in certain scenarios. But I don't think it's clear cut - and I certainly agree with Chris B that other things are more important.
Well, I'd be happy to share my anecdotal experience.
In my 30 years of riding, I've only ever hit my head once falling off when not wearing a helmet. However, I have never fallen off whilst wearing a helmet and not hit my head.
On two of those occasions I was treated to a mild concussion for my efforts.
Now, it could be that divine intervention has always had me helmet up on the days where I'm going to fall off and smash me head... Or, it could be that wearing a helmet significantly increases my chances of hitting my head and potentially picking up a mild concussion.
Now, the increased chance of hitting my head is unchallengeable. Bigger volume and larger mass will increase that chance.
So... Yeah, happy to say that not wearing a helmet has saved me from injury in the past. Touch wood, I've been fortunate that I've never hit my head enough hard enough to be truly thankful for wearing a helmet. Hoping that good fortune continues!
I'd be worried about zombies.
Can't see the problem with this.
If you want to wear a helmet, wear one. If you don't, that's fine as well, so don't.
Just stop losing your mind when somebody/a group advises to wear one......
The issue is when helmets are used to victim blame cyclists and then are used in place of effective safety measures (e.g. police checking that cyclists are wearing helmets rather than enforcing motorised speed limits).
And you thonk that's really the case when someone says "Use your head"?
I thought that if you can see the brain the helmet either hasn't worked or made no difference...
This the link to the website of this campaign:
https://www.useyourhead.cc/
Not only is the slogan deeply offensive, they then go on to claim an "88% reduction in head and brain injuries". 88%! We're in plain Thompson, Rivara, Thompson territory here.
Thanks for posting that. I'm offended by the awful advertising language, but even more by the use of figures that have been disproved for 25 years. Just how can people still keep using them? It shows that they are either totally incompetent or they just don't care.
Without being able to read the text of the Norwegian study, it's impossible to tell whether it is valid or not, but after many years of studying meta-analyses of cycle helmet studies, I have become extremely suspicious of them, because they are so easy to manipulate. It all depends on which studies you select, and if you choose the ones that show that helmets protect and ignore the ones that don't, you get the result you want. Putting lots of bad studies together doesn't somehow transform them into one good study. If they showed the studies they used, then it might be possible to say whether it was robust, but they don't.
As far as I know, all the long term, large scale, reliable methodology studies show at best no benefit from mass helmet wearing.
One thing is for sure though, proper cycling facilities do work, and helmets are just a distraction and victim blaming.
Starts with "one thing is for sure". Proceeds to make spurious claim. Good one.
You've got to read the rest as well...
I've read the rest. It's the same usual stuff. Eburt says that studies are too easy to manipulate with one's own bias and brands ones that agree with his view as accurate and ones that don't "the worst of bad science".
I don't think the level of self-awareness is quite there to see the irony of that.
And apparently the efficacy of cycling infrastructure is relevant to the efficacy of helmets. The causal link hasn't been explained yet. Personally I'd rather have infrastructure that keeps me safer and a helmet that keeps me safer. In the absence of such infrastructure, eburt seems to think that you're much better off without a helmet. I don't quite follow that logic myself.
"I'd rather have infrastructure that keeps me safer and a helmet that keeps me safer."
The first is 98% of safety, the second 2%.
So let's start with the first to then find we don't really need the second. Rather than as it is now push for the second to actually avoid ever doing the first.
Just had a quick search for studies that estimate the injury reduction for cycle lanes and found this one: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2012/10/22/study-protected-bike-lanes-reduce-injury-risk-up-to-90-percent/
Pages