"Helmets not even in top 10 of things that keep cycling safe"

[Tim Kelley]

British cycling policy advisor says it’s time to stop distracting helmet arguments and concentrate on real safety issues…

http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-10-things-keep-cycling-safe

Thoughts?

[guga31bb]

This comment from the article sums up my feelings pretty well:

If you wanna wear a lid and think it makes you feel safer, fine wear one. If you dont, then don’t. Personal choice.

The problem is the people arguing that helmets are the magic bullet to cycling safety, which they are not.

[dkel]

@Tim Kelley 77624 wrote:

British cycling policy advisor says it’s time to stop distracting helmet arguments and concentrate on real safety issues…

It’s true: helmets don’t prevent accidents, they provide some protection when accidents happen. The fact that we on this forum spend lots of time talking about infrastructure and little time talking about helmets supports the position of the policy advisor. For my own part, I wish I understood why these conversations become so contentious, or seem so divisive, particularly between cyclists and non-cyclists. Is it a communication problem? A semantic issue? Priorities, I suppose?

[baiskeli]

Boardman returned to an analogy he has made before, and which even he admits is a bit melodramatic, though it gets the point across

“It’s a bit like saying ‘people are sniping at you going down this street, so put some body armour on,’” he said.
Government encouragement to wear helmets was therefore “a big campaign to get people to wear body armour, by the people who should be stopping the shooting.”

That’s great, but for now, they’re still shooting, so the helmet is one way I can help keep my fate in my own hands. To mix the metaphor.

[Geoff]

@baiskeli 77643 wrote:

…the helmet is one way I can help keep my fate in my own hands.

I always do lots of things: wear a helmet, a reflective vest when it’s dark, check my brakes and tire pressure, check for glass in my tire that will give me a puncture on my next ride, watch for parked cars that are about to door me, etc. I’ll bet that most people on this forum do the same and recommend that others do the same also. Probably few of these specifics are in that top ten list either, but it is about keeping your fate in your own hands. Fine, concentrate on the “real issues”, but it isn’t either/or.

It just occurred to me that even if the infrastructure was perfect, I would still do most of the same things, and would still recommend that others do them.

[baiskeli]

@Geoff 77648 wrote:

I always do lots of things: wear a helmet, a reflective vest when it’s dark, check my brakes and tire pressure, check for glass in my tire that will give me a puncture on my next ride, watch for parked cars that are about to door me, etc. I’ll bet that most people on this forum do the same and recommend that others do the same also. Probably few of these specifics are in that top ten list either, but it is about keeping your fate in your own hands. Fine, concentrate on the “real issues”, but it isn’t either/or.

It just occurred to me that even if the infrastructure was perfect, I would still do most of the same things, and would still recommend that others do them.

I agree with all of that.

[mstone]

@dkel 77629 wrote:

For my own part, I wish I understood why these conversations become so contentious, or seem so divisive, particularly between cyclists and non-cyclists. Is it a communication problem? A semantic issue? Priorities, I suppose?

It’s a cop-out way to shift the argument and blame cyclists for something, instead of addressing real issues. “Not wearing a helmet? Well, who cares if he was run over by a texting SUV driver going 30 over the speed limit, then.” Our society prefers facile litmus tests–“helmet=good, no helmet=bad”–over real conversation on difficult subjects.

[peterw_diy]

Thoughts? If he doesn’t want distracting helmet arguments, he should stop griping that he thinks wearing helmets make cycling look dangerous. If helmets are a non-issue, he needs to shut up about them already.

To use his awful analogy, stop whining about pedestrians with body armor and go find the stinking snipers.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 77663 wrote:

It’s a cop-out way to shift the argument and blame cyclists for something, instead of addressing real issues. “Not wearing a helmet? Well, who cares if he was run over by a texting SUV driver going 30 over the speed limit, then.” Our society prefers facile litmus tests–“helmet=good, no helmet=bad”–over real conversation on difficult subjects.

It CAN be a cop-out argument. It’s not always. One shouldn’t always jump to assume the worst in every situation, that doesn’t help anyone.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 77733 wrote:

It CAN be a cop-out argument. It’s not always. One shouldn’t always jump to assume the worst in every situation, that doesn’t help anyone.

Neither does telling people to wear helmets. Is there anyone in the developed world currently unfamiliar with the concept? No? Then why are we still talking about it? And yes, it’s always a cop-out argument if someone changes the subject from a pressing safety issue to arguing about whether some dead person was wearing a helmet.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 77745 wrote:

Neither does telling people to wear helmets.

Yes, telling people to wear helmets does make them safer, in and of itself.

And yes, it’s always a cop-out argument if someone changes the subject from a pressing safety issue to arguing about whether some dead person was wearing a helmet.

Exactly. THAT is the cop-out argument. Doesn’t mean that recommending a helmet or noting that a helmet can make you safer is always automatically a cop-out or blaming.

I can’t wait until I tell my kids to wear a helmet and they say “why aren’t you focusing on the real problems, like bicycle infrastructure, Dad?”

[dasgeh]

@baiskeli 77760 wrote:

I can’t wait until I tell my kids to wear a helmet and they say “why aren’t you focusing on the real problems, like bicycle infrastructure, Dad?”

I don’t think this article or the resulting thread were aimed at what people do in their own homes/with their own families. This is about social priorities. So as a society, what can we do to make cycling safer? Apparently, getting more people to wear helmets is not in the top 10 of possible actions. So let’s not focus on that — let’s not focus on helmet laws, or helmet hand outs, etc. Instead, let’s focus our public efforts on things that actually make cycling safer.

Also, my understanding is that there’s a difference in safety for kids v adults. Kids are still working on balance, so they are more likely to fall. So helmets are (probably) more important. That’s why I have no problem plugging helmets for a kidical mass ride. But in my list of “what’s important” for an adult-only ride, signalling, routing, being aware of surroundings, obeying traffic signals are all so much higher on the list, I probably wouldn’t bother mentioning helmets.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 77760 wrote:

Yes, telling people to wear helmets does make them safer, in and of itself.[/quote]

Except that it doesn’t, which was the point of the article and the conclusion of the actual science on the issue. I won’t respond again, because you’re going to take this circular.

[peterw_diy]

“I won’t respond again, because you’re going to take this circular.”

If you’re just going to wave your hands and declare there’s “science” showing that helmets don’t protect heads, and provide no references to any such studies, that’s just as well.

[lordofthemark]

I don’t actually see any science in the linked article – just the factoids that the NL and DK have low helmet usage and high safety, My understanding is that cycling in those countries is mostly on (excellent) segregated infra, and mostly relatively slow compared to commuters in North America. IE they have the best conditions for non-helmet use. That does not establish that in North American conditions, helmet use is not an important way to improve safety.

I am VERY sympathetic to the idea that an aggressive focus on helmets can impact ridership, and by reducing the safety in numbers effect, may actually reduce safety. That is why I oppose mandatory helmet use for adults, and think helmet promotion campaigns should not be excessive (and certainly should be offset by PR campaigns to promote more ridership) (and I also think other safety promotion campaigns, like proper bike lighting, are more important)- but I do not see evidence that helmet promotion campaigns in North America actually net reduce safety. I would be interested in seeing links to studies that did establish that.

[Author]

Posts