- 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
White cycle helmetScotland’s active travel minister criticised – for not wearing a helmet while cycling
Scotland’s newly-appointed active transport minister – the first person to be appointed to such a position in any national government in the UK – has faced widespread criticism after he was photographed riding a bicycle without wearing a helmet.
Patrick Harvie was appointed the Scottish Government’s minister for zero carbon buildings, active travel and tenants’ rights after the Green Party, for which he is MSP for Glasgow, entered a shared agenda agreement with the Scottish National Party last month.
Pictures of the MSP emerged after he attended Glasgow Pride on Saturday, with some road safety campaigners, including from the charity Headway which backs compulsory cycle helmets, insisting he should have worn one, reports Express.co.uk.
While the Highway Code recommends that cyclists should wear helmets, there is no legal compulsion to do so, and Harvie has said that sporting one is “not my style,” adding that it made him feel as though he were participating in an extreme sport.
But Peter McCabe, chief executive of Headway, said: “Using negative language that discourages the use of helmets puts lives at risk.
“As a charity that helps people to rebuild their lives after sustaining brain injuries, including those acquired through cycling accidents, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss with Mr Harvie the overwhelming body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence that proves the effectiveness of helmets in reducing the risk of brain injuries and fatalities.
“Rather than tweeting anti helmet messages suggesting their use neither looks nor feels normal, we should be working together to normalise cycle helmet use, as has happened in numerous countries including Australia and the USA.”
While some states in the US do in indeed require cyclists, and in particular children, to wear helmets while riding their bikes, there is no nationwide law compelling people to do so.
It is also well documented that the introduction of mandatory helmet laws in Australia led to fewer people – and younger ones in particular – cycling at all. Opponents of compulsion maintain that the benefits to public health by encouraging people to ride bikes outweigh any perceived benefit of making them wear a helmet while doing so.
Some have also claimed that wearing a cycle helmet may in fact increase the risk of sustaining a head injury, as asserted in a paper presented in 2019 at the National Road Safety Conference.
> Wearing a cycle helmet may increase risk of injury, says new research
But Neil Greig, policy and research director at the road safety charity IAM Roadsmart, also hit out at the Scottish Green Party co-leader’s choice not to wear a helmet while riding his bike, insisting: “Even a low speed fall from a bike can lead to permanent brain damage so it’s simply not worth the risk in our view, and particularly for growing young children it’s vital to protect the head.
“Many activists claim helmets put people off cycling and we are all for choice but choosing to avoid lifelong disability seems the right one to make,” he added.
In the UK, wearing a cycle helmet is of course a matter of choice, and under EU and UK safety standards, at best they are rated to protect against a head injury while falling from a bike at a very low speed – and certainly not to protect against those sustained in a collision with a motor vehicle.
There are regular calls for them to be made compulsory in the UK – something successive governments have said they have no plans to do – and the issue often deflects from other interventions that could make the roads safer for people on bikes.
Indeed, back in 2014, British Cycling policy advisor Chris Boardman, now Greater Manchester cycling and walking commissioner, told road.cc: “I think the helmet issue is a massive red herring.
> Chris Boardman: "Helmets not even in top 10 of things that keep cycling safe"
“It’s not even in the top 10 of things you need to do to keep cycling safe or more widely, save the most lives,” he said.
A 2015 study from Canada found that rather than force cyclists to wear helmets, putting protected infrastructure in place would make a far greater contribution to their safety.
> Study finds no link between cycling helmet laws and head injury rates
Which brings us full circle to the policy Mr Harvie is tasked with implementing after his party agreed shared policy goals with the SNP – namely, putting into effect the biggest investment per head per year in active travel ever seen in any part of the UK.
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
- biking59boomer 1 sec ago
It would be more educational to give them a fine. They wouldn't forget that in a hurry.
- Rendel Harris 8 min 54 sec ago
Interesting article but it does in fact seem to prove that coaster brakes indeed aren't suited for descents: "the bikes’ antiquated hub coaster...
- headingley 12 min 35 sec ago
Here in Leeds the fantastic network of city centre protected cycle lanes are annually partly blocked by the Christmas Market. I can only guess what...
- AidanR 1 hour 36 min ago
You might be safer using one of these: https://yplac.co.uk/product/yplac-mini-stickers/
- quiff 4 hours 37 sec ago
Fair point - I was restricting myself to pedal bikes. As I've never spent that kind of money on anything though (mortgage doesn't count), it's kind...
- brooksby 5 hours 3 min ago
And finally: I wonder how many of the "more than 3,000" signatures on that petition are actually locals, who live or work there (and are not just...
- Doug_D 6 hours 38 min ago
Another book suggestion - I can highly recommend "Lost Summers and Half-Forgotten Afternoons: A Mint Sauce collection" - a beautifully presented...
- mdavidford 8 hours 29 min ago
I think you're missing an opportunity to pack even more tech into it - add accelerometers that can detect whether they're pedalling or stepping....
Add new comment
89 comments
Without entering the 'do they / don't they protect' debate or the 'should we/ shouldn't we mandate them' debate, I shall respectfully correct you:
- anecdotes are data; they just need to be expressed, interpeted and considered very carefully
I'm quite happy for anecdotes to be data ... The poster above me seemed to be reluctant to accept them.
It is an easy way for the poster to ignore 'evidence' that doesn't support his position. That 'evidence' may be weak or strong, but it is a simple way to ignore your point. I don't usually post on helmet debates as they are pretty futile and quickly move away from the obvious fact that we pretty much all agree on one thing
I don't think anyone that has posted thinks that Patrick Harvie shouldn't have a right to choose whether he wears a helmet or not.
I think it will be more interesting to see how much change he can have in the Active Travel area. It feels like something he really does care about. The Green Party going into Government alongside the SNP may have many consequences, good or bad. This one may be good.
Have you met anyone willing to replicate it with a helmet?
The "with helmet" outcome has already happened and provides some kind of baseline.
If you'd like to provide the "without helmet" result, feel free.
I'm happy to provide the GPX so you can replicate my track ... But you'll have to find a Mondeo. The one that hit me was written off (100kg at 30mph does a fair bit of damage).
But you appear to be presenting the fact that no-one's volunteering to do it without a helmet as if it's evidence that it's really 'common sense' that a helmet makes a difference. Unless you can find people to volunteer to do it with a helmet, it's not. It's just evidence that people don't much fancy being hit by a car, helmet or no helmet.
I think I'd like to see a mandatory retest for every driver every 5 years.
Once again I, a determined helmet wearer for decades, support Boardman's position, and that of the Scottish Minister. Cycling helmets do work, but cycling helmet laws don't.
Interesting; how can you support St Chris's position, which is that helmets are not effective, and say that helmets do work?
I expected this one to come up! Easily! Boardman's position is that helmet laws are a bad idea. I support that. I have no doubt whatsoever that wearing a cycling helmet is beneficial to me. I have encouraged my daughter to wear a helmet today as she scrambles around The Cioch on Skye for the same reason: there might be rockfall and the helmet might prevent serious injury. Non-fanciful downside to wearing a helmet ?: nil.
St Chris's position is that helmets are not effective, not just that helmet laws are bad.
Actual downsides to wearing a helmet; false sense of security, drivers pass you closer, you have more collisions.
If I was expecting something to come up, I think I would have worked out some valid arguments.
Actual downsides to wearing a helmet; false sense of security, drivers pass you closer, you have more collisions
As I said: non-fanciful.
Really? They've all been proved. Perhaps your definition of non-fanciful is your own and not the one recognised in all the English dictionaries.
They've all been proved
Your unshakeable belief in your own cleverness is entirely unwarranted and your repeated use of trite nonsense such your 'anecdote and data' and other 'proven facts' demonstrates limitations indicating the correctness of your assertions that repeated traumatic brain injury would not further adversely affect your mental capacities.
I don't think Boardman has ever said that helmets don't work on an individual level.
He's said many times that, on a systemic level, there are many things that are more effective at reducing cycling related deaths.
There is some benefit to a helmet at low speed. You also came up with the link to accident/recovery stats where in a rural situation, wearing a helmet was beneficial. This seemed to be due to the time it takes for an ambulance to get to you and helmet helped with the longer time before treatment could start.
I still have no faith in a helmet doing much at a 25-30 mph crash though !
(think you misread wtjs as he said helmet laws).
He has said that helmets are not effective, not even in the top ten of things that make cycling safer. Now you could assume that he meant at a group level, not individual, but that would be an assumption, and unless you've checked it with him personally, there is no valid basis for that assumption.
I dont recall him saying they weren't effective, simply that there are other things we can do which make things far safer for cyclists, which I think everyone here largely agrees with and we shouldn't let the helmet row always dominate the debate.
Here is what he said:
https://chrisboardman.com/blog/index_files/e67d4b8aac0c709c5801ce466bdcd...
Nothing in his argument says that a helmet won't protect your head. It is all about whether helmet laws save lives, and he argues persuasively that they do not.
His "top 10 things" quote is also clearly about cycling in general:
"Talking to road.cc at the London Bike Show, Boardman said, “I think the helmet issue is a massive red herring. It’s not even in the top 10 of things you need to do to keep cycling safe or more widely, save the most lives.”
https://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-...
If he believed that helmets were not effective on an individual level that would be a very strange way of expressing it.
Example:
Does wearing a hat made of blancmange stop you getting Covid?
Potential answer 1:
Hats made of blancmange are not one of the top ten ways to reduce your risk of Covid.
Potential answer 2:
No.
Both 'can' mean the same thing but it would be rather odd to give answer 1 rather than answer 2.
It's pretty obvious he was talking on a systemic level as in that context his statement makes perfect sense
Rather a strange argument. If helmets aren't effective at a population level, they can't be effective at an individual level, or if they are effective in some cases, they must also make outcomes worse in others, else the population figures would show they were beneficial.
Cycle helmets might be beneficial in some extremely limited circumstances, but if they might equally be likely to kill you, what would be the point of wearing one as an individual? Unless you thought that the population figures didn't apply to you of course.
Now now Burt.
You're deliberately misrepresenting what I said there. Nowhere have I said that helmets are ineffective at the population level. I've said there are more effective interventions at the systemic level.
That is very much not the same thing.
In order to understand the helmet debate you've got to be able to interpret the data. You've shown many, many times that you're either unwilling or incapable of doing so.
To demonstrate an effect at the population level you have to compare two populations which are very similar. Otherwise it is impossible to eliminate confounding factors and the data is worthless.
There is, therefore, no reliable population level data about the efficacy of helmets.
The only data we have is at the individual level which shows that they are effective at reducing injury. There are multiple examples of high quality, peer reviewed papers which show this. The balance of evidence in those same papers does not currently support the theory that helmets increase the risk of neck injury.
In contrast the evidence to support risk compensation is of very low quality where it exists at all.
The evidence to support the notion that drivers pass more closely if you're wearing a helmet is, again, unreliable. One unblinded study supported the hypothesis whilst other studies (albeit with smaller numbers) by the same author have not shown the same effect.
It's quite simple:
IF you have a crash, it's better to be wearing a helmet than not.
However, you are far less likely to be injured if you're not in a crash in the first place. Therefore, the most effective way to prevent injuries to cyclists is to implement policies and infrastructure that reduces the chances of crashes occuring.
What's more, inactivity and air pollution are both major contributors in morbidity and mortality in this country. If we want to be effective at keeping people healthy, then we need policies/infrastructure that make cycling (and other forms of active transport) attractive. That means ensuring people feel safe on the roads.
Got any data to support that? Since helmets do not reduce the risk of death at a population level, and they increase the risk of the most damaging injury, rotational, I'd be very interested to see the evidence.*
*Excluding anything from Rivara, Thompson or Olivier of course; I meant real research.
Are the studies by Rivara, Thompson or Olivier wrong or are they just focusing on a very narrow question and therefore not helpful to the broader conversation? Taking one of Olivier's most frequently cited papers (https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/46/1/278/2617198?login=true or for a lay summary https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-red...) my very brief reading is that the conclusions are reasonable given that they are only looking at cyclists who have been in a crash. As I think we both agree, not crashing is preferable, and there is some evidence that wearing a helmet might increase the chances of a crash occuring, but neither of those points refutes the suggestion that if you have a crash, you're better off wearing a helmet than not.
In terms of other studies, I recall there was a story a few weeks ago (https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-involved-8-10-sports-related-spinal...) about spinal injuries and helmet use, and I had a quick google then and found these four papers:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33045673/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02688697.2020.1731425?journa...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318151176_Fatal_Cervical_Spine_...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29677686/
None are authored by your blacklisted authors, and all suggest that helmets don't reduce, and may even increase, the risk of spinal injuries. But all concluded that overall wearing a helmet does overall reduce serious injury and mortality in crashes.
Don't get me wrong, it is a very narrow question and I fully agree it's not a very helpful one. But I still think the weight of evidence does support the assertion that if you have a crash it's better to be wearing a helmet than not.
I believe that the criticism of helmets is that they can cause rotational damage which would not have been caused in the absence of the helmet.
As I understand it, RT&O kind of went out there looking for evidence that supported their hypothesis and that their methodology and their conclusions have been systematically rubbished and held up as an example of how not to do a meta study.
If you have a fall and hit your head on the ground, better to be wearing a helmet than not. If you are hit at speed by a vehicle it's beyond the design of the helmet. If you land on arm or shoulder the helmet will do nothing.
Over the many years i have had offs while wearing and while not wearing helmets. It's interesting that I never injured my head when I was not wearing one. While I have been wearing one sometimes i have damaged the helmet and sometimes not. I wonder if the additional width leads to impacts which would not have occured otherwise. In the same was as wearing a hard hat leads to conflicts with overhead obstructions which would have been higher than the head otherwise.
If you hit your head - but as you outline, your head is bigger so there is more chance of an impact. There are also concerns about the extent of rotational injuries. I thought there had been a link previous which showed a small increase in risk (but as usual I forgot to bookmark it).
Then there is the behavioural side of whether motorists react differently in terms of space given and the risk compensation of the rider.
None of it is black and white. And it is the bottom of the control hierarchy.
but being able to see better in the dark is a great boon to safety, and it's hard to attach my exposure joystick directly to my head. So on balance I'll keep wearing my helmet.
(I do also have a handlebar mounted light)
Exposure headband.
(Not sure your post quite follows on from what I posted though).
Pages