Geraint Thomas....

[pwa]

In one particular area GT has a depth experience that most of us do not. he has probably been involved in, and witnessed, more falls than the great majority of cyclists. So he may well have a view on the efficacy of helmets. He could still be wrong, of course.

Yes but his view is skewed in that those falls are in a racing context,similarly so an F1 driver would witness and or be involved in crashes the same.
The problem here is that GT races bikes at a very high level and his view is from that perspective and not from an every day ordinary rider perspective.
That's the difference,and as such his view isn't representative of cycling as a whole,for that perspective Chris Boardman is the default cycling celebrity for the media to lsiten to.
PS,I don't hear of any F1 drivers claiming all drivers should wear a helmet,full harness and flame proof suit,though according to statistics perhaps the helmet would save motorists lives.

But GT sees and experiences modes of hitting the ground, trees or whatever that you or I could experience, the difference being his exposure to some risks is greater. He sees these incidents more than I do. I assume he also cycles in traffic sometimes unless he leads a monastic existence and only ventures out with an escort.

I'd leave F1 out of it. Too many differences. Head exposed to the elements at 180mph, history of drivers being burned alive in their seats.... I saw a bloke driving a Caterham on a public road a couple of weeks ago and he did have a helmet on...

Boardman's objections to the focus on helmets is not (unless I've missed something) that they offer no protection, but that they do not remove the main dangers and making them compulsory would deter some from cycling at all.

[slowster]

In one particular area GT has a depth experience that most of us do not. he has probably been involved in, and witnessed, more falls than the great majority of cyclists. So he may well have a view on the efficacy of helmets. He could still be wrong, of course.

Yes but his view is skewed in that those falls are in a racing context...

The trigger for the UCI to make helmets compulsory in professional road racing was the death of Andrei Kivilev as a result of a head injury sustained in a crash.

At the time of the crash Kivilev was in a peloton and was riding no-handed with both of his hands in the back pocket of his jersey. Consequently when the crash occurred he was unable to put his arms out to protect himself.

We all have different skill levels, different perspectives of risk, ride in different environments and circumstances, and take different levels of risk. To many cyclists and non-cyclists helmets are an easy solution to the problem of wildly varying risk posed by all those differences. If helmets were genuinely the solution (or even a solution) and this was confirmed by overwhelming robust evidence based studies, that would be great, and the non-helmet wearers amongst us would probably shut up and many would start wearing them.

[Vorpal]

We all have different skill levels, different perspectives of risk, ride in different environments and circumstances, and take different levels of risk. To many cyclists and non-cyclists helmets are an easy solution to the problem of wildly varying risk posed by all those differences. If helmets were genuinely the solution (or even a solution) and this was confirmed by overwhelming robust evidence based studies, that would be great, and the non-helmet wearers amongst us would probably shut up and many would start wearing them.

Overwhelming evidence-based studies are highly unlikely.

Frankly, I think spending resources on such things is wasteful. As wasteful as it would be to spend loads of time and money deomnstrating that pedestrian helmets save lives.

First, the number of incidents where they could actually help are a very small number, and second of all, the danger needs to be dealt with at it's source. Helmets on cyclists are a bit like sending coal miners into a mine with hard hats, and not ventilating the mine. Bumps on the head are likely to be the last of their worries. Along the same lines, studying the effectiveness of helmets, is a bit like studying the effectiveness of hard hats for miners, when the main cause of death is black lung disease.

Cycling is an everyday activity, and it needs to remain that way.

[mjr]

But GT sees and experiences modes of hitting the ground, trees or whatever that you or I could experience, the difference being his exposure to some risks is greater. He sees these incidents more than I do.

Well, of course. He mainly rides with helmet-users and they crash much more - but I think his views on London cycling was based only on watching it from a car (a taxi no less - and the LTDA are notoriously bad about cycling), not from experience.

Boardman's objections to the focus on helmets is not (unless I've missed something) that they offer no protection, but that they do not remove the main dangers and making them compulsory would deter some from cycling at all.

That's basically correct but I feel it's spun. Chris Boardman actually said "I manufacture the things. In an incident with a car they will have almost no effect. They are being used to deflect from making real decisions and I won’t waste air time talking about them. The danger for me is being hit by a vehicle doing something it shouldn’t. We should focus on how we stop accidents not what happens to people who have them."

It's beyond debate that helmets offer some protection if you crash into one of the two current designed surfaces (flat or kerb). Some may still offer some protection if you crash into the stone-type shape that used to be tested again but isn't part of the latest tests (because all stones have been removed from near cycle routes?). The vexing thing is that even pretty large variations in helmet use haven't normally resulted in detectable variations in injury rates, which I take to indicate that their (under-appreciated) drawbacks probably roughly cancel out any benefit - but the deterrent effect (telling people to wear helmets stops some cycling as much) seems significant and reduces the so-called "safety in numbers" benefit therefore helmet promotion is harmful to all of us... and because we know cycling is a health benefit overall, it's harmful to the country through costing the NHS more.

[RickH]

PS,I don't hear of any F1 drivers claiming all drivers should wear a helmet,full harness and flame proof suit,though according to statistics perhaps the helmet would save motorists lives.

That latter point is less relevant now that airbags are universal, apart from old cars.

Over 40% of head injuries on the road are still car occupants (followed by 30%+ pedestrians)! Universal car helmets (or the complete banning of cars as fundamentally unsafe both to their occupants & those around them! ) would, potentially, have a far bigger impact on head injury figures than tinkering around the edges with cycle helmet compulsion.

[Bonefishblues]

PS,I don't hear of any F1 drivers claiming all drivers should wear a helmet,full harness and flame proof suit,though according to statistics perhaps the helmet would save motorists lives.

That latter point is less relevant now that airbags are universal, apart from old cars.

Over 40% of head injuries on the road are still car occupants (followed by 30%+ pedestrians)! Universal car helmets (or the complete banning of cars as fundamentally unsafe both to their occupants & those around them! ) would, potentially, have a far bigger impact on head injury figures than tinkering around the edges with cycle helmet compulsion.

Have you thought about the interaction between an explosively-triggered airbag and a helmet which might accentuate that. Not a million miles away from the bicycle helmet debate v-a-v accentuating and or causing injury, to say nothing about how invulnerable a driver might feel, and the consequences that might have.

Sauce, goose, ganders etc.

[Cyril Haearn]

GT is an expert I think, he has crashed or fallen off so many times, he knows what he is talking about

[mjr]

GT is an expert I think, he has crashed or fallen off so many times, he knows what he is talking about

We know he rides without one sometimes (see pictures above). Has he only crashed while using a helmet? Shouldn't that tell him something?

[bovlomov]

GT is an expert I think, he has crashed or fallen off so many times, he knows what he is talking about

I've just looked at the entry for Geraint Thomas in Wikipedia. It reads like a script for Wile E.Coyote. The poor man should move to London, where riding isn't nearly as dangerous.

[Jon Lucas]

We all have different skill levels, different perspectives of risk, ride in different environments and circumstances, and take different levels of risk. To many cyclists and non-cyclists helmets are an easy solution to the problem of wildly varying risk posed by all those differences. If helmets were genuinely the solution (or even a solution) and this was confirmed by overwhelming robust evidence based studies, that would be great, and the non-helmet wearers amongst us would probably shut up and many would start wearing them.

Overwhelming evidence-based studies are highly unlikely.

Frankly, I think spending resources on such things is wasteful. As wasteful as it would be to spend loads of time and money deomnstrating that pedestrian helmets save lives.

First, the number of incidents where they could actually help are a very small number, and second of all, the danger needs to be dealt with at it's source. Helmets on cyclists are a bit like sending coal miners into a mine with hard hats, and not ventilating the mine. Bumps on the head are likely to be the last of their worries. Along the same lines, studying the effectiveness of helmets, is a bit like studying the effectiveness of hard hats for miners, when the main cause of death is black lung disease.

Cycling is an everyday activity, and it needs to remain that way.

Agreed.

The bit I've highlighted is worth some thought, comparing to cyclists. I've never donned a helmet in 50 years of cycling and bumps on my head have been the last thing I worry about when cycling. Is there a divide among cyclists, in that some worry overtly about this, and some like me do not? It would be interesting to know whether it is a concern for those who do choose to wear helmets. Obviously, it is likely that there will be a difference for those who have had head injuries, whether from cycling or from other activities.

[Phil Fouracre]

Obviously, it is likely that there will be a difference for those who have had head injuries, whether from cycling or from other activities.

Even that's not necessarily true had a catastrophic paragliding accident a few years ago, head butted the ground from a hundred feet, spectacular damage generally, including brain! No correlation at all with riding a bike, which is why I never have, and never will, wear one for cycling!!

[reohn2]

But GT sees and experiences modes of hitting the ground, trees or whatever that you or I could experience, the difference being his exposure to some risks is greater. He sees these incidents more than I do. I assume he also cycles in traffic sometimes unless he leads a monastic existence and only ventures out with an escort.

The point is that he doesn'texperience everyday cycling at sedate speeds,but at race speeds on the track and in road racing where his total vocus is on winning,most cyclists have a completely different experience of cycling ie; he claims cycling in London is dangerous and that his experience of it is observing it from a taxi window.

I'd leave F1 out of it. Too many differences. Head exposed to the elements at 180mph, history of drivers being burned alive in their seats.... I saw a bloke driving a Caterham on a public road a couple of weeks ago and he did have a helmet on.

It's a nice day today so we've been out from drive,I spotted a few cars with the top down couple of old MGB's,a few Mazda MX3 and 5's and a couple of Jag XK8's non wore helmets,my youngest daughter has a Audi A3 convertable,she never wears a helmet.Non had full harnesses

Boardman's objections to the focus on helmets is not (unless I've missed something) that they offer no protection, but that they do not remove the main dangers and making them compulsory would deter some from cycling at all.

Boardman advocates normalising cycling,ordinary clothes,no helmets,etc,and removing the threat(perceived or actual)that deters people from cycling.GT's comment are counter to that perspective.

[pwa]

We all have different skill levels, different perspectives of risk, ride in different environments and circumstances, and take different levels of risk. To many cyclists and non-cyclists helmets are an easy solution to the problem of wildly varying risk posed by all those differences. If helmets were genuinely the solution (or even a solution) and this was confirmed by overwhelming robust evidence based studies, that would be great, and the non-helmet wearers amongst us would probably shut up and many would start wearing them.

Overwhelming evidence-based studies are highly unlikely.

Frankly, I think spending resources on such things is wasteful. As wasteful as it would be to spend loads of time and money deomnstrating that pedestrian helmets save lives.

First, the number of incidents where they could actually help are a very small number, and second of all, the danger needs to be dealt with at it's source. Helmets on cyclists are a bit like sending coal miners into a mine with hard hats, and not ventilating the mine. Bumps on the head are likely to be the last of their worries. Along the same lines, studying the effectiveness of helmets, is a bit like studying the effectiveness of hard hats for miners, when the main cause of death is black lung disease.

Cycling is an everyday activity, and it needs to remain that way.

Agreed.

The bit I've highlighted is worth some thought, comparing to cyclists. I've never donned a helmet in 50 years of cycling and bumps on my head have been the last thing I worry about when cycling. Is there a divide among cyclists, in that some worry overtly about this, and some like me do not? It would be interesting to know whether it is a concern for those who do choose to wear helmets. Obviously, it is likely that there will be a difference for those who have had head injuries, whether from cycling or from other activities.

I completely respect your choice, but since you raise the question, I've been a helmet wearer since around 1987 and at no time have I actually been worried about any aspect of safety on the bike. I don't feel head injury to be raised above other forms of potential injury, but I wear a lid because it is, for me, an easy and simple thing that could help me in some modes of fall. That's all.

[pjclinch]

I completely respect your choice, but since you raise the question, I've been a helmet wearer since around 1987 and at no time have I actually been worried about any aspect of safety on the bike. I don't feel head injury to be raised above other forms of potential injury, but I wear a lid because it is, for me, an easy and simple thing that could help me in some modes of fall. That's all.

This is culture, as opposed to consistent logic, in action. You wear a lid on a bike because it's an easy and simple thing that could help you in some modes of fall but you (probably!) don't wear a lid as a pedestrian or driver etc. even though it's an easy and simple thing that could help you in some modes of fall/crash.
You are, I would suggest, responding to a culture that suggests to you that cycling is particularly productive of accidents while walking/driving etc. are basically safe.

(This is not a criticism, btw, we all do stuff like this, it's entirely normal and human.)

Pete.

[pwa]

I completely respect your choice, but since you raise the question, I've been a helmet wearer since around 1987 and at no time have I actually been worried about any aspect of safety on the bike. I don't feel head injury to be raised above other forms of potential injury, but I wear a lid because it is, for me, an easy and simple thing that could help me in some modes of fall. That's all.

This is culture, as opposed to consistent logic, in action. You wear a lid on a bike because it's an easy and simple thing that could help you in some modes of fall but you (probably!) don't wear a lid as a pedestrian or driver etc. even though it's an easy and simple thing that could help you in some modes of fall/crash.
You are, I would suggest, responding to a culture that suggests to you that cycling is particularly productive of accidents while walking/driving etc. are basically safe.

(This is not a criticism, btw, we all do stuff like this, it's entirely normal and human.)

Pete.

I'll have to think about that. Bearing in mind that my use of cycle helmets started in 1987, I can't remember with absolute clarity what led me to it. But I can list several likely factors.

One is my history, prior to that time, of falling off bikes. I spent my childhood falling off things. I'd been lucky and not sustained serious injury, but the flying through the air awaiting impact sensation was familiar to me.

Secondly, of all my activities cycling was the one most likely to end up with me taking a tumble. I also did running, but I felt that a mishap while running had me already on my feet and better able to control things. On a bike if you tumble you have this metal frame tangled between your legs, making a controlled descent less likely. And you are likely to be going a bit faster.

Looking back, the tumbles that I remember best from the past couple of decades have mostly been on the bike. Not in a car, not walking. About half have been on ice. No warning, just bang and I'm on the ground, painfully.

That, by the way, has always been my intended function of a cycle helmet: to give the head a bit of protection if I tumble. I have never imagined it could fend off the Number 9 bus.

Thirdly, I'm always open to the idea of PPE if it is easy to use and doesn't get in the way. I will put on gardening gloves to bundle rose clippings into the compost.

If anyone looks at me and interprets my cycle helmet as me feeling that cycling is particularly dangerous, they are wrong. It has its dangers, but so do many things I do. PPE, to me, is ordinary. It is not used just for alarmingly dangerous activities. It is as ordinary as putting on Marigold gloves to do something with bleach.