When helmets don't work

[cycle tramp]

Admittedly, this thread is going to seem in incredibly poor taste. However its not supposed to. One of the reasons I don't like discussions around complusory helmet wearing is because for most people the equation goes;

Helmets are safe=if I wear one I don't die=that means I can stop thinking about safety.

And you really can't. Safety isn't just about helmets, it's about avoiding the collision altogether, and for that to happen thought has to go into working out what's happening around you, successfully predicting the outcome and influencing that outcome through your behaviour.

And for this reason alone, we at some point are going to have to start cataloguing tragic events like the one below as evidence that safety isn't about buying stuff of the shelf;

This is a particularly tragic event from America
https://bikesnobnyc.com/2026/05/29/bike ... ey-lasted/

[pjclinch]

The point that people equate various behaviours as "safe" and others as "dangerous", a binary state of affairs, is a very real problem in understanding of risk. There's a good piece on it at https://www.kaupunkifillari.fi/2019/03/ ... ng-safety/.

As for helmets having limitations, that's to be expected of a lightweight polystyrene construction designed to deal with simple falls to the ground. Add much energy beyond that and you're over and beyond what it's designed to deal with, so not that surprising if they don't do well.

It would help if more people understood this.

Pete.

[fatmac]

Even with those that do wear a helmet, most aren't fitted properly, & would just tear off their heads at the slightest contact with anything - they add a false sense of security/safety.

[PT1029]

"Even with those that do wear a helmet, most aren't fitted properly" - you have a point here.
I typically tell 1 to 3 people per day at work to adjust their helmet. The worst cases I lift their helmet up and push it backwards - the worst case I saw I let the helmet slip down to end up between their shoulder blades....

[pjclinch]

There are lots of poorly fitted helmets about, but in particular there seems to be a rule that when there's a promotional photo published of folk we want to see more of on bikes because of general under-representation in the cycling demographic then at least some of them will probably have ill-fitting lids. Straps so loose you could take the lid off easily without bothering to undo them, perched so high on top of other hats it seems it's only the straps keeping them on at all, and the old favourite of so far back on the head that the forehead is afforded no protection. Far too big is common with kids and toddlers, and side straps meeting under the chin seems more common than meeting just under the ear sometimes.

The original National Standard for Cycle Training release had a point that those choosing to wear a helmet should understand how to fit it correctly. It wouldn't hurt if that were put back in and a bit more notice taken of it.

Pete.

[tim-b]

Admittedly, this thread is going to seem in incredibly poor taste. However its not supposed to. One of the reasons I don't like discussions around complusory helmet wearing is because for most people the equation goes;

Helmets are safe=if I wear one I don't die=that means I can stop thinking about safety.

Your evidence for any one of your three assertions is?

And you really can't. Safety isn't just about helmets, it's about avoiding the collision altogether, and for that to happen thought has to go into working out what's happening around you, successfully predicting the outcome and influencing that outcome through your behaviour.

So it's all about wearing a helmet and nothing to do with riding an e-scooter illegally that's capable of silly speeds?

And for this reason alone, we at some point are going to have to start cataloguing tragic events like the one below as evidence that safety isn't about buying stuff of the shelf;

Your evidence is about allowing the sale of e-scooters

Plus, no matter where you ride in the city you’ll invariably encounter people on high-speed electric contraptions like the one involved in this collision–which are already illegal, though it certainly isn’t stopping anybody.

This is a particularly tragic event from America
https://bikesnobnyc.com/2026/05/29/bike ... ey-lasted/

[cycle tramp]

..in answer to the above, the evidence is fairly anecdotal...
The very fact that people are reaching for a helmet rather than any book on safe riding is evidence that we've already started off on the wrong foot...
Other anecdotal evidence are bike riders, wearing helmets are acting in other ways which increase the risk of harming themselves.. fairly recently i saw a guy riding a bike wearing a helmet under which he had managed to stuff a pair of large headphones...

Mandatory helmets no... . Mandatory training?... not a bad idea?

..in the tragic situation which was reported on the website bikesnobnyc.com it was the writers assertion that the e-scooter was travelling at speed, but in all honesty we just don't know ' just because e-scooters are illegal it doesn't prevent them from being used in a considerate way. Its possible that if both parties were travelling at 20 mph that's still a combined impact if 40 mph, which as statisticians point out means that you are likely to die.

Neither a bicycle or e-scooters are wide vehicles it should have been possible for both to pass each other.

[pjclinch]

Mandatory training, I'm not sure, but as with Dutch practice and much UK* practice with learning to swim , building it in to the school culture such that you actually have to go out of your way not to do it is quite possibly a good idea. In NL there's the verkeersexamen (traffic test) when children are 12, and as far as I can tell it's a pretty big deal.

But one problem with Bikeability and similar training as it stands is that with a very few exceptions most current cycling delivery through LAs pushes helmets as compulsory for any riding on school time. As a trainer (and at least according to the feedback I got over the years a pretty good one) I can't give my time away for free if I don't teach in a helmet, and this reinforces the frankly unhelpful idea that one has to dress in a certain way to ride a bike, and that cycling without one is dangerous/irresponsible, which brings us back into the entry point of the thread that such "givens" of cultural safety tend not to make people actually safer.

Pete.

* I think it's pretty hard to avoid in England, other nations devolve it to local authorities?

[Bmblbzzz]

I can confirm that swimming lessons in English schools do not mean you will be able to swim.

[pjclinch]

I can confirm that swimming lessons in English schools do not mean you will be able to swim.

But I imagine it leads to fewer people who never even had the opportunity to learn. I didn't much enjoy school swimming lessons but I think it's good they're there.

I know for a fact that Bikeability Scotland lessons don't guarantee everyone in the class will be able to ride a bike reasonably safely on the roads (it's an entertaining game wording the certificate notes in such a way as to be positive while also saying "don't let them out by themselves on a road until they've learned a lot more!"), but it's transformational for at least some in terms of their skill and confidence in riding and their awareness of how roads work (both theoretically and in reality).

Pete.

[mattheus]

I can confirm that swimming lessons in English schools do not mean you will be able to swim.

I'm not sure swimming is a very productive analogy to use here: don't the stats show you are MORE likely to drown in a public place if you learned to swim as a kid?!?

[mjr]

I can confirm that swimming lessons in English schools do not mean you will be able to swim.

I'm not sure swimming is a very productive analogy to use here: don't the stats show you are MORE likely to drown in a public place if you learned to swim as a kid?!?

No idea, but don't they show that you're more likely to be spreading misinformation on the internet if you don't check and provide links to the sources of your claims?

[pjclinch]

I can confirm that swimming lessons in English schools do not mean you will be able to swim.

I'm not sure swimming is a very productive analogy to use here: don't the stats show you are MORE likely to drown in a public place if you learned to swim as a kid?!?

Much as you're very probably more likely to die on a bike if you can ride a bike than if you can't, the obvious truth of that doesn't make it a bad idea to learn to ride a bike...

People who can't swim tend to be afraid of getting in to water because they can't swim. People who can't ride bikes tend not to ride bikes in traffic much because they can't ride bikes

Pete.

[Bmblbzzz]

It's not a good analogy from that point of view because swimming is a physical ability, lack of which can lead to drowning. With cycling, it's not so much lack of physical ability, because that is very easy for most people to learn, it's lack of traffic knowledge that is dangerous. It's easy to be able to ride a bike but not able to ride safely in traffic. My point is whether school cycling lessons will teach everyone that road ability.

[pjclinch]

It's not a good analogy from that point of view because swimming is a physical ability, lack of which can lead to drowning. With cycling, it's not so much lack of physical ability, because that is very easy for most people to learn, it's lack of traffic knowledge that is dangerous. It's easy to be able to ride a bike but not able to ride safely in traffic. My point is whether school cycling lessons will teach everyone that road ability.

Everyone? certainly not (a bit like school can't teach enough maths to get everyone through their exams), but it should be a help to those that can and will want to use it.

A clear and obvious difference between Bikeability and Cycling Proficiency is the former is taught on live roads - carefully selected live roads, but live none the less and I think that's a much better way to get started (and not get put off) than just getting on with it.

My point in using swimming as an analogy is it's a useful life skill taught as part of the PE (aka "games") curriculum. PE in general is good for you as physical activity but while e.g. football is good as exercise, as Chris Boardman has pointed out kids generally don't "football to school".

Pete.