Gordon Ramsey's message...

[Mike Sales]

No, it's totally relevant.

If a professional cyclist, and Olympic champion, riding in the Tour de France on closed roads can be die from a head injury whilst not wearing a helmet, then so can ordinary cyclists with lesser bike handling skills, inferior equipment, and motor vehicles passing them in both directions.

What any fatal crash should tell you is that a cyclist's most important protection from injury is not crashing.

And how do we acquire this super-skill so that we can guarantee that our bikes will never fail mechanically, our tyres will never blow out, and we will never be clipped by another cyclist or, worst still, a motorist from behind?

I do not have the same incentive to go fast and take risks that a professional cyclist in a very important race has.
In fact I have a strong desire not to 'come into a collision' with a motor vehicle, and this is much more important to me than reaching the finish line a minute before another cyclist.
Of course, a helmet is no guarantee of immunity from injury in a collision, and I think the keenest wearer could not claim that a helmet could make more than a marginal difference.
See the fatal accidents to the helmeted.
Skill in riding is one thing, but not pushing the margin of safety to the limit is more important. Keeping a wide margin is what keeps us safe, not pushing things to the limit of our fine judgement
Maintenance is not a 'super skill'.
In some countries it is commonplace for many non-athletic cyclists to go about their business unhelmeted taking it for granted that they will get to their destination in one piece. I do not think I need to detail how this happy state of affairs is achieved, but I point out that these blithe riders do not wear polystyrene.
Helmet wearing countries remain high rate of cyclist casualties countries and low rate of cycling countries, in spite of the helmets.
Cycling as a sport for intrepid young (or middle aged) men in lycra is grand, and I have done my share. But it is of most value to society in general if ordinary people think nothing of getting on their bike, without special clothing or headgear, just to get to work, the shops or to school. That is how we can gain the many acknowledged benefits to all of us of active travel.

[pjclinch]

The Tour de France went over the Col de Portet d'Aspet earlier today. That's the pass where the Olympic champion, Fabio Casartelli, received the head injuries that killed him after a crash - whilst not wearing a helmet

This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand on many levels. Suggesting a typical group ride is anything like any Tour de France stage is at best naïve, as for a professional racing descent from an high mountain col, it's ridiculous.

No, it's totally relevant.

If a professional cyclist, and Olympic champion, riding in the Tour de France on closed roads can be die from a head injury whilst not wearing a helmet, then so can ordinary cyclists with lesser bike handling skills, inferior equipment, and motor vehicles passing them in both directions.

But they can die from head injuries with helmets because an Olympic gold medal doesn't actually help when you've got it wrong at very high speed in unforgiving terrain, and closed roads just help one ride faster so if it does go wrong it can go much wronger. EN1078 is designed to mitigate the energy from a fall from more or less stationary, not hitting unyielding objects at very high speed.

EN1078 is designed for falls with no other vehicle involved. As soon as a rider collides with a motor vehicle at speed you're totally beyond the spec and you cannot realistically assume it will make much difference. That's why motorcycle helmets are massively more protective (but still very fallible).

What any fatal crash should tell you is that a cyclist's most important protection from injury is not crashing.

And how do we acquire this super-skill so that we can guarantee that our bikes will never fail mechanically, our tyres will never blow out, and we will never be clipped by another cyclist or, worst still, a motorist from behind?

The same way we acquire the super skills of not tripping up in any of the numerous situations where trips and falls could get us dead: practice and choice of how one goes about things. But beyond that, folk have been falling off bikes for many decades longer than helmets have been widely available and over the time we have records they haven't done obviously worse than pedestrians in terms of fatalities. Falling off a bike can be fatal, just as falling downstairs can be fatal (~700 a year in the UK, far more than die on bikes), but for the most part it isn't, and wasn't back before helmets.

Your faith in EN1078 helmets to save lives is not backed up by reality. They're a couple of centimeters of expanded polystyrene that cover part of the head, they can't be expected to work miracles and their track record doesn't make it obvious that they do.
But also your apparent assumption that anyone falling off without a lid is almost asking for a serious head injury is, while quite common, not one that stands scrutiny.

Pete.

[cycle tramp]

The Tour de France went over the Col de Portet d'Aspet earlier today. That's the pass where the Olympic champion, Fabio Casartelli, received the head injuries that killed him after a crash - whilst not wearing a helmet

This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand on many levels. Suggesting a typical group ride is anything like any Tour de France stage is at best naïve, as for a professional racing descent from an high mountain col, it's ridiculous.

No, it's totally relevant.

If a professional cyclist, and Olympic champion, riding in the Tour de France on closed roads can be die from a head injury whilst not wearing a helmet, then so can ordinary cyclists with lesser bike handling skills, inferior equipment, and motor vehicles passing them in both directions.

Oh, lesser bike handling skills, inferior equipment and motor vehicles passing them....
Well, that sounds like me, and my ride this afternoon to and from the shops.
How did I survive...? Well, by cycling at a speed which was no greater than my reflexes, the equipment of my bike or road conditions allowed - by ensuring that I understood what my fellow road users were doing and that they were aware of my presence and by not allowing myself to be distracted.

[irc]

And how do we acquire this super-skill so that we can guarantee that our bikes will never fail mechanically, our tyres will never blow out, and we will never be clipped by another cyclist or, worst still, a motorist from behind?

Mechanically - good maintainance. In half a century no crashes caused by failures.

Blowouts? I've had a few but always kept the bike upright. Maybe stable touring bikes are safer than racing bikes?

Other cyclists? Best avoided. The vast majority of my riding is solo so that is one risk I don't have.

Clipped by a car? I use my mirror and see them coming. Better than filming close passes to post on youtube. Avoid close passes. I have once had to ride off the road onto a gravel shoulder to avoid being hit square on, not clipped. My tourer stayed upright.

[fastpedaller]

Today I'd only ridden 1/2 mile before I noticed a 'peleton approaching' they were going fast (maybe 25MPH) and I greeted them with "Morning" to which one replied "where's your hat?" I was unable to reply of course. What I did notice this group, 2 abreast and going fast ,were about to get to a narrow part of the road ahead, and given their width and speed were possibly heading for danger - but they had hats on!

[pjclinch]

My wife tried some off-road group rides with a local club but at least by the standards of local mountain/gravel bikers she's fairly risk-averse and found them a bit gung ho. She worked long and hard at a post to the club Facebook group suggesting that looking at safety from a processes point of view (i.e., the way an actual H&S professional would address things, stuff like protocols on waiting, escalation of issues etc.) rather than just say everyone had to wear a lid would make them usefully safer on group rides.

Not entirely unsurprisingly almost everyone reading it missed the point, took plenty of time between them to say how vital helmets were and how their lives had been saved etc., and generally took it as an attack on themselves and helmet wearing (though there had been no suggestion to not wear helmets, simply that helmets weren't the end of safety when riding off-road). Nobody learned anything, the club still has very lax procedures for ensuring safety and my wife gave up going on their group rides.

Yet another facet of a helmet fixation taking attention from stuff that makes a difference.

Pete.

[Psamathe]

The Tour de France went over the Col de Portet d'Aspet earlier today. That's the pass where the Olympic champion, Fabio Casartelli, received the head injuries that killed him after a crash - whilst not wearing a helmet

This is irrelevant to the discussion at hand on many levels. Suggesting a typical group ride is anything like any Tour de France stage is at best naïve, as for a professional racing descent from an high mountain col, it's ridiculous.

No, it's totally relevant.

If a professional cyclist, and Olympic champion, riding in the Tour de France on closed roads can be die from a head injury whilst not wearing a helmet, then so can ordinary cyclists with lesser bike handling skills, inferior equipment, and motor vehicles passing them in both directions.
..

Note sure I agree without the evidence. In general terms it is a very complex thing to evaluate eg a professional cyclist will be subject to risk compensation, will have a very different style of cycling, maybe even different style of bike, etc.

Many factors affecting the professional vs who? (casual fay cyclist?/carbon lifeform in lycra training for event?/aged e-bike cyist/etc. ). So many variables so any real analysis beyond the "it's obvious"?

Ian

[853]

But they can die from head injuries with helmets because an Olympic gold medal doesn't actually help when you've got it wrong at very high speed in unforgiving terrain, and closed roads just help one ride faster so if it does go wrong it can go much wronger. EN1078 is designed to mitigate the energy from a fall from more or less stationary, not hitting unyielding objects at very high speed.

I rode the Col de Portet d'Aspet, in the same direction, the year before he was killed. It was not a very high speed part of the descent, and he was preparing for a left hand bend when two riders crashed in front and he slid down the road on his side before hitting a concrete block. We'll never know his exact speed of impact, but it wasn't "very high speed". And there's no evidence that he "got it wrong".

EN1078 is designed for falls with no other vehicle involved. As soon as a rider collides with a motor vehicle at speed you're totally beyond the spec and you cannot realistically assume it will make much difference. That's why motorcycle helmets are massively more protective (but still very fallible).

Not sure where you've got this from, I never mentioned a cyclist-motor vehicle collision

Your faith in EN1078 helmets to save lives is not backed up by reality. They're a couple of centimeters of expanded polystyrene that cover part of the head, they can't be expected to work miracles and their track record doesn't make it obvious that they do.
But also your apparent assumption that anyone falling off without a lid is almost asking for a serious head injury is, while quite common, not one that stands scrutiny.

I never mentioned EN1078.

I never said helmets, of any description, for any use, save lives.

I never said, or implied, that "anyone falling off without a lid is almost asking for a serious head injury". I suggest that you read what I did say before making false assertions.

You clearly have strong anti cycling helmet views, and I doubt that anything will change that.

[pjclinch]

But they can die from head injuries with helmets because an Olympic gold medal doesn't actually help when you've got it wrong at very high speed in unforgiving terrain, and closed roads just help one ride faster so if it does go wrong it can go much wronger. EN1078 is designed to mitigate the energy from a fall from more or less stationary, not hitting unyielding objects at very high speed.

I rode the Col de Portet d'Aspet, in the same direction, the year before he was killed. It was not a very high speed part of the descent, and he was preparing for a left hand bend when two riders crashed in front and he slid down the road on his side before hitting a concrete block. We'll never know his exact speed of impact, but it wasn't "very high speed". And there's no evidence that he "got it wrong".

You're talking about a particular incident, I'm talking about a general class of incident including the likes of those at the recent Tour of Austria and last year's Tour of Switzerland.

EN1078 is designed for falls with no other vehicle involved. As soon as a rider collides with a motor vehicle at speed you're totally beyond the spec and you cannot realistically assume it will make much difference. That's why motorcycle helmets are massively more protective (but still very fallible).

Not sure where you've got this from, I never mentioned a cyclist-motor vehicle collision

Let me remind you how you brought up the threat of them:
"then so can ordinary cyclists with lesser bike handling skills, inferior equipment, and motor vehicles passing them in both directions."
If these vehicles and colliding with them isn't an issue, why bring it up?

Your faith in EN1078 helmets to save lives is not backed up by reality. They're a couple of centimeters of expanded polystyrene that cover part of the head, they can't be expected to work miracles and their track record doesn't make it obvious that they do.
But also your apparent assumption that anyone falling off without a lid is almost asking for a serious head injury is, while quite common, not one that stands scrutiny.

I never mentioned EN1078.

You mentioned helmets. By far the most common spec for cyclehelmets is EN1078, so unless you qualify any mention with a higher spec like Snell B95 it's pretty much a given that "cycle helmet" is the same as "EN1078 cycle helmet".

I never said helmets, of any description, for any use, save lives.

You clearly implied, with your emphasis of death of a rider that wasn't wearing one as a reason for people to wear one, that you think there's a significant chance your tragic example would have been different with a helmet. If you didn't think it would have been different, why bring it up?

I never said, or implied, that "anyone falling off without a lid is almost asking for a serious head injury". I suggest that you read what I did say before making false assertions.

But you did imply it, saying all the things that can bring riders down and how important it is to wear helmets while not feeling any other protection worth mentioning.

You clearly have strong anti cycling helmet views, and I doubt that anything will change that.

I suggest that you read what I say, and look at what I do, before making false assertions.
I own a helmet. I use a helmet. The most widespread picture of me is the one I use on my profile here and on other accounts with a profile picture and it features me wearing a cycle helmet. I have no problem with people who want to wear cycle helmets doing just that.
If that is indicative of "strong anti cycling helmet views" then either I'm going about stating them a very odd way or you've grasped the wrong end of the stick.

I am not "anti helmet", any more than Cycling UK are (I'm very much on the same page as their helmet policy, see https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/cycle-helmets). Saying there is not clear evidence that they are a net safety gain in terms of serious/fatal injury is the state of the evidence, not an "anti helmet" stance. They certainly have their uses and to see what they are look at the specification to which they're designed and built. It's mitigation of minor injuries in low energy falls, and that's not a bad thing, but it's really not worth anything like the hoopla generated.

If I were anti helmet I would support banning or at least discouraging their use. I do neither.

Pete.

(minor edits for (hopefully) clarity)

[853]

EN1078 is designed for falls with no other vehicle involved. As soon as a rider collides with a motor vehicle at speed you're totally beyond the spec and you cannot realistically assume it will make much difference. That's why motorcycle helmets are massively more protective (but still very fallible).

Not sure where you've got this from, I never mentioned a cyclist-motor vehicle collision

Let me remind you how you brought up the threat of them:
"then so can ordinary cyclists with lesser bike handling skills, inferior equipment, and motor vehicles passing them in both directions."
If these vehicles and colliding with them isn't an issue, why bring it up?

No, you are wrong. I never mentioned, or implied, a cyclist-motor vehicle collision. To suggest that I did so is false.

The reason I mentioned the passing of motor vehicles in both directions, is because in my region (and probably many other parts of the UK in 2024) the roads are so badly potholed that in some stretches there is only one safe line for a road bike - which is usually towards the centre of the road. If you are being passed by a motor vehicle, or one is coming towards you, then this line is no longer available to you resulting in you riding through the potholes with a much higher risk of crashing.

[pjclinch]

Not sure where you've got this from, I never mentioned a cyclist-motor vehicle collision

Let me remind you how you brought up the threat of them:
"then so can ordinary cyclists with lesser bike handling skills, inferior equipment, and motor vehicles passing them in both directions."
If these vehicles and colliding with them isn't an issue, why bring it up?

No, you are wrong. I never mentioned, or implied, a cyclist-motor vehicle collision. To suggest that I did so is false.

The reason I mentioned the passing of motor vehicles in both directions, is because in my region (and probably many other parts of the UK in 2024) the roads are so badly potholed that in some stretches there is only one safe line for a road bike - which is usually towards the centre of the road. If you are being passed by a motor vehicle, or one is coming towards you, then this line is no longer available to you resulting in you riding through the potholes with a much higher risk of crashing.

I do note you also said, "And how do we acquire this super-skill so that we can guarantee that our bikes will never fail mechanically, our tyres will never blow out, and we will never be clipped by another cyclist or, worst still, a motorist from behind?" which sounds like it covers a cyclist-vehicle collision to me, but leaving that aside you're still taking a rather bizarre line of reasoning.

If it's impossible to safely negotiate the potholed roads on a road bike, then rather than carry on risking a crash but with some light head protection it would be better to not use a road bike (where you can still wear the hat if you want, but not rely on it to nearly the same extent).

As has already been pointed out, the best safety solution is not crashing, rather than crashing with lightweight protection to a limited part of the body. This is especially true if you're about to crash with immediately adjacent motor traffic.
And since it's now been fairly well established that you can get a lot of the performance of a road racer in a gravel/adventure bike vastly better suited to surviving potholes you don't even have to have much less fun

In summary, helmets are a reaction to a hostile environment, not a solution.

Pete.

[853]

EN1078 is designed to mitigate the energy from a fall from more or less stationary, not hitting unyielding objects at very high speed.

Not true for "more or less stationary". For a helmet to pass the EN1078 test it has to be loaded with metal 'heads' (weighing between 3.1 to 6.1kg) and withstand being dropped onto a solid metal anvil at 5.42m/s (19.512km/h). Not only does it have to survive this, it also has to register an acceleration of less than 250g on sensors in the 'head'.

https://www.helmetfacts.com/standards/en-1078/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EN_1078

[pjclinch]

EN1078 is designed to mitigate the energy from a fall from more or less stationary, not hitting unyielding objects at very high speed.

Not true for "more or less stationary". For a helmet to pass the EN1078 test it has to be loaded with metal 'heads' (weighing between 3.1 to 6.1kg) and withstand being dropped onto a solid metal anvil at 5.42m/s (19.512km/h). Not only does it have to survive this, it also has to register an acceleration of less than 250g on sensors in the 'head'.

https://www.helmetfacts.com/standards/en-1078/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EN_1078

I suspect you've possibly misunderstood.

If you drop an object of roughly head size/mass from stationary at the height of an average adult head when stood or sat on a typical bike then gravity will accelerate it to about the same speed as the test speed by the time it reaches the ground. That's why that's the speed used in the test: it's the vertical speed a falling head is likely to hit the ground.

https://ecf.com/sites/ecf.com/files/Sta ... ts-etc.pdf is a useful article originally done for Cycle on the basic facts of helmets written by someone that tested them as his work. Worth a read to get an idea of the limitations.

Pete.

[853]

I do note you also said, "And how do we acquire this super-skill so that we can guarantee that our bikes will never fail mechanically, our tyres will never blow out, and we will never be clipped by another cyclist or, worst still, a motorist from behind?" which sounds like it covers a cyclist-vehicle collision to me, but leaving that aside you're still taking a rather bizarre line of reasoning.

Decades ago the back of my arm was 'tapped' by the wing mirror of a passing car just above the elbow. I make no claims about having superior bike handling but, after a big wobble (and a lot of swearing), I stayed on the bike. I don't believe all cyclists would have been able to stay on the bike in the same circumstances. Had I not have been so fortunate, the resultant crash would not have involved the car even though it had caused it.

This sort of incident still happens around here, as only last year a friend was forced into a hedge after 'light contact' (their words) from a passing van on a narrow road.

If it's impossible to safely negotiate the potholed roads on a road bike, then rather than carry on risking a crash but with some light head protection it would be better to not use a road bike (where you can still wear the hat if you want, but not rely on it to nearly the same extent).

As has already been pointed out, the best safety solution is not crashing, rather than crashing with lightweight protection to a limited part of the body. This is especially true if you're about to crash with immediately adjacent motor traffic.
And since it's now been fairly well established that you can get a lot of the performance of a road racer in a gravel/adventure bike vastly better suited to surviving potholes you don't even have to have much less fun

The risk of crashing can never be eliminated. I have measured some holes over 100mm deep, and it doesn't matter what bike you are pedalling if you put your front wheel down one of these you will be off. At that stage you will be grateful for all the protective clothing you are wearing.

[tenbikes]

^^^
100mm = approx 4"

Have you seen what off road riders on MTB's ride? I wouldn't even notice a 4" hole or drop.