Does Helmet normalisation deter cyclists?

[KnittyNorah]

Why go to all that effort to mitigate against minor risks while doing nothing to address the more serious risks we face each day?

Because that is human nature - we are very, very poor at judging risk. Psychological biases compromise people's ability to judge risk; look at the safety of commercial flight compared with the safety record of normal everyday car travel - yet which method of travel are people nervous about, sometimes to the extent that they need sedation, hypnosis or other treatment!

Only when/if cycling becomes, or returns to, familiar and everyday utility, will it no longer be considered 'dangerous' by 'the man in the street' - except by the chronically timid-of-everything, who are always with us.

 

[classic33]

As a related aside; before debating the question 'Is cycling dangerous?' you have to agree what is meant by 'dangerous'.

An activity, where those taking part are at risk of injury whilst doing their best to minimize that risk.

For cycling, this would mean cycling within the law, minimising the chance of injury due to your actions. Those that are out of your control(the actions of other road users, road hazards) you keep an eye open for.

 

[matticus]

A cyclist on the road, helmet or not, will be out of site before you know it. A seperate lane/facility for cyclists is there all the time.

True, but when you're chatting to that cyclist at work (or the pub - remember those??) the situation is reversed.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

An activity, where those taking part are at risk of injury whilst doing their best to minimize that risk.

Which covers pretty much any activity.

When someone is calling something dangerous. That is an emotional response. Used by someone who has not and is likely unable to assess the true risks.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Roger Geffen of the National Cyclists Organization in the UK put it well:

The idea that it is somehow 'dangerous' and 'irresponsible' to cycle without a helmet is a total myth. It merely puts people off cycling and contributes to the increase in the level of obesity and other inactivity-related illnesses, which kill tens of thousands of people every year. If we are to encourage people to take up cycling - with all its benefits for our health, our streets, our environment and our wallets - then we need to promote it as a safe and enjoyable way to get around for day-to-day travel, wearing normal clothes.

Further

The Dutch philosophy is: Cyclists are not dangerous; cars and car drivers are: so car drivers should take the responsibility for avoiding collisions with cyclists. This implies that car drivers are almost always liable when a collision with a bicycle occurs and should adapt their speed when bicycles share the roads with cyclists."

Nobody wears helmets, and the death rate is extremely low.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Going back to the OP, the question is about normalisation of helmet wearing. And I think it's an interesting one.

Normalisation being that helmet wearing is now pretty much the default position. Your Uncle Fred, who hasn't ridden a bike since 1979, will notice and comment if you're not wearing one; Your cousin Jane, who hasn't ridden a bike since 2007 and has decided to buy one will assume a helmet to be a necessary accessory, possibly even a legal requirement, just like brakes. Kids wear helmets from the age of dot upwards.

As mentioned above people tend not to do their own a personal specific risk assessment for cycling, they just take the an off-the-shelf one from popular culture, and that off-the-shelf risk assessment mandates helmets.

Is the specific requirement for helmets in this popular culture assessment suppressing take-up of cycling?

I think the basic answer is we don't know and we can't know, but we can pontificate and formulate reasonable but totally untestable ideas suggesting that it does or doesn't discourage would-be cyclists. (See above)

We are where we are. Helmet wearing is normalised. If you could get a message across, which would be better? A general message that cycling is not as dangerous as you think? Or a specific message that cycling is not dangerous enough to warrant wearing a helmet?

The reason I ask this is that I wonder if we sometimes get too hung up on the specifics of helmets, and high vis, or this or that equipment and lose sight of the bigger picture which is excess fear of cycling.

And let's face it, cycling in traffic can be frightening, whatever the stats say. At least, I find it to be so, and I've done a lot of it. Bear in mind that behind this faulty risk assessment is genuine fear. And fear is an emotion that isn't really going to be affected by clever infographics or deaths-per-mile-travelled* stats. It's all very well to condescendingly point out how bad people are at risk assessment, but unless a way is found to address the underlying fear then just telling people that they are being a bit stupid and should up their risk assessment game will only make matters worse.

* A completely unhelpful measure.

 

[matticus]

If you could get a message across, which would be better? A general message that cycling is not as dangerous as you think? Or a specific message that cycling is not dangerous enough to warrant wearing a helmet?

Why can't we do both?

The reason I ask this is that I wonder if we sometimes get too hung up on the specifics of helmets, and high vis, or this or that equipment and lose sight of the bigger picture which is excess fear of cycling.

If the helmet zealots would quit, we wouldn't have this problem. Don't blame the pro-choice people for the endless pro-helmet drivel!

 

[mjr]

They may be just another tool in the box. However they send out a bigger message than helmet usage. That is if we as cyclist are demanding seperate facilities, on roads or away from roads, then cycling must be dangerous.

There's no solid evidence for that, is there? Ask a decent number and I will be surprised if "because cycleways exist" appears in the top five of any survey of reasons why people consider cycling dangerous. I think there's much more chance that something to do with helmets will be there and I also suspect that at least two of the reasons given would be about riding among motorists.

Selling the myth that only "busy "A" roads" are used/can be used for cycling doesn't help either.

No-one's saying that people can only cycle on such roads, but some key journeys cannot be done by any other reasonably direct route. If a barrier road is not tackled somehow, then most people will not cycle on it (with or without a helmet) or ride double the distance (and all too often more hills!) to avoid it: they will drive.

For someone who may be toying with the idea of taking up cycling, that it's perceived as being that dangerous, by those already cycling, that we need a seperate lane, free of other traffic isn't helpful.

And again, literally no-one is saying that. There are loads of ways that the barrier roads can be tamed.

[...] And if the helmet has given them a sense of safety, whilst they got used to cycling on the roads, who am I to knock them for wearing one?

A concerned cyclist who cares for others, hopefully?

A cyclist on the road, helmet or not, will be out of site before you know it. A seperate lane/facility for cyclists is there all the time.

A cyclist with a helmet on the road, getting closer passes, makes people nearby think "I don't want to do that" but you're right, it's only a few people nearby affected, while a cycleway is there 24x7, but it's advertising cycling to motorists more than anything else. Cycleways make many many more people think of cycling there than it makes think it is dangerous to cycle. For example, London cycling levels did not plummet as a result of the cycleways formerly known as superhighways (CFKAS) being built, (but I personally usually prefer the quietways because most London CFKAS are a bit close to heavy traffic).

 

[icowden]

Here's a pretty comprehensive website concerning helmets & their effectiveness: https://www.cyclehelmets.org/

So comprehensive that nothing has been added since 2016 and it is now an archive only....

 

[Oldhippy]

As with so many of these for and against arguments helmets, cycle ways etc may I mention Bike nation by Peter Walker again. Lots of informed accurate data from around the world along with history on various for and against groups and the motivation behind them. Well written in a non hysterical manner.

 

[Ian H]

So comprehensive that nothing has been added since 2016 and it is now an archive only....

How does that invalidate the findings?

 

[icowden]

How does that invalidate the findings?

It doesn't. But it does illustrate that the findings on the site have aged significantly and that this site should not be relied on as a single source, as newer research may be available.

 

[matticus]

Fair point - I threw out my 2016 dictionary last year. And the 2016 maths texts.
And noone is using a bike or a helmet designed before 2016. Or old roads ...

 

[classic33]

There's no solid evidence for that, is there? Ask a decent number and I will be surprised if "because cycleways exist" appears in the top five of any survey of reasons why people consider cycling dangerous. I think there's much more chance that something to do with helmets will be there and I also suspect that at least two of the reasons given would be about riding among motorists.

You can of course provide solid evidence to back up that because some cyclists wear helmets, cycling is dangerous, appears in any top five list of why people think/say that it's dangerous.

No-one's saying that people can only cycle on such roads, but some key journeys cannot be done by any other reasonably direct route. If a barrier road is not tackled somehow, then most people will not cycle on it (with or without a helmet) or ride double the distance (and all too often more hills!) to avoid it: they will drive.

You are giving the impression that all cycling is on busy "A" roads, with a lorry driver looking at your backside. Not all road cycling is on "A" roads, busy or otherwise. As for lorry drivers looking at my backside, can't say I've noticed. I'm aware of where I'm going, what's in front and what's behind. Not whether the driver is looking at my backside.

And again, literally no-one is saying that. There are loads of ways that the barrier roads can be tamed.

It's not the roads that require taming, they're inanimate objects. It's the objects travelling on them that require "taming".

A concerned cyclist who cares for others, hopefully?

Who am I to tell another cyclist that they can't wear what they want, if it gives them the confidence to get on a bike in the first place?
However, if as a concerned cyclist passing on a piece of advice, don't wear cheap builder's goggles to protect your eyes. They're not designed for wearing whilst cycling.

A cyclist with a helmet on the road, getting closer passes*, makes people nearby think "I don't want to do that" but you're right, it's only a few people nearby affected, while a cycleway is there 24x7, but it's advertising cycling to motorists more than anything else. Cycleways make many many more people think of cycling there than it makes think it is dangerous to cycle. For example, London cycling levels did not plummet as a result of the cycleways formerly known as superhighways (CFKAS) being built, (but I personally usually prefer the quietways because most London CFKAS are a bit close to heavy traffic).

I do the same routes, with and without a helmet, and maintained the same lines on the roads, for the traffic conditions. Close passes happen just as frequently, regardless of headwear. Road positioning stops most of them. But not riding in the gutter is something that comes as your confidence builds. Seldom is it there from the off for someone new to cycling. We tend to know, from experience, where the pinch points are likely to be. Where and when the traffic will be heavier(school runs, satnav rat runs, those sort of things). Again, helmet or not, they'll happen.

*You have your own proof of that, or are you merely repeating what someone else has said about cycling on the roads

 

[icowden]

Fair point - I threw out my 2016 dictionary last year. And the 2016 maths texts.
And noone is using a bike or a helmet designed before 2016. Or old roads ...

But on the flip side I bet you appreciate that scientists and doctors tend to rely on the newest research to develop treatments, vaccines etc?