Does Helmet normalisation deter cyclists?

[matticus]

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?

Broadly, I'd say that's never the case: medical decisions will be 90%* based on knowledge like the nature of cells, how our circulatory system works, the role of bacteria. Stuff we have known for decades.

You don't throw away that knowledge and start again. Progress is even slower with road safety: We are still using cars and bikes on public tarmac roads, using rubber tyres. Human skulls haven't changed. Heck even the speed limits haven't changed very much since the 1960s.

If you have new/recent research to hand that utterly disproves statements on cyclehelmets.org , do please share with the class.

*For citation, please join the queue.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I think we have three possible ideas emerging:

The normalisation of helmets, a piece of safety equipment, contributes the general impression that cycling is a dangerous activity. As a result would-be cyclists are discouraged, as they consider that cycling is too dangerous.

The normalisation of helmets has diluted any message that helmets may convey. Because they are ubiquitous from tiny tots onwards and helmet use is now entirely normal, they have little or no effect on would-be cyclists.

The normalisation of helmets means that would-be cyclists, under the general impression that cycling is a dangerous activity, are reassured by an easily available safety countermeasure. Thus would-be cyclists are encouraged by the normalised use of helmets.

I'm doubtful whether any of these is actually disprovable.

 

[matticus]

You could start by pointing out that huge numbers of UK cyclists still don't wear helmets [I think someone posted the stats upthread]. Of course reading internet cycling forums will give you a different impression.

That seems to sharply undermine theories -2 and -3.

 

[icowden]

Broadly, I'd say that's never the case: medical decisions will be 90%* based on knowledge like the nature of cells, how our circulatory system works, the role of bacteria. Stuff we have known for decades.

But helpfully Consultants are required as part of their continuous training to keep up to date with the latest medical research and techniques for their area of medicine rather than just relying on what they learned in medical school, thus continually delivering the best care for patients.

Getting back to the point...

It is worth being aware that a study 7 years ago in Australia is of decreasing relevance to an increasing cycling population in the UK, and people should be aware that as the site is not being update that newer research may invalidate some of the posted research rather than relying on it as an end point.

I suppose that if a peer reviewed scientific study came out tomorrow showing significant improvement in health outcomes for cyclists wearing MIPS helmets, that this would somehow be irrelevant? After all the frozen 2016 site makes no mention of MIPS...

That said, often the site does provide a fairly objective analysis of the studies it quotes. It's just - getting a bit out of date.
It doesn't mention this

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/9/e027845
or this
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457518301301
or this
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30001152/
or these:-
https://cyclingtips.com/2019/09/two-more-studies-support-the-use-of-cycling-helmets/

or new developments such as this:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/07/210722112908.htm

Therefore it is of decreasing use as a point of information.

 

[Dogtrousers]

You could start by pointing out that huge numbers of UK cyclists still don't wear helmets [I think someone posted the stats upthread]. Of course reading internet cycling forums will give you a different impression.

That seems to sharply undermine theories -2 and -3.

We're talking about the effect of helmet normalisation on would-be cyclists - that is those considering taking up cycling. Normalisation meaning the acceptance as the norm, or default position. (Or at least that's what I think the thread is about)

The fact that large numbers of existing cyclists don't wear helmets simply sets the level to which helmet wearing is, or is not, normalised. Its effect will be equal across all three interpretations.

 

[Andy in Germany]

You're incorrect on that last part. I'd check.

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.

I'm a bit confused by that argument: surely you could just substitute "Walking" and "pedestrians" for "Cyclists" and "cycling" and then you'd be arguing for all pedestrian facilities to be removed?

 

[Andy in Germany]

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.

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

My commute follows what int he UK would be a busy "A" road which passes several villages and some bigger towns with schools. This has a cycle/pedestrian way along it between towns, and it is well used by cyclists, from old ladies to young men and a lot of children from about ten years and up, riding from the villages to the towns for school Where we have to cross the main road there are pedestrian lights and it can get quite crowded waiting for them to change.

I'm not sure the children and teenagers would be riding without that cycle lane, in fact for some of the villages the cycle lane is their only way that they can independently ride to meet friends or go to the nearest towns.

I certainly wouldn't want to ride along that road to get to work every day, in fact I wouldn't have taken the job without that cycle lane. It's also a large part of the local tourist infrastructure, being advertised as a long distance "traffic free" cycle route.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

We're talking about the effect of helmet normalisation on would-be cyclists - that is those considering taking up cycling. Normalisation meaning the acceptance as the norm, or default position. (Or at least that's what I think the thread is about)

The fact that large numbers of existing cyclists don't wear helmets simply sets the level to which helmet wearing is, or is not, normalised. Its effect will be equal across all three interpretations.

First of all you haven’t shown that wearing a helmet has been normalised. The vast majority still don’t wear a helmet. Where is this normalisation?

What we know is that when a child pushes back against wearing a helmet when cycling. The parents say “because it’s dangerous”. Its a lazy incorrect response but it’s quick and easy and a young child can be taught avoid danger. Danger is bad. The child is simultaneously being taught that cycling is dangerous (it isn’t) and that a helmet is the solution (it isn’t).

In that regard maybe cycling is getting associated with danger and helmets being the answer. But at the moment until wearing helmets breaches 50% of riders I wouldn’t say normalised.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I suppose that if a peer reviewed scientific study came out tomorrow showing significant improvement in health outcomes for cyclists wearing MIPS helmets, that this would somehow be irrelevant? After all the frozen 2016 site makes no mention of MIPS...

The irony of MIPS is that it is a compensatory measure introduced for a problem caused by helmets. It’s a reaction to an unintended consequence of wearing a helmet.

 

[matticus]

We're talking about the effect of helmet normalisation on would-be cyclists - that is those considering taking up cycling. Normalisation meaning the acceptance as the norm, or default position. (Or at least that's what I think the thread is about)

The fact that large numbers of existing cyclists don't wear helmets simply sets the level to which helmet wearing is, or is not, normalised. Its effect will be equal across all three interpretations.

Yup, ok, agree with that post!

 

[Dogtrousers]

First of all you haven’t shown that wearing a helmet has been normalised. The vast majority still don’t wear a helmet. Where is this normalisation?

I don't need to. It's a base assumption of the question in the OP "does helmet normalisation discourage cyclists".

That would be a completely different (and easier) question: Has helmet wearing been normalised?

I'm just exploring potential answers to the OP. I don't have any axe to grind here. I don't really have a single settled general opinion on the subject.

 

[classic33]

I'm a bit confused by that argument: surely you could just substitute "Walking" and "pedestrians" for "Cyclists" and "cycling" and then you'd be arguing for all pedestrian facilities to be removed?

Pedestrians aren't targeted for helmet use.

 

[Andy in Germany]

Pedestrians aren't targeted for helmet use.

No, but the argument you were presenting, could just as easily be used for footpaths: less footpaths, more pedestrian helmets; pedestrians should Take The Lane. I'm exaggerating for effect, but the logic is roughly the same.

 

[icowden]

First of all you haven’t shown that wearing a helmet has been normalised. The vast majority still don’t wear a helmet. Where is this normalisation?

First of all you haven't shown that wearing a helmet is abnormal. Nor have you provided any evidence for your assertion that the vast majority still don't wear a helmet. Where is this evidence?

Here's mine:-

Extract from the UK's Transport Research Laboratory:
The 2008 survey on major built-up roads showed that cycle helmet wearing was 34.3%, an increase from 30.7% in 2006. The wearing rate has increased each year the survey has been carried out since 1994 when it was 16.0%

From this I can extrapolate that:-

Based on the increase from 2006 to 2008, the increase is 3.6% per two years. There have been 6 sets of 2 years between 2008 and 2020. Therefore a further increase of 21.6% suggesting that 55.9% of adults were wearing a helmet at the end of 2020.

Or

Based on the the statement that the wearing rate has increased each year the survey has been carried out since 1994, helmet wearing increased by 18.3% over 14 years. This is a static year on year growth of 1.3%. If that is the case then from 34.3% we would expect a minimal increase of 15.6% taking us to 49.9%

Thus, based on the UK Transport Research Laboratory data, I feel safe in my assertion that the vast majority neither wear nor do not wear helmets. It also provides evidence that it is increasingly normal to wear a helmet when cycling, and that the constant increase of helmet wearing supports the notion that people think it is a good idea.

Your serve...

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally our roads didn’t have pavements. But the newly emerging rich but rare car drivers, complained, about pedestrians getting in the way. Pedestrians did used to use the full width of the road rather happily. After all roads are for getting about and in foot is as good as any. Thus narrow footways we’re added to the side of highways at motorists behest. To try and confine them out the way.

Now car drivers complain about cyclists slowing their progress. But instead of proposing bike lanes in a similar way to what they argued 100 years ago for pedestrians and footways. Now they complain about bike lanes. Because in the later case a 100 years later it involves them losing road space. God forbid that should happen.