Why are UK cyclists fixated on helmets

[deptfordmarmoset]

And there's now a second rebirth, particularly in London after Boris bikes, whereby a bike is just a cheap means of getting from A to B. That means ordinary clothes and no special equipment.

Anecdote alert - earlier in the thread I anecdoted 1 in 8 on an early commute through Hyde Park. Yesterday I walked, slightly later, from Barbican north-eastwards. This time I'd put the number of bare-headed riders at about 1 in 6 - again, mostly in ordinary clothes.

Yes, I'd agree with that. The hire bikes bring things back to utility cycling. And normalises non-helmet wearing.

 

[.stu]

I think part of the reason we are fixated on helmets is because we now tell our kids that they must wear helmets and ride on the pavement because riding on the road is dangerous. They grow up with this believe, and continue to ride on the pavement. They then get a job, car, family etc and drive round telling cyclists to get off the road and wear helmets, and generally bullying cyclists because they have been brought up to believe that cyclists do not belong on the roads because it is dangerous.

If the parents hadn't drummed this into them in the first place, they would have grown up cycling on the roads, and would better understand that roads are a shared space and drive more considerately.

 

[MontyVeda]

...
If you're serious about cycling, you acquire all the gear. Part of this gear is the helmet.
...

Really? Don't you mean, if you're serious about competitive cycling?

I consider myself to be serious about cycling... it's a mode of transport that I take seriously. I don't need Lycra to take it seriously, or the rest of 'the gear'... saying that, I might pull on a pair of padded undershorts for a 45+ mile ride.

 

[classic33]

Really? Don't you mean, if you're serious about competitive cycling?

I consider myself to be serious about cycling... it's a mode of transport that I take seriously. I don't need Lycra to take it seriously, or the rest of 'the gear'... saying that, I might pull on a pair of padded undershorts for a 45+ mile ride.

No, but that is meant as from the standpoint of someone taking up cycling.
Better choice of wording would have been, if you want to be seen as serious about cycling. One side still feeds the other though!

 

[Pat "5mph"]

I think the helmet /hi-viz look is associated with "safe cycling" in the UK.
A safe cyclist is regarded a serious cyclist, as in somebody that cycles with his safety and the safety of others in mind.

 

[John the Canuck]

...and don't even ask about high heels..................

 

[Pat "5mph"]

I find that a bit insulting I'm afraid.

Not my opinion. People tend to talk to me about cycling

 

[Pat "5mph"]

Whoever's opinion it is, it's still insulting.

Why? Maybe misguided, but why insulting? Anyway, the OP is asking about possible reasons for the UK's helmet obsession.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

It's insulting because it implies that people who don't wear polystyrene on their heads and bright yellow tunics don't care about their own or other people's safety. I would have thought that was blindingly obvious.

Not obvious, I'm not easily insulted

 

[snorri]

It's that ''new start'' for cycling, IMO. Continuity almost zero. Helmets appear on the market just in time for the UK rebirth. It's part and parcel of cycling's rebirth.

Yes, I think you are on to something there.
Apart from helmets, "everyone" seemed to get a mountain bike for the new start regardless of the fact that only a tiny minority ever went near a mountain. The mountain bike, for general purpose road usage, was/is another peculiarly British thing not replicated on mainland Euroland, I believe.

 

[DavidD]

Pat was putting a point across which probably has some merit if you find it insulting I would say you are maybe being a tad over sensitive

 

[MontyVeda]

Yes, I think you are on to something there.
Apart from helmets, "everyone" seemed to get a mountain bike for the new start regardless of the fact that only a tiny minority ever went near a mountain. The mountain bike, for general purpose road usage, was/is another peculiarly British thing not replicated on mainland Euroland, I believe.

It's the cyclist's equivalent of the Chelsea Tractor innit

 

[snorri]

Not obvious, I'm not easily insulted

Some people don't realise you're not a serious cyclist Pat "35mph", others know you're way past that, you're hard core.

 

[MontyVeda]

I think the helmet /hi-viz look is associated with "safe cycling" in the UK.
A safe cyclist is regarded a serious cyclist, as in somebody that cycles with his safety and the safety of others in mind.

I find that a bit insulting I'm afraid.

I don't find the way Pat said what she said insulting... but flipping it to "Someone who doesn't wear a lid and/or hi-vis has no regard for their own or the safety of others" is insulting... but that's not what Pat said.

 

[vickster]

Why?