Does Helmet normalisation deter cyclists?

[Drago]

Along with habituated helmet wearing comes the message, either spoken implied, from mum and dad that such activities are dangerous. That itself may (I say may, because this is pure supposition) be equally effective at turning youths away from a dangerous activity like cycling.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

There is a pleasing lack of kids wearing helmets when out on their own round here. As for scooters and kids not under supervision of parents. I would also say helmet free. The skateboard park in my local where all the scooter riders hang around. Can’t remember seeing any of them with helmets. Next time I pass I’ll check again. But since profile is very different sure I’d have noticed.

 

[matticus]

rogerzilla said:
I cannot ride with the local club any more, nor take part in my employer's annual charity ride.

If it's on a public road they can't stop you, can they?

Do you mean the club ride or the charidee ride?

 

[Dogtrousers]

I gave this a bit of thought

Can anyone point me to a resource for evidence? (That helmet normalisation deters [would be] cyclists)

I don't think this is possible to determine. The process of normalisation has happened gradually alongside many other changes, so you'd be hard pressed to attribute any deterrent effect from any other causes. Unlike, say, compulsory helmet legislation - where you can do before/after analysis.

Along with habituated helmet wearing comes the message, either spoken implied, from mum and dad that such activities are dangerous. That itself may (I say may, because this is pure supposition) be equally effective at turning youths away from a dangerous activity like cycling.

I think you have hit the nail on the head. Helmet normalisation is part and parcel of an overall increase in the perception that cycling is dangerous. I don't think you can disentangle them. Someone deterred from taking up cycling because they feel a helmet to be necessary, and don't want to wear one is very likely to be someone who is also deterred from cycling because they perceive it to be dangerous.

Where this perception comes from, and whether it is justified, goes beyond the bounds of the OP.

So my thesis is that helmet normalisation is not a cause of would be cyclists being deterred. The normalisation of helmets and the deterrence both result from the same root cause, which is perception of cycling as a dangerous activity.

Now to go and gather some evidence for my thesis. Oh bugger.

Full disclosure: I'm a habitual helmet wearer. My reasons are my own and none of your business.

 

[Oldhippy]

So much of life is risk averse these days and many organisations, businesses capitalise on this wherever they are able.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I think you have hit the nail on the head. Helmet normalisation is part and parcel of an overall increase in the perception that cycling is dangerous. I don't think you can disentangle them. Someone deterred from taking up cycling because they feel a helmet to be necessary, and don't want to wear one is very likely to be someone who is also deterred from cycling because they perceive it to be dangerous.

Where this perception comes from, and whether it is justified, goes beyond the bounds of the OP.

I think you can disentangle it whilst someone is a child. The child is prevented from riding by a parent because they don’t want to wear a helmet. The parent won’t let them ride without a helmet because they believe it will save them in a crash with a car (it makes no difference). The parent doesn’t cycle or hasn’t since a child. The parent believes crashes with a car are common when cycling (they aren’t).

The kid doesn’t get to ride their bike and build up that exposure to risk. Eventually they end up with the same distorted view of risk as their parents. They don’t gain experience of riding a bike and gain an understanding of the true risks.

I would say initially it’s the parent that is risk averse without understanding them. That gets passed on to the child as they grow up. The child is initially not riding as they don’t want to wear a helmet.

It reminds me of, except this is a why don’t kids walk to school anymore? The kid doesn’t learn how to manage the risks when walking to school.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Then you get direct evidence of kids being prevented from cycling to school unless they wear a helmet. The head teacher wouldn’t ban them unless kids were doing it.

St Albans school pupils face cycle ban for not wearing helmets http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-42151214

 

[Dogtrousers]

Don't disagree @Ming the Merciless but I'm still working on my thesis (for which I have utterly no evidence) that helmet normalisation here is a symptom rather than a cause. The root cause is the perception that "cycling is quite/very dangerous". But if you could magic helmets out of existence I still suspect we'd be in the same position that we are now with respect to people being shy of cycling: because it's considered dangerous. But we might be going on about hi-viz or elbow protectors or something else instead.

I have another utterly unfounded theory that ebikes could come to the rescue there, because they address a different barrier "cycling is a really hard sporting activity". Thus more people could be introduced to cycling via this route, and come to discover that cycling isn't quite as dangerous as they thought. But that's got nothing to do with hats, so probably doesn't belong here.

 

[rogerzilla]

rogerzilla said:
I cannot ride with the local club any more, nor take part in my employer's annual charity ride.


Do you mean the club ride or the charidee ride?

In either case, just turning up and tagging along would lead to a lecture followed by ostracism, if not actual fisticuffs.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Here more rubbish designed to put kids off cycling.

Children to be banned from cycling to school without number plates http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45636870

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Then more rubbish like this. We wonder why there aren’t more up and coming cyclists

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/sep/08/cycling-to-school

 

[MontyVeda]

I cycled to my mother's on Sunday because some old relatives from Accrington were visiting. First thing Uncle G said to me was "No helmet?"

Then my aunt claimed that if you cycle in Accy without a helmet, the police will stop you and tell you to put one on.

"That's interesting... enforcing laws that don't exist... I'd tell 'em to jog on." was my retort.

I'm certain she was talking utter codswallop.

 

[KnittyNorah]

Here more rubbish designed to put kids off cycling.

Children to be banned from cycling to school without number plates http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45636870

My gut reaction was the same as yours, initially, but looking into it more deeply, it seems a reasonable action to take for that school given the number of complaints and reports in the area specifically of children from that school 'playing games' such as 'swerve the car', practicing synchronised wheelies and effectively running pedestrians off the pavement at school-getting-out time - all unidentifiable other than by their school uniform. Many pro-bike programmes are to be run alongside the compulsory ID one; I suppose it's a way of weeding out persistent troublemakers, and of returning a little power to other legitimate users of the public highway at school-getting-out time.

 

[classic33]

Don't disagree @Ming the Merciless but I'm still working on my thesis (for which I have utterly no evidence) that helmet normalisation here is a symptom rather than a cause. The root cause is the perception that "cycling is quite/very dangerous". But if you could magic helmets out of existence I still suspect we'd be in the same position that we are now with respect to people being shy of cycling: because it's considered dangerous. But we might be going on about hi-viz or elbow protectors or something else instead.

I have another utterly unfounded theory that ebikes could come to the rescue there, because they address a different barrier "cycling is a really hard sporting activity". Thus more people could be introduced to cycling via this route, and come to discover that cycling isn't quite as dangerous as they thought. But that's got nothing to do with hats, so probably doesn't belong here.

That some people who cycle keep calling for seperate cycle lanes & routes free of motorised traffic also helps with the image that cycling on/near roads is dangerous.

Maybe, if we had more cycling on the roads, it wouldn't be seen as dangerous.

 

[yello]

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