Does Helmet normalisation deter cyclists?

[matticus]

... 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.

I can see some merit in your thesis, but I shall attempt to challenge it on 2 main grounds:
- you're ignoring how seeing other people wear a helmet will give quite a strong impression of danger.
- you're ignoring how the helmet manufacturers devised then promoted their devices.

I think the data (for helmet wearing) will show a pretty strong correlation with the latter event. Numbers don't lie, they say ...

 

[mjr]

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.

But it is more that cycling among motor vehicles is smelly, more complicated and, to most people, less fun. It is a particular minority who enjoy riding half a mile on a 60mph A road with an HGV driver staring at their bum and we will never have mass cycling if that is required for reasonably direct journeys.

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

Probably, but how do we get to that from current levels? I believe it is more likely to include cycleways than helmets.

 

[icowden]

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.

Let me stop you there. I am guessing (although I could be wrong) that you don't have kids. If Father Christmas or the Birthday list bring the sprog a bike and a shiny helmet to wear, the only thing that is going to stop that child wearing a helmet is poor parenting.

It goes like this....

"I don't want to wear that"
"well that's a shame. You won't be able to ride your shiny new bike to school or to your friends house or to the park"
<child puts on helmet with grumpy face>

Subsequent rides, the wearing of a helmet is now normalised. All sprog's friends wear helmets on scooters and bikes. It is therefore a normal behaviour. Plus helmet is pretty / cool / makes child look like Mad Max / Dinosaur / Disney Princess etc.

Neither of mine had an issue with helmets, nor my niece.

Now. This does change a bit at secondary school for some kids. I regularly see boys of secondary age with their helmet attached to their handlebars. This suggests that they have put the helmet on to keep mum / dad happy and as soon as they are out of sight of school, it comes off so that they can hang with the cool kids.

In this area cycling to school is pretty normal both at primary and secondary. Some schools (such as my daughters school) have banned cycling, but usually this is with very good reason. My daughters school for example as it is on a very busy 40mph road which is a primary route to the A3 and also a bit hilly. I wouldn't cycle down that road. Happily Surrey have announced that they have funding to put in proper cycle infrastructure on Seven Hills so that it can finally be safely cycled.

 

[rogerzilla]

Most cycle lanes make cycling MORE dangerous because of the loss of priority and the requirement to look straight behind for turning traffic at side roads, something that car drivers would never be expected to do. On-road cycle lanes say "left-hook me, please".

 

[mjr]

Most cycle lanes make cycling MORE dangerous because of the loss of priority and the requirement to look straight behind for turning traffic at side roads, something that car drivers would never be expected to do. On-road cycle lanes say "left-hook me, please".

All of that is incorrect but has nothing to do with helmets, so I suggest discussing it in https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/h...improvements-for-walking-and-cycling….277936/ if you want, which includes the forthcoming change to give cycleways clearer priority across side roads.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I can see some merit in your thesis, but I shall attempt to challenge it on 2 main grounds:
- you're ignoring how seeing other people wear a helmet will give quite a strong impression of danger.
- you're ignoring how the helmet manufacturers devised then promoted their devices.

I think the data (for helmet wearing) will show a pretty strong correlation with the latter event. Numbers don't lie, they say ...

But as "normalisation" proceeds helmet wearing ceases to give an impression of danger, or indeed of anything - precisely because it has been normalised. It's something people have done since age of tiny tot. People do it just because it's normal, the default position, without first thinking about the whys and wherefores. A bit like I perfectly happily dressed in a suit and tie every working day for years and years. Why? Just "because". That's kind of what "normalisation" means in this context - or at least it's what it means to me.

I'm not sure I follow your second point. I take it to mean that helmet wearing increased in line with helmet manufacturers' dire warnings of danger. I hope that's what you mean, but I may be wrong.

Assuming that is what you mean, I think those days may be in the past precisely because helmet wearing has been normalised. These days they no longer have to push dire warnings of danger when selling hats. It's more a matter of fashion, comfort, colour and aerodynamics now. Having a helmet is the default, and it's more a question of which one. So it's more a case of "Buy this cool helmet, as used by Julian Alaphilippe" rather than "This helmet will save you from a grisly end, buy it or die".

That could be cobblers, mind. I ought to research what helmet ads are saying before making statements like that. But I haven't

 

[classic33]

But it is more that cycling among motor vehicles is smelly, more complicated and, to most people, less fun. It is a particular minority who enjoy riding half a mile on a 60mph A road with an HGV driver staring at their bum and we will never have mass cycling if that is required for reasonably direct journeys.


Probably, but how do we get to that from current levels? I believe it is more likely to include cycleways than helmets.

Helmets do nothing about the smell in traffic, they're not designed to.
Not all road cycling is on "A" roads. Those that I've seen for the first time on bikes on roads with fewer private vehicles these last 18 months have been doing so on "A" roads. Yes, many were wearing helmets and hi-vis, however most I 'd say bought these at the same time they bought their bikes. If a person new to cycling feels safer wearing a helmet when they start out that's their choice. And at present it is a choice.

If we want to see an increase in cycling, we as cyclists need to stop selling the idea that separate, segregated cycle lanes are the only way to increase the numbers cycling. If the only routes that are available to them are the roads, then that is what they'll use. Calling for segregated cycle lanes increases the perceived danger to a new cyclist, "If you need your own lane, it must be bad." was one I got from a person who now cycles to work, leaving the car at home. I'll wait to see if she cycles this winter. When seen last week she wasn't wearing the helmet, as it's not as bad as she was led to believe. Again her choice, and she's still cycling on "A" roads.

 

[rogerzilla]

All of that is incorrect but has nothing to do with helmets, so I suggest discussing it in https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/highway-code-changes-to-be-announced-later-this-year-with-improvements-for-walking-and-cycling….277936/ if you want, which includes the forthcoming change to give cycleways clearer priority across side roads.

I wasn't the one that brought cycleways into the discussion.

 

[mjr]

If a person new to cycling feels safer wearing a helmet when they start out that's their choice. And at present it is a choice.

Yes, it's their choice, but people are less likely to start cycling if they feel a helmet is necessary. If nothing else, it's extra cost and that will be a barrier to some.

If we want to see an increase in cycling, we as cyclists need to stop selling the idea that separate, segregated cycle lanes are the only way to increase the numbers cycling.

How can we stop when we never started? I've never seen anyone claiming they're the only way. They're just one tool in the box.

If the only routes that are available to them are the roads, then that is what they'll use.

There are limits: most will drive instead of cycling on fast busy A roads.

I wasn't the one that brought cycleways into the discussion.

No, indeed. I think it was @classic33

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Let me stop you there. I am guessing (although I could be wrong) that you don't have kids. If Father Christmas or the Birthday list bring the sprog a bike and a shiny helmet to wear, the only thing that is going to stop that child wearing a helmet is poor parenting.

It goes like this....

"I don't want to wear that"
"well that's a shame. You won't be able to ride your shiny new bike to school or to your friends house or to the park"
<child puts on helmet with grumpy face>

Subsequent rides, the wearing of a helmet is now normalised. All sprog's friends wear helmets on scooters and bikes. It is therefore a normal behaviour. Plus helmet is pretty / cool / makes child look like Mad Max / Dinosaur / Disney Princess etc.

Neither of mine had an issue with helmets, nor my niece.

Now. This does change a bit at secondary school for some kids. I regularly see boys of secondary age with their helmet attached to their handlebars. This suggests that they have put the helmet on to keep mum / dad happy and as soon as they are out of sight of school, it comes off so that they can hang with the cool kids.

In this area cycling to school is pretty normal both at primary and secondary. Some schools (such as my daughters school) have banned cycling, but usually this is with very good reason. My daughters school for example as it is on a very busy 40mph road which is a primary route to the A3 and also a bit hilly. I wouldn't cycle down that road. Happily Surrey have announced that they have funding to put in proper cycle infrastructure on Seven Hills so that it can finally be safely cycled.

Maybe in your household but not here. Kids really don’t want to wear helmets. Some will compromise until their parents can’t dictate. But many kids who don’t want to wear a helmet stop pretty much around that time.

I had a kid with their mum today. I was out in recumbent. I don’t wear a helmet. Kid exclaims isn’t that dangerous. Being brain washed at such a young age by a parent who in their ignorance doesn’t know better.

 

[classic33]

Yes, it's their choice, but people are less likely to start cycling if they feel a helmet is necessary. If nothing else, it's extra cost and that will be a barrier to some.


How can we stop when we never started? I've never seen anyone claiming they're the only way. They're just one tool in the box.


There are limits: most will drive instead of cycling on fast busy A roads.


No, indeed. I think it was @classic33

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.

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.

I'd like to see as many on bikes, with or without a helmet. Replacing a car on the roads. I still see some who only started last year cycling on the roads, who say that it's not as bad as they were led to believe before they took up cycling last year. And that's with the increase in private vehicles since. 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 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.

 

[Drago]

I don't want to wear a helmet either, and usually don't.

Im all for being risk averse, but in doing so I like to guide my actions by some kind of priority, with the actions with the biggest safety gains being made first.

Seeing as, per journey mile, you are more likely to die in the UK while walking than you are cycling, any safety measures I would consider would target that first as a greater risk. The fact that walking itself is an inherently safe activity, and less likely to kill you prematurely than physical inactivity, I am happy to exercise prudence while walking, but otherwise do not dress up in armour.

With cycling being even safer, I'm less inclined to do so.

Teaching children to cross the road safely and conduct themselves with dilligence when doing so is liable to save many, may more lives than cycle helmets, and in the hierarchy of gains that should take a far higher priority for every parent.

Sadly, the cycle helmet manufacturers won't make any money from simple care and attention, so they continue to extol the virtues of products to anxious parents, but curiously not one of them claims their products will reduce casualties or save lives.

Would you buy a Golf GTi over a GL if VW didn't claim more power and handling? Would you take medicine if there were not claims of a good chance of improving the illness? You wouldn't, yet people happily buy helmets in order to reduce injury or prevent death, from cycle helmet manufactuers who all decline to outright state their product will reduce injury or prevent death. Hhmmm.

 

[classic33]

I don't want to wear a helmet either, and usually don't.

Im all for being risk averse, but in doing so I like to guide my actions by some kind of priority, with the actions with the biggest safety gains being made first.

Seeing as, per journey mile, you are more likely to die in the UK while walking than you are cycling, any safety measures I would consider would target that first as a greater risk. The fact that walking itself is an inherently safe activity, and less likely to kill you prematurely than physical inactivity, I am happy to exercise prudence while walking, but otherwise do not dress up in armour.

With cycling being even safer, I'm less inclined to do so.

Teaching children to cross the road safely and conduct themselves with dilligence when doing so is liable to save many, may more lives than cycle helmets, and in the hierarchy of gains that should take a far higher priority for every parent.

Sadly, the cycle helmet manufacturers won't make any money from simple care and attention, so they continue to extol the virtues of products to anxious parents, but curiously not one of them claims their products will reduce casualties or save lives.

Would you buy a Golf GTi over a GL if VW didn't claim more power and handling? Would you take medicine if there were not claims of a good chance of improving the illness? You wouldn't, yet people happily buy helmets in order to reduce injury or prevent death, from cycle helmet manufactuers who all decline to outright state their product will reduce injury or prevent death. Hhmmm.

Agree with the first part, never bothered reading anything for the second part.

Full face helmet worn, when I want to, on two wheels. Reason being there's side impact protection, should me and the bike part company unexpectedly. It's prevented the cuts that would have happened from impacting, but beyond that I know that what's inside the skull is still going to be "bouncing around" for a while afterwards. The same as when the head impacts* the floor at home, but doesn't break the skin.

*Epilepsy, a condition I was born with. And A&E staff are wary of no local before stitching any wound.

 

[boydj]

I find it strange that some of the strongest advocates for cycle helmets are people who know nothing about cycling, have never cycled and no intention of ever cycling.

I've also never seen a risk analysis done on the need or otherwise for a helmet. This is mine for normal utility cycling and club rides in the slow group :

Risk of falling off - very low
Risk of falling off and hitting head - very, very low
Risk of falling off and hitting head hard enough to cause serious damage - miniscule

Clearly racing, riding in a fast bunch or riding off-road changes the analysis.

One thing I've noticed in the last year or so on our local off-road cycle track is that more and more people are not wearing helmets, so maybe common sense is breaking out.

 

[Drago]

Oh aye Mr C, but what are the odds?

Why go to all that effort to mitigate against minor risks while doing nothing to address the more serious risks we face each day? It's illogical (best Spock voice) and, if risk mitigation is our concern, inefficient.