I can’t believe it’s happening again. A British cyclist wins the biggest sporting event on earth, then almost immediately opens his mouth and spoils it. First we had Brad Wiggins, with the flabbergasting statement that “Ultimately, if you get knocked off and you ain’t got a helmet on, then how can you complain” – an opinion that’s so wrong, morally and legally, that if it was said about certain other types of crime, might have ended his career even before it could fizzle out.
Now Geraint is making the same blunders, airing the headline-friendly opinion that cycle helmets should be mandated by law. “I would certainly make helmets compulsory. I always wear a helmet, I’ve put on a helmet more times than I’ve buckled a seatbelt” he recently told The Times, blissfully ignorant of all the evidence from around the world which says that when you make helmets mandatory, cycling levels undergo a Rampage-style drop off a cliff.
He’s a good bloke but…
Now I generally hold Mr Thomas in a good deal of affection. He’s a lovely bloke, he’s frequently hilarious in post-race interviews, and he can literally ride away from the best cyclists in the world. But on this topic, his opinion is neither wanted nor needed. The article is accompanied by a photo of Geraint aged 12, posing with a brakeless track bike and a cup the size of his head. He’s a professional athlete who, before he was in secondary school, had dedicated his life to riding a bike at speeds that would make many people have some sort of prolapse. When most British cyclists were schlepping to work in the dark this winter, hoping we’d packed some dry pants, he was at a training camp in the sunshine somewhere. “I’ve never ridden a bike in London, apart from in a race. I’ve watched from a taxi and it does seem a bit crazy” he sagely opines. It’s a bit like an astronaut telling everyone who’ll listen that they, too, should wear a space suit when they go to work.
Thinking of mountain biking as “cycling” is a bit like thinking of going to a Star Trek convention as “socializing”
It’s not just road racers who have this bong-eyed view of the cycling world. Folks, I’ve got some uncomfortable news for you. Thinking of mountain biking as “cycling” is a bit like thinking of going to a Star Trek convention as “socializing”. Technically it’s correct, and yet it’s also a focus on one very specific aspect of a much bigger thing.
Latest Singletrack Merch
Buying and wearing our sustainable merch is another great way to support Singletrack
Take where we ride. It’s a fair generalisation to say that mountain bikers aren’t put off by hills, distance, or surfacing of a quality that might be more appropriate to the surface of an asteroid than a public thoroughfare. But what works for us might not work for kids riding to school, or someone nipping to the shops for milk. What we do – putting our bikes in cars or vans, driving them to trails, riding round in circles, and posting photos of it on the internet – is not “cycling” in any comprehensive sense. There’s a whole panorama of leisure and transport by bike out there, and we’re just one tiny corner of it.
This confusion between cycling as a sport and cycling as a way of getting around is ubiquitous in the UK. Politicians talk about it being a golden age for cycling, when what they actually mean is that we’re winning lots of races. Way more people walk or take the bus, while cycling’s share of everyday journeys remains a blip on a graph at 2% or so, yet no one talks about it being a golden age for buses.
Racing is not cycling
When my local council launches a cycling initiative, it almost invariably uses some photos of the last bike race to visit our valley. Making road racing a lazy stand-in for everyday cycling pisses everyone off. The casual cyclists see it and think they’re not serious or fit enough, while for non-cyclists, it reinforces the preconception that cycling is an odd little sport for a niche audience, rather than the most energy-efficient mode of single-person transport ever devised.
More than once while cycling to work, I’ve been asked what I’ve been training for, when the only honest answer I can give is “cake and beer”.Inadvertent flattery isn’t so bad, but there are lots of other reasons why road racing is not just unrepresentative of cycling as a whole, but often harmful to it. It’s fair to say it’s had its share of issues, but it’s not just the doping. It’s also a sport with a ridiculously narrow range of representation. Pro cyclists are overwhelmingly white Europeans, women are still sidelined by the highest profile events, Geraint is considered old at 32, and you’re not competitive if you have much more than 10% body fat.
And of course professional cyclists are keen on helmets. The speed and risk involved in road racing, even for someone who cycles, are mind-boggling. The accident rate for the 2012 Tour De France was 150 times higher than for commuter cyclists in London. (Better order a taxi for next year, eh G?) The average speed of the peloton for the entire race, mountains included, is currently about 25 mph (and trending upwards), while most cyclists are pottering along at 8-12 mph – the sort of speeds that, if they could persuade motor vehicles to stick to, would see road safety professionals included in the Queen’s honours list.
Then we’ve got the bikes – impractical machines that can barely carry a bottle, let alone a six pack from the off licence. Yet if you go to a bike shop, or check the shed at work, that’s what most people seem to be riding. The idea that you can just run an errand on your bike in normal clothes has become anathema to many people who cycle in the UK. You need the fastest bike you can afford, special shoes, and of course your special clothes, with none more special than helmets.
Ultimately, to sort this mess out, we need to stop assuming that sportspeople have any right to speak authoritatively about transport (I’ll make an exception for Chris Boardman, because he’s actually paid attention to what countries with double-digit levels of cycling are doing). And it would also be nice if the cycling industry bucked its ideas up, made more kit for everyday cyclists, and funded a few more initiatives along the lines of British Cycling’s #choosecycling campaign, or SRAM’s People For Bikes. The sort of thing that’s actually going to create more cyclists, instead of flogging stuff to the ones we already have.
And finally..
I’ll leave the last word to Brad, who seems, like Geraint, to have moderated his views on safety equipment when confronted with a bit of evidence. “He’s the Tour de France winner now, and everyone wants to know his view on certain things like he’s some sort of Messiah”. We need to remember that just because someone can win a bike race, it doesn’t mean they know much about cycling.
Crumbs! Does somebody need a hug?
Thoughtful and well presented, but sadly, telling us what we all know to be true if we’re honest. As Chris Boardman shows, even being high profile doesn’t necessarily mean people who could do something are likely to listen to you. Still, better to keep bringing this sort of reasoned view forward and hope it finally starts to get through!
Interesting view and I think I understand where you are coming from. However wouldn’t agree with your views that comments like that are neither wanted or needed.
These guys are in the spotlight. Yes there is a massive, diverse way bikes are used and to compare my weekend warriorish style to a commuter just doesn’t work.
However if he was to say no I don’t think that it should be made mandatory to wear a helmet he’s effectively saying you don’t need one. That’s being irresponsible.
There’s so much misinformation and stark ignorance on the issue of cycling and brain injury. A public figure making a comment at least keeps the debate going. And he’s entitled to his opinion, he’s not a legislator he’s just saying what he thinks.
As noted above wider picture is one of general public health. Compulsory helmet use may reduce cycling. My main problem is that the risks of knocking yourself out, however briefly, are not appreciated. The evidence base on the long term effects of mild traumatic brain injury in booming. That’s where the work needs to happen: inform people properly of the risks, and let them make their own decisions. Particularly parents on behalf of their children.
“The sort of thing that’s actually going to create more cyclists”
#cyclingnotcyclists 🙂
Other than that, chapeau (de polystyrène), a splendid article.
“However if he was to say no I don’t think that it should be made mandatory to wear a helmet he’s effectively saying you don’t need one.”
Utter codswallop. If you were to ask a porn star whether it should be mandatory to use contraceptives, would “no” be effectively saying that no-one needs them? Or would it simply recognise that not everyone exposes themselves to the same risks and even then not everyone evaluates any given risk—or any given mitigating strategy—in the same way, and legitimately so?
In the man’s defence is nobody allowed an off the cuff remark these days? He’s a supreme athlete currently on a hamster wheel of media interest. He’s likely more interested in what’s for tea than being an unelected spokesman for road safety. We’ve all got our views on helmets, we can carry on having them, despite his response to a (possible honeytrap) question. As you were 🙂
“That’s where the work needs to happen: inform people properly of the risks”
Disagree. Where the work needs to happen is in reducing the risks. There’s a reason why the country where almost no-one cycles with a helmet has a cycling head injury rate this is one of, if not the, lowest in the world.
We didn’t make air travel safe by recommending to people that they book seats near the exits and telling them how to brace for impact.
Regardless, there simply isn’t as much risk as received wisdom would have you believe anyway. And if you roll out some statistics for walking injuries during a discussion of cycling helmets, prepare to be washed away by a tidal wave of cognitive dissonance…
Yes but you are comparing a county with a completely different mindset that has had cycling integrated in its ethos for years.
it will take generations for it to change over here. Its already happening but in the meantime why not protect the vulnerable?
I’ve heard it said that the biggest single factor in admissions to head injury units in UK hospitals is car occupants from RTCs so this skewed logic says legislate for drivers and passengers to wear helmets as well.
We should build infrastructure that encourages cycling not messing around with laws, how would the helmet law work for the mobike ? carry a lid at all times just in case??
“That’s where the work needs to happen: inform people properly of the risks”
“Disagree. Where the work needs to happen is in reducing the risks.”
Fair point in principle, and the two issues aren’t mutually exclusive. Reducing the risk itself will take a sea change in policy, infrastructure, and culture….years and years of political and financial investment. Helping people understand the risk and the potential outcomes of mild brain injury means they can then evaluate the risk from an informed perspective, and make a decision from that point forward.
edhornby, Google “paper helmet” if you want to see how designers have tried to resolve the cycle hire/mandatory helmets problem. It’s quite a thing…
“it will take generations for it to change over here. It’s already happening but in the meantime why not protect the vulnerable?”
I think the argument is that mandating helmet use contributes to the vilification of people who use bikes (who may or may not identify as cyclists ;-p ).
There’s also the complication that wearing a helmet increased the likelihood of a car passing so close as to clip you, thus increasing the chance of injury, while decreasing the probable severity… Complex problem, all in all.
“it will take generations for it to change over here. Its already happening but in the meantime why not protect the vulnerable?”
Because if it’s implemented it will be nigh on impossible to repeal, and in the meantime the damage will be done in terms of (if evidence following similar legislation in other countries is anything to go by) decimating cycling rates. The added “bonus” is that the people who stop cycling tend to be the ones least likely to incur injury. A fact which—aside from illustrating the point that, in general, humans are actually quite good at assessing the risk to which they personally expose themselves—means you incur significant public health costs through the reduction of activity; you have remarkably little effect on the public health cost of trauma injury; and you significantly reduce the apparent demand for the infrastructure and other interventions that do have a compelling positive effect on both safety and activity.
On the same page as you talk about bike commuting, helmets and such like I have a massive flashing banner advert for Addison Lee, a company renowned for their poor driving, disregard for commuters and pedestrians.
I think helmets should be worn as I have seen the difference in a commuter falling off/knocked off their bikes with Vs without helmets.
Well now. Having just returned from a trip to shops that was temporarily suspended whilst I tended to an unconscious rider on the floor in the middle of the road after they’d come off their bike (sans helmet),
I’d suggest wearing a helmet may have been a good idea.
(The rider, on a shopping bike, was taken to a head injury specialist hospital.
But I’d still not like it to be compulsory. (A) people need to take some personal responsibility and decide themselves, and (b) as others point out, the health benefits are well proven to outweigh the risk, and what we must avoid is inadvertently putting even MORE people into cars on our clogged roads.
As for G… he needs to engage his brain before his mouth when it comes to representing general transport cycling. Or defer to others that know better.
Ah, a helmet debate. Always contentious ground.
From my point of view, I have the option of cycling to work along an NCN/Sustrans route that tarmac and entirely off road. I regularly see all kinds of people on all kinds of bikes using that route. It’s probably a 50/50 split between helmets and bare heads.
Seems pretty clear to me that mandatory helmet use would put some of those people off, when they really aren’t in any significant danger. And inactivity kills a lot more people than head injuries!
Re all the comments along the lines of “Cycling in the UK will take ages to sort out, so yay for helmets”, many of the issues with planning and building for cycling in cities, such as reliable funding streams or decent design standards, could be sorted with the stroke of a pen. Seville, New York and London have all transformed their streets in less than a decade.
I hate helmets!
I wear a helmet not so much for head protection, I’ll take my chances on that front, but to satify the insurance company’s. I’m not having those b*****ds pulling the ‘he Wasn’t wearing a helmet so wasn’t taking reasonable care’ routine.
I remember once sitting at a bus stop, watching a grotesquely overweight woman literally screaming at her toddler on a stabiliser bike, that if she didn’t put on her (cheap, poorly fitting and badly adjusted) helmet she wouldn’t be allowed to ride the bike.
montgomery, I’ve worked on a few cycling events and the number of poorly fitted helmets you see is unbelievable.
There’s an interesting feature in the works which looks more closely at helmets and the amount of protection they offer.
It certainly isn’t as simple as saying “if everyone wore a helmet, things would be fine”, but we do love a nice easy black and white solution.