Negative Consequences
I was browsing a news web page the other day, and one of the news items was accompanied by a photo of a group of cyclists, all of them wearing those rather ridiculous helmets that make them look like they have a hand of bananas strapped to their heads. It occurred to me, as I looked at this photo, that this uptake of helmet wearing by cyclists was symptomatic of the general trend towards the risk-averse, nannying society that we now find ourselves in.
I personally have never owned or used a bike helmet, although to be honest I’ve never really been a cyclist either. Not since I was a kid, anyway. When I lived in the UK I had a bike, but I bought that for the sole purpose of cycling to my local pub, which was about a mile away (a long walk but a short bike ride), because with the draconian drink drive laws, if you wanted to drink more than a pint, driving wasn’t an option. However, where I live now, I rarely wear a helmet when I’m driving a motor bike or scooter either. I find them uncomfortable (particularly in summer) and restrictive, in that they restrict both my hearing and my peripheral vision. But more than that, I love the feeling of the wind rushing past me (I was going to say I love the feeling of the wind in my hair, but considering I’ve got hardly any hair, that would have been stretching poetic licence somewhat…); it’s a feeling of freedom that you just don’t get when you’re within the confines of a helmet.
Naturally, as the use of cycle helmets became more common, those people who delight in telling others what to do started lobbying for helmets to be made mandatory for all cyclists (“…if it saves one life…”), most notably in Australia (natch) and the USA. Thus, the bicycle helmet issue became an embodiment of the ‘precautionary principle’ approach which dominates today, and has done for some years. And just as in every other instance the ‘precautionary principle’ has had unintended consequences, so too has the cycle helmet law.
One example of this which particularly amused me was from Melbourne, Australia. Being a ‘progressive, green’ city, Melbourne spent lots of money establishing cycle lanes around the city, and set up a city-wide bike-share scheme. However, at about the same time, they also made helmets mandatory, meaning that if you wanted to use one of the ‘bike-share’ bikes, it meant you had to lug a helmet around with you all day. Predictably, that idea didn’t appeal to many, and despite all the efforts of the council to persuade people to make use of the bike-share system, it never really took off. Not only that, but cycling in general, promoted as a ‘healthy lifestyle choice’, plummeted in popularity, by something like 50%. But nanny-staters being what they are, the idea of admitting that the helmet laws were counter-productive and should be rescinded, wasn’t considered an option. So now, Melbourne has an under-used bike-share and 50% less cyclists, a situation mirrored everywhere that mandatory helmets have been introduced.
Interestingly, even cycling organisations are ambivalent about helmets. In an article on a cycling website called BicycleSafe, the author is pretty dismissive about the benefits of helmets. Some of the points he makes are:
- Focusing on helmets distracts people from what’s more likely to actually save their lives: Safe-riding skills.
- Research has failed to show any net protective value of bike helmets.
- The importance placed on helmets has negative social effects.
- While helmets obviously decrease some injuries, they actually promote other kinds of injuries.
- The most significant result of a helmet law is to discourage cycling.
He also includes a graph showing that the countries which have the lowest helmet use also have the lowest mortality rate, and countries with the highest helmet use have the highest mortality rate.
So the promotion of these helmets, and the laws passed mandating their use is not only based on junk science and the ‘think of the cheeldren’ blackmail beloved of those who would regulate our lives, but the perceived benefits are outweighed by the negative consequences.
This mania for regulating people’s lifestyle choices seems to have a recurring theme. It’s always started by single-issue fanatics who manipulate and exaggerate statistics to suit their agenda; it always involves restricting people’s freedom of choice; it always starts as advisory and migrates to coercion backed up by legislation; it always has negative consequences. And those that instigate these movements never admit to making a mistake, but cling doggedly to their original misconceived vision.
We see many examples of this today, the most obvious and high profile being the war (as it has become) on smokers. Any perceived benefits of getting people to quit smoking have been outweighed long ago by the negative consequences.
Despite huge numbers of people having been coerced into quitting, the incidence of ‘smoking related diseases’ continues to rise. The punitive taxation levied on tobacco falls most heavily on the poorest sections of society, thus exacerbating social inequality in the demos . The bans have caused untold economic damage, with bars and clubs going out of business everywhere bans are enacted, with the attendant rise in unemployment and all the negatives that go with suddenly finding yourself without an income. There has been a huge rise in obesity and type 2 diabetes, which is directly related to quitting smoking. Society has had a wedge driven through it; friends lost, families divided; and many have been indoctrinated into a visceral hatred of anyone who smokes; intolerance is encouraged. The rise in tobacco taxes have seen a concomitant rise in crime as the black market increases in size, and corner shops are being targeted by thieves for the now high-value tobacco products. Loneliness among the old is an increasing problem as those older people who used to go to the pub, working men’s club or bingo hall (many of them smokers) to meet friends and socialise are now effectively excluded – indeed, many of their favourite haunts now no longer even exist since the smoking ban drove them out of business.
All these things and many more are the direct result of what started supposedly as an effort to improve people’s health, but has ended up doing the exact opposite. Just as mandating cycle helmets has. And in both cases, those who impose the restrictions and laws are in complete denial about the damage they are doing. Not only are they in denial, but they are still pushing for yet more of the same. Such is the nature of the modern day zealot.
And finally, veering off topic somewhat, but still on the subject of cycling, what is it that drives male cyclists to accessorise their odd looking headgear with skin-tight Lycra?

Lycra biker…
I do wonder about people sometimes…
Some time ago I came across some research on the dangers of cycling helmets. They ran a series of tests on cyclists with and without helmets. The results showed that motorists tended to give the non-helmets a much wider berth – presumably a subconscious awareness of apparent vulnerability. It makes sense?
And I always drive much faster if I’m wearing a seat belt. 😈
I seem to remember that about twenty or thirty years ago they found that people who owned Volvos were involved in an unexpectedly high number of crashes, and the conclusion was that all the safety features on a Volvo gave people a sense of invulnerability which resulted in a more reckless driving style, leading to the higher accident rate.
I’ve always maintained that putting a sharp spike in the centre of the steering wheel would result in much more careful driving (and less accidents) than surrounding people with airbags.
I haven’t riden a motorbike for decades but I was able, on occasion, to ride without a helmet. Personally I would strongly recommend all bikers try it. As you say, periferal vision and hearing is much improved and you get a better feel for your own vulnerability. Not very practical above about 30mph though.
I wonder how many people (outside of M. A. G.) have even heard of the great freedom fighter Fred Hill:
http://wadmag.mag-uk.org/fred_hill.htm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hill_(civil_rights_activist)
I read somewhere some years back that above 30mph a helmet doesn’t help much at all with an impact, because although your skull may not be broken, the trauma to your brain inside the skull is so severe that you would probably have been better off not wearing one and dying instantly. Michael Schumacher is an example of how much damage can be sustained, even at relatively low speeds, helmet notwithstanding. The same article went on to say that although the helmet law lobbyists shouted about how many lives had been saved by the helmet law, they omitted to mention the number of vegetables on life support who’d scrambled their brains inside the helmet which saved their lives.
I also rarely wear a seat belt, and when I’ve owned Volvos or other cars with nagging beeps to tell you to buckle up, I’ve always disconnected the sensor. It seems somehow fatalistic to me, to strap yourself into the car on the assumption that you’re going to have an accident.
I never was much of a one for the precautionary principle…
Ah, just read the link about Fred Hill. Top man!
None of the clocks in your photo seem to agree.
Heh! Took me a moment to cotton on! Clocks? What?
Yes, you’re right – I hadn’t noticed before you mentioned it.
And the guy on the right, apart from having less to eat at lunchtime, has an unusual row of vertical nipples!
Reminds me of when I was driving my car before the seat belt legislation. I hit black ice on the road and lost control. I could see the car was going to hit a lamp post, broadside – drivers door, and was able to throw myself to the opposite side of the car. The car wrapped around the lamppost like a banana and my backside took the hit. If I had been strapped in, my head would have taken the impact and I am convinced that I would not have survived. All I had was a very sore bum!
I witessed an almost identical accident some years later but the driver was wearing his seat belt – he died. NOT wearing a seat belt saved my life, and wearing one possibly cost him his!
After a collision there is a small risk that a seat belt can become jammed and the prospect of being burned alive, strapped in and unable to get out, is very real. The thought of this scares the life out of me. All police cars where I live used to carry seat belt cutters (probably still do), for just such an occurrence – but what is the likelihood they will be close enough to use them in time if a post collision fire does break out?
By the way, Great blog Nisikiman!
As for hearing, surely it would be possible to have some kind of “speaker grill” perforations around the ears that didn’t compromise structural integrity – a design idea?
Speaking of design ideas, I remembered these from a few years ago, a sample here:
http://www.beautifullife.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/30/02.jpg
After all, if you have to wear one… why not make it a work of art?
More from that design crowd here:
https://good.kz/en/portfolio/helmets/
When I was driving big rigs in Aus, although there was already at that time (1970s) a seat belt law, no truck driver ever wore one. The reason being that when you have twenty tons of freight in the trailer (which itself weighs several tons), in the event of an impending head-on impact, your best chance of survival was to bail out rapidly, which wasn’t possible if you were wearing a seat belt. Wearing a seat belt under those circumstances pretty much guaranteed that they would have to remove your remains from what was left of the cab with a teaspoon.
I’ve actually seen very similar helmets being worn here – I like the watermelon one!
In Asia, helmets popular with the girls are ones with a hole in the back for them to pull their ponytails through. They look quite cute…
http://blog.ironhorsehelmets.com/2017/07/a-motorcycle-helmet-with-ponytail-hole.html
I’ve often wondered if any of those ever-so-clever economists who leap in after every public transport strike/major traffic hold-up/bad weather scenario to tell us how much the latest “travel delays” have cost the economy have ever thought to calculate how much cyclists “cost the economy” each and every day, simply by delaying everyone else’s journey to and from work (or wherever). Is there an average amount of time lost by every driver, every day, due to having to slow down and wait for a safe place to pass a slow-moving cyclist, or to screech to a halt to avoid one who has just shot out in front of you? It may only be a matter of 5 or 10 minutes per day, of course, but when you consider how many little 5-10 minute delays are caused by cyclists every day to, probably, millions of people, I’d think that the cost would be quite considerable …
They look a right load of wally’s!!!! Anyroad, I WOULDNT COULDNT wear a helmet, by the time I got anywhere, me hair would be such a state (and I’m not joking) that it wouldn’t be a mode of transport I could take and I guess that would be the same for loads of women.
The worst is when you come across a gaggle of them on a country road, all in their Lycra and silly hats taking up most of the road, with the palpable attitude of “I’ve got as much right to use the road as any car”, and who seem to delight in exerting their power to create a slow moving road block.
Yes, I hadn’t thought of that, but you’re right – compulsory helmets must stop a lot of women using bikes for that very reason.
Looks like he’s wearing a waistcoat with those fat leather buttons under his shirt. Either that or he dropped some M&Ms down there when he was having a sneaky snack.