“I think cyclists have to help themselves in terms of wearing helmets and things,” says Sir Bradley Wiggins. “I think that probably should go some way to becoming the law soon.”
Wiggins’ comments to the London Evening Standard are likely to once again ignite the eternal argument as to whether the wearing of cycle helmets should be made compulsory or not.
Last year, a Transport Research Laboratory report concluded that such legislation would “prevent head and brain injuries, especially in the most common collisions that do not involve motor vehicles, often simple falls or tumbles over the handlebars”. However, others argue that cycling levels fall once helmet use is enforced and conclude that such a measure therefore has a detrimental effect on public health in a broader sense.
This is not the first time that Wiggins has spoken on the issue. In 2012, he was at pains to emphasise that he had not been calling for helmets to be made compulsory, but merely observing that such a move might offer cyclists’ a stronger legal position in the event of a collision. Writing on Twitter, he said:
"Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as reports suggest. I suggested it may be the way to go to give cyclists more protection legally I [sic] involved In an accident. I wasn't on me soap box CALLING, was asked what I thought."
However, by 2013, his position appeared much firmer.
“I think certain laws for cyclists need to be passed to protect us more than anything. Making helmets compulsory on the roads, making it illegal to maybe have an iPod in while you’re riding a bike, just little things like that would make a huge difference.”
On this latest occasion, Wiggins was speaking ahead of his attempt to set a new Hour record next month. He again expressed his hope that his efforts might inspire people to cycle more themselves.
“Something like The Hour record, when you think the distance covered in that, you could cross the length and breadth of London. It maybe changes the outlook for many people of how to get about. Hopefully it will inspire a lot of people to get out there. There might be just one kid in that velodrome who is inspired to do what I do, as I was 20 years ago.
“The atmosphere in the velodrome will be incredible. It’s quite humbling to think a lot of people paid good money to come and watch you do it. If it’s anything like the Olympics was, they will help the time pass a lot quicker.”





















132 thoughts on “Cyclists have to ‘help themselves’ by wearing a helmet says Bradley Wiggins”
Keyboard warriors, why not
Keyboard warriors, why not just ignore the temptation to have another furious helmet debate. Before you get into another volley of quoting and paraphrasing, whether you are pro or anti, just save yourself half an hour and go out for a spin around the block instead? It is Saturday after all.
bikeboy76 wrote:Keyboard
Comment of the year! Well said bikeboy76 =D>
brokenorange wrote:bikeboy76
Just don’t forget your helmet 😉
bikeboy76 wrote:Keyboard
Why not just shut up? Some of us want our helmet debate and if you don’t like it then quit barging in on helmet related stories.
Chapeau! But it is fun
Chapeau! But it is fun watching the little darlings frothing at the mouth!
I look forward to Lewis
I look forward to Lewis Hamilton’s thoughts on road safety.
@bikeboy67: I agree 100%.
@bikeboy67: I agree 100%.
What we should do is write to any charities Wiggins supports, CC: himself, that we won’t be donating any further cash until he stops making a bell-end of himself spouting off on a topic he is not authorised to represent us on or is knowledgeable about.
He has form, he’s been rebuked in the past, he carries on. This is now at James Cracknell levels of idiocy.
People authorised to speak ‘for cyclists’ on the issue of helmets: CTC, Chris Boardman, Jon Snow.
People NEVER authorised / justified to speak on the topic of helmets for population-wide cycling: British Cycling, those who make money riding superbikes, very fast, on closed roads.
FFS.
Disappointing, very
Disappointing, very disappointing!
So, Brad opens his mouth and
So, Brad opens his mouth and puts his foot in it. What’s new?
Great rider, apparent dickhead.
Everyone is entitled to an
Everyone is entitled to an opinion including Brad Wggins ! He was asked for his opinion and that is what he gave ! So what is the problem with his opinion ! I’ll tell you now. NOWT !
Well said.
Well said.
Just remember “The Australian
Just remember “The Australian Effect”. You will discourage your riders from safe casual and ordinary short utility trips and you end up with a majority who regard cycling as a fitness sport and who go fast and take risks thereby justifying helmet law. On account of this, once brought in, it then cant be got out.
Wiggins doesnt realise he is seeing cycling from a sportsmans perspective.
Compulsory helmets should not be promoted or even suggested.
I remember the recently
I remember the recently crowned World Junior Pursuit Champion coming to our club (Paddington CC – Sport and Publicity) AGM in 1999. Sport and Publicity sponsored Brad (and Steve Cummings) for a while.
Great at bike racing, but he does need to stick to the day job (plus music and clothes) as he does not get transport cycling and the need to reduce danger at source.
I have written at length on this: if you can bear it, read the first five posts here http://rdrf.org.uk/category/bradley-wiggins/
Does it honestly matter what
Does it honestly matter what Wiggins said ?
He was asked a question and he gave an answer, just because some people don’t like it, it doesn’t mean he was wrong and to be honest he can say whatever he wants its called freedom of speech.
Personally I hope they do make it law.
stumps wrote:Does it honestly
Yes, it does, as he’s considered a representative and an advocate of cycling community.
Yes, but that does give people the right to criticize him. Also please bear in mind that on one hand you try to fight for the freedom of speech, while on the other one you try to steal another freedom from people. According to my dictionary this is pure hipocrisy.
mikroos wrote:According to my
I’d asking for a refund on that dictionary…
farrell wrote:mikroos
I’d proof reading my posts.
Take a deep breath and engage
Take a deep breath and engage your tolerance gland. Cycling is sweet with or whichever way you choose.
Just because someone is asked
Just because someone is asked an opinion does not mean that they have to give it.
He may very well have a strong view on the merits of making the wearing of helmets compulsory. It does not mean that he should publicly declare them.
He should have been a bit like a politician and either ignored the question, prevaricated or stated no opinion one way or the other. He could even have said that he was in favour of the compulsory wearing of helmets in a sporting environment but had no opinion on the merits of wearing helmets in an everyday/domestic setting.
That is why I said that I found this story “Disappointing very disappointing!”
The problem with sportsmen and women is that they are not trained in how to deal with the media so I don’t attach any blame to Bradley. I just wish he hadn’t said it.
So usually we complain about
So usually we complain about the politically correct non-answers sportspeople give in interviews, and then when one actually gives his opinion, people complain. Particularly if their own opinion is the opposite view. Go figure…
A mate of mine is now almost
A mate of mine is now almost 70 years old. He has been riding bikes without a helmet (competitions excepted) for neigh on 60 years. He is a former British TT Champion for his age group. A couple of years ago one of his contemporaries sans helmet fell off his bike and landed on his head. He died from his head injuries. Now, after all those years, my mate has now decided to wear a helmet. I wonder why ? ? ? !
Batchy wrote:A mate of mine
Well there you go everyone. Someone has been riding for 60 years and hanging round with cyclists for 60 years and in all that time they’ve only ever known one single person who might of benefited from wearing a helmet.
That’s my kind of odds.
I reckon beards should be
I reckon beards should be banned.
Like boardman says its a red
Like boardman says its a red herring. Competitive cyclist should wear helmets.I’ve had 3 crashes involving cars. 1, pulled out on me, over the bonnet i went. 2, got struck from behind, somersaulted + landed on my knee, 3 headdown went into back of car, my fault. Ive also been pissed many times, slipped over quite a few times, also been ice skating a lot, were you don’t wear helmets. moral of story is you can’t legislate for everthing. The other week on a cycle path i took my helmet off and just rode in the sunshine and it felt great. It comes down to personel choice, so I will decide when i wear a helmet, even if it was made compulsory. WHICH IT WONT BE.
Just a comment about cycle
Just a comment about cycle paths some are great, others are a complete nightmare mixing road bikes with kids on tricycles, joggers etc. My friend broke his cannonade road bike, arm, shoulder and ribs on a cycle path the other week as another cyclist was wearing earphones and rode right across his path. He will take his chances on the road next time. His head was ok.. wearing a helmet.
Brian Steele wrote: My friend
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence even when it’s 100% accurate (which mostly it’s not). Visit a head trauma unit in a hospital and the probability of finding a cyclist is small because head injuries are caused by all sorts of activities.
If anyone want’s to argue that an activity merits mandatory head protection then first present the evidence that it’s more dangerous than other routine activities we do (like walking for example), or you’re being irrational.
http://understandinguncertainty.org/micromorts
Brian Steele wrote:Just a
Apparently your experience doesn’t fit in with Ron611287’s world view so is not relevant.
Personally I think your spot on. Some shared paths are not fit for purpose, which I infer is your main point. Cyclists with headphones are a menace (although if they do make constant checks over their shoulders it is possible to cycle considerately and safely, as opposed to recklessly and carelessly).
Colin Peyresourde wrote:Brian
Learn the difference between irrational and irrelevant. Your friend could have just as easily had the same incident with the other cyclist if he was on foot. The bicycle he was riding was incidental. Does he wear a helmet when he goes for a walk?
ron611087 wrote:Colin
Learn the difference between irrational and irrelevant. Your friend could have just as easily had the same incident with the other cyclist if he was on foot. The bicycle he was riding was incidental. Does he wear a helmet when he goes for a walk?— Brian Steele
Again, you’ve not followed his point. I think ‘irrational’ is making an assumption which is clearly not logical. Neither one of us can say whether the accident would have happened if Brian’s friend is on foot. I doubt they would have generated the same forces to break a bike and bones in the same way walking – from a rational view point.
Colin Peyresourde
I followed his point perfectly, you haven’t read mine, or it seems followed the link to my sources so I’ll repeat: If you want to show that any activity merits the protection of a helmet you must first show that that activity carries a greater risk of head injury than other routine activities you do without a helmet or you are being irrational.
The risk of walking and cycling is about the same so if you don’t wear a helmet when you go for a walk but insist that one is needed when you cycle then you are irrational.
Understood this time?
A nice little animation by Spiegelhalter to illustrate my point :
http://understandinguncertainty.org/micromorts
ron611087 wrote:Colin
Oh, I see. You wanted to make a different point to the person you quoted. And no, you didn’t make that point earlier. If you want to make your point stop misquoting others…..if you want to quote people then you should respond on their points.
I don’t think you can really make a comparison between walking and cycling. Just in the same way you can’t make a comparison between walking and being a jet fighter pilot. Per journey I bet if you got data about jet pilots and found out how many head injuries they suffered per journey or even the likelihood of them having an accident then the odds in peace time are low. So should they wear helmets? Well the answer depends on how they are flying their plane and the likelihood of war….in this case it’s not the risk of head injury, but the types and circumstances of injury.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:I
Why can’t you make these comparisons? And what data for jet fighter pilot injuries are you referring to? Or are you speculating?
Do you think The Evening
Do you think The Evening Standard would publish a normal (e.g. a non-racer) cyclist’s opinion on cycle helmets? The Lewis Hamilton comment does sum it up nicely 🙂
Of course all this sort of
Of course all this sort of crap was aired before they introduced compulsory seat belts for cars way back in the sixties ( probably incidentally) before most of you lot were born. It really turned out to be not too much hassle after all did it ! So why the fuss over compulsory cycling helmets ! Get real it is not a big deal !
Batchy wrote:Of course all
Some clarification in order here. Compulsory fitting front – 1967 rear 1987. Compulsory wearing front 1987 rear 1991. There was a greater uproar in 1987 about the wearing of belts. Though my instructor in the early 80’s insisted I wear one. Meanwhile my dad refused right up to the legislation even though his cars had them. I think a lot of others weren’t bothered about them being there until told they had to wear them.
The seatbelt will prevent occupants of a vehicle being thrown about the vehicle. Meanwhile. If a vehicle hits a vulnerable road user they are going to have nothing restraining them as they get flung about the road. I’ve said this before. The helmet issue is a red herring to road safety. The govt and police need to get tough on speeds in the urban areas, punishment passes and everything else that places pedestrians and cyclists in danger. I remember my provisional licence and subsequent full licence in NI had printed on the inside page a reminder to drive with courtesy care and consideration.
giff77 wrote:Batchy wrote:Of
So you get flung off your bike and your head hits something hard. Personally I would rather be wearing a helmet if I was in this situation .Indeed I have been on several occasions and my head is still intact !
Batchy wrote:
So you get
One very simple question, would you rather be hit by a car wearing a helmet, or not hit by a car not wearing a helmet?
So what do you think the solution is to cyclists being injured by cars and trucks?
mrmo wrote:
One very simple
That’s not a very simple question though is it.
a. I’ve never seen a car wearing a helmet.
b. the double negative makes your point confusing.
I’d rather not be hit by a car myself.
However if I am; I’d rather not die from a glancing blow to the head that may be survivable with the marginal gain from wearing a helmet.
note: helmets are not some form of invincibility shield. Being hit by a car at any speed above walking speed is unlikely to go well.
atgni wrote:mrmo wrote:
One
That’s not a very simple question though is it.
a. I’ve never seen a car wearing a helmet.
b. the double negative makes your point confusing.
I’d rather not be hit by a car myself.
However if I am; I’d rather not die from a glancing blow to the head that may be survivable with the marginal gain from wearing a helmet.
note: helmets are not some form of invincibility shield. Being hit by a car at any speed above walking speed is unlikely to go well.— mrmo
So I missed the comma….
But you agree that not being hit by a car is probably the best way forward. So I guess the question is WTF is so much time discussing helmets when 9 times out of 10, if the F***ing driver had been paying attention there would have been no need for a helmet as there would have been no accident?
The other 1 time out of 10, most of those are racing/training/mtb, and a VERY small number are cyclists own gross stupidity.
mrmo wrote:Batchy wrote:
So
You can get helmets for cars now?!!! Cool! Do Halfords sell them? 😉
mrmo wrote:Batchy wrote:
So
For car and truck drivers to look where they are going….
Batchy wrote:So what do you
For car and truck drivers to look where they are going….[/quote]
Now that’s a novel and innovative concept – anyone think it may catch on?
K Stand Ken wrote:Batchy
Now that’s a novel and innovative concept – anyone think it may catch on?[/quote]
Not when most people seem to think wearing a bit of plastic and polystyrene on your head is the answer…
I’m not anti helmet by the way, I use one, but I don’t over estimate it’s effectiveness. They are pretty limited to what they’re going to protect you against. Remember they were only ever designed to offer a bit of protection if you fell off while racing, not from being splatted by vehicles with inattentive drivers.
For cars and trucks to look
For cars and trucks to look where they’re going…..
mrmo wrote:
One very simple
Well, it rather depends on the answer to the question “if you are hit by a car would you rather your head was its normal size or twice as big?”
Quote:Get real it is not a
Show us the evidence that it works then.
Because a compulsory helmet law for children who we might assume may benefit most seems to have had a rather odd effect…
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1250.html
The helmet debate is old and tired, but the reason it continues is that there are people like you who think of it as a black and white issue when it actually isn’t.
If they worked, we would see that reflected in the statistics, but we don’t.
You’d think that Bradley
You’d think that Bradley wasn’t allowed an opinion by some on here. Whatever happened to free speech? Or do you only like hearing the sound of your own opinion.
He’s welcome to what he thinks and I guess he doesn’t care about the cycling nazis who think otherwise, and in that respect he is right.
Oh dear – it really isn’t
Oh dear – it really isn’t sensible to bring in compulsory seat belts here – and not just for the reasons giff77 gives.
See what compulsory seat belts did for cyclists and pedestrians here
http://rdrf.org.uk/2009/11/02/oh-no-not-seat-belts-again/ and here:
– http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/03/08/how-many-cyclists-and-pedestrians-is-it-alright-to-kill-in-order-to-protect-car-occupants-from-bad-driving/
Note the effects of risk compensation – which of course happens with helmet wearing, one of the reasons for the population studies showing a somewhat different story to helmet wear than advocates claim, e.g. http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/27/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law-the-evidence-and-what-it-means/
Drumming up column inches
Drumming up column inches before his record attempt?
Much?
Here’s Brad setting the example for us all
Closed road, quiet road, parkway, cycle path. The law would be the law.
Compulsory helmets for
Compulsory helmets for motorists too, that’s what I say
Clearly he has an opinion,
Clearly he has an opinion, but given he’s previously said that outlawing ipods for people riding bikes would be immensely helpful… well, I’ll disregard that opinion as ignorant. YMMV
When someone driving like a
When someone driving like a dick kills his passengers we don’t think to blame the passengers. Why is it so acceptable to do so with cyclists?
When it comes to the helmet
When it comes to the helmet debate, road.cc’s reader always deliver 🙂
The only point I would make, is why would anyone feel compulsion is necessary when the voluntary rate is so far. I rarely bother when pootling about town locally, I’m using quiet roads and the risk is minimal, no different to walking really.
I’m just heading out for a Sunday spin, and I’ll be wearing a helmet. I make a choice based on the use case, which I think works rather well.
When I ride with the commuter traffic into London, it seems 95% are wearing helmets. On that basis, a change in the law obviously wouldn’t make a “huge difference”. If the voluntary rate of seatbelt use was that high back in the 70’s, I wonder if we would have had the change in the law that we did.
These anti helmet debates are
These anti helmet debates are astonishing. Whilst a helmet may not save you all of the time surely there can be no doubt that it can do with many falls. There’s no mystery – ones fragile skull hitting a concrete kerb is always going to be bad news and having an inch of protection is always going to help. People talk of statistics but as we all know these can be easily manipulated to tell whatever storey you want.
I cannot believe the venom in some of the comments against Bradley for expressing an entirely justafiable opinion. Get over yourselves you non helmet wearing chumps and go for a ride …..and why not plug in your iPod , get a fixie, take your brakes off, ignore red lights and wear an eye patch if you need some extra edginess to your cycling…
You can’t have an argument with an idiot
Migstu wrote:These anti
8}
Your post is proof of that.
Migstu wrote:a helmet may not
The idea is to cycle in such a manner that you don’t fall off. If you find yourself falling off a lot, I believe remedial cycling classes are available.
I find not dwelling on the worst possible outcome of a particular activity helps me immensely. Otherwise one would never drive a car, or even leave the house.
For me, cycling ≠ brain damage.
What venom? Bradley expressed an uninformed, possibly prejudiced, opinion in a public forum that lots of people have taken issue with, me included.
What was that you were saying about venom?
Whatever argument you might have thought you were having, you’ve rather undermined it there…
OK. Just clarify ! So far I
OK. Just clarify ! So far I am now onto my fifth cycling helmet.All the previous ones have been binned because they have cracked or split following cycling incidents. Now despite sustsaining injuries that include a broken neck of femour and torn rotator cuffs I was not aware at any time that my head had been in contact with anything other than fresh air. Obviously according to the state of my helmets the evidence proved otherwise. In none of my trips to hospital was I asked about whether or not I was wearing a helmet so no evidence was recorded for statistical purposes.Strangely I have fallen off ladders and off rocks and things loads of times when I have not been wearing safety helmets and never hurt my head , obviously because it has never come into contact with anything . There are no reliable statistics available to prove anything regarding wearing cycle helmets. There is common sense though and plenty of opinion including Bradley Wiggin’s !
Amen !
Batchy wrote:OK. Just clarify
It sounds like you need a helmet for getting out of bed
Your name wouldn’t happen to
Your name wouldn’t happen to be Frank Spencer would it?
Batchy wrote:OK. Just clarify
Do you, or in fact any of folks on here recounting, apparently with some pride, how many road accidents they’ve been in, have as many crashes in your car as you do on your bike?
OK. Just clarify ! So far I
OK. Just clarify ! So far I am now onto my fifth cycling helmet.All the previous ones have been binned because they have cracked or split following cycling incidents. Now despite sustsaining injuries that include a broken neck of femour and torn rotator cuffs I was not aware at any time that my head had been in contact with anything other than fresh air. Obviously according to the state of my helmets the evidence proved otherwise. In none of my trips to hospital was I asked about whether or not I was wearing a helmet so no evidence was recorded for statistical purposes.Strangely I have fallen off ladders and off rocks and things loads of times when I have not been wearing safety helmets and never hurt my head , obviously because it has never come into contact with anything . There are no reliable statistics available to prove anything regarding wearing cycle helmets. There is common sense though and plenty of opinion including Bradley Wiggin’s !
Amen !
Two facts:
1. Wearing a
Two facts:
1. Wearing a helmet does not stop a dickhead from knocking me off or preventing a fall.
2. It does however give me half a chance of getting up and knocking the driver’s head off or calling myself every name under the sun.
If iPods are forbidden, I
If iPods are forbidden, I think all car music systems should be illegal as should the soundproofing of cars which is common to reduce wind and engine noise. I often wear a single ear piece left ear so I can hear cars and music. Are race radios going to be band by wiggo.
As for helmets remember the 60s no motorcycle helmet compulsion? It was great riders rode much more safely as they were no wearing helmets! Since the introduction no one rides motorcycles any more and head injuries have actually increases!
There is an impartial motorcycle site with all the research to prove helmets are a danger to health and freedom! http://www.ihatehelmets.com that’s all the evidence you need! 8}
Compulsory compulsion for
Compulsory compulsion for those compelled to compel.
Compulsory expulsion for those compelled to be expelled.
No time for people wanting
No time for people wanting compulsion or helmet evangelists.
Helmets should be a personal choice end of.
I have plenty of anecdotes of helmet-less crashes where people didn’t die or become cabbages
For anyone wanting some
For anyone wanting some evidence to guide you through all the opinions that get aired on this perennial topic, there’s a link to CTC’s summary of the evidence from here: http://www.ctc.org.uk/helmets.
Roger Geffen
Campaigns & Policy Director, CTC
I personally wear a helmet
I personally wear a helmet and always will, but I want that to be my choice and not one that was already made for me.
I don’t see this as an argument about safety, it’s one about personal freedoms and what message it gives to people about the (imagined) inherent dangers of cycling.
I agree with the point made earlier, the biggest factor in improving safety for cyclists is to properly police the roads and get the worst drivers out there off them so the rest of us can once again enjoy using them (and that includes being able to drive as well as cycle).
I come into road cycling from
I come into road cycling from mountain biking, where helmet use is very common; especially once I got into Downhill racing and Freeriding.
We would wear ACU Gold rated Motocross helmets until the helmet manufacturers created a new generation of bicycle full face helmets to meet the new Downhill mountain bike standard ASTM F1952-10
This is the riding I did during my Freeriding days, you may understand the desire to wear a decent helmet:
I actually find going down a steep hill on the road bike at 50mph feels more risky than going 40mph down a mountain bike track, because on the road bike its thin lycra and a helmet between you and the road.
On the downhill bike you’d be dressed to crash with full face, body armour (often a spine protector) and knee / elbow guards under motorcross style clothing.
In road cycling I always wear a helmet, its my choice. What others do is their choice, but I don’t want to clear up their mess. I will not ride with anyone that turns up without a helmet.
I’ve attended several serious accidents in public woods and trail centres where people (often casual cyclists) have fallen hard without a helmet and its very unpleasant for all involved, although thankfully often the victim has no memory of the event.
hampstead_bandit wrote:I come
That’s not a justification for helmet compulsion. You’re mixing sports cycling with utility and leisure cycling and they’re not the same. Would you compare rally driving with normal driving? Event organisers have already made helmets compulsory in these events anyway so a law would make no difference.
Just to illustrate the difference in risk between sports cyclists and other cyclists: In the Netherlands less than 1% of cyclists wear helmets, but make up 13% of casualties. These are the sports cyclists.
ron611087
Your missing the point in what he said. He’s not saying making it compulsory, he’s saying that it has an advisable aspect to being used.
Quote:On the downhill bike
Risk compensation in action.
My DH racing friends always talked about getting armoured up and felt … not invincible… but less damage prone… and so rode a lot faster when kitted out, leading to more severe injuries when they ran out of talent.
crikey wrote:Quote:On the
Yes, because it is the helmet that is causing the accident isn’t it?! I think Mountain Bikers have been hurting themselves badly with and without helmets from day dot. So I’m glad you were here to clear that up.
Colin Peyresourde
Yes, because it is the helmet that is causing the accident isn’t it?! I think Mountain Bikers have been hurting themselves badly with and without helmets from day dot. So I’m glad you were here to clear that up.
Actually, the wearing of body armour, full-face helmets, protective hand wear etc. DOES facilitate engaging in an inherently highly hazardous activity. That’s the whole point.
crikey wrote:Quote:On the
@crikey
you make a fair point, some riders may make that mistake and ‘armour up’ in the belief it will prevent injury.
In response, I was a skilled rider (I rode professionally for 4 years as a freerider for Banshee Bikes and Da Kine, and then for Devinci Bikes), and knew it was a case of not “if i crash..but when I crash”.
It was a case of constant risk assessment when riding stunts, I’d do everything to improve my chances of walking away if my assessment was wrong.
Good armour and a good helmet will not completely prevent a serious injury but would certainly reduce the severity of that injury
In accidents I personally experienced, it prevented a serious injury by deflecting impacts. I also cracked a number of helmets receiving a slight head ache.
I also had private accident insurance to cover me for loss of earnings and medical costs in case of a serious injury.
It’s all about risk, and helmet use seems sensible when there are few disadvantages to wearing one, but that’s my choice.
hampstead_bandit wrote:It’s
Exactly, and if I were participating in high risk sports cycling I would wear protection as well, but that’s not the context of Wiggins statement, which is cyclists (i.e., all of us) should be wearing helmets regardless of type of cycling.
Quote:So far I am now onto my
I’ve had about 8 or 9 helmets and I’ve cracked one in 23 years. I think you’re probably a wee bit clumsy.
I know of someone who read
I know of someone who read that a study in Australia showed that motorists drive more carefully when a cyclist is not wearing a helmet. Because of this he chooses never to wear a helmet.
I took a look at the study and it also said that drivers mere even more careful when those carrying out the study wore long blond wigs (male and female). He doesn’t choose to wear such a wig ever.
People make the choices they are most comfortable with. I choose to wear a helmet as I don’t feel comfortable without one. I feel exactly the same when I don’t have spare tubes and a pump on me but I would never expect them to be compulsory.
harragan wrote:I know of
That study was done in Bath, not Australia; are you sure you read it?
As for being comfortable with your choice, that might just be the result of the thirty year campaign to promote cycle helmets by massively exaggerating the risks of cycling and the protective effect of helmets. cyclehelmets.org
burtthebike wrote:harragan
Absolutely. Perhaps the study was replicated but the one I read was carried out in Australia. Thank you for your concern.
Helmet wearing has almost
Helmet wearing has almost certainly saved me from serious head injuries on a few occasions where my head has bounced off the ground with significant force…..If some people want freedom of choice not to wear a helmet then fine, I don’t care for them. A strict nanny state is not a great thing, but don’t berate and try your best to undermine people who express that helmet wearing is a fairly sensible option regardless of all the other issues surrounding cyclist safety .
Personally I have enough direct experience to know that wearing a helmet makes total sense without any significant detrimental side effects.
And for those who choose not to wear helmets, I am baffled by your position backed up by dubious evidence and contrived logic….who are you trying to convince….yourself?
Migstu wrote:And for those
In the first instance you’ve mistaken a stance against helmet compulsion anti-helmet. They’re not the same thing. Many who are anti-compulsion wear helmets.
Secondly you’ve elected yourself as an authority and accused everyone who has argued against you as having contrived logic without revealing your own sources. So what or who are your sources? Prejudice?
On the issue of authoritative sources, in the Oct 2013 editorial of the BMJ Sir David Spiegelhalter and Dr Ben Goldacre concluded the evidence for compulsion was questionable and controversial. Of course you may want to disagree with them, but the correct way to do so would be to review the evidence and get different results. First you may want brush up on your maths, Spiegelhalter and Goldacre don’t do prejudice.
Quote:people who express that
Fail.
You need to take time to understand the argument you are dismissing.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
‘having an inch of protection
‘having an inch of protection is always going to help.’
jesus. No, no it isn’t. No matter what the protection is – cotton, polystyrene, a kevlar shell with 40cm of cushioning inside – it’s not *always* going to help. People talk so much shit online but helmet debates always bring out the very worst.
I have huge respect for Sir
I have huge respect for Sir Bradley, but we should all remember that expertise and talent for one thing does not qualify you as an expert in everything.
Those of us long enough in the tooth might well remember a certain Brian Clough, who was an exceptional football manager. Unfortunately, he also had opinions on anything and everything, which were completely and utterly valueless, but the media kept publishing them. Eventually, he ended up looking very foolish indeed, and realised that he was being taken advantage of to sell newspapers.
Sir Bradley might like to reflect on that example and stop shooting his mouth off about things he evidently has no knowledge about. To make one mistake and be shot down in flames is forgiveable, but to repeat the error shows that you have learned nothing.
I want to see a Wiggins vs.
I want to see a Wiggins vs. Boardman debate about this!
Landing on your head will
Landing on your head will hurt, period; there’s really no debate over that. With a helmet it might just be a touch less painful, but there’s no certainty you’ll walk away from it. I’m 100% against compulsion, as I believe in freedom of choice…and any law will also be unenforceable.
rnick wrote:and any law will
Yes and no. On the one hand, it would be trivially easy for police to catch cyclists not wearing helmets, particularly as police in a car are fast compared to people on bikes. On the other hand, given they don’t have the resources to catch motorists who are variously speeding, jumping red lights, using their phones, etc it would be borderline impossible.
Of course you should wear a
Of course you should wear a helmet if you’re in any way likely to crash your head into concrete. However on the rare occasions I’ve not worn mine I’ve noticed a considerable increase in the amount of space motorists give me…?
The solution to me would seem to be to design an invisible helmet that motorists cannot see. A double winner; more space from large metal boxes and still a protected bonce if an unforced error on my part should occur……. :))
whizzkid wrote:Of course you
did you see this at Spin London recently?
http://www.hovding.com/how_hovding_works
not quite invisible, but getting there!
Helmets –
Helmets – (|:
Needs a wee card with “Good
Needs a wee card with “Good question, I’ll get back to you” on it. He clearly doesn’t actually want to be discussing this “helmets and things” topic, really doesn’t have to be a public health / transport expert.
I really love the thoughts of
I really love the thoughts of Sir Bradley Wiggins. He gave great advice to all of us. Special thanks to Sir Bradley Wiggins.
Does anybody have the figures
Does anybody have the figures for Pedestrian head injuries ? I am just thinking about all the cracks in the pavements or those slippery marbled steps in front of some buildings.
I am thinking also people like myself who are a bit older, some of us aren’t as strong and as balanced as we used to be when we are walking, there’s a big chance that we could trip.
That said what about youngsters running around with lots of energy what if they fall. ! !
I am really worried for Pedestrians I think it’s time that a law was made to have all pedestrians wearing helmets.
The pavements are getting busier surely there is a celebrity speed walker out there that can use his/her influence to push a helmet law for pedestrians ?
Rupert wrote:Does anybody
The charity Headway state 445 head injury hospital admissions per day. https://www.headway.org.uk/brain-injury-statistics.aspx
But that is from the entire population of around 65million.
Good luck with your campaign 😉
Hypocrite
…Hypocrite
……
Hypocrite
…Hypocrite
……Hypocrite
……….Hypocrite
Hypocrite
****Hypocrite
*****
Hypocrite
****Hypocrite
*********Hypocrite
**************Hypocrite
The thing about being a
The thing about being a celebrity is that they say something and it’s taken all wrong by the media and reported as something they didn’t mean.
Will we be seeing the paperazzi stalking Bradley now for that photo of him popping down the shops on his bike for a loaf of bread and a pint of milk. BUT NOT WEARING HIS HELMET.
The right not to wear a helmet should be supported as much as the safety reason why you should wear a helmet.
Could anyone tell me (silly
Could anyone tell me (silly question, of course they will) where all these anti helmet cyclists ride? because where i ride it’s very very rare i ever see a cyclist without a helmet! But as soon as a post or article goes live they seem to be everywhere, do they just sit in front of their computers waiting for the chance to pounce on us misinformed helmet wearers instead of riding their bikes, numbers of non helmeted riders on the roads where i ride suggest this. Compulsory helmet wearing not sure? riders make their own choice on safety, each to their own, and i’m not against anti helmet wearing cyclists whatsoever before you start. :S
NO a lot of us wear helmets
NO a lot of us wear helmets we are just pro choice !
mark shelton wrote:Could
You’re right, I don’t cycle anymore. It’s too fucking dangerous – look out of your tiny bubble and you’ll realise how obviously stupid it is to think something that only covers your head can possibly make it SAFE, as opposed to “less unsafe”. Am I less happy? Yes. Am I fatter? Yes. But I’m alive, for what that’s worth. The bloke wearing a helmet on the A40 isn’t.
So there you go, great fucking promoter of exercise: I HAVE helped myself. Well done.
nuclear coffee wrote:
You’re
There are bigger dangers out there!!! Read “The Truth about DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE.” It’s everywhere and kills thousands a year!!!!!!!
http://www.dhmo.org/truth/Dihydrogen-Monoxide.html
nuclear coffee wrote:mark
You probably have more chance of being killed or seriously injured in a car.
http://www.medhelp.org/general-health/articles/The-25-Most-Common-Causes-of-Death/193?page=3
ianrobo wrote:nuclear coffee
You probably have more chance of being killed or seriously injured in a car.
http://www.medhelp.org/general-health/articles/The-25-Most-Common-Causes-of-Death/193?page=3— mark shelton
Then I don’t need a helmet, do I?
Either it’s safe without or it’s not safe even with. THAT is the reality outside of your precious polystyrene delusion.
mark shelton wrote:Could
I don’t know anyone who is anti-helmet.
I know a number who are pro-helmet.
I used to know some individuals who were pro-compulsion evangelists.
I know a very large number of people who are anti-compulsion. Some of them wear helmets and some of them don’t. Some only wear helmets if it is a condition of entry to an event or they are taking part in or an MTB downhill type of activity (they also tend to be wearing body armour). Those that wear helmets do so because they feel more comfortable and more confident wearing one. None of them comment on another’s choice.
mark shelton wrote:Could
A34 / A6 in Manchester, every morning and every evening and then various places around Manchester as and when.
Please feel free to say hello if you’re ever passing or being passed.
Just be wary not to get me confused with the many others that ride a similar route and also don’t wear helmets.
Hope this helps.
I will, i’m only over the
I will, i’m only over the hill from you. :H but let’s not start another thread on acknowledging or saying hello to other riders we’ll surely be stoned to death, we are a funny bunch!? :W
farrell wrote:mark shelton
Loads in Greater Manchester in general.
Maybe we’re all too poor oop North 😉
I ride in the Wye Valley
I ride in the Wye Valley mostly, but have done extended sojourns in The Chilterns and the Peak District, again, feel free to say hello, I am out a lot.
But if you do choose to be one of those helmet wearers who have to go out of your way to talk to me at traffic lights, or riding the other way, and inform me of how I should be wearing a helmet, please keep that to yourself, it is starting to really annoy me!
My recent favourite was a pair of cyclist going the other way who chose to bang on their helmets when I said hi as I went by, it is no wonder they needed head protection if that is how they treat their heads!
and in amongst the usual
and in amongst the usual dreary mumblings that constitute any and all helmet threads, the use of the phrase ‘extended sojourns’ sheds a little ray of light.
I ride with and without helmets, if I’m with others, I usually use one to avoid the inevitable questioning. Solo, I tend not to bother, or if riding with other folk who don’t usually wear them.
Dripping with sweat in summer, bit of a faff in winter compared to caps or hats.
“I think cyclists have to
“I think cyclists have to help themselves in terms of wearing helmets and things,” says Sir Bradley Wiggins. “I think that probably should go some way to becoming the law soon.”
What are these ‘things’ he speaks of?
Capes, clown shoes, bald wigs under the ‘helmets’….
I have nothing to add to this
I have nothing to add to this debate, just felt a bit left out.
I have to agree with Wiggo. I
I have to agree with Wiggo. I was actually pushed off my bike by a driver who got out of his car and came up behind me. The ‘push’ was hard enough to cause me to fall almost ‘prone’ and the side of my head to strike the pavement. Such an impact could have fractured my skull but for my helmet. I was unconscious for over 20 minutes and suffered serious long term concussion but I’m alive. Due to the lack of a reliable witness the driver wasn’t charged and I was told that if I had not been wearing a helmet it’s unlikely the driver would have been even charged with anything more serious if my skull had been fractured or I’d died. We have little legal protection from people driving on the road or the road itself, our only option is to wear a helmet.
velocreative wrote:I have to
So we now have to wear a helmet just in case we’re assaulted by somebody ? Given your dreadful experience I assume you wear a helmet every time you leave the house now, that seams to be what your suggesting. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood.
velocreative wrote:I have to
Don’t forget to wear one in the supermarket too. You never know when you might get pushed over and hit your head. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/feb/18/supermarket-row-man-killed
velocreative wrote:I have to
Don’t forget to wear one in the supermarket too. You never know when you might get pushed over and hit your head. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/feb/18/supermarket-row-man-killed
My helmet undoubtedly saved
My helmet undoubtedly saved my life following a crash on ice two years ago but then again, I find it liberating to take it off when I am on a steady climb up a quiet hill. It’s a personal choice given the circumstances.
More infuriating than either
More infuriating than either the helmet evangelists (the side I probably lean more towards) and the ardent anti-helmet brigade are those people I see riding around with their helmets on with the straps undone. Unless they’ve glued the inside to their scalp, I have to really wonder at their understanding of the physics involved in any incident that might lead to a helmet being useful.
Cycling back with the GF from
Cycling back with the GF from the theatre on Saturday night, and she made quite a revealing observation: the vast majority of people she sees RLJing in London are wearing helmets. This was after a young helmet wearing lad had cut us both up and jumped lights (not even amber gambling but middle of a red sequence)
If thats down to increased risk taking/risk management, would require a study but something Im going to watch for now.
zanf wrote:Cycling back with
Maybe the vast majority of cyclist in London are wearing helmets?
jamtartman wrote:zanf
Ooh… how very tart of you. Such cutting, incisive humour. I think I need to go lie down for a bit.
zanf wrote:jamtartman
Ooh… how very tart of you. Such cutting, incisive humour. I think I need to go lie down for a bit.— zanf
From my own very tiny survey, on my 5-mile trip to work one morning across central London 4-5 years ago, I’d say that it’s true. Out of 100 people I counted on bikes, about 80 were wearing a helmet and the other 20 weren’t. Not so many people on hire bikes wore helmets, but plenty still did.
I haven’t done another count since, but I’d imagine the proportion of helmets worn has increased.
Among the bike commuting population in London there is a definite trend toward road bikes (from the mid-80s trend toward mountain bikes) and all the gear that goes with them, including helmets. In other words, not at all like the utility cycling trend in the Netherlands and Copenhagen, where most people wear regular clothing for cycling and little in the way of PPE.
The most depressing thing
The most depressing thing about the whole helmet debate is that of all the things policy makers could do with regards to cycling in the UK it would probably be the least effective with regards to cycling safety and increasing the number of people cycling on the road. But as it is the easiest thing for them to do it is the most likely thing they will do, especially if people like Wiggo keep banging on about it.
Whilst Bromptoning the 2km to
Whilst Bromptoning the 2km to Waitrose along shared use path, I don’t use a helmet.
Whilst Bromptoning the 2km to
Whilst Bromptoning the 2km to Waitrose along shared use path, I don’t use a helmet.
Arise Sir Wiggins, with this
Arise Sir Wiggins, with this title I confer onto you the key to the City of *untingham X(
I saw helmets worn is a
I saw helmets worn is a variety of rum ways when I was in London last week. But I’ve not heard of anyone actually being throttled by this kind of folly.
Each to his own, most do – the few that don’t, who I know, are the most experienced and safest.
I’ve broken 2 helmets hitting the kerbside so I do.
Just watched ‘Grayson Perry
Just watched ‘Grayson Perry House’ :-
Walking around building site with no helmet (helmets required by H&S regs) & ducking under scaffold due to poor access & egress (breach of H&S regs)
Cycling slowly with brand new helmets all round (not required by any reg or law).
Bizarre broadcasting double standards.
Wiggo is incredibly foolish
Wiggo is incredibly foolish to make this recommendation. In answer to anyone silly enough still to believe mandatory helmets are a good idea, I have a one word response – “Australia”
Forget the TRL Jersey report
Forget the TRL Jersey report – one of the worst bits of junk psuedo-science out there. TRL are the people who elsewhere reported that they could find no evidence of a benefit from helmets in the literature so would therefore assume they were 50% effective.
Look instead at the two proper academic reviews in the UK. Dr Paul Hewson found no evidence of a safety benefit for road cyclists in a study of the UK police and hospital accident statistics while Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter – a leading expert on public risk from Cambridge – writing in the Briitish Medical Journal states that the benefit is too modest to capture. These are the people we should be listening to, not the Motorised Transport Research Laboratory or a celebrity cyclist with no expertise in the field.
It’d still hurt being hit by
It’d still hurt being hit by this.
Wiggo is entitled to his
Wiggo is entitled to his view, just like everyone else. No one in the UK is required to agree with him.
Nor does it make him a fool or a horrible person if he does not hold the same views as you or me.
This just makes me cross.
This just makes me cross. Why?
After being hit head on by a motorist on the wrong side of the road I was left with a life changing brain injury. My helmet made piss all difference for two reasons.
1: My brain was shaken in the initial impact acceleration/deceleration. A helmet will not prevent this.
2: The selfish piece of human waste in his precious motor vehicle then gets out and in a bid to hide his actions drags me across the road to stage the scene as being my fault leaving my airway blocked. Result was a further hypoxic insult.
A helmet will not stop this either.
Wiggo has annoyed me with this, he can go training with escort vehicles around him. For the rest of us we are quite simply at the mercy of too many frankly bloody lethal people who know they can kill and maim with impunity…fact.
The latest example…a man with 42 points caught doing 109mph in a 50mph area along with other offences such as his mate giving a speed camera the finger and he avoids a ban. WTF.
A helmet is no good here. Sooner the government does the decent thing and just confirms its ok to kill cyclists rather than persist in this offensive charade of giving a shit the better.