- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Bradley Wiggins on the podium at London 2012 (copyright www.britishcycling.org.uk)Sir Bradley Wiggins: Cycle helmets should be compulsory, and iPods banned while riding bike
Sir Bradley Wiggins says that cyclists should be required by law to wear helmets and banned from listening to music through headphones while they are riding a bike.
The four-time Olympic gold medallist and first Briton to win the Tour de France was giving his opinion on an interview shown on the BBC children’s news programme, Newsround.
Speaking on the subject of cycle safety, the father of two said: “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.”
Trott, winner of Olympic gold medals in the Omnium and team pursuit at London last year, repeated an appeal she made in May for a Briitish Cycling video in support of the Get Britain Cycling petition, saying that regular cycle training in schools would lead to improved safety.
“Not all cyclists are that safe on the road either, and I think that would help young kids especially if we could get it in the National Curriculum once a week,” she said.
It’s not the first time Wiggins has spoken about cycle helmets.
Last year, when he was told at a press conference that London cyclist Dan Harris had been killed when he was struck by a media bus outside the Olympic Park, he said: “Ultimately, if you get knocked off and you don’t have a helmet on, then you can’t argue. You can get killed if you don’t have a helmet on.
"You shouldn’t be riding along with iPods and phones and things on. You have lights on. Once there are laws passed for cyclists then you are protected and you can say, ‘well, I have done everything to be safe."
"It is dangerous and London is a busy city. There is a lot of traffic. I think we have to help ourselves sometimes."
Later that day, Wiggins said on Twitter that he wasn’t calling for compulsory helmet laws: "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."
His latest comments, however, suggest that he is in favour of compulsion.
Mark Cavendish is another high profile cyclist who has said that cyclists shouldn’t listen to music while they ride.
Asked in 2011 by TV personality John Inverdale at an event hosted by the charity Right To Play whether he liked to do so, Cavendish gave the firm reply: “Don’t cycle with an iPod in, it’s dangerous!”
Cycling organisations such as CTC opposese helmet compulsion, saying that it should be a matter of individual choice.
Yesterday, talking about the case of a teenage boy left brain damaged after being struck by a van while out riding - he wasn't wearing a helmet because he didn't want to mess up his hairstyle - CTC's Campaigns Director, Roger Geffen, said: "My heart goes out to Ryan Smith and his family.
"What they are going through now must be unimaginable.
"However, faced with heart-rending stories like this, decision-makers need to remember that the only known impact of helmet laws is to drastically reduce cycle use, typically by over 30%, with much deeper reductions for teenage cycling."
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- David9694 1 min 11 sec ago
'I racked up thousands in Ulez fines - I misread the rules and my dog ate the letters'...
- KDee 22 min 46 sec ago
It's the mass that's the issue. Two people on a petrol powered scooter can really mess up a cyclist. Also the fact so many of the petrol scooters...
- james-o 32 min 17 sec ago
"if we’ve got to fly there we’re not going" *applause from over here*
- KDee 33 min 16 sec ago
"Strumpjumper"...sounds like a euphemism for something else 🤔
- andystow 50 min 1 sec ago
The new RH tubes claim to solve that issue, but price and availability is a problem. I tried to get some to try out, but they went out of stock on...
- brooksby 1 hour 14 min ago
Cough - cough - Clevedon seafront! - cough cough
- eburtthebike 1 hour 32 min ago
Thanks for the tip. I didn't realise the Forest of Dean was inside the M25.
- Secret_squirrel 4 hours 44 min ago
Those calipers arent the prettiest. Makes them look like Post-mount.
- Dnnnnnn 5 hours 27 min ago
I'm all for a much more socialist approach to the sorts of things you mention, where there are clear market failures and a need for decent...
- David9694 5 hours 28 min ago
Zorbing balls - if it saves just one life
Add new comment
152 comments
Knee pads, elbow pads and back brace just like when im riding my motorbike would reduce injury too, I hope brad starts wearing them when hes on the bike.
Educating children in the necessary skills of riding bikes is too narrow. Schools, parents and other responsible educators should inform kids in all aspects of road use from all perspectives. Most of these youngesters will drive cars, some lorries, others miscellaneious forms of road transport and they will all be pedestrians.
The mindset which categorises people into groups (us and them) must be consigned to the dustbin.
With regard to headphones.....Stupid! Helmets, well it's saved my bonce on three occations, one at 35mph where I felt the helmet compress under the force of impact.
As for compulsion...."yes" to not wearing headphones. Helmets....The jury's still out from my perspective, however most of my friends wear them and of those that have have come a cropper, the ones not wearing helmets have faired worse (including concussion and an overight stay in hospital).
Having said all that, keep cycling and encourage youngsters to do the same.
You know what, he says now showing his age!! I remember the same arguments against crash helmets in the early seventies about compulsion for motorcyclists. Also car drivers used similar arguments about seat belts. Once celebrity know alls get involved it is only a matter of time!!
Oh, yes, yes, yes!
I can't ride my bicycle anymore.
In 2005, I fell off a bicycle in France. I spent a few weeks in a coma (and was flown home in a LearJet - thank you, Churchill Travel Insurance!), 8 months in hospital, and 18 months off work. My husband used to bring our toddler into hospital to see me, but he often brought a very cute little baby as well. I kept asking where her mother was. He *kept* telling me "You are. I told you that yesterday...". (Thankfully, my working memory returned eventually, but I am still missing a few years - moving house, having a second daughter...).
I only survived because I was wearing a helmet. My 'Traumatic Brain Injury' has left my eyesight far too bad to ride a bike again, and I have a few other accident-induced problems, but hey, after 18 month off work sick, I was able to go back to my job as a university lecturer. I have also run the London Marathon a couple of times (for Headway, a brain injury charity).
If I hadn't had that helmet on, I'd be dead. WHEN CYCLING, ALWAYS WEAR A HELMET!
Having just re-read my post on this subject ....... I wish I could type!
Compulsion is counter to one of the great pleasures of going for a ride, the sense of freedom. But it seems a bit daft to not take advantage of something that can reduce the consequences of a head impact if you're unlucky enough to suffer an accident.
@SimonE It is very sad that you are such a contrarian that you immediately dismiss Flumptious. She has signed up and put a first post with a touching personal story with a happy ending. I hope her partner might consider a tandem bike.
The idea that anecdotal evidence is irrelevant is a childish resort of individuals who fear they might loose the argument. True it is not scientific but you cannot dismiss someone who says that a 'helmet saved my life' by saying that is untrue, you don't share their experience. Flumptious' injuries sound traumatic enough that it could easily be true. And even if the helmet only reduced the extent of the injury that is worth something.
I regularly talk to climate change deniers who demand empirical evidence. Here's news for you THE CONTROL EXPERIMENT THAT YOU DEMAND WILL NEVER BE POSSIBLE. Unless you volunteer to throw yourself at a concrete block without a helmet. Correlation is the ONLY evidence we have, so for every person who tells you a helmet saved them there could be another person who can't tell you why they didn't wear one.
I also regularly go white water kayaking. I have a Sweet carbon fibre helmet. The top is encrusted with scratches (along with a few scars on my knuckles,) from rocks. You regularly capsize regardless of your level; better paddler, harder rivers. I would have drowned dozens of times over if I didn't use a helmet, but by your account that is anecdotal evidence and untrue. You don't do some sports if you don't use a helmet. Would you go Horse Riding without a helmet, maybe, would you Show Jumping, NO. Why would cycling be different?
This is all about perception of risk. If you cycle infrequently and slowly you may think your risk of head injury is low, and it is true it would a lower chance of an injurious event. But when an incident happens your risks are just the same as anyone else's.
Having said that, I am against compulsion because it apportions blame and could reduce people actually cycling. But this is the reason to argue against a law, not that helmets do not work. There is NO DOUBT that helmets save lives.
@Flumptious Stick around, the world is more interesting with you in it.
I must say, I think many of you people are nuts. I'm from the UK but have been living in the southern hemisphere (NZ and Australia) for the past 5 years. Wearing a helmet is compulsory down here. Even if it wasn't, I'd still wear one.
I had a cycling accident a number of years ago where I came off my bike, not wearing a helmet, and ended up in hospital for a week with severe concussion. I was off work for the following three weeks. There is absolutely no doubt that had I been wearing a helmet, then I would not have suffered with the same injury.
Anecdotal evidence, you say. Sure. But there's enough anecdotal (and otherwise) evidence that solidifies the fact that wearing a helmet WILL save you from injury and to dismiss these stories is both short sighted and stupid.
Yes, we need drivers of cars, trucks and vans to improve their behaviour on the road but until they do so, why be so stubborn as to not wear a helmet? I simply don't see what you gain to win by not wearing one? My helmet, a Limar 777 cost me under $100, it weighs absolutely nothing and I hardly notice I'm wearing it.
At the end of the day, its your head and to be honest, I don't care what you put on it or don't. You're the ones who have to deal with the repercussions of not wearing one and all the arguments against not wearing one ("they're not as effective as a motorbike helmet!", for example) is nothing more than stubbornness. How anyone can say that there are any pros of not wearing a helmet over wearing one.. well, like I say, it's your head.. you deal with the consequences. Good luck to you.
For me, I will always wear a helmet, even if going down to the shops and back. If nothing more than having faced the prospect of a fine for not wearing my helmet and having that ingrained in me for the past five years, I simply wouldn't think twice about not wearing it.
The argument around helmets is of course a giant waste of our time.
Helmet compulsion = less cyclists
Helmet Compulsion = drivers driving worse around us
Helmet Compulsion = overbearing authoritarianism, freedom is about choice.
And here's some pointless anecdotal evidence - I've had umpteen head injuries without a helmet and I didn't get brain damage and I'm not dead.
Most of the head injuries I had - I wasn't on a bike.
Mandate pedestrians wear helmets first.
- Spontaneous bike trips with people. The Boris bike scheme simply wouldn't work with helmet compulsion law.
Helmet compulsion law does not force people to wear helmets, it just criminalises people who don't wish to wear helmets,
Helmet Compulsion law makes police focus on fining cyclists instead of fining bad drivers.
Helmet compulsion law has lead to big reductions in cycling in Australia.
Helmet compulsion law = more people dying at younger ages overall = it does not save lives overall.
He probably wasn't asked to be on Newsround before he was famous mind...
Sorry?? His doctor, a specialist in head injuries, dealing with a patient who had bleeding on the brain, was just 'speculating'? Whereas you typing from behind a keyboard know better? Naturally.
Its this kind of nonsensical argument that makes me wonder whether there can ever be a reasonable debate on this subject.
And I'm not arguing for or against helmets. I wear one, I've come off my bike before and dented my helmet enough to be bloody thankful that I was wearing one. But I still believe in choice.
But I am kicking back at people who are so dismissive of others views. And I raised the Sutton accident as example of an experience by someone close to Wiggins, and which may very well influence the view Wiggins has just expressed on the wearing of helmets - over and above his experience as a bike racer.
i think some people think that infringing on a cyclists right is deemed to be ok because they are the vulnerable ones who are going to get hurt.
Until boy racers with ridiculous sound systems that take up the back two seats are stopped i dont see any reason to make it law to stop cyclists listening to music.
it should be RECOMMENDED that cyclists will reduce one of their sense if they listen to music, but even saying this is pretty patronising as its bloody obvious.
I chose to listen to music, in one ear (the left), but i feel im an experienced cyclist and it does not impede on my ability to ride a bike on a busy road while being aware of the common mistakes that motorists make.
sometimes if im riding home late or in a rush i dont listen to music, because i need every little edge that will give me an advantage.
+1 !!!!!!!!!!!
I think your analogy falls down because people on building sites do have to wear "PPE" even though the risk assessments have been done. You're right, it's the last line of defence but it's still a line of defence so you have to wear it. They don't say, we've eliminated all of the risks we can think of so you don't have to wear any safety equipment do they?
And I don't think it's like telling pedestrians walking past to wear helmets as bricks may fall, it's like telling workers to wear them.
Whilst I agree that we should do more to educate drivers in how to drive around cyclists, not bothering to wear something that could protect your head while we're still trying seems the wrong thing to do.
I don't think anyone's arguing that helmets could save you in every scenario, if you're run over etc, but it could help if your head hits a windscreen, or you get knocked off and your head hits the floor. It's enough that I'll choose to wear one although again, not sure everyone should be forced to.
if we force cyclists to wear a helmet BEFORE we improve road safety then increasing cycling numbers will never happen.
INCREASE road saftey first.
THEN more cyclist will ride.
THEN we can string recomend they wear a helmet, but if we force them we will scare them off too soon..... weve got to get them cycling first, then ask them to improve their own safety!
if the roads arent safe in th first place they wont start to ride
Totally agree. I think you're a fool if you don't think that in most cases it will help. I've read the 'torsional twist' theory and I think it's a spurious argument made by people that don't want compulsory helmets....not to say that I think that they should be compulsory, but that you're an idiot if you don't wear one.
Again personal anecdotal evidence suggests that it has saved a few of my friends and acquaintances from serious harm.....arguments about whether it saved Shane Sutton's life should think about what happens in car accident these days....it certainly isn't the same as the past now that seat belts are compulsory in the front, "but you can't prove that by the absence of injuries" is what they appear to be saying in Shane's case.
I couldn't care less who said it - I've maintained my (personal) position on helmet wearing ever since busybodies started trying to get it made compulsory.
The fact that the law in NZ is going to be reviewed suggests that recommendation is appropriate, but enforcement may not be.
Serious response to a flippant comment - please don't discriminate against those with different physical abilities.
At the moment, for the third time in the last 20 years I have one eye that is not working properly (a disease, then cataract and now scar tissue - none of which are helmet preventable!) and the vision in my other eye is excellent and way above average for my age. I can cycle and drive safely and I surpass the driving eyesight requirement by a very substantial margin.
People need good vision to cycle or drive.
To cycle or drive well it is important that they actually use that vision!
Bzzzzzz. Wrong answer. Anecdote is not evidence. Go back to the 1st square and miss a turn.
And DON'T tell me what to wear.
Actually, what I think we're arguing against most of the time is the spurious overgeneralization from "a helmet seems to have helped me once" to "everyone must be forced to wear helmets on pain of fines". Evidence for the first is not evidence for the second.
Cool. So we agree: no helmet laws! Yay agreement!
Doctors do not reconstruct accidents and have no particular knowledge of limitations of bicycle helmets (which are known to be much less effective than motorcycle helmets). So any doctor who comments on how a helmet saved someone or argues that helmets save lives are just speculating wildly. The doctor has absolutely no clue how bad the outcome of the same accident would have been without a helmet (or with one, if the person wasn't wearing one).
There is a reason why medicine improved greatly when people started to use scientific research rather than anecdotes. An example: for 2000 years patients with a fever were bled. A lack of blood reduced the fever and doctors interpreted this as the patient getting better. Of course, we know now through scientific research that a fever is a tool the body used to fight off infections and that patients who are bled are more likely to die.
Unfortunately, most people have little to no understanding of scientific principles and how easy it is for anecdotal 'evidence' to be wrong. The helmet debate is always a good illustration of this sad state of affairs.
i agree, and for that reason i too chose to wear a helmet.
i was just putting forward some opinions to show why it shouldnt be forced upon us.
we should treat the problem - the dangerous driving first. then ask the vulnerable people to wear a helmet if they chose to....
+12
95% of the time I wear one. I insist my son does 99.5% of the time (I let him get away with it when he's testing his fettling in the lane). If you want people to use bikes for "normal" thing like popping to the shops then mandatory helmets will be a Bad Thing.
A brilliant and compelling use of insult to get your point across. That coupled with your anecdote has completely won the day for your point of view.
Meanwhile, there's little evidence to support what you believe so fervently.
Imagine what the rest of us think of you!
What would you lose by being forced to wear a helmet?
I think it's just ^this^ sort of approach that makes it hard to have a reasoned debate, not the other way round. It's anecdote over evidence, just what's not needed.
No doubt the doctor is an expert on head injuries when he's got one sat in front of him. When it comes to getting his crystal ball out and predicting what would have happened if you change some things about the incident why would he be more of an expert than the next person?
It's the other way around (drivers pass closer if the rider wears a helmet), at least in the study reported on road.cc previously - you can download a summary at http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/
yea, i said they take more care when passing someone without a helmet.....
i agree, they also pass closer to someone with a helmet
something to do with thinking the cyclist is more competent/serious if they have a helmet on. therefore the driver can pass closer (or with less care)
does he train by riding on th roads? if he does then surely his milage and experience is far greater than most peoples?!
I have a friend in hospital right now with cerebral contusion. He was wearing a helmet. Here is the Canberra Police appeal for witnesses to his accident. Helmets don't do much to mitigate concussive force. Or maybe it is because he landed on his face. Maybe his helmet made it worse, due to its increased leverage increasing rotational forces. He also has three cracked vertebrae, and will require facial reconstruction surgery. It isn't yet clear how bad his brain injury is.
Pages