Sir Bradley Wiggins: Cycle helmets should be compulsory, and iPods banned while riding bike

Sim1 wrote:

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.

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?

She knows this how? Fact is, she's guessing. I've hit my head extremely hard off of tarmac, I was knocked out, I didn't die, I didn't get brain damage, just concussion. The head is tougher than you think and I still dont want to wear a helmet, the sweat doesnt evaporate off my head when I'm wearing one and the straps are horribly uncomfortable. Most of the times ive come off the bike its my hands or knees that get hurt, not my head.

so, if you want to make helmets mandatory, pedestrians 1st, then cyclists, walking is equally dangerous.

pz1800 wrote:

IF cycle training stopped riders being stupid it would be a great idea. I would like to see compulsory cycle safety training for drivers as part of their training as well.

lol, i think cycle training should be taught at school. but i suddenly had a thought.
if we train drivers and give them numerous tests and then give them a license to drive a 1 ton piece of metal around does that make them good drivers?!

DOH!

neildmoss wrote:

Whilst we're on the subject, can I ask if anyone knows of studies which:

a) indicate that the wearing of a helmet could result in more harm from an accident than would have resulted if the rider was not wearing it?

b) show that helmet use can mitigate the damage done during an accident?

to answer A) - i have heard that SOME people who wear protective equipment can SOMETIMES become complacent and rely too heavily on the protective equipment they wear

Wesselwookie wrote:

guidob wrote:

3 incidents in the last 5 years, all 3 included hospital visits, 2 in an ambulance, still using the same helmet as it is completely undamaged.

I still wear a helmet, it is just doing better than my elbows and shoulders as far as wear and tear goes...

am also deaf in one ear - should I cycle or not? maybe if I just use a single earbud in that ear?

If you head hit the ground in any of these accidents you should replace the helmet. There may be no visible damage to the outside however the internal structure will have been damaged by the accident. Which mean that although the helmet was rated to 12mph that can no longer be guaranteed.

regardless of hiting th ground, how do you know you didnt hit your head on anything else, eg a vehicle.
quite often you can scrape the side of your head or helmet without knowing it, and of course, you focus on th worst pain - which was your shoulder/elbow.
i crashed at 20-25mph and didint realise i had scraped my left ear until i saw my left headphone was scratched (only wear it in my left ear). in this instance the helmet was not scratched or hit, but just goes to show you dont realise which bits of you get damaged when you fall off

700c wrote:

Bradley, much as I admire you as an athlete, you are wrong.

If you ban ipods for bikes then you should ban loud music in cars. No body is suggesting infringing on drivers' rights, so why should they infringe on cycists'?

Agree with comments above about cause of accidents being car drivers. This sounds like victim blaming, or at least gives drivers an excuse for when the inevitable collisions happen.

we are all entitled to personal choice on these matters.

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.

Some Fella wrote:

@Sim1 - i wasnt suggesting he is ill informed. He is a much more experienced cyclist than me. I was just saying he has a different day to day cycling experience than the vast majority of cyclists and that will inform his opinion.
As far as Shane Sutton goes - neither he or his doctor knows whether his helmet saved his life - they are both speculating. Sutton rides without a helmet sometimes (he admits it and ive seen him). His 'accident' was caused by a stupid old driver not looking where he was going.
As i said - we should be focussing more on that sort of thing than what people wear on their heads.
And whilst im being patronising - do i *really* have to post up again videos of thousands and thousands of Dutch and Danish cyclists going about their business day in day out - none of whom are wearing a lid?

does he train by riding on th roads? if he does then surely his milage and experience is far greater than most peoples?!

SteppenHerring wrote:

Just thought I'd link to this image: http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1154794.ece/ALTERNATES/s1023/Brad...

Also I noticed last week Portuguese police on bicycles without helmets but with handguns. I reckon that would reduce the likelyhood of being knocked off in the first place.

+1 !!!!!!!!!!!

hood wrote:

by th way. in the argument AGAINST wearing a helmet - on building sites we are taught that PPE (personal protective equipment) is the LAST line of defence. a proper risk assesment must have been done to eleminate the risk before the PPE is needed. the helmet is the last line of defence.
using these same risk assesments and applying them to the road would mean that a helmet is the last line of defence. the dangerous should be eliminated first.

encouraging more cyclists to wear a helmet is like going onto a building site and seeing bricks dropping from the scaffolding, and instead of stopping the bricks falling off, telling the pedestrians passing by underneath that the route they want to walk along is dangerous so they should don a hard hat!

crazy theory!

I'm all for safety and I wear a helmet when i cycle. but telling everyone who wants to cycle to wear a helmet is focusing on the wrong person. eliminate the risk, dont try and control the hazard!!!!

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.

hood wrote:

and, while im on my soap box, another problem with giving people protective equipment is that they feel removed from the risk. after a couple of "close shaves" where they learn the equipment they wear will protect them they become complacent and depend on the last line of defence (the glasses, hard hat, boots, whatever) more so.
giving someone a helmet theoetically makes someone feel safer and they COULD be more likely to take a risk.

apparently research has even shown that some drivers take MORE care driving past cyclist who do not wear a helmet. while this is WRONG it is also not helping wiggins request to make helmets compulsory.

something else that just popped into my head is that out of all th stories i have read about cyclists being killed by lorries and cars i dont know of any where a helmet would save their life!

stop the left turning HGVs killing people first. THEN focus on th cyclist wearing a bit of polystryrene strapped to their noggin! FFS

there, that feels better

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

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....

GrouchoBlondini wrote:

There is a lot of over-confident mouthing off here about how little helmets help. But has anyone here actually had a full on crash ? I know 3 mates who have had massive smashes, with broken bones, hospitals stays, the lot. None of them had any cranial injury, all their helmets were smashed to buggery and all of them swear that the helmets saved them. A sample of three admittedly, but I have never met a serious cyclist in the last 15-20 years who does not wear a helmet. If anyone has had a serious smash without wearing a helmet and had no head injuries, feel free to correct me.

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.

GrouchoBlondini wrote:

There is a lot of over-confident mouthing off here about how little helmets help. But has anyone here actually had a full on crash ? I know 3 mates who have had massive smashes, with broken bones, hospitals stays, the lot. None of them had any cranial injury, all their helmets were smashed to buggery and all of them swear that the helmets saved them. A sample of three admittedly, but I have never met a serious cyclist in the last 15-20 years who does not wear a helmet. If anyone has had a serious smash without wearing a helmet and had no head injuries, feel free to correct me.

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.

crazy-legs wrote:

I don't care whether you choose to wear one or not, the issue to be discussed is "should all cyclists be FORCED to wear one?"

Personally, I think NO. I think it's unworkable, unenforceable and it's yet another stick to beat cyclists with.
I'm pro-helmet but anti-compulsion.

You should care if people CHOOSE or don't choose because this gives us an insight into the fact that perhaps it ought to be a CHOICE and not forced. I agree with you that it should be a choice - I choose to wear a helmet too. But if folk don't want to then leave them be.

(I think it could be enforceable though, if it were compulsory. Motorbikes made the change (although the risk is far higher etc so not entirely comparable - but an established behaviour change none the less))

hood wrote:

apparently research has even shown that some drivers take MORE care driving past cyclist who do not wear a helmet. while this is WRONG it is also not helping wiggins request to make helmets compulsory.

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/

hood wrote:

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

+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.