Noel Gallagher goes out cycling four times a week. The rock star says he mostly rides off road near his home in Petersfield in Hampshire and that the only downside is “the fucking helmet.”
Speaking on Matt Morgan’s Funny How? podcast, he said: “A few years ago I was going to the gym every day and was always knackered.”
Explaining the change in tack, he said: “I go out on the bike four days a week. I’m 53 now so it’s not good to work out a lot, you’re ticking over.
“I can do two days in a row and have the third day off. I go uphill off-roading. I’m going 25k in an hour-and-a-half, it’s on country roads, there’s nobody on them.
“The only downside of the bike is the fucking helmet but what are you gonna do?”
On another episode of the podcast, he said he didn’t like the look of himself in a cycling helmet: “I look like a… I don’t know what I look like. So I wear a motorbike helmet.”
Gallagher is of course not a driver, having famously never passed his test.
He bought a £110,000 1967 Jaguar in the 1990s, planning to pass his test before the car was delivered but abandoned his lessons after going out just once.
“Sometimes I do think I quite fancy it,” he said. “And then other times I just think it’d be a ball ache getting anywhere because now I’ve got to fucking drive.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
80 thoughts on “Noel Gallagher says the only downside of cycling is “the f***ing helmet””
My wife told me to stop
My wife told me to stop singing Wonderwall to her…
I said maybe
Should not your answer have
Should not your answer have been ‘definitely maybe’?
Lukas wrote:
I served up some Oasis soup to her last night. It’s just soup from a can, but you get a roll with it.
Do read this anti-helmet
Do read this anti-helmet cretins. It might just change your opinion, save the NHS a sizeable sum of money, and perhaps even save your life:
https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/road-safety/cyclists/cycle-helmets-factsheet.pdf
Not sure if you’ve actually
Not sure if you’ve actually read that document. It concludes that a helmet is little use in a collision with a vehicle and mentions that where compulsory have reduced cycling numbers. I always wear a helmet when commuting or off-road but don’t if I’m making sort trips in regular clothes. Ultimately it’s down to the level of risk you’re prepared to accept. Given the stats on pedestrian casualties from cars you could easily argue that they should also wear protective kit.
And don’t forget driving
And don’t forget driving helmets for all drivers and passengers.
And all of the drunk and drug driving, “distracted” driving and speeding causing injury and death, costing the NHS loads.
I still believe gloves will protct you more often than a helmet. Where are the scientific studies we can argue over that. The 100 comment “debates”, the full finger or mitt shouting match.
Oh, and Nomex fire resistant suits for motor vehicle occupents, can’t be too careful. All that fuel and all that…
first of all, cars have a lot
first of all, cars have a lot more protection for the drivers than we have a cyclists so there is less of a need for in car protection.
And also gloves will protect your hands from road rash perhaps but not from any broken bones. a helmet will protect your head, which is a much more important body part and any damage to the head can lead to consequences, maybe not immediately but possibly further down the line.
i do understand you’re being sarcastic but even for people who don’t want to wear helmets because they are happy to gamble with their personal safety, their possible head injuries that could have been prevented are going to put a burden on the healthcare system, which is selfish
I think you’re
I think you’re misunderstanding ktache.
Every time someone mentions cycling helmets and how effective they are and how dangerous it is to cycle without one, they’re missing the point that cycling is actually quite a safe activity and the huge health benefits that cycling brings is obviously a boon to the NHS. However, the apparent dangers of riding on roads puts off a lot of potential cyclists and is often quoted as a reason why people choose to use a car instead. So, by concentrating on a tiny aspect of safety (PPE is the last and least effective method of reducing danger) you’re actually making people more afraid of cycling and thus putting a bigger burden on the healthcare system.
Also, note that a lot of people who dislike the constant elevation of helmets as the most important aspect of cycling, are often helmet users themselves, so there’s not really much need for the patronising attitude that a lot of helmet advocates use.
There are a few more factors
There are a few more factors to take in account than simply putting on a helmet.
It is not the b&w panacea you suggest.
That’s interesting about
That’s interesting about RoSPA – not a view I’d heard before. Is it one of these that is or has become a respectable front for vested interests?
FWIW, on helmets I wear one – I don’t expect it will be of much help if I collide with a car, possibly slightly better than nothing. Like the sleeves on my jersey it keeps the sun and the cold air off, and like my glasses, protects me from overhanging branches and brambles.
I don’t entertain victim blaming for the absence of any safety enhancement (“or you could drive to the conditions”) and I will be manning the barricades if the subject of mandatory helmets (hi viz, insurance, etc) ever comes near our law making machinery.
There us no need to be so
There us no need to be so unpleasant. The English language has enough words to express ones feelings without beubg rude.
I do assume that your ill judged abuse would be targeted many fold to those who chose to abuse the NHS. Let us say smokers, fast food eaters or city dwellers shall we.
Better still keep opinions quietly to yourself. It would be the polite thing to do .
michophull wrote:
Hi, anti-helmet cretin here, just the odd couple of GCSEs, BSc (hons) and MSc.
I’m afraid the source you quote, RoSPA, is recognised as having a long history of not supporting measures to make cycling safe, and supporting the driver lobby, so much so that cycling organisations left it. It also has a long history of publishing misinformation, lies, about helmets. While it’s good to see that they’re beginning to change, they’ve got a long way to go before anyone informed takes their views as justified.
That said, they do, finally, acknowledge that helmets and their promotion is a failure of basic safety provision “However, it is important to remember that cycle helmets do not prevent crashes from happening. It is therefore vital that through infrastructure improvements, supported by education and training that we reduce the primary risk factors.”
Then they go on to quote the entirely corrupt Cochrane review, and a load of other studies which show that helmets are effective, but not one that doesn’t, so they haven’t changed much. Still liars.
michophull wrote:
Huh? Did you mean to reply to me as I don’t understand the relevance. Was it because I posted a picture of a squirrel with a guitar and not a helmet?
Anyway, good luck with your winning personality and way with words.
There’s no need to call
There’s no need to call people names like that. Have a read of this:
http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/
You don’t need to wear a
You don’t need to wear a helmet, if you’re sensible, casual rider. A helmet wont save you from a car thumping the cr@p out of you. Probably better not to have one than end up a vegetable.
I understand the benefits for minor falls
Says he mainly does off road.
Says he mainly does off road. I’d definitely wear a lid off road.
Says he’s off-roading on
Says he’s off-roading on country roads. Not really clear what that means.
Unless your house backs on to
Unless your house backs on to a forest, chances are you have to use roads to go off road. I don’t see the conflict.
But he doesn’t say ‘I have to
But he doesn’t say ‘I have to go on country roads’, he says ‘it’s on country roads’, which which kind of suggests all or most of it. I think he just has a different definition of ‘off-roading’ than most people here would have.
Off-roading on roads must be
Off-roading on roads must be rather like “slowly walking down the hall…faster than a cannonball”, I guess.
If he’s riding trails on an
If he’s riding trails on an MTB he’d be better off with full face lid for MTB/BMX racing. They look like MX lids but are lighter and have better airflow, so they don’t get as hot. I have both.
A full face is a requirement for BMX racing and comes in useful for the occasional spill. If you don’t come off once in a while when you’re on a BMX track or and MTB trail, you aren’t riding hard enough.
I very rarely wear a lid for riding on the road.
Amen, brother!
Amen, brother!
Well then Noel, don’t wear
Well then Noel, don’t wear one. Simple really.
Noel, get a helmet that doesn
Noel, get a helmet that doesn’t interfere with your lustrous barnet and has a cut out for your mono brow.
Problem solved 🙂
if i had a face like Noel i’d
if i had a face like Noel i’d wear a full face helmet & not just on the bike.!
I always thought the problem
I always thought the problem with Oasis was two f**king helmets, known as Noel and Liam.
He hasn’t aged well has he.
He hasn’t aged well has he.
Lukas wrote:
Reminds me of what Buddy Rich said about Keith Richard’s extremely lined face when Richard’s claimed that it was just laugh lines “Ain’t nothing that funny.”
Reminds me of what Buddy Rich
Reminds me of what Buddy Rich said about Keith Richard’s extremely lined face when Richard’s claimed that it was just laugh lines “Ain’t nothing that funny.”
Brillant! I’m going to store that one away!
“The only downside of the
“The only downside of the bike is the fucking helmet but what are you gonna do?”
Read the research and don’t bother with a helmet; show that you aren’t just another sheep being brainwashed into something so the machine can make more money. It’s nothing to do with your safety and everything to do with making faceless corporations billions.
cyclehelmets.org
Do us all a favor and fade
Do us all a favor and fade away
Blackthorne wrote:
Life must be tough when you are unable to argue your point and ignore all the reliable scientific evidence. Presumably you don’t wear a mask or believe in climate change.
That’s ironic, your point is
That’s ironic, because your crusade against wearing a helmet is almost no different from the tiresome moaning about masks don’t save lives and and that global warming is a hoax drummed up by the mass media. An ‘argument’ clearly biased towards you not wanting to be inconvenienced and of no obvious benefit to society at large.
Blackthorne wrote:
Wrong again; I don’t crusade against wearing a helmet, I merely seek to inform the ignorant, dispel the myths and expose the propaganda. My arguments are based on long term, large scale, reliable, scientific studies, just like masks and climate change. It is apparent from your response that you have no knowledge of the subject and cannot logically argue your point, whatever it might be.
Masks are about keeping other
Masks are about keeping other people safe from the wearer, helmets are about putting the burden of safety on the potential victim rather than on those that cause the danger – it’s pretty much the exact opposite of the rationale for masks, in fact.
Let’s see who sympathizes
Let’s see who sympathizes with you if you slip and fall on a high speed downhill and smash your head into a lamppost then cry about being the victim of a lamppost conspiracy. Are you going to say with a straight face that it would have made no difference had a foam shell been between your skull and a piece of iron?
I think the question is more
I think the question is more why do you think at 30 mph it would have any effect, given that speed is way above the speed the tests are run at.
Perhaps the extinction of the
I’m sure there are many who would beg to differ.
They beg to differ that the
They beg to differ that the tests are way lower than 30 mph?
Do you think it would have no
Do you think it would have no effect?
In the recent interview with the guy from Giro (not an unbiased source admittedly) he suggested that a helmet would always reduce the energy transferred to the head.
I can’t work out which post
I can’t work out which post you are replying to under the new layout but if the 30mph one, given that the energy is related to the square of the velocity, I don’t rate my chances much at 30 mph with or without a helmet on hitting an immovable object.
I think you posted before in here that there is a mild benefit with a helmet at low speeds which seems a reasonable position. Happy to be corrected if that is not quite precisely what you said.
I do think helmets are
I do think helmets are beneficial and that benefit is greatest at lower speeds. I think there is objective data to support that.
I’m just not sure at what speed they stop being beneficial.
Helmets are tested to the equivalent of 12mph but they don’t cease to provide any protection above this speed. At 12.1mph you’d expect a helmet to behave very similarly to at 12 mph.
I was just curious as to the speed at which the energy involved becomes so great as to render any helmet protection inconsequential.
The giro guy suggested a helmet was always beneficial which may be true in pure energy terms but I don’t think is likely to be true in terms of outcome.
Has anyone done any research into it that you know of? I haven’t come across any.
At 30 mph, the kinetic energy
At 30 mph, the kinetic energy is over 6 times that at 12 mph. Not sure my faith stretches that far. I’d also be concerned about the percussive effects to the brain at that speed of impact.
Not come across ant research.
Fair enough.
Fair enough.
I wouldn’t fancy my chances in a 30 mph collision regardless of helmet but the stats suggest only 20% of pedestrians hit at that speed are killed.
Depends on what you hit I suppose.
What a nonsense reply…
What a nonsense reply…
Utterly standard response
Utterly standard response from a helmet-pusher who has no answer. Construct a thinly-veiled wish-fulfilment fantasy of something violent happening to whoever disgreed with them. Your type (power-worshippers) do that all the time and don’t realise how much you are giving away about your character when you do.
Also – why do you assume I don’t wear a helmet, and why do you assume I would slip and fall on a high-speed downhill? Round here it’s mostly motorists who go too fast downhill and hit lampposts (and walls and traffic lights), I’ve seen the aftermath repeatedly (one one occasion saw it happen right in front of me, though it was an oncoming car they drove into, not a lamppost). Why not have a word with them instead?
Don’t water your time with
Don’t waste your time with Burt.
I’ve still not quite decided whether he truly doesn’t understand the most basic principles of scientific research or if his apparent ignorance is actually another aspect of his pathological dishonesty.
Keep an eye on his posts, his lies are so frequent and so obvious it’s almost funny.
Rich_cb wrote:
Seems a little rich, coming from someone who appears to be totally obsessed with him.
mdavidford wrote:
Seems a little rich, coming from someone who appears to be totally obsessed with him.
— Rich_cbYeah, I’m undecided whether to be flattered or to report him, but on the whole, I think he just deserves our sympathy and understanding.
I deliberately used the exact
I deliberately used the exact same phrase you used to interject in a discussion I was having on this forum.
I’ll continue to point out your lies.
Maybe one day you’ll have enough self respect to stop repeating them.
I’d like his dishonesty to be
I’d like his dishonesty to be recognised a bit more widely on this forum.
As such I’ll point it out whenever I see it.
If he stops posting lies I’ll happily go back to ignoring him.
eburtthebike wrote:
I can just imagine Noel Gallagher checking into Road.cc forum…
PRSboy wrote:
Entirely possible; he does ride a bike.
I’ve hit my head very hard
I’ve hit my head very hard twice on the ground coming off bicycles.
Once no helmet. knocked out, trip in an ambulance, concussion several weeks off work (Im self employed so not great ,got some back on the drivers insurance).
Once with helmet . Head landed exactly the same spot, scratched head , went home had a shower. One day off work.
I’ll take the helmet option.
What are the odds of having
What are the odds of having an accident in the same place twice ?
hirsute wrote:
I think the correct response is, “Cool story, bro”
and my correct response is .
and my correct response is . arsehole. Channeling my inner Gallagher there f___wit.
nicmason wrote:
I do so enjoy the elevated and rarefied levels of conversation and discourse we enjoy here at road.cc
brooksby wrote:
Those who don’t have the data, intelligence or logic to argue their case can only resort to abuse.
lol. same spot on my head.
lol. same spot on my head. left side temple fwiw
nicmason wrote:
The plural of anecdote is not data. Your story is totally unverifiable and impossible; you got the same driver in the same vehicle to knock you off in exactly the same place at exactly the same speed and you landed in exactly the same place? Delusional.
same spot on my head.
same spot on my head.
I like how people on here like to throw the shit and have a hissy fit when it comes back.
“hissy fit”? – as burt said,
“hissy fit”? – as burt said, it had just seemed unlikely that you’d hit your head on the same spot and in the same place under the same conditions, twice. And I think that “Cool story, bro” is the current ‘down with the kids’ response to a story which you think is unlikely. Glad to withdraw that, if I’d misunderstood what you were saying.
Personal choice, to wear one
Personal choice, to wear one or not, but to me it’s natural selection.
I chucked the bike down the road on Sunday, 26.4 mph, hit some gravel. My left leg, arm and hip are pretty bruised and full of gravel rash, my head has a few small cuts from gravel that went into the vents, but if I hadn’t been wearing my helmet, I’d be in a much bigger mess than I am now.
Might be wiser to scan ahead,
Might be wiser to scan ahead, moderate your speed in case of gravel. Lucky you didn’t fracture your leg, arm, hip. Risk compensation?
Rider error, plain and simple
Rider error, plain and simple. I’m old enough to know that I was at fault, so I’m not looking to blame anyone else.
Just seen that Simon Cowell
Just seen that Simon Cowell has broken his back falling off a new e-bike: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/aug/09/simon-cowell-breaks-back-falling-off-electric-bike-in-us
Quote:
He lives in a house
A very big house in the country
Tom_77 wrote:
He lives in a house
A very big house in the country
I think our Noel would be spitting if he heard you quoting a Blur lyric… 😉
The very big house in the
The very big house in the country was in Barton-Le-Clay, FWIW. I visited, a number of times. Lovely place, had its own croquet lawn (but of course)
What a great debate – both
What a great debate – both sides of the argument represented, strong opinions and some petty name-calling to boot. Gotta love Road CC.
Go back to the article. Aging rock star doesn’t like wearing a cycling helmet.
So what. If you don’t like it Noel, don’t wear one. It’s your choice.
I don’t usually get drawn
I don’t usually get drawn into the comments section littered with ‘expert nouveau cyclists’ who must at all costs deride any opinion that differs from theirs, or have ‘read’ the evidence somewhere in their copy of the Guardian… If Noel hates wearing a helmet he is entitled to say so, I wear one mostly, but if I choose not to upon occasion, it is MY choice and doesn’t affect anyone else. All helmets are shite, I don’t know why they just don’t fashion a Japs-eye in the top, because however much you spend on that helmet, you still look a cock!
I think the Graun is one of
I think the Graun is one of the few British newspapers worth spending money on, but I also think that any adult who wants to ride a bike can make their own decision on whether to wear a helmet. I always wear a helmet when I cycle, but I fully understand that there is an element of ritualism in doing so. I’ve been doing it for so long that it’s largely force of habit, but that said, I have experienced one chute where having one on definitely saved me from a much worse injury, and at least two times when it may have done. I can’t say I have much problem with wearing them, although I do have a slightly oddly shaped head which can make getting a good fit a bit awkward with many models. I think that perhaps because for as long as I’ve cycled, helmets have been regulation in professional cycling, I tend to think that wearing one is ‘normal’. In fact, if I see a lycra clad cyclist without one, it looks a bit strange to me – almost as if they’d forgotten to put on their shorts or their jersey! As for the ‘looking like a cock’ aspect: ever since a work colleague asked me, when I was fully lycra clad for my winter cycle commute home, “Do you ever feel self-conscious wearing that stuff?”, I’ve understood that whilst in my own head I look sleek and pro, to most people I just look like a jeb-end, helmet or not!
No helmets in the TdF for a
No helmets in the TdF for a long time, then they had to put them on when they entered certain countries on a stage, then required except for climbs, then all the time.
Although given the injuries of collarbone and pelvis, they”d be better of with protection there.
It’s been a while since there
It’s been a while since there’s been an extravagant helmet row on road.cc…
Crashed into a big tree in Swinley last year, dislocated by shoulder and cracked my helmet. My own fault for riding like an idiot but am grateful it was the helmet that took the brunt of the impact.
Extravagant? We haven’t even
Extravagant? We haven’t even reached 100 comments yet.
Please stop these twee
Please stop these twee attempts at humanising animals,
David9694 wrote:
There are alternatives if you are not happy about humanising the squirrels.
No disadvantage to wearing a
No disadvantage to wearing a helmet, possible great advantage. I always wear one, but I have no interest in forcing anyone else.
“Headway urges cyclists to
“Headway urges cyclists to stay safe and wear a helmet as government kickstarts cycling revolution”
“We all think ‘it will never happen to me’ ” no, Mr McCabe, I think about every time I got out on my bike, and well-intentioned as you might be, you need to look at what its actually causing the bulk of the incidents you are so concerned about – you have been gulled into thinking that self-protection by the vulnerable is 100% of the answer.
https://www.headway.org.uk/news-and-campaigns/news/2020/headway-urges-cyclists-to-stay-safe-and-wear-a-helmet-as-government-kickstarts-cycling-revolution/
“Peter McCabe, Headway’s Chief Executive, said: “It is encouraging to see the introduction of dedicated cycle lanes and training for cyclists. This will improve cycle safety – as will the wearing of helmets.
“As the government persuades more people to cycle, we hope that it will also encourage people to follow its own Highway Code in which rule 59 states that all cyclists should wear a cycle helmet.
“We all think ‘it will never happen to me’, but every three minutes someone in the UK is admitted to hospital with a head injury – the effects of which can be devastating and life-long.
“The benefits of an active lifestyle cannot be understated, and cycling is a great way of keeping fit and healthy. To all would-be cyclists, many of whom may not have been on a bike for many years, we say get on your bikes and get peddling – but please take sensible, common sense precautions.”