Cyclists have to ‘help themselves’ by wearing a helmet says Bradley Wiggins

crikey wrote:

Quote:

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.

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.

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.

Migstu wrote:

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?

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.

harragan wrote:

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.

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

rnick wrote:

and any law will also be unenforceable.

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.

Rupert wrote:

Does anybody have the figures for Pedestrian head injuries ? ...

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...

I am really worried for Pedestrians I think it's time that a law was made to have all pedestrians wearing helmets...

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

NO a lot of us wear helmets we are just pro choice !

I will, i'm only over the hill from you. 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!?

whizzkid wrote:

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.......

did you see this at Spin London recently?
http://www.hovding.com/how_hovding_works

not quite invisible, but getting there!

zanf wrote:

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.

Maybe the vast majority of cyclist in London are wearing helmets?

velocreative wrote:

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.

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.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

crikey wrote:

Quote:

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.

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.

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.

burtthebike][quote=harragan wrote:

That study was done in Bath, not Australia; are you sure you read it?

Absolutely. Perhaps the study was replicated but the one I read was carried out in Australia. Thank you for your concern.

jamtartman wrote:

zanf wrote:

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.

Maybe the vast majority of cyclist in London are wearing helmets?

Ooh... how very tart of you. Such cutting, incisive humour. I think I need to go lie down for a bit.

zanf wrote:

jamtartman wrote:

zanf wrote:

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.

Maybe the vast majority of cyclist in London are wearing helmets?

Ooh... how very tart of you. Such cutting, incisive humour. I think I need to go lie down for a bit.

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.

crikey wrote:

Quote:

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.

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

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.

farrell wrote:

mark shelton wrote:

Could anyone tell me (silly question, of course they will) where all these anti helmet cyclists ride?

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.

Loads in Greater Manchester in general.

Maybe we're all too poor oop North

mark shelton wrote:

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.

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.

velocreative wrote:

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.

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

hampstead_bandit wrote:

It's all about risk, and helmet use seems sensible when there are few disadvantages to wearing one, but that's my choice.

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.

nuclear coffee wrote:

You're right, I don't cycle anymore...

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 shelton wrote:

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.

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.

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...

ianrobo wrote:

nuclear coffee wrote:

mark shelton wrote:

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.

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.

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...

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.