British celebrity chef and TV presenter Gordon Ramsay has called for all cyclists to wear a helmet, regardless of how short the journey is or how expensive it might be, after being involved in a crash that left him with trauma and a terrible bruise.
The 57-year-old culinary sensation, well-known for his brash demeanour and ample usage of the F-word (and erm, his beef wellington recipe too) is a keen cyclist and triathlete, having completed the Ironman World Championship course in Hawaii through an invitational slot in a time of 14 hours, 4 minutes back in 2013.
But it seems that one of his recent rides in Connecticut has ended in a crash, with Gordon sharing information about the aftermath through his social media in a video where he thanks medical professionals for looking after him and lifts his chef’s jacket to reveal a terrible, purple patch of bruise on the left side of his abdomen. He also shared images of his torn jersey and damaged helmet.
An important #FathersDay message from me…WEAR A HELMET ! This week I had a bad accident while riding my bike in CT. I’m doing ok and I’m thankful for all the doctors, nurses and staff at @LMHospital who looked after me but most thankful for my helmet that saved my life. Be Safe pic.twitter.com/UMjaoXGpkc
— Gordon Ramsay (@GordonRamsay) June 15, 2024
“You know how much I love cycling and triathlons and Ironman. This week, unfortunately, I had a really bad accident and it really shook me,” he says in the video. “Honestly, I’m lucky to be here. Those incredible trauma surgeons, doctors and nurses in the hospital who looked after me this week, they were amazing.
“But honestly, you’ve got to wear a helmet. I don’t care how short the journey is, I don’t care the fact that these helmets cost money, but they’re crucial. Even with the kids, [on] a short journey, they’ve got to wear a helmet.
“Now I’m lucky to be standing here. I’m in pain, it’s been a brutal week. I’m sort of getting through but I cannot tell you the importance of wearing a helmet. This weekend is massive, for new fathers, for old fathers, for middle-aged fathers, I want to wish you all a very happy father’s day.
“But please, please please please, wear a helmet because if I didn’t, I wouldn’t be here now.”
While details about the ride and the subsequent crash are unclear, Gordon wrote on Instagram that it happened when he was riding his Specialized Roubaix in Connecticut, USA.
He wrote: “I’m doing ok and did not break any bones or suffer any major injuries but I am a bit bruised up looking like a purple potato. I’m thankful for all the doctors, nurses and staff at Lawerence + Memorial Hospital in New London who looked after me and checked me out, but most thankful for my helmet that saved my life.”
While wearing a helmet is a mandatory requirement in some parts of the world such as Australia, Argentina and Japan, cyclists in the UK, or even in the USA where Gordon was riding his bike, don’t have to wear one.
The Highway Code says: “You should wear a cycle helmet that conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened. Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances.”
However, there is a longstanding debate amongst cyclists whether wearing a helmet for commuting should be mandatory or not, with many of the belief that in an ideal world, all vulnerable road users, including cyclists and pedestrians, should be free to travel without needing additional equipment.
> Why is Dan Walker’s claim that a bike helmet saved his life so controversial?
While helmets add a layer of protection for cyclists and reduces odds of a head injury, in 2006, Dr Ian Walker of the University of Bath conducted an experiment where he discovered that cyclists are afforded more space by passing drivers if they are (or at least appear to be) female or if they’re not wearing a helmet.
Another study from 2019, presented at the National Road Safety Conference, also suggested “a higher accident/injury rate may result from helmet usage” and argued that “there is strong evidence that helmeted cyclists suffer a higher rate of upper body limb injuries than non-wearers, suggesting a higher rate of falls than non-wearers.”
And then there’s the research from Australia that made headlines this time around last year, revealing that an alarming number of people do not see cyclists as human, with those riding bicycles while wearing helmets or safety vests seen as less human compared to those without.
The researchers concluded that dehumanisation related more to visible safety gear than obstruction of hair or eyes and the perceptions of dehumanisation also varied based on respondent gender.
> Academic behind ‘cyclists seen as less human’ study: “If you have a safe and normal cycling culture, how could you see people as anything but human?”
While most of the replies on his social media posts are positive and thankful that he came out of the crash without any serious injuries, it didn’t take much time for cyclists and campaigners to familiarise Gordon Ramsay with the eternal helmet debate.
Complete shite, Gordon. pic.twitter.com/cHqN9p8tJF
— CyclingMikey the Unspeakable (@MikeyCycling) June 16, 2024
Gordon Ramsay isn’t the first public figure to dip his feet into these murky territories. Last year, Channel 5 presenter Dan Walker was hit by a car driver while cycling in Sheffield, leaving him unconscious for 25 minutes. Sharing pictures of his bloodied face from the hospital, he wrote: “The helmet I was wearing saved my life today so – if you’re on a bike – get one on your head.”
The comment proved to be highly controversial, launching one of the great episodes in the well-trodden helmet safety debate path as many cyclists expressed their disapproval and challenged the evidence behind the slogan “Don’t be a helmet, wear a helmet”, that was shared by the former BBC Breakfast host.
In February this year, Walker mused on the aftermath, saying: “Within 24 hours I’d had drivers tell me that if it had been them, they’d have finished the job,” Walker recalled. “I had cyclists telling me I was a disgrace for saying that my helmet saved my life. ‘You’re the reason people wear helmets’. There’s a lobby, apparently, that says if you wear a helmet drivers think you’re safer than you are, therefore they hit you.”
“So I got people angry on all sides and I thought, ‘I don’t want to enter this. I’m very happy that I’m still around’. There’s a part of me that genuinely thought that was it.”
117 thoughts on “Gordon Ramsay says helmets are “crucial” for cyclists no matter “how short the journey is”, after accident leaves him with a terrible bruise”
I have crashed with and
I have crashed with and without helmets. The helmet method is better.
Can’t disagree. Being hit by
Can’t disagree. Being hit by a car and instantaneously turned into a cross between a rag doll and a cannonball is something of an eye opener.
Concur. I can still feel the
Concur. I can still feel the lump where I bit inside my lip cracking my head on the kerb, other than a few bruises and a bruised ego I was able to walk back home and work from home rather than a hospital visit or worse.
I’ll just lazily paste my
I’ll just lazily paste my post from the forum…
https://www.theguardian.com/food/article/2024/jun/16/gordon-ramsay-lucky…(link is external)
I thought about writing to the Guardian editor asking them to stop spreading baseless helmet-saved-my-life claims and everyone-should-wear-them appeals, but it seems it would be pretty pointless judging from here: https://www.theguardian.com/info/2013/sep/23/guardian-readers-editor
What is that then? A totally
What is that then? A totally not baseless “a helmet will never save your life and no one should wear one” appeal?
https://davewalker.com/what
https://davewalker.com/what-would-make-cycling-safer/
If celebrities, MPs, and everyone else spent as much time talking about the issues on the right instead of helmet wearing, cycling in the UK would be substantially safer – and you could still wear your helmet too. That’s what irritates me about these stories.
Fine. And in 5, 10, 20 years(
And in 5, 10, 20 years(?) you might see some effect. And then you could still fall off and bash your head.
Ideally we would have been
Ideally we would have been talking about those things Walker mentions 30 years ago. By now we’d have cycling rates and safety similar to the Netherlands. Imagine if the Dutch had started banging on about cycle helmets rather than Stop De Kindermoord in the 70’s? They wouldn’t be any different to the US or UK.
https://www.theguardian.com
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/16/the-brain-is-very-vulnerable-dutch-cyclists-urged-to-wear-helmets-as-road-deaths-rise
Of course Brooksby posted it on Fridays liveblog two hours back.
ktache wrote:
This has already been debunked by David Hembrow over a year ago. But maybe this is no surprise as the Dutch are about to get a fascist government (fascism being about creating and pushing false risks and scapegoating instead of confronting and solving the actual problems…)
That’s a pretty bizarre
That’s a pretty bizarre conclusion, esp. given the similarities in the thinking of opponents of helmet wearing with that of opponents of mask wearing a few years ago, who for the most part weren’t exactly “leftists”.
What about the opposites
What about the opposites “evidence vs no evidence” do you fail to understand?
Which bit of basic mechanics
Which bit of basic mechanics don’t you understand? And why are you so rude?
We’re not talking mechanics
We’re not talking mechanics here, we’re talking public appeals and policies and their (lack of) logic and evidence.
But I am “talking mechanics”.
But I am “talking mechanics”. Energy absorbed by the helmet is not going to be passed to the riders head. It is not unreasonable to assume that a helmet, if worn, is unlikely to do more harm than good. Evidence doesn’t really come into it, since every crash is different and you haven’t got a control group.
john_smith wrote:
— john_smithI’m sure you meant “unlikely” rather than “likely” but the energy absorbtion of a cycle helmet is insufficient to make much difference in a life-threatening collision.
Evidence really, really does come into it, and those kind Australians did an experiment, resulting in either no difference or an increase in the death rate of cyclists after their helmet law.
eburtthebike wrote:
The BMJ did a cost benefit analysis of mandatory cycle helmets for adults in new zealand. They found that the health savings from helmet use amounted to $20 per helmet.
To to save the nation $20, a cyclist must spend $50
I Imagine the cost of each incident is several magnitudes greater than $20 so the rate of incidents is tiny. I believe this is the reason why UK health authorities are not in the camp of mandatory helmets.
wycombewheeler wrote:
That analysis is overestimating the benefits of cycle helmets as they aren’t factoring in the people that have been put off from cycling due to the perceived danger and the requirement to buy and wear a helmet. That’s the real cost of people making a big deal about cycle helmets and ignoring the many things that would actually make cycling safer.
It’d be like providing children with ropes, harnesses, body armour and helmets for tree climbing and then wondering why kids don’t seem to spend much time climbing trees anymore.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Got a link to that please?
eburtthebike wrote:
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/8/4/317
there is also this that shows risks of walking per km outweigh cycling from universirty college London
https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10053381/1/Mindell_Cause%20of%20death%20ppr%20R2_18Jun2018_Accepted.pdf
So, if I am doing an audax (where distance increases risk), a group ride (where risk of touching wheels increases risk of fall) or riding off road (obvious risk of coming off.) Then I wear a helmet, but when riding to work I don’t bother, just as I wouldn’t if I walked to work. The idea that a helmet will protect me from a vehicular impact is frankly risible, and there is no reason to fall over otherwise. And in any case the risk is sufficiently small at 11 TBI deaths per billion km not to trouble me.
I’d also like to see a study that shows how many of these fatal head injuries are acompanied by other fatal injuries, broken necks, chest trauma, bleeding out etc. where even if the helmet were surprisingly effective and the head was unharmed the outcome would not be materially different. Dead from head trauma or dead from multiple organ failure is still dead, but potentially with more awareness of the pain.
wycombewheeler wrote:
— wycombewheelerTRL did exactly such a study about ten years or more ago, and found that the number of lives that would be saved were sixteen, which was repeated long and loud by the media. What the media didn’t mention was that the figure was entirely invented, an assumption with no valid basis.
Yet the NFL sees huge
Yet the NFL sees huge incidences of concussions and the aftermath years down the line. I firmly believe that the use of headgear in this particular sport encourages bigger hits and players taking greater risks.
john_smith wrote:
except where studies have shown helmet use results in risk compensation either by the wearer or others.
You probably get more benefit by wearing a long blonde wig, because then drivers give you more space as they pass. reduction in risk of collision >> potential reduction in consequences of collision
wycombewheeler wrote:
Errr, yes that’s the reason why I’m wearing this wig and fishnet tights.
Incidentally, does anyone know of a manufacturer of high-heel SPDs?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Good point – they have no worries about getting done for a road offense, but clearly some people are worried about the repercussions of hate crimes!
Unlikely to help when someone
Unlikely to help when someone hits you head-on after not seeing you, unfortunately.
john_smith wrote:
Depends on the wig.
Looks good if you’re a fan of
Looks good if you’re a fan of whiplash or having your neck broken.
john_smith wrote:
Wearing a mask in the pandemic was about protecting other people. Wearing a helmet is about protecting yourself. This exposes a fundamental difference in thinking in each group opposing each measure.
I think there may be a lot
I think there may be a lot more going on (in terms of social / emotional motivations)! However I bet this has had proper academic treatment from psychologists / sociologists in the case of mask-wearing, so that’s probably where to look if interested!
Speak for yourself. I wore a
Speak for yourself. I wore a mask to protect myself as well as other people.
Your Regular Reminders That:
Your Regular Reminders That:
– a broken lightweight polystyrene helmet specced, designed and built to mitigate minor injuries is not a slam-dunk proof that a life has been saved.
– “some studies report” is not the same thing as “studies show”. For the latter you need a tuned methodology that anyone can use to give consistent results, and we don’t have either a tuned methodology or consistent results. Truth is we genuinely don’t know what the gross safety effects of helmets are.
– the popularity of helmets as a safety intervention has more to do with culture than their actual proven effectiveness (which, as noted above, isn’t really anything much).
– context has a huge role to play in individual choices to wear.
– wear one if you want, but you’re not doing anyone else any favours telling them what they should be doing.
We do have a pretty good idea
We do have a pretty good idea that the gross safety effect of helmets is almost certainly small though given no measurable correlation across whole populations with increased usage – it can’t be a big effect because it would show up in population/country level data.
My understanding is recreational skiing has some interesting data on helmets because we can get more accurate usage stats (count ski helmets on lifts, correlating usage with each lift pass (photos are taken of every skier to prevent passes being shared). Lift usage is directly related to distance skied (have to go up to go down). Lift passes are usually scanned by piste patrol (rescue insurance sometimes included and its an easy way to get injured parties details)). Current data suggests ski helmets apparently make a massive difference to injury rates. But no difference to KSI rates – there is a threshold beyond which they make no difference; so helmet usage removes all the minor head injuries, but major head injuries (concussion and up) are at a similar rate (or in fact worse due to risk compensation). Skiing also has a far higher injury rate than road cycling…
I remember someone saying
I remember someone saying cycling helmets are only tested at 12 mph. So I thought I would see what motorcycle helmets were tested to.
The visor has to withstand or at least protect the rider from a 6mm steel ball fired at about 130mph. This simulates a stone hitting the rider. I thought that quite impressive.
Then it undergoes a number of drops some are slow speed some higher speed. The higher speed ones are at 17.6 mph. The reduction in energy aimed at about 30% why so low I thought? Apparently most accidents don’t involve a direct blow and the vehicle body or windshield deforms absorbing some of the energy.
I was really surprised the speed tested was so low for crash impacts.
And the evidence that
And the evidence that motorcycle helmets reduce the death rate of motorcyclists is just as robust as that for cycle helmets i.e. absent.
Eburtthebike Is that right?
Eburtthebike Is that right? Is there a source for that? I kept finding one study in Taiwan that suggested otherwise.
You found a single study that
You found a single study that supports your views and stopped there? Wow! There are dozens, if not hundreds of contradictory studies. Look a little deeper.
JLasTSR wrote:
Absolutely yes, that’s ridiculous so maybe historic.
Modern day BMW S1000RR superbike clocked at 206mph on the IoM TT speed trap. Yes, you can buy one at your BMW dealer..
That was the latest standard.
That was the latest standard.
The helmet debate gets so
The helmet debate gets so heated because people are trying, perhaps without realising, to square the circle. There appear to be two opposing sides (hence all the heat) with only one right answer to the one argument; to wear or not to wear a helmet. Whereas in fact there are two distinct and mutually compatible arguments.
One concerns the individual. I choose to wear a helmet because, all other things being equal, it will arguably improve my chances in a collision. [B]All other things being equal.[/b]
The second argument concerns public policy, which is precisely about questioning [b]all those other things being equal.[/b] The things which mean I would be wise to wear a helmet in the first place.
The answer to the public policy debate should not be confused with the individual’s choice.
All other things being equal
All other things being equal you would be safer wearing a helmet in your shower, on your stairs, in your car, wearing a stab vest on the streets, wearing a life vest near or in any body of water and so on and so forth. Why single out cycling? Nothing, absolutely nothing indicates that you should.
Well, this is a cycling
Well, this is a cycling website not one about showers. Nevertheless, the same reasoning applies to showers, although we’re going to have to imagine there was some wider concern that drove some people to think shower helmets were necessary.
So, let’s say public showers are unacceptably slippery and people are regularly coming to grief. As a result some people are taking to wearing helmets in the shower, and moreover advocating for a change in the law to force everybody else to do the same – if it saves one life etc.
Well, if they want to wear a helmet that’s fine, they may even be correct in saying that it prevents head injuries in the event of slips and falls. But what is not fine is to go on to propose helmets as the solution as a matter of public policy, to be followed by everyone. The solution in the public policy domain is to make shower trays less slippery.
Surely the point would be to
Surely the point would be to make non slip showers mandatory.
People could wash their hair then as well
lerrup wrote:
They can’t wash their hair as there’ll be mandatory hi-vis shower caps
hawkinspeter wrote:
They can’t wash their hair as there’ll be mandatory hi-vis shower caps— lerrup
People are such moaners. There’s a perfectly good shower there. Cost a lot of money.
Of course we never clean it – it’s a shower! And obviously since there are lights elsewhere it doesn’t need its own one. No, unfortunately you can’t take your children in with you, there’s no space. In fact everyone else in the building had to make sacrifices so we could find the 2 feet to build it. That’s why it’s not actually connected to the changing rooms or poolside.
No, of course we’re not discriminating against those with disabilities – anyone can use it if they can fit in.
I know it’s currently full of all the “beware! slippery floor” signs and pool-cleaning kit – that’s just temporary though. Everyone has to make allowances.
I don’t know what you’re still complaining about. Frankly I’ve never even seen anyone using it.
Why don’t you just wash in the sink?
Did you even read the last
Did you even read the last line I wrote?
Sriracha wrote:
No. [C] you don’t understand.
Yep, he doesn’t.
Yep, he doesn’t.
Well, you didn’t really
Well, you didn’t really expect him to call for a ban on drivers who exhibit uncontrolled rage, or for restricting overpowered and oversized cars, did you? He’s exactly the sort of person you’d expect to push helmets as the (singular) solution, and think he has fixed road safety, due to his enormous sway over his millions of followers. A knighthood is surely on its way…
Given that there doesn’t
Given that there doesn’t appear to be any suggestion that his accident had anything to do with either of those, then no, not really.
Calves should also wear
Calves should also wear helmets. Especially in Surrey.
Pub bike wrote:
I’ve heard of shin pads, but calves?
Not a herd, just a single
Not a herd, just a single stray calf.
I’m surprised – sorry, start
I’m surprised – sorry, start again: I am NOT surprised that nobody has raised the point that this demonstrates how dangerous motor vehicles can be. If a half tonne calf suffers all that (bouncing and skidding down the road, f-ing horrible) then what does it do to a human (adult or child)…?
and pedestrians either on the
and pedestrians either on the roads or the pavement
Look at all the trolls
Look at the same herd of trolls crawling out from under the bridge again to politicise helmets. My helmet saved my life as it did Ramsay’s. It’s a personal decision and a good mandate. Were I a typical non cyclist upon seeing cyclingmikey’s response of ‘complete shite’ to a good faith post by Ramsay I’d think to myself, “cyclists what a bunch of insufferable twats”
Despite yourself you
Despite yourself you highlight most of the problems of helmet advocacy.
I think you mean self
I think you mean self-righteous twats.
advocating body armour would
advocating body armour would make more sense.
Can’t believe the BBC went with it at 6 o’clock. I didn’t realise Ramsey was an effing good safety advisor.
Must be all those kitchen accidents.
Coming soon – Gordon Ramsey’s
Coming soon – Gordon Ramsey’s cycling nightmares.
(In which he has to tone up his fruity language.)
EDIT I can already hear him in my mind berating hapless council bunglers about their efforts at a “Dutch-style” roundabout… only I suspect in reality he might be decrying them adding any magic paint for cyclists at all when they should be filling in pot holes and relieving congestion. Hope I’m wrong…
chrisonabike wrote:
I must admit that Gordon Ramsay’s TV programmes are a shameful pleasure of mine and I would absolutely watch a series of him slagging off UK bike infrastructure.
“This lane stops before reaching the roundabout, you f***ing donkeys!”
It’s tempting, isn’t it?
It’s tempting, isn’t it? “Separated” cycle path, “separated”, yeah – it says it in the name? And what have you got there? 5 cm of paint? Are you trying to f***ing kill people?!
chrisonabike wrote:
“This Leith Walk cycle lane is so crooked that it just got offered a top job at the Post Office!”
I do indeed wear my body
I do indeed wear my body armour when I’m training or racing on my BMX. I have to wear a helmet for BC/club rules and that makes sense. I wear the body armour as I’ve learned from experience it makes sense. Racing is not like commuting though. In a BMX race you’re elbow to elbow with seven other riders over a challenging track at speed. Tootling down to Sainsbury’s for some shopping on my battered old runabout is an entirely different matter.
My shins would really
My shins would really appreciate shin guards at the moment, new sharp Shimano Saint pedals, mainly gouging during transitioning between not stairs to stairs and not stairs at the station and during nature breaks.
“…..but most thankful for
“…..but most thankful for my helmet that saved my life.” Rather less likely than winning the lottery every week for a month.
Oh dear, another helmet debate, fuelled by a celebrity who knows nothing about helmets. Stick to cooking Gordon.
So what is your expertise?
So what is your expertise? you helmet!
Having fallen off a bike
Having fallen off a bike twice in recent years, on tarmac and concrete, which hurts i can tell you that much, my head got nowhere near hitting anything, even with a helmet and a stupidly large head.
my hands,shoulder, elbow, hip, thigh, knee and ankles on the other hand did.
gb901 wrote:
Just an MSc in Transport Planning, with a dissertation on cycle helmets and over thirty years of reading reports and studies.
You?
Well good for you chap, but
Well good for you chap, but from personal experience I’m glad I had one and will continue to wear one.
Adam Sutton wrote:
Confusing anecdote with data is a frequent mistake.
What did your reports and
What did your reports and studies tell you about Mr Ramsey’s accident that enabled you to calculate the likelihood of a helmet having saved his life with such precision?
john_smith wrote:
The fact that the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase, despite the thousands of “helmet saved my life” stories like his.
Not exactly conclusive proof
Not exactly conclusive proof that a helmet won’t reduce the severity of head injury in any individual case then.
john_smith wrote:
What about the phrase “My helmet saved my life” do you not understand?
I’ll only comment on my
I’ll only comment on my personal experiences and having had a helmet heavily cracked on one side I’m glad I choose to wear one. Of course it didnt help with the broken collar but I’m particularly glad it wasnt my skull making direct contact with the floor.
LOL!!!
LOL!!!
Well that’s just anecdotal.
–
By all means walk away and
By all means walk away and think that, say it on here even (and expect to be contradicted – and even ridiculed by the most fed-up amongst the posters on this site).
It’s something entirely different however when a celebrity get’s quoted with that all over the media, on no real basis whatsoever.
LOL!!!
LOL!!!
Did you read the comment you
Did you read the comment you’re responding to properly? You seem to be agreeing with what was written.
“It’s not surprising that
“It’s not surprising that people who’ve been through a crash on their bike and escaped serious consequences but found helmet damage often believe strongly that the helmet has “saved their life”. However, the number of helmet users with this experience seems very much greater than the number of bare-headed cyclists who ever suffer a head injury. This suggests that the reality might not be so straightforward.”
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html
Where did I say a helmet
Where did I say a helmet saved my life? Thanks for pointing out that not all accidents are equal, I’m sure no one was aware of that. The anti helmet brigade really cant handle the fact that some people choose to wear one, almost a little bit anti vax like hmmm.
argiebarge wrote:
The “anti-helmet brigade” if one exists doesn’t care at all about whether someone chooses to wear a helmet or any kind of hat. What they do care about is that people keep banging on about helmets when they’re not even in the top 10 of things that make cycling safer. Helmet proponents are all about victim blaming and out-grouping and nothing to do with safety, which is why they only seem to care about wearing helmets when cycling and not any other activity (e.g. changing a light-bulb, having a shower or using stairs whilst wearing slippers).
Ramsay gives no details about
Ramsay gives no details about the crash. It would be interesting to know how he got a bruise like that. He surely hit something.
We are both Mamils of a similar age (probably where the similarity ends) . I’ve come down a few times. On Ice, on mud, in the rain. Always by myself. Given the type of cycling I do (speed, roads, conditions etc) my personal risk assessment is that I should wear a helmet. I would not presume to tell someone that uses a Dutch style bike to pop down the high street to pick up some bread (or anyone else for that matter) that they should do the same. Ramsay has forgotten that not all cyclists are the same.
I think it is more of a Dutch
I think it is more of a Dutch style infrastructure and attitude more, rather than a Dutch style bike that could reduce the need for a helmet.
When a place has good infra and legislation/culture for drivers to treat cyclists safely, it can make people go relaxed and follow their desired pace. When you don’t have all these, cycling too slow as many riders want (including me) can actually be dangerous, so you have to cycle faster, not to get run over, bullied etc, and this faster cycling can help you avoid big collision with cars, but will make you easier to fall on your own and that is where the helmets are needed.
IanMK wrote:
It’s not a bruise – he was wearing that same yellow top in the picture above and the dye ran.
<wince>
Ooh, I wouldn’t like a tear in the helmet.
I agree – wear a helmet.
I agree – wear a helmet.
I’ve had 2 incidents where a
I’ve had 2 incidents where a helemt has saved me from significant injury or potential fatality. I have an agreement with my wife: I will wear a helmet when I ride, and if anyone takes me out she will deploy every means she has to ensure that person is held accountable. Seems fair. I also want to know that any resulting legal settlement will not be reduced because some *sshole judge decides I wasn;t kitted out safely enough. But I still would not want to see helmets mandated – I rode a bike for 30+ years from the age of 5 without a helmet and without issue all over the world. It’s only since returning to the UK and experiencing “the best drivers in the world” that I;ve had recourse to consider a helmet…
Potty-mouthed TV cook wrote:
The only way to test that statement is to recreate the circumstances of the incident that led to his impacts, but this time without him wearing a helmet. There are some ethical issues around controlled experiments like that, but it’s a risk I’m willing for him to take.
It does sound like he was riding in a more competitive manner than ‘riding to the shops’ normally is. As with formal competitive contexts, the helmet debate take on a different nuance.
But whether wearing one or not would have made a difference, for most people involved in an incident in which the question becomes more than hypothetical, the crucial considerations should have been how do we stop the arttitudes expressed in this article [https://road.cc/content/news/drivers-frustrated-and-angry-passing-cyclists-study-finds-308921] leading to the incidents in the first place. And how do we stop the resulting legal arguments even referencing the rider’s choice to limit a specific set of curcumstances causing more serious injury or death.
GMBasix wrote:
number of cyclists dying per year before helmets – about 100.
number of cyclists “saved by helmets” per year since about 5,000
Interesting that we can see no point where cyclists injuries becoem less severe but pedestrians do not, even though cycle helmets became widespread during this period. If the injury reduciton to cyclists is from helmets, why do pedestrian injuries also reduce. If they are due to other safety facotrs, what are helmets contributing?
The only convincing argument is about saving my family being told I am partially at fault by some judge and reducing compensation accordingly.
wycombewheeler wrote:
You forgot the quotation marks around convincing.
marmotte27 wrote:
The only convincing argument is about saving my family being told I am partially at fault by some judge and reducing compensation accordingly.
— marmotte27 You forgot the quotation marks around convincing.— wycombewheeler
I have no trouble at all believing a judge might conclude I was partially to blame by not wearing a helmet, and so colcude contributory negligence in any compensation case. As we hear all the time about helmets saving lives, even though I cannot find any corresponding drop in fatalaties when helmets became commonplace.
wycombewheeler wrote:
As I recall, there was just one case of contributory negligence for not wearing a helmet which was an off-road team building event and the rider refused a helmet that was provided to him and then unfortunately sustained injuries from a crash.
Otherwise, it would be for the defendant’s legal team to demonstrate that the helmet would have made a substantial difference to the injuries – very rare that that could be shown due to the limited specifications of cycle helmets (i.e. 12mph single vehicle collision)
hawkinspeter wrote:
Yep.
2 requirements in court –
1. Wearing a helmet is a reasonable precaution that the average person would take
2. That the helmet would have made a difference.
I have seen an argument online from a lawyer that 1 has plausibly also changed because of hire bikes – very few people carry helmets in case they get on a boris bike/lime/etc, therefore helmets aren’t a standard, reasonable precaution to the average person and it isn’t reasonable to treat hire bikes differently to personally owned bikes for this. The public interest is best served by letting riders use them without liability risk from not wearing a helmet.
Your hear about helmets
Your hear about helmets saving lives all the time? How many instances would that be say per year?
He was doing a sportive was
He was doing a sportive was he not? His front wheel clipped the rear of another rider. In that environment, he’d be riding quickly in close proximity to other riders doing the same, not quite a race but certainly not like the daily commute.
I wear a helmet when I’m racing or training on my BMX because I’d be a fool not to, and it’s a BC requirement anyway. But for riding to the shops or the station or whatever, there’s no need. Statistically, I’d be improving my health and safety more if I wore a helmet when I’m in my car than when I’m commuting on my bicycle.
OldRidgeback wrote:
My impression of many group rides, reliabilities etc is that the risk of crashing is significantly higher than when riding solo, particularly if some egos start to take over. Although I usually ride without a lid on my own if riding in a group, particularly a chain-gang bunch, I’d definitely wear one.
However, I will ignore this supposed PSA from an overpaid arsehole chef with an attitude problem. I’m sure he would do the same if I told him repeatedly how to properly cook an omlette.
What’s CRUCIAL for cyclists riding in groups or mixing with vehicles is risk assessment – understanding and observing your environment – which cannot be replaced by wearing a polystyrene hat (though I have zero issues with people who wish to do so).
OldRidgeback wrote:
Is there a report of those circumstances?
mattw wrote:
There was somewhere else as that’s what I’ve based my comment on. If I find the link, I’ll post it.
What on earth is a
What on earth is a “CyclingMikey”?
Wikipedia: Michael van Erp,
Wikipedia: Michael van Erp, better known as CyclingMikey, is a London-based YouTuber who films drivers using their mobile phones as well as committing other traffic offences, footage of which he reports to the police, and later uploads to his YouTube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/@CyclingMikey
A “CyclingMikey” is newspeak
A “CyclingMikey” is newspeak for any wannabe celeb (or “Youtuber”, as they were know in my generation, about 10 minutes ago) who tries to achieve fame by e.g. creating pastiches of more established artists. For example, by trying to recreate a scene from a fantasy film where a monster is stopped by the determination of a wizard (played by an in-form Ian McKellen), but this time with the original actor’s agent taking the role of the Balrog.
Members of the public generally greet these interactions with disapproval as an intrusion of privacy, particularly when they realise they’ve been caught breaking the law.
I see. I believe they call it
I see. I believe they call it an “influencer” these days.
Someone who purposely
Someone who purposely antagonises motorists from his bike, and makes them more likely to want to kill an innocent, law abiding cyclist.
Wait until he finds out how
Wait until he finds out how dangerous knives can be…
But honestly, you’ve got to
But honestly, you’ve got to wear chainmail gloves, sleeves, coif and shorts. I don’t care how few carrots you’re dicing.
TBF I suspect he’s all over keeping knives very sharp, not running about the kitchin with them or leaving them in sinks, always drying them and putting them away after use etc.
chrisonabike wrote:
Wait – have we wandered off onto Cavendish again?
Whilst I’m not quite so
Whilst I’m not quite so cynical to imagine Ramsay employed the services of a make-up artist to paint on that huge bruise on his torso, nevertheless I’m puzzled as to why it has an exactly straight edge?
Vo2Maxi wrote:
Why would he need a make-up artist?
Hmm…..
Hmm….. Gordon Ramsay now giving road safety advice. Whatever next. Always comes across as a gobshite to me. Some things never change….
I live in Seattle but
I live in Seattle but currently at my MIL’s home in Japan’s Chiba prefecture and I can state that no bike commuters I’ve seen (or old people just getting around) wear helmets.
I can understand it bc it’s very flat. But more alarmingly while a few people use a front light at night, no one uses a rear light at night. Wife says reflectors are what people rely on–which seems stupid to me.
xbr976 wrote:
Using just a front light seems like the wrong choice to me. I’d rather use just a rear light as usually the street lighting where I am is fine for me to see where I’m going without a front light, but I want vehicles behind me to see me.
If you’ve only got one light,
If you’ve only got one light, why not both?
hawkinspeter wrote:
And when someone pulls out in front of you because their lights don’t illuminate you? Unless you are wearing black clothes with no reflective panels drivers behind should see you. Drivers manage to see pedestrians at night after all.
You choose the rear because you think you have more control over what goes on in front of you. But every driver coming from behind will have their own lights pointed at you.
xbr976 wrote:
Reflectors don’t run out of power.
Riding without lights you’re more likely to have a collision when someone pulls out in front of you because they don’t see you.
Cars coming from behind should see you with their own lights anyway. Obviously lights are best, but I can understand the logic.