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.
> Gordon Ramsay "risking further wrath from neighbours" by going on (perfectly legal) 22 mile bike ride, claim the Daily Mail
“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.
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.”
> "I had cyclists telling me I was a disgrace for saying my helmet saved my life": Dan Walker recalls helmet backlash after being knocked off bike by driver
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.”
Add new comment
117 comments
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 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.
It's not a bruise - he was wearing that same yellow top in the picture above and the dye ran.
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 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...
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? "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?!
"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 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 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.
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 highlight most of the problems of helmet advocacy.
I think you mean self-righteous twats.
Calves should also wear helmets. Especially in Surrey.
I've heard of shin pads, but calves?
Not a herd, just a single stray calf.
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 roads or the pavement
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 appear to be any suggestion that his accident had anything to do with either of those, then no, not really.
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. All other things being equal.
The second argument concerns public policy, which is precisely about questioning all those other things being equal. 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 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 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 make non slip showers mandatory.
People could wash their hair then as well
They can't wash their hair as there'll be mandatory hi-vis shower caps
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 line I wrote?
No. [C] you don't understand.
Yep, he doesn't.
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.
Pages