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

"My helmet, a Limar 777 cost me under $100."

And it cost less than $5 to make, why should we all either be ripped off or made to wear some ugly thing?

Anecdotal evidence, you say. Sure. But there's enough anecdotal (and otherwise) evidence that solidifies the fact that wearing a helmet WILL save you from injury and to dismiss these stories is both short sighted and stupid.

No, don't make stuff up, this simply IS NOT TRUE, anecdotal evidence does not mean anything scientifically, that's the whole point and I will continue to dismiss anecdotal evidence because it does not prove anything, Also it is only one small part of the story - the wrong part. Real evidence shows that cycling and fitness saves lives, over 20x more lives than helmets would ever save. Forcing helmets upon people is shown to reduce cycling and fitness and causes many more deaths than helmets would ever save.

If people want to wear a helmet, I'm fine with that but don't go trying to force your uneducated, misguided, unscientific, narrow-mided ideas on the rest of us.

[dons flame retardant suit]

I think most people are missing the point here! He's commented on Newsround not at the international convention of neurosurgeons and brain injury specialists

The probable aim was to that the target ordiance of children listen to this well known person/sportsman/hero and wear their helmet when out cycling, or scootering, or skateboarding or go karting, anything thing that increases the risk of receiving a head trauma.

With regards to Roger Gefens comments about helmet laws only reducing the the number of cyclists, the realistically his thoughts a finance based and hold no other water, if someone really wants to ride their bike and you had to wear a helmet, then and person of sound mind and rational thought would wear it. It's compulsory on a motorised vehicle to wear one, and a lot of cyclists meet or exceed the same speeds as some of those vehicles.

If they made helmets compulsory then, in 10-20-30 years we would not be having this discussion, because it would be the accepted norm, and people would just conform and follow suit.

And as for the measure of helmets not saving lives etc, no they may not save lifted but I am sure they reduce the risk of cycling, so may say its a marginal gain, but for one I wouldn't cycle without one.

My five pieces of common sense:

Helmets prevent more damage than they cause.
Using headphones on a bike is dangerous and should be banned.
Helmet's should not be compulsory
Driver liability should be made law here as it is abroad
Cyclists should be banned from undertaking lorries at traffic lights. Go around the outside or wait your turn.

Pretty simple stuff.

Flumptious - so sad to read what happened to you and pleased that a helmet saved your life.

The claim that anecdotal evidence isn't evidence is quite ridiculous. When Parliament decides on whether to pass safety related laws - they only have anecdotal evidence to rely on. The Health and Safety legislation we have now has made the workplace a much safer place.

I think it'll only be a matter of time before helmet usage is compulsory.

Finally, from a car drivers perspective it seems that cyclists are allowed to get away with everything (for example I wish I had a pound for every cyclist I saw blatantly running red lights on Euston Road). So compulsory helmets may well work in our favour.

@aapje Well thanks for truncating my quote to make it seem out of context. My point if you quoted the rest of it is that helmet use is based on your assessment of risk. Too many people think that they are not in the 'racer/lycra lout' category so they don't need one. Some sports assume there is a risk and take precautions automatically (as you do when flying.) Too many people think they go too slow for anything to happen to them when in fact you can fall over at no speed and sustain a serious head injury. Obviously suggestions that pedestrians wear helmets are facetious. Encouraging bike helmet use can only be positive.

If I wear enough gel my hair becomes a helmet, that would pass under a helmet compulsory act. Right?

… I wonder if Sir Wiggins has been taken on to a board of a company that manufactures cycle helmets? Seems to be going down the same route as the annoyance that is Cracknell, who can't pass a sentence about cycling and road safety without mentioning compulsory helmet wearing, due to his links with a cycle helmet manufacturer and the scarey thing is he his now standing as an MEP for the South West!!!!!

Personally if I am out for a ride I wear a helmet, if tootling to the shop's then no. I think Chris Boardman who has worked with British Cycling is a better mouthpiece on cycle safety, we need to be sorting the cause of the problem, not putting the onus on the victims.

Later on the very day I read Brad's comments in the comic I rode an evening ten mile time trial, I might mention here that the majority of the riders in the event heeded the organisers (Southport R.C.) advice re a rear light. After the event and general chat with fellow competitors it was getting near to dusk and as I drove along a quiet narrow lane I spotted a cyclist ahead dressed all in black. As he entered a tree lined section he virtually disappeared, even with my headlights on he was difficult to see, however his long leggy look put me in mind straight away that it looked for all the world like Brad, indeed it turned out to be so, resplendent in his all black Sky outfit. Riding in narrow lanes at dusk, and he was still quite away from where he lives, without a rear light at least struck me as a rather dangerous thing to do, especially as there may have been a 'white van lady' lurking in the dark. This is not anecdotal, he was also spotted by Bury clarion lads as they too drove home from the event. Perhaps he should be wearing a helmet with led's built in, I think in this case a rear light would be a safer option than a helmet.

I am very much in the 'leave it to the individual' camp.

I do regularly wear a lightweight LAS road helmet when I'm road cycling at speed but as a motorcyclist I know cycling helmets will not afford me anywhere near the protection of my Kevlar composite fullface Shoei motorbike helmet. In fact my LAS is a total waste of time compared to the bullet and bombproof Shoei. However, I don't sweat on my Kawasaki so a heavy helmet is not a problem but on a bicycle a heavy helmet would be ridiculously hot. I wear my LAS just in case, cos you never know. Totally bogus reasons really though it does look nice.

So what protection do I get from my LAS cycle helmet? Well, I've no idea. There is no data available of impact tests for cycle helmets as there are for motorbike helmets. What I can say is that I feel safer with a helmet on so I ride faster and more confident, taking greater risks, especially on downhill sections.

Riding down a steep hill on my road bike at 40mph or so is so much more exhilerating & scary than the same speed on my Kawasaki. I know that falling off at 40mph will hurt on either machine, but unless I hit something or tumble head over heels, my head probably won't hit the road too much and so won't require much impact protection. It will require some that's for sure so wearing my LAS to avoid grinding bits of my skull off is probably the main aim.

The reality is that I tend to cycle in the range of 10 - 25 mph and that is within the range we humans run at so I don't believe, at these speeds, helmets are essential protection. If I fall over whilst running down a hill it will hurt and I may bash my head but I'd have to be pretty unlucky (or stupid for running down the hill so fast) to sutain any more than a minor injury. How many runners die from falling over?

The occasions I ride above 30mph are so infrequent (never, when I'm simply commuting on the flat or bimbling around town) that the benefit of wearing a helmet is very limited at best and wholly ineffective at worse. For this reason helmets on bicycles should remain a recommendation but should not be compulsory. As far as being hit by a van is concerned there is enough evidence to show that impact levels from vehicle collisions are too high for current cycle helmets to be effective. How do I know this? Well, motorcycle helmets don't protect the wearer in these situations unless the person is very lucky and so a lighter weight cycle helmet would be useless.

Until helmet manufacturers can produce a cycle helmet with the high level of ventilation required for practical sporting use and the same level of protection that a motorcycle helmet affords any suggestion that cycling helmets should be compulsory will be unjustified.

Motorcyclists have to wear crash helmets, drivers have to wear seat belts. Why shouldn't helmets be compulsory for cyclists? We all have to use the same roads after all.

Before 1973 wearing of crash helmets was not compulsory. Similarly before 1982 the wearing of seat belts was not compulsory.

What makes you think that the wearing of cycle helmets will remain voluntary?

You poor deluded soul!!

It has been made compulsory in other countries already. It is only a matter of time over here. The most recent example of course is the smoking ban. The nanny state is still alive and kicking.

I reckon within 5 years cycle helmets will be compulsory.

Not mocking your financial health at all. You obviously don't understand the word banter.

Was not aware we were arguing robust debate has a better ring I feel.

See you in five years.

It is not a case of whether I am for or against. I for freedom of choice in all matters and dislike being told what to do by government. I am merely stating what has happened in the past.

However all governments over the years have proved themselves incapable of letting people make up their own minds.

I personally do not think helmet wearing should be made compulsory, but I am realistic enough to realise that it is only a matter of borrowed time. Especially as governments and their servants be they Civil or otherwise just cannot help themselves.

Anyone who thinks that there is not someone in government who is prepared to try and shovel it through as a cost saving in NHS treatment really is in cloud cuckoo land.

At least you're standing on the right side of the line.

Now all you need to do is believe the glass is half-full not half-empty

The only countries in the world to have countrywide helmet laws for adults are Australia and New Zealand.

Chart shows how pointless helmets are:

From wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet_laws

And
Australia's helmet law disaster

Study confirms helmet laws killing Australian bike share « Helmet ...

How does that graph prove anything? The percentage of helmet use has some meaning, unless it caused a drop in cycling, However, what is a percentage of head injuries? As a percentage of all injuries? Then it is not going to vary very much anyway. Where are the numbers of head injuries treated in hospital cause by cycling as a gross number, THAT would be meaningful. If you think science will help you disprove something that seems really obvious, you need to use some real statistics.

There is a very simple point here. If you do exactly the same things on a bike and either wear a helmet or not, there are going to be times you will suffer brain damage or die without the helmet and stay uninjured or survive with the helmet.

Wear a helmet - it's a no brainer!

I strongly think cycle helmets should be made compulsory because I had an accident recently that was my own fault! If I had not had my helmet on I would not be sat here typing this comment.. I went down a hill too fast and collided with a stone wall ended up in A&E dislocated shoulder and cut and bruises and a huge lump on my head I was knocked out for about 5 minutes.. When I saw my helmet it had a large chunk missing and a big crack in other side this damage would have happened to my head if I was'nt wearing the helmet. These cycle helmets are not perfect but they can stop a lot of head injuries!! I feel I was very lucky .