Forum menu
After last night's fatality, Wiggins says helmets "should be legalized" presumably meaning they be made compulsory...
Oh dear...if only he'd read the discussions here and knew this would hit participation.
hmmmm
[img] 
[/img]
Please. Let's not do this again.
Just because he's the best professional cyclist in the world right now doesn't mean to say he knows anything about helmets an why they should be mandatory, just like I can't imagine Casey Stoner knows anything about commuting to work on a 125.
Yes but casey probably commute to work on a motorcycle and he probably wears a helmet on it as well 😉
kneel before King Wiggins of Kilburn, for everything he says is plated with gold. 8)
Cyclist last night was crushed by wheels of left turning bus. Failure of infrastructure as cyclist was where current roads direct a rider.
Helmets and headphones an irrelevant distraction. Very poor response from Brad.
Oh. And I read the thread title as Hitler and assumed poster was just invoking Godwins Law early
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/01/cyclist-killed-collision-bus ]http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/01/cyclist-killed-collision-bus[/url]
More than enough space for proper protected infrastructure on that road but all that's there is a poxy unenforced ASL. Cyclist going straight on was exactly where the road would indicate they should be.
Yes but casey probably commute to work on a motorcycle and he probably wears a helmet on it as well
Only because the law says he has to, we all know that the genaral public is more knowledgeable than the law makers as we are happy to break the laws that suit us, then use some pithy excuse like it being in the interest of our own personal security or safety.
Not wearing a crash helmet on a motorbike is quite noticeable on the street and easy picking for the police.
Oh god make it stop........
Does the one that can't be named know about this thread??
And so is riding a cycle without 😉
Helmets are for whipping through the woods and blasts on the road bike. Pootling down canal toe paths with the kids is perfectly ok lidless. IMO that is.
But what would happen if it was Wiggo on the 125 (Lambretta, natch), Mr Stoner on a pushbike and Son Of Wiggo driving the bus? Eh?
Usual helmet law induced reduction in particpation would prob be balanced out by numbers motivated to cycle by Sir Wiggins' success.
He did qualify it by saying cyclists had to be seen to be doing the right thing.
Which I think the helmet and RLJ debate is all about.
If cyclists aren't seen as behaving like gung-ho mavericks who pay no attention to the rules of the road then motorists can't continue to behave as they do and justify it by saying 'cyclists bring it on themeselves'.
You know the debate doesn't have to be so polarized - should we or should we not enforce the wearing of helmets.
A blanket law would be impractical in the short run. A more sensible initial approach would be to make it compulsory in city centres, say for example anywhere within the congestion charging zone of London. That would place greater responsibility for personal safety on those likely to be commuting without necessarily criminalizing the kids playing in the street in the suburbs.
Just an idea.
Oh and one other point.
This is OUR time right now, it's up to us how we make the most of it. Cycling is a nascent sport in the UK at the moment and we have a chance to really shape and change our sport for the better.
Wiggo's point about being seen to do the right thing, acting responsibly etc, that's the hall mark of a mature and grown up sport that we can all feel good about getting our kids into.
If people want to be petulant and all 'ooh it's my personal choice' about it then that is of course, peoples' personal choice. But the nation is watching us right now so we better set an example.
1972 - agree totally with your post above. It is about setting an example. I am not going to argue about proper cycle lanes, training, high vis cycling gear/lighting, nor how effective a helmet might be. The more aware people are of road safety full stop, the better, if that means making sure people wear a helmet, I don't think that is such a bad ace to start. I know people claim we are in a Nanny State. If Wiggo thinks he has a point, good on him for saying it. I am sure he is all to aware of the discussion in cycling on this issue.
I do personally always wear a helmet, only because I think of there is any chance it may one day do some good, then it has been worthwhile getting it out of the cupboard. A helmet was once useful to me at Afan and that was enough for me. That's my choice though. When I were a lad I didn't think like that and I was lucky never to fall on my melon, I never wore a helmet.
Im pretty sure there would have been similar arguements when compulsory helmet use was proposed for motorcyclists. They seem to be ok with it now.
Like wiggo and others have said, if cyclists as a whole wish to be treated with me credibility and respect then a more pragmatic approach to cycling in cities needs to be adopted. i.e dont ride like a plum on pavements and RLJ. Show a little give and take. Dont make yourself a target, but defend your roadspace assertively.
TGhe other thing that needs to change is other roadusers attitudes, to other road users im general.
I had some idiot who turned left in front of me without indicating, but preceded to call me an "idiot" after I pointed out (sarcastically) that i knew she was going to be turning left. This highlights quite nicely how cyclists as viewed as the bottom of the food chain in motoring terms.
Oh and one other point.This is OUR time right now, it's up to us how we make the most of it. Cycling is a nascent sport in the UK at the moment and we have a chance to really shape and change our sport for the better.
Wiggo's point about being seen to do the right thing, acting responsibly etc, that's the hall mark of a mature and grown up sport that we can all feel good about getting our kids into.
If people want to be petulant and all 'ooh it's my personal choice' about it then that is of course, peoples' personal choice. But the nation is watching us right now so we better set an example.
Absolutely, when cycling becomes popular, the worst thing the cycling community can do is shoot themselves in the foot by being assholes about something people are told might save their life
There is an eyewitness report on reddit
http://www.reddit.com/r/bicycling/comments/xiud7/just_sat_down_with_some_poor_bloke_for_his_last/
Absolutely, when cycling becomes popular, the worst thing the cycling community can do is shoot themselves in the foot by being assholes about something people are told might save their life
No, the worst thing the cycling community can do with "[i]OUR[/i]" time is concede this point. It would singlehandedly wipe out any and all advances cycling has made recently. And I say "advances" knowing that the modal share for cycling is still a massive joke in the UK.
The CTC's twitter feed this mornign makes me slightly embarassed to be a cyclist, tbh.
Chance in a lifetime to make cyclign a mainstream activity and what are they doing;
[i]
not sure it is useful to give so much credence to views of gold medallist on road safety - how about Steve Redgrave on the Costa Concordia?[/i]
Utter ****wits.
How can criticising a national hero today of all days do anything but harm to their cause?
they aren't criticising him wwaswas, they are questioning whether:
it is useful to give so much credence to views of gold medallist on road safety
...not the same thing at all. Not helpful to oversimplify!
cynic-al, I think they were [url= http://beta.ctc.org.uk/news/2012-08-02/gold-medal-winnner-wiggins-puts-road-safety-in-spotlight ]http://beta.ctc.org.uk/news/2012-08-02/gold-medal-winnner-wiggins-puts-road-safety-in-spotlight[/url];
[i]Asked about the incident Wiggins suggested that making helmets compulsory and passing laws restricting cyclists from listening to music would enable cyclists to say that they had done as much as they could and therefore the responsibility must rest with motorists.
CTC disagrees with this position. Chris Peck, CTC's Policy Coordinator, told Radio 5 Live this morning:
"Making cycle helmets compulsory would be likely to have an overall damaging effect on public health, since the health benefits of cycling massively outweigh the risks and we know that where enforced, helmet laws tend to lead to an immediate reduction in cycling.[/i]
I understand CTC's argument in general but they have to see that there's a bigger picture abotu how cyclists are viewed by other road users and that we need to move on from the whole helmet debate.
Conceding helmet wearing would allow them to focus on other areas. Once people felt that cycling was a 'safe' activity then more people would do it.
It's the CTC, what do you expect, they make a living through money cyclist ggave them. The more cyclist, the more money.
A more sensible initial approach would be to make it compulsory in city centres
Which would kill the cycle hire scheme dead. Fail
[url= http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2012/08/bradley-wiggins-wrong-on-helmets/ ]Christian Wolmar's blog this morning[/url]
Note - far more lives would be saved by making car occupants wear helmets. >50% of in car deaths result of head injuries.
Conceding helmet wearing would allow them to focus on other areas. Once people felt that cycling was a 'safe' activity then more people would do it.
But would lead to significant fall in cycling in short term (if Australian experience anything to go by).
Only sport cyclists wear helmets in the Netherlands - 'utility' cyclists don't.
Making cycle helmets compulsory would be likely to have an overall damaging effect on public health
Straw man argument as far as I'm concerned - the issue is whether a [b]cyclist[/b] is safer wearing a helmet or not.
i heard a snippet on the radio lasst night.
he said that if cyclists were to wear a helmet then they would be seen to be doing the right thing and would be respected by motorists.
tbh, i think this is rubbish. it doesn't stop people getting knocked down and there is evidence on Australia that the mandatory waering of helmets actually reduced the number of cyclists.
i don't think that he should have taken it upon himself to state that helmets should be compulsory. he is obviously in the limelight now, but does not represent 98% of the cycling public.
Are you insinuating that a tour de France winner and multiple medal winner is bigger hitter than TJ ? Are you mad?
i don't think that he should have taken it upon himself to state that helmets should be compulsory. he is obviously in the limelight now, but does not represent 98% of the cycling public
would have been a crap interview if he had said "no comment" everytime he was asked his opinion.
I seem to remember that there was a great uproar when they made seat belts compulsory, but I can tell you from a paramedic's point of view that the difference post RTC between those wearing them and those not is quite significant. And there was lots of resistance about motor cyclists having to wear them.. But there are still a lot of people on motor bikes. Personally I think it's a good idea. As said above we need to show the world that we are responsible and safety conscious.
I've seen the difference between car vs cyclist wearing a helmet and car vs cyclist wearing one of those stupid looking roadie caps. The latter spent several months in ITU with brain trauma and the other was treated for minor injuries. Both were side swiped at around 50 mph.
Live and let die!
It's personal, but as I never know when I'm going to fall off I always wear one.
From the eye-witness report:
as we approached a bus he went inside while I held back. The lights changed as he was in the buses blind spot and as he was attempting to go straight the bus turned left. He didn't really have anywhere to go and no time to do anything anyway
Sorry, but a helmet doesn't sound like it would have helped. More awareness from the bus-driver could have, but FFS [b]DON'T UNDERTAKE!!![/b]
There's such a lack of common sense in this country it disgusts me. No, you shouldn't have to wear a helmet if you don't want to. But be aware if you don't, and you fall over, whoesever fault it is, and you bang your head, wearing a helmet is unlikely to impede your safety, wearing one will probably help. As a cyclist, you are the lowest of the low in the physical ranking of road-users. You take your life into your own hands.
Yes, a helemt will only protect you at impacts up to about 30mph. Therefore being hit at 50mph, makes it seem like 20mph.
Good grief.
Biggest Hitler ever is what I read
simons_nicolai-uk - Member
Cyclist last night was crushed by wheels of left turning bus. Failure of infrastructure as cyclist was where current roads direct a rider.
Helmets and headphones an irrelevant distraction. Very poor response from Brad.
+1
Yes, a helemt will only protect you at impacts up to about 30mph. Therefore being hit at 50mph, makes it seem like 20mph.
Actually, it goes as the square of velocity. So if a helmet protects up to about 30mph, then at 50mph it makes it seem like 40mph.
In reality, even the most rigorous (and obsolete) SNELL standards tested at 12.5mph - that's 1/4 the speed, so 1/16th the impact energy of an impact at 30mph.
[i]FFS DON'T UNDERTAKE!!![/i]
if you're in a designated cycle lane you'll be undertaking a row of cars, almost by definition, every time the traffic stops, though?
I'm not passing judgement on this case at all, but I do wonder whether the bus was indicating left before the cyclist decided to undertake. It seems to be typical of most drivers to sit at the lights with no indication then lights change, roll forward, indicate left and turn.
I'm sure that if drivers indicated their intention at the point that a cyclist is deciding whether to undertake or not fewer of these sorts of accidents would occur.
Given that the bus operators can't do very much to stop cyclists riding however they choose, perhaps this is something they should be insisting their drivers do as standard practice.
Never undertake the first person in the queue unless you're absolutely certain you can get in front of them before lights change - that's always been my rule.
Actually, it goes as the square of velocity. So if a helmet protects up to about 30mph, then at 50mph it makes it seem like 40mph.
ok, well you get my drift.
My sister-in-law got knocked off by an idiot opening a car door as she went past (on a bike path)
Smacked her head on the ground. Was concussed for weeks.
There's no doubt if she didn't have a helmet on, she'd have been far worse.
As I said above, I can see the argument for not making it law, but unfortunatly too many of the population now need to live in the nanny state we've become and because it isn't law, think they don't need a helmet. Quite frankly, its Darwinian.
And don't get me started on Time trials on dual carriageways.
Rant over.
Sounds like bad road layout as large vehicles have blind spots its bad enough driving a van never mind a bus or lorry .I feel very sorry for all concerned