I cannot possibly see an ulterior motive with this 🙄 I would have thought if they had looked beyond the potential pound signs and researched the issue properly, they would figure out that more cyclists living longer will have an even better effect on their turnover.
[url= http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/wiggle-argues-case-for-law-to-force-cyclists-to-wear-helmets/015628 ]Wiggle sticking their oar in[/url]
Probably not but what sized wheels for a helmet debate?
As far as I can see, they're not backing it, just stating that Bradley Wiggins is.
oh dear.
they'll be campaigning to ban sportives in the New Forest next....
I missed the bit in their blog where Wiggle "argues case for law to force cyclists to wear helmets". The version I read was reporting Wiggo backing a campaign to make helmet wearing compulsory.
EDITOR NOTE: This article was published on behalf of the Ryan Smith Foundation. Wiggle’s stance on the helmet debate remains neutral.
Yes, they appear to be prompting debate while promoting their products rather than categorically supporting helmet wear. I am strongly in the non-cumpulsion camp but apart from the cheeky last line, can't really complain at wiggle here.
The graph's genius. Just seen [url= https://twitter.com/steinsky/status/397712215370764291 ]a similar graph on Twitter showing that no cyclists were killed while wearing a pirate fancy dress outfit[/url]. They should be compulsory.
As far as I can see, they're not backing it, just stating that Bradley Wiggins is.
Looks like that is the case, but that blog post is a badly written, terribly cited and pretty much a thinly veiled sales pitch.
It pretends that its point is to elicit debate by asking 'What are your views?' on a blog you cannot actually comment on but really its all about the giant button at the bottom that says 'Shop cycle helmets'
EDIT - even the word helmet in the post is hyperlinked to their stock of crash hats on their site. Whether you agree with compulsion or not, this cheapens the debate IMO.
The editor's note was only added after a bit of a Twitter backlash.
Other than being a fashionable 16 year old Australian female, why would you choose not to wear a helmet?
I'm not going the whole hog and saying "my helmet saved my life" but I'd have been unthinkable worse off had I not been wearing it.
I'm particularly impressed by the graph they used of deaths by helmet / non-helmet use, using absolute numbers which by themselves actually convey no useful information whatsoever because there's no reference to the proportion of cyclists who do / do not use helmets (i.e. it could be that actually a higher proportion of the helmet wearing population are being killed than the non-helmet wearers, but there's just a lot more non-helmet wearers to start with)
And on that "Wiggle is neutral" statement - they seem to have tweeted it originally with "Should helmets be compulsory - WE SAY YES" which doesn't read as being terribly neutral to me.
Other than being a fashionable 16 year old Australian female, why would you choose not to wear a helmet?
I'm not going the whole hog and saying "my helmet saved my life" but I'd have been unthinkable worse off had I not been wearing it.
*sigh*
Really?
So, compulsory flame retardent suits for drivers? Why would you choose to burn to death when you could be safe?
Compulsory pedestrian helmets for walking up and down stairs, or on the pavement? Why would you choose not to?
I don't think there are many people who are "anti-helmet". Just anti-compulsion.
why would you choose not to wear a helmet?
Same reason you choose not to wear a neck brace or spine protector?
Everyone has an acceptable level of risk.
(I mostly choose to wear a helmet, but I'm 100% against compulsion)
*sigh*?
Yes.
I'm yet to learn of somebody I know incinerated while driving. However, I've met people that have crashed wearing, and not wearing helmets and "I'm glad I had a helmet on" or "I probably should have worn a helmet" is what I've heard from them.
Should be compulsory for under 16's, anyone over 16 is old enough to choose to be stupid.
dsb181 - MemberOther than being a fashionable 16 year old Australian female, why would you choose not to wear a helmet?
don't know*, but when faced with the choice; "wear a helmet, or you can't get on a bike", it seems lots of people choose the "sod it, i'll just take the car" option.
lack of exercise is a killer, why put barriers in the way?
(*here's one, helmets make my head REALLY itchy)
don't know, but when faced with the choice; "wear a helmet, or you can't get on a bike", it seems lots of people choose the "sod it, i'll just take the car" option.
really? I normally don't cycle due to lack of parking for bikes, lack of facilities where I am going to shower/change, getting sweaty, journey no practical with a bike.
Own bike, Own helmet where is the issue?
Again there are plenty who would wear a helmet if they were banned just to stick it to the man.
Anyway back to my first point what wheel size are we talking about? 650b is safe as the surface is cumming alive so it will save you...
I'm yet to learn of somebody I know incinerated while driving. However, I've met people that have crashed wearing, and not wearing helmets...
More people die of head injuries in cars - do you wear a helmet in the car?
No? There's that acceptable level of risk again.
when faced with the choice; "wear a helmet, or you can't get on a bike", it seems lots of people choose the "sod it, i'll just take the car" option.
Partly that. I can well imagine what this bloke would say if you told him he had to wear a helmet by law:
[img] 
[/img]
But the effect is also partly because helmet compulsion reinforces the idea that cycling is [i]incredibly dangerous[/i] and requires specialist safety equipment before you can even [i]contemplate[/i] that deadly half-mile ride to the shop on a shared-use pavement.
That [i]"incredibly dangerous"[/i] image is already one of the biggest reasons people don't cycle and don't let their kids cycle. Reinforcing it leads to a drop in the numbers of people taking up cycling.
What are wiggles' views on the established church in this country? We haven't debated that one for a while either!!!
Compulsion isn't nescessary. If you consider cycling such a high risk activity that you need to wear a lid, wear one. No need to tell others to. But please feel free to sign my campaign to make wearing a helmet in the shower compulsory.
TJ to the Foru.... Oh... 🙁
In abscence of the greatest ever helmet debate, Shit stirrer I shall post [url= http://cyclehelmets.org/1081.html ]this link[/url] and retire to a safe distance...
I'm yet to learn of somebody I know incinerated while driving. However, I've met people that have crashed wearing, and not wearing helmets and "I'm glad I had a helmet on" or "I probably should have worn a helmet" is what I've heard from them.
I've been riding bikes for 30 years. I've not once banged my head.
Our car was rear-ended ten years ago and my neck's never quite been right since*. Compulsory neck braces in cars?
Thankfully the plural of anecdote isn't data, so we get to base decisions on something else.
*ironically, this generally shows up on long bike rides, because of the extra weight of a helmet.
Don't you see its all a ploy!!!
Helmets compulsory
[i]How do we enforce this?[/i]
[b]Number plates for cyclists!![/b]
Can't have number plates without some kind of test and insurance...
As far as I can see, they're not backing it, just stating that Bradley Wiggins is.
I do wish professional cyclists would just stick to riding their ****ing bikes and not trying to get involved in every Tom Dick and Harry campaign that comes their way. What Brad or Cav or Steve Peat or Tracy Moseley do on a day-to-day basis bears no resemblance to what the vast majority of cyclists do or want to do.
I note that the guy behind this campaign isn't campaigning for vans not to hit people. That seems basically fine so long as the person being hit is wearing a helmet.
And it's funny that he's bothered about it now but wasn't bothered when his son went out without one. 🙄
If compulsion were brought in, what would be an appropriate penalty for non-compliance?
My own vote goes to public beheading, that'll learn 'em not to protect their noggins!!
And it's funny that he's bothered about it now but wasn't bothered when his son went out without one.
Probably not all that "funny" really... While I'm as cynical about the idea of helmet compulsion as anyone, I don't think attacking the fella's motives is exactly the right tactic, makes you look a bit insensitive, which only serves to diminish the strength of your argument TBH...
Just saying...
Nobody mentioned the 90% drop in teenage girls cycling when the compulsion law was introduced australia?
At the bottom of the original article:
"http://Wiggle.co.uk proves that not only are helmets essential for your safety, they really can be fashionable too."
Which is a pretty bold statement by anyones measure.
Lets get the old graph out (from the same DfT report that they nicked their graph) that shows the KSI stats/Billion miles travelled
[img] 
[/img]
So with that are we going to argue for compulsory helmets for pedestrians too?
I'll bow out now as i've already had this row on twitter 😀
I don't know for sure, but I bet the same pros and cons were chucked about when it became compulsory for people to wear helemts on motorbikes, and maybe even seatbelts in cars. I dunno what to think, as both sides have merit - I guess, in an ideal world, everyone on a bike would be smart enough to wear a helmet, but that doesn't seem to be the case. 🙁
makes you look a bit insensitive, which only serves to diminish the strength of your argument TBH...
OK, it comes across as insensitive but the analogy is this:
Your town has a problem with knife crime. Rather than solve the problem of people being stabbed (increased policing, harsher punishments etc), the answer is to campaign for compulsory stab vests for all...
??
Pondo,
Are you suggesting these people are all stupid?
[img] 
[/img]
I bet the same pros and cons were chucked about when it became compulsory for people to wear helemts on motorbikes, and maybe even seatbelts in cars
I'm sure they were.
The major difference is that if helmet/seatbelt compulsion ever put anyone off motorcycles or cars then that was a GOOD THING for overall health, whereas being put off cycling is a BAD THING for overall health.
[i]Are you suggesting these people are all stupid?[/i]
it looks like there's going to be a nasty accident and some of them will just wish they'd worn a helmet...
Are you suggesting these people are all stupid?
Yes.
Are you suggesting these people are all stupid?
The one on teh left cycling backwards is, that could cause a nasty incident.
The major difference is that if helmet/seatbelt compulsion ever put anyone off motorcycles or cars then that was a GOOD THING for overall health, whereas being put off cycling is a BAD THING for overall health.
That's inarguable, really. In all fairnes, and this is entirely anecdotal, but I don't see that many cyclists NOT wearing a helmet these days - how do we get the few that slip through the net to put one on?
haha, someone screen capped the original
[img] 
:large[/img]
No gloves, no lycra, no eVent fabric or Gore-tex, only one person wearing high viz.
Madness I tell you.
Another idiot much earlier:
[img] 
[/img]
I don't see that many cyclists NOT wearing a helmet these days
I'd say it's about 50/50 on my commute, which is mostly shared-use path and quietish roads.
From the blog:
In the early 90’s, Australia passed a law for compulsory helmets which saw cycling rates plummet, particularly in teenage girls who thought that helmets were not fashionable: in fact cycling rates in this group fell by around 90 per cent. But is this initial drop in cycling rates worth the risk to save hundreds of lives? I think so.
What an amazing thing to say. If only they could just bump that figure up to a 100% drop in cycling. Think of the lives that would be saved! 😆
The author has been adding explanation on his twitter feed;
[url= https://twitter.com/timwiggins1 ]https://twitter.com/timwiggins1[/url]
In all fairnes, and this is entirely anecdotal, but I don't see that many cyclists NOT wearing a helmet these days
Apparently, London has the highest proportion with 40% wearing helmets.
If helmets were effective, KSI rates will have fallen as helmet use has increased. Is this the case?
The author has been adding explanation on his twitter feed;
Yes, yes he has, if by "explanation" you mean "complete back pedal". His explanation now includes the statement
myself (and wiggle) remain open to both sides of the debate
however, the (now deleted) tweet promoting the article said
Should helmets be compulsory - WE SAY YES
Hmmm, either the power of the arguments made have changed that opinion, or, and perhaps more likely, the negative response has led to a change of marketing approach.
OK, it comes across as insensitive but the analogy is this:Your town has a problem with knife crime. Rather than solve the problem of people being stabbed (increased policing, harsher punishments etc), the answer is to campaign for compulsory stab vests for all...
??
Sorry Crazy legs but it was a low blow and you know it, that wasn't the point you were making, yes we've all heard the stab vest analogy already, and you didn't give that or any other analogy...
Swaying public opinion is the name of the game, and "Credibility" comes in part from how either side of this debate conducts themselves, I'd say He's got one of the strongest and "Noblest" motives of all, he see's his campaigning as helping to prevent other families having to go through what his own has, you might sneer at that but quite frankly its something an awful lot of people can appreciate and empathise with.
I don't disagree that his efforts would be far better directed at improving the general standard of road vehicle operation, getting people to think about the consequences of their actions on the roads, and challenging our rather "car-centric" culture, not forcing EPS hats on everyone who rides a bicycle.
However wrong his position might be leave comments like that, regarding his son out of it, at best it will be interpreted as crass and at worst downright unpleasant...
So lets not get dragged down this avenue any further now...
The question is really about the relative merits helmet compulsion, which IMO means that first of all you need a serious and unbiased examination of the efficacy of (current, commercially available) helmets in the context of Road traffic incidents.
Not statistical bullshittery, actual physical testing that demonstrates the benefits to the wearer in terms of reducing the potential for head injury...
Without such "proof" the gaping hole in the argument for compulsion is that nobody seems able to prove any real benefit...
And no, EN1078 tests are certainly not representative of typical Road traffic incidents and do not constitute the proof I described...
Wiggle Flog helmets, and Wiggo's name is used to flog all sorts of cycling related stuff now, so I don't think either qualifies as an unbiased authority on the topic, But anyone can start a debate for whatever reason...
I'm not sure I buy the efficacy thing.
I think all, but the most extreme anti-compulsionists recognise that a helmet affords [i]some[/i] level of protection, even if only against prat falls to the road/kerb.
And even if they were quite surprisingly effective at preventing head injuries I still wouldn't support compulsion.
That may seem odd but as others have said neck-braces and flame-retardant suits are very effective too, but that doesn't mean they should be worn.
The question is really about the relative merits helmet compulsion, which IMO means that first of all you need a serious and unbiased examination of the efficacy of (current, commercially available) helmets in the context of Road traffic incidents.
Not statistical bullshittery, [b]actual physical testing that demonstrates the benefits to the wearer in terms of reducing the potential for head injury[/b]
But that would only be the very, very start. I'm sure there is plenty of evidence that those 'bite suits' that police dog trainers wear prevent or reduce bite injuries. So there's a benefit to using it but that doesn't mean that it should be law to wear one whenever you're near a dog. Same goes for walking/running helmets, GPS locators for hikers, lifejackets for people in swimming pools. All these things are such small risks, that when compared to the health benefits from doing the activity, there's just no need for legislation.
50,000 saved by the seatbelt law in 30 years , vs a theoretical 420* lives saved by a helmet law over the same period.
It's not even 1% of the problem that was addressed by the seatbelt law.
*
Roughly 100 cycling fatalities/yr IIRC
between 10 and 16 per cent of cycling deaths could have been avoided if the cyclist had been wearing an appropriate helmet
so 14% as a midpoint.
So 14 lives saved per year.
Yeah, but Wiggle call brake discs 'rotors', so I'm out.
I see the screencap from Wiggle also uses the old seatbelts have saved 50'000 lives lie.
An existing downward trend in road deaths stopped in 1983 when the front seatbelt law was introduced.
[img] 
[/img]
http://www.john-adams.co.uk/2009/11/05/seat-belts-another-look-at-the-data/
So 14 lives saved per year.
Less than that in fact because of those 100 deaths per year, a number of them will already have been wearing helmets.
The reduction in the percentage of the public cycling if a compulsory helmet law is enforced isn't due to them being considered "unfashionable", it's due a perception that cycling is dangerous without a helmet. Watch this, wear a helmet if you want, but don't encourage others to do so.
[img] 
[/img]
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/wiggo-on-helmets
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/how-do-you-deal-with-folk-not-wearing-a-helmet
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/bike-helmet-for-kids
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-helmet-debate-rumbles-on-in-the-mainstream-media
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/would-you-helmet-nazi-content#post-3139927
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/thank-god-for-helmets#post-3071801
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/so-i-decided-to-write-off-my-helmet-today#post-3015561
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/will-the-uk-every-be-like-this#post-3001646
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/no-helmet#post-2983986
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/helmets-2#post-2941835
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/this-really-makes-you-want-to-wear-a-lid#post-2919841
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/good-or-bad-advert#post-2894537
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/james-cracknell-wear-a-helmet-video#post-2783611
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/bmxers-idiots#post-2758996
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/helmet-compulsion-again
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/wear-a-helmet-kids#post-2705179
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/psa-helmet-debate-on-radio-2-now#post-2584202
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/if-helmets-were-to-be-made-compulsory#post-2573922
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/helmet-on-your-child-always#post-2482018
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/some-very-sad-news#post-2476001
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-great-helmet-debate#post-2432920
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/compulsory-helmet-law-in-ni#post-2236497
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/how-smug-will-tj-be
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/helmets-possibly-the-last-word
God I'm so bored of these endless anti-helmet debate debates.
Can you give it a rest kcr? Please?
You're not going to change anyone's opinion.
😉
I live and work in oz (Perth) at the moment, cycle commuting is prevalent. There are dedicated cycle paths so I barely come in contact with cars on my 8km commute in to the city. 99% of people wear helmets. Its compulsory and enforceable by law over here, and you know what...
YOU NEVER HEAR ANYONE COMPLAINING...
I think a more important thing to be arguing, complaining and making a massive fuss over would be road safety and better provision of cycle ways for cyclists. If a fraction of the effort of arguing about bloody helmets on here went in to emailing your MP's and trying to get things changed maybe less people would end up landing on their heads in the first place!
YOU NEVER HEAR ANYONE COMPLAINING...
So people who still cycle don't complain about helmets.
Perhaps you should be asking the people who [i]don't[/i] cycle?
Last I heard cycling levels in Australia were still falling, particularly amongst children:
http://road.cc/content/news/96884-levels-cycling-falling-australia-according-national-survey
And some academics were calling for the law to be repealed for a trial period:
http://road.cc/content/news/21503-strewth-aussie-academic-calls-repeal-countrys-compulsory-bike-helmet-laws
If a fraction of the effort of arguing about bloody helmets on here went in to emailing your MP's
I'm a member of the CTC, I volunteer and donate to Sustrans, and I'm a member of my local cycle campaign. I've emailed my MP a few times (he is a cyclist as well and spoke well at the recent Get Britain Cycling debate in parliament).
I've emailed my MP a few times (he is a cyclist as well and spoke well at the recent Get Britain Cycling debate in parliament
Lucky you. Mine is an ex director of car manufacturers. I've emailed him a few times, but only because he didn't reply to the first two emails! He didn't reply to the third either so I gave up.
It's not all good bails. He's still a Tory 😀
D'you know, me and my poor little brain have been thinking about this all night. 🙁 I'm still uncomfortable with the idea that there's a level of head-related fatality that's acceptable as a consequence of getting people riding bikes. 🙁
Last I heard cycling levels in Australia were still falling, particularly amongst children
Which has nothing to do with an increase in traffic and parents terrified to let their kids out of their sight.
Compulsory helmet laws don't seen to be working though as about 25% of those I have seen today are not wearing them (Perth wa) and about 10% are doing the dangle on the bars thing.
I'm still uncomfortable with the idea that there's a level of head-related fatality that's acceptable as a consequence of getting people riding bikes.
Take helmets out of the equation then and see if it makes sense:
Are you comfortable with the idea that if people have active healthy lifestyles then a small number of them will get hurt and possibly even die while pursuing those lifestyles?
e.g. Some people will break their neck mountain biking. Does that put you off promoting mountain biking as a fun healthy hobby?
Which has nothing to do with an increase in traffic and parents terrified to let their kids out of their sight.
Yeah that's exactly the point I'm making though.
It promotes a culture of fear. Some parents are too terrified to let their kids ride bikes and part of the reason for that is the perception that riding a bike is so incredibly dangerous that it requires mandatory safety equipment at all times by law.
Are you comfortable with the idea that if people have active healthy lifestyles then a small number of them will get hurt and possibly even die while pursuing those lifestyles?
I think yes, as long as a degree of reasonable precatution is taken. But that kinda just takes us back to where we started... 🙂
I know it's argued that the risk is that people will be less healthy if they decide not to ride because helmets are compulsory, but is there any likelihood of the aforementioned people already being fairly healthy to start with? My thinking being, a compulsory helmet law is unlikely to make any difference to people leading an unhealthy lifestyle anyway, as I don't think it's the helmets/perceived danger that's putting them off.
It's hard to say, but what we do know is that "too dangerous" feature prominently when you ask people why they don't cycle, especially if we talk about cycling on the road.
[img] 
?itok=GPeZO4a6[/img]
http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/barriers-cycling
This report is a very illuminating read:
http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/50409/1/Understanding_Walking_Cycling_Report.pdf
Hmm, those ARE interesting - thanks for posring. 🙂 9% of all journeys in Sweden and Finland are cycled, compared to 1.5% here? I wouldn't have expected that, them Nordics are made of stern stuff! 🙂