[Closed] Wiggo on helmets

so even a 0.000001% increase in survival rates is surely a good thing yes?

not if it comes at the cost of measure that increase your survival rate by 0.001%.

Can we please stop making seatbelt comparisons.

In an RTC, seatbelt prevents injuries

In an RTC, bicycle helmet does SWEET **** ALL

Seriously, if there's one message that cyclists should be trying to get across to drivers it's that bicycle helmets offer no protection in an RTC.

Hold on, so Wiggo ISN'T TJ?

You never see them in the same place at the same time.

the same as motorists should be made to wear seatbelts

But, But, if you do that then you're restricting their personal liberty, and less people will drive cars, it would be a disaster for motoring.

Next thing, you'll be advocating a law that [b]forces[/b] drivers to make their toddlers sit in child seats, despite the FACT there is no scientific evidence that it makes them any safer than wearing a normal seatbelt.

My head hit the ground, my helmet cracked in half, if I had not of been wearing one, I'd probably be dead now

Not sure why I'm bothering to say this, but you can't reach that conclusion from that evidence. Your helmet was designed to fail - that was the helmet absorbing the energy as it's meant to. Your skull would behave differently. You may have been dead without your helmet, but unless you have expertise in the science around this I suggest your "probably" is misguided.

Helmet wearer here btw

OMFG.

Hero one day, despised in the eyes of STW the next. FFS.

Are you on crack? You're suggesting a motorist is more likely to knock you off if you have a helmet because you're safer? Jesus wept....

We all make risk assessments all the time, either consciously or sub consciously.

So yes, if cyclists go around telling drivers that helmets make a blind bit of difference then yes, they're going to believe you and take that into account in their split second risk assessment of whether to pass you or not.

not if it comes at the cost of measure that increase your survival rate by 0.001%.

No one should really be made to do anything.

"So I think when there's laws passed for cyclists, then you're protected and you can say, well, I've done everything to be safe."

He added: "It's dangerous and London is a busy city and a lot of traffic. [b]I think we have to help ourselves sometimes.[/b]

While we can debate helmet law all day (and probably will - again) the key bit for me is [b]I think we have to help ourselves sometimes.[/b]. ie do all you can to make ourselves safe and then push the responsibility onto the drivers. There are always too many people riding dangerously / without lights / with headphones etc etc etc that any safety arguments are undermined to a certain extent.

Ironically if helmets were law, Bradleys little victory lap would have been illegal

Oh dear. The country's cycling God is about to be the subject of a hate -fest by a few fundamentalists.

Seriously. Give the guy a break. It's a hugely emotional day for him, he is confronted with the news of a sad accident, and a microphone is shoved in front of him. He is gonna say the first thing that comes into his head.

Admittedly I haven't seen the interview concerned. However, He cannot really take any other stance on this matter given his high profile, it is the only responsible pov.. It has been recognised that this was an unrehearsed reply, and therefore possibly not the final edit had he been able to prepare a full statement.

No published evidence that parachutes save lives either...

I have now caved in two helmets. Not my head. Apart from cost which is small I cannot see a reason not to wear one.

That said it should be a choice.

If clipped by a car and sustaining blunt head trauma on Tarmac I'd rather crush helmet than skull

In an RTC, seatbelt prevents injuries

In an RTC, bicycle helmet does SWEET **** ALL

Are you on crack? You're suggesting a motorist is more likely to knock you off if you have a helmet because you're safer? Jesus wept....

Actually, there is some evidence [b]suggesting[/b] this - one study with drivers in a simulator found that they left more room when going round unhelmeted cyclists that helmeted ones, the suggestion being that they perceived the helmeted riders as less vulnerable.

Problem is, of course, that one study does not constitute proof, and as I said earlier, there simply haven't been enough studies to suggest anything that would constitute "proof" of anything. That's the problem with this endless debate, people grasp hold of evidence from one study and spout that as "proof" that categorically makes their argument correct. I'm not suggesting that, but in response to your dismissive post, suggesting that you wouldn't need to be "on crack" to propose it as a hypothesis, given that there is [b]some[/b] evidence suggesting this is so.

My opinion on helmet wearing is sometimes i dont wear one. My kids always wear one. Thats my choice.
Having spent a lot of time in the Netherlands you dont see many helmets at all. The ones you will se are the lycra clad roadies. Not the commuters, kids or people going to the pub.
Now in Aus and passing Cars will ofen hurl abuse if you are not wearing a helmet. First couple of times i was struggling to see what the problem was, was just out for a quick spin round the block. Thought it might have ben my lights too bright. I think it actually may be an offence not to wear one here i have since been told. Seemingly it carries a fine. Still i sometimes forget if i am popping to the shop.

just rode in to town and back, with helmet on the way there and without on the way back. Didn't seem to make any difference in the way car drivers or I behaved with or without a helmet. On my return I smashed myself on the head with a hammer, twice. Once wearing a helmet and once without. I think I'll continue to wear a helmet. As for Wiggo, bloody brilliant, can't see helmet compulsion being enforceable, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Are we really going to go down this road again? Yet another post that's going to turn into a competition between the big hitters to get more and more pedantic after each post and post more and more inflammatory guff until they all go running to the mods crying about being bullied.

It's just sad

Given the choice of riding with helmet compulsion or driving, he'll drive wearing a seatbelt, with a valid driving licence, in his road legal MOT'ed car covered by appropriate insurance all by compulsion

so even a 0.000001% increase in survival rates is surely a good thing yes?
not if it comes at the cost of measure that increase your survival rate by 0.001%

If participation rates reduce by compulsion this does not alter the ability of a helmet to protect my head anymore than the number of car drivers affect the ability of seatbelt to protect me

Are we really going to go down this road again? Yet another post that's going to turn into a competition between the big hitters to get more and more pedantic after each post and post more and more inflammatory guff until they all go running to the mods crying about being bullied.

Wiggo could have said that he'd recommend wearing a helmet, but didn't see the need for compulsion, and he could have said that road safety was everyones' resposibilty, and he'd be right, and be supported by the majority of cyclists. But he didn't say that.

Can we please stop making seatbelt comparisons.

In an RTC, seatbelt prevents injuries

In an RTC, bicycle helmet does SWEET * ALL

What?? Are you really that stupid that you actually believe what you've typed there? A helmet does * all in a crash, car involved or otherwise?

Like not abiding to the highwaycode? No phoning while driving, not sticking to the speed limit etc etc...

Apologies - I should have added we shouldn't be made to do anything when the individual is the only one who will be affected. At the end of the day, if everyone applied a bit of common sense to things, we wouldn't have to legislate against stupidity. Which then becomes a vicious circle because people become reliant on laws telling them not to do stupid things rather than applying common sense to a situation. Which in my book is the issue here.

Wearing a helmet is a pretty sensible thing to do and I don't need some random bloke telling me that I should be nor the 5-0 fining me because I'm not wearing one. There is a fair chance that [b]IF YOUR HEAD STRIKES THE GROUND[/b], wearing a helmet will save you from a more serious injury. That is surely common sense no?

You're absolutely certain about that yeah? Because as far as I can see, both are doing exactly the same thing in terms of the physics of limiting the amount of damage you sustain.

A seatbelt isn't a crumple zone. It stops you impacting with the steering wheel, dashboard, or windscreen at speeds that would kill you. A helmet is designed to come into play if there is nothing to stop you hitting solid objects.

With the kind of speeds your head is going to be hitting things in an RTC half an inch of polystyrene is going to be as effective as wearing a bunch of bananas.

and he could have said that road safety was everyones' resposibilty, and he'd be right, and be supported by the majority of cyclists. But he didn't say that.

Graeme Obree had the right idea - "look wobbly" 😉

when the individual is the only one who will be affected

Wiggo could have said that he'd recommend wearing a helmet, but didn't see the need for compulsion, and he could have said that road safety was everyones' resposibilty, and he'd be right, and be supported by the majority of cyclists. But he didn't say that.

Or, he could of just said what he thought. Which he did. He's entitled to his opinion and he's entitled to express it.

A seatbelt isn't a crumple zone. It stops you impacting with the steering wheel, dashboard, or windscreen at speeds that would kill you. A helmet is designed to come into play if there is nothing to stop you hitting solid objects.

With the kind of speeds your head is going to be hitting things in an RTC half an inch of polystyrene is going to be as effective as wearing a bunch of bananas.

I realise that, but both are designed to dissipate energy when you decelerate in a crash (which is what a crumple zone does).

And who says what speed a car hits you in an RTC? It could be at 5mph, it could be at 105mph. Same as in a car. If you get hit at 5mph you'll be fine. If you get hit at 105mph, the chances are you probably won't be. No safety device can guarantee safety, but using them to potentially limit impact will do a lot more than not.

half an inch of polystyrene is going to be as effective as wearing a bunch of bananas.

tell you what wrap your head in bananae and run at a wall head first repeat with helmet...crosses fingers at least one of these knocks some sense in to you 😉

With the kind of speeds your head is going to be hitting things in an RTC half an inch of polystyrene is going to be as effective as wearing a bunch of bananas.

I'm not suggesting that, but in response to your dismissive post, suggesting that you wouldn't need to be "on crack" to propose it as a hypothesis, given that there is some evidence suggesting this is so.

I stand corrected, and apologise for the crack comment. Maybe a bit of weed instead? However, this only makes me fear for my safety more when riding to work on the usual commute. That people [b]actually[/b] think 'he's wearing a helmet, I'll give him less room' is a truly terrifying prospect.

A seatbelt isn't a crumple zone. It stops you impacting with the steering wheel, dashboard, or windscreen at speeds that would kill you. A helmet is designed to come into play if there is nothing to stop you hitting solid objects.

With the kind of speeds your head is going to be hitting things in an RTC half an inch of polystyrene is going to be as effective as wearing a bunch of bananas.

So what about motorcyclists? Or F1 drivers? Are you suggesting fruit would be a better alternative? I disagree with you, you're wrong.

Wiggo was pissed (at his own admission), having just completed the most gruelling 6 weeks imagineable as a cylcist, he'd then been in front of cameras all afternoon and evening, and was hit with the "guys been killed whats your take on it" ambush".

If you watched and listened what he actually said was that it requires give and take on both sides, if as cyclist you ride without a helmet, using your phone or listening to your ipod you can't really complain if bad stuff happens to you, conversely if you drive you need to be tolerant and recognise the frailty of cyclists. He also stumbled with his words when the legality issue was talked about. It was far from clear what he actually meant at that point.

In my mind it was a pretty reasonable response in the circumstances and not at all wrong. So how about getting off the guys back and try celebrating his success rather than seeking some fictional sleight to your virility or "human rights" with which to pull him down?

What?? Are you really that stupid that you actually believe what you've typed there? A helmet does **** all in a crash, car involved or otherwise?

Forgetting to unclip and hitting your head on a kerb, yes a helmet works. If you're racing in a peloton and someone goes down in front of you, yes a helmet works. Riding in a forest and coming off, yes a helmet works. Riding on icy roads then yes, a helmet works.

Getting hit by a car then no, a helmet doesn't work. If we can get that message across to drivers then we'll all be a lot safer.

I struggle with long sentences again but:

Certainly they help, but they are definitely not the answer to road safety.

Poor arguing. It's blatantly obvious that it's not the complete answer. So what? It still helps.

If a truck is gonna kill you, a bit of polystyrene isn't going to stop it.

You're a clever bloke PP and I'm quite surprised you are using this kind of poor logic to justify your stance.

Being run over by a truck - no, it's not going to help.

Being knocked off by a truck and smacking your head on the tarmac - clearly it'll help.

Having your head hit by part of a truck - ask James Cracknell.

Heads contain our most valuable bits, and they are on the end of a short flexible protrudance, so they get tossed around a lot in accidents and bump onto things.

Lolling a bit at the 'common sense it's only half an inch of polystyrene' arguments on this topic, when it really should be a scientific argument. The complete opposite of the religion threads 🙂

Just because Bradley is quite nippy on a bike shouldn't make him the 'go to' person for expertise in road safety. He's in an unfortunate position now of being seen as an ambassador for the sport, expected to comment on stuff by the mainstream media, with probably no training or even the sort of briefing that an MP might get before being pushed out into the bright lights. Actually that would make him fully qualified to be a big hitter on here... I wonder which one he is?

Getting hit by a car then no, a helmet doesn't work.

So a crash in a group and hitting your head, a helmet helps, getting knocked by a car and landing on your head, a helmet doesn't help?

You can surely see why I'm struggling with this?

We all accept that point but we can only control what we are responsible for and campaign for the other stuff

Heads contain our most valuable bits

Incidentally have any of you lot been knocked off or seen anyone be knocked off by a car?

You do know that to achieve 5 star pedestrian crash ratings cars have to have soft squishy bonnets and bumpers to protect pedestrians' heads when they hit? It's clearly an issue.

molgrips - Member
Having your head hit by part of a truck - ask James Cracknell.

Heads contain our most valuable bits, and they are on the end of a short flexible protrudance, so they get tossed around a lot in accidents and bump onto things.

Not according to BruceWee. He may have taken one too many knocks to the head hence is poor arguement on why the head isn't worth protecting.

And just when I thought this country had done enough to make us all feel proud to be British again, another helmet thread comes along.

Fine, keep telling yourselves and more importantly drivers that a helmet is going to help in an RTC. Thanks for doing your bit to make the roads safer for all of us.

I can see where he's coming from on this, taking care of yourself first/ removing an anomoly, however I don't think compulsion is the answer - I don't think it is unforceable, a bit like using a mobile phone whilst driving, how many drivers do you still using a phone whilst driving?

What really gets my goat is folks who make their kids wear a helmet but don't themselves.

It's going to help. It's not going to make you invincible, it's not going to solve traffic issues or prevent accidents.

But it is going to help in a collision involving your head. DEFEINITELY.

Whenever I go see the management at work about a point I feel impassioned about (it does not matter if am totally in the right and it is totally apparent or being cheeky) the first thing I do is make sure I have my own house in order first. It fends off cheap shots, easy point scoring and generally makes my argument more water tight. I really think that is all Wiggins was suggesting here - cyclists do our bit to keep safe, and more importantly LOOK like we are doing our bit, then go for the jugular and demand proper lanes and networks, more protection or whatever is most appropriate from a position of strength.

Winners take stock of the world they REALLY live in, are proactive and take action and ultimately make the difference - whiners and those that just bang on about rights tend to remain marginalised in my opinion.

That people actually think 'he's wearing a helmet, I'll give him less room' is a truly terrifying prospect.

I don't think that's the hypothesis - it's not that people are having that conscious thought and making a decision based on an assessment, I think the suggestion is that their (sub-conscious?) perception is that the cyclist is more / less vulnerable and that their driving reflects this difference. I could be wrong about that as, unlike so many on here, I'm not an expert.

I think the suggestion about riders' behaviour is similar - riders aren't actively thinking "I've got a helmet on so I'm invincible and will therefore ride like a nob" but they perhaps feel less endangered and their riding behaviour reflects this.