[Closed] Wiggo on helmets

Just to allow some sense of numbers to seep in here. Does anyone know of any source of figures on cycling fatalities what describes in collisions with vehicles proportions dying from head injuries, proportion dying from other injuries (blood loss, internal bleeding, crushed torso etc).

I suspect it’s biased much towards the latter. Myself I wear a helmet, because if I slip a chain, tumble, or have a lower speed collision (as I have once) what could be a significant/serious head injury is nothing. I do not imagine for a moment my helmet will stop my getting a punctured lung.

If nothing else Wiggins has opened a debate on mainstream media, the CTC have been on five live, and its being covered in the newspapers. The Mail will always write what the Mail likes. But a conversation, in the national media.

Also he won stuff, was probably still very tired and full of endorphins, and lots of people pointed microphones at him, not like he prepared a statement...

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

This applies to any head injuries, not just those you get whilst cycling. So why pick out cycling for compulsion?

Are helmets compulsory in road racing?

Whenever I go see the management at work about a point I feel impassioned about (it does not matter it 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

+1, times a million, with cherries, nuts and chocolate sprinkes on top - Bang on the money, post of the thread there Convert!

I should have added we shouldn't be made to do anything when the individual is the only one who will be affected

Well you fell and injure yourself the NHS pays the bill therefore I am affected.

mastiles you owe me a new screen keyboard.

First of all deepest sympathies to the family of the killed cyclist . Another one in a growing list. Secondly, I feel deeply let down by Bradley Wiggins' comments on this. I agree that cyclists should take safety precautions and act legally and responsibly, but making helmets compulsory misses the point and is a red herring. If I am run over by a bus, there is more of my body to be worried about than my head. I would rather the bus didn't hit me or run over me in the first place. The problem we have in this country just now are bikes trying to coexist on roads that are just not designed with the bikes in mind and the complete lack of political will by governments and councils to provide safe cycle ways for the ever increasing numbers of cyclists who are choosing to travel by bike. I just wish Brad had chosen to make those points, and not add weight to the red herring argument on helmets.

This applies to any head injuries, not just those you get whilst cycling. So why pick out cycling for compulsion?

Cos it's the only time I am flying along at 25mph or more in amongst traffic with nothing else protecting my head.

Of course if I rode a motorbike that would also apply, and I'd also wear a helmet.

I just wish Brad had chosen to make those points, and not add weight to the red herring argument on helmets

He didn't really. He said that there was a lot that could be done on BOTH sides, and on the cyclist side that includes things like taking some responsibility - not wearing headphones, riding properly and wearing helmets.

4 pages so soon. Skim reading this it appears

that it isn't a wiggo hatefest as some hyperbole as suggested
and
The "naysayers" don't tell everyone not to wear helmets, they're just anti compulsion

The effectiveness of helmets isn't proven but I still wear one 90% of the time, and I'll make sure my kids to wear one until they are old enough to decide for themselves. Compulsion would be a bad move tho I reckon because unfortunately the risk assessment of drivers does seem to be affected by helmet use and there does appear to be blame put onto the victim already, if more onus is put onto helmet use we could get to the stage where drivers hits and kills cyclist, driver is found at fault but receives no punishment due to rider not having a helmet.[img] [/img]

Came off my bike a couple of weeks ago and if it wasn't for the peak on the helmet my face would have been sliding along the tarmac. Personally if you ride without one then you have no one else to blame and shouldn't get any sympathy. Why do we think it is madness for people to ride motorbikes without helmets but not bikes. It's not like helmets are expensive and ugly like the old days.

Wiggo was actually saying that cyclist have to take responsibility for themselves as well as motorists. As he said its not like either is going to disappear.

Well you fell and injure yourself the NHS pays the bill therefore I am affected.

Really? You really want to head down that route with your line of thinking? Maybe if people didn't cycle at all then it would further reduce costs. Maybe if people stopped smoking, drinking, taking drugs, driving, knitting, falling off scaffolding...it would save 'you' even more money? Anyway, don't you live in France?

Cos it's the only time I am flying along at 25mph or more in amongst traffic with nothing else protecting my head.

I'm assuming most here don't use helmets for those activities, like I said wear a helmet when you want but compulsorising it 🙂 isn't a great move I reckon.

*btw if someone slipped on ice while walking into a business premises and then tried to sue the business, I wonder how far the defence would get with "the plaintiff wasn't wearing a helmet in obviously dangerous conditions so we're filing for contributory negligence"

Personally if you ride without one then you have no one else to blame and shouldn't get any sympathy.

Personally, I think that's a disgusting comment to make.

Would you say that to the face of the family of this guy who was killed if it turned out he wasn't wearing a helmet but that his death was due to dangerous driving by the bus driver?

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

You seem to be close to arguing that a helmet makes it more dangerous for us as drivers will think we are safe to hit if helmeted.....do they really do this ?
Ps that oft quoted study from the Bath guy [distance from riders] is weak and even he accepts that point.

This applies to any head injuries, not just those you get whilst cycling. So why pick out cycling for compulsion?

it is an interesting grey area though

if more onus is put onto helmet use we could get to the stage where drivers hits and kills cyclist, driver is found at fault but receives no punishment due to rider not having a helmet.

Hmm.. that is a risk, but I believe it would be easy to argue otherwise.

You might get a reduced payout, because you might say in the case of a small accident that the cyclist had not taken reasonable steps to mitigate injury. However, it's also reasonable to oblige motorists not to hit cyclists, I don't think that will ever change.

We are talking about road users not shower acrobatics. Most people on here can acheive 30mph on a road with a little downhill assistance. A moped is restricted to 30mph. Why do we see cyclists as anything different needing special treatment because they have to propel their transport.

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

Yes. Twice in the last few years. One car reversed into me whilst I was on a cycle lane doing about 17mph. I smacked my head into the ground, no crash helmet. such was the speed my arms could not break the fall and my head just went straight through them onto the tarmac. I was very lucky, I was wearing a beany hat and only grazed the side of my face which took the brunt. My nose pi$$ed with blood and felt like it was broken but it wasn't. Another time a car pulled out of a junction and drove straight into the side of me. I was knocked across into the other side of the road and I remember landing on my back. Fortunately I had a rucksack on with spare clothes and a towel in it and I was wearing a crash helmet. Both quite probably saved me a lot of pain... -as well as the driver going the other way who managed to stop in time.

Glad that pic of Wiggo and his son was put up here on P1..

"Pointy finger at yer self son before pointy fingering at us"

For those speculating about last night's accident, it seems to have been a rider trying to pass a left-turning bus on the inside at some traffic lights (like we wouldn't have guessed...).

Jeremy Vine's twitter links to a blog from a guy who witnessed it, but probably best avoided for those of a sensitive disposition as the guy was eyeball to eyeball with the poor soul as he expired and it doesn't make for pleasant reading. Sorry, not got a link.

i suspect the police will be only to happy to escort rebel bikers to a cashpoint machine for a on the spot £80 fine should a compulsory helmet law come into existance

i suspect the police will be only to happy to escort rebel bikers to a cashpoint machine for a on the spot £80 fine should a compulsory helmet law come into existance

We are talking about road users not shower acrobatics. Most people on here can acheive 30mph on a road with a little downhill assistance. A moped is restricted to 30mph. Why do we see cyclists as anything different needing special treatment because they have to propel their transport.

And cars regularly have accidents at speeds way in excess of 30mph. c50% of in car deaths (greater number than annual cyclist deaths) result of head inujuries. Helmets for car occupants?

Helmets for car occupants?

Car drivers are sitting inside what is effectively a safety helmet. If that's your arguement against not wearing an helmet you'll need to do better.

Yes i do live in France, so does it means I am not entitle to debate on a UK based forum. Looks like you have been listening to what Z11 and the BNP have said then.

And it's funny about what you says about smoking and drinking. Everyone knows it's dangerous, however people keep doing it. Compulsory messages on cigarettes boxes and drinks bottles probably haven't stop people to use both.

I always wear a helmet when out on the bike for a ride, occasionally don't wear one if just cycling to the shops etc but I probably should!

Making them compulsory would help change peoples minds about not wearing one but I don't think you should be fined etc if you didn't have one. It's your choice at the end of the day, you know the risk of not wearing it.

There is countless number of cases where helmets have saved peoples lives, yes of course in many cases they dont halp at all but I would rather wear one to reduce the risk even if it was by a small amount! There was a boy in the paper (not bike related) got punched and fell and cracked his head on the edge of a kerb and is now fighting for his life. That could easily happen on a bike too, a freak accident where a helmet would help.

I for one always think about what could happen when not wearing a helmet even if it is just mucking about around the streets.

Plus some of the 'lids' out there this now are 'well cool'!

Moving off in a slightly different tack I wonder what effect Wiggo's comments may have on any chance of a compulsory helmet law being proposed? The last time it was a private members bill sponsored by some NuLab scrote in the mid 2000s, that ran out of parliamentry time. Now, with a split coalition losing what little support it had, what better way of papering over the cracks and being seen to have 'caught the public mood' and having a grip than to introduce an easy-to-pass law? And has been pointed out earlier, another useful source of chance taxation.

i suspect the police will be only to happy to escort rebel bikers to a cashpoint machine for a on the spot £80 fine should a compulsory helmet law come into existance

and what about children?

Well they always have and always will be exempt from any laws. Police would usually only go after the type of normally law abiding person anyway.

If the helmet is made legal, who is going to police the effectiveness of said helmet?
I had an off a couple of weeks ago, landing square on my helmet (certainly was painful matron) that I assume means it's time to buy a new one. But, I could quite legally ride under the new law as I would be riding with a helmet, albeit a totally ineffective one.
MOTs for helmets?

and what about children?

Car drivers are sitting inside what is effectively a safety helmet.

Apologies for the glib comments but just using the same arguments

Don Simon, thats the same with motorbike helmets. You also have the factor that the older they get they lose their effectiveness as the materials start to change. I think the recommendation is renew every 5 years.

Plus some of the 'lids' out there this now are 'well cool'!

Yeah that was what made me wear one for the first time I was IIRC 17 at the time, walking down the main street from college to catch the bus when I saw a bloke commuting down with a cool MTB and a peaked helmet and I though, wow this is so cool.
Why wouldn't people wear one is just beyond my understanding.

Most people on here can acheive 30mph on a road with a little downhill assistance. A moped is restricted to 30mph. Why do we see cyclists as anything different needing special treatment because they have to propel their transport.

Not asking for special treatment.

All I'm saying is that if you are moving quickly in amongst traffic, then your head should be protected. That could be by means of a big steel rollcage and airbags, or a helmet.

I don't think that's unreasonable, is it?

despite seatbelts plenty of people unfortunately still manage to sustain head injuries.

Er, seatbelts and airbags etc do not ELIMINATE injuries but they do REDUCE them a lot.

Are you saying if something's not 100% effective then it's worthless?

Given that one of the major arguments against helmets has been it puts people off cycling... How does Brad's success negate that factor. Looks like you could get more people cycling whilst they are also wearing helmets. EVERYONE WINS!!!

D0NK - Member
Car drivers are sitting inside what is effectively a safety helmet.
you do know about momentum don't you? it's the reason we have seatbelts, without which you'll rattle around inside the "helmet" quite alarmingly, also despite seatbelts plenty of people unfortunately still manage to sustain head injuries. Why do motorists need special treatment*

Apologies for the glib comments but just using the same arguments

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.

A driver is strapped in place to keep them where they are most safe whilst been able to operate the controls.

I'm pro helmets, I think they are a good idea and would recommend everyone use one but I think the compulsion argument is weak, flawed and comes with several drawbacks. Recommend people use them, advertise them, give them out to kids/adults whatever, just don't say you MUST wear one at all times please.

Helmets and headphones an irrelevant distraction

He wasn't commenting on that particular accident though.

He was talking about the responsibilities of cyclists in general, which was a fair point. Comments being taken out of context.

and yet hundreds of car occupants die from head injuries every year, why aren't you arguing for helmet compulsion in car occupants?

Because the aim is to take some steps to reduce injuries. In cars some reasonable steps have been taken - car safety, NCAP etc. For pedestrians, steps have also been taken - pavements and crossings.

Seems odd not to bother when cycling, doens't it?

Wiggo competes in a sport that has seen helmet compulsion. Remember when helmets were optional, then could be removed for climbing? Remember Fabio Casertelli? It's a slightly different culture to shop pootling.

Personally, I'd rather see compulsion as everyone knows where they stand. I speak as an interested party - having a teenager who knows everything and removes his to ride to school.

Why would you want to wear earphones and make one of your senses less effective?
You wouldn't ride with one eye closed, would you?

and what about children?

Pickle them?

Does that mean we should talk about body armour for ducks

Can we please

double post

one small comment by someone generates all this debate?
are you ALL trolling each other?

Yay! Top thread in BIKE and bloody CHAT forums. The old round and round in ever decreasing circles helmet debate.
FANTASTIC.

God have mercy on my restless soul, I've spawned a monster