Wiggo on helmets

For what it’s worth I got side swiped by a car 6 years ago. My head hit the ground, my helmet cracked in half, if I had not of been wearing one, I’d probably be dead now.

Cyclists should be made to wear helmets, the same as motorists should be made to wear seatbelts. If you don’t wear one your a fool.
Of course they won’t stop you being crushed by a truck, but there’s loads of accidents on bikes where the person gets injured by means other than getting crushed by a bus

I have to pay for your injuries when a driver isn’t sure if he can overtake you safely, sees that you’re wearing a helmet, decides it’s just safe enough, and then leaves bits of you all over the road.

EDIT: And why wouldn’t he think it makes his dodgy overtaking manoeuvre safer? Cyclists are always telling him that anyone who doesn’t wear a helmet is an idiot.

Really… Reeeallly???

This place is going to the shit.

geologist – Member
For what it’s worth I got side swiped by a car 6 years ago. My head hit the ground, my helmet cracked in half, if I had not of been wearing one, I’d probably be dead now.

Cyclists should be made to wear helmets, the same as motorists should be made to wear seatbelts. If you don’t wear one your a fool.

perfect example of someone not having looked into this debate AT ALL.

More Peds killed by cars than cyclists but no-one advocates helmets/lights/highviz/headphones for them.

More Ducks are killed by shotguns than soldiers.
Does that mean we should talk about body armour for ducks.

Okay, I’ll not just be flippant this morning. Baron von Wiggo (if Tanni Grey can, why not Wiggo) was ambushed and will have to get used to the idea that he is this year’s go to guy for a cycling quote. We should be demanding separation, either by drivers giving more space and waiting until safe to pass, or by proper physical barriers between cyclists and others. The dutch did it by demanding it and forcing change politically. I love to ride on the road, but I do it much less than I might. Every time I ride there will be more than one occasion when someone gets so close, so fast that if either me or the driver had had the most minor twitch, I’d be sent flying. It’s shit, and I’m sick of it. Don’t come back at me with the ride defensive, stuff, I do that, I tell others to do that(bikeability instructor), lots of the time it isn’t enough.

Lets hope it leads to quantitative research, rather than a law based on anecdotes and celebrity.

Any time politicians spend looking at helmet laws is time not spent looking at more pedestrian & cyclist friendly road design and liability laws.

In my mind, this is the biggest reason against compulsion.

I too am in the postion of having either survived a potentially fatal incident or limited my potential injuries by wearing a helmet. But I still believe that it should be the choice of the individual to decide if they should wear or not.

My father, 76 years old and with an impressive civic record, rides half a mile along quiet country roads to visit his neighbours, and participate in his community activites. Why should he risk criminalisation for not wearing a helmet? Given the choice of riding with helmet compulsion or driving, he’ll drive.

STFU Wiggo!

It might have saved you from injury or lessened any injury you sustained, but it didn’t save your life. If a truck is gonna kill you, a bit of polystyrene isn’t going to stop it.

That is just silly. It is a bit like saying ‘it’s pointless wearing a seat belt in a car because if an 18-wheeler travelling at 60mph t-bones you as you pull out of a junction you aren’t going to survive anyway’. At the end of the day, any safety feature is going to save lives so even a 0.000001% increase in survival rates is surely a good thing yes? Just one child surviving a silly fall or adult surviving a crash with a vehicle because of their ‘bit of polystyrene’ is worth it.

IMO

Cyclists should be made to wear helmets,

No, cyclists should wear helmets. No one should really be made to do anything. If wearing helmets on a motorbike wasn’t a legal requirement I’d still wear one. If wearing a seatbelt in a car wasn’t a legal requirement, I’d still wear one of those too. But its my choice.

I have to pay for your injuries when a driver isn’t sure if he can overtake you safely, sees that you’re wearing a helmet, decides it’s just safe enough, and then leaves bits of you all over the road.

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….

If you really think that helmet is going to be any effin’ use against crush injuries from a forty ton truck then I invite you offer yourself as a practical test subject.

No, I REALLY think a helmet will help when I fall off my bike and hit my head on the ground. Similarly, a bullet proof vest will be useful if I’m being shot at and a bullet hits me in the chest. not so good if its a head shot. Have. A. Word. With. Yourself….

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 forces 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%.

Well if you think that, on balance not wearing a helmet is safer than wearing one then knock yourself out. Well you might actually.

No one should really be made to do anything.

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

“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. I think we have to help ourselves sometimes.

While we can debate helmet law all day (and probably will – again) the key bit for me is I think we have to help ourselves sometimes.. 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 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. Ok, one might be more effective, but you are going to be potentially a lot better off with a crumple zone around your head than with your skull being the crumple zone.

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 suggesting 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 some 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

FTFY
That will show them eh 😕

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%

then it would not be increasing my survival rate it would reduce it

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.

well done for getting the ball rolling….an example to big hitters everywhere of how to address those you disagree with and completely fee of inflammatory guff…well done

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 IF YOUR HEAD STRIKES THE GROUND, 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.

the full quote is on this thread i suggest you read it rather than the headline

Graeme Obree had the right idea – “look wobbly” 😉

when the individual is the only one who will be affected

Tell that to the families of people killed when a helmet may have saved their lives.

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.

if only we had a standardised test to measure the [minimum] effectiveness of a cycle helmet against impact and if only we could compare it to bananas eh

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.

Why, at what speed do RTC occur? I am interested in knowing this speed.

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 actually 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.