- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Bradley Wiggins at start of Tour de Yorkshire 2015Cyclists have to ‘help themselves’ by wearing a helmet says Bradley Wiggins
“I think cyclists have to help themselves in terms of wearing helmets and things,” says Sir Bradley Wiggins. “I think that probably should go some way to becoming the law soon.”
Wiggins’ comments to the London Evening Standard are likely to once again ignite the eternal argument as to whether the wearing of cycle helmets should be made compulsory or not.
Last year, a Transport Research Laboratory report concluded that such legislation would “prevent head and brain injuries, especially in the most common collisions that do not involve motor vehicles, often simple falls or tumbles over the handlebars”. However, others argue that cycling levels fall once helmet use is enforced and conclude that such a measure therefore has a detrimental effect on public health in a broader sense.
This is not the first time that Wiggins has spoken on the issue. In 2012, he was at pains to emphasise that he had not been calling for helmets to be made compulsory, but merely observing that such a move might offer cyclists’ a stronger legal position in the event of a collision. Writing on Twitter, he said:
"Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as reports suggest. I suggested it may be the way to go to give cyclists more protection legally I [sic] involved In an accident. I wasn't on me soap box CALLING, was asked what I thought."
However, by 2013, his position appeared much firmer.
“I think certain laws for cyclists need to be passed to protect us more than anything. Making helmets compulsory on the roads, making it illegal to maybe have an iPod in while you’re riding a bike, just little things like that would make a huge difference.”
On this latest occasion, Wiggins was speaking ahead of his attempt to set a new Hour record next month. He again expressed his hope that his efforts might inspire people to cycle more themselves.
“Something like The Hour record, when you think the distance covered in that, you could cross the length and breadth of London. It maybe changes the outlook for many people of how to get about. Hopefully it will inspire a lot of people to get out there. There might be just one kid in that velodrome who is inspired to do what I do, as I was 20 years ago.
“The atmosphere in the velodrome will be incredible. It’s quite humbling to think a lot of people paid good money to come and watch you do it. If it’s anything like the Olympics was, they will help the time pass a lot quicker.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- hawkinspeter 4 hours 41 min ago
Interesting theory - how many points does it take for them to drive carefully?
- eburtthebike 5 hours 4 min ago
At the end of the consultation in May 2025, a decision will be taken.........
- Grahamd 5 hours 29 min ago
The absurdity of it deepens when you realise that those points were acquired by the age of 26.
- David9694 7 hours 3 min ago
BAM!
- IanGlasgow 7 hours 39 min ago
"Polartec Power Shield RPM fabric – which has a 10,000mm hydro head to keep wet weather out, and an industry-leading breathability spec of 30,000g...
- mdavidford 8 hours 42 min ago
Oxfordshire councils are quite capable of letting you down too!...
- levestane 8 hours 56 min ago
'each spoke' (single) and 'leaf spring' (made of many leaves) seems contradictory.
- PenLaw 9 hours 48 min ago
I guess Morrissey could claim it.
- wtjs 10 hours 14 min ago
I do see a lot of delivery riders (on illegal e-motorbikes) with their faces covered...
- David9694 10 hours 54 min ago
Stuff like this seems more relevant than ever after the Trump victory. sorry not a funny
Add new comment
132 comments
I don't know anyone who is anti-helmet.
I know a number who are pro-helmet.
I used to know some individuals who were pro-compulsion evangelists.
I know a very large number of people who are anti-compulsion. Some of them wear helmets and some of them don't. Some only wear helmets if it is a condition of entry to an event or they are taking part in or an MTB downhill type of activity (they also tend to be wearing body armour). Those that wear helmets do so because they feel more comfortable and more confident wearing one. None of them comment on another's choice.
Don't forget to wear one in the supermarket too. You never know when you might get pushed over and hit your head. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/feb/18/supermarket-row-man-killed
I come into road cycling from mountain biking, where helmet use is very common; especially once I got into Downhill racing and Freeriding.
We would wear ACU Gold rated Motocross helmets until the helmet manufacturers created a new generation of bicycle full face helmets to meet the new Downhill mountain bike standard ASTM F1952-10
This is the riding I did during my Freeriding days, you may understand the desire to wear a decent helmet:
I actually find going down a steep hill on the road bike at 50mph feels more risky than going 40mph down a mountain bike track, because on the road bike its thin lycra and a helmet between you and the road.
On the downhill bike you'd be dressed to crash with full face, body armour (often a spine protector) and knee / elbow guards under motorcross style clothing.
In road cycling I always wear a helmet, its my choice. What others do is their choice, but I don't want to clear up their mess. I will not ride with anyone that turns up without a helmet.
I've attended several serious accidents in public woods and trail centres where people (often casual cyclists) have fallen hard without a helmet and its very unpleasant for all involved, although thankfully often the victim has no memory of the event.
That's not a justification for helmet compulsion. You're mixing sports cycling with utility and leisure cycling and they're not the same. Would you compare rally driving with normal driving? Event organisers have already made helmets compulsory in these events anyway so a law would make no difference.
Just to illustrate the difference in risk between sports cyclists and other cyclists: In the Netherlands less than 1% of cyclists wear helmets, but make up 13% of casualties. These are the sports cyclists.
Your missing the point in what he said. He's not saying making it compulsory, he's saying that it has an advisable aspect to being used.
I personally wear a helmet and always will, but I want that to be my choice and not one that was already made for me.
I don't see this as an argument about safety, it's one about personal freedoms and what message it gives to people about the (imagined) inherent dangers of cycling.
I agree with the point made earlier, the biggest factor in improving safety for cyclists is to properly police the roads and get the worst drivers out there off them so the rest of us can once again enjoy using them (and that includes being able to drive as well as cycle).
For anyone wanting some evidence to guide you through all the opinions that get aired on this perennial topic, there's a link to CTC's summary of the evidence from here: www.ctc.org.uk/helmets.
Roger Geffen
Campaigns & Policy Director, CTC
No time for people wanting compulsion or helmet evangelists.
Helmets should be a personal choice end of.
I have plenty of anecdotes of helmet-less crashes where people didn't die or become cabbages
Compulsory compulsion for those compelled to compel.
Compulsory expulsion for those compelled to be expelled.
If iPods are forbidden, I think all car music systems should be illegal as should the soundproofing of cars which is common to reduce wind and engine noise. I often wear a single ear piece left ear so I can hear cars and music. Are race radios going to be band by wiggo.
As for helmets remember the 60s no motorcycle helmet compulsion? It was great riders rode much more safely as they were no wearing helmets! Since the introduction no one rides motorcycles any more and head injuries have actually increases!
There is an impartial motorcycle site with all the research to prove helmets are a danger to health and freedom! www.ihatehelmets.com that's all the evidence you need!
Two facts:
1. Wearing a helmet does not stop a dickhead from knocking me off or preventing a fall.
2. It does however give me half a chance of getting up and knocking the driver's head off or calling myself every name under the sun.
OK. Just clarify ! So far I am now onto my fifth cycling helmet.All the previous ones have been binned because they have cracked or split following cycling incidents. Now despite sustsaining injuries that include a broken neck of femour and torn rotator cuffs I was not aware at any time that my head had been in contact with anything other than fresh air. Obviously according to the state of my helmets the evidence proved otherwise. In none of my trips to hospital was I asked about whether or not I was wearing a helmet so no evidence was recorded for statistical purposes.Strangely I have fallen off ladders and off rocks and things loads of times when I have not been wearing safety helmets and never hurt my head , obviously because it has never come into contact with anything . There are no reliable statistics available to prove anything regarding wearing cycle helmets. There is common sense though and plenty of opinion including Bradley Wiggin's !
Amen !
OK. Just clarify ! So far I am now onto my fifth cycling helmet.All the previous ones have been binned because they have cracked or split following cycling incidents. Now despite sustsaining injuries that include a broken neck of femour and torn rotator cuffs I was not aware at any time that my head had been in contact with anything other than fresh air. Obviously according to the state of my helmets the evidence proved otherwise. In none of my trips to hospital was I asked about whether or not I was wearing a helmet so no evidence was recorded for statistical purposes.Strangely I have fallen off ladders and off rocks and things loads of times when I have not been wearing safety helmets and never hurt my head , obviously because it has never come into contact with anything . There are no reliable statistics available to prove anything regarding wearing cycle helmets. There is common sense though and plenty of opinion including Bradley Wiggin's !
Amen !
It sounds like you need a helmet for getting out of bed
Your name wouldn't happen to be Frank Spencer would it?
Do you, or in fact any of folks on here recounting, apparently with some pride, how many road accidents they've been in, have as many crashes in your car as you do on your bike?
These anti helmet debates are astonishing. Whilst a helmet may not save you all of the time surely there can be no doubt that it can do with many falls. There's no mystery - ones fragile skull hitting a concrete kerb is always going to be bad news and having an inch of protection is always going to help. People talk of statistics but as we all know these can be easily manipulated to tell whatever storey you want.
I cannot believe the venom in some of the comments against Bradley for expressing an entirely justafiable opinion. Get over yourselves you non helmet wearing chumps and go for a ride .....and why not plug in your iPod , get a fixie, take your brakes off, ignore red lights and wear an eye patch if you need some extra edginess to your cycling...
You can't have an argument with an idiot
Your post is proof of that.
The idea is to cycle in such a manner that you don't fall off. If you find yourself falling off a lot, I believe remedial cycling classes are available.
I find not dwelling on the worst possible outcome of a particular activity helps me immensely. Otherwise one would never drive a car, or even leave the house.
For me, cycling ≠ brain damage.
What venom? Bradley expressed an uninformed, possibly prejudiced, opinion in a public forum that lots of people have taken issue with, me included.
What was that you were saying about venom?
Whatever argument you might have thought you were having, you've rather undermined it there...
When it comes to the helmet debate, road.cc's reader always deliver
The only point I would make, is why would anyone feel compulsion is necessary when the voluntary rate is so far. I rarely bother when pootling about town locally, I'm using quiet roads and the risk is minimal, no different to walking really.
I'm just heading out for a Sunday spin, and I'll be wearing a helmet. I make a choice based on the use case, which I think works rather well.
When I ride with the commuter traffic into London, it seems 95% are wearing helmets. On that basis, a change in the law obviously wouldn't make a "huge difference". If the voluntary rate of seatbelt use was that high back in the 70's, I wonder if we would have had the change in the law that we did.
When someone driving like a dick kills his passengers we don't think to blame the passengers. Why is it so acceptable to do so with cyclists?
Clearly he has an opinion, but given he's previously said that outlawing ipods for people riding bikes would be immensely helpful... well, I'll disregard that opinion as ignorant. YMMV
Compulsory helmets for motorists too, that's what I say
Drumming up column inches before his record attempt?
Much?
Here's Brad setting the example for us all
Closed road, quiet road, parkway, cycle path. The law would be the law.
Oh dear - it really isn't sensible to bring in compulsory seat belts here - and not just for the reasons giff77 gives.
See what compulsory seat belts did for cyclists and pedestrians here
http://rdrf.org.uk/2009/11/02/oh-no-not-seat-belts-again/ and here:
- http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/03/08/how-many-cyclists-and-pedestrians-is-it-al...
Note the effects of risk compensation - which of course happens with helmet wearing, one of the reasons for the population studies showing a somewhat different story to helmet wear than advocates claim, e.g. http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/27/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-l...
You'd think that Bradley wasn't allowed an opinion by some on here. Whatever happened to free speech? Or do you only like hearing the sound of your own opinion.
He's welcome to what he thinks and I guess he doesn't care about the cycling nazis who think otherwise, and in that respect he is right.
Show us the evidence that it works then.
Because a compulsory helmet law for children who we might assume may benefit most seems to have had a rather odd effect...
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1250.html
The helmet debate is old and tired, but the reason it continues is that there are people like you who think of it as a black and white issue when it actually isn't.
If they worked, we would see that reflected in the statistics, but we don't.
Of course all this sort of crap was aired before they introduced compulsory seat belts for cars way back in the sixties ( probably incidentally) before most of you lot were born. It really turned out to be not too much hassle after all did it ! So why the fuss over compulsory cycling helmets ! Get real it is not a big deal !
Some clarification in order here. Compulsory fitting front - 1967 rear 1987. Compulsory wearing front 1987 rear 1991. There was a greater uproar in 1987 about the wearing of belts. Though my instructor in the early 80's insisted I wear one. Meanwhile my dad refused right up to the legislation even though his cars had them. I think a lot of others weren't bothered about them being there until told they had to wear them.
The seatbelt will prevent occupants of a vehicle being thrown about the vehicle. Meanwhile. If a vehicle hits a vulnerable road user they are going to have nothing restraining them as they get flung about the road. I've said this before. The helmet issue is a red herring to road safety. The govt and police need to get tough on speeds in the urban areas, punishment passes and everything else that places pedestrians and cyclists in danger. I remember my provisional licence and subsequent full licence in NI had printed on the inside page a reminder to drive with courtesy care and consideration.
So you get flung off your bike and your head hits something hard. Personally I would rather be wearing a helmet if I was in this situation .Indeed I have been on several occasions and my head is still intact !
Pages