Cyclists have to ‘help themselves’ by wearing a helmet says Bradley Wiggins

mark shelton wrote:

Could anyone tell me (silly question, of course they will) where all these anti helmet cyclists ride? because where i ride it's very very rare i ever see a cyclist without a helmet! But as soon as a post or article goes live they seem to be everywhere, do they just sit in front of their computers waiting for the chance to pounce on us misinformed helmet wearers instead of riding their bikes, numbers of non helmeted riders on the roads where i ride suggest this. Compulsory helmet wearing not sure? riders make their own choice on safety, each to their own, and i'm not against anti helmet wearing cyclists whatsoever before you start.

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.

velocreative wrote:

I have to agree with Wiggo. I was actually pushed off my bike by a driver who got out of his car and came up behind me. The 'push' was hard enough to cause me to fall almost 'prone' and the side of my head to strike the pavement.

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

hampstead_bandit wrote:

I come into road cycling from mountain biking, where helmet use is very common; especially once I got into Downhill racing and Freeriding.

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.

ron611087 wrote:

hampstead_bandit wrote:

I come into road cycling from mountain biking, where helmet use is very common; especially once I got into Downhill racing and Freeriding.

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.

Batchy wrote:

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?

Batchy wrote:

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.

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?

Migstu wrote:

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...

Migstu wrote:

You can't have an argument with an idiot

Your post is proof of that.

Migstu wrote:

a helmet may not save you all of the time surely there can be no doubt that it can do with many falls.

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.

Migstu wrote:

ones fragile skull hitting a concrete kerb is always going to be bad news

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.

Migstu wrote:

I cannot believe the venom in some of the comments against Bradley for expressing an entirely justafiable opinion.

What venom? Bradley expressed an uninformed, possibly prejudiced, opinion in a public forum that lots of people have taken issue with, me included.

Migstu wrote:

Get over yourselves you non helmet wearing chumps

What was that you were saying about venom?

Migstu wrote:

You can't have an argument with an idiot

"justafiable"
"storey"

Whatever argument you might have thought you were having, you've rather undermined it there...

Batchy wrote:

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.

giff77 wrote:

Batchy wrote:

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 !