Cyclist killed by Olympic bus: witness accounts and Wiggins's input

Well, this has causd controversy hasn't it?

First - Wiggo's comments were made in the abstract having no knowledge of this actual accident, so the media in general need to realise that and stop criticising him. It was a horrible position to be put in.

Second, I wear a helmet, always. A very nice good looking one recommended by this site no less. But if people don't then that's their choice. Personally, I prefer wearing one, but we are responsible adults here and you take responsibility for your own actions. However, what I would say is that in a crash involving any impact with the head (other than, say, a crush injury from a truck, which let's face it nothing will protect you from) then helmets increase your chances of being less seriously hurt. A helmet is not designed to "cushion" an impact - it's designed to break and dissipate the force, which they usually do. They stop that force reaching your skull. They are "sacrificial" in the sense they are supposed to break instead of your skull. Even very low speed impacts to the head can have massive consequences in terms of changing your quality of life. Personally, I prefer to increase my chance of coming off better (it's nothing more - it increases your chances. Nothing can ever protect you fully from every type of crash)

The third thing i have to say is that I totally agree with Wiggo about ipods/phones etc. I come across far too many people who are oblivious to their surroundings on my daily commute and I have seen too many close calls (and been victim of some) where people wearing headphones, which block out one of the most important senses, do odd things. This is not scientific fact - just my experience - but it seems to me that people wearing headphones become less aware in general of their surroundings. Not hearing makes them less likely to look over their shoulder, and I think this is becasue they don't hear the danger before they see it, so don't instictively look for it. Just my opinion - don't shout at me for it, but it's one based on years of commuting through London.

Incidentally, wearing headphones in a car is illegal and people can be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention, so the law already recognises that hearing is an important sense when out on the road.

Thanks Wiggo, maybe u should just stick to pedalling, if I want your opinion on my ability to make risk assements of when I will and will not wear my helmet I will ask. What I need to stop writing I see an someone cycling at 10mph, with out full body armour and there are some children about to climb a tree without attending a risk assements course, wait there's someone running on the road at 12mph without a lid on. Cycling is about freedom and freedom of choice, of all the fatalities from cycling how many involved a vehicle, the majority, so the vehicle is at fault. But the saddest thing is we can forget images like this.

No more pretty girls cruising around. Wiggo your a tool.

This is ridiculous.

Some poor chap died. There is (from the witness account) no suggestion that a helmet may have helped. Extra caution might have. The driver and passengers are probably also a bit messed up.

Wiggo was asked a general question, likely without knowing the background of the above incident. He said helmets were a good idea, as is taking responsibility for your own actions. He is entitled to his opinion, and I've not heard people telling him to be quiet when that opinion coincided with your own.

Cue the same old arguments trotted out yet again. zzzz

I am 100% with thereandbackagain on this, very well expressed.

And KSI rates for walking are slightly higher than for cycling, by distance travelled, so the suggestion about making pedestrians wear helmets, while it sounds ridiculous, is absolutely valid.

If pedestrians should not have to, why should cyclists who are at less risk? Especially when you consider that the injury rate will vary across different types of cycling (sport vs rush-hour commuting vs other transport) and in different environments. Should someone who cycles back-streets to get to the shops on a Sunday morning have to be kitted out like Wiggins?

I don't think that is really necessary, it is an additional expense and has limited potential to save lives as most of those who I see riding in what I would consider more dangerous conditions seem to wear them anyway.

I conclude from the above and all I have researched on the subject that nobody has a definitive answer as to whether helmets do protect cyclists or not. My own experience is that they do but since there is no way anyone will carry out a study to prove it no one will be convinced either way.

The argument that helmets deter people from cycling seems to be based on the experiences in other countries, cultures and climates so cannot be extrapolated to the UK so are of limited use.

In short neither side can prove any point and it remains entirely up to the rider whether to wear a helmet or not.

What it does do is deflect debate away from much more important cycling issues such as poor driving standards in the UK, lack of driver and cyclist training, lack of mirrors and systems to warn of blind side cyclists on lorries and buses, feeble sentencing by the UK judiciary and the dire lack of segregated bike paths in 99% of UK Towns and cities. If all these latter issues were satisfactorily addressed and resolved the helmet issue would be moot as we would have mimicked the Dutch experience.

Until that day apart from our own wits the helmet debate is the only protection many cyclists have.

Horrible story, but sadly not that surprising.

I also think there have been a lot of foolish kneejerk responses to Wiggins' comments on this (and other) threads. He didn't know the specifics of the incident, so he wasn't by any means saying that a helmet would have helped in this instance. His comments should really be taken in isolation as his view about cycling precautions in general. Even if you disagree with them they are perfectly reasonable (and in the case of not having headphones in, downright obvious) things to say.

Two points.

1)Why is there generally so much emphasis on surviving collisions (cue helmet debate), and so little on avoiding them, as if they were inevitable?

2)Shouldn't the degree of protection be proportional to the risk? Racing on road, helmet may be appropriate, off-road mountain biking, helmet and armour may make sense. You wouldn't wear a helmet in a car normally, but would if taking the same car out for a track day.

IMHO how you ride makes a lot more difference than what you wear.

I note the witness took his description of the event down. His subsequent comment about wishing to spare the feelings of the victim's family are worth bearing in mind.

I think it is pretty crap of a journalist to have questioned Wiggins on this at that time. I also think it is outrageous that the media have headlined his comments. He was a racing cyclist who had won an Olympic event that day and not a fully-versed expert at a road safety conference. Particularly as, on the video (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/aug/02/bradley-wiggins-helmet...), he does seem rather tired and as he points out:

"... probably a bit too tipsy to start talking about this now..."

He finishes off with:

"..but you know I'm probably the last person to be on the soap box about all that sort of stuff to be honest"

Bloody hell, a poor bloke has lost his life and all we seem to be concerned over is a comment made by Wiggins about helmets.

It's about time people sat and thought about what they are typing cos at the moment some of the comments already on the forum are crass stupidity.

Have a bit of respect please.

In all the debates over helmets, you always here about the individual who has had an accident, hit his/her spam against the ground/car and are forever greatful (I admittedly am one of those who came off at over 20 miles per hour and landed on the back of my head after having had a car door opened on me).

I have yet to read anyone say they had an accident, came off their bike and hit their head and feel they came out better for not having worn a helmet.

Either those individuals who have had accidents while not wearing helmets are not enilghtening us to how they were better off or, possibly, those who have come off their bikes and hit their heads are not able to write any longer...

The Reddit user who claimed to have been a witness to the incident has taken down his description of the incident because he doesn't want to cause distress for the family of the cyclist. Maybe the text should be removed from this page?

http://www.reddit.com/r/bicycling/comments/xiud7/just_sat_down_with_some...

Wow, I'm wondering how some people can get on their high horse with so much knee jerking.

There's a debate to be continued about the efficacy of wearing a helmet but I'm not sure this is the time to have it, when some poor sod has lost his life, and Wiggins feels his views have been distorted.

Thoughts with victims family.

Thoughts to the witness, I hope I never need to show the inner strength you have - when my time comes I hope there is somebody as good as you there for me. You are the true spirit of humanity.

If the facts are accurate at bicyclinginfo.org... about 600-800 cyclists have been killed each year for the last 20 years in the US in motor vehicle/bicycle accidents; approx. 50-60K injuries occur each year. As a side note: Sadly... we average about 42,000 deaths in motor vehicle accidents.

Most states have motorcycle helmet laws but do not have bicycle helmet laws; although you can find towns or special cases for local governance requiring helmets for bicyclist.

Liability and Fault laws/codes aside... Isn't the argument for helmets really focused on reducing head injuries/brain trauma in non-fatal accidents?

The negative comments about Wiggins and about helmet
wearing remind me why I left road cycling uk!. As any motorcycle rider will tell you - ride defensively. If you
don't you may get away with it most of the time - but at some point there will be a 'black swan' event; Where if your lucky you'll be scared sh**less and not scarred.

Oh yes, don't wear an Ipod, use a phone or jump the lights - the first two are distractions, the last one is illegal. If cyclists don't take road craft seriously and take responsibility for their actions then perhaps legislation will be used. What you prefer ?.

As for helmets - no helmet, no brainer really!
Justin,
Berks

One question for all the people on this site saying banning headphones whilst cycling (because you can't hear the other road users) Can deaf people hold a UK driving Licence.

Ans. Yes for cars and vans without even informing DVLA of condition PSV and large vans/lorries Yes but have to inform DVLA.

Unfortunately a bad user of a road is going to continue being a bad user/risk to you wether you can hear them or not.

strange that wiggo thinks helmets should be compulsory and ipods and phones be made illegal whilst cycling because he wasn't wearing one the other sunday while out riding with his son in paris and for the three weeks before that he was cycling at speed in a big group with an earpiece in his ear and talking into a microphone!!!

Awful

RIP

drheaton wrote:

You cycle along busy roads surrounded by traffic

No. No, I don't. I live in the countryside and prefer to cycle along quiet lanes. When I go into the city, I follow the Sustrans route along little roads and traffic-free paths. Why should I be compelled to wear a helmet?

Let's ban everone from the roads everywhere, no matter what form of transport. Then we can all stay at home and be nice and safe - problem sorted.

Interesting andybwhite how you quote guidance regarding "Strict Liability Contempt under the Contempt of Court Act 1981" that does not support your point of view at all. Sorry you are still wrong.

Let's quote correctly from the CPS's own website shall we?

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/contempt_of_court/

"'Constructive' or indirect contempt, e.g. the publication of a newspaper article prejudicing a forthcoming trial (this may also be referred to as 'Strict Liability Contempt', although publication of such prejudicial matter may also be a contempt at common law). This is known as a civil contempt." - ie charges have to have been brought.

"Strict Liability Contempt under the Contempt of Court Act 1981
The strict liability rule may render the publication a contempt regardless of any intent to interfere with the course of justice in the proceedings" - again, charges have to been brought.

I think if you stick to your mistaken view you'll just look like an idiot.

In fact if you were write newspapers would be struggling for news even more than they are now. This does not mean that newspapers can publish what they like they still have to stick to known facts and not libel people.

This is such a fraught debate, with accusations of bad science, victim blaming, a bewildering array of "solutions" and personal anecdote. I'm still going to wade in with my opinion though.

I wear a helmet, nearly all of the time. Sometimes I don't, and I wish that was more of the time. If I'm out on a club run on the fast bike I do. If I'm in a sportive, surrounded by other cyclists, I do. Likewise if I'm commuting, going at a reasonable clip, I do. If I'm pottering down to the local cafe on my Friday bike, I don't.

When I was at University (quite some time ago now) I saw a friend go from an absolute dead-cert First Class honours student to someone who had trouble speaking, stuck in a wheelchair. She'd been hit by a car, and suffered head injuries. I also heard the screams of a mother and child being crushed under the wheels of an HGV that left-hooked them. I never, ever, want to hear that sound again.

Despite that, I think helmet compulsion for riding on the road is a terrible idea.

Helmets help in some circumstances, in others the evidence is more equivocal. One thing is clear though; helmet compulsion does not improve cycling rates, it can surpress them.

All things being considered for me, this comes down to the sources of, and counters to, risk. And that's group risk as well as individual risk.

Nothing you wear will save you from an HGV crush injury. A helmet could save you from a life-changing head injury, but they are comparatively rare. Most cyclist deaths are either high-speed impacts on fast roads, or being crushed, from what I've seen of the stats.

However, legislating for helmets could prevent lots of people doing something that potentially improves their overall health, and quality of life. Also, if far more people cycled, I think there'd be more overall awareness of how cyclists behave.

The bravest steps, and unfortunately probably the most expensive and politically unacceptable, involve road infrastructure changes, introduction of strict liability and better police and CPS responses to incidents involving people on bikes. That's people on bikes, not cyclists. We're not a different species.

At the extreme end of the spectrum you could argue for a driving license that made you go bike -> motorbike -> car and then on to encourage a wider appreciation of the requirements of other road users. I tell you one thing, being a cyclist has made me a much more risk-averse, considerate and safer driver.

There. I'm glad I got that off my chest.

The last two posts don't add to the debate at all. Very poorly argued. The risk of head injury when inside a car is negligible due to the body of the car and seatbelt protecting your head. The risk of head injury when walking is higher but not much more likely at all. Risks would ba walking into something, something falling on you and head trauma after collision with vehicle. All fairly unlikely.

The risk of head injury in cycling accident are higher due to element of speed with no other protection, risk of head hitting tarmac esp with head on accidents and height off ground. The lack of driving skills of many drivers and the incidence of potholes. If in 10% of these cases a helmet would prevent or lessen the risk of death or serious injury then there is an arguable case for helmet use.