- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Gordon Ramsay's bruise and helmet after cycling accidentGordon Ramsay says helmets are “crucial” for cyclists no matter “how short the journey is”, after accident leaves him with a terrible bruise
British celebrity chef and TV presenter Gordon Ramsay has called for all cyclists to wear a helmet, regardless of how short the journey is or how expensive it might be, after being involved in a crash that left him with trauma and a terrible bruise.
The 57-year-old culinary sensation, well-known for his brash demeanour and ample usage of the F-word (and erm, his beef wellington recipe too) is a keen cyclist and triathlete, having completed the Ironman World Championship course in Hawaii through an invitational slot in a time of 14 hours, 4 minutes back in 2013.
But it seems that one of his recent rides in Connecticut has ended in a crash, with Gordon sharing information about the aftermath through his social media in a video where he thanks medical professionals for looking after him and lifts his chef’s jacket to reveal a terrible, purple patch of bruise on the left side of his abdomen. He also shared images of his torn jersey and damaged helmet.
An important #FathersDay message from me…WEAR A HELMET ! This week I had a bad accident while riding my bike in CT. I'm doing ok and I’m thankful for all the doctors, nurses and staff at @LMHospital who looked after me but most thankful for my helmet that saved my life. Be Safe pic.twitter.com/UMjaoXGpkc
— Gordon Ramsay (@GordonRamsay) June 15, 2024
“You know how much I love cycling and triathlons and Ironman. This week, unfortunately, I had a really bad accident and it really shook me,” he says in the video. “Honestly, I’m lucky to be here. Those incredible trauma surgeons, doctors and nurses in the hospital who looked after me this week, they were amazing.
“But honestly, you’ve got to wear a helmet. I don’t care how short the journey is, I don’t care the fact that these helmets cost money, but they’re crucial. Even with the kids, [on] a short journey, they’ve got to wear a helmet.
“Now I’m lucky to be standing here. I’m in pain, it’s been a brutal week. I’m sort of getting through but I cannot tell you the importance of wearing a helmet. This weekend is massive, for new fathers, for old fathers, for middle-aged fathers, I want to wish you all a very happy father’s day.
“But please, please please please, wear a helmet because if I didn’t, I wouldn’t be here now.”
While details about the ride and the subsequent crash are unclear, Gordon wrote on Instagram that it happened when he was riding his Specialized Roubaix in Connecticut, USA.
He wrote: “I’m doing ok and did not break any bones or suffer any major injuries but I am a bit bruised up looking like a purple potato. I’m thankful for all the doctors, nurses and staff at Lawerence + Memorial Hospital in New London who looked after me and checked me out, but most thankful for my helmet that saved my life.”
While wearing a helmet is a mandatory requirement in some parts of the world such as Australia, Argentina and Japan, cyclists in the UK, or even in the USA where Gordon was riding his bike, don’t have to wear one.
The Highway Code says: “You should wear a cycle helmet that conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened. Evidence suggests that a correctly fitted helmet will reduce your risk of sustaining a head injury in certain circumstances.”
However, there is a longstanding debate amongst cyclists whether wearing a helmet for commuting should be mandatory or not, with many of the belief that in an ideal world, all vulnerable road users, including cyclists and pedestrians, should be free to travel without needing additional equipment.
> Why is Dan Walker’s claim that a bike helmet saved his life so controversial?
While helmets add a layer of protection for cyclists and reduces odds of a head injury, in 2006, Dr Ian Walker of the University of Bath conducted an experiment where he discovered that cyclists are afforded more space by passing drivers if they are (or at least appear to be) female or if they’re not wearing a helmet.
Another study from 2019, presented at the National Road Safety Conference, also suggested “a higher accident/injury rate may result from helmet usage” and argued that “there is strong evidence that helmeted cyclists suffer a higher rate of upper body limb injuries than non-wearers, suggesting a higher rate of falls than non-wearers.”
And then there’s the research from Australia that made headlines this time around last year, revealing that an alarming number of people do not see cyclists as human, with those riding bicycles while wearing helmets or safety vests seen as less human compared to those without.
The researchers concluded that dehumanisation related more to visible safety gear than obstruction of hair or eyes and the perceptions of dehumanisation also varied based on respondent gender.
> Academic behind ‘cyclists seen as less human’ study: “If you have a safe and normal cycling culture, how could you see people as anything but human?”
While most of the replies on his social media posts are positive and thankful that he came out of the crash without any serious injuries, it didn’t take much time for cyclists and campaigners to familiarise Gordon Ramsay with the eternal helmet debate.
Complete shite, Gordon. pic.twitter.com/cHqN9p8tJF
— CyclingMikey the Unspeakable (@MikeyCycling) June 16, 2024
Gordon Ramsay isn’t the first public figure to dip his feet into these murky territories. Last year, Channel 5 presenter Dan Walker was hit by a car driver while cycling in Sheffield, leaving him unconscious for 25 minutes. Sharing pictures of his bloodied face from the hospital, he wrote: “The helmet I was wearing saved my life today so - if you’re on a bike - get one on your head.”
The comment proved to be highly controversial, launching one of the great episodes in the well-trodden helmet safety debate path as many cyclists expressed their disapproval and challenged the evidence behind the slogan “Don’t be a helmet, wear a helmet”, that was shared by the former BBC Breakfast host.
In February this year, Walker mused on the aftermath, saying: “Within 24 hours I'd had drivers tell me that if it had been them, they'd have finished the job,” Walker recalled. “I had cyclists telling me I was a disgrace for saying that my helmet saved my life. ‘You’re the reason people wear helmets’. There’s a lobby, apparently, that says if you wear a helmet drivers think you're safer than you are, therefore they hit you.”
“So I got people angry on all sides and I thought, ‘I don’t want to enter this. I’m very happy that I'm still around’. There's a part of me that genuinely thought that was it.”
Adwitiya joined road.cc in 2023 as a news writer after completing his masters in journalism from Cardiff University. His dissertation focused on active travel, which soon threw him into the deep end of covering everything related to the two-wheeled tool, and now cycling is as big a part of his life as guitars and football. He has previously covered local and national politics for Voice Cymru, and also likes to write about science, tech and the environment, if he can find the time. Living right next to the Taff trail in the Welsh capital, you can find him trying to tackle the brutal climbs in the valleys.
Latest Comments
- ktache 2 hours 41 min ago
The size of milk collection tankers...
- Rendel Harris 5 hours 36 min ago
You did. But you also said "don't do things just because 'real cyclists' do them" which implies, well it doesn't so much as imply as much as state,...
- Cycle Happy 5 hours 59 min ago
I have the same light with the small Bluetooth remote to quickly switch modes. Overall, it's fantastic. My main gripe with it is when it reaches...
- Secret_squirrel 5 hours 59 min ago
Because the price points are so wide between 105 and DA.
- HalfDanHalfBiscuit 6 hours 12 min ago
"blend in by day, stand out at night" I don't really want to blend in by day.
- No Reply 6 hours 49 min ago
That's irrelevant. Why should the customer be forced to pay for all the sports that they dont watch? Why have to pay for football when I don't want...
- chrisonabike 7 hours 55 min ago
A tragedy - sounds like one of those robotaxis though, are they allowed here? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3le1z892vo
- Rich_M 7 hours 56 min ago
Great, thanks for your reply - much appreciated!
- ktache 10 hours 43 min ago
We have a new BKRY here in Cvrshm.
Add new comment
117 comments
We do have a pretty good idea that the gross safety effect of helmets is almost certainly small though given no measurable correlation across whole populations with increased usage - it can't be a big effect because it would show up in population/country level data.
My understanding is recreational skiing has some interesting data on helmets because we can get more accurate usage stats (count ski helmets on lifts, correlating usage with each lift pass (photos are taken of every skier to prevent passes being shared). Lift usage is directly related to distance skied (have to go up to go down). Lift passes are usually scanned by piste patrol (rescue insurance sometimes included and its an easy way to get injured parties details)). Current data suggests ski helmets apparently make a massive difference to injury rates. But no difference to KSI rates - there is a threshold beyond which they make no difference; so helmet usage removes all the minor head injuries, but major head injuries (concussion and up) are at a similar rate (or in fact worse due to risk compensation). Skiing also has a far higher injury rate than road cycling...
I remember someone saying cycling helmets are only tested at 12 mph. So I thought I would see what motorcycle helmets were tested to.
The visor has to withstand or at least protect the rider from a 6mm steel ball fired at about 130mph. This simulates a stone hitting the rider. I thought that quite impressive.
Then it undergoes a number of drops some are slow speed some higher speed. The higher speed ones are at 17.6 mph. The reduction in energy aimed at about 30% why so low I thought? Apparently most accidents don't involve a direct blow and the vehicle body or windshield deforms absorbing some of the energy.
I was really surprised the speed tested was so low for crash impacts.
And the evidence that motorcycle helmets reduce the death rate of motorcyclists is just as robust as that for cycle helmets i.e. absent.
Eburtthebike Is that right? Is there a source for that? I kept finding one study in Taiwan that suggested otherwise.
You found a single study that supports your views and stopped there? Wow! There are dozens, if not hundreds of contradictory studies. Look a little deeper.
Absolutely yes, that's ridiculous so maybe historic.
Modern day BMW S1000RR superbike clocked at 206mph on the IoM TT speed trap. Yes, you can buy one at your BMW dealer..
That was the latest standard.
https://davewalker.com/what-would-make-cycling-safer/
If celebrities, MPs, and everyone else spent as much time talking about the issues on the right instead of helmet wearing, cycling in the UK would be substantially safer - and you could still wear your helmet too. That's what irritates me about these stories.
And in 5, 10, 20 years(?) you might see some effect. And then you could still fall off and bash your head.
Ideally we would have been talking about those things Walker mentions 30 years ago. By now we'd have cycling rates and safety similar to the Netherlands. Imagine if the Dutch had started banging on about cycle helmets rather than Stop De Kindermoord in the 70's? They wouldn't be any different to the US or UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/16/the-brain-is-very-...
Of course Brooksby posted it on Fridays liveblog two hours back.
This has already been debunked by David Hembrow over a year ago. But maybe this is no surprise as the Dutch are about to get a fascist government (fascism being about creating and pushing false risks and scapegoating instead of confronting and solving the actual problems...)
That's a pretty bizarre conclusion, esp. given the similarities in the thinking of opponents of helmet wearing with that of opponents of mask wearing a few years ago, who for the most part weren't exactly "leftists".
What about the opposites "evidence vs no evidence" do you fail to understand?
Which bit of basic mechanics don't you understand? And why are you so rude?
We're not talking mechanics here, we're talking public appeals and policies and their (lack of) logic and evidence.
But I am "talking mechanics". Energy absorbed by the helmet is not going to be passed to the riders head. It is not unreasonable to assume that a helmet, if worn, is unlikely to do more harm than good. Evidence doesn't really come into it, since every crash is different and you haven't got a control group.
I'm sure you meant "unlikely" rather than "likely" but the energy absorbtion of a cycle helmet is insufficient to make much difference in a life-threatening collision.
Evidence really, really does come into it, and those kind Australians did an experiment, resulting in either no difference or an increase in the death rate of cyclists after their helmet law.
The BMJ did a cost benefit analysis of mandatory cycle helmets for adults in new zealand. They found that the health savings from helmet use amounted to $20 per helmet.
To to save the nation $20, a cyclist must spend $50
I Imagine the cost of each incident is several magnitudes greater than $20 so the rate of incidents is tiny. I believe this is the reason why UK health authorities are not in the camp of mandatory helmets.
That analysis is overestimating the benefits of cycle helmets as they aren't factoring in the people that have been put off from cycling due to the perceived danger and the requirement to buy and wear a helmet. That's the real cost of people making a big deal about cycle helmets and ignoring the many things that would actually make cycling safer.
It'd be like providing children with ropes, harnesses, body armour and helmets for tree climbing and then wondering why kids don't seem to spend much time climbing trees anymore.
Got a link to that please?
https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/8/4/317
there is also this that shows risks of walking per km outweigh cycling from universirty college London
https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10053381/1/Mindell_Cause%20of%20de...
So, if I am doing an audax (where distance increases risk), a group ride (where risk of touching wheels increases risk of fall) or riding off road (obvious risk of coming off.) Then I wear a helmet, but when riding to work I don't bother, just as I wouldn't if I walked to work. The idea that a helmet will protect me from a vehicular impact is frankly risible, and there is no reason to fall over otherwise. And in any case the risk is sufficiently small at 11 TBI deaths per billion km not to trouble me.
I'd also like to see a study that shows how many of these fatal head injuries are acompanied by other fatal injuries, broken necks, chest trauma, bleeding out etc. where even if the helmet were surprisingly effective and the head was unharmed the outcome would not be materially different. Dead from head trauma or dead from multiple organ failure is still dead, but potentially with more awareness of the pain.
TRL did exactly such a study about ten years or more ago, and found that the number of lives that would be saved were sixteen, which was repeated long and loud by the media. What the media didn't mention was that the figure was entirely invented, an assumption with no valid basis.
Yet the NFL sees huge incidences of concussions and the aftermath years down the line. I firmly believe that the use of headgear in this particular sport encourages bigger hits and players taking greater risks.
except where studies have shown helmet use results in risk compensation either by the wearer or others.
You probably get more benefit by wearing a long blonde wig, because then drivers give you more space as they pass. reduction in risk of collision >> potential reduction in consequences of collision
Errr, yes that's the reason why I'm wearing this wig and fishnet tights.
Incidentally, does anyone know of a manufacturer of high-heel SPDs?
Good point - they have no worries about getting done for a road offense, but clearly some people are worried about the repercussions of hate crimes!
Unlikely to help when someone hits you head-on after not seeing you, unfortunately.
Depends on the wig.
Looks good if you're a fan of whiplash or having your neck broken.
Pages