Wiggo, you T0sser (and I never thought I'd say that)!

DF33

Why? All the rest Wiggo, yes. But not helmets. There are thousands of people riding without. The jury is out on their effectiveness. The cyclist killed yesterday was crushed on the body.

I know he has best intentions, but.

Let people decide themselves please.

Wirral_paul

I would say its only those who dont want to wear helmets that would claim the jury is still out. I assume Wiggo has suggested the use of cycling helmets then??

To argue that the cyclist was crushed yesterday is totally irrelevant really - accidents like that one are unfortunately going to happen where no matter what protective gear people wear, it doesnt help. Would you suggest seatbelts in cars are pointless if someone got killed by a lorry tipping over onto the car and crushing it? Its no different - the point of helmets is to try to reduce head injuries - they are not a magical cocoon to prevent all accidents.

Gizmodo

DF33

Wiggo brought up the helmets and the cyclist crushed yesterday, not me!

I'm simply asking that people have a choice. That is all. I am not arguing one way or the other re helmets or no helmets. Hence my post. Wiggo has brought all this up. The government will listen to this and no doubt legislate.

Let people have the choice.

TheEnglishman

Pfft - the same old tired arguments come out again. We had the same with seat belts in cars and helmets on motorcycles.

Gizmodo

Well I've found what you are referring to now, thanks to Leicester Lad's post in Pro Race.

LeicesterLad wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2182407/Wiggins-calls-road-safety-overhaul-cyclist-dies-following-bus-collision-near-Olympic-velodrome.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Probably one for the Commuters, but a very firm stance from Wiggins there...

If the government listen to Wiggo and if they start talking about making helmets mandatory (which I am also against by the way) then is the time to write to your MP, sign petitions, protest in front of parliament or whatever.

ShutUpLegs

DF33 wrote:

Wiggo brought up the helmets and the cyclist crushed yesterday, not me!

I'm simply asking that people have a choice. That is all. I am not arguing one way or the other re helmets or no helmets. Hence my post. Wiggo has brought all this up. The government will listen to this and no doubt legislate.

Let people have the choice.

What did Wiggo say :?: Without being a drama queen about it.

FunBus

He basically suggested that helmets should become a legal requirement.....like MANY have done before.

I agree, everyone should have a choice about what they want to wear, but even so, i wouldnt go so far as posting on here calling him a tosser for his comment.....bit harsh dont you think?

DavidJB

I agree with Wiggo!

Edit: All Helmets should also come with mandatory sideburns.

StillGoing

I don't see what the fuss is about? The same tired arguments came out when seat belts and motorcycle helmets were made compulsory and the protest rides and petitions achieved exactly nothing but a wasted afternoon. If it isn't made compulsory then you can have no argument where an insurer tries to minimise their losses because you didn't choose to wear a helmet. I'm sure James Cracknell is glad he was wearing a helmet when he was struck with a truck wing mirror, otherwise there's a good chance he'd be dead now.

FunBus

But surely we are entitled to a choice of colour? Sideburns i can live with (even the 'farmer' style he's modelling) but come on......ginger?

slowbike

philthy3 wrote:

I don't see what the fuss is about? The same tired arguments came out when seat belts and motorcycle helmets were made compulsory and the protest rides and petitions achieved exactly nothing but a wasted afternoon. If it isn't made compulsory then you can have no argument where an insurer tries to minimise their losses because you didn't choose to wear a helmet. I'm sure James Cracknell is glad he was wearing a helmet when he was struck with a truck wing mirror, otherwise there's a good chance he'd be dead now.

Personally I'd rather have the choice - JC was competing - against the clock - but he was still competing - therefore he was pushing himself and anyone doing that should wear a helmet as a matter of routine.
Otherwise I'd say it depends on where and how you're riding - if you're off the road then chances of being hit by someone else is slight so it's down to your own ability ...

Pork Sword

Oi! Wiggo! No! I respect your ability to make lycra look ever-so-slightly fashionable, to tell reporters to eff-off with free abandon and your crazy pube-like sideburns but i hate it when you sprout-forth tosh about compulsory helmets! Oh dear...

Ginjafro

DF33 wrote:

Wiggo, you T0sser (and I never thought I'd say that)!

Someone has a tragic death, Wiggins maybe shooting from the hip, and you come out with that - Grow up!

Hoopdriver

I'm not a fan of the nanny state, and think people should have a choice, but in general I agree with Wiggins on the adviseability of helmets. At any rate to dismiss the nation's most successful cyclist as a 'tosser' because he expressed a view that differs from yours is crass in the extreme.

thegreatdivide

On a club run this week we had a pile up and I witnessed one chap smack the back of his head off the tarmac. His lid saved him from a cracked skull. It's a vision that will be stuck in my mind for some time. Helmets work – hair or a cloth cap don’t.

iPete

Ginjafro wrote:

DF33 wrote:

Wiggo, you T0sser (and I never thought I'd say that)!

Someone has a tragic death, Wiggins maybe shooting from the hip, and you come out with that - Grow up!

This, wtf is wrong with some people. Can't sum it better than this from commuting.

Pufftmw wrote:

I listened to the interview on LBC this morning and he also said that "I am probably too p1$$ed to be making comments on something as serious as this", so give the bloke a break. He's had a great day, he's had a few sherbets to celebrate his victory then whilst the party is still going on this unfortunate accident occured. He then gets hounded by some newsie ( :roll: ) as the font of all things cycling. Of course its going to be garbled and I'm sure there will be a more considered statement out today. The man is human after all.

Grill

Coming from a very heavy ski/snowboard (120+ days riding a year) background I have heard the helmet argument many times before. I have personally witnessed serious injury and death due to people not wearing helmets and have had my life saved by them on several occasions. Believe me that if those people could go back in time and wear a helmet they would.

I understand when people say they should have a choice in the matter, but I find that selfish. Surely family and friends would suffer if said people are injured as a result of refusing to wear a helmet.

cookeeemonster

I'd never ride on the road without a helmet but that's mainly because the cycling infrastructure is so bad I don't feel safe without one plus I don't pootle on my commute, so am more likely to need protection if I come off. I don't jump red lights, never wear headphones and ride defensively. Wiggo would be proud of me.

He basically had a daily mail style rant about cyclists not wearing helmets and wearing ipod headphones without knowing anything about the accident. His comments are not so bad when you read them in full but they are still ill advised and GIVE MASSIVE AMMUNITION TO ANTI CYCLIST DAILY MAIL READING C**TS WHO WILL CONTINUE TO BLAME CYCLISTS FOR EVERYTHING.

All he needed to have said was cycling infrastructure needs to be improved and in his opinion, people should wear helmets until it has. I'm willing to cut him some slack as someone said, he was ambushed while celebrating and certainly didn't have time to think about a reasonable answer.

Mike39496

thegreatdivide wrote:

On a club run this week we had a pile up and I witnessed one chap smack the back of his head off the tarmac. His lid saved him from a cracked skull. It's a vision that will be stuck in my mind for some time. Helmets work – hair or a cloth cap don’t.

+1 to this, I don't think my head would have survived against a windscreen but fortunately my helmet did. I'll never go out without one, even just round the corner (because it can happen just round the corner, it did to me).

lakeland

I think we should legislate against coppers taking advantage of blow up dolls

phy2sll2

CookeeeMonster wrote:

Lots of sensible stuff...

Completely agree.

thescouselander

Personally I think people should have a choice. From my perspective as an engineer I can't see how bike helmets can absorb any significant energy in a crash - the foam is just too hard and brittle to provide protection.. The best you can hope for is it might lessen an injury by spreading the force if you hit something with a sharp edge.

Wearing a helmet might be worth it just in case but to assume it makes cycling significantly safer could be misguided - especially if it makes the wearer take more chances.

thegreatdivide

thescouselander wrote:

From my perspective as an engineer I can't see how bike helmets can absorb any significant energy in a crash - the foam is just too hard and brittle to provide protection

So the chap on our club run would have been fine without his helmet?

navrig

I agree with him but would go further and make it a requirement for ALL cyclists to have to wear downhill MTB body armour as overall protection.

Car drivers have a cage around them and most motorcyclists have leathers or cordura to an EC standard.

Cyclists should be the same.

IMHO of course.

CambsNewbie

Why wouldn't you wear a helmet? The only time I notice mine is on is when a fly gets trapped underneath!

Dess1e

And on treacherous cobbles as well :roll:

Still as the earlier poster said about the comment not generally reported re being too pi$$ed.

thescouselander

thegreatdivide wrote:

thescouselander wrote:

From my perspective as an engineer I can't see how bike helmets can absorb any significant energy in a crash - the foam is just too hard and brittle to provide protection

So the chap on our club run would have been fine without his helmet?

Obviously I couldn't say - all I'm saying is there seems to be little evidence to suggest he would have suffered serious injury without a helmet.

Bozman

Same old s**t, if you want to wear one, wear one. If you don't, don't.
I want the freedom of choice rather than some leftie do gooder telling me what's good for me.
Yes, they may save the odd individual but the same could be true if they made you wear a helmet when you walk down the street, they always highlight the minority.

Hoopdriver

thescouselander wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

thescouselander wrote:

From my perspective as an engineer I can't see how bike helmets can absorb any significant energy in a crash - the foam is just too hard and brittle to provide protection

So the chap on our club run would have been fine without his helmet?

Obviously I couldn't say - all I'm saying is there seems to be little evidence to suggest he would have suffered serious injury without a helmet.

Just curious what evidence, little or otherwise do you have, that would suggest anything of the sort?

thescouselander

Hoopdriver wrote:

thescouselander wrote:

thegreatdivide wrote:

thescouselander wrote:

From my perspective as an engineer I can't see how bike helmets can absorb any significant energy in a crash - the foam is just too hard and brittle to provide protection

So the chap on our club run would have been fine without his helmet?

Obviously I couldn't say - all I'm saying is there seems to be little evidence to suggest he would have suffered serious injury without a helmet.

Just curious what evidence, little or otherwise do you have, that would suggest anything of the sort?

Your tale is purely anecdotal. All that was proved was that under the circumstances the crash was survivable when wearing a helmet. Proving that the crash was survivable (or not) without wearing a helmet is something completely different. I guess the best way would be to repeat the crash without the helmet (using a crash test dummy of course)