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

izza

Bozman wrote:

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.

Fair comment. I respect your vote, but if a law gets passed, I wouldn't fight it. I wear one on all my rides. If you don't and want to carry on doing that even if law gets passed then so be it. As for Bradley's position:

"[People] shouldn't be riding along with iPods and phones and things on and [they] should have lights and all those things. So I think when there's laws passed for cyclists, then you're protected and you can say, well, I've done everything to be safe."

However, did he put lights on for his UK training ride? So actually his actions would indicate he wants a level of choice based on ability, length of ride, daylight, etc. It's a minefield.

slowbike

Grill wrote:

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.

Surely it comes down to the probability of needing said helmet - if you're riding slowly down a cyclepath then chances are you're not going to fall off - so not really need the helmet. On the road - who knows - a vehicle could clip you and send you on your way - so helmet should probably be on.

I ride both with and without - depending where I'm going and how I'm going to ride - probably more with than without - but a recent ride out which was largely on cyclepaths was without - was I selfish? Not in my view - there could be any number of reasons why I'd die - lack of helmet would be a minor one that day. SWMBO agreed - she didn't wear one either!

slowbike

Dess1e wrote:

And on treacherous cobbles as well :roll:

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

No helmet for his son either?!

Hoopdriver

thescouselander wrote:

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)

That is an argument you can use with any accident anywhere, under any set of circumstances - the disintegration of the Space Shuttle on re-entry a few years ago amply illustrates that in that particular set of circumstances nobody was able to survive; it says nothing about future accidents or probabilities; ditto the Air France crash over the mid-Atlantic, or any car crash or any failed parachute etc etc. According to that line of reasoning one can draw no inferences from anything because to do so would be anecdotal and meaningless to future experience.

I think not.

McNulty

Bozman wrote:

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.

:shock:
If this is a spoof "daily mail comment section" style post I salute you as a parody genius.

StillGoing

Slowbike wrote:

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 ...

Makes no difference whether you're competing or not. A truck wing mirror smacks you in the back of the head and your lights tend to go out. The fact Cracknell's life was saved by him wearing one speaks volumes when I have had colleague's from work lose their life in similar circumstances whilst commuting to work.

Nitrofan

I have seen personal choice in action during my commute through the Greenwich foot tunnel HUGE signs saying NO CYCLING yet the "personal choice brigade" ignore them NOW we are all inconvenienced with stile type traffic management devices in the tunnel yet STILL the selfish ride!

The point is sometimes self regulation is not the best course of action.

As for calling Bradley Wiggins names aside from being childish they do say name calling is the last refuge of those that have lost the debate.

Grill

Slowbike wrote:

Grill wrote:

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.

Surely it comes down to the probability of needing said helmet - if you're riding slowly down a cyclepath then chances are you're not going to fall off - so not really need the helmet. On the road - who knows - a vehicle could clip you and send you on your way - so helmet should probably be on.

I ride both with and without - depending where I'm going and how I'm going to ride - probably more with than without - but a recent ride out which was largely on cyclepaths was without - was I selfish? Not in my view - there could be any number of reasons why I'd die - lack of helmet would be a minor one that day. SWMBO agreed - she didn't wear one either!

I disagree. I worked in Alpe d'Huez the winter of 06/07. All 3 deaths occurred on GREEN pistes at minimal speed (2 fell and hit their heads and the third was run into). Turns out hitting your head on ice-hard snow isn't a good thing regardless of ability or speed. I'm not saying that helmets should be mandatory or that they stop all injuries and fatalities, but given the option and data I would hope that people make the smart decision.

ShutUpLegs

Tweet from Wiggins:


'Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as reports suggest'

slowbike

philthy3 wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

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 ...

Makes no difference whether you're competing or not. A truck wing mirror smacks you in the back of the head and your lights tend to go out. The fact Cracknell's life was saved by him wearing one speaks volumes when I have had colleague's from work lose their life in similar circumstances whilst commuting to work.

Read the rest of my post! Otherwise I'd say it depends on where and how you're riding - you're not likely to get truck mirrors on a cyclepath ...

slowbike

Grill wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Grill wrote:

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.

Surely it comes down to the probability of needing said helmet - if you're riding slowly down a cyclepath then chances are you're not going to fall off - so not really need the helmet. On the road - who knows - a vehicle could clip you and send you on your way - so helmet should probably be on.

I ride both with and without - depending where I'm going and how I'm going to ride - probably more with than without - but a recent ride out which was largely on cyclepaths was without - was I selfish? Not in my view - there could be any number of reasons why I'd die - lack of helmet would be a minor one that day. SWMBO agreed - she didn't wear one either!

I disagree. I worked in Alpe d'Huez the winter of 06/07. All 3 deaths occurred on GREEN pistes at minimal speed (2 fell and hit their heads and the third was run into). Turns out hitting your head on ice-hard snow isn't a good thing regardless of ability or speed. I'm not saying that helmets should be mandatory or that they stop all injuries and fatalities, but given the option and data I would hope that people make the smart decision.

So - this is mountain bike type riding? Downhill stuff too ... yer - I'd probably wear a lid ... I still maintain that for a competent rider on a path away from motor traffic the chances are so slight that it can remain personal choice.

You only need to fall off once and land on your head to make a helmet worth while - but the decision to wear a lid or not must be on the probability of falling off - and that is an individual decision.

tonyrockyhorror

Bozman wrote:

I want the freedom of choice rather than some leftie do gooder telling me what's good for me.

Presumably like the leftie do-gooder Thatcher who introduced the compulsory seat belts in 1983, and the tory government who introduced compulsory motorcycle helmets in 1973, then.

Bloody lefties.

Dess1e

Slowbike wrote:

So - this is mountain bike type riding? Downhill stuff too ... yer - I'd probably wear a lid ... I still maintain that for a competent rider on a path away from motor traffic the chances are so slight that it can remain personal choice.

You only need to fall off once and land on your head to make a helmet worth while - but the decision to wear a lid or not must be on the probability of falling off - and that is an individual decision.

Yet that is exactly the scenario cycle helmets are designed for, low speed impacts onto a flat surface. They are not deigned to protect against the type of lower limb injury that is frequently the result of an impact with a car.

Grill

Slowbike wrote:

Grill wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Grill wrote:

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.

Surely it comes down to the probability of needing said helmet - if you're riding slowly down a cyclepath then chances are you're not going to fall off - so not really need the helmet. On the road - who knows - a vehicle could clip you and send you on your way - so helmet should probably be on.

I ride both with and without - depending where I'm going and how I'm going to ride - probably more with than without - but a recent ride out which was largely on cyclepaths was without - was I selfish? Not in my view - there could be any number of reasons why I'd die - lack of helmet would be a minor one that day. SWMBO agreed - she didn't wear one either!

I disagree. I worked in Alpe d'Huez the winter of 06/07. All 3 deaths occurred on GREEN pistes at minimal speed (2 fell and hit their heads and the third was run into). Turns out hitting your head on ice-hard snow isn't a good thing regardless of ability or speed. I'm not saying that helmets should be mandatory or that they stop all injuries and fatalities, but given the option and data I would hope that people make the smart decision.

So - this is mountain bike type riding? Downhill stuff too ... yer - I'd probably wear a lid ... I still maintain that for a competent rider on a path away from motor traffic the chances are so slight that it can remain personal choice.

You only need to fall off once and land on your head to make a helmet worth while - but the decision to wear a lid or not must be on the probability of falling off - and that is an individual decision.

One of those I mentioned was on the flat at the bottom of the Rif Nel (flat right at the bottom of the main pistes) when he fell and cracked his skull. Accidents happen regardless of skill I just feel it's best to be prepared. I do agree that the choice should lie with the individual, I just don't get up in arms when someone suggests it should be mandatory.

the_cyclist_of_catan

If I understood Wiggo correctly, his point was make helmets mandatory, have cyclists stop running red lights and listening to iPods, but when the accidents continue look to do something about the *real* causes of cyclists' deaths and injuries.

Making helmets compulsory would take away one small point on which cyclists are currently expected to look after themselves, when as we all know we're likely to be involved in accidents because of the inattention or poor training of both ourselves and especially other road users.

Compulsory helmet wearing almost certainly would reduce the effect of some types of accident (a good thing). It might also reduce the number of cyclists on the road (a bad thing). I believe studies show that the latter outweighs the former. And in any event, who would enforce this new law - the same people responsible for enforcing the "no riding on the pavement" laws or the dangerous dogs laws? (You might guess that I've been chased by an out-of-control dog while on my bike already this week). From what I hear, they're already too busy to enforce a lot of the laws that we have, so that a lot of (for example) bad driving that I would describe as criminal is not investigated, let alone prosecuted. I'm pretty sure that whatever else we need in society, more laws isn't on the list.

As for helmets, when I last bought a laptop PC it arrived through the post cushioned by a couple of centimetres of expanded polystyrene - and it survived the tender ministrations of the Royal Snail and/or Parcelfarce. So why wouldn't I seek to protect the most important computer I own - my brain - with at least as much protection? Though the true reason why I wear one is to take away the car insurer's argument that I was guilty of contributory negligence, thus preventing a reduction in the damages I (or my family) might be entitled to. Fatalist, I know, but it's justification enough for me.

MattC59

Wear a helmet if you want, don't wear one if you don't.

If you don't wear one, don't moan if you're in an incident where you smack your head on the road, or a kerb.
If you do wear one, don't expect it to save your life if a bus hits you.

I've had a bike since I can remember and consider myself an experienced cyclist, but that doesnt' exclude me from smacking my head in an incident; so I wear a helmet.

Anyway, why does Wiggins' opinion on this and him using his media presence to promote something that may save a few lives, make him a t*sser ?

Flexisurfer

So, skim reading this most people seem to agree that it's down to the riders choice and having the freedom to choose is what people want? Why then does that make Wiggins a tosser, surely he's expressing his choice, no?

I'm all with adults being able to make a choice, kids I feel should be wearing them but I don't want to get into a debate, when is a kid not a kid?

What gets my goat is when I see cyclists running red lights and seeing earphones in use.

Hearing about the accident in London I doubt that a helmet would have saved their life, sadly.

NickintheLakes

How can some protection to the head for some accidents be better than no protection to the head in all accidents?

About 15 years ago I witnessed a climbing fall. It was more of a slip really than a full-on fall. A lad aged 18 or so slipped a few feet down and swung a few feet across. His head banged against the rock face. It all happened very slow and and what appeared to be very gently. He had no helmet on and suffered major brain damage and ended up partially paralysed, partially sighted and with a major speech impediment. I have no doubt (and yes, I know you can't prove this) in my own mind that he would have been in a far better state than he ended up if he had had a helmet on.

Why is the effectiveness of cycle helmets even questioned? If someone was to drop a housebrick on my head from say a foot above me I would hazard a guess that without a cycle helmet (or other safety helmet) on that the brick would do some real damage. With a helmet on my guess is that the brick would just bounce off and maybe I would just have an aching neck.

Wirral_paul

NickintheLakes wrote:

Why is the effectiveness of cycle helmets even questioned? If someone was drop a housebrick on my head from say a foot above me I would hazard a guess that without a cycle helmet (or other safety helmet) on that the brick would do some real damage. With a helmet on my guess is that the brick would just bounce off and maybe I would just have an aching neck.

Some people simply dont get that sort of logic somehow......... and makes you think that brain damage would be impossible for them if they were dropped on their head!

Mickyg88

Wiggins a tosser? You haven't a clue mate, did you even read about him riding with a young lad who was just passing his house the day after the tdf? Rode with him for an hour then took him into his house for a drink, the lad was only out for a training ride as he's a member of a local team, I know this is nothing to do with wearing helmets but it shows what sort of guy he is. If you want to read it look on the wallis cycles website team news..... But then again you won't be interested I don't suppose.

Bozman

tonyrockyhorror wrote:

Bozman wrote:

I want the freedom of choice rather than some leftie do gooder telling me what's good for me.

Presumably like the leftie do-gooder Thatcher who introduced the compulsory seat belts in 1983, and the tory government who introduced compulsory motorcycle helmets in 1973, then.

Bloody lefties.

I knew some moaning leftie would pick up on me moaning about lefties, so called do-gooders are generally lefties that have good intention but end up f**cking everything up, hence the state of the country.

fast as fupp

must be the fault of all those commie governments we have

sebbyp

Why would you not wear a helmet if cycling along a road? I had an off the other day and although I had to go to A&E in aan ambulance, It could well have been worse if I had no helmet on.
The ambulance crew were full of stories about cyclists crashing with no helmets, including a chap they attended to in Liecester, front of head swelled up like a melon, ambulance guys says "no helmet?" chap shake his head, mumbles nope, then passes in and out of consiousness, ambulance guy wasnt sure if he survived. stories like that will make keep my helmet on for sure.

ben@31

I agree with wearing helmets. But if the "powers that be" want to make it compulsory, they must do something about manufacturers charging over £150 for some polystyrene with a chinstrap.

On a similar note to this thread, I went to the dentist the other week. He surprised me when he said we should also wear a gum shield whilst cycling. As the dentist said his trade has seen some horrific multiple broken teeth when cyclists have hit the tarmac face first. And the results are almost impossible to fix. Something I never considered.

BlakeysFC

The story has been over-exaggerated by the Media once again.

He Sent these three Tweets last night to clear things up:

@Bradwiggins

'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 involved In an accident'

'I wasn't on me soap box CALLING, was asked what I thought #myopiniondoesntcountformuch'

Basically he was asked for his opinion and said that he thinks Helmets are good (its a Marmite topic in the cycling world some people won't ride without one on, some people wouldn't ride with one on) he wasn't calling for ANYTHING to be done regarding Helmets being made legal for all cyclists to wear he was simply saying they were good (in his opinion)

P_Tucker

Dess1e wrote:

Whether Wiggins is right or wrong about helmets, he's a hypocrite. What else has he made strong statements about that we might infer are not true?

Ginjafro

P_Tucker wrote:

Dess1e wrote:

Whether Wiggins is right or wrong about helmets, he's a hypocrite. What else has he made strong statements about that we might infer are not true?

And you seriously believe he is a hypocrite (and tosser by inference)? This is a man who has spent many thousands of miles in the saddle, destroying some brilliant competition, and has brought much joy and happiness to millions of Brits desperate for some sporting success. He does and he does it with panache and style and people like you, grumbling over your cornflakes, spout nonsense that he is in some way a hypocrite. Just think about the picture and how he got there. Its another amazing day in his life, hardly typical for most of us. He has just won the Tour (and later wins a Gold) and what does he do, he celebrates! He does this with his son and without helmets, woopydoo! It does not make him a hypocrite and if you do not understand that I would suggest you complain to Bradley wiggins directly and see how daft you would feel. :roll:

thescouselander

Those who have such confidence in their helmets should have a look round this site:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html

It has loads of information from actual studies and although I get the impression the site owner is probably anti-helmet there is enough on there from independant sources to show things aren't as clear cut as one might assume. I'm not saying don't wear a helmet - I do sometimes. I don't have any confidence my helmet will be effective though - the best way to avoid injury is to not crash in the first place.

giant_man

MattC59 wrote:

Wear a helmet if you want, don't wear one if you don't.

If you don't wear one, don't moan if you're in an incident where you smack your head on the road, or a kerb.
If you do wear one, don't expect it to save your life if a bus hits you.

I've had a bike since I can remember and consider myself an experienced cyclist, but that doesnt' exclude me from smacking my head in an incident; so I wear a helmet.

Anyway, why does Wiggins' opinion on this and him using his media presence to promote something that may save a few lives, make him a t*sser ?

+1 - That's basically it, totally agree ..... and I don't think he's a tosser. About time a 'name' stood up and said something about safety for cyclists on our dangerous roads in this country. I hope a law is passed for compulsory use of helmets and the law banning headphones also comes into place ....

20eyes

giant man wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Wear a helmet if you want, don't wear one if you don't.

If you don't wear one, don't moan if you're in an incident where you smack your head on the road, or a kerb.
If you do wear one, don't expect it to save your life if a bus hits you.

I've had a bike since I can remember and consider myself an experienced cyclist, but that doesnt' exclude me from smacking my head in an incident; so I wear a helmet.

Anyway, why does Wiggins' opinion on this and him using his media presence to promote something that may save a few lives, make him a t*sser ?

+1 - That's basically it, totally agree .....

Absolutely aggree as well.

Its the usual story of "I demand the freedom to do, think and say as I wish, but dont you think about doing that or you are a t*sser".

I never get on the bike without my helmet on. Just because it might not save my life doesn't mean that it wont.