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

malcolmfrost

ben@31 wrote:

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.

and whilst they're at it how about doing something about manufacturers charging £10,000 for some carbon with a couple of wheels........

MattC59

ben@31 wrote:

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.

Why ? You don't have to spend that amount on a helmet.

ReesA

Growing up in Australia I am accustomed to the idea of wearing a helmet when cycling however I didn't start to cycle more seriously for a variety of reasons until much later after moving to the UK (started by touring through France in the end).

My attitude towards this is that my head is the most valuable piece of equipment on the bike and there is no way I am leaving the house without my helmet. That includes 300m rides to the shop or for a coffee. If I am going to buy a protective case for my Edge 800 or smartphone then I sure as $h*t am going to do the same for my head.

I don't choose when and where I might need that helment to do it's thing. It's like saying I'll not put on my seatbelt for a drive of the same distance. 99.9% of the time you'll probably be fine but that other single time you needed it and didn't have it on? ... You don't get to choose the time you need it (unless you are nuts and deliberately fall off or ride into things for fun).

I can also appreciate that having to wear a helmet can put people off. However I am also in favour of what Brad is saying regarding people on cycles taking more responsibility for what they are doing, especially in built up areas (urban riding). As things stand anyone can buy a cycle and then immediately expect to ride on the road with other road users which I feel can lead to lots of unreflective riding and risk taking etc. People seem keen to help solve this issue through training for drivers and companies and legislation to improve roads and establish cycle routes. All very good ideas/measures. What I am not reading much of is talk of legislation or certification that requires cyclists to behave responsibly as well. I am thinking of rider training courses for urban riding or even licensing etc. Sounds crazy? If you want to ride your cycle as an equal on the road with other users should you not at least be required to take a training/awareness course appropriate for your vehicle?

What else apart from a cycle allows you go out and spend as little as £100 then immediately head off and start riding on roads mixing it with cars, pedestrians (who die more than cyclists by the way) and HGVs? (the only other unlicensed vehicle I can think of is a mobility scooter) You expect vehicle drivers to need training and licensing but we don't seem expect that from cyclists and they are in a much more physically vulnerable position and on a machine that lets them move much more flexibly on the road and footpath if they choose.

B.M.R.

As I understand it, he was making the point that there are SEVERAL things cyclists can do to limit their exposure to accidents, such as not running red lights (Grrrr I really get annoyed when I see fellow cyclists do that), not filtering up the inside of a bloody huge HGV who may not know your there, and short of wearing a full suit of body armour, protecting your most important asset, your brain.
Legisaltion wouldn't affect me, I always wear a helmet anyway. Why spend out £2000 on a speed machine, and then not spend out £50 (low end) for something that offers at least a little protection?
Yes if you get knocked off and break your arm, your helmet didn't help, but breaking your arm is far less serious than breaking your head.

Plus I think he was also making the point about perception, if a cyclist is perceived to be taking all the precautions they can - by riding sensibly and wearing protective gear - and they still get hit, it gives the motorist fewer excuses as to why it happened. Plus riding safely improves the cyclist/motorist relationship, and would help shut up media outlets like the DM who seem to thrive on creating conflict.

He was basically saying do everything that is reasonable to protect yourself, both physically and legally. I would say wearing a helmet is perfectly reasonable.

kieranb

well, you know a life without risk would be a fairly boring thing wouldn't it? Wearing helmets does nothing for reducing the risk of an accident, and some evidence suggests it increases the risk through risk compensation and driver perception. Given the level of media coverage (not just the traditional ones) every accident/death could be used as a reason for introducing laws to reduce the risk and save lives. Taken to conclusion maybe cyclists should be banned from busy urban roads as they are so dangerous.

I like 'wild' swimming, an activity and community that has had to fight over-cautious councils and warnings about the dangers of drowning etc. Ordinary cycling (excluding sports/hobby) is not dangerous in itself.

Lots of stories here about the good use of helmets, I could add my own one as well (when I skidded on a piece of metal in the road, fell and hit my head on the kerb side and the helmet smashed but I walked away just shaken). Then again there are lots of stories (and proof) about the dangers of other activities people do in everyday life as hobbies or normal activity, where do we draw the line?

izzy Eviel

Other posters have nailed it...why spend 1,000s of pounds on cycling equipment and not £50 to look after your head?

If you're in an accident that wasn't your fault you'll get more compensation if you're wearing a helmet.

slowbike

Really - some of the Pro Helmet riders comments on here remind me of those (few) who seem to insist on putting on all the safety gear - helmet, hi vis, elbow pads, knee pads - to ride slowly down a quiet path.
I'm not saying they shouldn't - but you do see ppl with significantly more safety kit than conditions suggest - and that just suggests to me that either they a) haven't thought about the risk or b) are so scared of being hurt that they'll wrap themselves in bubblewrap just incase a fly hits them ...

Living is dangerous - look at the stats - we all die in the end ...
Accidents do happen and we should all take reasonable steps to avoid both accidents and injury from accidents - and that can mean cycling with full hi vis, padded clothing as well as helmets (full facial ones) - but for a significant number (of rides) the closest we're going to get to an accident is a bee flying down our open top and stinging us ... so IMHO we should kit ourselves appropriate for the activity we're going to do ...

For me - that means the slow amble down to the shop or docs on a cyclepath does not require the wearing of hi vis or helmets - but a commute on an A road does ... for you it may be different - but I would always fight for your choice of what to wear.

diy

I don't get the earphone angle? Most motorcyclists wear ear plugs due to the damage wind noise does, doesn't stop them being aware of what is going on. Realistically how much can we rely on what we can here behind us anyway?

I think helmets are a good idea and IF the state has a right to legislate safety (e.g. motorcycle helmets, seat belts etc) then cyclists should be no different.

Realistically what is the down side to wearing a helmet. I doubt its anything like the equiv. to the downsides of wearing a motorcycle helmet - which are a lot heavier and far more restrictive.

PeakRider91

It's actually been proven to be far more safer to not wear a helmet, cars give you more room and mentally you feel more vulnerable so you don't take as many risks.

Hoopdriver

PeakRider91 wrote:

It's actually been proven to be far more safer to not wear a helmet, cars give you more room and mentally you feel more vulnerable so you don't take as many risks.

What happens if you hit a pothole, slip on a greasy bit of bitumen or loose gravel, catch your wheel in a groove in the pavement, whatever, and conk your noggin on the curb? Do you call up the Bureau of Statistics to see if you're okay?

PeakRider91

Hoopdriver wrote:

PeakRider91 wrote:

It's actually been proven to be far more safer to not wear a helmet, cars give you more room and mentally you feel more vulnerable so you don't take as many risks.

What happens if you hit a pothole, slip on a greasy bit of bitumen or loose gravel, catch your wheel in a groove in the pavement, whatever, and conk your noggin on the curb? Do you call up the Bureau of Statistics to see if you're okay?

Personally I would always react and shield my head with my arms. I know where you coming from but it has been scientifically proven that statistically not wearing a helmet is safer.

p9uma

Personally I would always react and shield my head with my arms. I know where you coming from but it has been scientifically proven that statistically not wearing a helmet is safer.

Where? By Whom? When? How? Show me the evidence of this proof please.

Hoopdriver

p9uma wrote:

Personally I would always react and shield my head with my arms. I know where you coming from but it has been scientifically proven that statistically not wearing a helmet is safer.

Where? By Whom? When? How? Show me the evidence of this proof please.

I'd like to see it too.

McNulty

Hoopdriver wrote:

p9uma wrote:

Personally I would always react and shield my head with my arms. I know where you coming from but it has been scientifically proven that statistically not wearing a helmet is safer.

Where? By Whom? When? How? Show me the evidence of this proof please.

I'd like to see it too.

+1 for the sauce

(however on refelection I must applaud the wind up - nice and subtle!)

p9uma

On the matter of the thread title " Wiggo, you T0sser (and I never thought I'd say that)!"

This year we have the single most successful cyclist in British history, a four time Olympic champion, a holder of Seven Olympic medals, The first British man to win TDF, a Commander of the Order of the British Empire, a man who has been awarded Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, the only cyclist to have won a Grand Tour (Tour de France, Giro d'Italia and Vuelta a España) and an Olympic track cycling gold medal in a year, a proud mothers son, a father of two proud children and a proud woman’s husband; gets called a T0sser by the OP. In the unlikely event the Mr Wiggins reads this forum, he, I am sure will be delighted with this last accolade, it, I am certain will be the icing on the cake for his year.

PeakRider91

He's not even British, he's Belgium.

rdt

PeakRider91 wrote:

He's not even British, he's Belgium.

What, all of it?

I know Wiggo's big at the mo, but come on....

P_Tucker

Ginjafro wrote:

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:

Let me see if I understand your argument - because Wiggins worked hard and is a magnificent cyclist, he is incapable of hypocrisy? Did the sunshine bus make an unscheduled stop FFS?

Or, maybe your argument is that your head is invulnerable if you happen to be celebrating? I suspect you might have tested this theory and proven it false.

Hoopdriver

P_Tucker wrote:

Ginjafro wrote:

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:

Let me see if I understand your argument - because Wiggins worked hard and is a magnificent cyclist, he is incapable of hypocrisy? Did the sunshine bus make an unscheduled stop FFS?

Or, maybe your argument is that your head is invulnerable if you happen to be celebrating? I suspect you might have tested this theory and proven it false.

No, I don't think you understood the argument at all.

furrag

Further to the above, having spent this year working in A&E and an acquired brain injury rehabilitation unit, I won't ride without a helmet.

Those who oppose will say it's purely anecdotal stories, but I'm not going to waste my time preaching.

P_Tucker

Furrag wrote:

Further to the above, having spent this year working in A&E and an acquired brain injury rehabilitation unit, I won't ride without a helmet.

Those who oppose will say it's purely anecdotal stories, but I'm not going to waste my time preaching.

Why not wear a motorcycle helmet? Offers much more protection than a cycle helmet

verylonglegs

How does enforcement of such a law take place in countries that have passed it? If I think back to being a kid and cycling around with my mates how would the Police deal with a group of 13yrs olds not wearing helmets? Fine them a weeks pocket money? Fine the parents? Lock them up? I can't see it being practicable in this sense, especially given how many road traffic laws that are already ignored anyway.

Hoopdriver

P_Tucker wrote:

Furrag wrote:

Further to the above, having spent this year working in A&E and an acquired brain injury rehabilitation unit, I won't ride without a helmet.

Those who oppose will say it's purely anecdotal stories, but I'm not going to waste my time preaching.

Why not wear a motorcycle helmet? Offers much more protection than a cycle helmet

Ah - living proof for the old adage: 'tis better to sit in silence and have people think you're a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Wirral_paul

Hoopdriver wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

Furrag wrote:

Further to the above, having spent this year working in A&E and an acquired brain injury rehabilitation unit, I won't ride without a helmet.

Those who oppose will say it's purely anecdotal stories, but I'm not going to waste my time preaching.

Why not wear a motorcycle helmet? Offers much more protection than a cycle helmet

Ah - living proof for the old adage: 'tis better to sit in silence and have people think you're a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

P_Tucker removed all doubt a long long time ago!!

Grill

rdt wrote:

PeakRider91 wrote:

He's not even British, he's Belgium.

What, all of it?

I know Wiggo's big at the mo, but come on....

Possibly the funniest thing I've read all week!

BlakeysFC

Any chance of a Poll?

Would be interesting to see who here wears a helmet/doesn't wear a helmet when they're cycling

P_Tucker

Hoopdriver wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

Furrag wrote:

Further to the above, having spent this year working in A&E and an acquired brain injury rehabilitation unit, I won't ride without a helmet.

Those who oppose will say it's purely anecdotal stories, but I'm not going to waste my time preaching.

Why not wear a motorcycle helmet? Offers much more protection than a cycle helmet

Ah - living proof for the old adage: 'tis better to sit in silence and have people think you're a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

How so? Have I said something factually inaccurate?

If we take it as read that cycle helmets do offer some protection over a bare noggin at the expense of comfort, then a motorcycle helmet offers more protection at the expense of more comfort. I just don't quite see why people who think roads are too dangerous to go out bare-headed seem happy to go out with a polystrene potty when much safer alternatives are available?

petemadoc

P_Tucker wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

Furrag wrote:

Further to the above, having spent this year working in A&E and an acquired brain injury rehabilitation unit, I won't ride without a helmet.

Those who oppose will say it's purely anecdotal stories, but I'm not going to waste my time preaching.

Why not wear a motorcycle helmet? Offers much more protection than a cycle helmet

Ah - living proof for the old adage: 'tis better to sit in silence and have people think you're a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

How so? Have I said something factually inaccurate?

If we take it as read that cycle helmets do offer some protection over a bare noggin at the expense of comfort, then a motorcycle helmet offers more protection at the expense of more comfort. I just don't quite see why people who think roads are too dangerous to go out bare-headed seem happy to go out with a polystrene potty when much safer alternatives are available?

The plastic potty, as you so eloquently call it, offers a level of protection relevant to the sport/activity. There's always something that can offer more protection. We don't have roll cages in family cars.

But please do carry on stirring sh1t

P_Tucker

Does it? I wonder what the family of Wouter Weylandt would say about that. Or the families of DC testers who seem to die on a monthly basis from March to September.

What evidence is there that a polystrene potty offers the right level of protection? How would we even determine what that right level is?

Ginjafro

Hoopdriver wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

Ginjafro wrote:

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:

Let me see if I understand your argument - because Wiggins worked hard and is a magnificent cyclist, he is incapable of hypocrisy? Did the sunshine bus make an unscheduled stop FFS?

Or, maybe your argument is that your head is invulnerable if you happen to be celebrating? I suspect you might have tested this theory and proven it false.

No, I don't think you understood the argument at all.

Hoopdriver, first congrat's on your 1000th post and then supporting and understanding an uncomplicated argument, unlike certain others. Further too, not getting drawn into a puerile argument about whether or not brain buckets are of any use. 8)

The whole point of the OP was to issue abusive and unwarranted hyperbole towards an athlete we should be proud of. Instead, because of a misrepresentation of the facts, some people have jumped on a band wagon to bang on about bloody helmets, again - yawn....I feel sad for people like them because as a country we have some great athletes making history and all they want to do is pull them down, all because they "think" BW has a point of few they don't like!

Now, P Tucker - I only ever accused you of grumbling and spouting nonsense, I even challenged you to complain about it with Bradley Wiggins himself, eg via Twitter. I also suggested you might end up feeling daft. Non of this was a personal attack on your character, I shall leave that to you. However, you have demonstrated you would not be capable of standing up to your convictions. Why? An unwise reference to the "Sunshine bus" and the possibility that my opinion is a result of having cracked my head too ! I am sure the many thousands of sick, disabled or disadvantaged children and their families who have benefited from the Sunshine Variety Club Bus http://www.varietyclub.org.uk/ would not be amused or impressed by your ill judged reference. I can stand up to your abuse, sunshine kids can't and need our support.

Getting back to the OP - DF33, the title is deliberately provocative, offensive, misguided and silly. Some might say it is Trolling and it has predictably led so many down a cul de sac of helmet vs no helmet. DF33 you need to come out of the shadows, you tossed a grenade and appear to have run away.