Wiggo, you T0sser (and I never thought I'd say that)!
Comments
-
Defyand wrote:(was talking downhill) but cycling is a more risky past time than merely walking or running so better to protect your bonce.0
-
I must admit I thought this forum came across well until this thread. Some inane responses to say the least.
I never understand why people would choose not to wear a helmet the options are have something that 'might' protect your skull in the event of a knock or don't and risk 'possible' damage without. It just baffles me? I don't see any positives from choosing not to wear one.
The argument of 'pro choice' is a bit petulant that you choose not to wear one because its your right. Fair enough but again comes back to my point what benefits are there of not wearing one? Your head is slightly more cooler in the breeze?
I have come from motorbikes so it was a natural transition to choose to wear one.
With loved ones at home why would I choose to be selfish enough not try and protect my skull in the case of an accident? If a helmet increased my chance of survival or not being brain damaged by 1% I'd still wear the lid.0 -
Graeme Jones wrote:I must admit I thought this forum came across well until this thread. Some inane responses to say the least.
I never understand why people would choose not to wear a helmet the options are have something that 'might' protect your skull in the event of a knock or don't and risk 'possible' damage without. It just baffles me? I don't see any positives from choosing not to wear one.
The argument of 'pro choice' is a bit petulant that you choose not to wear one because its your right. Fair enough but again comes back to my point what benefits are there of not wearing one? Your head is slightly more cooler in the breeze?
I have come from motorbikes so it was a natural transition to choose to wear one.
With loved ones at home why would I choose to be selfish enough not try and protect my skull in the case of an accident? If a helmet increased my chance of survival or not being brain damaged by 1% I'd still wear the lid.
Why don't you wear a helmet every time you leave your house?0 -
P_Tucker wrote:oldwelshman wrote:I have read some stupid posts on here before but this takes the biscuit
It's not a patch on the guy who celebrated a cyclist assaulting a BMW driver.
Ooooh, awkward
I think you have become the biggest troll on this site.0 -
Ginjafro wrote:mjbennett wrote:The problem with making it a legal requirement is that it will reduce cycle use. I always wear a helmet cycling. But if I pop to my mothers - less than 5 minutes away on a very quiet road on my mtb, I might not. To make that a criminal offence is ridiculous and not proportionate to the danger it presents.
I also tootle along the cul-de-sac where I live with my daughter on the child seat on the back of my mtb. To make me a criminal for going out on my bike with her for 5 minutes is ridiculous.
I saw about 5 people today tootling on canal toe paths on hybrid bikes without helmets. To make them criminals if they cross the road on their bikes is not right.
To wear a helmet or not should remain the choice of the rider.
There are far more risky activities, such as being in a rugby scrum, freediving, or rock scrambling. Is it time to require protective measures on all those?
I don't give a flying fcuk about whether or not we should wear helmets or what anyone thinks about it. I just do not think it is right for anyone to accuse BW of being a TOsser or hypocrite especially when we should be celebrating his and others achievements right now! Ride yer bike, enjoy the Olympics, get a life....
Too right brother +1 with nobs on.Trek Madone 3.5
Whyte Coniston
1970 Dawes Kingpin0 -
Gotta love a helmet thread
And yet again, no verdict has been reached!0 -
P_Tucker wrote:Graeme Jones wrote:I must admit I thought this forum came across well until this thread. Some inane responses to say the least.
I never understand why people would choose not to wear a helmet the options are have something that 'might' protect your skull in the event of a knock or don't and risk 'possible' damage without. It just baffles me? I don't see any positives from choosing not to wear one.
The argument of 'pro choice' is a bit petulant that you choose not to wear one because its your right. Fair enough but again comes back to my point what benefits are there of not wearing one? Your head is slightly more cooler in the breeze?
I have come from motorbikes so it was a natural transition to choose to wear one.
With loved ones at home why would I choose to be selfish enough not try and protect my skull in the case of an accident? If a helmet increased my chance of survival or not being brain damaged by 1% I'd still wear the lid.
Why don't you wear a helmet every time you leave your house?TKF wrote:Is that the best you can do? You're better than this.
I'm belming at you, Tucker, belming.
Actually I'm going to defend Tucker here (for once), he's actually hit the nail on the head in implying that there are no absolutes in individual decisions to wear or not wear a helmet when cycling, despite what almost everyone seems to think, irrespective of what side of the debate they are on. Graeme Jones can't understand why anyone would choose not to wear a helmet, when it might protect you in the event of an accident, and there are (supposedly) no significant negative consequences of wearing one. But exactly the same argument could be put forward for wearing a helmet every time you leave the house. We are all pedestrians, and walking around town there is a risk of being hit by a car when crossing the road, being assaulted, etc. There can be little doubt that if cycle helmets offer some protection when cycling, they would also offer some protection to pedestrians. And yet nearly everyone would agree that in the case of pedestrians, the trouble and discomfort of wearing a helmet outweighs the potential benefits, given the risks. So (with no disrespect), Graeme Jones' argument as presented, without being put in the context of a quantification of risk, is completely meaningless.
The reason that in practice it's probably not meaningless is completely down to the relative risks of head injury as a cyclist and as a pedestrian. It seems to be taken for granted that the risks of the sort of head injury that a helmet could protect against are so exponentially more massive as a cyclist than they are as a pedestrian that it is not even worth talking about why it is sensible to wear a helmet when cycling but ridiculous to wear one as a pedestrian. But this is by no means clear-cut or trivial. A experienced regular cyclist pottering 1 mile to the shops at 10mph on a sit-up-and-beg in a quiet country village is probably not at any greater risk of a head injury than a young lad going out to nightclubs on foot on a Friday night in a major town centre. But would anyone seriously suggest that people should wear a helmet when going to the pub?
However, after all that I will say that I do firmly believe that for the types of cycling most of us do (commuting on city streets shared with cars, riding road bikes with skinny tyres fast on rolling/hilly and twisting country roads etc) the sort of protection that a helmet offers does make it a very good idea to wear one, given the risks. But this doesn't mean that any individual cyclist who chooses not to wear one after a personal risk assessment is necessarily an idiot, or that anyone has the right to judge him/her for it.0 -
Hoopdriver wrote:migrantwing wrote:Wear one, or don't wear one. Personal choice. Even if it is made a law that you must wear a helmet, how many motorists still speed or not wear a seatbelt.
As for Wiggins, yeah, he's good at what he does, extremely good, but I've always thought him to be a bit of a nob. I dunno what it is with him. He has that 'is it confidence or arrogance' type of personality, of which I don't know what it is. I can't really comment as I don't know that much about him or seen that many interviews/footage of him, so I can't really make a judgment, just my first impressions.
It's called personal opinion, my dearest Hoopdriver.Ghost Race 5000 (2011) Shimano 105 Black
Carrera TDF (2007)
http://www.bike-discount.de/#
http://www.bike24.com/0 -
migrantwing wrote:Hoopdriver wrote:migrantwing wrote:Wear one, or don't wear one. Personal choice. Even if it is made a law that you must wear a helmet, how many motorists still speed or not wear a seatbelt.
As for Wiggins, yeah, he's good at what he does, extremely good, but I've always thought him to be a bit of a nob. I dunno what it is with him. He has that 'is it confidence or arrogance' type of personality, of which I don't know what it is. I can't really comment as I don't know that much about him or seen that many interviews/footage of him, so I can't really make a judgment, just my first impressions.
It's called personal opinion, my dearest Hoopdriver.
I was pointing out the curious contradiction in your saying that you don't know/can't comment and then in the same breath proceeding to comment anyway.0 -
neeb wrote:However, after all that I will say that I do firmly believe that for the types of cycling most of us do (commuting on city streets shared with cars, riding road bikes with skinny tyres fast on rolling/hilly and twisting country roads etc) the sort of protection that a helmet offers does make it a very good idea to wear one, given the risks. But this doesn't mean that any individual cyclist who chooses not to wear one after a personal risk assessment is necessarily an idiot, or that anyone has the right to judge him/her for it.
I'm pro-helmet but also pro-choice and since most of us whizz along at decent speeds sharing the roads with cars I do reserve the right to think people that choose not to wear helmets have a poor risk assessment and they are idiots. To compare it to walking along the street is plain daft. I've even seen the anti-helmet brigade say "You are more likely to die in bed, why don't you wear a helmet there?" and I belm at them too.
Furthermore Tucker has a bee in his polystyrene fruit bowl over Wiggins being a hypocrite by allowing his son to ride a bike without a helmet. Riding at bugger all mph on a closed road surrounded by medical experts Wiggins made the same personal choice and risk assessment that people are rightly advocating.0 -
0
-
Fascinating discussion…
How to separate the fact from the emotion?
Is it “selfish” riding a pedal bike without a helmet to protect your loved ones? Well, what about the risk of death due to riding a motorbike vs a pedal bike? Is it not more selfish to ride a motorbike? Or go hill walking? Or not check yourself for lumps?! All of those things are a personal choice and I fail to see how anyone can get worked up about whether anyone else chooses to do so or not.
Why wear a helmet when cycling? Easiest answer could be to avoid death or serious injury due to a head knock. Great, but what’s the most likely cause for me to die? And what’s the chance of dying when I am out cycling? If you look at the numbers then it’s pretty clear that cycling is safe (especially if you have some common sense, the lack of which seems to contribute to many accidents) and that we do loads of other “safe” things without any protective gear or legal restrictions. For example should it be illegal to take something out the oven without wearing tested and approved oven gloves?? Well there are a lot of serious burns every year….
I always wear a lid, more by habit than anything.0 -
"Our family do not want Daniel's name associated with any protests, or used for any political point-scoring whatsoever by pro-cycling lobbyists or similar factions," they said.
"Everyone who knew Dan loved him for his sense of humour, fun and adventure. He was an experienced cyclist and we want it to be known that he was wearing a helmet. He wasn't just cycling because of the high profile it has received because of the Olympics, he was just going backwards and forwards to work as he always did."
"We as a family would like to thank everyone for their kind words of support over our tragic and devastating loss of a wonderful son and boyfriend."
From the dead man's family.
Can this thread now end please it is just going over the same old, same old, and disrespectful.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Hes 100% in my opinion. I think they should be legal. I couldnt give a flying fcuk of people disagree with my opinion. A helmet saved my life 2 weeks ago.
The argument about not wearing one to nip to the shops down the street etc. A car that hits you, does not know you are only nipping to the shops does it?
All this other b@lls about putting people off cycling when we are trying to boost its popularity. Economic crap, there is nothing more valuable than a human life.
Disagree all you want. But to claim someone is a t0sser for sugesting to legalise something that may save your life? Do one mate!Cube Attain SL Disc
Giant CRS 2.00 -
58585 wrote:Fascinating discussion…
How to separate the fact from the emotion?
Is it “selfish” riding a pedal bike without a helmet to protect your loved ones? Well, what about the risk of death due to riding a motorbike vs a pedal bike? Is it not more selfish to ride a motorbike? Or go hill walking? Or not check yourself for lumps?! All of those things are a personal choice and I fail to see how anyone can get worked up about whether anyone else chooses to do so or not.
Why wear a helmet when cycling? Easiest answer could be to avoid death or serious injury due to a head knock. Great, but what’s the most likely cause for me to die? And what’s the chance of dying when I am out cycling? If you look at the numbers then it’s pretty clear that cycling is safe (especially if you have some common sense, the lack of which seems to contribute to many accidents) and that we do loads of other “safe” things without any protective gear or legal restrictions. For example should it be illegal to take something out the oven without wearing tested and approved oven gloves?? Well there are a lot of serious burns every year….
I always wear a lid, more by habit than anything.
So what is the big deal about wearing it then? You say common sense? Wearing a helmet seems sensible to me. So put one on for the peace of mind? Im always a sensible rider, but it didnt stop a car driver not paying attention to hit me at speed. Busted my helmet bits. I dont see the big deal, what is it so bad about a helmet that people wont wear one? Im not suggesting you dont wear one because you dont state in your post if you do or not.Cube Attain SL Disc
Giant CRS 2.00 -
seanorawe wrote:Hes 100% in my opinion.seanorawe wrote:I think they should be legal. I couldnt give a flying fcuk of people disagree with my opinion. A helmet saved my life 2 weeks ago.
Just because a helmet "saved" your life doesn't mean it will always - perhaps you need a stiffer helmet next time - or in a different circumstance it might actually be a hindrance and cause more injury ...seanorawe wrote:The argument about not wearing one to nip to the shops down the street etc. A car that hits you, does not know you are only nipping to the shops does it?
You could argue that all sorts of safety equipment should be mandatory for all sorts of activities - but more often than not they will be totally OTT.seanorawe wrote:All this other b@lls about putting people off cycling when we are trying to boost its popularity. Economic crap, there is nothing more valuable than a human life.seanorawe wrote:Disagree all you want.seanorawe wrote:legalise something that may save your life? Do one mate!0 -
seanorawe wrote:All this other b@lls about putting people off cycling when we are trying to boost its popularity. Economic crap, there is nothing more valuable than a human life.
Personal choice is a good thing. If I'm going out in good conditions for a relatively gentle ride on quiet roads, I prefer not to wear a helmet. It feels nicer, simple as that. If I'm doing intervals, riding through rush hour traffic, riding in a group, riding in ice or rain... I strap some polystyrene to my head, because the risk of falling on those rides is a lot higher. You may argue that if I fall off and hit my head that my view will change, and, well, no. It won't. I have fallen off my mountain bike and hit my head multiple times, one of which left a nice dent in the helmet where a stone tried to enter my cranium. I've been knocked off my road bike while not wearing a helmet, most recently last Thursday, but the number of miles I do per fall on the rides where I'm not wearing a helmet compared to the number of miles per fall on rides where I would choose to wear a helmet is a ratio that I feel justifies my decision, when the fact that it feels a lot nicer is taken into account.
Could I get killed on the rides where I'm not wearing a helmet? Yep.
Could I get killed on the rides where I am wearing a helmet? Still yes.
Am I going to change to wearing a helmet on every ride? Nope.0 -
I think Chris Bass is right that this thread has run its course. All of the relevant (and familiar) arguments have been put forward, and there is not much that can be done to reason with those who are too stupid or too lazy to properly engage with them... (i.e. those who "think x" and "couldn't give a flying" etc...)0
-
Chris Bass wrote:"Our family do not want Daniel's name associated with any protests, or used for any political point-scoring whatsoever by pro-cycling lobbyists or similar factions," they said.
"Everyone who knew Dan loved him for his sense of humour, fun and adventure. He was an experienced cyclist and we want it to be known that he was wearing a helmet. He wasn't just cycling because of the high profile it has received because of the Olympics, he was just going backwards and forwards to work as he always did."
"We as a family would like to thank everyone for their kind words of support over our tragic and devastating loss of a wonderful son and boyfriend."
From the dead man's family.
Can this thread now end please it is just going over the same old, same old, and disrespectful.0 -
seanorawe wrote:legalise something that may save your life? Do one mate!
Whats your big problem about wearing one? How does it hinder your ride/view? It weighs next to nothing. It should be legal to wear one because it increases your chances of staying safe. It does not matter what angle you look at it. You can not argue against the fact that if you fall and hit your head, a helmet will reduce the impact. I was told by the paramedic at my crash scene that if I was not wearing my helmet, I would have very likely died. My head still hurt like hell after the impact but at least it was unbroken.Cube Attain SL Disc
Giant CRS 2.00 -
seanorawe wrote:seanorawe wrote:legalise something that may save your life? Do one mate!seanorawe wrote:Whats your big problem about wearing one?seanorawe wrote:Oh - so you do How does it hinder your ride/view? It weighs next to nothing.seanorawe wrote:It should be legal to wear one because it increases your chances of staying safe.
Reflective gear is better for visibility - perhaps it should be illegal to cycle without that ...
Lights make you more visible too - perhaps should a legal requirement to have them on all the time ...
Well - if we're going down that far, perhaps we should check gear failure on a bike too - MOTs for bikes anyone?seanorawe wrote:It does not matter what angle you look at it. You can not argue against the fact that if you fall and hit your head, a helmet will reduce the impact. I was told by the paramedic at my crash scene that if I was not wearing my helmet, I would have very likely died. My head still hurt like hell after the impact but at least it was unbroken.
It doesn't matter which way you look at it - the risk of falling off and hitting your head changes depending on what/where and how fast you're cycling ...
You cannot legislate safety - there will always be scenarios you've not thought of where what you're trying to legislate against will happen regardless - what you can do is advise and make ppl aware of their own vulnerability.0 -
TKF wrote:Furthermore Tucker has a bee in his polystyrene fruit bowl over Wiggins being a hypocrite by allowing his son to ride a bike without a helmet. Riding at bugger all mph on a closed road surrounded by medical experts Wiggins made the same personal choice and risk assessment that people are rightly advocating.
Yep, in that scenario I wouldn't make my son wear a helmet either. But then I wouldn't have subsequently called for compulsory helmets a week later FFS.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:TKF wrote:Furthermore Tucker has a bee in his polystyrene fruit bowl over Wiggins being a hypocrite by allowing his son to ride a bike without a helmet. Riding at bugger all mph on a closed road surrounded by medical experts Wiggins made the same personal choice and risk assessment that people are rightly advocating.
Yep, in that scenario I wouldn't make my son wear a helmet either. But then I wouldn't have subsequently called for compulsory helmets a week later FFS.0 -
It might not save you from a bad accident but most accidents are from slow speed.Falling on your head is not a good idea so at least wearing a helmet gives you some protection.0
-
oldwelshman wrote:P_Tucker wrote:TKF wrote:Furthermore Tucker has a bee in his polystyrene fruit bowl over Wiggins being a hypocrite by allowing his son to ride a bike without a helmet. Riding at bugger all mph on a closed road surrounded by medical experts Wiggins made the same personal choice and risk assessment that people are rightly advocating.
Yep, in that scenario I wouldn't make my son wear a helmet either. But then I wouldn't have subsequently called for compulsory helmets a week later FFS.0 -
Wiggins wrote:Ultimately, if you get knocked off and you don’t have a helmet on, then you can’t argue. You can get killed if you don’t have a helmet on. You shouldn’t be riding along with iPods and phones and things on. You should have lights on. Once there are laws passed for cyclists then you are protected and you can say, ‘Well I have done everything to be protected and be safe.’
Errrrr....0 -
neeb wrote:P_Tucker wrote:Graeme Jones wrote:I must admit I thought this forum came across well until this thread. Some inane responses to say the least.
I never understand why people would choose not to wear a helmet the options are have something that 'might' protect your skull in the event of a knock or don't and risk 'possible' damage without. It just baffles me? I don't see any positives from choosing not to wear one.
The argument of 'pro choice' is a bit petulant that you choose not to wear one because its your right. Fair enough but again comes back to my point what benefits are there of not wearing one? Your head is slightly more cooler in the breeze?
I have come from motorbikes so it was a natural transition to choose to wear one.
With loved ones at home why would I choose to be selfish enough not try and protect my skull in the case of an accident? If a helmet increased my chance of survival or not being brain damaged by 1% I'd still wear the lid.
Why don't you wear a helmet every time you leave your house?TKF wrote:Is that the best you can do? You're better than this.
I'm belming at you, Tucker, belming.
Actually I'm going to defend Tucker here (for once), he's actually hit the nail on the head in implying that there are no absolutes in individual decisions to wear or not wear a helmet when cycling, despite what almost everyone seems to think, irrespective of what side of the debate they are on. Graeme Jones can't understand why anyone would choose not to wear a helmet, when it might protect you in the event of an accident, and there are (supposedly) no significant negative consequences of wearing one. But exactly the same argument could be put forward for wearing a helmet every time you leave the house. We are all pedestrians, and walking around town there is a risk of being hit by a car when crossing the road, being assaulted, etc. There can be little doubt that if cycle helmets offer some protection when cycling, they would also offer some protection to pedestrians. And yet nearly everyone would agree that in the case of pedestrians, the trouble and discomfort of wearing a helmet outweighs the potential benefits, given the risks. So (with no disrespect), Graeme Jones' argument as presented, without being put in the context of a quantification of risk, is completely meaningless.
The reason that in practice it's probably not meaningless is completely down to the relative risks of head injury as a cyclist and as a pedestrian. It seems to be taken for granted that the risks of the sort of head injury that a helmet could protect against are so exponentially more massive as a cyclist than they are as a pedestrian that it is not even worth talking about why it is sensible to wear a helmet when cycling but ridiculous to wear one as a pedestrian. But this is by no means clear-cut or trivial. A experienced regular cyclist pottering 1 mile to the shops at 10mph on a sit-up-and-beg in a quiet country village is probably not at any greater risk of a head injury than a young lad going out to nightclubs on foot on a Friday night in a major town centre. But would anyone seriously suggest that people should wear a helmet when going to the pub?
However, after all that I will say that I do firmly believe that for the types of cycling most of us do (commuting on city streets shared with cars, riding road bikes with skinny tyres fast on rolling/hilly and twisting country roads etc) the sort of protection that a helmet offers does make it a very good idea to wear one, given the risks. But this doesn't mean that any individual cyclist who chooses not to wear one after a personal risk assessment is necessarily an idiot, or that anyone has the right to judge him/her for it.
That's what I would have said if I wasn't of the opinion that anyone who couldn't infer the above from my one-liner isn't intelligent enough to be worth arguing with.0 -
P_Tucker wrote:That's what I would have said if I wasn't of the opinion that anyone who couldn't infer the above from my one-liner isn't intelligent enough to be worth arguing with.0