Wiggins On Helmets and the Olympic Death

«13

Comments

  • Dorset_Boy
    Dorset_Boy Posts: 7,402
    Why wouldn't you wear a helmet? <<<Ducks and runs for cover>>>

    Equally important though is his point about i-pods and the like. You are crazy to ride on the roads and remove one of your key senses - hearing what is around you is almost as important as seeing what is around.

    The same goes for skiing - you are just stupid to ski or cycle with music blasting into your ears so you can't hear what is going on around you.
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    I respectfully disagree with him re: Helmets.

    Headphones, absolutely (in an urban setting!)
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • celbianchi
    celbianchi Posts: 854
    Disagree with him on helmets. I also disagree with him fully on music. City centres and busy urban areas I agree, out in the sticks there is no harm in having the music on.

    Anyhooo - the scene below is probably one where a helmet *might* serve it's purpose. Obviously his son not wearing one either is not a problem for him.

    article-2177259-142BAF09000005DC-452_964x698.jpg
  • Dorset_Boy
    Dorset_Boy Posts: 7,402
    No music is just as important in the sticks, to hear those vehicles ghosting up on you, or to hear a vehicle heading your way along a narrow country lane, or a dog about to sneak out a gateway, or ..............
  • celbianchi
    celbianchi Posts: 854
    Dorset Boy wrote:
    No music is just as important in the sticks, to hear those vehicles ghosting up on you, or to hear a vehicle heading your way along a narrow country lane, or a dog about to sneak out a gateway, or ..............


    Do you have the radio on in the car?

    I find that most ear buds I have used allow decent appreciation of surrounding traffic.
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    Dorset Boy wrote:
    No music is just as important in the sticks, to hear those vehicles ghosting up on you, or to hear a vehicle heading your way along a narrow country lane, or a dog about to sneak out a gateway, or ..............

    Having cycled in the sticks with and without headphones for 15 years, I can honestly say I have never had an accident whilst cycling on my own (which is the only time I wear them) other than on ice. What's wrong with letting people make their own minds up without hectoring them?
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • Dorset_Boy
    Dorset_Boy Posts: 7,402
    Ultimately it will be the insurance companies that decide. That's starting to happen in skiing. Resorts might not make lids compulsory, but insurers will.
  • inkyfingers
    inkyfingers Posts: 4,400
    celbianchi wrote:
    Disagree with him on helmets. I also disagree with him fully on music. City centres and busy urban areas I agree, out in the sticks there is no harm in having the music on.

    Anyhooo - the scene below is probably one where a helmet *might* serve it's purpose. Obviously his son not wearing one either is not a problem for him.

    article-2177259-142BAF09000005DC-452_964x698.jpg

    Sorry, but that's hardly a typical bike ride he's on with his son though is it...

    I don't think helmets should be made a legal requirement, but do think that people should be encouraged to wear them, especially kids. I wear a helmet usually, except in the heigh of summer when I find them really uncomfortable so sometimes don't wear it.

    I don't like cyclists wearing headphones (though I have done it in the past). If we are going to moan about motorists not concentrating on the road or being on the phone etc then we should make sure that our concentration is 100% on the road as well.

    In Wiggins position I don't think he has a choice but to advocate helment use, he's in a position of some influence now so has to toe the line to a certain extent.
    "I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Should take radios out of cars if they ban earphones on bikes.
    _
  • alan_a
    alan_a Posts: 1,584
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    Dorset Boy wrote:
    No music is just as important in the sticks, to hear those vehicles ghosting up on you, or to hear a vehicle heading your way along a narrow country lane, or a dog about to sneak out a gateway, or ..............

    Having cycled in the sticks with and without headphones for 15 years, I can honestly say I have never had an accident whilst cycling on my own (which is the only time I wear them) other than on ice. What's wrong with letting people make their own minds up without hectoring them?

    +1


    With regards the accident in question, from the photographs it sadly looks like a classic case of cyclist going up inside of bus turning left.

    My thoughts are with the cyclist, driver and families. I know there are a fair few BR regulars who commute via this area and infant have a thread regarding this route in commuter chat. Hopefully none involved in this accident.
    http://www.3pistescycle.co.uk
    Twitter @3pistescycle
    INSTA @tourclownunder
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,574
    So BBC Radio 5 was reporting this, they then had helpful comments from listeners. These included: cyclists should wear high-vis vests by law, shouldn't ride two a breast etc.

    It's almost like the cyclist killed the motorist.
  • LeicesterLad
    LeicesterLad Posts: 3,908
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Should take radios out of cars if they ban earphones on bikes.

    I see what you are getting at, but there are some clear differences. In a car, low level impact is much less of a risk to health as being hit on a bike with no big metal box surrounding you, also a radio at a reasonable level in the car still allows you to hear the road because you havn't got buds stuck up your lugholes, so do not drown out background noise.
    http://www.twitter.com/InTheGC http://www.InTheGC.com http://www.facebook.com/intheGC
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    Alan A wrote:
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    Dorset Boy wrote:
    No music is just as important in the sticks, to hear those vehicles ghosting up on you, or to hear a vehicle heading your way along a narrow country lane, or a dog about to sneak out a gateway, or ..............

    Having cycled in the sticks with and without headphones for 15 years, I can honestly say I have never had an accident whilst cycling on my own (which is the only time I wear them) other than on ice. What's wrong with letting people make their own minds up without hectoring them?

    +1


    With regards the accident in question, from the photographs it sadly looks like a classic case of cyclist going up inside of bus turning left.

    Exactly... I commute through one of the busier roads into Glasgow 4 days a week. I always wear a helmet for it, never listen to music, never jump red lights, only pass traffic on the right and yet I got hit by a car turning across me 6 weeks ago.

    When I ride at the weekends, I rarely wear a helmet, listen to music maybe 50% of the time and stil observe the rules of the road and ride safely with (touch wood) no incident.

    If you go up the left of large vehicles which can't see you easily then a helmet or earphones isn't going to help you.
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • inkyfingers
    inkyfingers Posts: 4,400
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Should take radios out of cars if they ban earphones on bikes.

    I disagree Rick. In a car listening to the radio will not stop you hearing a cyclist approaching, but listening to the radio will stop a cyclist hearing a car approaching. Though I do agree that the radio is a distraction.

    A few months ago some dizzy tart overtook me just as I was turning right into a side street, i'd looked behind, indicated to the right and had moved into the centre of the road and was just about to turn when she overtook me (going onto the wrong side of the road to do so). I was saved by the fact that I heard her engine revving and looked back one final time before I turned.
    "I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    It's possible to listen to music at a level that doesn't drown out traffic noise.
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • celbianchi
    celbianchi Posts: 854
    inkyfingers wrote:
    celbianchi wrote:
    Disagree with him on helmets. I also disagree with him fully on music. City centres and busy urban areas I agree, out in the sticks there is no harm in having the music on.

    Anyhooo - the scene below is probably one where a helmet *might* serve it's purpose. Obviously his son not wearing one either is not a problem for him.

    article-2177259-142BAF09000005DC-452_964x698.jpg

    Sorry, but that's hardly a typical bike ride he's on with his son though is it...
    I don't think helmets should be made a legal requirement, but do think that people should be encouraged to wear them, especially kids. I wear a helmet usually, except in the heigh of summer when I find them really uncomfortable so sometimes don't wear it.

    I don't like cyclists wearing headphones (though I have done it in the past). If we are going to moan about motorists not concentrating on the road or being on the phone etc then we should make sure that our concentration is 100% on the road as well.

    In Wiggins position I don't think he has a choice but to advocate helment use, he's in a position of some influence now so has to toe the line to a certain extent.

    Obviously not. However, the same 50/50 chance that he will either fall off and bang his head or won't.
    So if one advocates compulsary helmet use then one has to use one at all times irrespective of the personal evaluation concering likely risk. The pictured scene could be on a tow path cycling to the shops etc...
    I only wear a lid for racing (and I think I probably would even if it were not a condition of entry). Never wear one to train in.

    Wiggo does not strike me as one for toeing the line, he speaks his mind on most subjects.
  • smithy21
    smithy21 Posts: 2,204
    It really comes down to personal choice doesnt it. Well almost- even if my personal choice was to ride without a helmet my wife would refuse to let me out the front door without one. And in that case I am not going to put her through the additional worry of going out without one.

    Headphones seems insane to me. Again personal opinion.
  • petemadoc
    petemadoc Posts: 2,331
    Wiggo opens the helmet can of worms...

    Unfortunately it looks like this poor guy rode up the inside of a bus which then turned left. A story that's been told over and over again. very very sad. There needs to be some serious education on this.
  • andy_welch
    andy_welch Posts: 1,101
    TheBigBean wrote:
    So BBC Radio 5 was reporting this, they then had helpful comments from listeners. These included: cyclists should wear high-vis vests by law, shouldn't ride two a breast etc.

    It's almost like the cyclist killed the motorist.

    Indeed.

    Whatever you think about the benefits of helmets or the risk of ipods, it's a bit of a PR gaff from Bradley. When somebody gets killed rule number one is that you don't start by blaming the victim. I'm sure that's not what he intended, but it could end up rebounding on him a bit.

    Analogies are never perfect of course, but consider what would happen if somebody suggested a law banning women from wearing short skirts and cited "research" showing that women who do suffer more attacks than those who don't. Thankfully, in the area of violence against women, we've finally moved away from a culture of blaming the victim and most debates are now firmly focussed on dealing the perpetrators. As cyclists we need to try to ensure that any discussions on reducing risk to cyclists are equally focussed on the actions of the people who are piloting a ton of metal around the streets and try not to get drawn into a discussion on whether sticking an inch of styrofoam on your head is going to help. Ultimately it takes up a huge amount of time and completely misses the point.

    Cheers,

    Andy
  • Gazzaputt
    Gazzaputt Posts: 3,227
    Compulsory for under 16s imo.
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    Gazzaputt wrote:
    Compulsory for under 16s imo.

    I'd even be wary about that... Didn't Boardman manage to poduce some stats showing less involvement in cycling by kids in countries which have a helmet law?
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    Gazzaputt wrote:
    Compulsory for under 16s imo.

    I'd even be wary about that... Didn't Boardman manage to poduce some stats showing less involvement in cycling by kids in countries which have a helmet law?

    Wasn't so much he produced - he was given them when he was asked to be on a panel reviewing the question of compulsary helmets.

    The jist of his argument boiled down to this:

    Compulsory helmet laws in nations have considerably reduced cycling participation, especially in the young.

    This cost to public health is more than the cost of having some riders sustain injuries that a helmet would have prevented had a compulsory law been introduced.

    Ergo, don't make it compulsory.
    _
  • disgruntledgoat
    disgruntledgoat Posts: 8,957
    Got to love cold, hard data.
    "In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"

    @gietvangent
  • Cubic
    Cubic Posts: 594
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Should take radios out of cars if they ban earphones on bikes.

    I disagree. In the car you have three mirrors to give you situational awareness. If you use headphones when cycling you're left with having to look behind yourself to know what happening on the road, which isn't as simple as flicking your eyes to the mirrors while driving. So, I don't think that the banning radios in cars argument works.
    Cannondale Synapse Carbon

    Giant Anthem X 29er 2
  • phreak
    phreak Posts: 2,941
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Should take radios out of cars if they ban earphones on bikes.

    Not sure I agree. In a car there's much less risk of an accident coming from behind. On a bike though I'm sure we've all experienced cars trying to squeeze past when there wasn't room to.

    Of course it's up to us as individuals if we want to wear them, but not for me. Plenty to amuse me whilst on rides as it is without needing music.
  • petemadoc
    petemadoc Posts: 2,331
    Radios in cars has feck all to do with wearing headphones while cycling.
  • garryc
    garryc Posts: 203
    Well regardless of where you stand on the helmet/music/destraction debate. I kind of find it strange that they would ask Bradley about it.

    I mean when was the last time a journalist asked Lewis Hamilton about proposed 20mph speed limits in urban areas for example?
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    garryc wrote:
    Well regardless of where you stand on the helmet/music/destraction debate. I kind of find it strange that they would ask Bradley about it.

    I mean when was the last time a journalist asked Lewis Hamilton about proposed 20mph speed limits in urban areas for example?

    When was the last time Hamilton practised his F1 car on open roads?
    _
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    You can just put one ear bud in, and still hear 99% of what you do w/out the music. Anyway, I generally find wind noise drowns out far more vehicle noise than music. Ultimately, what's important is how you ride on the road, not whether you're wearing a helmet, or listening to music. You can be as 'alert' as you like, if you haven't been educated on road positioning then you still might end up in the s***

    What I would like to see, are public information films on the blind spots of big vehicles being shown on primetime TV
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • thomthom
    thomthom Posts: 3,574
    disgruntledgoat wrote:
    It's possible to listen to music at a level that doesn't drown out traffic noise.
    Exactly.

Categories