Wiggins On Helmets and the Olympic Death
Comments
-
Jez mon wrote: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
Like this you mean?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzL0Kyk4m-80 -
Jez mon wrote: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
Agree totally. Drivers and riders both need to be educated big time!0 -
Much less risk to the driver's health - not necessarily to the health of the pedestrian or cyclist they hit.LeicesterLad wrote:n a car, low level impact is much less of a risk to health0 -
Should be concentrating on reducing the number of accidents - helmets don't do this, they may just reduce the level of damage caused. There will always be a tug-of-war between an individual's freedom to take their own risks and society's perception of responsibility etc. Currently we seem to be heading more to risk adversion.
I always wear a helmet commuting, racing, and on long weekend rides but when I am going to the shops 5 minutes away I don't usually bother. Also when doing DIY and I'm on a ladder I don't wear a helmet. My son runs down our wooden stairs and around the floors in his socks (and other clothing) and sometimes he slips, sometimes he doesn't, maybe there should be a law requiring people to wear socks with rubber grips when walking on wooden surfaces?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote: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?
err... Monaco?
Well it might not be in his F1 car most of the time but I can't see him poping down the shops in a Ford Ka.0 -
garryc wrote:Rick Chasey wrote: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?
err... Monaco?
Well it might not be in his F1 car most of the time but I can't see him poping down the shops in a Ford Ka.
For sure, but roadies train on the open roads all day.
Hamilton doesn't train by driving his car on open roads. Monaco is shut when he's practising.
Ultimately pro roadies spend a lot of time on the road on their bike, so it's reasonable for a journo to ask them about what it's like.0 -
Graeme_S wrote:
Much less risk to the driver's health - not necessarily to the health of the pedestrian or cyclist they hit.LeicesterLad wrote:n a car, low level impact is much less of a risk to health
+ 1
I'm pretty disappointed in Brad to come out with something like this without really looking into it (I assume in any case, as the evidence seems to be pretty good that helmet compulsion reduces cyclist numbers and increases road deaths per mile - that is NOT the same thing as saying that an individual cyclist is safer not wearing a helmet btw). I can understand that as a racer it's a no-brainer to wear a helmet as the impacts are sufficiently high speed that you can't always protect your head, but are less likely to involve lorries/high speed cars that would negate the effect of the helmet but...that doesn't mean that helmet compulsion is anywhere near sensible.0 -
Better designed streets and junctions, tougher enforcement of traffic laws and a more serious attitude by Police to accidents involving cyclists (as well as charging offenders under the more serious category offenses such as causing death by dangerous driving rather than careless driving etc) would go a long way towards helping things get better.
Once motorists are put in a position where they are fully aware that failing to look out for cyclists will get them more than just a slap on the wrist then the helmet/earphones debate will seem a lot less important in the grand scheme of things. We're still at the stage where Radio 5 listeners think the "correct" response to asking them not to kill cyclists is for them to say it's all the fault of the bloke on the bike.0 -
Don't wear a helmet any more. However I do ride alone on very quiet moorland roads. Since stopping wearing one, about a year ago, I have noticed that most drivers do seem to pass slower and wider.
Interesting that Assos put iPod 'holes' in most of their tops. Wouldn't personally wear one unless it's dark and you can see car lights from behind.0 -
You can hear traffic with in-ear earphones at a good volume so I can only think people moaning about ipods etc have never used them themselves. However if you get hit by a car and you are wearing earphones I bet you'll be to blame.0
-
vs wrote:Don't wear a helmet any more. However I do ride alone on very quiet moorland roads. Since stopping wearing one, about a year ago, I have noticed that most drivers do seem to pass slower and wider.
Interesting that Assos put iPod 'holes' in most of their tops. Wouldn't personally wear one unless it's dark and you can see car lights from behind.
This a total fallacy.0 -
I drove through London for the first time on Monday from Eltham across to Kennington before crossing the river and out to the M4. I was delighted by the amount of cyclists I saw but the standard of riding was absolutely appalling. Several times I had to stop as people rode straight at me on the wrong side of the road to avoid traffic queues (motorcyclists were just as bad) and in one case this was happening in sight of an accident scene where a motorcyclist was being put into an ambulance. I regularly had cyclists coming around me in stop-start traffic and then cutting across my bonnet to go up the other side of vehicles in front, I felt like I needed extra eyes at times and I was concentrating hard due to not knowing my way around as well as being very 'cycle aware'. The worst case though was going along Grovesnor Road / Chelsea Embankment. At the junction with the bridge the cyclists were going up the CS8 lane and moving across to the right hand side of the ASL, the road is marked so that traffic in both lanes can go ahead into Chelsea Embankment and the cyclists were then cutting across 2 lanes of moving traffic to get back to the cycle lane on the other side of the junction. I could certainly see why motorists get upset by the standard of riding and the use of helmets isn't going to protect anyone riding like that.0
-
PeteMadoc wrote:Radios in cars has feck all to do with wearing headphones while cycling.
Cycling and driving a car both require situational awareness. Any music being played in a car will certainly diminish the drivers' hearing sense, but this isn't deemed a problem for drivers. What's the difference with a cyclist listening to music?0 -
Pross wrote:I drove through London for the first time on Monday from Eltham across to Kennington before crossing the river and out to the M4. I was delighted by the amount of cyclists I saw but the standard of riding was absolutely appalling. Several times I had to stop as people rode straight at me on the wrong side of the road to avoid traffic queues (motorcyclists were just as bad) and in one case this was happening in sight of an accident scene where a motorcyclist was being put into an ambulance. I regularly had cyclists coming around me in stop-start traffic and then cutting across my bonnet to go up the other side of vehicles in front, I felt like I needed extra eyes at times and I was concentrating hard due to not knowing my way around as well as being very 'cycle aware'. The worst case though was going along Grovesnor Road / Chelsea Embankment. At the junction with the bridge the cyclists were going up the CS8 lane and moving across to the right hand side of the ASL, the road is marked so that traffic in both lanes can go ahead into Chelsea Embankment and the cyclists were then cutting across 2 lanes of moving traffic to get back to the cycle lane on the other side of the junction. I could certainly see why motorists get upset by the standard of riding and the use of helmets isn't going to protect anyone riding like that.
My colleague was telling me about his bus trip to work on monday, in light of the Olympic incident, where a cyclist was jumping lights, hopping pavements, going up the left of buses etc etc. When a passenger said something to the driver about bloody cyclists, the driver replied
"That's not a cyclist, it's a bloke on a bike"
I like the distinction."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'"
@gietvangent0 -
Gazzaputt wrote:vs wrote:Don't wear a helmet any more. However I do ride alone on very quiet moorland roads. Since stopping wearing one, about a year ago, I have noticed that most drivers do seem to pass slower and wider.
Interesting that Assos put iPod 'holes' in most of their tops. Wouldn't personally wear one unless it's dark and you can see car lights from behind.
This a total fallacy.
In your opinion - have you tried it. Not talking about the busy 'A' roads but small moorland roads.
Have you seen the research by the guy who says a cycling in a woman's wig is safer than a cycle helmet. Maybe you think about a motorcycle helmet.
0 -
Fair comment and plenty of those in Cardiff when I commute, a lot of the commuters I saw in London (particularly from after the Peckham area) looked like proper cyclists, fully kitted out. Most of those doing the kamikaze head on rides were PoBs though. Motorcyclists were equally bad whilst the standard of driving was far better than I would have expected from what I hear of London.0
-
rodgers73 wrote:Better designed streets and junctions, tougher enforcement of traffic laws and a more serious attitude by Police to accidents involving cyclists (as well as charging offenders under the more serious category offenses such as causing death by dangerous driving rather than careless driving etc) would go a long way towards helping things get better.
Once motorists are put in a position where they are fully aware that failing to look out for cyclists will get them more than just a slap on the wrist then the helmet/earphones debate will seem a lot less important in the grand scheme of things. We're still at the stage where Radio 5 listeners think the "correct" response to asking them not to kill cyclists is for them to say it's all the fault of the bloke on the bike.
+1
This is getting closer to the heart of the issue. The whole helmet / music debate is just deflecting attention away from the improvements we must make to the road network.0 -
Re helmet debate - as previously mentioned, from a public health point of view compulsory helmet use kills more than it saves, recent review from NZ medical journal here. http://www.cycle-helmets.com/nz-clarke-2012.pdf
In this case sadly it seems it was irrelevant whether he had helmet or not as injury was crush injury to lower abdomen / thorax.
Eyewitness report from reddit below be aware though it is horrible to read.
http://www.reddit.com/r/bicycling/comme ... _his_last/‘There is No Try. There is only Do. Or do not.’0 -
I think the point and context of what Brad was saying is being missed. It's worth watching the whole video for the context. I think he is talking about politics more than anything, he's saying that if we want the powers that be and vehicle drivers in general to start respecting cyclists and for road safety to improve that we have to meet them half way and show them that cyclists are doing their bit and therefore have earnt the right for loads of money to be spent and for much more provision being given to cyclists.
By riding without helmets, with iPods, RLJ'ing, riding on pavements etc. it just plays into the hang em and flog em brigades hands that would ban cyclists from the roads if they could. If there is no comeback from them as cyclists are showing they are taking things seriously then the arguments swing in our favour.
I don't believe he actually thinks people should never ride without a helmet. He has found himself in an unenviable position where he is now the spokesman of the cycling nation. Then put on the spot, after a few sherbets and the most amazing month of his life and he has to straddle a difficult political line made all the more difficult by the sad death of that poor cyclist, probably knowing that whatever he said would be pulled apart by both the pro and anti cycling lobby. He wants cycling to become more and more popular and safer too, with all that it was a very difficult question to answer off the cuff and to be honest he did pretty well, whether you agree with everything he said or not.0 -
Arrghhh...helmet debate!
Back to the top - Wiggo has form for making remarks or comments that may be controversial, or unconsidered. He is quick witted and has opinions, that's fine. Perhaps on this occasion a more considered response might have been better.
Not sure why the journalist asked the question - are we seeing the press asking Brad anything, knowing that he will give good copy (or even get sweary)?Ecrasez l’infame0 -
Gazzaputt wrote:vs wrote:Don't wear a helmet any more. However I do ride alone on very quiet moorland roads. Since stopping wearing one, about a year ago, I have noticed that most drivers do seem to pass slower and wider.
Interesting that Assos put iPod 'holes' in most of their tops. Wouldn't personally wear one unless it's dark and you can see car lights from behind.
This a total fallacy.
Studies say otherwise
http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm0 -
The evidence put forward (usually against compulsory helmets) is pretty terrible. Any argument that says "I've ridden without a helmet and with earphones and I've never had an accident" is simply anecdote and is worthless: when in an accident, having no helmet increases the chances of damage during a head impact and having earphones in reduces your awareness. What should be assessed is the how the risk changes, not whether it does or not. Also, the "data" for/against cycling uptake following compulsory helmet legislation is ambiguous and conflicting at best.
Whatever the merits of the debate I can't see any government finding time to legislate for it anyway.0 -
PuttyKnees wrote:The evidence put forward (usually against compulsory helmets) is pretty terrible. Any argument that says "I've ridden without a helmet and with earphones and I've never had an accident" is simply anecdote and is worthless: when in an accident, having no helmet increases the chances of damage during a head impact and having earphones in reduces your awareness. What should be assessed is the how the risk changes, not whether it does or not. Also, the "data" for/against cycling uptake following compulsory helmet legislation is ambiguous and conflicting at best.
Whatever the merits of the debate I can't see any government finding time to legislate for it anyway.
A helmet won't stop your brain decelerating into your cranium - useful for minor impacts yes - but no good at absorbing the forces generated by a head on collision.0 -
By riding without helmets, with iPods, RLJ'ing, riding on pavements etc. it just plays into the hang em and flog em brigades hands that would ban cyclists from the roads if they could. If there is no comeback from them as cyclists are showing they are taking things seriously then the arguments swing in our favour.
Two of those are illegal. One of them, at the least, impairs your ability to judge your environment, the other is a choice. Does anybody ride worse because of the lack of a helmet?"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'"
@gietvangent0 -
Only twice Ive not worn a helmet in the last few years, once on a below zero night, pitch black, and wanted the warmth of a good hat... at night, you've got the complete benefit of seeing cars coming from the headlights.
The only other time I was warming up for a TT (where I was going to helmet up for it) and someone pulled out of a junction on me, too late to do anything and smashed me and the bike up. (and I am as careful as can be on the roads) I was lucky, about 20 visits to the Chiro, shaken up, claim on the bike luckily etc.
I reckon I was without a helmet for 10 minutes, Id never do it again (maaaaybe at night in the cold for the same reason, but we have VERY quiet roads). My reason is the injury is a lottery, and its not fair of me to risk that injury for what my daughter and family would have to go through if I was seriously injured/killed from a head impact.
Wear a helmet, if not for yourself, for your family and friends.0 -
Well fine johnny, but not all impacts are catastrophic - maybe helmets should be used to protect people for the other 99% of bangs on heads.
I started riding MTB's where there is simply no debate about helmet use, you re an idiot if you don't wear one, hence I'm so used to it now i don't even notice.
A few times I ve left it in the house before riding to work and I ve gotten nearly 3/4 of the way without noticing. Thus I don't buy the more comfort with out it thing. Sounds like you need to get one that fit's you properly instead of the prettiest colour. We spend thousands on our bikes and hundreds on our shorts/jerseys. There are plenty of helmets out there to find one that fits you as well as mine fits me - people just don't bother with it...
Wiggo was sugesting that we need to be "good cycling citizens" (fredcast, 200?) by obeying the laws in our respective countries. I agree with him completely on this.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
johnnyc71 wrote:A helmet won't stop your brain decelerating into your cranium - useful for minor impacts yes - but no good at absorbing the forces generated by a head on collision.
This is exactly what I mean! Of course it doesn't stop your brain decelarating, but what it does do is act as an energy absorber to reduce the rate of deceleration. There are some situations where that will be insignificant compared to the energy of the collision, but there are many where the benefit it provides is significant. It reduces risk.
Agree with ddraver - I also come from an MTB background and I don't even think about it now. Helmets are no longer those uncomfortable buckets with a strangling strap.0 -
ddraver wrote:Well fine johnny, but not all impacts are catastrophic - maybe helmets should be used to protect people for the other 99% of bangs on heads.
I started riding MTB's where there is simply no debate about helmet use, you re an idiot if you don't wear one, hence I'm so used to it now i don't even notice.
A few times I ve left it in the house before riding to work and I ve gotten nearly 3/4 of the way without noticing. Thus I don't buy the more comfort with out it thing. Sounds like you need to get one that fit's you properly instead of the prettiest colour. We spend thousands on our bikes and hundreds on our shorts/jerseys. There are plenty of helmets out there to find one that fits you as well as mine fits me - people just don't bother with it...
Wiggo was sugesting that we need to be "good cycling citizens" (fredcast, 200?) by obeying the laws in our respective countries. I agree with him completely on this.
I think we can all agree with that."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'"
@gietvangent0 -
Worth remember that wiggins has been in cycling where he has had it forced to wear a helmet and possibly hasn't purchased one in a very long time so openion in that respect may scew his point a little.
I disagree with being forced to wear a helmet. But I do wear a helmet.0
