Wiggins On Helmets and the Olympic Death

andyp

On closed roads.

rebs

Natrix next you'l be complaining about how often Wiggins rides through red lights and on the wrong side of the road

Or his sense of direction is poor as he keeps riding round the same wooden road round about over and over!

thiscocks

This 'you must wear a helmet' rubbish really gets tiring. Bring back the days where the pros could decide for themselves rather than be told what to do in this modern world of 'elf and saftey.

natrix

andyp wrote:

On closed roads.

Packed with cars and motorbikes...............

johnnyc71

PuttyKnees wrote:

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.

Personally I always wear a helmet for training, commuting and time trialling. I think they are useful for minor incidents. The point I'm making is that we over estimate the effectiveness of a helmet - in cases of collisions with cars. If you are travelling fast and have a sudden impact, the protection of a helmet is minimal - all of the damage is being caused inside the skull - the helmet will not reduce this, the head stops - the brain continues to move and then stops when it contacts your skull, thus leading to head injury - a helmet will stop / reduce abrasions. Last time I was hit by a car I was glad I was wearing my helmet - but they are useless for major impacts to the head.

prawny

On the iPod thing, I dont normally listen to music on my bike but I have once or twice and the majority of the time you can't hear any more of the surroundings without earbuds in. As long as you've not got something pretty intrusive like Shures or Etymotics you can hear your surroundings pretty well. With no buds in you cant hear cuz of the wind noise in your helmet straps.

jonginge

prawny wrote:

On the iPod thing, I dont normally listen to music on my bike but I have once or twice and the majority of the time you can't hear any more of the surroundings without earbuds in. As long as you've not got something pretty intrusive like Shures or Etymotics you can hear your surroundings pretty well. With no buds in you cant hear cuz of the wind noise in your helmet straps.

Aha! Casquette to the rescue!

mercsport

Slightly surprised no one has put forth the ctc's attitude to helmets in this thread, but then realised this is a racers forum. However many a racer will also be a ctc member too I expect.

BTW, I have form upon falling and being knocked off bicycles. The list is long and goes back to schooldays. Am 66 now and can but say that it hurts more the older you get.

My take on it all is very much against compulsion. It is also not silly to suggest that if we cyclists are compelled to wear helmets then it must be equally so for any form of locomotion including walking. A health and safety obsessive could build strong arguments about virtually any scenario imaginable: they're good at that. Thanks to Wiggo it will only be a matter of weeks before some politico slithering up the greasy pole will reiterate Bradley's thoughts on the matter. Then it will become a bore'athon about 'common sense' and it 'just goes to show'.

Incidentally, I don't wear a helmet ever (were I a MTB'er I would though) but consider those riders who plug their ears up for music or whatever are nuts. Now I think of it, the same goes for race radios cluttering up a racer's senses. Imagine having to listen to Sean Yates -who always sounds like a drunk twixt the thresholds of a pub and the betting shop - all day. S'trewth!

Anyway, here goes: http://goo.gl/vgupt

And here: http://goo.gl/u5YVi click the links at the bottom of this page for most of the guff.

disgruntledgoat

JonGinge wrote:

prawny wrote:

On the iPod thing, I dont normally listen to music on my bike but I have once or twice and the majority of the time you can't hear any more of the surroundings without earbuds in. As long as you've not got something pretty intrusive like Shures or Etymotics you can hear your surroundings pretty well. With no buds in you cant hear cuz of the wind noise in your helmet straps.

Aha! Casquette to the rescue!

They can prise my casquette from my cold dead hands.

Blancmange

The poor guy went under a 20(?) ton bus. Does Wiggo think a bicycle helmet would have saved his life?

graeme_s-2

Latest from the man himself:

@bradwiggins wrote:

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

10m Bradley Wiggins ‏@bradwiggins
I suggested it may be the way to go to give cyclists more protection legally I involved In an accident

11m Bradley Wiggins ‏@bradwiggins
Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as reports suggest

vs

mercsport wrote:

My take on it all is very much against compulsion. It is also not silly to suggest that if we cyclists are compelled to wear helmets then it must be equally so for any form of locomotion including walking. A health and safety obsessive could build strong arguments about virtually any scenario imaginable: they're good at that.

A friends daughter came cycling up the path in the local park, parked her bike by a tree and took off her pretty pink helmet. Climbed up the tree, fell out of the tree and cut her head open.

natrix

@bradwiggins wrote:

11m Bradley Wiggins ‏@bradwiggins
Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as reports suggest

Seems like he's back-pedalling as fast as he normally pedals

Neil McC

Escher303 wrote:

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.

Best post in this thread, which is mostly full of rubbish.

liquor box

I would never listen to music as it destroys the nice sound of a well running maintained bike, I love the sound of my bike

Squaggles

The standard of cycling in London is pretty bad , helmet or not , ipod or not , riding up the left side of buses and lorries ?? People need educating about it

mfin

natrix wrote:

andyp wrote:

On closed roads.

Packed with cars and motorbikes...............

...all going the same direction, there for the sole purpose of supporting a cycling race full of cyclists cycling.

mfin

Picture your parents, kids, family coming to see you in hospital in a coma with head injuries, or worse still smashed up in a morgue or funeral directors... then think if you're selfish enough to not wear a helmet.

Helmets might not save you, but its sure as hell safer to be wearing one than not.

mercsport

mfin wrote:

Picture your parents, kids, family coming to see you in hospital in a coma with head injuries, or worse still smashed up in a morgue or funeral directors... then think if you're selfish enough to not wear a helmet.

Helmets might not save you, but its sure as hell safer to be wearing one than not.

Terrific advice for pedestrians, car drivers, airline pilots etc....

rdt

mfin wrote:

Picture your parents, kids, family coming to see you in hospital in a coma with head injuries, or worse still smashed up in a morgue or funeral directors... then think if you're selfish enough to not wear a helmet.

Helmets might not save you, but its sure as hell safer to be wearing one than not.

Cake Stop / Commuting, please.

disgruntledgoat

mfin wrote:

Picture your parents, kids, family coming to see you in hospital in a coma with head injuries, or worse still smashed up in a morgue or funeral directors... then think if you're selfish enough to not wear a helmet.

Helmets might not save you, but its sure as hell safer to be wearing one than not.

I'm evil, I admit it.

mroli

+1 - move it to cake stop/commuting unless we're talking about pros not wearing helmets?

davidof

Picture your parents, kids, family coming to see you in hospital in a coma with head injuries, or worse still smashed up in a morgue or funeral directors... then think if you're selfish enough to not wear a helmet.

Emotive stuff.

Have you actually done that, been to a hospital morgue to identify a very close relative? I did back in May. A helmet may have made a difference in this case but given the force of the impact - more to the side of the face - I wonder if maybe the person would have just had permenant brain damage or been otherwise disabled. It is perhaps some comfort to me that they died relatively quickly after having been given painkillers by a doctor. The morgues do a good job of making bodies look presentable, although head under wheels of truck is going beyond even their skills.

As another poster has said, I think we maybe overestimate where helmets would be effective... lowish energy impacts with objects like curbs.

Not to discourage anyone from wearing a helmet but if you are hooning down a hill at 100kp/h which you wouldn't otherwise do without a helmet you maybe need to think about risk homeostasis.

ps Boardman on Newsnight says helmet debate is a distraction and he's against forcing people to use them, indeed he thinks we need an environment where they are not necessary for casual bike use

Le Commentateur

The guy died because he ignored rule No.1 – don't trust the driver. He tried to squeeze past a stationary vehicle that then moved off and turned across his path. It's a common cause of fatal accidents involving cyclists. The driver might have been at fault if he did not have his indicator signalling until the moment he made that turn (a frequent lazy action by drivers) but I see cyclists taking stupid risks squeezing alongside big vehicles to save a few seconds journey time every time I ride in central London traffic.