Helmets debate at Olympic village

sigorman85

(Not sure if this should be in the roadie bit or what so if wrong please put in the rite place)

I'm sure this post will get the usual remarks but worth a read
And yes I wear a helmet just in case

http://www.bikebiz.com/user/read/16

nicklouse

poor link. what were you wanting to link to? Caltons comments!

covered ad nauseum in the road and comuting sections.

sigorman85

Remove then please buddy

sigorman85

This I what I was trying to post so I just copy&paste it lol


<>Fisher Outdoor Leisure picks up ...Moore Large boosts premium BMX ...
Wiggins wades into unwinnable helmet debate
by Carlton Reid
1 day ago
3Email

IN NEWS

Last night an Olympics bus killed a cyclist. Bradley Wiggins said cyclists should be forced to wear helmets but later retracted.

Bradley Wiggins was the hero yesterday when he stormed to victory in the men's Olympic time trial but, for many cyclists and cycle organisations his golden lustre has been dimmed by his views on cycle helmet compulsion following the death of a cyclist last night near the Olympic park. A 28 year old man was hit by an Olympics media bus while riding his bike on Ruckholt Road in Newnham. The man died at the scene and from photographs of the bus, and the man's bicycle, it appears the man was dragged underneath the bus therefore a light polystyrene helmet would not have saved the man's life. An (unverified) eye-witness account said the cyclist was crushed by the wheels of the bus.

Bicycle helmets are designed for low speed crashes from head height to the ground and offer next to no protection in smashes with motor vehicles. However, this fact did not prevent Bradley Wiggins urging helmet compulsion for all cyclists, a measure that many studies show would offer no whole-population health benefits.

In a press conference, Wiggins was asked to comment on the death of the cyclist. He said: “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.”

He added: “You shouldn’t be riding along with iPods and phones and things on. You 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 safe’.

Wiggins also said more should be done to make things safe for cyclists:

“There are a lot of things that need to be addressed with cycling at the moment on the roads. Things can’t continue the way that they are, everybody knows that.

"It's dangerous and London is a busy city and a lot of traffic. I think we have to help ourselves sometimes.

"I haven't lived in London for 10 to 15 years now and it's got a lot busier since I was riding a bike as a kid round here, and I got knocked off several times.

"But I think things are improving to a degree: there are organisations out there who are attempting to make the roads safer for both parties.

"But at the end of the day we've all got to co-exist on the roads. Cyclists are not ever going to go away, as much as drivers moan, and as much as cyclists maybe moan about certain drivers they are never going to go away, so there's got to be a bit of give and take."

Wiggins' views on helmet compulsion went viral on Twitter last night, with views polarised, as always happens with the thorny issue of helmet compulsion.

Today Wiggins has stepped back from the debate, tweeting: "I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as reports suggest."

A tweet today from London Cycling Campaign said: "[The] helmet debate is damaging diversion from real issues."

And the CTC's policy coordinator Chris Peck has already been on a number of media outlets today, putting across the CTC's point of view.

Peck said: "Making helmets compulsory would stifle cycling without improving greatly improving safety. Bradley Wiggins celebrated his victory at Hampton Court - without a helmet. Making cycle helmets compulsory would be likely to have an overall damaging effect on public health, since the health benefits of cycling massively outweigh the risks and we know that where enforced, helmet laws tend to lead to an immediate reduction in cycling.

"Two thirds of collisions between adult cyclists and motor vehicles are deemed by police to be the responsibility of the motorist. Any legislation should put the onus on those who cause the harm, not the victims.

"A first hand account [of last night's incident] suggests that it was the sort of collision that occurs in half the deaths of cyclists in London - a heavy vehicle turning left across the path of a cyclist. In these cases helmets would make no difference."

"Wiggins's ride both in the Olympics and the Tour de France will no doubt inspire more people to take up cycling. To ensure their safety CTC believes that the priority should be on improving the road network and the criminal justice system, not laws that impose restrictions on cyclists."

Advertisement

Add a new comment
You need to be logged in to post comments. If you do not have an account then please register.

Comments 3 comments
I doubt very much whether people are now putting down his achievements just because of his views on helmets. It's his view, and it's a sensible one. Yes, there are arguments against too, but if the best in the world advocates helmets, then more people will probably wear them, which is only a good thing - there can be no suggestion that they make no difference to safety at all (except the article here DOES seem to).


Carl Percival 1 day ago 0 0
Oh my god! Poor Bradley, walking into this old minefield! He will certainly need a helmet now! But it helps keep certain parties in the public domain during this very pro cycling period. It is Bradley's personal opinion and we should respect that as much as we have to respect the opinions of the anti helmet brigade. Thankfully we live in such a tolerant society!


dominic langan 1 day ago 0 0
According to the standard, Bradley does not support compulsory helmets. There was a hint that he had been celebrating before the press conference, so he might have mangled his words. Anyhow, Bradley's a great cyclist and Olympian. Compulsory cycle helmets are a big mistake for cycling and Public health. http://www.standard.co.uk/olympics/olym ... 01325.html

---

THE NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL - Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association - NZMJ 10 February 2012, Vol 125 No 1349; ISSN 1175 8716 Page 1 of 10 http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/125-1349/5046/ ©NZMA Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law by Colin F Clarke. Partial Abstract The New Zealand helmet law (all ages) came into effect on 1 January 1994. It followed Australian helmet laws, introduced in 1990–1992. ...New Zealand survey data showed that average hours cycled per person reduced by 51%. This evaluation finds the helmet law has failed in aspects of promoting cycling, safety, health, accident compensation, environmental issues and civil liberties. From Conclusions 'This evaluation of NZ’s bicycle helmet law finds it has failed in aspects of promoting cycling, safety, health, accident compensation, environmental issues and civil liberties. It is estimated to cost about 53 lives per year in premature deaths and result in thousands of fines plus legal aspects of discrimination in accident compensation cases....'


Christopher Sauvarin about 3 hours ago 0 0

jayson

Deleted.

sigorman85

What? .... The link isn't working that's why I copied and pasted it

bennett_346

cooldad

bennett_346 wrote:

With all that sh1t in his hair he doesn't need a helmet.

YeehaaMcgee

I'll put the sh*t from my helmet in YOUR hair in a minute.

cooldad

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

I'll put the sh*t from my helmet in YOUR hair in a minute.

Careful, my new sensitive friend might take offence.

YeehaaMcgee

you think he'd like me to rub my helmet on his head?

cooldad

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

you think he'd like me to rub my helmet on his head?

I would hope so, sounds like he's a caregul, safety first kind of guy.
And in no way homophobic.

YeehaaMcgee

cooldad wrote:

I would hope so, sounds like he's a caregul

I had one of them once. I got a carebear wasted on crystal meth, and encouraged it to rape a seagul. The resultant hybrid was terrifying, dangerous, but oh so magnificent.