G is a helmet

Vino'sGhostVino'sGhost Posts: 4,320
edited August 2018 in Pro race
G is wading into the helmet debate saying they should be compulsory


His reason, hes worn one every day and they lighter and comfier than they were.


plank.
«13

Posts

  • inseineinseine Posts: 5,655
    He clearly sees riding a bike through the very borrow lense of a pro cyclists and would probably be best leaving these sorts of debates to the likes of Boardman.
  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 5,250
    He's an idiot, good cyclist but an idiot.
    Holbrook Sports FC Women - sign for us
  • I think he was suggesting they should be compulsory for kids.

    https://twitter.com/geraintthomas86/sta ... 77216?s=21
  • SecretSqirrelSecretSqirrel Posts: 1,251
    I think he was suggesting they should be compulsory for kids.

    https://twitter.com/geraintthomas86/sta ... 77216?s=21

    Luke's response is the best :lol:
  • salsiccia1salsiccia1 Posts: 3,236
    Is he wading into the debate, or just answering a question asked in an interview? The same people complaining that sportspeople have no personality are complaining about one having an opinion on something when asked.

    He's not, as far as I'm aware, campaigning for a change in the law. Just honestly answering a question from a journalist. And as someone who spends a huge amount of time on a bike, including a lot of training on open roads, his opinion has validity.

    FWIW I fundementally disagree with him but it doesn't mean he's an idiot.
    It's only a bit of sport, Mun. Relax and enjoy the racing.
  • r0bhr0bh Posts: 1,438
    As Thomas said, it was one question in an hour long interview and he is now being thoroughly jumped on by the twitter police. And people get annoyed that sportsmen give bland anodyne interviews.

    As someone said, would Mo Farah get asked about pedestrian crossings?
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,519
    r0bh wrote:
    As Thomas said, it was one question in an hour long interview and he is now being thoroughly jumped on by the twitter police. And people get annoyed that sportsmen give bland anodyne interviews.
    The problem was that the interview wasn't particularly illuminating or original (unsurprising when a non-cycling person does it), but the ST needed some way of splashing their exclusive on the front page and bizarrely took that angle. In reality it was just a passing comment rather than a committed viewpoint.

    People often complain that sports stars lack personality, but when the media treat them like this they have to keep their personalities locked up.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • cq20cq20 Posts: 174
    I’ve just read the article (during a break in a very wet ride) and it is really just a passing comment in a generally unimpressive bit of journalism. He’s not campaigning - just giving his opinion.
  • LucanLucan Posts: 336
    Why shouldn't helmets be compulsory? They are on motorcycles, seatbelts are compulsory in cars. What's the difference? People generally are too stupid to be trusted with their own safety decisions.
    Summer: Kuota Kebel
    Winter: GT Series3
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 22,519
    Lucan wrote:
    Why shouldn't helmets be compulsory? They are on motorcycles, seatbelts are compulsory in cars. What's the difference? People generally are too stupid to be trusted with their own safety decisions.
    https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/artic ... Boardman-0
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • LucanLucan Posts: 336
    RichN95 wrote:
    Lucan wrote:
    Why shouldn't helmets be compulsory? They are on motorcycles, seatbelts are compulsory in cars. What's the difference? People generally are too stupid to be trusted with their own safety decisions.
    https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/artic ... Boardman-0

    Typical use of selected statistics to support an argument. I'm sure more cyclists fall off without contact with another vehicle than after a collision, so driver behaviour in those cases is irrelevant.
    Summer: Kuota Kebel
    Winter: GT Series3
  • inseineinseine Posts: 5,655
    Lucan wrote:
    Why shouldn't helmets be compulsory? They are on motorcycles, seatbelts are compulsory in cars. What's the difference? People generally are too stupid to be trusted with their own safety decisions.
    This is probably not the place to open up the whole debate, but there is a difference between cyclists and folk riding a bike. There is a general concencus that cycling is a good thing (for the individual and the planet) and anything that puts up a barrier is a bad thing. Do you think all these bike hire and bike share schemes would survive if helmets were compulsory?
  • LucanLucan Posts: 336
    edited August 2018
    Apologies - duplicate
    Summer: Kuota Kebel
    Winter: GT Series3
  • above_the_cowsabove_the_cows Posts: 10,890
    It's all about how you evaluate risks and benefits.

    Where helmets have been made compulsory there has been a decrease in cycling (and we're talking all cycling, not just cycling for sport, but for transportation also) which has correlated with poorer public health overall, with more obesity and heart disease etc.

    So it's about what you want, to possibly reduce some head injuries while increasing obesity and heart disease, which cost health systems a LOT of money, or allow people to make informed decisions on their own while trying as much as possible to reduce all risks for vulnerable road users by providing appropriate infrastructure and legal instruments.

    But then I live in the Netherlands where I'd no more wear a helmet on my omafiets than I would walking down the street or around my flat.
    Correlation is not causation.
  • above_the_cowsabove_the_cows Posts: 10,890
    Lucan wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    Lucan wrote:
    Why shouldn't helmets be compulsory? They are on motorcycles, seatbelts are compulsory in cars. What's the difference? People generally are too stupid to be trusted with their own safety decisions.
    https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/artic ... Boardman-0

    Typical use of selected statistics to support an argument. I'm sure more cyclists fall off without contact with another vehicle than after a collision, so driver behaviour in those cases is irrelevant.

    You assume that everyone who falls off hits their head. They don't.
    Correlation is not causation.
  • prosspross Posts: 20,988
    So Thomas is the latest victim of being successful as a British sportsperson and discovering that suddenly people want to criticise. I'd say there's people on this thread calling him an idiot who regularly prove themselves to be more so.
  • SJH76SJH76 Posts: 191
    Cycling is not unique to the UK. Very few countries are debating compulsory helmets for cyclists. Some of them have fantastic infrastructures. Other not so. Holland has a brilliant cycling network but it's also had a long time to develop it. From when I have been there I seldom saw a cyclist wearing a helmet. I like to point this out to people who say it's not just traffic that's dangerous, you can fall off at any time. I don't remember reading about a Dutch head injury epidemic. Yet nearly everyone there rides a bike. Funny that.
  • LucanLucan Posts: 336
    Lucan wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    Lucan wrote:
    Why shouldn't helmets be compulsory? They are on motorcycles, seatbelts are compulsory in cars. What's the difference? People generally are too stupid to be trusted with their own safety decisions.
    https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/artic ... Boardman-0

    Typical use of selected statistics to support an argument. I'm sure more cyclists fall off without contact with another vehicle than after a collision, so driver behaviour in those cases is irrelevant.

    You assume that everyone who falls off hits their head. They don't.

    No, I don't. I assume that a thread about helmets means we are discussing head injuries and/or the avoidance of head injuries.
    Summer: Kuota Kebel
    Winter: GT Series3
  • inseineinseine Posts: 5,655
    Lucan wrote:
    Lucan wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    Lucan wrote:
    Why shouldn't helmets be compulsory? They are on motorcycles, seatbelts are compulsory in cars. What's the difference? People generally are too stupid to be trusted with their own safety decisions.
    https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/artic ... Boardman-0

    Typical use of selected statistics to support an argument. I'm sure more cyclists fall off without contact with another vehicle than after a collision, so driver behaviour in those cases is irrelevant.

    You assume that everyone who falls off hits their head. They don't.

    No, I don't. I assume that a thread about helmets means we are discussing head injuries and/or the avoidance of head injuries.

    As I said, I think people need to look at the much bigger picture.
  • SJH76SJH76 Posts: 191
    inseine wrote:
    Lucan wrote:
    Why shouldn't helmets be compulsory? They are on motorcycles, seatbelts are compulsory in cars. What's the difference? People generally are too stupid to be trusted with their own safety decisions.
    This is probably not the place to open up the whole debate, but there is a difference between cyclists and folk riding a bike. There is a general concencus that cycling is a good thing (for the individual and the planet) and anything that puts up a barrier is a bad thing. Do you think all these bike hire and bike share schemes would survive if helmets were compulsory?

    I agree wholeheartedly. If you say cyclist in the UK, the image seen by most would undoubtedly be that of a group of lycra clad men buzzing around causing a nuisance on the roads as per the picture painted by tabloid papers. Say cyclist (or Dutch translation) in Holland and you pretty much picture every day people going about their every day business. Teenagers dressed in casual clothes going to school or commuters in work dress. Hardly a helmet to be seen. Not all cyclists are the same. You rightly mention hire bike schemes. How would that work? Do you carry a helmet with you all day on the off chance you take out a Boris bike? Do they employ people to hand them out at the point of sale? It would kill the industry stone dead. Its an unworkable plan. Going back to Holland, you can just jump on a citybike and go. No fee. They may not be comfortable but you're mobile. We knee jerk react to everything in this country and allow the minority form our opinions.
  • Vino'sGhostVino'sGhost Posts: 4,320
    i own a helmet, its in the garage somewhere but since i dont race anymore i dont HAVE to wear it and I have to say pottering off to the shops on my bike, commuting on my brompton via the train and the odd trip to the pub are much the better for the simplicity of just going.

    if i had to wear a helmet, id do those short trips in the car. I wouldnt walk, it's too dangerous, too many cyclists.
  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 5,250
    pross wrote:
    So Thomas is the latest victim of being successful as a British sportsperson and discovering that suddenly people want to criticise. I'd say there's people on this thread calling him an idiot who regularly prove themselves to be more so.

    We know he's from your neck of the woods but he's been in the game long enough to know how his comments would be reported. The last thing cycling in this country needs is the Tour winner giving more fuel to the anti cycling lobby of which those that would legislate us out of existence are a part knowingly or not.
    Holbrook Sports FC Women - sign for us
  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 5,250
    Lucan wrote:
    Why shouldn't helmets be compulsory? They are on motorcycles, seatbelts are compulsory in cars. What's the difference? People generally are too stupid to be trusted with their own safety decisions.

    What's the difference between a motorcycle and a bicycle or a helmet and a seatbelt?

    Well most cyclists are doing well under 20mph most of the time on short journeys and don't have somewhere to store a helmet at their destination. Most motorcycles are much faster and generally they'll have storage on the bike or in this country be carring a large lock.

    A seatbelt is not an inconvenience in any way whatsoever. A better comparison would be car drivers and passengers (and pedestrians) are not required to wear helmets so why should cyclists be?
    Holbrook Sports FC Women - sign for us
  • prosspross Posts: 20,988
    pross wrote:
    So Thomas is the latest victim of being successful as a British sportsperson and discovering that suddenly people want to criticise. I'd say there's people on this thread calling him an idiot who regularly prove themselves to be more so.

    We know he's from your neck of the woods but he's been in the game long enough to know how his comments would be reported. The last thing cycling in this country needs is the Tour winner giving more fuel to the anti cycling lobby of which those that would legislate us out of existence are a part knowingly or not.

    As has already been pointed out he was asked a question and answered it, I'm not in favour of compulsion (I think many of the arguments for and against are tenuous) but it seems a bit unfair to resort to calling him an idiot for giving an honest answer to a question. Why should being a Tour winner stop him being able to give an honest opinion?
  • DeVlaeminckDeVlaeminck Posts: 5,250
    pross wrote:
    pross wrote:
    So Thomas is the latest victim of being successful as a British sportsperson and discovering that suddenly people want to criticise. I'd say there's people on this thread calling him an idiot who regularly prove themselves to be more so.

    We know he's from your neck of the woods but he's been in the game long enough to know how his comments would be reported. The last thing cycling in this country needs is the Tour winner giving more fuel to the anti cycling lobby of which those that would legislate us out of existence are a part knowingly or not.

    As has already been pointed out he was asked a question and answered it, I'm not in favour of compulsion (I think many of the arguments for and against are tenuous) but it seems a bit unfair to resort to calling him an idiot for giving an honest answer to a question. Why should being a Tour winner stop him being able to give an honest opinion?

    Of course he can give an honest answer to a question nobody has suggested otherwise. Being honest doesn't mean his opinion isn't, in my opinion, badly thought through and that given his time in the sport I'm surprised he is taken aback at the response.

    OK maybe I should have said he's been an idiot rather than he "is" an idiot but I do find it a bit off that a cyclist, especially one who lives in a tax haven, should make comments unhelpful to cycling in the uk.
    Holbrook Sports FC Women - sign for us
  • qppqpp Posts: 9
    Lucan wrote:
    Why shouldn't helmets be compulsory? They are on motorcycles, seatbelts are compulsory in cars. What's the difference? People generally are too stupid to be trusted with their own safety decisions.

    Hi

    I lurk here mostly, only occasionally post

    I'm motivated to post here because I saw this post. Why this issue particularly? Well, because I live in Australia, where we have compulsory helmet laws, although am originally from the UK

    Compulsory helmet laws here have been a disaster. Our head injury rates and cyclist KSIs have hardly changed, but participation in cycling has dropped quite badly. We now have an injury/KSI rate that's markedly worse than that in the UK, based on a per km basis.

    The drop in cycling participation has been really damaging. You just don't see people cycling around their suburb, to the shops etc, much at all, and this particularly applies to kids and older adults. Every time I come back to the UK I'm struck by how many people are just knocking about on bikes all over the place - kids, senior citizens, commuters, everyone. You just never see that here.

    Cycling has become marginalised into something that's either done seriously as a sport, or semi-seriously by regular commuters (of which I am one). Non-serious cyclists have been essentially pushed off the roads and you only see any numbers of them on off-road cycle paths, or in cities where the authorities have actually regarded it as their duty to provide cycling infrastructure, like Canberra.

    As a result, the "them and us" behaviour between drivers and cyclists has just been exacerbated. Drivers are not used to dealing with large numbers of cyclists and the attitude that they "shouldn't be on the road" gets more common, the less there are. And many of the cyclists who remain have become increasingly militant and assertive (drivers would probably say aggressive) in establishing their rights. It's a 20p for the swearbox situation.

    Add to that the intangible harm that is done through increased obesity and a less generally active population. And of course "bike share" or bike hire schemes fail badly here because of the requirement to lug a helmet about.

    The irony is that those cyclists who remain are the ones who would almost always wear helmets anyway, for either sport cycling or regular commutes. It's the casual cyclists, the people who just use bikes as local transport, who have been pushed off the roads

    You really do not want compulsory helmet laws. It staggers me that any jurisdiction should consider it. All they have to do is the most brief research as to its impacts on Australia and New Zealand and see how damaging it has been
  • Shirley BassoShirley Basso Posts: 3,132
    DlhxNbbXoAIB-el?format=jpg
  • Vino'sGhostVino'sGhost Posts: 4,320
    thats an interesting graph Shirley, especially given the previous posters comments.

    There will always be people who want to wear a helmet and those that dont. Popping to the shops/ pub / utility cycling is not the place for enforced helmet use.
  • Shirley BassoShirley Basso Posts: 3,132
    I was on a long boring train journey and ended up reading lots of the comments on G's Twitter and the above was one of them
Sign In or Register to comment.