- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
White cycle helmetCyclist wins £2m compensation and calls for helmets to be compulsory
A Greater Manchester cyclist who won £2 million in compensation says his cycle helmet saved his life and is now campaigning for them to be made compulsory for all cyclists.
John Wellock, aged 61 and from Mossley, suffered life-changing brain injuries in September 2010 when a motorist pulled out in front of him on the A62, reports the Oldham Chronicle.
The newspaper says that Mr Wellock has had to give up his job as a self-employed estimator/salesman for an interior-design company.
It adds that his wife Elaine has also had to stop working so she can care for him full-time.
The £2 million settlement followed an admission of liability on the part of the insurers of the driver involved in the incident, which happened in Delph. In 2011, the motorist pleaded guilty to careless driving.
The compensation was approved by the High Court in Manchester, and as part of the settlement Mr Wellock will be able to return to court should he develop epilepsy in the future as a result of his injuries.
He now campaigns for Headway, the charity which wants to make helmets mandatory for all cyclists, and said: “I believe wearing a cycle helmet saved my life.”
He added: “I’ve been campaigning to try and make them compulsory for all. Anything that can be done to improve safety for cyclists is extremely important.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- momove 2 sec ago
Cheers for the lesson! Wasn't expecting one so was pleasantly surprised, especially getting to find the origin of "laconic"!
- ktache 46 min 27 sec ago
Isn't it a rights issue?
- antigee 50 min 59 sec ago
I've checked on Facebook and stopping the red light running cyclists was simply revenue raising and police time is better spent chasing real...
- Mikezerodown 1 hour 30 min ago
They were before change all systems, then went downhill due to bad adminstration aka CEO who agree to proceed with the worst system I have seen...
- AidanR 1 hour 36 min ago
Same here - it took me by surprise. 10:30am doesn't feel like a dangerous time to cycle; apparently I'm wrong on that.
- Daddy Feebs 1 hour 49 min ago
If anything, it looks a bit like an SL6
- wtjs 2 hours 26 min ago
Other commenters have different views True!
- Daclu Trelub 2 hours 40 min ago
Incredibly bone-headed.
- Sriracha 4 hours 43 min ago
Lidl have a window poster emblazoned, "Black Friday. Starts Sunday".
Add new comment
85 comments
It is a lot easier to not do things which may be perceived as inconveniencing motorists.
The easiest way to avoid the deaths of cyclists is to ban cycling.
But clearly avoiding the death of cyclists isn't the only consideration when it comes to cycling. It is important, but not overwhelmingly so.
The best way to avoid the deaths of cyclists is to stop motor vehicles hitting them.
I wear a styrofoam hat. It might sometimes help. I don't want to force others to wear a hat. And I know that compulsion will cause more deaths - through obesity and pollution - than are caused by bicyclists' head injuries.
Man gets hit by a car and suffers severe injuries.
Man was wearing a piece of plastic-coated styrofoam on his head.
Man campaigns for pieces of plastic-coated styrofoam to be made compulsory for anyone riding a bike.
Man would be far better campaigning for proper cycling infrastructure so that more people (and not just “cyclists”) can safely ride a bike.
I have no idea why so many against helmets at all. I would never think of going out without one and plenty of things in life we are forced to do which people may not like.
Even if it offers a small amount of protection it is better than none surely. If it is a cost thing then the more forced to wear one then prices would go down ? I mean what is the point of spending £3K on a bike and not £80 on a helmet ?
Blimey! You sent £3k on your bike
?????
No one is against helmets, they are against compulsion.
Cycling is a safe activity, though compulsory helmets will give it the impression of it being dangerous, thus a) less people will take it up (causing a whole host of other problems, obesity, congestion etc) and b) if you were in an accident without a helmet the blame will automatically be on you (it doesn’t matter that I hit a cyclist as I went through a red light at 45 while on my mobile, he was not wearing a helmet, plus its already known that it's a dangerous activity).
Wearing a helmet is like a toddler wearing knee pads in case they should trip and graze their knee or suffer some kind of knee injury. Yes you are right, they will help a good deal in some situations, however in almost all situations where toddlers die due to an accident, knee pads would have done bugger all. The type of cycling accidents that causes serious injury or death, is not down to lack of helmet, in almost all cases it is down to bad driving.
Who here do you see against helmets? I think your reading comprehension needs some focus here.
A lot of people are against compulsion. In large part because it lowers cycling rates, and that's a massive cost for society due to health effects and added congestion on roads / overcrowding on public transport.
We have a lot of people who understand what helmets do protect against (low speed falls not involving motor vehicles, and cuts and grazes). Helmets won't help you being run into at speed, or even most low speed incidents as crushing is the most common injury.
Oh, well, this 'debate' is destined to go on its ignorant circling way over and over again...
Don't confuse helmet efficacy with helmet mandates.
How many people here don't wear helmets when out on their bike? If not, what type of cycling are you doing when not wearing one?
Let me put my hand up on this one. I regularly don't wear a helmet if I am on a short hop to the shops or a gentle off road ride. Why should I be expected to do so ? Look at Holland if you want to see ubiquitous use of the bicycle not involving body armour and lycra. That is what I would like to see in our urban areas - a happier and healthier less polluting population where the bike is the "norm" for a short hop. As Chris Boardman says, helmets aren't even in the top 10. Worse still, they are used by the car loby to argue that the status quo on UK roads should prevail because "silly people on bicycles haven't yet done enough to help themselves
Thanks for your reply. For what its worth, I agree with you and I wouldn't wear a helmet either if I'm just popping to the shops or going for a gentle ride.
But if I'm on a weekend ride or commuting, where I'm getting myself out of breath and the pulse going, then I'd wear one. Yes there is a side issue about the actual effectiveness of a helmet, but the vast majority of people already wear one when doing anything more than a gentle ride. So this in my mind makes this the whole debate about compulsory head wear a bit of a waste of time.
Does it really matter?
IMHO on this matter freedom of choice is the most important thing.
+1.
Some drivers seem to think that a cyclist inconveniencing them, however brief the delay, gives them licence to do things they shouldn't. Replace the cyclist with a bin lorry and they calmly accept the delay, as I witnessed this week.
You'd be forgiven for thinking that a helmet offers zero protection if you believe half of these comments
But for me, this whole helmet debate is just seems pointless along with the notion for making helmets mandatory. I ride 6 days a week here in South London/Kent and see many other cyclists. I'd say less than 5% of the people i see out on the roads are not wearing helmets, and that includes non-cyclists that happen to be riding bikes.
Have to say I am struggling with the concept of a "non-cyclist" who is nonetheless riding a bike. If you are riding a bike, does that not, ex-hypothesi, make you a cyclist? Or is there some inner sanctum of cycledom, which merely riding a bike does not qualify you for?
If someone doesn't have Berghaus boots, waterproof overtrousers, gaiters, a suitable cagoule and Kendall mint cake, but nonetheless manages, somehow, to get around bipedally, would he/she be a non-walker?
Yawn
Been thinking again... Oh dear! Do we have a responsibility to take as much protection as we can? If hurt, disabled or dead would this affect family friends? If treated by NHS do we have a responsibility to say I took all the protection I could sorry society for the millions of pounds it will cost to look after me?
Does that mean we sit in little bubbles, ban cycling ban hill walking, climbing God foebid posh people playing Polo?
Is this similar to the seat belt debate? WAs there an argument or is there still that they make people drive faster less safely?
I initially thought that Mill on Liberty had the answer if you have capacity to make decision and you are not harming others go for it!
But I can't make my mind up as to whether I would harm family or cost society if injured because of no helmet, I just can't decide.
I think some would argue it doesn't matter because helmets don't work. I'm not convinced by this as my own antidotal evidence is that I have benefited both on and off road when I've had a spill.
I think that there should be a much wider debate with people really listening to evidence from both sides. Perhaps these is not enough data to prove either way
I don't believe in compulsion to do anything which doesn't harm others.
There lies my dilemma when considering this. If I chose not to wear a helmet and bump my head that's my problem right? Not any one else's, I think personal freedom has a place in society.
I don't think people should slate helmet wearing or not wearing its a choice like tea or coffee. I like coffee but I don't berate tea drinkers, though it is nasty tasting shite.
It's not people's choice to wear a helmet that is berated, it's people's view that because they wear a helmet then it should be the law that everyone else does the same which is berated because it is ridiculous and absurd to claim the law should make everyone else so something they like to do solely on the basis that their personal choice in something must naturally be the best for everyone else
Cycling home from work the other day I didn't get hit by a motor vehicle.
I believe not getting hit by a motor vehicle saved my life.
I’m now campaigning to try and make not getting hit by a motor vehicle compulsory for all. Anything that can be done to improve safety for cyclists is extremely important.
I know, shocking isn't it. What kind of world do we live in where being hit by cars is deemed as normal.
If he hadn't been cycling in the first place then this wouldn't have happened... BAN CYCLING NOW!
It's dangerous to cross the road, shall we ban that as well! People fall down stairs shall he have a law that says all buildings must only have 1 floor!
I ALWAYS wear a helmet, but I would hate to see them legislated.
The only question I will ask, Would Mr Wenlock rather be hit by a careless driver whilst wearing a helmet, or, not be hit by a considerate driver whilst not wearing a helmet?
Me, I would rather the focus was on the driver and ensuring careless and dangerous driving didn't happen. Standard risk mitigation, PPE is the last line of defence.
£2million! He must have been seriously injured and need round the clock care unable to ever work again.
I'm going to go and put my helmet on now just in case .
Can we have a smiley wearing a helmet please?
For evidence on lack of effects of helmet compulsion, and the reason for this lack of evidence, are here http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/17/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law/ and here
http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/27/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-l... An interesting new take is here http://cycle-space.com/helmet-laws-explained-through-the-concept-of-mark... and see http://rdrf.org.uk/death-on-the-streets-cars-and-the-mythology-of-road-s... Chapter 11.
How come we don't have any 'a helmet didn't save my life' comments!
Seriously, if there anything to risk compensation - and it is difficult to see how people do not adapt to changed perceptions of danger- the question is: Why don't e here people say that they got into a crash because they were taking slightly less care - because they were wearing a helmet?
I don't think risk compensation is necassarily a bad thing. Yes we could have people saying they got into a crash because they were taking slightly more risks wearing a helmet, but we could also have people saying they repeatedly descended slightly faster because they were wearing a helmet and didn't crash.
Pages