- 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
news
Bradley Wiggins at start of Tour de Yorkshire 2015Cyclists have to ‘help themselves’ by wearing a helmet says Bradley Wiggins
“I think cyclists have to help themselves in terms of wearing helmets and things,” says Sir Bradley Wiggins. “I think that probably should go some way to becoming the law soon.”
Wiggins’ comments to the London Evening Standard are likely to once again ignite the eternal argument as to whether the wearing of cycle helmets should be made compulsory or not.
Last year, a Transport Research Laboratory report concluded that such legislation would “prevent head and brain injuries, especially in the most common collisions that do not involve motor vehicles, often simple falls or tumbles over the handlebars”. However, others argue that cycling levels fall once helmet use is enforced and conclude that such a measure therefore has a detrimental effect on public health in a broader sense.
This is not the first time that Wiggins has spoken on the issue. In 2012, he was at pains to emphasise that he had not been calling for helmets to be made compulsory, but merely observing that such a move might offer cyclists’ a stronger legal position in the event of a collision. Writing on Twitter, he said:
"Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as reports suggest. I suggested it may be the way to go to give cyclists more protection legally I [sic] involved In an accident. I wasn't on me soap box CALLING, was asked what I thought."
However, by 2013, his position appeared much firmer.
“I think certain laws for cyclists need to be passed to protect us more than anything. Making helmets compulsory on the roads, making it illegal to maybe have an iPod in while you’re riding a bike, just little things like that would make a huge difference.”
On this latest occasion, Wiggins was speaking ahead of his attempt to set a new Hour record next month. He again expressed his hope that his efforts might inspire people to cycle more themselves.
“Something like The Hour record, when you think the distance covered in that, you could cross the length and breadth of London. It maybe changes the outlook for many people of how to get about. Hopefully it will inspire a lot of people to get out there. There might be just one kid in that velodrome who is inspired to do what I do, as I was 20 years ago.
“The atmosphere in the velodrome will be incredible. It’s quite humbling to think a lot of people paid good money to come and watch you do it. If it’s anything like the Olympics was, they will help the time pass a lot quicker.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- HalfDanHalfBiscuit 30 sec ago
Per capita thefts isn't all that useful a metric as it doesn't take into account levels of bike ownership. Cambridge is probably the cycling...
- Critman 1 hour 26 min ago
"30mm outer diameter 18mm inner diameter 13.4mm". Good luck finding a skinny tire.
- Destroyer666 2 hours 54 min ago
Ahem, the recommended lockring is just a common through-axle specific lockring, so nothing Miche specific there, and the required tool for it is an...
- Destroyer666 3 hours 49 min ago
Nonono, not those, but those that have constructed Italian cars and motorcycles that have been driven to hundreds of race and championship...
- RoubaixCube 3 hours 58 min ago
This may well be the case although Im unaware of the brands popularity on their home turf. I used to see them being advertised more in the UK...
- qwerty360 4 hours 28 min ago
Arguably sticking it in a bank account is bad....
- Sredlums 5 hours 27 min ago
I'd counter that those brakes were in fact so inadequate that they eventually developed a whole new type of bicycle that was actually suited for it...
- levestane 5 hours 29 min ago
Unfortunately, Africa is heavily exploited both for resource extraction...
- CitizenSmith 5 hours 55 min ago
There seems to be no support for TOO) now - their email and website are defunct. They are inactive on Facebook. Aftter less than a year the rails...
Add new comment
132 comments
One very simple question, would you rather be hit by a car wearing a helmet, or not hit by a car not wearing a helmet?
So what do you think the solution is to cyclists being injured by cars and trucks?
That's not a very simple question though is it.
a. I've never seen a car wearing a helmet.
b. the double negative makes your point confusing.
I'd rather not be hit by a car myself.
However if I am; I'd rather not die from a glancing blow to the head that may be survivable with the marginal gain from wearing a helmet.
note: helmets are not some form of invincibility shield. Being hit by a car at any speed above walking speed is unlikely to go well.
So I missed the comma....
But you agree that not being hit by a car is probably the best way forward. So I guess the question is WTF is so much time discussing helmets when 9 times out of 10, if the F***ing driver had been paying attention there would have been no need for a helmet as there would have been no accident?
The other 1 time out of 10, most of those are racing/training/mtb, and a VERY small number are cyclists own gross stupidity.
You can get helmets for cars now?!!! Cool! Do Halfords sell them?
For cars and trucks to look where they're going.....
For car and truck drivers to look where they are going....
For car and truck drivers to look where they are going....[/quote]
Now that's a novel and innovative concept - anyone think it may catch on?
Now that's a novel and innovative concept - anyone think it may catch on?[/quote]
Not when most people seem to think wearing a bit of plastic and polystyrene on your head is the answer...
I'm not anti helmet by the way, I use one, but I don't over estimate it's effectiveness. They are pretty limited to what they're going to protect you against. Remember they were only ever designed to offer a bit of protection if you fell off while racing, not from being splatted by vehicles with inattentive drivers.
Well, it rather depends on the answer to the question "if you are hit by a car would you rather your head was its normal size or twice as big?"
Do you think The Evening Standard would publish a normal (e.g. a non-racer) cyclist's opinion on cycle helmets? The Lewis Hamilton comment does sum it up nicely
Like boardman says its a red herring. Competitive cyclist should wear helmets.I've had 3 crashes involving cars. 1, pulled out on me, over the bonnet i went. 2, got struck from behind, somersaulted + landed on my knee, 3 headdown went into back of car, my fault. Ive also been pissed many times, slipped over quite a few times, also been ice skating a lot, were you don't wear helmets. moral of story is you can't legislate for everthing. The other week on a cycle path i took my helmet off and just rode in the sunshine and it felt great. It comes down to personel choice, so I will decide when i wear a helmet, even if it was made compulsory. WHICH IT WONT BE.
Just a comment about cycle paths some are great, others are a complete nightmare mixing road bikes with kids on tricycles, joggers etc. My friend broke his cannonade road bike, arm, shoulder and ribs on a cycle path the other week as another cyclist was wearing earphones and rode right across his path. He will take his chances on the road next time. His head was ok.. wearing a helmet.
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence even when it's 100% accurate (which mostly it's not). Visit a head trauma unit in a hospital and the probability of finding a cyclist is small because head injuries are caused by all sorts of activities.
If anyone want's to argue that an activity merits mandatory head protection then first present the evidence that it's more dangerous than other routine activities we do (like walking for example), or you're being irrational.
http://understandinguncertainty.org/micromorts
Apparently your experience doesn't fit in with Ron611287's world view so is not relevant.
Personally I think your spot on. Some shared paths are not fit for purpose, which I infer is your main point. Cyclists with headphones are a menace (although if they do make constant checks over their shoulders it is possible to cycle considerately and safely, as opposed to recklessly and carelessly).
Learn the difference between irrational and irrelevant. Your friend could have just as easily had the same incident with the other cyclist if he was on foot. The bicycle he was riding was incidental. Does he wear a helmet when he goes for a walk?
Again, you've not followed his point. I think 'irrational' is making an assumption which is clearly not logical. Neither one of us can say whether the accident would have happened if Brian's friend is on foot. I doubt they would have generated the same forces to break a bike and bones in the same way walking - from a rational view point.
I followed his point perfectly, you haven't read mine, or it seems followed the link to my sources so I'll repeat: If you want to show that any activity merits the protection of a helmet you must first show that that activity carries a greater risk of head injury than other routine activities you do without a helmet or you are being irrational.
The risk of walking and cycling is about the same so if you don't wear a helmet when you go for a walk but insist that one is needed when you cycle then you are irrational.
Understood this time?
A nice little animation by Spiegelhalter to illustrate my point :
http://understandinguncertainty.org/micromorts
Oh, I see. You wanted to make a different point to the person you quoted. And no, you didn't make that point earlier. If you want to make your point stop misquoting others.....if you want to quote people then you should respond on their points.
I don't think you can really make a comparison between walking and cycling. Just in the same way you can't make a comparison between walking and being a jet fighter pilot. Per journey I bet if you got data about jet pilots and found out how many head injuries they suffered per journey or even the likelihood of them having an accident then the odds in peace time are low. So should they wear helmets? Well the answer depends on how they are flying their plane and the likelihood of war....in this case it's not the risk of head injury, but the types and circumstances of injury.
Why can't you make these comparisons? And what data for jet fighter pilot injuries are you referring to? Or are you speculating?
I reckon beards should be banned.
A mate of mine is now almost 70 years old. He has been riding bikes without a helmet (competitions excepted) for neigh on 60 years. He is a former British TT Champion for his age group. A couple of years ago one of his contemporaries sans helmet fell off his bike and landed on his head. He died from his head injuries. Now, after all those years, my mate has now decided to wear a helmet. I wonder why ? ? ? !
Well there you go everyone. Someone has been riding for 60 years and hanging round with cyclists for 60 years and in all that time they've only ever known one single person who might of benefited from wearing a helmet.
That's my kind of odds.
So usually we complain about the politically correct non-answers sportspeople give in interviews, and then when one actually gives his opinion, people complain. Particularly if their own opinion is the opposite view. Go figure...
Just because someone is asked an opinion does not mean that they have to give it.
He may very well have a strong view on the merits of making the wearing of helmets compulsory. It does not mean that he should publicly declare them.
He should have been a bit like a politician and either ignored the question, prevaricated or stated no opinion one way or the other. He could even have said that he was in favour of the compulsory wearing of helmets in a sporting environment but had no opinion on the merits of wearing helmets in an everyday/domestic setting.
That is why I said that I found this story "Disappointing very disappointing!"
The problem with sportsmen and women is that they are not trained in how to deal with the media so I don't attach any blame to Bradley. I just wish he hadn't said it.
Does it honestly matter what Wiggins said ?
He was asked a question and he gave an answer, just because some people don't like it, it doesn't mean he was wrong and to be honest he can say whatever he wants its called freedom of speech.
Personally I hope they do make it law.
Yes, it does, as he's considered a representative and an advocate of cycling community.
Yes, but that does give people the right to criticize him. Also please bear in mind that on one hand you try to fight for the freedom of speech, while on the other one you try to steal another freedom from people. According to my dictionary this is pure hipocrisy.
I'd asking for a refund on that dictionary...
I'd proof reading my posts.
Take a deep breath and engage your tolerance gland. Cycling is sweet with or whichever way you choose.
I remember the recently crowned World Junior Pursuit Champion coming to our club (Paddington CC - Sport and Publicity) AGM in 1999. Sport and Publicity sponsored Brad (and Steve Cummings) for a while.
Great at bike racing, but he does need to stick to the day job (plus music and clothes) as he does not get transport cycling and the need to reduce danger at source.
I have written at length on this: if you can bear it, read the first five posts here http://rdrf.org.uk/category/bradley-wiggins/
Pages