- 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
wiggle_logo_white-01Wiggle rides into Twitter storm over 'make helmets compulsory' blog
Online cycling giant Wiggle got into a spot of bother yesterday when it emerged that the company had posted a blog supporting the mandatory wearing of helmets.
It all started with this message, subsequently deleted, from the @WiggleCulture Twitter account: “Should cycle helmets be compulsory? WE SAY YES! http://blog.wiggle.com/2013/08/05/cycle-helmets/ ”
The blog entry - originally posted in August - backed Sir Bradley Wiggins’ support for mandatory helmet use. It was credited to Wiggle employee Tim Wiggins and was therefore interpreted as reflecting Wiggle policy.
Reaction from the cycling community on Twitter was swift and less than laudatory.
The GB Cycling Embassy tweeted: “Newsflash - company that sells lots of bike helmets thinks you should be forced to buy helmets.”
Guardian reporter and cycling columnist Peter Walker commented: “@wigglebikeshop argue for compulsory bike helmets. Not sure I'll want to shop with them again immediately “
Cycling blogger David Arditti added: “@wigglebikeshop A company that opposes freedom of choice & spreads misinformation on bike helmets loses my custom.”
Wiggle found itself accused of an ill-informed contribution to the helmet debate because of passages like this:
“With a surge in the amount of cyclists on the roads there is always the worry that there will also be an increase in the number of cyclist deaths and number of cyclists injured from road accidents: it is usually the use of a helmet that dictates who falls into each of those two categories.”
And this:
“In the early 90’s, Australia passed a law for compulsory helmets which saw cycling rates plummet, particularly in teenage girls who thought that helmets were not fashionable: in fact cycling rates in this group fell by around 90 per cent. But is this initial drop in cycling rates worth the risk to save hundreds of lives? I think so.”
Cycling blogger Stan F was one of many who attacked the content of the article, calling it: “Poor science, scaremongering and linked to a buy a helmet button.”
The blog was swiftly modified to indicate that it was a guest post from the Ryan Smith Foundation, which campaigns for mandatory helmet use. The company also added: “Wiggle’s stance on the helmet debate remains neutral.”
Tim Wiggins posted: “I did not write this article. It was just published on my account. It's not my personal view. Thanks.”
Wiggins also said he had deleted the original tweet from the @WiggleCulture account. “It was a miscommunication within our team and didn't reflect my own or Wiggle's view,” he said.
But while the blog is now correctly credited, not everyone is happy with the end result. Wiggle have been criticised for the buttons on that link to Wiggle’s helmet pages and @ShoestringCycle commented: “still not clear enough it's written by that charity”.
Others have commented that it’s odd for a cycling retailer to appear to back helmet mandation at all, as cycling has decreased in jurisdictions such as New Zealand and Australia that have made helmet use compulsory. Wiggle might sell more helmets, but their sales of everything else would therefore probably go down if helmets were mandatory in the UK.
John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.
He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.
Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.
John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.
He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.
Latest Comments
- S.E. 4 sec ago
I understand that, we have free e-bikes in my city, docks, racks, you name it, but a few people still leave them anywhere......
- Rendel Harris 20 min 6 sec ago
A few years back I had a police officer stop me (they were looking for a recently stolen bike and I had one from the same manufacturer, although...
- chrisonabike 20 min 32 sec ago
But... the last is only not the case with drivers on normal roads because driving on the cycle path / footway / rolling a vehicle up there is seen...
- wtjs 27 min ago
YOU'VE RUINED MY LIFE! WHAT FOR?!...
- mdavidford 58 min 32 sec ago
I think you're missing an opportunity to pack even more tech into it - add accelerometers that can detect whether they're pedalling or stepping....
- chrisonabike 1 hour 23 min ago
Thanks. I guess the question is "need". If the road is busy, it sounds like it is a desired route between places? In which case (given this an...
- mdavidford 1 hour 31 min ago
Don't know what you mean. I thought my suggestion was entirely practical.
- mdavidford 1 hour 33 min ago
...and a square of faux sheepskin for the back of your saddle.
- Rapha Nadal 2 hours 5 min ago
I'd buy a motorbike fo rthat kind of money!
Add new comment
180 comments
It is not so much that helmet users grossly overestimate the protection a helmet gives: I was pointing out that it does not take much change in behaviour to wipe out any small protection given.
If the protection is grossly overestimated we would be seeing noticeable increases in casualty numbers.
The data show that casualty rate change is very small in either direction, though there is sometimes a small increase.
Irony injection for Demazter nurse.
I'm one of those cyclists who rides in the middle of the road, not to piss motorists off as I'm one of those too, but to assert my right to be there and for my own protection. It's called taking the prime position or defensive cycling. Cyclists pay for the roads as well and have as much right to be there as any other person.
TL;DR: Keen cyclists cycle anyway; we want to get EVERYONE cycling
Keen cyclists cycle whatever happens. Heck, if you legislated that cyclists have to wear full body armour, you'd still get people on the weekend trying to beat the strava record for going up box hill while wearing 25kg of medieval kit. Obviously, seeing as we're modern people, you have to imagine it spray painted in dayglo vomit green, and with a decorative reflective stickers.
This is about encouraging cycling FOR EVERYONE. Look at all those drivers (always drivers, hardly ever passengers) you pass in the queues in central London (or even relatively rural Hertfordshire - rush hour traffic here is atrocious). Look at the people waiting for a bus, or trying to cram onto an already overcrowded tube.
A huge proportion of them(*) could do their journey on a bike, and feel elated and get some exercise (not too much, mind, you don't *have* to get sweaty on a bike). When I get on my proper bike, I have the full gear - SCREAMING dayglo wear, BRIGHT lights, helmet, etc. But that's for serious journeys. When I potter around London on a Boris bike, I don't (although I usually have an extra - bright - light on my bag, just to make sure I can get a laugh in court when the driver says "I didn't see him").
Mandating helmets will do bugger all to improve cycling safety. Few cyclists die of head injuries (*) that could have been avoided by helmets. Mandating helmets will dramatically reduce utility cycling - not sporting cycling. It would basically kill cycle hire schemes. You have to get from A to B in London? The tube would take 40 minutes of discomfort, a Boris bike 20 minutes of pleasant exercise - but you forgot to strap a lid to your bag...
(*) looking at the stats, the majority of car journeys are incredibly short.
I totally agree!
There is a big difference between prime position and deliberately being obstructive. I am a cyclist and motorist. A cyclist first. And as a cyclist I can see why we are tarnished by the behaviour of a few.
But. That's a serious digression.
And. Incidentally. We never use to wear seatbelt either. Do you object to that? Do you also object to booster seats?
We are human beings. We learn, we adapt. These are ways we have adapted to modern way of life to help protect ourselves.
On balance I do object to seat belts for drivers (though not very strongly). Because it tends to increase the risk they impose on those outside the vehicle.
And can we please drop this silly comparison with seat-belts? Are the helmet-pushers all incapable of ever listening?
We learn from evidence and statistics ... of which there are none to support your argument.
The safest places to cycle (by a country-mile) are Holland and Denmark where only about 0.6% of cyclists wear helmets. We should do what they do. That's proper 'learning and adapting' for you.
Be interesting to see what the difference in pedestrian related bike injuries are. I've been to holland and it was terrifying in city centres. On a us side there was no cars.
Long flat straight roads in the rest of the areas will account for lack of bike related injuries.
WHAT??? You found city centres in Holland "terrifying"? I have been to Holland many times and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You sound painfully 'risk adverse'. Surprised you actually dare to get on a bike at all __ you'd be much safer all wrapped up in a nice 4x4 where you could also wear your helmet. Just in case.
As a pedestrian. YES!! Bikes everywhere. No control or segregation. I assure you I am not risk adverse. Maybe you have been to the flowery holland where they have safety crisp packers.
Do you really all not dictate that others should wear helmets?
How many of you have children that don't wear helmets when cycling or on their scooter? Do we not make them wear them? And we cite "safety" as the reason yes?
I think helmets should be worn at all times. I won't let my son even sit on his bike without a helmet.
Not because I think it will save my life if I get run over by a truck as that is clearly nonsense. But what it will do if I get knocked off or fall off and hit my head is hopefully put me in a position where I am not lying in the middle of the road waiting to be run over because I've been knocked unconscious!
I'm not aware anyone has said wearing a helmet will stop you getting run over. What it will do is prevent a head trauma which could save your life.
I do find it amusing all these "traditional" cyclists refuse to wear them because they won't be told what to do. It's very childish. It's not setting a very good example to our young.
Simples!
Just out interest - did you and your friends ride bikes and scooters when you were young and if so how many of you wore helmets?
Also - are you familiar with the term 'risk averse'?
No, I didn't wear helmets when I was a child. Which is why I ended up being knocked out going over my handlebars when my chain came off. Thankfully a passer-by moved me out of the road. Therefore avoiding being run over.
Risk averse? Small investment (helmet) guaranteed return (less chance if being knocked out if you fall off)
Or large investment with high risk and high probability of failure.
Not sure how this is even relevant?
I really for see what the issue is with wearing helmets? Maybe someone could spell it out?
I'm very worried that your children are going to suffer more neck injuries and more serious rotational injuries as a result of their helmet wearing. I shall be getting a grandstanding politician to propose Dematzer's Law in which you can be fined for forcing these dangerous contraptions on to your innocent children.
Of course you will probably then force them to wear a bag of crisps sellotaped to their head(*): lightweight, cheap, _obviously_ reduces injuries (if you don't believe me then try banging your head into a wall without a bag of crisps sellotaped on, then try it with and come back to me with the result), and it makes a good place to put a light.
Wearing a bag of crisps on your head has been proven in a variety of selectively reported trials to reduce cycling head injuries by an amazing 49.35%
I had a friend who was wearing a bag of crisps on his head and he has gone over the handlebars 13 times. Each time the bag of crisps was COMPLETELY BURST AND CRUSHED. He would have been dead if he hadn't worn that bag of crisps.
Can someone please tell me why they would wear a seatbelt, which is a safety device, and not wear a bag of crisps, which is also a safety device.
Morons.
* Forgot to add: if you're going mountain-biking you need to replace the crisps with something more appropriate, like hamsters.
The same here, Ours is two and it's the first thing she does picks her helmet from the shelf and asks to get on her trike.
Having previously had a partner working in a major brain injury unit it's pretty much a - excuse the pun - no brainer.
Did your partner never see any motorists with a brain injury? Or anyone who suffered such an injury after being hit by a car?
I trust then, by the same logic, you never get into a car?
(admittedly there are two different topics getting mixed up here - you are certainly free to take whatever precautions you think appropriate with your own child).
Chairs, Steps, Showers it doesn't matter, the fact remains should for instance someone have been wearing a helmet when they were leaning back on a chair and fell to a concrete floor they may not have been confined to brain unit for the rest of their lives.
Do you wear a helmet when you balance a chair on two legs, or step into shower? Of course you don't that would be ridiculous and an argumentative dead end.
Do you wear a protective clothing when opening an oven, riding a bike, going sailing or driving a car? Of course you do because one would hope you've got an IQ of over 80.
I have no clue what point you are attempting to make here. Nor how its supposed to relate to my question. You seem to be saying 'wear protective clothing when I say you should, don't when I don't say you should'. This is not persuasive.
I see no reason why I would wear protective clothing for any of the above, driving a car ? Really?
Sure I wear a lid sometimes when riding, but it is pretty hard to imagine how I could hit my head when riding my three wheeled Bakfiets to the local shops, in fact riding a bike in almost any circumstances is probably far less dangerous than balancing a chair on two legs, that's stupid.
Seriously you'd pull something out of a hot oven without gloves? sail a boat without wearing a buoyancy aid, drive without a seatbelt? These are all some form of personal safety devices.
You say you wouldn't balance on a chair "That's stupid" but that's almost the same sort of injury / moderate speed blunt force impact that a helmet is primarily designed to protect you from.
You are backtracking, you specified clothing, a seatbelt isn't clothing and pulling a tray from ahot oven is not the same as openning it, for that a tea towel is sufficient and totally unnecessary when removing say a pizza, just as wearing a life jacket while sipping Martini on a yacht would be pointless, especially as I can swim, but sure I would wear one if I were sailing a small catamaran with the boom swinging around, just as I would wear a helmet if I go mountain biking, but nipping down the shops? There is just not enough risk to justify it. Do you want compulsory oven gloves too?
I'm not backtracking if you read the post you would also have seen the intent of what was written, you are picking up on mere minutiae.
But hey, slow clap for the pedant.
I often pull things out of ovens without gloves. I don't, however, ever get into a car. There are millions of deaths and injuries ascribable to someone getting behind the wheel of a car.
How about you let me carry on occasionally pulling things out of ovens without an NBC suit (even if once in a blue moon I end up dropping my dinner on the floor) and I tolerate other people driving cars?
Even though the latter is both a much more dangerous thing to do and also puts others at risk which in my book makes it morally more problematic.
Or we can make oven gloves, and cycle helmets, compulsory, while banning driving.
You really must congratulate such an absurdly tangential response, god bless the internet forum warrior!
The guy who brings in 'taking things out of ovens' as a topic accuses someone of being 'absurdly tangential'? Right, OK, sure.
You never actually respond to any points made, instead you just throw insults and come up with weird non-sequitors. Why are you here?
Slow clap for the slow one at the back of the class, keep 'em coming sunbeam you're doing great job!
Glad you concede the argument.
Oh not in the slightest, but there really isn't much point in trying to continue with someone who quite clearly can't grasp the concept of analogy.
Indeed, there's not much point my arguing with someone who just posts nonsense and insults and never answers any points at all!
You have no argument, analogy-based or otherwise, you just make imperious demands ("wear a helmet - and oven gloves - because I say so") and juvenile insults.
Pages