Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[Inertia]

I'm not unsympathetic to that. But compulsory helmets is a zero/one decision whereas the defuse set of other measures in the safety mix are likely to be watered down by reality and cost. Its a dangerous starting position.

But its a great lightning rod to look like you care without adding any cost to the state, just the individual who has to buy one.

 

[Hector]

Interesting, markets are showing Sky have just bought a 5% stake in all the major helmet manufacturers.

 

[jonesy]

StuartG, that's the point isn't it, for what proportion of cycle KSIs could helmets in theory provide benefits? i.e. exluding all those that didn't involve head injuries, or where avoiding head ijnury would have made no difference to the outcome. I've yet to see any convincing figures to show that this is a signficant proporation of total casualities. There is a very high proportion of HGVs invovled in London cycling fatalities and I can't see helmets making much difference to any of those.

 

[MattHB]

Yes but it is indicative that "helmets" is the first thought of both cycling champions and some legislators (the guys to really worry about) in road safety. Its an easy thing to do - go buy one for a few bob or go make others go buy 'em.

Other things are more difficult and might cost non-cyclists something in money and their freedom to kill. So how to divert the helmet debate into more productive ground?

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

Pass whatever road laws you like. Then all you need is someone to enforce them. Oops!

 

[Red Light]

I wonder how big a bonus his helmet sponsors have given him for those comments?

 

[snorri]

I didn't know it discourages cycling, but if people are willing to put style over safety(which I presume may be the reason) then maybe they shouldn't cycle.
I see causing a false sense of security as a bad point, but I do think that more information about cycling safety needs to be spread to masses.

You said you could not see any problems associated with mandatory helmet wear, but appear not to have studied evidence from countries where helmet wear is already compulsory.
It's not clear what you mean by 'style over safety'.
I agree that more information needs to be spread around, just as long as it is information that can be backed up with firm evidence.

 

[Boris Bajic]

I think compulsion would be a mistake and I find it highly unlikely it will come about.

Yesterday's accident was awful. As soon as BW spoke in the glow of his extraordinary achievement, it was clear that this would release a huge flock of outraged or concerned Internet forumites with a view to share or an axe to grind.

I'm surprsed there aren't a few more threads than this.

I ride (mostly) helmetless next to my middle child who wears a helmet. He'd rather I didn't.

He is inflexible (but not zealous) in his championing of helmet use. Good for him. I disagree with him. It's allowed.

Were it to become mandatory, nobody in my family would ride any more or less than they do today. I think that is true of most people.

Sometimes we'd forget and we might get a ticking off or pay a small fine. If we forgot and got into a squish, there might be some greater financial loss involved if non-compliance was thought to have contributed to injuries sustained in a collision that wasn't our fault.

In the meantime, we can enjoy the many and splendid colours of a fully charged online debate. There will be suggestions that Wiggins' helmet sponsor paid him a bonus to speak as he did. There may also be assertions that the House of Windsor are reptiles from another planet.

Today is a lovely day for a ride, with or without a hat.

 

[Theseus]

I didn't know it discourages cycling, but if people are willing to put style over safety(which I presume may be the reason) then maybe they shouldn't cycle.

So, by not wearing a helmet, I am stylish?

I must tell my wife and daughters that one, it will crack them up.

 

[aJohnson]

So, by not wearing a helmet, I am stylish?

I must tell my wife and daughters that one, it will crack them up.

You're the god of style.

 

[lulubel]

I ride (mostly) helmetless next to my middle child who wears a helmet. He'd rather I didn't.

He is inflexible (but not zealous) in his championing of helmet use. Good for him. I disagree with him. It's allowed.

I'm not trying to stir up trouble here, but my family's feelings are a big part of the reason why I wear a helmet, so ....

Have you ever considered how your son would feel if you were killed in a cycling accident? I wear a helmet because I wouldn't want my family living with the thought that, "If only she'd worn a helmet, she might still be with us."

 

[Danny]

Unfortunately, the media are already fixating on the helmet comment and taking it as a call for compulsory helmet laws, ignoring the other points he made. What next after helmets? Compulsory hi-viz?

The media may have reported it this morning, but they will have gone onto a different story by lunchtime. Having said that there is a lively debate on Twitter about the whole subject which makes this thread look very tame.

As for hi-viz jackets, there is an argument that making compulsory would offer more protection for cyclists than helmets, for the reasons Jonesy alludes to.

 

[MontyVeda]

I've been thoroughly pissed off since i heard Wiggins' comments on the news this morning... like every other pro compulsionist, he's proven himself to be a complete knob.. or are the BBC misquoting him... after all the photos accompanying the article show him riding a bike without a helmet on.

Wiggins... wigOFF!

 

[Boris Bajic]

I'm not trying to stir up trouble here, but my family's feelings are a big part of the reason why I wear a helmet, so ....

Have you ever considered how your son would feel if you were killed in a cycling accident? I wear a helmet because I wouldn't want my family living with the thought that, "If only she'd worn a helmet, she might still be with us."

Honestly, no. It is not something I've ever considered. I used to do risky things for money and I didn't think about it then, either. I lost a parent as a young child (unhelpfully late diagnosis of a treatable terminal condition) and have not once dwelt on what might have been. I may sound callous, but it seems unhelpful to do so.

I imagine my son (and the rest of my family and friends) would be sad about it if I were splatted. In my experience, that's what the loss of a loved one does to humankind.

I am now middle aged and live a fairly tame life. Riding without a helmet (hardly a quantifiable risk) is about the naughtiest thing I do.

I know people who think as you do, some of our dearest friends among them. I do not think it wrong to do so, but I do not think like that. It is a curve whose limit is beyond the horizon. Once we start with 'if only', where do we stop?

"If only he hadn't been on a diet, he wouldn't have walked back to the newsagent to change the semi-skimmed for skimmed. Then he wouldn't have had to cross that road again and that car wouldn't have swerved into the bollard on his left, causing him to step back to eaxactly the place where that fridge, falling from an aircraft, landed on him and squashed him dead."

We aren't here for long. It must be nice while we are and it should be our clear wish to predecease our progeny.

 

[ColinJ]

My problem with compulsion laws with regard to helmet use is this:
I have a 100% record of concussion &/or neck injury resulting in hospitalisation when coming off a bike when wearing a helmet.
I have 100% record of not having any head or neck injuries when falling off my bike without a helmet.

It's a bit worrying that you have fallen off your bike often enough to accumulate statistically valid data on the subject!