+1 - seems to have been taken out of context. Those cynical media types, sensationalising a story to sell a paper... my word, how uncouth! To think such a thing happens in our day and age!
Unhelpful comments by Wiggins after tragic accident
- Thread starter CopperBrompton
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
+1 - seems to have been taken out of context. Those cynical media types, sensationalising a story to sell a paper... my word, how uncouth! To think such a thing happens in our day and age!
fossyant
Ride It Like You Stole It!
- Location
- South Manchester
More media spin eh. 
Risex4
Dropped by the autobus
- Location
- The Green/Gray Hills Of Debunshire
There again, why is this important?
Seatbelts used to be optional too.
Brad has already refuted that he is advocating it be made law, so maybe mute, but even if he was coming out and saying "No, I definately feel helmets should be legally mandatory for road users", so what? If the poor soul from yesterday had come off differently (and I appologise as I know that sounds callously tactless, but you know what I mean) and had died from head injuries rather than what would appear to be torso injuries then wouldn't this particular argument be different today?
Im neither pro nor anti the whole helmet-into-law argument, but the fact is they can save lives. Not in all instances, but they can still prevent some accidents turning severe-fatal. Seatbelts don't guarantee the lives of motorists, but they do mitigate the chances of the statistics going up in road collisions. Therefore if somebody - anybody - has an opinion on this on way or another, Im not going to argue against their viewpoint over vigoursly.
Seatbelts used to be optional too.
Brad has already refuted that he is advocating it be made law, so maybe mute, but even if he was coming out and saying "No, I definately feel helmets should be legally mandatory for road users", so what? If the poor soul from yesterday had come off differently (and I appologise as I know that sounds callously tactless, but you know what I mean) and had died from head injuries rather than what would appear to be torso injuries then wouldn't this particular argument be different today?
Im neither pro nor anti the whole helmet-into-law argument, but the fact is they can save lives. Not in all instances, but they can still prevent some accidents turning severe-fatal. Seatbelts don't guarantee the lives of motorists, but they do mitigate the chances of the statistics going up in road collisions. Therefore if somebody - anybody - has an opinion on this on way or another, Im not going to argue against their viewpoint over vigoursly.
400bhp
Guru
link doesn't work
Does for me. Post #12 in this thread.
If they do save lives, they also cost at least as many lives as they save because overall helmet wearing is associated with no change in or an increase in deaths.
400bhp
Guru
Ah-the poster is on ignore.
mcshroom
Bionic Subsonic
- Location
- Egremont, Cumbria
Interesting take on it - from the Mail of all places: -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...But-wrong-safety-benefits-wearing-helmet.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...But-wrong-safety-benefits-wearing-helmet.html
Lee_M
Guru
but you cant really equate the increase in deaths being due to wearing a helmet unless you analyse the type of riding being done. It may be that more people wearing helmets jump off cliffs for example than those without. there may be more people wearing helmets with no roadsense (kids for example) than those without, it goes on and on and isnt that simple.
You could probably argue that wearing lycra increases your chance of death, but more likely its that wearing lycra means a higher average mileage so more chance of dying, but less deaths per mile
etc etc
You could probably argue that wearing lycra increases your chance of death, but more likely its that wearing lycra means a higher average mileage so more chance of dying, but less deaths per mile
etc etc
semislickstick
Guru
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
....I'm shocked that I read that in the Mail, is it a spoof?
hatless
Über Member
- Location
- Northampton
I think Wiggins may have a point. If there was a sort of social contract, if certain things were expected of cyclists, then cyclists could reasonably expect certain things of society. Let's forget helmets for a moment. Let's imagine that some enquiry said hi-viz clothing and day-time lights would be useful. If that became law, and so was complied with by cyclists, then there would be a reasonable expectation that more should be spent on making the roads safer for cyclists, on making large vehicles easier to drive safely, and that there should be less tolerance of the sort of dangerous driving that kills cyclists and pedestrians.
The idea, from years back, used to be that bicycles should have a bell and reflectors - two things my bikes lack; probably most people's do. But that was the contract back then. Perhaps it needs renewing. I would hope that a new contract wouldn't include the wearing of helmets, but if it did, and if there was a matching resolve to make the changes in our roads and driving laws that would make cycling safer, then I would be prepared to wear a helmet, just to keep my side of the bargain.
I think that's what the mighty Bradley said. He has to wear a helmet because they've been adopted by the Tour de France and other road races. I reckon I could put up with it if it shifted public opinion and policy.
The idea, from years back, used to be that bicycles should have a bell and reflectors - two things my bikes lack; probably most people's do. But that was the contract back then. Perhaps it needs renewing. I would hope that a new contract wouldn't include the wearing of helmets, but if it did, and if there was a matching resolve to make the changes in our roads and driving laws that would make cycling safer, then I would be prepared to wear a helmet, just to keep my side of the bargain.
I think that's what the mighty Bradley said. He has to wear a helmet because they've been adopted by the Tour de France and other road races. I reckon I could put up with it if it shifted public opinion and policy.
As in all these things, you only have correlation, not causation. But the same is true for the evidence people claim shows helmets prevent injury. Usually the burden of proof is on those proposing an intervention to show that its both safe and effective. For some strange reason (well not that strange really) with helmets the burden of proof seems to have been reversed. But then there is a strong financial interest in selling helmets and not a lot in not selling helmets.
I'd go for that if the other side of the bargain was any driver that killed a cyclist received an automatic life sentence. That should make cycling a bit safer. But as with the earlier bells and reflectors, it was a sham and having them made no difference to the way drivers or Government treated cyclists. And there is now several bits of research showing that drivers respect helmeted cyclists less than they respect helmet-less ones.
Inertia
I feel like I could... TAKE ON THE WORLD!!
I could too, but it wouldnt.
col.kurtz
Über Member
- Location
- nahhhridge
A similar debate was had by the motorcycling fraternity some thirty years ago, many waxing lyrical about personal freedom and all that. To ride without one now would feel fool hardy at best. I agree that in a collision with other traffic, a head injury is the least of your problems but there are always those divvy moments when no other vehicle is involved (wet manhole cover, ice etc) where if theres nothing protecting your head against cold, hard concrete, you've got problems. Why stack the odds against you? I've had a few low speed off's on motorcycles comparable to a brisk commute on a pushbike and each time my helmet has had to be replaced due to too much damage. Could of been my head.
- Status
