Unhelpful comments by Wiggins after tragic accident

[dawesome]

Dan lived in Ilford, that's quite a commute, and he seems to have been a conscientious, sensible cyclist:

http://twitter.com/gecko84/status/227665244007313408
http://twitter.com/gecko84/status/229945524189536256

 

[black'n'yellow]

To be fair - Wiggins' views on helmet laws are about as relevant as Lewis Hamilton's views on seatbelts....

 

[MarkF]

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.

Not for me it wouldn't. I've ridden a motorbike or scooter for over 30 years, one of the main things I like about cycling is not having to wear a helmet, I hardly ever ride my motorbike these days, but if the helmet law was repealed I'd buy a new one in celebration. Each to their own, compulsory helmet use would mean I cycled less, and, hasn't cycling use fallen everywhere compulsion has been introduced? (I might have dreamt that last bit)

 

[marinyork]

To be fair - Wiggins' views on helmet laws are about as relevant as Lewis Hamilton's views on seatbelts....

I think several Formula 1 have been made to have views on seatbelts some as part of other duties, but at least one of them for being a naughty boy too.

Can't quite see the same thing working in Pro-cycling. Caught doping? You'll be made to do cycling profiency classes (yes I know it's been replaced by Bikeability but it sounds better) and helmet campaigning!

 

[dawesome]

b Bradley Wiggins: 'I did NOT call for compulsory helmets for cyclists'

The champion said he only "believed it might be a way to go" for people on bikes to be offered more protection legally if involved in an accident.

Writing a series of comments on Twitter told followers: "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 myopiniondoesntcountformuch".

http://www.standard.co.uk/olympics/...-compulsory-helmets-for-cyclists-8001325.html

 

[HLaB]

b Bradley Wiggins: 'I did NOT call for compulsory helmets for cyclists'

The champion said he only "believed it might be a way to go" for people on bikes to be offered more protection legally if involved in an accident.

Writing a series of comments on Twitter told followers: "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 myopiniondoesntcountformuch".

http://www.standard.co.uk/olympics/...-compulsory-helmets-for-cyclists-8001325.html

I just saw a short snippet at lunch, I somehow thought that'd be the case, typical press sensationalism, twisting, etc

 

[sidevalve]

Freedom ! Human rights ! No compulsion ! The whole sorry mess was trotted out about the m/cycle helmet laws AND the seatbelt laws. If you want to go back in time arguments were thrown up about brake lights on vehicles, twin dipping headlamps, and indicators. If MarkF doesn't ride his m/cycle that's his affair but to not ride it because he has to wear a helmet ? Let's see - are people put off cars because they have to use a seat belt - NO. M/cycles because they have to wear a helmet - NO [well maybe one]. Would they stop going skiing 'cos they had to wear snow goggles, rock climing if they had to wear helmets,target shooting if they had to wear ear defenders NO NO and NO.
The comments of one athlete are just that and he is as entitled to his opinion as anyone else.
If [more likely when] helmets are made compusory by all means let the grumblers chuck their bikes in a skip and sit in a corner and mutter about choice and leave more room on the roads for those of us who just want to get out there and enjoy cycling and are prepared to accept wearing a helmet that weighs naff all, only costs a few pounds and may offer some protection in a fall as a small price to pay.

 

[Melonfish]

Interesting take on it - from the Mail of all places: -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...But-wrong-safety-benefits-wearing-helmet.html

Hahaha, nice try thats a spoof page from the daily mash init?
hehe
that aint the mail, no way.
*faints*

 

[fozy tornip]

With all the resources available to them I'm sure Brailsford and Team Sky could produce an informed and coherent cycling advocate within, say, five years.

 

[kevin_cambs_uk]

+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!

+1

probably a daily mail article !

 

[mcshroom]

@sidevalve.

If it did offer some protection then maybe. The problem is that cycle helmets increase the risk of other injuries such as paralysing neck injuries, and compulsion has been shown to make cycling less safe when it has been introduced elsewhere. I do not object to items that improve safety, but increasing my personal danger by political gesturing I do object to

I will also add that this is very bad risk assessment. PPE (which the HSE do not recognise cycle helmets as) should be the last line of defence, after behavioural and intrinsic structural change to a task, not an alternative to it.

 

[MarkF]

If MarkF doesn't ride his m/cycle that's his affair but to not ride it because he has to wear a helmet ?

Wow, you are better at twisting than Wiggo's journalists! Here, for you, is what I said. "one of the main things I like about cycling is not having to wear a helmet, I hardly ever ride my motorbike these days," Does that read "I don't ride a motorbike because I have to wear a helmet"? Of course not, or why would I have a bloody motorbike and scooter? It means, simply, that some days, with free time and a choice of leisure transport, I prefer the cycle over the m/bike and enjoy a helmet free ride. I don't like wearing a helmet and whilst I've a choice, I won't. So there.

 

[Poacher]

If [more likely when] helmets are made compusory by all means let the grumblers chuck their bikes in a skip and sit in a corner and mutter about choice and leave more room on the roads for those of us who just want to get out there and enjoy cycling and are prepared to accept wearing a helmet that weighs naff all, only costs a few pounds and may offer some protection in a fall as a small price to pay.

If helmets are made compulsory, I won't chuck my bikes in a skip, and I won't sit in a corner muttering - I'll emigrate to a civilised country.

 

[Red Light]

[QUOTE 1964121, member: 9609"]I think people should cut wiggons a little slack here - the media will have just bounced this question at him completely out of the blue, then printed his comments as some deeply held view.[/quote]

I doubt there is anyone seriously invovled in cycling that is not aware of the helmet issue and how controversial it is. He seems a bright lad who cycles without a helmet outside of competition/training himself so you would have thought he would either avoid it or trot out the simple personal choice line of the BCF and CTC. He must have know that calling for mandatory helmets would raise a storm.

 

[PedalCat]

From the BBC re the death of Daniel Harris: "The bus driver was held on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving".
I'd rather see a national fuss over drivers' attitudes to cyclists; tackle the cause.