Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[Accy cyclist]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ol...-Bradley-Wiggins-calls-for-safer-cycling.html



"When asked about the crash, Mr Wiggins said the Government should be "legalising helmets to make them the law to wear" admitting he had been knocked off his bike on London’s streets.
"It's dangerous and London is a busy city and a lot of traffic," he said.
"I think we have to help ourselves sometimes.
"Ultimately, if you get knocked off and you don’t have a helmet on, then you can’t argue. You can get killed if you don’t have a helmet on.
"You shouldn’t be riding along with iPods and phones and things on.
"You have lights on. Once there are laws passed for cyclists then you are protected and you can say, 'well, I have done everything to be safe'.

 

[PpPete]

Bradley calls for laws for safer cycling ...
but his comments on helmets seem a little incoherent as reported in that article.

 

[Accy cyclist]

Would new laws make a difference, seeing as we have perfectly understandable laws now supposed to safeguard cyclists, yet many motorists etc choose to ignore them?

Would a cycle helmet have saved the fatally injured cyclist?

Or was the cyclist to blame seeing that BW has mentioned phones and i pods, suggesting that the cyclist killed was using one at the time?

 

[GrasB]

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.

 

[BSRU]

Had he not been celebrating a "little" after winning the TT?

 

[snorri]

Oh dear, man wins bike race and suddenly becomes spokesman on all aspects of cycling.

 

[Glow worm]

Trouble is, politicians are listening to him (Wiggins), even if his comments were made while 'refreshed'. No doubt these are politicians who haven't been near a bike since about 1974. It's a lot cheaper to pass some half cocked law than it is to really invest in making cycling safer.

 

[Wobblers]

Hmmmm... Do I now beleive Bradley Wiggins or Cunobolin.........

What a dilema.

Not.

Because Bradley Wiggins is an engineer specialising in biomechanics and impact dynamics.

Oh, wait...

 

[Linford]

Oh dear, man wins bike race and suddenly becomes spokesman on all aspects of cycling.

I think he jolly well needs to be crucified for that now - Brad Wiggins - Public enemy number one....

 

[Accy cyclist]

I think helmets should be very much encouraged, but not compulsory, a bit like smoking was discouraged before the laws came in 5 years ago. I've noticed that helmets are much cheaper than ten years ago. I saw a Dunlop one reduced in price the other day for a tenner and it looked and felt very nice. Ten years ago it might have been 40 or more pounds. How many cyclists do we see not wearing helmets correctly? It gets me when you see a Tv presenter for example wearing one tipped on the back of their head not covering their forehead, and the straps loose. I was told that the helmet must be visible as you look up, and the straps should be like the dog collar fit, meaning that you can get two fingers under the straps..not too tight and not too loose.
I do wear a helmet when on a long ride, but not to go to the shops or the pub as i'm only travelling slowly, though it's like the 1970's "Clunk Click"campaign when we were told that you only have to be travelling to the shops at low speed but you can still end up through the windscreen.

 

[Night Train]

Would new laws make a difference, seeing as we have perfectly understandable laws now supposed to safeguard cyclists, yet many motorists etc choose to ignore them?

This is what I feel too.
I agree that something needs to be done to reduce motor vehicle collisions with other road users.
I don't agree that compulsion laws against cyclist is the answer, Bradley Wiggins.
If we had compulsion laws then any cyclist failing to adhere to those laws would be seen as negligent in any collision.
That can only lead to more leniency towards motor vehicle drivers who are negligent/law breaking in their driving.

All drivers are trained to be aware of unsafe situations and to make all efforts not to cause 'accidents' with any other road user, whatever their means of transportation, and not to contact any street furniture or kerbs, etc.
The driving standards and the highway code are already in place and driving to the correct, and taught, standard should mean there are no RTCs of any sort. This doesn't happen because many driver attitudes are not suited to holding a licence.
There should be less leniency and greater awareness of the existing compulsions that already are in place for motor vehicles.


Cyclist can help themselves though defensive riding and greater awareness of other traffic situations (as can all road users), and maybe that would come through training at school maybe. Probably cycle proficiency would be more useful in school then football training for example.

I am a helmet wearer. I wear one because I want to as I do sometimes fall over when I stop. I wouldn't want it to be compulsory to wear one as I don't see it being of much use when I am moving unless it was one of these.

But given many pedestrians get hit too maybe they should be compulsory there as well.
I don't want to be caught in a helmet debate though.

 

[green1]

Because Cunobolin is a professional cyclist having had and seen many many crashes and personally cycled tens of thousands of miles per year his entire life..

Oh, wait....

You have Micheal Schumacher and Adrian Newey. You need one to design and build a car and one to drive it, you choose who does which.
Just because Wiggins is an expert in using Cycling equipment doesn't mean he's an expert in designing and building it. [/designengineertalking]

 

[Wobblers]

Because Cunobolin is a professional cyclist having had and seen many many crashes and personally cycled tens of thousands of miles per year his entire life..

Oh, wait....

Which doesn't make Wiggins an expert in human physiology or the physics of impacts, does it?

For those who have a nice shiny diploma from the University of "It Stands To Reason" it would seem to be obvious that helmets must be a good thing. Unfortunately, the laws of physics just don't work like that. In particular, epidemiological studies comparing the injury rates between helmetted and bare headed cyclists have shown that there is no difference between the two groups. In other words, evidence for helmets providing protection is lacking.

 

[GrasB]

Which doesn't make Wiggins an expert in human physiology or the physics of impacts, does it?

For those who have a nice shiny diploma from the University of "It Stands To Reason" it would seem to be obvious that helmets must be a good thing. Unfortunately, the laws of physics just don't work like that. In particular, epidemiological studies comparing the injury rates between helmetted and bare headed cyclists have shown that there is no difference between the two groups. In other words, evidence for helmets providing protection is lacking.

As a friend of mine who looks into the physics of the human body in accidents says: Your typical statistician, doctor & public figure head doesn't have the training or expertises to say what is safer in a cycling accident.

 

[Linford]

Which doesn't make Wiggins an expert in human physiology or the physics of impacts, does it?

For those who have a nice shiny diploma from the University of "It Stands To Reason" it would seem to be obvious that helmets must be a good thing. Unfortunately, the laws of physics just don't work like that. In particular, epidemiological studies comparing the injury rates between helmetted and bare headed cyclists have shown that there is no difference between the two groups. In other words, evidence for helmets providing protection is lacking.

Does that cover the severity of the injuries also ?