Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[The Brewer]

Aye that Wiggo blokes way too big for his boots now. How dare he give an opinion on where he used to ride as a kid or give any thoughts on anything cycling

 

[StuartG]

Here is a link to someone who was at the scene of the Olympic park . Very sad.
Eye witness report.

Clearly we should not accept it as gospel until the report is authenticated BUT if it is true then its another huge indicator that TRAINING is the greatest protection a rider can have. With that no sane cyclist goes up the inside of a long vehicle without an escape route.

Some of us get it by experience (and a few close shaves), some through Bikeability, some by reading CC. Let's not get hung up on helmets. Either way they are just noise in real cycle safety drowning out measures that can save far more lives.

 

[Danny]

I don't think we should take his remarks too seriously. Wiggo was clearly making an off the cuff response on a day of high emotions for him, and was hardly in a position to set out a considered plan for making cycling safer.

And his comments did make it clear that he thought there needed to be a package of measures to improve safety, of which helmet use was but one part.

 

[MattHB]

He's right and I totally agree *runs for cover*

 

[StuartG]

He's right and I totally agree *runs for cover*

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?

 

[aJohnson]

I don't see what's so bad about it. I cant really see any problems a helmet will cause, it may not stop fatalities but it can stop some brain damage being done. But I feel that training drivers properly, giving cyclists knowledge about safety, and other things would work better.

And studies that show drivers drive more carefully around people who aren't wearing a helmet, that's great and all but it doesn't apply to the individual.

 

[LCpl Boiled Egg]

I don't think we should take his remarks too seriously. Wiggo was clearly making an off the cuff response on a day of high emotions for him, and was hardly in a position to set out a considered plan for making cycling safer.

And his comments did make it clear that he thought there needed to be a package of measures to improve safety, of which helmet use was but one part.

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?

 

[MissTillyFlop]

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'.

*massive face and sideburn palm*

 

[albion]

That's the problem.

Cycling is multi faceted. Thin k of someone walking in the park compared to sprinter like Bolt and you will see what I mean.
Those cycling 'walk in the park' style, often on the 1000's of miles of traffic free roads are more than a minority.

 

[snorri]

I don't see what's so bad about it. I cant really see any problems a helmet will cause,.

You don't consider a measure which discourages cycling to be a problem? A measure which can give some cyclists a false sense of security leading to increased risk taking?

 

[jdtate101]

I for one (and I think this is what Bradley was trying to hint at) WOULD take a compulsory helmet law, on the understanding that if we (cyclists) have to give a little, then the law should be tightened against those who cause death,injury and intimidation by driving. If we have to suffer a helmet law then drivers MUST also have compulsory cycle awareness training as part of the driving test.

If we can, as the cycling community, take the moral high ground and someone with the status of Brad can fight our corner, then it might just be possible to seed a change in attitude in this county. It's worth bearing in mind, the small cost to our 'liberty' could be for the greater good in the long run?

The only way things will change is if you can take the majority with you on your cause.

 

[aJohnson]

You don't consider a measure which discourages cycling to be a problem? A measure which can give some cyclists a false sense of security leading to increased risk taking?

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.

 

[StuartG]

I for one (and I think this is what Bradley was trying to hint at) WOULD take a compulsory helmet law, on the understanding that if we (cyclists) have to give a little, then the law should be tightened against those who cause death by driving. If we have to suffer a helmet law then drivers MUST also have compulsory cycle awareness training as part of the driving test.

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.

I would be happy with it if the basis was - we kill 100 cyclists a year. We will support ANY measure that can be shown to save, say, 15 of those lives per year. Personally I don't see helmets making that cut. Minimal overtaking distance, presumed liability or junction re-design are probably much higher up the pecking order.

AND YES COMPULSORY TRAINING

 

[theclaud]

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.

But preferably not misinformation.

 

[Chris S]

A helmet will protect you from dodgy lawyers trying to reduce your compensation in the event of an accident, which is the best reason for wearing one.