[Closed] Wiggo on helmets

For what it's worth I got side swiped by a car 6 years ago. My head hit the ground, my helmet cracked in half, if I had not of been wearing one, I'd probably be dead now.

Cyclists should be made to wear helmets, the same as motorists should be made to wear seatbelts. If you don't wear one your a fool.
Of course they won't stop you being crushed by a truck, but there's loads of accidents on bikes where the person gets injured by means other than getting crushed by a bus

I have to pay for your injuries when a driver isn't sure if he can overtake you safely, sees that you're wearing a helmet, decides it's just safe enough, and then leaves bits of you all over the road.

EDIT: And why wouldn't he think it makes his dodgy overtaking manoeuvre safer? Cyclists are always telling him that anyone who doesn't wear a helmet is an idiot.

Really... Reeeallly???

This place is going to the shit.

geologist - Member
For what it's worth I got side swiped by a car 6 years ago. My head hit the ground, my helmet cracked in half, if I had not of been wearing one, I'd probably be dead now.

Cyclists should be made to wear helmets, the same as motorists should be made to wear seatbelts. If you don't wear one your a fool.

perfect example of someone not having looked into this debate AT ALL.

More Peds killed by cars than cyclists but no-one advocates helmets/lights/highviz/headphones for them.

More Ducks are killed by shotguns than soldiers.
Does that mean we should talk about body armour for ducks.

Okay, I'll not just be flippant this morning. Baron von Wiggo (if Tanni Grey can, why not Wiggo) was ambushed and will have to get used to the idea that he is this year's go to guy for a cycling quote. We should be demanding separation, either by drivers giving more space and waiting until safe to pass, or by proper physical barriers between cyclists and others. The dutch did it by demanding it and forcing change politically. I love to ride on the road, but I do it much less than I might. Every time I ride there will be more than one occasion when someone gets so close, so fast that if either me or the driver had had the most minor twitch, I'd be sent flying. It's shit, and I'm sick of it. Don't come back at me with the ride defensive, stuff, I do that, I tell others to do that(bikeability instructor), lots of the time it isn't enough.

Lets hope it leads to quantitative research, rather than a law based on anecdotes and celebrity.

Any time politicians spend looking at helmet laws is time not spent looking at more pedestrian & cyclist friendly road design and liability laws.

In my mind, this is the biggest reason against compulsion.

I too am in the postion of having either survived a potentially fatal incident or limited my potential injuries by wearing a helmet. But I still believe that it should be the choice of the individual to decide if they should wear or not.

My father, 76 years old and with an impressive civic record, rides half a mile along quiet country roads to visit his neighbours, and participate in his community activites. Why should he risk criminalisation for not wearing a helmet? Given the choice of riding with helmet compulsion or driving, he'll drive.

STFU Wiggo!

It might have saved you from injury or lessened any injury you sustained, but it didn't save your life. If a truck is gonna kill you, a bit of polystyrene isn't going to stop it.

IMO

Cyclists should be made to wear helmets,

No, cyclists [i]should[/i] wear helmets. No one should really be made to do anything. If wearing helmets on a motorbike wasn't a legal requirement I'd still wear one. If wearing a seatbelt in a car wasn't a legal requirement, I'd still wear one of those too. But its my choice.

I have to pay for your injuries when a driver isn't sure if he can overtake you safely, sees that you're wearing a helmet, decides it's just safe enough, and then leaves bits of you all over the road.

Are you on crack? You're suggesting a motorist is more likely to knock you off if you have a helmet because you're safer? Jesus wept....

If you really think that helmet is going to be any effin' use against crush injuries from a forty ton truck then I invite you offer yourself as a practical test subject.

No, I REALLY think a helmet will help when I fall off my bike and hit my head on the ground. Similarly, a bullet proof vest will be useful if I'm being shot at and a bullet hits me in the chest. not so good if its a head shot. Have. A. Word. With. Yourself....

so even a 0.000001% increase in survival rates is surely a good thing yes?

not if it comes at the cost of measure that increase your survival rate by 0.001%.

Can we please stop making seatbelt comparisons.

In an RTC, seatbelt prevents injuries

In an RTC, bicycle helmet does SWEET **** ALL

Seriously, if there's one message that cyclists should be trying to get across to drivers it's that bicycle helmets offer no protection in an RTC.

Hold on, so Wiggo ISN'T TJ?

You never see them in the same place at the same time.

the same as motorists should be made to wear seatbelts

But, But, if you do that then you're restricting their personal liberty, and less people will drive cars, it would be a disaster for motoring.

Next thing, you'll be advocating a law that [b]forces[/b] drivers to make their toddlers sit in child seats, despite the FACT there is no scientific evidence that it makes them any safer than wearing a normal seatbelt.

My head hit the ground, my helmet cracked in half, if I had not of been wearing one, I'd probably be dead now

Not sure why I'm bothering to say this, but you can't reach that conclusion from that evidence. Your helmet was designed to fail - that was the helmet absorbing the energy as it's meant to. Your skull would behave differently. You may have been dead without your helmet, but unless you have expertise in the science around this I suggest your "probably" is misguided.

Helmet wearer here btw

OMFG.

Hero one day, despised in the eyes of STW the next. FFS.

Are you on crack? You're suggesting a motorist is more likely to knock you off if you have a helmet because you're safer? Jesus wept....

We all make risk assessments all the time, either consciously or sub consciously.

So yes, if cyclists go around telling drivers that helmets make a blind bit of difference then yes, they're going to believe you and take that into account in their split second risk assessment of whether to pass you or not.

not if it comes at the cost of measure that increase your survival rate by 0.001%.

No one should really be made to do anything.

"So I think when there's laws passed for cyclists, then you're protected and you can say, well, I've done everything to be safe."

He added: "It's dangerous and London is a busy city and a lot of traffic. [b]I think we have to help ourselves sometimes.[/b]

While we can debate helmet law all day (and probably will - again) the key bit for me is [b]I think we have to help ourselves sometimes.[/b]. ie do all you can to make ourselves safe and then push the responsibility onto the drivers. There are always too many people riding dangerously / without lights / with headphones etc etc etc that any safety arguments are undermined to a certain extent.

Ironically if helmets were law, Bradleys little victory lap would have been illegal

Oh dear. The country's cycling God is about to be the subject of a hate -fest by a few fundamentalists.

Seriously. Give the guy a break. It's a hugely emotional day for him, he is confronted with the news of a sad accident, and a microphone is shoved in front of him. He is gonna say the first thing that comes into his head.

Admittedly I haven't seen the interview concerned. However, He cannot really take any other stance on this matter given his high profile, it is the only responsible pov.. It has been recognised that this was an unrehearsed reply, and therefore possibly not the final edit had he been able to prepare a full statement.

No published evidence that parachutes save lives either...

I have now caved in two helmets. Not my head. Apart from cost which is small I cannot see a reason not to wear one.

That said it should be a choice.

If clipped by a car and sustaining blunt head trauma on Tarmac I'd rather crush helmet than skull

In an RTC, seatbelt prevents injuries

In an RTC, bicycle helmet does SWEET **** ALL

Are you on crack? You're suggesting a motorist is more likely to knock you off if you have a helmet because you're safer? Jesus wept....

Actually, there is some evidence [b]suggesting[/b] this - one study with drivers in a simulator found that they left more room when going round unhelmeted cyclists that helmeted ones, the suggestion being that they perceived the helmeted riders as less vulnerable.

Problem is, of course, that one study does not constitute proof, and as I said earlier, there simply haven't been enough studies to suggest anything that would constitute "proof" of anything. That's the problem with this endless debate, people grasp hold of evidence from one study and spout that as "proof" that categorically makes their argument correct. I'm not suggesting that, but in response to your dismissive post, suggesting that you wouldn't need to be "on crack" to propose it as a hypothesis, given that there is [b]some[/b] evidence suggesting this is so.

My opinion on helmet wearing is sometimes i dont wear one. My kids always wear one. Thats my choice.
Having spent a lot of time in the Netherlands you dont see many helmets at all. The ones you will se are the lycra clad roadies. Not the commuters, kids or people going to the pub.
Now in Aus and passing Cars will ofen hurl abuse if you are not wearing a helmet. First couple of times i was struggling to see what the problem was, was just out for a quick spin round the block. Thought it might have ben my lights too bright. I think it actually may be an offence not to wear one here i have since been told. Seemingly it carries a fine. Still i sometimes forget if i am popping to the shop.

just rode in to town and back, with helmet on the way there and without on the way back. Didn't seem to make any difference in the way car drivers or I behaved with or without a helmet. On my return I smashed myself on the head with a hammer, twice. Once wearing a helmet and once without. I think I'll continue to wear a helmet. As for Wiggo, bloody brilliant, can't see helmet compulsion being enforceable, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Are we really going to go down this road again? Yet another post that's going to turn into a competition between the big hitters to get more and more pedantic after each post and post more and more inflammatory guff until they all go running to the mods crying about being bullied.

It's just sad

Given the choice of riding with helmet compulsion or driving, he'll drive wearing a seatbelt, with a valid driving licence, in his road legal MOT'ed car covered by appropriate insurance all by compulsion

so even a 0.000001% increase in survival rates is surely a good thing yes?
not if it comes at the cost of measure that increase your survival rate by 0.001%

If participation rates reduce by compulsion this does not alter the ability of a helmet to protect my head anymore than the number of car drivers affect the ability of seatbelt to protect me

Are we really going to go down this road again? Yet another post that's going to turn into a competition between the big hitters to get more and more pedantic after each post and post more and more inflammatory guff until they all go running to the mods crying about being bullied.

Wiggo could have said that he'd recommend wearing a helmet, but didn't see the need for compulsion, and he could have said that road safety was everyones' resposibilty, and he'd be right, and be supported by the majority of cyclists. But he didn't say that.

Can we please stop making seatbelt comparisons.

In an RTC, seatbelt prevents injuries

In an RTC, bicycle helmet does SWEET * ALL

What?? Are you really that stupid that you actually believe what you've typed there? A helmet does * all in a crash, car involved or otherwise?

Like not abiding to the highwaycode? No phoning while driving, not sticking to the speed limit etc etc...

Apologies - I should have added we shouldn't be made to do anything when the individual is the only one who will be affected. At the end of the day, if everyone applied a bit of common sense to things, we wouldn't have to legislate against stupidity. Which then becomes a vicious circle because people become reliant on laws telling them not to do stupid things rather than applying common sense to a situation. Which in my book is the issue here.

Wearing a helmet is a pretty sensible thing to do and I don't need some random bloke telling me that I should be nor the 5-0 fining me because I'm not wearing one. There is a fair chance that [b]IF YOUR HEAD STRIKES THE GROUND[/b], wearing a helmet will save you from a more serious injury. That is surely common sense no?

You're absolutely certain about that yeah? Because as far as I can see, both are doing exactly the same thing in terms of the physics of limiting the amount of damage you sustain.

A seatbelt isn't a crumple zone. It stops you impacting with the steering wheel, dashboard, or windscreen at speeds that would kill you. A helmet is designed to come into play if there is nothing to stop you hitting solid objects.

With the kind of speeds your head is going to be hitting things in an RTC half an inch of polystyrene is going to be as effective as wearing a bunch of bananas.

and he could have said that road safety was everyones' resposibilty, and he'd be right, and be supported by the majority of cyclists. But he didn't say that.

Graeme Obree had the right idea - "look wobbly" 😉

when the individual is the only one who will be affected

Wiggo could have said that he'd recommend wearing a helmet, but didn't see the need for compulsion, and he could have said that road safety was everyones' resposibilty, and he'd be right, and be supported by the majority of cyclists. But he didn't say that.

Or, he could of just said what he thought. Which he did. He's entitled to his opinion and he's entitled to express it.

A seatbelt isn't a crumple zone. It stops you impacting with the steering wheel, dashboard, or windscreen at speeds that would kill you. A helmet is designed to come into play if there is nothing to stop you hitting solid objects.

With the kind of speeds your head is going to be hitting things in an RTC half an inch of polystyrene is going to be as effective as wearing a bunch of bananas.

I realise that, but both are designed to dissipate energy when you decelerate in a crash (which is what a crumple zone does).

And who says what speed a car hits you in an RTC? It could be at 5mph, it could be at 105mph. Same as in a car. If you get hit at 5mph you'll be fine. If you get hit at 105mph, the chances are you probably won't be. No safety device can guarantee safety, but using them to potentially limit impact will do a lot more than not.

half an inch of polystyrene is going to be as effective as wearing a bunch of bananas.

tell you what wrap your head in bananae and run at a wall head first repeat with helmet...crosses fingers at least one of these knocks some sense in to you 😉

With the kind of speeds your head is going to be hitting things in an RTC half an inch of polystyrene is going to be as effective as wearing a bunch of bananas.

I'm not suggesting that, but in response to your dismissive post, suggesting that you wouldn't need to be "on crack" to propose it as a hypothesis, given that there is some evidence suggesting this is so.

I stand corrected, and apologise for the crack comment. Maybe a bit of weed instead? However, this only makes me fear for my safety more when riding to work on the usual commute. That people [b]actually[/b] think 'he's wearing a helmet, I'll give him less room' is a truly terrifying prospect.

A seatbelt isn't a crumple zone. It stops you impacting with the steering wheel, dashboard, or windscreen at speeds that would kill you. A helmet is designed to come into play if there is nothing to stop you hitting solid objects.

With the kind of speeds your head is going to be hitting things in an RTC half an inch of polystyrene is going to be as effective as wearing a bunch of bananas.

So what about motorcyclists? Or F1 drivers? Are you suggesting fruit would be a better alternative? I disagree with you, you're wrong.

Wiggo was pissed (at his own admission), having just completed the most gruelling 6 weeks imagineable as a cylcist, he'd then been in front of cameras all afternoon and evening, and was hit with the "guys been killed whats your take on it" ambush".

If you watched and listened what he actually said was that it requires give and take on both sides, if as cyclist you ride without a helmet, using your phone or listening to your ipod you can't really complain if bad stuff happens to you, conversely if you drive you need to be tolerant and recognise the frailty of cyclists. He also stumbled with his words when the legality issue was talked about. It was far from clear what he actually meant at that point.

In my mind it was a pretty reasonable response in the circumstances and not at all wrong. So how about getting off the guys back and try celebrating his success rather than seeking some fictional sleight to your virility or "human rights" with which to pull him down?

What?? Are you really that stupid that you actually believe what you've typed there? A helmet does **** all in a crash, car involved or otherwise?

Forgetting to unclip and hitting your head on a kerb, yes a helmet works. If you're racing in a peloton and someone goes down in front of you, yes a helmet works. Riding in a forest and coming off, yes a helmet works. Riding on icy roads then yes, a helmet works.

Getting hit by a car then no, a helmet doesn't work. If we can get that message across to drivers then we'll all be a lot safer.

I struggle with long sentences again but:

Certainly they help, but they are definitely not the answer to road safety.

Poor arguing. It's blatantly obvious that it's not the complete answer. So what? It still helps.

If a truck is gonna kill you, a bit of polystyrene isn't going to stop it.

You're a clever bloke PP and I'm quite surprised you are using this kind of poor logic to justify your stance.

Being run over by a truck - no, it's not going to help.

Being knocked off by a truck and smacking your head on the tarmac - clearly it'll help.

Having your head hit by part of a truck - ask James Cracknell.

Heads contain our most valuable bits, and they are on the end of a short flexible protrudance, so they get tossed around a lot in accidents and bump onto things.

Lolling a bit at the 'common sense it's only half an inch of polystyrene' arguments on this topic, when it really should be a scientific argument. The complete opposite of the religion threads 🙂

Just because Bradley is quite nippy on a bike shouldn't make him the 'go to' person for expertise in road safety. He's in an unfortunate position now of being seen as an ambassador for the sport, expected to comment on stuff by the mainstream media, with probably no training or even the sort of briefing that an MP might get before being pushed out into the bright lights. Actually that would make him fully qualified to be a big hitter on here... I wonder which one he is?

Getting hit by a car then no, a helmet doesn't work.

So a crash in a group and hitting your head, a helmet helps, getting knocked by a car and landing on your head, a helmet doesn't help?

You can surely see why I'm struggling with this?

We all accept that point but we can only control what we are responsible for and campaign for the other stuff

Heads contain our most valuable bits

Incidentally have any of you lot been knocked off or seen anyone be knocked off by a car?

You do know that to achieve 5 star pedestrian crash ratings cars have to have soft squishy bonnets and bumpers to protect pedestrians' heads when they hit? It's clearly an issue.

molgrips - Member
Having your head hit by part of a truck - ask James Cracknell.

Heads contain our most valuable bits, and they are on the end of a short flexible protrudance, so they get tossed around a lot in accidents and bump onto things.

Not according to BruceWee. He may have taken one too many knocks to the head hence is poor arguement on why the head isn't worth protecting.

And just when I thought this country had done enough to make us all feel proud to be British again, another helmet thread comes along.

Fine, keep telling yourselves and more importantly drivers that a helmet is going to help in an RTC. Thanks for doing your bit to make the roads safer for all of us.

I can see where he's coming from on this, taking care of yourself first/ removing an anomoly, however I don't think compulsion is the answer - I don't think it is unforceable, a bit like using a mobile phone whilst driving, how many drivers do you still using a phone whilst driving?

What really gets my goat is folks who make their kids wear a helmet but don't themselves.

It's going to help. It's not going to make you invincible, it's not going to solve traffic issues or prevent accidents.

But it is going to help in a collision involving your head. DEFEINITELY.

Whenever I go see the management at work about a point I feel impassioned about (it does not matter if am totally in the right and it is totally apparent or being cheeky) the first thing I do is make sure I have my own house in order first. It fends off cheap shots, easy point scoring and generally makes my argument more water tight. I really think that is all Wiggins was suggesting here - cyclists do our bit to keep safe, and more importantly LOOK like we are doing our bit, then go for the jugular and demand proper lanes and networks, more protection or whatever is most appropriate from a position of strength.

Winners take stock of the world they REALLY live in, are proactive and take action and ultimately make the difference - whiners and those that just bang on about rights tend to remain marginalised in my opinion.

That people actually think 'he's wearing a helmet, I'll give him less room' is a truly terrifying prospect.

I don't think that's the hypothesis - it's not that people are having that conscious thought and making a decision based on an assessment, I think the suggestion is that their (sub-conscious?) perception is that the cyclist is more / less vulnerable and that their driving reflects this difference. I could be wrong about that as, unlike so many on here, I'm not an expert.

I think the suggestion about riders' behaviour is similar - riders aren't actively thinking "I've got a helmet on so I'm invincible and will therefore ride like a nob" but they perhaps feel less endangered and their riding behaviour reflects this.

Just to allow some sense of numbers to seep in here. Does anyone know of any source of figures on cycling fatalities what describes in collisions with vehicles proportions dying from head injuries, proportion dying from other injuries (blood loss, internal bleeding, crushed torso etc).

I suspect it’s biased much towards the latter. Myself I wear a helmet, because if I slip a chain, tumble, or have a lower speed collision (as I have once) what could be a significant/serious head injury is nothing. I do not imagine for a moment my helmet will stop my getting a punctured lung.

If nothing else Wiggins has opened a debate on mainstream media, the CTC have been on five live, and its being covered in the newspapers. The Mail will always write what the Mail likes. But a conversation, in the national media.

Also he won stuff, was probably still very tired and full of endorphins, and lots of people pointed microphones at him, not like he prepared a statement...

But it is going to help in a collision involving your head. DEFEINITELY.

This applies to any head injuries, not just those you get whilst cycling. So why pick out cycling for compulsion?

Are helmets compulsory in road racing?

Whenever I go see the management at work about a point I feel impassioned about (it does not matter it if am totally in the right and it is totally apparent or being cheeky) the first thing I do is make sure I have my own house in order first. It fends off cheap shots, easy point scoring and generally makes my argument more water tight. I really think that is all Wiggins was suggesting here - cyclists do our bit to keep safe, and more importantly LOOK like we are doing our bit, then go for the jugular and demand proper lanes and networks, more protection or whatever is most appropriate from a position of strength

+1, times a million, with cherries, nuts and chocolate sprinkes on top - Bang on the money, post of the thread there Convert!

I should have added we shouldn't be made to do anything when the individual is the only one who will be affected

Well you fell and injure yourself the NHS pays the bill therefore I am affected.

mastiles you owe me a new screen keyboard.

First of all deepest sympathies to the family of the killed cyclist . Another one in a growing list. Secondly, I feel deeply let down by Bradley Wiggins' comments on this. I agree that cyclists should take safety precautions and act legally and responsibly, but making helmets compulsory misses the point and is a red herring. If I am run over by a bus, there is more of my body to be worried about than my head. I would rather the bus didn't hit me or run over me in the first place. The problem we have in this country just now are bikes trying to coexist on roads that are just not designed with the bikes in mind and the complete lack of political will by governments and councils to provide safe cycle ways for the ever increasing numbers of cyclists who are choosing to travel by bike. I just wish Brad had chosen to make those points, and not add weight to the red herring argument on helmets.

This applies to any head injuries, not just those you get whilst cycling. So why pick out cycling for compulsion?

Cos it's the only time I am flying along at 25mph or more in amongst traffic with nothing else protecting my head.

Of course if I rode a motorbike that would also apply, and I'd also wear a helmet.

I just wish Brad had chosen to make those points, and not add weight to the red herring argument on helmets

He didn't really. He said that there was a lot that could be done on BOTH sides, and on the cyclist side that includes things like taking some responsibility - not wearing headphones, riding properly and wearing helmets.

4 pages so soon. Skim reading this it appears

that it isn't a wiggo hatefest as some hyperbole as suggested
and
The "naysayers" don't tell everyone not to wear helmets, they're just anti compulsion

The effectiveness of helmets isn't proven but I still wear one 90% of the time, and I'll make sure my kids to wear one until they are old enough to decide for themselves. Compulsion would be a bad move tho I reckon because unfortunately the risk assessment of drivers does seem to be affected by helmet use and there does appear to be blame put onto the victim already, if more onus is put onto helmet use we could get to the stage where drivers hits and kills cyclist, driver is found at fault but receives no punishment due to rider not having a helmet.[img] [/img]

Came off my bike a couple of weeks ago and if it wasn't for the peak on the helmet my face would have been sliding along the tarmac. Personally if you ride without one then you have no one else to blame and shouldn't get any sympathy. Why do we think it is madness for people to ride motorbikes without helmets but not bikes. It's not like helmets are expensive and ugly like the old days.

Wiggo was actually saying that cyclist have to take responsibility for themselves as well as motorists. As he said its not like either is going to disappear.

Well you fell and injure yourself the NHS pays the bill therefore I am affected.

Really? You really want to head down that route with your line of thinking? Maybe if people didn't cycle at all then it would further reduce costs. Maybe if people stopped smoking, drinking, taking drugs, driving, knitting, falling off scaffolding...it would save 'you' even more money? Anyway, don't you live in France?

Cos it's the only time I am flying along at 25mph or more in amongst traffic with nothing else protecting my head.

I'm assuming most here don't use helmets for those activities, like I said wear a helmet when you want but compulsorising it 🙂 isn't a great move I reckon.

*btw if someone slipped on ice while walking into a business premises and then tried to sue the business, I wonder how far the defence would get with "the plaintiff wasn't wearing a helmet in obviously dangerous conditions so we're filing for contributory negligence"

Personally if you ride without one then you have no one else to blame and shouldn't get any sympathy.

Personally, I think that's a disgusting comment to make.

Would you say that to the face of the family of this guy who was killed if it turned out he wasn't wearing a helmet but that his death was due to dangerous driving by the bus driver?

Fine, keep telling yourselves and more importantly drivers that a helmet is going to help in an RTC. Thanks for doing your bit to make the roads safer for all of us

You seem to be close to arguing that a helmet makes it more dangerous for us as drivers will think we are safe to hit if helmeted.....do they really do this ?
Ps that oft quoted study from the Bath guy [distance from riders] is weak and even he accepts that point.

This applies to any head injuries, not just those you get whilst cycling. So why pick out cycling for compulsion?

it is an interesting grey area though

if more onus is put onto helmet use we could get to the stage where drivers hits and kills cyclist, driver is found at fault but receives no punishment due to rider not having a helmet.

Hmm.. that is a risk, but I believe it would be easy to argue otherwise.

You might get a reduced payout, because you might say in the case of a small accident that the cyclist had not taken reasonable steps to mitigate injury. However, it's also reasonable to oblige motorists not to hit cyclists, I don't think that will ever change.

We are talking about road users not shower acrobatics. Most people on here can acheive 30mph on a road with a little downhill assistance. A moped is restricted to 30mph. Why do we see cyclists as anything different needing special treatment because they have to propel their transport.

[i]Incidentally have any of you lot been knocked off or seen anyone be knocked off by a car?[/i]

Yes. Twice in the last few years. One car reversed into me whilst I was on a cycle lane doing about 17mph. I smacked my head into the ground, no crash helmet. such was the speed my arms could not break the fall and my head just went straight through them onto the tarmac. I was very lucky, I was wearing a beany hat and only grazed the side of my face which took the brunt. My nose pi$$ed with blood and felt like it was broken but it wasn't. Another time a car pulled out of a junction and drove straight into the side of me. I was knocked across into the other side of the road and I remember landing on my back. Fortunately I had a rucksack on with spare clothes and a towel in it and I was wearing a crash helmet. Both quite probably saved me a lot of pain... -as well as the driver going the other way who managed to stop in time.

Glad that pic of Wiggo and his son was put up here on P1..

"Pointy finger at yer self son before pointy fingering at us"

For those speculating about last night's accident, it seems to have been a rider trying to pass a left-turning bus on the inside at some traffic lights (like we wouldn't have guessed...).

Jeremy Vine's twitter links to a blog from a guy who witnessed it, but probably best avoided for those of a sensitive disposition as the guy was eyeball to eyeball with the poor soul as he expired and it doesn't make for pleasant reading. Sorry, not got a link.

i suspect the police will be only to happy to escort rebel bikers to a cashpoint machine for a on the spot £80 fine should a compulsory helmet law come into existance

i suspect the police will be only to happy to escort rebel bikers to a cashpoint machine for a on the spot £80 fine should a compulsory helmet law come into existance

We are talking about road users not shower acrobatics. Most people on here can acheive 30mph on a road with a little downhill assistance. A moped is restricted to 30mph. Why do we see cyclists as anything different needing special treatment because they have to propel their transport.

And cars regularly have accidents at speeds way in excess of 30mph. c50% of in car deaths (greater number than annual cyclist deaths) result of head inujuries. Helmets for car occupants?

Helmets for car occupants?

Car drivers are sitting inside what is effectively a safety helmet. If that's your arguement against not wearing an helmet you'll need to do better.

Yes i do live in France, so does it means I am not entitle to debate on a UK based forum. Looks like you have been listening to what Z11 and the BNP have said then.

And it's funny about what you says about smoking and drinking. Everyone knows it's dangerous, however people keep doing it. Compulsory messages on cigarettes boxes and drinks bottles probably haven't stop people to use both.

I always wear a helmet when out on the bike for a ride, occasionally don't wear one if just cycling to the shops etc but I probably should!

Making them compulsory would help change peoples minds about not wearing one but I don't think you should be fined etc if you didn't have one. It's your choice at the end of the day, you know the risk of not wearing it.

There is countless number of cases where helmets have saved peoples lives, yes of course in many cases they dont halp at all but I would rather wear one to reduce the risk even if it was by a small amount! There was a boy in the paper (not bike related) got punched and fell and cracked his head on the edge of a kerb and is now fighting for his life. That could easily happen on a bike too, a freak accident where a helmet would help.

I for one always think about what could happen when not wearing a helmet even if it is just mucking about around the streets.

Plus some of the 'lids' out there this now are 'well cool'!