Wiggo wants compulsory helmets

[[XAP]Bob]

In the eye of the public ...............

Wiggo is a sportsman, an athlete, a celebrity. He rides a bike to do this. He has a support team helping him. He earns a living by being a sportsman, an athlete, and a celebrity.

You and me are completely different to him.

Digression from the Actual Point Alert! Digression from the Actual Point Alert!

I'm not suggesting he's the same as you and I, I'm wondering why he is not "primarily a cyclist" and you or I would be, as opposed to "primarily commuters" or "primarily tourists", or "primarily shoppers".

I'm also wondering if "in the eye of the public" Mo is "not primarily a runner", Tom Daley not "primarily a diver" or Messi is "not primarily a footballer".

In other words, sounds like more of a personal bee/bonnet interface than a general perception.

Pete.

Because he is *already* compelled to wear a lid...

It's like Tom Daley suggesting that Speedo's were made compulsory, or Messi that studs should be worn when we walk to school...


Actually I like that example - Studs would actually increase risk when walking to school, since they give less grip on some surfaces, but can easily be tested to show an improved grip...

[pjclinch]

Because he is *already* compelled to wear a lid...

Sorry Bob, this digressive sub-argument is about whether Wiggo is, or isn't, "primarily a cyclist". Mick seems to think he isn't, where someone like Mick, me, etc. is. Me no understandee.

I think you'd need to be on something Quite Strange to think he isn't a cyclist because he's compelled to wear a lid (except those cases when he isn't and doesn't).

Pete.

[Mick F]

On something quite strange?
I'm drinking a second beer at the moment!

I'm not digressing at all.
The title of the thread is "Wiggo wants compulsory helmets" ie it's Wiggo who is the subject.

[XAP]Bob has put it quite well I reckon. He's compelled to wear a helmet because he's a Pro Racer, so has a different outlook to "normal" cyclists.

[[XAP]Bob]

Because he is *already* compelled to wear a lid...

Sorry Bob, this digressive sub-argument is about whether Wiggo is, or isn't, "primarily a cyclist". Mick seems to think he isn't, where someone like Mick, me, etc. is. Me no understandee.

I think you'd need to be on something Quite Strange to think he isn't a cyclist because he's compelled to wear a lid (except those cases when he isn't and doesn't).

Pete.

He lives in a world which is substantially different to the vast majority of cyclists.

The actual question is much more related to the start of the thread - is Wiggo representative of cyclists in the UK? (I have to answer that as a NO)

Should his views carry weight - are they backed up by anything other than his sponsors?

I have no problem with helmets being mandated for racing, but we should be mandating crash helmets and HANS devices for car occupants before we look at cycling helmets...

[pwa]

Wiggo is a cyclist who braves the roads like the rest of us, and I give him respect for that. For me his views on any cycling related matter are the views of one cyclist. Nice to hear them, but they carry no more authority than my views or the views of other experienced cyclists. I doubt that the general public will give his views more than 20 seconds of thought, either.

Like Wiggo I think a lid is a good idea, but unlike Wiggo I don't care if others choose not to wear one.

[Tonyf33]

Wiggo supports Wigan RL, ergo he is a goon, along with the rest of the Neanderthals from that part of the world whatever he says it's complete horse manure.
There should be a law censoring influential people/organisations from making unsubstantiated statements that damage public health, this is certainly one of them.

[pjclinch]

There should be a law censoring influential people/organisations from making unsubstantiated statements that damage public health

That would certainly get rid of party political broadcasts, and probably mean a gagging order on Jeremy Hunt... sounds good so far!