Geraint Thomas....

[Ivor Tingting]

First its James Cracknell and now Geraint, who will it be next?

Al

You forgot Bradley Wiggins.

[al_yrpal]

Ah yes, Bradley! Perhaps any law should state you are exempt if you have a basket on the front?

Al

[reohn2]

I think we're altogether a more sensible society when it comes to roads and policy than Oz, which seems to have form in that respect, and where evidence has little part to play in the legislative process. I think peer pressure would take care of enforcement in the main, btw.

I'm content that I'm trying to do my bit for the provision of suitable infrastructure locally, and some of the debate on here has proved very useful in my constructing the case (and deconstructing the case made by fancy London consultancies too, for that matter). If course the intervention could prove futile, but I'll keep you posted!

If the last 10 years have proved anything to me it's that I wouldnt trust government to be logical or trustworthy on anything and that there's a distinct possibility that it will jump on any particualr bandwagon passing by if it keeps them in power.
Cynical I am.
My reasons for being cynical of government re cycling are:-
There's a growing movement toward blaiming cyclists for all manner of ills from being a danger at large,to a feeling cyclists need to be conspicuous by wearing Hi Vis and to protect themselves by wearing helmets.
There's also less tolerance toward cyclists from drivers,that ranges in general from plain bad driving to downright considered dangerous driving with a view to intimidate or even injure.
All this is generally given lip service by a depleted police force without the manpower to uphold the law(I'm being generous toward the police in this respect.
Add to that poor to non existant cycling infrastructure and cycle fund being misappropriated to the likes of turbo roundabouts and pedestrianising streets then banning cycling on those streets and those stupid mats!.

I am very cynical of UK government at local and national level and nothing would surprise me as a way to reduce cycling dressed up as a safety measure,a helmet law is one such way of acheiving such an end.
I simply dont believe I live in a sensible society

[grufty]

Perhaps a Formula 1 driver may care to advocate helmet wearing compulsion for all occupants of motor vehicles?

[ajj]

Has anyone read the Sunday Times article? Do we know if he called for compulsion, or if this is the BBC's interpretation of his words?

I have. It quotes him as saying "I would certainly make helmets compulsory"

Of course it is one line from a 4 page article in the magazine which the Times chooses to splash o n the paper's front page.

Makes perfect sense. Because he feels he needs one riding at 20-30mph with close groups of competitive cyclists jostling for position and taking every downhill at full tilt then the guy riding half a mile at 10mph to the shop should be forced to wear one as well.

Idiot! The guy going to the shop will jump in the car instead.

Thanks for that

[Cugel]

Hi,

Must we eat fat lamb sausages rather than curried venison because some celeb says that's what he does so everyone should? This compulsion concerning the helmets seems to have popped into Mr Thomas's head solely for that "reason" (You must be and believe like me). I'm surprised that one who is said to be "humble" turns out to be a helmet fascist.

What else does the lad recommend for all we cyclists? Must we all train 100 hours a week and wear a Sky jersey?

Cugel

.......
Is (I wear one always but I do not preach it will save my life in all collisions etc) it the helmet argument or the compulsion in anything being forced on you / participators that you find intolerant or both.

................

One can make a case for a cycling helmet being a useful device to reduce the ill-effects of low-level head bangs in various circumstances, such as cycling through the woods on a trail or with a group new to cycling, one of whom might cause you to fall in the road. But these circumstances are few, in my experience. Even in road racing, the likelihood of a serious head bang is low (you bang everything else in a chute) and there is a case that compulsory helmets in racing is something of a knee-jerk rule rather than one based on any evidence of their utility as a safety device. Helmets might even be a factor in the riders having more chutes because they take more risks in the erroneous assumption that "my helmet will save my life".

So, I wouldn't ban helmets (the opposite of making them compulsory). But ....

The evidence seems to indicate that helmet wearing by cyclists, especially those who want to "be like the pros" induces over-compensation when assessing the risks of various cycling behaviours. There's also evidence that motorists also assume they can treat a cyclist with a greater disregard when there's a helmet on the cyclist's head as "they are safer".

If helmet wearing actually increases the risk of a serious head (or other) injury, via this over-compensation in the assumption of greater safety provided by wearing a helmet, then logic says that we should stop people wearing helmets! In practice I wouldn't ban them, though - I would merely ban adverts claiming they make you safer; and I would fund media campaigns to relate the facts about helmets and safety rather than stupid thoughtless remarks by celebs and hate-mongering tabloid journos.

Cugel.

[bovlomov]

Thomas talks about a cyclist being cut up by a car, but then complains that the same cyclist will go on to jump a red light. "We have to share the road". He then says how crazy it is to ride in London, and that helmets should be compulsory.

It's a rather incoherent jumble, not dissimilar to Wiggins' interview in 2012 after a cyclist was killed near the Olympic stadium.

But what's with the young Thomas always being beeped and told to get off the effin' road? Was life in Cardiff so different from London (this would have been the mid 90s)? I don't remember drivers ever being that hostile, to young cyclists or cyclists in general. Was he doing wheelies in the middle of the street? His views of riding a bike seem overwhelmingly negative, and most likely to put the average person off ever trying.

[Postboxer]

Thanks for the copy of the relevant bit of the article, as nothing on the BBC page, apart from the headline, suggests he had said anything of the sort.

Edit:- He does a lot of cycling, I wonder what other laws he would like to introduce for cyclists and drivers, given the chance, if he could, I wonder if they asked him. Maybe one of us should tweet him.

[softlips]

Regarding his comment about cycling in London. I find London to be one of the places I feel safest riding. There’s so many cyclist people expect them more, plus the lanes and traffic lights are set up better for them.

I do wear a helmet, but wouldn’t compel others to do the same.

[bovlomov]

Regarding his comment about cycling in London. I find London to be one of the places I feel safest riding. There’s so many cyclist people expect them more, plus the lanes and traffic lights are set up better for them.

I agree. It's a very odd attitude, given that his experience in Cardiff was of always being shouted at by drivers.

[Cyril Haearn]

GT has spent many years in cycle sport, I guess he has not had time for much else, has not thought in detail about helmets and laws as a few dozen of us on these fora have (we are not politrickians either, mind)

Who knows what he really said or meant? Probably his speech was recorded, then turned into text,quite possible something different or unintended came out at the end

Maybe our Sporting Heroes should have minders telling then what not to say
Maybe they should refuse to give interviews, or only give a very few

[ajj]

Thanks for the copy of the relevant bit of the article, as nothing on the BBC page, apart from the headline, suggests he had said anything of the sort.

Thanks from me, too

[Bonefishblues]

GT has spent many years in cycle sport, I guess he has not had time for much else, has not thought in detail about helmets and laws as a few dozen of us on these fora have (we are not politrickians either, mind)

Who knows what he really said or meant? Probably his speech was recorded, then turned into text,quite possible something different or unintended came out at the end

Maybe our Sporting Heroes should have minders telling then what not to say
Maybe they should refuse to give interviews, or only give a very few

Can you explain why you believe that his thinking is flawed and yours and a few dozen others correct?

My bold not yours, just to be clear.

Trust this is ok Mods?

[Cunobelin]

GT has spent many years in cycle sport, I guess he has not had time for much else, has not thought in detail about helmets and laws as a few dozen of us on these fora have (we are not politrickians either, mind)

Who knows what he really said or meant? Probably his speech was recorded, then turned into text,quite possible something different or unintended came out at the end

Maybe our Sporting Heroes should have minders telling then what not to say
Maybe they should refuse to give interviews, or only give a very few

Can you explain why you believe that his thinking is flawed and yours and a few dozen others correct?

My bold not yours, just to be clear.

Trust this is ok Mods?

His integrity is flawed by failing to declare a financial interest

[bovlomov]

GT has spent many years in cycle sport, I guess he has not had time for much else, has not thought in detail about helmets and laws as a few dozen of us on these fora have (we are not politrickians either, mind)

Can you explain why you believe that his thinking is flawed and yours and a few dozen others correct?

His claim that there is 'no reason not to' wear a helmet suggests he hasn't given the subject much thought. He may consider that the helmet should be compulsory, or that he doesn't mind wearing one, but a brief glance at a letters page or forum would give him several well argued reasons why people choose not to. His claim that there 'is no reason not to' makes him seem rather ignorant. Or there are less generous interpretations.