Geraint Thomas....

[Bonefishblues]

My now wife was knocked unconscious in an accident in about 1984-5, spending a night in hospital. On balance I would have preferred her to be wearing a helmet at that point.

But what about all the extra times she would've crashed if she had've been wearing one? It's not fair to justify them on the basis of how they might/should have mitigated some crash because you can't just pop it on mid-fall and avoid all the drawbacks that probably undermine their impact protection to result in the approximately-no-effect we see in the real-world casualty figures.

Exactly, this post crash thinking is replicated everywhere, 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' springs to mind yet nearly everyone ignores the facts that they would in many instances not be in that position to start with sans helmet, their head would be a smaller target/be further away from the solid object, the kinetic energy of the head is changed, these are particularly important when considering helmets or children.

Personally I'd never want my child wearing a helmet and my 5 and 9 year old grandkids don't wear them and I've explained to the 9 year old why I don't wear one, not that he wore one to start with. A child who thinks they are all but invincible as it is are badly affected by feeling safer, this is proven many times over in studies.
This is replicated to a similar level by the racing/competition riders, this is why the only real study done on racing cyclists has shown that riders of the 80/early 90s are half at risk of traumatic injury than those of 2003-2009, we can see how many more dead riders there are, how many more retirements due to crashes and indeed the numbers of crashes has increased dramatically in the last 10-15 years. That's despite better brakes, better/grippier tyres, more on course safety protocols - more barriers and hugely more marshals warning riders of tight turns etc and still they crash more. Classic risk compensation in action.

In my one major off I'm damn glad I wasn't wearing a helmet, i wouldn't be writing this today, in fact I can say that with far more certainty* than the classic helmet saved my life pony
*tucked and rolled, impact on rear of shoulder, head would have been snapped backwards at speed if wearing a plastic hat

Indeed you can.

[pwa]

I don't put much faith in any statistics on this topic. I don't think anyone puts enough care and effort into the collection of data, meaning all the processing of that data is based on rubbish. This is true of data from the NHS, just as it is true of crime data and data from schools. None of it is collected consistently enough, now or in the past, to make it useful for fine analysis. You'd be just as well off waving a bit of vee shaped hazel around. I'd apply that equally to both sides of the helmet debate.

So basically what you're saying is that those taking the trouble over years to collate the data from hospitals are either liars or simply mickey poor at adding up and dividing?
You'd rather go with gut feeling and anecdote to base your cogent argument with? Maybe you should also ignore every data set ever presented from any organisation/researcher on any subject matter eh, how can you trust the figures? You should particularly ignore studies or 'meta analysis' done by those with vested interests/are being sponsored by governments who won't admit they are wrong when presented with their own 'facts' - sorry waved hazel leaves, and want to continue to oppress and mete out human rights violating rules (I won't call them laws) on their citizens which ends up in those citizens being more at risk of dying because of those studies as well as ignoring crimes that have a direct impact but penalising something that doesn't
Have you completely lost all sense of balance, or is it that like most pro helmet types you'll grasp at any straw to deflect away from facts that you don't like because they don't meet with your way of thinking?

I've seen data collected for official purposes, haphazardly and inconsistently, and I've seen that data used to create statistics that have no basis in reality. And I know that hospital data is collected by people under pressure to do various jobs at the same time, the data collection being low on their list of priorities. I do not believe one hospital will collect data exactly the same way as another, and I don't believe one year's data will be collected the same way as that from five years previous. I have no faith in such data collection and any statistics derived from it.

[atoz]

He's a racing cyclist, not a commuter or a tourist. He's paid to ride very fast and win races, not to be an expert on the helmet debate. He will be paid to wear his helmet. It's unlikely he will have a significant understanding of what constitutes evidence based research (he's not an academic or a clinician), so his opinions on the usefulness of helmets aren't really worth much- in the same way I could have an opinion on heart disease- worth damm all. He knows how to win the Tour de France- and that's it. You wouln't ask for the opinion of a research statistician on the best way to climb Alpe D'Huez- you'd want to talk to a real cyclist who'd actually done it (unless the statistician was actually a real cyclist of course). So Geraint Thomas's views on the subject are worth- damm all.

Wiggo nearly got caught out in a similar way, but at least he retracted. Chris Boardman of course has a different view to Thomas, as he has actually done his homework on the issue- and he has more than enough palmares as a pro cyclist.

Oddly enough, many pro cyclists are not helmet fans. A certain Lance Armstrong, who we all know about, used the phrase "helmet nazis" on a Youtube video recently. But his opnion is not worth any more than Geraint Thomas- proves nothing. And of course he cheated...

The problem of course is, that the press will latch on to it. Fortunately, it's not flavour de jour at the moment- the excitable red tops are too busy salivating over yet another Corbyn story, so it should limit the damage..hopefully

[The utility cyclist]

But if he has no understanding of the issue, why even give such a one sided and definitive answer? He clearly thinks compulsory helmets is a good thing, it was the answer he gave, no caveats, he even blithely spoke about something he doesn't have experience of, cycling not for sport in a busy urban environment.
He's also got a short memory too because that Chris Froome fellah used to train with him often without wearing a lid not so long ago.

[Bonefishblues]

But if he has no understanding of the issue, why even give such a one sided and definitive answer? He clearly thinks compulsory helmets is a good thing, it was the answer he gave, no caveats, he even blithely spoke about something he doesn't have experience of, cycling not for sport in a busy urban environment.
He's also got a short memory too because that Chris Froome fellah used to train with him often without wearing a lid not so long ago.

There's been a good deal of constructive discussion about the context of his reply earlier thread, and his surprise at the furore it generated. The posters who pointed to new-found fame and profile and a deal of naivete were closest to the mark IMHO, as opposed to your rather less generous interpretation.

Unsure why Froome's choosing not to wear one has particular relevance in the context of Thomas's expressed preference.

[pwa]

I would not classify GT as an expert on the subject of helmets, but he has spent more hours in the saddle than most cyclists of his age and he has crashed. His opinion is the valid opinion of someone affected by the issue. I don't know whether he is right, but his opinion counts. Just as the opinions of other experienced cyclists count.

[bovlomov]

I would not classify GT as an expert on the subject of helmets, but he has spent more hours in the saddle than most cyclists of his age and he has crashed. His opinion is the valid opinion of someone affected by the issue. I don't know whether he is right, but his opinion counts. Just as the opinions of other experienced cyclists count.

As he's since admitted to not giving the subject any thought, his opinion can't count for much.

[pwa]

I would not classify GT as an expert on the subject of helmets, but he has spent more hours in the saddle than most cyclists of his age and he has crashed. His opinion is the valid opinion of someone affected by the issue. I don't know whether he is right, but his opinion counts. Just as the opinions of other experienced cyclists count.

As he's since admitted to not giving the subject any thought, his opinion can't count for much.

Up to a point I agree. On the subject of compulsion I think he is mistaken, and i think he may not have thought it through. But on the matter of whether a helmet can offer a meaningful level of protection he does have some experience and I think his opinion is valid. Not necessarily right, but valid.
On other matters his thoughts echo my own. I too have walked around London, watched cyclists doing their stuff, and thought to myself that I would not like to cycle there myself. And I give an unreserved thumbs up to the notion that all road users should be looking after each other and not splitting into Them and Us tribes.

[bovlomov]

As he's since admitted to not giving the subject any thought, his opinion can't count for much.

Up to a point I agree. On the subject of compulsion I think he is mistaken, and i think he may not have thought it through. But on the matter of whether a helmet can offer a meaningful level of protection he does have some experience and I think his opinion is valid. Not necessarily right, but valid.
On other matters his thoughts echo my own. I too have walked around London, watched cyclists doing their stuff, and thought to myself that I would not like to cycle there myself. And I give an unreserved thumbs up to the notion that all road users should be looking after each other and not splitting into Them and Us tribes.

Thomas has given some thought to cycling safety - though I'd argue that viewing London from a taxi doesn't give a full picture. I'm not a natural risk taker, but I cycle around London. I don't think it is more dangerous than a provincial A road. Anyway, I think we can all agree that we should all take responsibility for sharing the road.

The helmet thing? I'm all for listening to non-expert opinion, as the layman often brings a new angle to the discussion. But Thomas hasn't thought about helmets, and knew nothing of the debate around their effectiveness, or about compulsion. On this subject, I'm not sure his words can even be counted as opinions.

[Bonefishblues]

As he's since admitted to not giving the subject any thought, his opinion can't count for much.

Up to a point I agree. On the subject of compulsion I think he is mistaken, and i think he may not have thought it through. But on the matter of whether a helmet can offer a meaningful level of protection he does have some experience and I think his opinion is valid. Not necessarily right, but valid.
On other matters his thoughts echo my own. I too have walked around London, watched cyclists doing their stuff, and thought to myself that I would not like to cycle there myself. And I give an unreserved thumbs up to the notion that all road users should be looking after each other and not splitting into Them and Us tribes.

Thomas has given some thought to cycling safety - though I'd argue that viewing London from a taxi doesn't give a full picture. I'm not a natural risk taker, but I cycle around London. I don't think it is more dangerous than a provincial A road. Anyway, I think we can all agree that we should all take responsibility for sharing the road.

The helmet thing? I'm all for listening to non-expert opinion, as the layman often brings a new angle to the discussion. But Thomas hasn't thought about helmets, and knew nothing of the debate around their effectiveness, or about compulsion. On this subject, I'm not sure his words can even be counted as opinions.

Well of course they can, but I think that it diminishes the weight one would attribute to them.

[thirdcrank]

The whole of the sport of professional cycling is based on advertising and the money has increased in proportion to the increase in television coverage. This isn't just about the ad's carried on the riders' togs but every aspect of the sport. I think that Sid Barras must hold some sort of record for repeating a sponsor's name the greatest number of times in a post-race interview. With helmets, it's a form of product placement and the cycle helmet industry has worked hard to have helmets seen as natural - common sense - in the sport. When helmets were first made compulsory, riders were allowed to remove them before climbing big hills and there was the spectacle of countless riders literally binning their helmets. A stop was soon put to that.

I'd not be surprised if riders had a "no criticising helmets" clause in their contracts, if not a requirement to promote them. If they tend to be illogical on the subject, they are just experiencing the mismatch of £££ versus personal opinion.

Unfortunately, one top pro rider who is pro helmet in their pronouncements trumps any amount of science.

[pwa]

In one particular area GT has a depth experience that most of us do not. He has probably been involved in, and witnessed, more falls than the great majority of cyclists. So he may well have a view on the efficacy of helmets. He could still be wrong, of course.

[Cyril Haearn]

In one particular area GT has a depth experience that most of us do not. he has probably been involved in, and witnessed, more falls than the great majority of cyclists. So he may well have a view on the efficacy of helmets. He could still be wrong, of course.

Plus One, although he is only a kid he has cycled more than many of us
GT is a Real Cyclist

Cymru am byth!

[reohn2]

In one particular area GT has a depth experience that most of us do not. he has probably been involved in, and witnessed, more falls than the great majority of cyclists. So he may well have a view on the efficacy of helmets. He could still be wrong, of course.

Yes but his view is skewed in that those falls are in a racing context,similarly so an F1 driver would witness and or be involved in crashes the same.
The problem here is that GT races bikes at a very high level and his view is from that perspective and not from an every day ordinary rider perspective.
That's the difference,and as such his view isn't representative of cycling as a whole,for that perspective Chris Boardman is the default cycling celebrity for the media to lsiten to.
PS,I don't hear of any F1 drivers claiming all drivers should wear a helmet,full harness and flame proof suit,though according to statistics perhaps the helmet would save motorists lives.

[Bonefishblues]

In one particular area GT has a depth experience that most of us do not. he has probably been involved in, and witnessed, more falls than the great majority of cyclists. So he may well have a view on the efficacy of helmets. He could still be wrong, of course.

Yes but his view is skewed in that those falls are in a racing context,similarly so an F1 driver would witness and or be involved in crashes the same.
The problem here is that GT races bikes at a very high level and his view is from that perspective and not from an every day ordinary rider perspective.
That's the difference and as such his view isn't representative of cycling as a whole,for that perspective Chris Boardman is the default cycling celebrity for the media to lsiten to.
PS,I don't hear of any F1 drivers claiming all drivers should wear a helmet full harness and flame prove suit,though according to statistic perhaps the helmet would save lives.

That latter point is less relevant now that airbags are universal, apart from old cars.

Amusingly, for anyone who is interested, and who saw the crash at the start of the Belgian GP at the weekend, there's a fierce debate over on Pistonheads about whether the fact that Le Clerc emerged unscathed validates the "Halo" safety device, or not.

To coin the phrase, it was deja vu all over again