Senior doctor joins Wiggins in call for new helmet laws (From Epsom Guardian)

Bradley Wiggins hasn't called for helmets to be made compulsory in law.

Here's what he said on his Twitter account, http://twitter.com/b
radwiggins:

"Just to confirm I haven't called for helmets to be made the law as reports suggest"

"I suggested it may be the way to go to give cyclists more protection legally I involved In an accident"

"I wasn't on me soap box CALLING, was asked what I thought #myopiniondoesntcoun
tformuch"

Some basic fact checking by the Sutton Guardian would be great.

Here's the London Cycling Campaign's view:

"LCC believes cyclists should be able to choose whether to wear a helmet or not. This is because the evidence that helmets increase safety is inconclusive (visit www.cyclehelmets.org for more information), whereas they have been shown to reduce the number of people who cycle, which sadly increases danger to cyclists."

Bradley Wiggins was asked his view after a cyclist was killed outside the Olympic park when run over by a bus at a junction. A helmet wouldn't have made any significant difference to the outcome in that case.

Does Dr Ruth Charlton see the obese kids who get that way because they don't exercise, the kids who outnumber the cycling deaths by thousands to one? Regular cyclists live longer and are healthier, fitter and slimmer than the general public.

The only two effects of helmet laws and propaganda is to discourage cycling and make obscene profits for the helmet makers, there is no safety benefit. Because the people deterred from cycling lose the overwhelming health benefits, the overall effect is an absolute disaster for the public health. In an obesity epidemic and with constant exhortations to exercise more, propaganda like this and calls for helmet laws are insane and are the equivalent of tobacco advertising: immense private profits and uncountable public cost.

It is hard to believe that so many medical people still cling to the myth of cycle helmet effectiveness when it has been shown that at best they make no difference and at worst increase risk. I suppose Doctors are just as gullible as the rest of us, but I don't find that a comforting thought, as I was under the impression that they looked at the data rather than just listening to opinion, anecdote and assumption.

The evidence which showed huge benefits was just shoddy research from biased researchers, who set out to prove that helmets were effective, and has been completely disproved.

Do some research yourself Dr Charlton, and stop peddling myths that you'd like to be true, but aren't.

You might like to start at cyclehelmets.org

What about pushing for car drivers having to wear helmets too? It sounds like a helmet might well have helped Christian Bakkerud who crashed at Tibbets Corner earlier this year.

There have been masses of studies on the helmet issue, and not much of a consensus. A helmet can save you from injury, or even death, if you fall off, but impact with a car is another matter.

There is also the question of whether drivers (consciously or subconsciously) behave more sensitively around cyclists without helmets. And as Adrian Short says, Wiggins has been misquoted anyway. I recommend reading Ben Goldacre's comments on the issue.

Complete rubbish maybe if car drivers turned off mobiles, stopped listening to music and paid slightly more attention to other road users cyclist wouldn't get knocked off in the first place.