Remember kids... always wear a helmet. (The almighty bikeradar helmet thread)

He was asked a question, amongst many others, in a press conference at 10:30 pm last night, a few hours after winning a gold medal at the Olympics. I think most of us would struggle to come up with a coherent answer, never mind please a bunch of internet forum people, if we were in this situation.

I don't give a tinker's cuss about his foundation and don't see how it is relevant to this discussion.

Helmet sponsorship deal in the works?

He was asked a question, amongst many others, in a press conference at 10:30 pm last night, a few hours after winning a gold medal at the Olympics. I think most of us would struggle to come up with a coherent answer, never mind please a bunch of internet forum people, if we were in this situation.

I don't give a tinker's cuss about his foundation and don't see how it is relevant to this discussion.

I think you're missing the point I am trying to make then.

By starting a foundation with bold claims about the country's health, you are clearly exhibiting an interest in something beyond racing. He is attempting to make a difference in the healthiness and activeness of the country. Which I commend whole-heartedly.

Once you make that leap however, you can't then separate racer from campaigner. Like it or not, he became a campaigner the day he started that foundation. If he wants to comment on safety and helmets, like he has done so before in interviews, then at least make the effort to speak to some people who spend their lives researching it beforehand.

I agree, he was caught off-guard, nobody expected it, but choose not to answer it. Say it's not his place to comment on safety without facts or knowledge of what happened.

I'm not trying to take his achievement away from him. He did something epic. I just think he should have known better than to fall for a cheap media/interviewer trick.

I think you're missing the point I am trying to make then.

I think you are failing to make it properly then.

I think you are failing to make it properly then.

I agree. I explained further above.

So should there be a ban on mobile phones for peds?

Let concentrate on the non-existing ban of using the phone while driving.

Yes it is and he has to say it otherwise he will be drawn into the debate.
A man that called the international press a cunt, suddenly toeing some arbitrary line, fearing being drawn into a debate? I don't think so.

If the BBC is pushing it then you can 100% guarantee that its politically correct. I know, I used to work there.
It's a meaningless phrase that you're using arbitrarily, in a nebulous context, claiming dubious credibility.

Anyway - It's sickening that the press are focusing so much attention on whether some poor sod was wearing a helmet or not, having been killed by a bus, particularly in the absence of any data information.

It's the same old tired shit misinformed ignorant fuck perception that helmets are magic and will prevent injury and death in any situation.

What he said, basically, was:
the roads are dangerous out there, I don't live here anymore, perhaps cyclists should wear helmets, they should definitely not wear headphones, there should be some give and take between road users.

everyone is focussing on "brad sez wear a helmet" when really he's saying "the roads are dangerous, don't make them more dangerous by being a bellend".

(plus: helmets won't save you when you interface with a vehicle, they may help if you interface with the floor/something else)

What Brad said made perfect sense, and he was only offering up his opinion when asked a question. Wearing a helmet is safer, the debate on whether it should be enforced is really more of a wider point on how much of a nanny state we want to live in. Its refreshing he gave an actual'opinion rather than some pr answer.

I agree with him on iPods phones etc. Said it before and I will say it again now, such a stupid thing to do on a bike.

Radio 2 on the subject now. Woman from pro helmet lobby spewing tired old shit, and a guy from the MAIL ON SUNDAY making some very valid points.

Just tuned in to listen on BBC2. Guy from New Zealand had some valid points that would appear to be backed by statistical evidence (though he did not cite any specifically.)

Boris's bikes would have a pretty hard time handling a helmet law.

Wearing a helmet is safer
And yet...

Radio 2 on the subject now. Woman from pro helmet lobby spewing tired old shit, and a guy from the MAIL ON SUNDAY making some very valid points.

First Boris, now the Mail?

What's going on?!

Wearing a helmet is safer.

No evidence whatsoever pointed toward this.

First Boris, now the Mail?

What's going on?!

The End of Days is nigh.

A man that called the international press a cunt, suddenly toeing some arbitrary line, fearing being drawn into a debate? I don't think so.

It's a meaningless phrase that you're using arbitrarily, in a nebulous context, claiming dubious credibility.

For Wiggins to say that he believes helmet wearing should be made compulsory by law means he can avoid offending those who have an agenda to make helmet wearing law. That is the meaning of political correctness, avoiding offense to those who, rightly or wrongly, have an agenda. Does Wiggins fear negative publicity (by causing offense) on the day he won gold for Britain, if he has any bloody sense he does.

That's how political correctness works. You have to say the right things otherwise those pursuing the particular agenda apply labels to you.

"Wiggins misses opportunity to take a stand on cycle safety" etc

But Wiggins could easily said exactly what Boris has and still keep a positive publicity.

For Wiggins to say that he believes helmet wearing should be made compulsory by law means he can avoid offending those who have an agenda to make helmet wearing law. That is the meaning of political correctness, avoiding offense to those who, rightly or wrongly, have an agenda. Does Wiggins fear negative publicity (by causing offense) on the day he won gold for Britain, if he has any bloody sense he does.

That's how political correctness works. You have to say the right things otherwise those pursuing the particular agenda apply labels to you.

"Wiggins misses opportunity to take a stand on cycle safety" etc
Again, you're arbitrarily applying an arbitrarily defined label, and also seem to making some baseless assumptions about why Wiggins said what he did.

With such willful disingenuity, you should work for the BBC.

Oh, wait...

But Wiggins could easily said exactly what Boris has and still keep a positive publicity.

How many on here think Boris is a cunt - in spite of the fact he allegedly rides a bike ?

I do. But not because of his line on cycle helmets.

How many on here think Boris is a cunt

What Boris got to do with it? whe he said was perfectly correct, if Wiggins said exactly that, he'd still be able to keep a positive spotlight.

It's not pr, it's more than likely something Wiggins believes. He's entitled to his opinion. I don't agree with it.

Again, you're arbitrarily applying an arbitrarily defined label, and also seem to making some baseless assumptions about why Wiggins said what he did.

With such willful disingenuity, you should work for the BBC.

Oh, wait...

I'm waiting

What Boris got to do with it? whe he said was perfectly correct, if Wiggins said exactly that, he'd still be able to keep a positive spotlight.

You bought Boris into it not me