• Top scientists on cycle helmets: "The debate will go on (and on and on...)"1 year 13 weeks agoI can't find whom I'm

    I can't find whom I'm replying too but I don't believe for one second that the behaviour of motorists is affected by cyclists wearing helmet. "She's wearing a helmet, I can get a bit closer!" nor do I think that helmeted cyclists take more risks.
    I wear a helmet and no longer worry about looking like a prat.
    Also, I know it's not 100% relevant but Natasha Richardson died after slipping on ice while stationary (ski-ing) Confused . Presumably her head was travelling at 12kph or less when it hit the ground. We'll never know whether a helmet would have saved her but why take that risk?

  • Canyon CF Paint Finish1 year 13 weeks agoI have the same on mine, I

    I have the same on mine, I don't think it's a defect in the paint job as such, I think it's just how the carbon finishes. I'm not sure it's even "painted" as such, just some transfers for the branding etc. I quite like the look.

  • Anti gay marriage protestors to target Tour de France1 year 13 weeks agoBez wrote:My suggestion for

    Bez wrote:
    My suggestion for this year's Tour, then: replace the podium girls with podium boys.

    +1

    The bigots can just **** off. There are countless things in the world to protest, and they choose this. I have to put up with overhearing blatantly homophobic comments all day at work*, the last thing I want to do is be reminded that some people are so narrow-minded and reactionary to actively protest gay marriage.

    *Someone actually said, "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Seriously.

  • Top scientists on cycle helmets: "The debate will go on (and on and on...)"1 year 13 weeks agoColT wrote:A quick

    ColT wrote:
    A quick observation.

    (a) By definition, most of us bike riders are laymen in terms of cycle helmet science, right?

    (b) The cycle helmet scientists (i.e. experts, not laymen) cannot agree on the helmet debate, right?

    If you accept the above, (and why wouldn't you?) surely, there is no point in anyone coming on here to express their *opinion* about who is right or wrong. Why not simply accept that some favour one side, some favour the other; we can all make our own choice at the moment, so why get so aggressive/defensive when trying to persuade others to accept your preference?

    Me? I'll wait until the evidence is incontrovertible.

    This would be all fine and dandy, if only those who want to force others to wear helmets accepted it, but they don't. They ignore all appeals to factual evidence, relying instead on opinion, anecdote and bad science to support their pre-concevied position.

    There is a very large number of people who want to make cycling without a helmet a crime, when, as you point out, there is no clear evidence either way. Do you think you could have a word with these people and get them to desist?

  • Top scientists on cycle helmets: "The debate will go on (and on and on...)"1 year 13 weeks agoduzza wrote:why do people who

    duzza wrote:
    why do people who wear helmets always want to convert others to their way of thinking? i have never seen a comment from a non helmet wearer asking for the banning of helmets but have seen plenty from helmet wearers who seem to want helmet use to become law. give it a rest!

    It's practically a religious thing "I believe this, so you have to as well". It's effectively zealotry of the worst kind, and the people who do it are quite happy to ignore facts which disprove their beliefs.

    Unfortunately, it's not just the helmet wearing types who insist that you wear a helmet, just look at the people who want to bring a law in: Eric Martlew, Angie Lee, Annette Brook etc, etc, none of whom ride a bike, but have the effrontery to tell cyclists how to do it.

  • Top scientists on cycle helmets: "The debate will go on (and on and on...)"1 year 13 weeks agochrisl wrote:So, to add to

    chrisl wrote:
    So, to add to the fun...
    After my recent experience, my helmet might have saved my forehead/brain but may have made my cheek worse. Who knows? Similarly, my glasses stopped my eyeball getting scratched but did bite my eyebrow Wink

    But I've found that parents and solicitors are happier after the accident when they find out you were wearing a helmet. It might well help stop people arguing contributary negligence, which is nice to know, and it stops parents telling you you're a twit!

    (not a judgement but a fact of parents)

    There has never been a case of contributory negligence being found in a court of law in any public road collision. The sole case where not wearing a helmet was found to be so was of such peculiar circumstances that it does not apply to any other case. Just tell your parenta and solicitors to examine the facts, and if they still insist that not wearing a helmet might be contributory negligence, change your solicitors. Not much you can do about parents except suggest that they read cyclehelmets.org

  • Accidental death verdict in case of cyclist who turned into path of vehicle overtaking him1 year 13 weeks agoPaul J wrote:No one has yet

    Paul J wrote:
    No one has yet mentioned Rule 167:

    “DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example: * approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road“.

    The Highway Code says this precisely because road users are likely to be manoeuvring to leave or enter the road ahead – as the cyclist in this case was.

    Agree

  • Top scientists on cycle helmets: "The debate will go on (and on and on...)"1 year 13 weeks agoMercuryOne wrote:kie7077

    MercuryOne wrote:
    kie7077 wrote:
    Good grief, unscientific anecdotal evidence means nothing, it's proves nothing, stop with it already. All these people who had crashes with helmets on are proving nothing because they don't know how they would have fared otherwise. I've had several head injuries in my life without a helmet, I'm not brain-damaged and I'm not dead, this also proves precisely nothing.

    "I've had several head injuries in my life without a helmet.." And if you'd been wearing on maybe you wouldn't have had damage at all? Talk about anecdotal. Big Grin

    I agree with Conlinth on this.

    If some people don't want to wear them that's fine by me but trying to argue that an inch of polystyrene is no better than nothing at all is just daft.

    Ah yes, the good old "my opinion trumps all the facts" proposition. Since nowhwere with a massive rise in helmet wearing, whether due to a law or propaganda campaign, can show any reduction in risk to cyclists, to argue that helmets are not effective is based completely on the facts.

    Check out cyclehelmets.org for those facts, you might be surprised.

  • Top scientists on cycle helmets: "The debate will go on (and on and on...)"1 year 13 weeks agoTripod16 wrote:I believe the

    Tripod16 wrote:
    I believe the pro-peloton are the crash test dummies... Nerd

    Not really because they don't provide a control. You can't ethically make half the riders wear helmets and half not to measure what benefit helmets provide. Even if you could, riding in a peloton doesn't reflect the way that most cyclists use their bike so it only tests for one condition.

    That's the problem with the existing case control studies too, they aren't really control studies because they don't control for all the variables. Until they do, there won't be an answer as to why the case control studies can't be reconciled against whole population time analysis. If a study claims that helmets will prevent 85% of head injuries as the Thompson Rivara Thompson study does, then that safety benefit must manifest itself in the before/after data in countries that have mandated helmets, and that's the problem because it doesn't.

  • Anti gay marriage protestors to target Tour de France1 year 13 weeks agoIf any of these whoppers get

    If any of these whoppers get in my way at the tour this year I'm going to give them a proper rigid bumming.

    That'll learn 'em.

    @ Cat1Commuter - Grahame Obree is the only fella I can think.

  • Top scientists on cycle helmets: "The debate will go on (and on and on...)"1 year 13 weeks agosim1515 wrote:burtthebike

    sim1515 wrote:
    burtthebike wrote:
    Ham-planet wrote:
    kie7077 wrote:
    Bicycle helmets are only rated for 12mph, question is, how effective are they at 20mph, 30mph, 40mph etc?

    Your forward speed has little to no bearing on the effectiveness of a bicycle helmet, providing it has an appropriately low friction exterior.

    This statement is only true if your forward progess is not halted by an immovable object, like a tree, a rock, a motor vehicle, a brick wall or a kerb. I would suggest that in a majority of collisions, this is going to happen, and that it is comparively rare for a collision to occur where the cyclist is not stopped in such a manner. Therefore, your forward speed is relevant, or are you suggesting that in all cyclist collisions, the only force retarding forward movement is friction? Which would be absurd.

    "Your suggestion that forward progress is going to be halted in the majority of cases is fairly sensible (although just a suggestion as there are no facts to back that up) but it would really only be relevant in terms of helmets if it was in fact the helmet which hits the immovable object first which seems less likely to be the majority of cases."

    If your helmet isn't going to hit anything, why bother wearing it?

    "Obviously a crash could result in going head first into an immovable object (and I'm not sure it's that impact which the helmets are designed for) but it seems more likely another body part will hit the object and the head will hit the floor (which I think they are designed for). In the latter case, you may still end up with some broken bones but you may be saved from having a gash on your head as well."

    The mechanics of bicycle collisions are complex and unique, so the chances of what you suggest are, like my suggestion, nothing more than speculation. Given the number of "helmet saved my life" stories which involve the cyclist head-butting various parts of a motor vehicle, I'd say that it is quite likely that a head will hit something before the rest of the body, and therefore your forward speed is totally relevant.

  • Controversy at IG London Nocturne as video reveals women's elite winner was second across line1 year 13 weeks agofestival wrote:Even the male

    festival wrote:
    Even the male elite pro's run the risk albeit rarely is it implemented due to the greatly enhanced bike handling

    Oh how do those young fillies do it? Surely they will be too distracted by thoughts of cake baking, kittens and knitting to handle these velocipedes correctly.

    Mind out girlies, we can almost see your bloomers....

  • Top scientists on cycle helmets: "The debate will go on (and on and on...)"1 year 13 weeks agoYou won't get blamed for any

    You won't get blamed for any head injuries, this is just another myth put about by the helmet zealots to justify their opinions. There has never been a case where a cyclist has been blamed or had their damages reduced in a court of law because they weren't wearing a helmet. The insurance companies have tried this tactic many times, but always withdraw it at the doors of the court, because they know it would be thrown out.

  • Anti gay marriage protestors to target Tour de France1 year 13 weeks agoJust wondering if there are

    Just wondering if there are any WorldTour cyclists who are "out". There are very few male sportsmen who are openly gay. Could cycling lead the way with this, as they have with anti-doping? I'd love to see someone ask Pat McQuaid about this.

  • Anti gay marriage protestors to target Tour de France1 year 13 weeks agoMy suggestion for this year's

    My suggestion for this year's Tour, then: replace the podium girls with podium boys.

  • Schwalbe Marathon Plus Tyre1 year 13 weeks agoI have had this too, except

    I have had this too, except that it blew the rim off..... New wheel time.

  • Accidental death verdict in case of cyclist who turned into path of vehicle overtaking him1 year 13 weeks agoNo one has yet mentioned Rule

    No one has yet mentioned Rule 167:

    “DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example: * approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road“.

    The Highway Code says this precisely because road users are likely to be manoeuvring to leave or enter the road ahead – as the cyclist in this case was.

  • Latest Working Live Video Feeds1 year 13 weeks agoCheers Simon, haven't tried

    Cheers Simon, haven't tried Procyclinglive.com yet, merci

  • Accidental death verdict in case of cyclist who turned into path of vehicle overtaking him1 year 13 weeks agobike_food wrote:Another

    bike_food wrote:
    Another classic bit of roadcc reporting. An article full of hand picked quotes and bias designed to make cyclists feel like victims and anger us for the rest of the day.
    I stopped reading papers years ago to avoid having to read this style of article. Just the facts would be good, expect a mild slant toward cyclists but nothing more.

    Can you point me to the slanted bits?

    It's a straight piece of reporting - with no comment on our part. Our policy is to add no 'slant' either way. You've added the slant.

    We didn't write the story because we thought the verdict was an outrage - it seems reasonable. We certainly don't report cases such as this on the assumption that the motorist is always in the wrong. Some commenters obviously seem to hold that view, but it's not ours - something we've reiterated on numerous occassions over the years.

    The reason we've reported this is the suggestion that if the cyclist was wearing earphones it may have been a contributing factor - not because we think this is a sinister plot to blame the cyclist, but because we've reported on a number of other cases in which the wearing of earhpones has been cited either as a contributory factor or possibly the main factor leading to a cyclist's death. We're not even making a judgement as to whether wearing earphones is dangerous or not - that's for the individual to decide. What I would conclude from this case is that what is dangerous is not concentrating and that sadly if you're a cyclist you can pay the ultimate price for making that mistake.

  • Controversy at IG London Nocturne as video reveals women's elite winner was second across line1 year 13 weeks agoWhy didn't the blazers remove

    Why didn't the blazers remove the lapped riders?

    There should be no impeding riders in the run to the sprint - I've been hauled off myself at crits for being the lard at the back, getting in the way, so why not here.

    Sounds like a BC clusterf*ck.

  • Accidental death verdict in case of cyclist who turned into path of vehicle overtaking him1 year 13 weeks agoeurotrash wrote:Unfortunately

    eurotrash wrote:
    Unfortunately I see this behaviour often enough in cyclists in London, moving out into the road e.g. to overtake another cyclist without first shoulder checking. Have seen a few near misses, recently with a driver having to slam on his brakes (and his horn) as the cyclist he was about to overtake also decided to overtake another cyclist and move out into the road without checking it was clear to do so. Very very near miss. When that happens it's really the cyclist's fault, and as the vulnerable road user, you really do want to ensure you're not putting your life at risk by blindly moving out in front of oncoming/faster deadly vehicles.

    The problem with this is that if the driver was overtaking according to the highway code, they would be far enough over that if the cyclist did need to pull out (to overtake another cyclist or go round a pothole/drain etc) they would still not be in danger of hitting them.

    Cyclists should look over their shoulder to check nothing is there when pulling out but cars shouldn't be overtaking close enough for this to be an issue.

  • Accidental death verdict in case of cyclist who turned into path of vehicle overtaking him1 year 13 weeks agoSo, deaf people are allowed

    So, deaf people are allowed to have driving licences, quite rightly. However they are not allowed to cycle on the roads unless they accept that they are legitimate targets for drivers.

    To state what is obvious to any cyclist, if you are in a tonne of metal, you have a responsibility to avoid hitting things.

  • What GPS (Mapping req'd)1 year 13 weeks agoJust download OSMand+ thanks

    Just download OSMand+ thanks for the recommendation! Hopefully put it to use this weekend!

  • Accidental death verdict in case of cyclist who turned into path of vehicle overtaking him1 year 13 weeks agoUnfortunately I see this

    Unfortunately I see this behaviour often enough in cyclists in London, moving out into the road e.g. to overtake another cyclist without first shoulder checking. Have seen a few near misses, recently with a driver having to slam on his brakes (and his horn) as the cyclist he was about to overtake also decided to overtake another cyclist and move out into the road without checking it was clear to do so. Very very near miss. When that happens it's really the cyclist's fault, and as the vulnerable road user, you really do want to ensure you're not putting your life at risk by blindly moving out in front of oncoming/faster deadly vehicles.

  • Cycling thief not punished for knocking out female cyclist in getaway crash1 year 13 weeks agoShe was seriously harmed -

    She was seriously harmed - sounds like a period of loss of consciousness, concussion, head injury. So, an increased risk of seizures for the rest of her life.

    And with loss of consciousness, the hospital will probably have had to scan her head - exposing her to a dose of ionizing radiation.

    And he just gets a few weeks inside. Doesn't seem fair. Maybe he'll turn his life around though.