Video: Gritter bike for cycle lanes

"Helmets save lives in certain types of accidents." They also increase the risk of the most dangerous injury, Diffuse Axonal Injury, caused by rapid rotation of the head. After thirty years of denying that helmets increased that risk, the helmet industry realised that there was even more money to be made by producing helmets that might possibly reduce that risk, MIPS etc. Helmets were sold because people were endlessly told that a helmet would save their life, not by the manufacturers, but by helmet zealots. Since it has been proved beyond doubt that helmets don't save lives, the helmet zealots have switched to saving injury, which they probably do. But they also increase the likelihood of a collision, as helmetted riders have more. The biggest reasons that I oppose such misleading, inaccurate stories like this are that they deter people from cycling because they show it as dangerous, they distract from measures that actually make cycling safer, and the whole cycle helmet promotion thing started out from the worst of bad science, Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, A case-control study of the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets, 1989 https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html

I'll bow to your superior knowledge of facebook and twitter as I don't use them (and I'm not going to start if your description is accurate) and I'm not accusing anyone of campaigning for mandatory helmets but I do believe we have to reject the regular unsubstantiated claims of their effectiveness.

I got one of the Dynamic air blasters recently, and coincidentally I also use it for getting the difficult to reach coffee grinds out of my hand-grinder!

People do ridicule cyclists for wearing helmets though, go on any helmet discussion on Facebook or Twitter and it won't be long before somebody starts in about "sheeple wearing their precious little polystyrene hats". Many people also ridicule helmet wearers on the assumption that wearing a helmet automatically makes them in favour of mandatory helmets; I do, and I'm not, and many people I know hold the same position but still get shot down as presumed advocates of mandatory helmets if they try to say anything positive about them.

...it goes without saying that it's very sad news for the employees, the business, and indeed those of us who are looking for bikes that aren't lumps of pig-iron for our kids (it's not that obvious in my original post)

“Who knows what would have happened if I hadn’t had it on, maybe I wouldn’t be here today," Can't argue with that tbf. And a quote for our sponsors? “One thing I know for sure, my helmet saved my life. Thank you Giro Cycling."

Ours were exactly the same. I was discussing this with somebody a couple of weeks ago when the news first broke and he made the interesting point that they're somewhat a victim of their own success. Your 3 and my 3 have rather than having a bike each have both shared 2 bikes which have been passed on to somebody else (well mine not yet, but they will as they're spotless). Islabike I'd see as similar - both companies having made high quality, durable products rather than following the usual planned obsolescence route thus cannibalising sales

I read a few issues of tyres blowing apart rims but they were due to non compatible tyres being installed so user error IMO.

If it was, she had the helmet on back to front.

That crack in the helmet is where it would have been protecting the base or her skull where it meets the spine. The back of the head and especially this area is a very dangerous place to have any hard impact. unprotected rear of the head injuries are more likely to be fatal than frontal or side impacts.