A Greater Manchester cyclist who won £2 million in compensation says his cycle helmet saved his life and is now campaigning for them to be made compulsory for all cyclists.
John Wellock, aged 61 and from Mossley, suffered life-changing brain injuries in September 2010 when a motorist pulled out in front of him on the A62, reports the Oldham Chronicle.
The newspaper says that Mr Wellock has had to give up his job as a self-employed estimator/salesman for an interior-design company.
It adds that his wife Elaine has also had to stop working so she can care for him full-time.
The £2 million settlement followed an admission of liability on the part of the insurers of the driver involved in the incident, which happened in Delph. In 2011, the motorist pleaded guilty to careless driving.
The compensation was approved by the High Court in Manchester, and as part of the settlement Mr Wellock will be able to return to court should he develop epilepsy in the future as a result of his injuries.
He now campaigns for Headway, the charity which wants to make helmets mandatory for all cyclists, and said: “I believe wearing a cycle helmet saved my life.”
He added: “I’ve been campaigning to try and make them compulsory for all. Anything that can be done to improve safety for cyclists is extremely important.”
85 thoughts on “Cyclist wins £2m compensation and calls for helmets to be compulsory”
I’m staying out of this one!
:S I’m staying out of this one! :S
Oh, dear. It’s hard to know
Oh, dear. It’s hard to know where to start… 8}
I think this deserves a
I think this deserves a 8|
Well surely that’s all the
Well surely that’s all the irrefutable proof we need then.
Lid up, folks, before they make you…
8}
I would hope the anti helmet
I would hope the anti helmet riders are open minded enough to accept that others can have an opinion differant from there’s without getting too upset =))
Beefy wrote:I would hope the
An opinion is fine. Attempting to force me into adopting theirs isn’t.
“what is something annoying
“what is something annoying that a cyclist that might do…..”
fail to differentiate between improving cyclist safety and mitigating the effects of collisions
wanders off to put on compulsory helmet whilst wondering what magic it will perform today on the skills of drivers and on infrastructure improvement on my ride into central Melbourne
Yes, he evidently did suffer
Yes, he evidently did suffer brain injuries
I am glad he has been
I am glad he has been compensated for what must be a seriously debilitating injury.
In calling for mandatory helmets he adds to the misconception that somehow you are foolish in choosing not to wear one. The knock on consequence will be at some point damages awards will be reduced on the basis of “contributory negligence” if you’re not wearing one (as happened with seat belts) and someone further down the line will not get the compensation they need.
Without analysis of injury
Without analysis of injury I’d say the jury should remain out.
Very likely a rotational/deceleration injury – helmet little use, and possibly enhances effect by increased leverage, and not sliding on impact.
Impact – some benefit as helmet may reduce impact effects – swelling and pressure on brain this creates.
Lack of proper investigation of what the helmet – head combination did in the crash.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5t64VC3uegQ
Hope link works, found it thought provoking its a video with James Cracknell
Beefy
I found it thought-provoking too. Mainly it provoked me into thinking that James Cracknell is not very good at critical thinking. It’s the same old “I hit my head. I didn’t die. I was wearing a helmet, therefore the helmet saved my life” story.
James Cracknell suffers from
James Cracknell suffers from brain damage to this day. So the helmet wasn’t that successful.
Beefy
James Cracknell was struck from behind by a truck mirror at about 70mph. The rear of cycle helmet is untested. I put it to you that his survival is down to his internal helmet (his skull) and the excellent and speedy medical care he received and not anything he put on his head.
Damn! Damn! Damn! I said I was sitting this one out! #o #o #o
Bugger, I wasn’t going to
Bugger, I wasn’t going to comment either…
As somebody who has hit the back of their head on the deck very hard (mtb’ing) while wearing a helmet, I just wanted to point out that just because something is untested, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t very effective.
But I’m pro-choice, helmet wearing should not be compulsory.
If he believed Jesus saved
If he believed Jesus saved his life would he campaign to make going to church on Sundays compulsory?
And before anyone accuses me of making light of this man’s condition, I’ve seen first hand how brain injuries have devastating consequences; two fit young men I know well suffered head injuries after car crashes. Neither can walk or talk, both require supervision day and night. It’s heartbreaking.
Simon E wrote:… two fit
do we hear a call for helmets to be worn by all car occupants?…
andybwhite wrote:Simon E
It would save a lot of lives for sure
Very disappointed in Mr
Very disappointed in Mr Wellock. When will people realise that a 250 gram Styrofoam helmet only protects against falling off bike type head strikes at low impact and speed. He should be campaigning to increase awareness of cyclist vulnerability by the majority of car drivers. That would achieve far more…
Critchio wrote:Very
That is a great point. I wear a helmet, but I won’t preach at anyone who isn’t wearing one. I will rant and scream and complain about all the crap lazy careless driving I see.
Here in NZ, the “helmet lady”
Here in NZ, the “helmet lady” went on a crusade around the country back in the 80’s when her son was clocked off his bike and suffered permanent brain damage. As a result, we got mandatory helmet laws. We also got a significant drop in cycling because a) people think helmets are dorky and b) we had this woman going round the country telling everyone how dangerous it is.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4031829/Aarons-tragedy-spurred-Helmet-Ladys-crusade
How come we don’t have any ‘a
How come we don’t have any ‘a helmet didn’t save my life’ comments!
antonio wrote:How come we
Seriously, if there anything to risk compensation – and it is difficult to see how people do not adapt to changed perceptions of danger- the question is: Why don’t e here people say that they got into a crash because they were taking slightly less care – because they were wearing a helmet?
I don’t think risk
I don’t think risk compensation is necassarily a bad thing. Yes we could have people saying they got into a crash because they were taking slightly more risks wearing a helmet, but we could also have people saying they repeatedly descended slightly faster because they were wearing a helmet and didn’t crash.
bdsl wrote:I don’t think risk
It isn’t a question of good or bad – it is a fact which is one of the explanations for lack of overall beneficial effects of helmet wearing in the evidence I refer to.
Seriously, here is a list of
Seriously, here is a list of cyclists whose lives were not saved by helmet-wearing:
http://members.shaw.ca/jtubman/deadhelmet.html
Roger Geffen wrote:Seriously,
Do you have a list of cyclists who didn’t die, from being in an accident, whilst wearing a helmet too? Because one list is useless without the other. Drivers are still killed in motor vehicle accidents these days even though cars are fitted with seat belts, seat belt pretensioners, safety cells, multiple airbags and more electronic safety systems than you can shake a leg at.
antonio wrote:How come we
Nor, indeed, any “an abstract concept saved my life” comments
Also, why have we seen no campaigns for compulsory red dresses
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11318824/My-35-little-red-dress-saved-my-life-says-crash-victim.html
or rucksacks
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/local-news/rucksack-saved-life-schoolboy-hit-4721642
…?
For evidence on lack of
For evidence on lack of effects of helmet compulsion, and the reason for this lack of evidence, are here http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/17/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law/ and here
http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/27/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law-the-evidence-and-what-it-means/ An interesting new take is here http://cycle-space.com/helmet-laws-explained-through-the-concept-of-markedness/ and see http://rdrf.org.uk/death-on-the-streets-cars-and-the-mythology-of-road-safety/ Chapter 11.
I’m going to go and put my
I’m going to go and put my helmet on now just in case .
Can we have a smiley wearing a helmet please?
£2million! He must have been
£2million! He must have been seriously injured and need round the clock care unable to ever work again.
The only question I will ask,
The only question I will ask, Would Mr Wenlock rather be hit by a careless driver whilst wearing a helmet, or, not be hit by a considerate driver whilst not wearing a helmet?
Me, I would rather the focus was on the driver and ensuring careless and dangerous driving didn’t happen. Standard risk mitigation, PPE is the last line of defence.
I ALWAYS wear a helmet, but I
I ALWAYS wear a helmet, but I would hate to see them legislated.
If he hadn’t been cycling in
If he hadn’t been cycling in the first place then this wouldn’t have happened… BAN CYCLING NOW!
It’s dangerous to cross the
It’s dangerous to cross the road, shall we ban that as well! People fall down stairs shall he have a law that says all buildings must only have 1 floor!
Cycling home from work the
Cycling home from work the other day I didn’t get hit by a motor vehicle.
I believe not getting hit by a motor vehicle saved my life.
I’m now campaigning to try and make not getting hit by a motor vehicle compulsory for all. Anything that can be done to improve safety for cyclists is extremely important.
qwerky wrote:Cycling home
I know, shocking isn’t it. What kind of world do we live in where being hit by cars is deemed as normal.
I don’t believe in compulsion
I don’t believe in compulsion to do anything which doesn’t harm others.
There lies my dilemma when considering this. If I chose not to wear a helmet and bump my head that’s my problem right? Not any one else’s, I think personal freedom has a place in society.
I don’t think people should slate helmet wearing or not wearing its a choice like tea or coffee. I like coffee but I don’t berate tea drinkers, though it is nasty tasting shite. :O
Beefy wrote:I don’t believe
It’s not people’s choice to wear a helmet that is berated, it’s people’s view that because they wear a helmet then it should be the law that everyone else does the same which is berated because it is ridiculous and absurd to claim the law should make everyone else so something they like to do solely on the basis that their personal choice in something must naturally be the best for everyone else
Been thinking again… Oh
Been thinking again… Oh dear! Do we have a responsibility to take as much protection as we can? If hurt, disabled or dead would this affect family friends? If treated by NHS do we have a responsibility to say I took all the protection I could sorry society for the millions of pounds it will cost to look after me?
Does that mean we sit in little bubbles, ban cycling ban hill walking, climbing God foebid posh people playing Polo?
Is this similar to the seat belt debate? WAs there an argument or is there still that they make people drive faster less safely?
I initially thought that Mill on Liberty had the answer if you have capacity to make decision and you are not harming others go for it!
But I can’t make my mind up as to whether I would harm family or cost society if injured because of no helmet, I just can’t decide.
I think some would argue it doesn’t matter because helmets don’t work. I’m not convinced by this as my own antidotal evidence is that I have benefited both on and off road when I’ve had a spill.
I think that there should be a much wider debate with people really listening to evidence from both sides. Perhaps these is not enough data to prove either way
You’d be forgiven for
You’d be forgiven for thinking that a helmet offers zero protection if you believe half of these comments 8}
But for me, this whole helmet debate is just seems pointless along with the notion for making helmets mandatory. I ride 6 days a week here in South London/Kent and see many other cyclists. I’d say less than 5% of the people i see out on the roads are not wearing helmets, and that includes non-cyclists that happen to be riding bikes.
Scoob_84 wrote:You’d be
Have to say I am struggling with the concept of a “non-cyclist” who is nonetheless riding a bike. If you are riding a bike, does that not, ex-hypothesi, make you a cyclist? Or is there some inner sanctum of cycledom, which merely riding a bike does not qualify you for?
If someone doesn’t have Berghaus boots, waterproof overtrousers, gaiters, a suitable cagoule and Kendall mint cake, but nonetheless manages, somehow, to get around bipedally, would he/she be a non-walker?
Yawn
Yawn (|:
How many people here don’t
How many people here don’t wear helmets when out on their bike? If not, what type of cycling are you doing when not wearing one?
Scoob_84 wrote:How many
Let me put my hand up on this one. I regularly don’t wear a helmet if I am on a short hop to the shops or a gentle off road ride. Why should I be expected to do so ? Look at Holland if you want to see ubiquitous use of the bicycle not involving body armour and lycra. That is what I would like to see in our urban areas – a happier and healthier less polluting population where the bike is the “norm” for a short hop. As Chris Boardman says, helmets aren’t even in the top 10. Worse still, they are used by the car loby to argue that the status quo on UK roads should prevail because “silly people on bicycles haven’t yet done enough to help themselves
arfa wrote:Scoob_84 wrote:How
Thanks for your reply. For what its worth, I agree with you and I wouldn’t wear a helmet either if I’m just popping to the shops or going for a gentle ride.
But if I’m on a weekend ride or commuting, where I’m getting myself out of breath and the pulse going, then I’d wear one. Yes there is a side issue about the actual effectiveness of a helmet, but the vast majority of people already wear one when doing anything more than a gentle ride. So this in my mind makes this the whole debate about compulsory head wear a bit of a waste of time.
Scoob_84 wrote:How many
Does it really matter?
IMHO on this matter freedom of choice is the most important thing.
+1.
Some drivers seem to think that a cyclist inconveniencing them, however brief the delay, gives them licence to do things they shouldn’t. Replace the cyclist with a bin lorry and they calmly accept the delay, as I witnessed this week.
I have no idea why so many
I have no idea why so many against helmets at all. I would never think of going out without one and plenty of things in life we are forced to do which people may not like.
Even if it offers a small amount of protection it is better than none surely. If it is a cost thing then the more forced to wear one then prices would go down ? I mean what is the point of spending £3K on a bike and not £80 on a helmet ?
ianrobo wrote:I have no idea
Blimey! You sent £3k on your bike :O ?????
ianrobo wrote:I have no idea
No one is against helmets, they are against compulsion.
Cycling is a safe activity, though compulsory helmets will give it the impression of it being dangerous, thus a) less people will take it up (causing a whole host of other problems, obesity, congestion etc) and b) if you were in an accident without a helmet the blame will automatically be on you (it doesn’t matter that I hit a cyclist as I went through a red light at 45 while on my mobile, he was not wearing a helmet, plus its already known that it’s a dangerous activity).
Wearing a helmet is like a toddler wearing knee pads in case they should trip and graze their knee or suffer some kind of knee injury. Yes you are right, they will help a good deal in some situations, however in almost all situations where toddlers die due to an accident, knee pads would have done bugger all. The type of cycling accidents that causes serious injury or death, is not down to lack of helmet, in almost all cases it is down to bad driving.
ianrobo wrote:I have no idea
Who here do you see against helmets? I think your reading comprehension needs some focus here.
A lot of people are against compulsion. In large part because it lowers cycling rates, and that’s a massive cost for society due to health effects and added congestion on roads / overcrowding on public transport.
We have a lot of people who understand what helmets do protect against (low speed falls not involving motor vehicles, and cuts and grazes). Helmets won’t help you being run into at speed, or even most low speed incidents as crushing is the most common injury.
Oh, well, this ‘debate’ is destined to go on its ignorant circling way over and over again…
ianrobo wrote:I have no idea
Don’t confuse helmet efficacy with helmet mandates.
Man gets hit by a car and
Man gets hit by a car and suffers severe injuries.
Man was wearing a piece of plastic-coated styrofoam on his head.
Man campaigns for pieces of plastic-coated styrofoam to be made compulsory for anyone riding a bike.
Man would be far better campaigning for proper cycling infrastructure so that more people (and not just “cyclists”) can safely ride a bike.
The easiest way to avoid the
The easiest way to avoid the deaths of cyclists is to ban cycling.
But clearly avoiding the death of cyclists isn’t the only consideration when it comes to cycling. It is important, but not overwhelmingly so.
The best way to avoid the deaths of cyclists is to stop motor vehicles hitting them.
I wear a styrofoam hat. It might sometimes help. I don’t want to force others to wear a hat. And I know that compulsion will cause more deaths – through obesity and pollution – than are caused by bicyclists’ head injuries.
I still fail to understand
I still fail to understand why John Wellock, James Cracknell, Headway, and so on aren’t campaigning and screaming out for measures like:
– safe space for cycling and walking, free from conflict with motor vehicles.
– lower speed limits for driving in urban areas.
– through routes closed to motor vehicles in city centres and residential areas.
All these…
a) …benefit* everyone – not just just cyclists.
b) …might avoid the collisions in the first place!
But no, the same tired old helmet rants, the same failure to see the big picture.
*by benefit, I mean lessen the risk of head injury.
pmanc wrote:I still fail to
It is a lot easier to not do things which may be perceived as inconveniencing motorists.
Not many people are anti
Not many people are anti helmet, just anti compulsion. If you really want to stop people being hurt when they are hit by cars.
do you a) campaign to stop cars hitting people, ie better training of drivers, better infrastructure
or b) campaign that all non drivers, (this includes pedestrians) where hi viz, helmets, etc.
If there is a problem, it might be me, but don’t you deal with the problem and not come up with a shit load of excuses and blame the victims for not taking enough precautions?
This week two cyclists have dies on the roads of my town, the later I don’t know the circumstances, the former I can have a pretty good guess, what good is a piece of polystyrene when your hit by a HGV doing 60 then a number of cars following it? Wouldn’t having a better route that meant you were no where near a motorway junction be a better way forward?
http://road.cc/content/news/1
http://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-10-things-keep-cycling-safe
I am glad that Mr Welbeck
I am glad that Mr Welbeck survived and that he was paid substantial compensation. But his “belief” that his helmet saved his life is an unlikely claim. If it were even credible the helmet manufacturers would be all over it and joining the campaign to make us all wear and therefore buy helmets. They aren’t. And they aren’t because the physics doesn’t support claims like that. It can’t claim that impact protection ratings of helmets protect you from anything more than cuts and scrapes. They can’t and don’t therefore claim that they protect you from serious head injuries because they just can’t stand that up with science.
So good luck to Mr Welbeck as far as spending his compo is concerned and let’s hope that epilepsy doesn’t transpire. But I hope his campaign to impose voodoo science inspired helmet use on the rest of us is the miserable failure that it deserves to be.
oozaveared wrote:I am glad
I fear your reasoning may be as flawed as Mr Welbecks, although I would agree with you that I “hope his campaign to impose voodoo science inspired helmet use on the rest of us is the miserable failure that it deserves to be”.
I was going to raise money
I was going to raise money for Headway when I did my LEJOG. They insisted that in any photos containing a bike I had to be wearing a helmet. I raised funds for RoadPeace instead.
thegibdog wrote:I was going
Chapeau!
Quote:
Also, why have we seen
Looks quite aerodynamic – I would back a campaign for compulsory wearing of one of those whilst cycling 8}
Lots to say… so much to
Lots to say… so much to say… but, I’m going to save myself the bother as its all been said before.
However, I will say that after 25 years of avid cycling without a helmet, I am miraculously still here.
Its not a dangerous pastime… there is no need of legislation… lets move on and focus on better education of road users and better infrastructure.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:Lots to
Bit more years on 2 wheels in my case, mostly without a helmet. I wear one when training or racing at the track, because that’s when I’m likely to fall off. And it’s a proper motocross helmet which really does give protection, rather than one of those crappy useless shell type things.
Echo all of those comments
Echo all of those comments about freedom of choice.
The “safety equipment” didn’t
The “safety equipment” didn’t do what it was meant to do ( reduce energy transmitted to the brain to a level below that which would cause injury) , so he wants to now make them compulsory?
Run that one by me again , please…
The “safety equipment” didn’t
^ This ^
Sure, one interpretation is ‘helmet saved my life’, but an equally valid (ie, equally untestable) conclusion is ‘helmet failed to protect my brain, which was seriously damaged’
While I wish the man a full recovery, idiots like him ultimately contribute to the serious harm that people people suffer because they direct the attention of policy-makers away from high-quality cycling infrastructure, which protects people, towards safety equipment, which doesn’t
Je suis Charlie
I defend your
Je suis Charlie
I defend your right to be offended, but I may still think you are an idiot.
jamtartman wrote:Je suis
Possibly not my buisness,
I presume original post taken off. Do we really have to call people names like children because we don’t agree, I don’t personally know anyone on this site so couldn’t coment on there intellect can we be adults and agree people have differant views. It really put me off using this site
STOP IT NOW. SHAME ON YOU
STOP IT NOW. SHAME ON YOU ROAD.CC
Scoob_84 I am with you on
Scoob_84 I am with you on wearing a helmet to train and commute; I do so in the faint hope it might help in the event of an accident. However my issue on the debate is that it should be flipped around. Doesn’t it tell us that something is wrong with our attitude to road usage that people will look down on you for choosing not to wear one, particularly for a gentle tootle to the shops ? What kind of a monstrous world have we created whereby in choosing not to wear (dubious) armour, you are somehow at fault ? Why are we pandering to incompetent drivers who can not safely control the lump of steel they choose to protect themselves in and “sod anyone who chooses to put themselves on the road” ?
Think of the hysteria around the perceived risk of terrorism in the context of the fact you are many thousands of times more likely to die as a result of a badly driven vehicle, yet we divert attention away from cold grim facts so as to preserve the (untenable) status quo.
sorry to bang on about it but we have had our priorities wrong for far too long.
I’ve cycled for 30 years, and
I’ve cycled for 30 years, and only recently started to wear a helmet when I bought a shiny new Scott Road bike. When I’m on it, I wear my helmet in the faint hope that if some inconsiderate bastard decides to pull out in front of me, or twat me from behind, it may help.
In all the years I’ve been riding, I can honestly say I’ve been really lucky and only had a handful of spills, mainly when I was a child and buggering about.
I wear a helmet because I choose too, not because I have to, and because I hope that it will help if I do go down, but I really do know that if I go down, its in the lap of the Gods.
All that said, it is only my opinion and my choice. I choose to smoke, but aren’t going to campaign for smoking to become compulsary. Its all about freedom and choice.
When my 10 year old is on his bike, he wears a helmet because the missus insisted on it, and it makes them both feel safer, and I feel that the feeling of safety for some and their families is a good thing. Now its an automatic reaction when he gets his bike out. I haven’t had the heart to tell them it may not help as then she wouldn’t let the poor sod out!
Better driving and infrastructure would prevent many more accidents and deaths than helmets.
wow, every time somebody
wow, every time somebody mentions a cycle helmet it really polarises opinion, then gets a bit shouty.
For my money, I wear one recreationally, as it might help in certain types of ‘off’ and it has done for me once before. I don’t wear one for nipping down the shop though, nor for the half mile to the train station in the morning.
Its choice, plain and simple.
I recommend one, but if you don’t want to then its your lookout. If it was legislated that you will wear a helmet each time you straddle a bike, then it places a big emphasis on the ‘safety’ equipment, and less on the care and attention you should pay as a cyclist, and as a driver – education not legislation!!
I’d be interested in any stats from states in America where motorcycle helmets are or wern’t compulsory – are there any lessons to be learned from that?
I don’t wear a helmet.
Why? I
I don’t wear a helmet.
Why? I am a confident experienced cyclist who doesn’t fall off very often. The use case a helmet is designed to protect against happens to me very very rarely. I have had more falls when on my feet than on my wheels.
I would not trust polystyrene packing to protect a TV which had been dropped of the back of a van, and have no faith in it protecting my head.
I however, respect other peoples personal decisions as to whether they choose to wear one or not.
I don’t therefore expect people to try to impart their choice onto me either by trying to change the law or by evangelising.
What’s needed is a safer road environment for all, with substantially segregated cycleways.
What is also needed is much more policing of the law and tougher sentences to try to stop this Mad Max hell that our roads are turning into.
NZ introduced compulsory
NZ introduced compulsory helmets in ’94. The resultant decrease in fit people populating the country (through giving up cycling rather than wear the cumbersome monstrosities available then) actually LOWERED the life-expectancy of Kiwis! There is data on the web somewhere about it.
I assume when cycling boomed in the late 00s that life expectancy once again rose or – judging by the size of my old school friends on FB – maybe not.
Just adding a bit more grist to a (hopefully)small mill.
Is this the most civilised
Is this the most civilised debate we’ve ever had about helmets on this site? 😕
I think this may be the most civilised debate full stop! :O
Since it is a proven fact
Since it is a proven fact that helmets are designed to protect during low speed impacts, perhaps all helmet wearers should be limited to a speed of four to five mph as speed well above these levels negates any protection from head injuries. 😉
antonio wrote:Since it is a
Negates any protection ? Don’t be silly. Now why don’t we get back to all pleasantly agreeing compulsion is not the answer, I was enjoying that 🙂
antonio wrote:Since it is a
While understanding the ;), speed of fall is not dictated by speed of travel but by gravity. When riding, your head is effectively still in the vertical plane. When you fall it accelerates downwards, reaching speeds of less than 12mph.
Have there been studies on
Have there been studies on why bicycle use reduces when compulsory helmet use is introduced – assuming that the assertion that it does is correct?
When I think of the activities for which helmets are not compulsory yet participants wear them I find this hard to understand.
I was an opening bat and close fielder for over 20 years without ever getting hit on the head, yet when I watch my old team now all the batters and close fielders wear helmets.
Then there are all the horse riders I see, surely the hats they wear are useless if the rider were to fall.
I hope this guy starts a
I hope this guy starts a campaign to make Star Wars stormtrooper suits compulsory in Australia. It would make their parliamentary sessions more entertaining, and the chaffing would give the nation’s motorists something else to get annoyed by other than cyclists.
One of the things I really
One of the things I really love about my cycle helmet is that I get to decide whether I wear it or not! Mostly I do, occasionally I do not.
One of the things I really
One of the things I really love about my cycle helmet is that I get to decide whether I wear it or not! Mostly I do, occasionally I do not.
One of the things I really
One of the things I really love about my cycle helmet is that I get to decide whether I wear it or not! Mostly I do, occasionally I do not.