Sneak preview: Tour of Britain visiting Norfolk for longest stage

@Rendel Harris This study was thoroughly debunked in later analysis... This is less significant than the fact that the notion of most drivers appreciating anything about a cyclist beyond hyper-junk press spinal reflex level hatred is obvious bollocks

@Wales56 Doric, you mean? 😉

@AidanR the whole body dummy refused to continue after the first test?

@fwhite181 The only test I'm aware of that allegedly demonstrated drivers passed closer to cyclists with helmets is Ian Walker's 2006 study which found that on average drivers passed cyclists with helmets 3.3 inches closer than those without, a statistically negligible distance given that the average pass in the study was 4.5 feet. This study was thoroughly debunked in later analysis which demonstrated that Walker had not incorporated such variables as rider distance from the kerb, size of passing vehicle, overall road width etc.

Or the classic far-too-loose helmet strap which risks garrotting you when the helmet hits the ground. Also not helpful if it makes drivers drive even worse around you, which seems to be demonstrated in numerous tests. I've often found I _feel_ safest on a bike when I'm riding in 'civvy' clothes and a bobble hat. Everyone seems to assume I can't ride a bike and you get acres of space.

Not actually true, though. A badly made helmet, or one that you've altered or not looked after, could potentially exacerbate injuries in the event of an impact.

@Aluminium can and even if the camera identifies the thief, the police won't do a great deal. My bike was stolen from our work lockup, all seen by CCTV, and the police knew who it was (a well-known local by all accounts) but the policeman admitted to me that gaining a warrant to search his address for it was never going to be granted. Bicycle theft is treated with about the same urgency as phone snatching. The copper told me that they want to get these guys arrested for crimes that will get them put away, like drug dealing. Nicking stuff to fund the drug dealing falls outside that. (This was all revealed to me by the cop in a strange, Friday-evening email that I think he sent after a few beers!).

@mdavidford I suppose 'illegal e-motorbike' would be acceptable. I do still think "illegal e-motorbike" specifically conjures up images of Sur-rons and the like. Sometimes that is correct - certainly for the bikes in the top picture on the Police Scotland facebook post, I'd be perfectly comfortable calling them all illegal e-motorbikes. But I think "illegal ebike" is a broader church and is more understandable when talking about the end of the spectrum that is closer to a legal EAPC. E.g. ebikes that are illegal because they have a throttle but aren't especially fast or especially powerful (commonly used by delivery riders round here). Legally they are not classified any differently from "illegal e-motorbikes" and so that term is technically accurate, but linguistically I think "illegal ebike" paints a clearer picture.

Helmet impact testing only involves a head? Looking at videos of testing appears to confirm this. Presumably this is taken into account somehow in the methodology, but it seems like having such a small mass attached to the helmet, rather than a whole human, is an obvious flaw in the process.

@lesterama I have one of each as I couldn't decide :)