Live blog: Porn Pedallers’ kit launch; Dumoulin to miss the Tour de France; Good Morning Britain guests ‘discuss’ whether we treat cyclists badly (descends into helmet row on Twitter); Mathieu Van Der Poel to race Tour of Britain; The ‘Rowe-hawk’ + more

19 thoughts on “Live blog: Porn Pedallers’ kit launch; Dumoulin to miss the Tour de France; Good Morning Britain guests ‘discuss’ whether we treat cyclists badly (descends into helmet row on Twitter); Mathieu Van Der Poel to race Tour of Britain; The ‘Rowe-hawk’ + more”

1. In some ways I don’t
   In some ways I don’t understand why they don’t just make wearing a helmet law. The whole helmet debate gets wheeled out all the time and it just deflects from the fact that motorists, the law, media and tin pot keyboard warriors can avoid the real issue of how vulnerable a cyclist is on the road and how they need to be given the infrastructure and space to go about their lawful business. The whole debate about the ped Vs cyclist had nothing to do with helmets, but the disproportionate levels of justice in the UK court when comparing it to other ‘motoring offences’.

   To add I don’t personally care if someone wears a helmet or not – fining someone for doing something that has a degree of risk with out protection, could lead to a very sticky situation.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • lllnorrislll wrote:

     In some ways I don’t understand why they don’t just make wearing a helmet law. The whole helmet debate gets wheeled out all the time and it just deflects from the fact that motorists, the law, media and tin pot keyboard warriors can avoid the real issue of how vulnerable a cyclist is on the road and how they need to be given the infrastructure and space to go about their lawful business. The whole debate about the ped Vs cyclist had nothing to do with helmets, but the disproportionate levels of justice in the UK court when comparing it to other ‘motoring offences’. To add I don’t personally care if someone wears a helmet or not – fining someone for doing something that has a degree of risk with out protection, could lead to a very sticky situation.

     — lllnorrislll

     Problem is … as demonstrated in countries like Australia … where wearing a helmet is made a legal requirement it actively discourages people from cycling, when the statistics show that the level of risk in cycling is inversely proportional to the number of people doing it. Ergo reducing the number of cyclists by enforcing more safety equipment actually make all cyclist less safe not more.  

     Kind of counter-productive. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Jetmans Dad wrote:

       In some ways I don’t understand why they don’t just make wearing a helmet law. The whole helmet debate gets wheeled out all the time and it just deflects from the fact that motorists, the law, media and tin pot keyboard warriors can avoid the real issue of how vulnerable a cyclist is on the road and how they need to be given the infrastructure and space to go about their lawful business. The whole debate about the ped Vs cyclist had nothing to do with helmets, but the disproportionate levels of justice in the UK court when comparing it to other ‘motoring offences’. To add I don’t personally care if someone wears a helmet or not – fining someone for doing something that has a degree of risk with out protection, could lead to a very sticky situation.

       — Jetmans Dad

       Problem is … as demonstrated in countries like Australia … where wearing a helmet is made a legal requirement it actively discourages people from cycling, when the statistics show that the level of risk in cycling is inversely proportional to the number of people doing it. Ergo reducing the number of cyclists by enforcing more safety equipment actually make all cyclist less safe not more.  

       Kind of counter-productive. — lllnorrislll

       This is the problem, it’s used as a way to be seen to be acting to protect cyclists while doing basically nothing. A simpler and more effective way to protect people would be to lower speed limits across the uk, if they were all lowered by 10mph and enforced it would very likely save a lot more lives than forcing people to wear a helmet for when they get hit by a box of metal at 40mph. Not to mention the environmental benefits it would bring.

       I’d be prepared to wear a helmet for every journey (I don’t when cycling around town etc) if it meant that in turn car drivers who injur or kill pedestrians and cyclists etc are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I’d suffer the inconvenience of it for that, but as that’s never going to happen I don’t want a helmet law brought in either.

       Log In or Register to post comments

     • Jetmans Dad wrote:

       In some ways I don’t understand why they don’t just make wearing a helmet law. The whole helmet debate gets wheeled out all the time and it just deflects from the fact that motorists, the law, media and tin pot keyboard warriors can avoid the real issue of how vulnerable a cyclist is on the road and how they need to be given the infrastructure and space to go about their lawful business. The whole debate about the ped Vs cyclist had nothing to do with helmets, but the disproportionate levels of justice in the UK court when comparing it to other ‘motoring offences’. To add I don’t personally care if someone wears a helmet or not – fining someone for doing something that has a degree of risk with out protection, could lead to a very sticky situation.

       — Jetmans Dad

       Problem is … as demonstrated in countries like Australia … where wearing a helmet is made a legal requirement it actively discourages people from cycling, when the statistics show that the level of risk in cycling is inversely proportional to the number of people doing it. Ergo reducing the number of cyclists by enforcing more safety equipment actually make all cyclist less safe not more.  

       Kind of counter-productive. — lllnorrislll

       You could also argue the treatment of cyclists by car drivers and media is just as bad if not worse in Australia so removing the Helmet side of the debate would not improve or allow for better discourse on the real issues.  

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • lllnorrislll wrote:

     In some ways I don’t understand why they don’t just make wearing a helmet law. The whole helmet debate gets wheeled out all the time and it just deflects from the fact that motorists, the law, media and tin pot keyboard warriors can avoid the real issue of how vulnerable a cyclist is on the road and how they need to be given the infrastructure and space to go about their lawful business. The whole debate about the ped Vs cyclist had nothing to do with helmets, but the disproportionate levels of justice in the UK court when comparing it to other ‘motoring offences’. To add I don’t personally care if someone wears a helmet or not – fining someone for doing something that has a degree of risk with out protection, could lead to a very sticky situation.

     — lllnorrislll

     There’s probably better evidence that mandatory helmet laws decrease cycling than there is about helmets providing significant protection, so I can’t see the benefit to making it mandatory. It’d also be tricky to enforce and I can’t see that police would want to devote any budget to something so utterly pointless.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • hawkinspeter wrote:

       In some ways I don’t understand why they don’t just make wearing a helmet law. The whole helmet debate gets wheeled out all the time and it just deflects from the fact that motorists, the law, media and tin pot keyboard warriors can avoid the real issue of how vulnerable a cyclist is on the road and how they need to be given the infrastructure and space to go about their lawful business. The whole debate about the ped Vs cyclist had nothing to do with helmets, but the disproportionate levels of justice in the UK court when comparing it to other ‘motoring offences’. To add I don’t personally care if someone wears a helmet or not – fining someone for doing something that has a degree of risk with out protection, could lead to a very sticky situation.

       — hawkinspeter

       There’s probably better evidence that mandatory helmet laws decrease cycling than there is about helmets providing significant protection, so I can’t see the benefit to making it mandatory. It’d also be tricky to enforce and I can’t see that police would want to devote any budget to something so utterly pointless.— lllnorrislll

       in addition to that, someone proposing laws to protect adults ‘for their own good’ needs to demonstrate why legislating for cycle helmets is a higher priority than legislating for other activities that harm people far more than cycling without a helmet ever did, such as smoking, drinking alcohol, eating bacon sandwiches, having unprotected sex and straining while trying to defecate.

       Sometimes all at the same time.

        

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • ConcordeCX wrote:

         smoking, drinking alcohol, eating bacon sandwiches, having unprotected sex and straining while trying to defecate.

         Sometimes all at the same time.

         — ConcordeCX

         Why the need for a helmet? If someone can do this they’re probably immortal anyway. 

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • numbskull wrote:

           smoking, drinking alcohol, eating bacon sandwiches, having unprotected sex and straining while trying to defecate.

           Sometimes all at the same time.

           — numbskull

           Why the need for a helmet? If someone can do this they’re probably immortal anyway. 

           — ConcordeCX

           they need something to defecate into.

           I’ve watched the interview but without sound for some reason. Just by looking at the two participants I wonder how we can tell which one is the reckless cyclist who has no regard for his own health, safety and well-being, and which one is lecturing other people about how best to live a long and healthy life? 

            

   • lllnorrislll wrote:

     In some ways I don’t understand why they don’t just make wearing a helmet law.

     — lllnorrislll

     Have you been living under a rock for the past thirty years?

     cyclehelmets.org

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • burtthebike wrote:

       In some ways I don’t understand why they don’t just make wearing a helmet law.

       — burtthebike

       Have you been living under a rock for the past thirty years?

       cyclehelmets.org— lllnorrislll

       I don’t mind you qouting a select piece of my post, but I actually agree that an evidence based discussion should be had, but it’s always one of the first things dragged out whenever a barrier to cycling is used.

       Interesting point about Australia and maybe it wouldn’t make much difference.

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • lllnorrislll wrote:

     In some ways I don’t understand why they don’t just make wearing a helmet law. The whole helmet debate gets wheeled out.

     — lllnorrislll

     Because all we have to do is wheel out the examples of the Netherlands, Denmark etc where helmet use is low, death by head injuries is low, but trips by bicycle are far higher than in the UK. The kids in the Netherlands cycle to school safely, and they have low obesity rates. Loads of people cycle to work in their cities.

     The helmet debate is a smoke screen, more deaths by head injuries in cars than by riding a bicycle.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Educating people how to co

     Educating people how to co-exist on the roads, actually punishing disrespectful wastes of oxygen  who are at fault for cyclist injuries or death and including cycling within the very fabric of this culture and society will do much more than putting a band-aid over the problem.  Shame that this society is too stupid or incapable of producing a majority which is reasonable and respectful, essentially the problem being much bigger than bikes, helmets and hi-vis vests…

     Log In or Register to post comments

2. Basically cyclists can fit
   Basically cyclists can fit every criteria for being protected under Sophie’s Law (Sophie Lancaster, Goth girl kicked to death in Bacup & her BF v seriously injured by a gang abusing & attacking them for how they looked)

   Her family campaigned for the legislation that protects members of what are perceived as outgroups, people who are recognisable for attire, identifiying/being identified as belonging to a minority genre and being vilified, victimised, physically attacked etc. because of it.

   I’ve often wondered what would happen if someone tried to make a report and pursue a prosecution under this legislation for ‘bloody cyclist’ comments, physicals or even social media?

   Particularly the lycra wearers, but any of us who ride bikes & who’ve had grief or worse for being identified as a cyclist is being short changed by this legal protection available to e. g. Goth dressers etc. IMO.

   Log In or Register to post comments

3. The problem with the helmet

   The problem with the helmet debate now is that it can affect you if you have an accident.  My brother was hit by a car last year.  Among various injuries he sustained was a spinal fracture, the effects of which are still very apparent a year on.  Yet when it happened the ambulance crew were going on and on about how it was good he was wearing a helmet and the report from the hospital also references the fact he was wearing a helmet.  Of course his head (or helmet) didn’t make contact with anything, so it actually has no relevance. 

   Similarly, the reports constantly reference the fact he was wearing a flourescent jersey.  Given the fact that it was one of the days last summer where it was clear blue skies and 30 degrees is it really relevant what colour clothing he was wearing?  If such things are being referenced you can see that it will count against you if you are hit by a car driven by someone who isn’t paying attention and don’t have a helmet/bright clothing.

   Log In or Register to post comments

4. That’s a really good point –

   That’s a really good point – I’ve been involved in a couple of motorcycle crashes and the fact that I was geared-up rather than in jeans and t-shirt seemed to make a difference in how my subsequent claims were received, despite the law mandating nothing more than a helmet.

   Honestly, it just seems like the ‘must’ and ‘should’ portions of the highway code should be gaffed off. No-one who wants to go out dressed stealthily is going to pull on a hi-viz beacuse of highway code advice, nor is someone inclined towards hi-viz going to forego it because it’s not mandatory.

   It just ends up being a stick to beat people with.

   Log In or Register to post comments

5. That GMB twitter thread is
   That GMB twitter thread is great

   “If cyclists want more road made safer get them to contribute.”
   “Cyclists are totally irresponsible in there attitude to everyone else and to the law.
   The world is not just for them.”
   “What a knob. I live in Swansea. Thousands of pounds have been spent on cycle paths and no one uses them. They need the in force cycling licenses because they got no idea how to ride. 3 and 4 wide on a A road with Tail backs of car and lorry’s”
   “Bikes should be road worthy breaks working tyres with tread good set of lights that work . When son done his cycle test by the police at primary they were told helmets must be worn all the time . Plus they should have some kind of insurance /road tax”
   “Anonymous, uninsured, unlicensed, untested. Driving vehicles that are not tested or conform to safety and lighting regulation. Anarchy! Make cyclists as liable and accountable as other road users”

   Log In or Register to post comments

6. The indignation of the idiot

   The indignation of the idiot driver being asked to wear a helmet. He doesn’t even get the irony!

   Log In or Register to post comments

7. I have personal experience of

   I have personal experience of head injury as a passenger in car. Rear three-quarter impact, smacked my head on the B-pillar enough for the circuit medic (it was a trackday) to write my helmet off. Minor concussion, three days off work, and it was a 40mph impact. I’d love to see cars have race-style seats fitted for all occupants with the high wings/side protection like you get on infant seats. My son, although he’s now over 135cm tall, still uses his full car seat rather than a booster. No passenger airbags in the rear of our car.

   Log In or Register to post comments

8. it wasnt the name of the club

   it wasnt the name of the club that broke UCI regulations, its the sponsors that are involved and whose logos are printed very visibly on their team kit.

   Log In or Register to post comments