James Cracknell injured while cycling after “altercation” with minicab driver; Cracking DiData TdF vid; Hundreds attend Bjorg Lambrecht’s funeral; Lord Sugar's new cycle helmet; Police Scotland busts #CycleMyths on Twitter + much more on the live blog

Chris Hayes wrote:

Still, a bit more free publicity for Mr Cracknell...I'd almost forgotten about him.  Whatever next?

+1. An altercation that is "nobody's fault"?!? Gimme a break, we're not that stupid.

Alan Sugar (another hypocrite with a massive ego) can go f..k off too. Worra knob. And I agree 100% with John Stevenson regarding those pointless gadgets. As the old saying goes, a fool and his money are easily parted.

Simon E wrote:

Chris Hayes wrote:

Still, a bit more free publicity for Mr Cracknell...I'd almost forgotten about him.  Whatever next?

+1. An altercation that is "nobody's fault"?!? Gimme a break, we're not that stupid.

Alan Sugar (another hypocrite with a massive ego) can go f..k off too. Worra knob. And I agree 100% with John Stevenson regarding those pointless gadgets. As the old saying goes, a fool and his money are easily parted.

I have a first edition of that helmet, it's a Lumos - though I run mine in solid lights only, since I believe that blinking lights are actually more dangerous due to the inability to track the cycle they're on.

It's very useful since, as a handcyclist, if I've stopped at the lights I cannot signal and start off at the same time - I need my hands to crank with.

The inbuilt lights are also useful - the front ones show where your head is pointing and therefore roughly where you're looking, and I've found that staring directly at people with the lights on works better at preventing people stepping or pulling out on you, than without.
From behind, the triangular red lights and their height are quite visible - certainly more visible than most other options available to me as a handcyclist.

Also, I'd struggle to have them nicked (all my lights being fitted to the wheelchair section of my h'cycle notwithstanding); they're combined lights that come in with you without your having to remember to take them off the bike, and it's a single item to charge - though since they're not technically "affixed" to the bike, you're not technically in compliance...

The brakelights are a waste of time, though, and Sugar is still a tit - but please remember that not everybody has the exact same usecase, and whilst indicators on bikes are kinda daft, putting them on a lid that already had lights on is less so.

Oh, and turning on the helmet starts Strava, so that's nice.

Simon E wrote:

+1. An altercation that is "nobody's fault"?!? Gimme a break, we're not that stupid.

These things just happen... like car "accidents".

ktache wrote:

Burt, it's very easy to say "helmets" or "lights" or "reflectives" or even "bikeability" because that doesn't in any way affect the drivers who say it.  I'm guessing Cracknell drives, and personally has proper knowledge of the need to drive safely at all times, and doesn't sometimes, he breaks the speed limit, drives while tired, a bit distracted, other things on his mind, maybe a drink (perhaps not drunk, but you know one doesn't hurt).  Now I have decided not to do any of these things, because of my personal experience that mistakes while in charge of a motor vehicle is terribly painful and destructive to those on the outside (and sometimes inside) by never driving.  Getting drivers to change the way they drive is almost impossible.

And he does get paid to say Helmets.

Cracknell was hit by the wing mirror of a truck travelling at 70 mph and suffered a brain injury which caused severe personality changes, memory loss, the whole shebang.  I'm still personally not entirely convinced that his helmet really helped, I think he was just very very VERY lucky (relatively speaking)...  But, as you say, he is paid to say "Helmets" a lot.

brooksby wrote:

ktache wrote:

Burt, it's very easy to say "helmets" or "lights" or "reflectives" or even "bikeability" because that doesn't in any way affect the drivers who say it.  I'm guessing Cracknell drives, and personally has proper knowledge of the need to drive safely at all times, and doesn't sometimes, he breaks the speed limit, drives while tired, a bit distracted, other things on his mind, maybe a drink (perhaps not drunk, but you know one doesn't hurt).  Now I have decided not to do any of these things, because of my personal experience that mistakes while in charge of a motor vehicle is terribly painful and destructive to those on the outside (and sometimes inside) by never driving.  Getting drivers to change the way they drive is almost impossible.

And he does get paid to say Helmets.

Cracknell was hit by the wing mirror of a truck travelling at 70 mph and suffered a brain injury which caused severe personality changes, memory loss, the whole shebang.  I'm still personally not entirely convinced that his helmet really helped, I think he was just very very VERY lucky (relatively speaking)...  But, as you say, he is paid to say "Helmets" a lot.

Is he still paid to promote helmets?  I know he was sponsored by the helmet manufacturer when hit by the truck, but is that still true?

burtthebike wrote:

brooksby wrote:

ktache wrote:

Burt, it's very easy to say "helmets" or "lights" or "reflectives" or even "bikeability" because that doesn't in any way affect the drivers who say it.  I'm guessing Cracknell drives, and personally has proper knowledge of the need to drive safely at all times, and doesn't sometimes, he breaks the speed limit, drives while tired, a bit distracted, other things on his mind, maybe a drink (perhaps not drunk, but you know one doesn't hurt).  Now I have decided not to do any of these things, because of my personal experience that mistakes while in charge of a motor vehicle is terribly painful and destructive to those on the outside (and sometimes inside) by never driving.  Getting drivers to change the way they drive is almost impossible.

And he does get paid to say Helmets.

Cracknell was hit by the wing mirror of a truck travelling at 70 mph and suffered a brain injury which caused severe personality changes, memory loss, the whole shebang.  I'm still personally not entirely convinced that his helmet really helped, I think he was just very very VERY lucky (relatively speaking)...  But, as you say, he is paid to say "Helmets" a lot.

Is he still paid to promote helmets?  I know he was sponsored by the helmet manufacturer when hit by the truck, but is that still true?

You may be right, actually.

He was a "brand ambassador" for Alpina Helmets ("the helmets that save your life when you're hit by a truck at 70mph", or something) but I can't find that he's now paid.

He is still however the vice president of Headway, so he's not exactly an unbiased commenter.

brooksby wrote:

ktache wrote:

Burt, it's very easy to say "helmets" or "lights" or "reflectives" or even "bikeability" because that doesn't in any way affect the drivers who say it.  I'm guessing Cracknell drives, and personally has proper knowledge of the need to drive safely at all times, and doesn't sometimes, he breaks the speed limit, drives while tired, a bit distracted, other things on his mind, maybe a drink (perhaps not drunk, but you know one doesn't hurt).  Now I have decided not to do any of these things, because of my personal experience that mistakes while in charge of a motor vehicle is terribly painful and destructive to those on the outside (and sometimes inside) by never driving.  Getting drivers to change the way they drive is almost impossible.

And he does get paid to say Helmets.

Cracknell was hit by the wing mirror of a truck travelling at 70 mph and suffered a brain injury which caused severe personality changes, memory loss, the whole shebang.  I'm still personally not entirely convinced that his helmet really helped, I think he was just very very VERY lucky (relatively speaking)...  But, as you say, he is paid to say "Helmets" a lot.

I thought it was the quick arrival of the trauma team and their skills which saved him.

Organon wrote:

Execute Rule 66!

That's right, and if the Jedi had all worn helmets (like the clone troopers) then they wouldn't have been wiped out!

tulip_girl100 wrote:

Argggh this is so frustrating. Rule 66 of Highway Code states that cyclists 'should' never ride more than two abreast...... Therefore not a legal requirement. I'm not saying it is right to ride more than 2 abreast (I distinctly agree with it) but if you are going to quote the law, then at least quote it correctly!

Some good tweets there and to be fair to police Scotland they are mythbusting - not law quoting, ie including best practises, not just what the law says.

tulip_girl100 wrote:

Argggh this is so frustrating. Rule 66 of Highway Code states that cyclists 'should' never ride more than two abreast...... Therefore not a legal requirement. I'm not saying it is right to ride more than 2 abreast (I distinctly agree with it) but if you are going to quote the law, then at least quote it correctly!

Agreed, and in all honesty, a group of experienced cyclists on road bikes that ride together regularly, can safely ride 3 abreast (especially if staggered slightly) without taking any more space than 2 mates out for a tootle on their mountain bikes having a chat as they ride 2 abreast legally.

tulip_girl100 wrote:

Argggh this is so frustrating. Rule 66 of Highway Code states that cyclists 'should' never ride more than two abreast...... Therefore not a legal requirement. I'm not saying it is right to ride more than 2 abreast (I distinctly agree with it) but if you are going to quote the law, then at least quote it correctly!

oops