GreenEdge announces explosives and chemicals firm Orica as co-sponsor

"I see many children in the ER with life altering injuries caused by crashing bikes while not wearing helmets. I also hear stories from paramedics about children who don’t even live long enough after a crash to get to the ER. Same with adults, but less so." Again, observer bias writ large. Do you also see the many, many more people who die because of obesity and associated illnesses because they didn't cycle? The health benefits of cycling outweigh the negatives by a huge margin, but this is never acknowledged by ER staff who only see dead/injured cyclists not the people who die from not cycling. Just because you see something doesn't mean it is universal, and there is much more too it than just ER. "Listen to the people whose job it is to scrape you off the road." Why would I listen to people with such a narrow viewpoint that they can't acknowledge that there is more too it than just what they see? People who literally don't understand that it's far bigger than them and their skewed views. "Wear a helmet, don’t trash people who do, and don’t nitpick about whether a helmet saved a life – if she thinks it did, that’s her right." No, I won't wear a helmet, that's my choice and having read a lot about it, that is completely justified. I don't tell people what to do, maybe you could do the same? I do suggest that they go and look at the evidence and data, otherwise, like you, they might be arguing from a false premise. She is entitled to think that a helmet saved her life, and it isn't nitpicking to say that is extremely unlikely, given the data. It also isn't nitpicking to point out that her sponsors likely include the company that made the helmet.

I'd rather listen to the people who are working to prevent so many traffic collisions. There's no clear evidence that helmets do anything to make cyclists safer (though there is limited evidence to suggest that bike helmets make cyclists less safe) though they do provide a small amount of protection that is likely ineffective in multi-vehicle collisions. You're using a strange logic really. I wouldn't head straight to rubbish collectors to inform me about the best shopping decisions, though it is clearly their job to collect the remnants of my shopping. Similarly, I wouldn't go to a sewer engineer to get the best health advice to keep my toilets regular etc. To be honest, your mention of "children in the ER" seems like an emotional distraction technique to prevent people from thinking clearly.

I see many children in the ER with life altering injuries caused by crashing bikes while not wearing helmets. I also hear stories from paramedics about children who don't even live long enough after a crash to get to the ER. Same with adults, but less so. Listen to the people whose job it is to scrape you off the road. Wear a helmet, don't trash people who do, and don't nitpick about whether a helmet saved a life - if she thinks it did, that's her right.

Likely due to the right wing oligarchs that almost all our media. Even the BBC is right wing and will even frame questions using a far right wing world view when interviewing Greens or Lib Dems (are they even still around?).

Alas, the immediate UK response to increased petrol prices after decades of "we have to drive" is more likely to be cycle lanes blocked by drivers! Those would be a) protesting about paying fuel taxes when fuel prices go up and b) parking in the cycle infra to avoid driving around looking for a legal parking spot. We collectively missed an opportunity in the 1970s with the oil crisis. That was one of the factors that propelled the course correction by the Dutch. (The outlines of that story told here. https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2021/11/17/how-did-the-dutch-get-their-cycle-paths/ They were primed by them being a bit behind the UK in the adoption of the car ahead of all other modes. And indeed the bulldozing of cities to make room for it, and the spike in road deaths resulting from it. Plus they still had mass cycling and reasonable public transport. Indeed they already had some "cycle infra" albeit the primary purpose may have been for the safety of moped riders.)

Give them the sugar sandwich treatment: 1) they have to cycle around London - as likely many / most have simply no idea of the cycling perspective, and the few that do are perhaps "cyclist myself" occasional roadies. 2) then send them for a few days in somewhere cycling is normal so they understand how or could be. So NL - or perhaps better Copenhagen, Seville etc. so they don't simply say "that could never work in the UK". 3) ... and finally they have to do some rides back in London to see just what all the blockers to safer, more pleasant urban areas are.

Straits of Hormuz closed. Petrol predicted to rise to £2.00 a litre. Let's see how underused cycle lanes are now!

exactly - cyclists generally don't need saving from themselves hopefully, this will mean more resources put into general roads policing

If a spell cycling around london were to be a prerequisite for traffic officer and video reviewer posts I suspect we would see a huge improvement in the police response to poor driving around vulnerable road users.

“ In 2026, I can get from almost anywhere in the capital to the various centres of London using separated bike paths” Sorry, but that’s not true. If you cycle in central London there are lots of separated paths. But they are far from contiguous. For example, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea don’t offer much, if any. In some outer boroughs there are also CS lanes (but only in a minority of boroughs) and they are not ‘separated’. They are often ‘quiet ways’ or paint. But it is loads better, I agree. I started cycling to primary school in London about half a century ago, so I have experienced a lot of change, indifference, neglect and improvement.