Helmet safety has never been so fun…reaction to Road Safety Council’s Viking comedy worthy of Netflix; Prince of Wheels; Laura Kenny hitches a cargo bike lift; Buzz Bikeyear; Van Aert’s costly day in court; 24 rainbow jerseys + more on the live blog
SUMMARY
Helmet-safety has never been so fun...watch the Road Safety Council's Viking comedy worthy of Netflix
Don’t worry, we’re not planning on having this descend into another tedious helmet debate…forget the message if you can, we’re just here for pure entertainment value. As far as road safety public service announcements go, this one is up there…
“Svend, shouldn’t you be wearing your helmet?”…”No, it’s annoying it makes my scalp itch”…
The Danish Road Safety Council are responsible for this comedy that is surely worthy of a sequel…does Svend stick to his promise and wear his helmet in England? Does it save him from being impaled by an Anglo-Saxon axe? So many questions…
We are just happy to see cycling safety issues being addressed in a way that does not involve a major traffic monitoring group telling cyclists to not ride at night…visuals straight off the big screen and some Viking comedy are an added bonus…
And the Danes’ effort has certainly got people laughing…unlike UAE-based airline Emirates’ 2016 advert featuring a cyclist riding through Amsterdam…with a helmet photoshopped on…
Give the people what they want…more Vikings, less photoshop…
Wout van Aert ordered to pay his former team boss €662,000 for breach of contract
Wout van Aert has been ordered to pay €662,000 to Nick Nuyens, the owner of Sniper Cycling, after being found to have breached his contract by an Antwerp Court. Van Aert left Verandas Willems-Crelan in 2018 after terminating his contract to join Jumbo-Visma. The long-running legal battle continued on Wednesday with the labour court’s original decision to exonerate Van Aert being overturned at appeal. Van Aert can appeal the latest decision in a court of cassation.
Nuyens’ lawyer had originally demanded damages of €1.2 million when his star rider walked away from the team before joining WorldTour Jumbo-Visma shortly after. Nuyens’ lawyer Rudi Desmet was unsurprisingly content with the latest verdict: “They went back to the essence of this file and asked whether Nick Nuyens actually made a mistake and there was therefore an urgent reason for Van Aert to end the collaboration. Today we know that Nuyens did not make that mistake.”
Van Aert’s lawyer Walter Van Steenbrugge told Het Laatste Nieuws: “The interpretation of the court deviates 180 degrees from the judgment of the labour court. It is not nice for us to see that the position of the labour court in Mechelen that was very favourable to us and that was put on paper very clearly, is now completely nullified.”
Van Aert terminated his deal with Sniper Cycling, formerly the Verandas Willems-Crelan team, at the end of 2018 before riding independently during that cyclo-cross season. Shortly after joining Jumbo-Visma in March, Nuyens took legal action. Van Aert’s defence was that he had an “urgent reason” to terminate his contract and he accused Nuyens of coercing the coach Niels Albert to sign an incriminating statement about him.
Peaty's introduces premium all-weather lube that lasts 30 per cent longer...possibly up to 500 miles...
Peaty’s LinkLube all-weather premium chain lube has been designed for those long days in the saddle, especially when you live here in the UK and an unwanted shower is never too far away. It uses the same formula as the brand’s standard all-weather lube but is claimed to last 30 per cent longer. The test for that was done at home during the pandemic with the help of Paralympic gold medallist Steve Bate.
Bate was given the standard LinkLube and compared it to the premium while riding an epic 1,000-mile turbo trainer ride over ten days…in those very specific conditions, Peaty’s found that the new product lasted 500 miles before wearing out, compared to 380 miles in the same conditions…a 31.5 per cent increase in durability. Not the most scientific test I hear some of you say, but hey, what are you going to do during a lockdown? It is expensive though…priced at £9.99 for 60ml or £15.99 for 120ml, so you would hope that 500-mile figure still applies when riding out on the road…
Concerns at underlying message of Danish Road Safety Council's helmet video
I can’t say I blame any of the comments rolling in about the helmet safety vid from Denmark…even as well done as it is, I’d say you are well within your rights to have a pop at the underlying message…
Sparrowlegs wrote: “As funny as the vid is (and I thought it was hilarious) it reminds me of one of the last scenes in Blackadder Goes Forth where Lt George says he wouldn’t want to face the German’s machine guns without his stick. Wearing a helmet does very little if you’re hit by some prick in a car. It might if you fall off by your own hand but all this does is allow the “higher ups” to walk away satisfied that if a cyclist is in an accident (whatever accident that may be) and isn’t wearing a helmet then it’s their own fault.”
Kamoshika added: “It may be a funny video but it makes me sad that even in Denmark helmet propaganda is starting to creep in.”
Sriracha was more concerned with my description of being impaled by an axe…fair enough.
Who said all cyclists are skinny?
Is @luke_durbridge1 applying for a role as Hulk?! 😂 @GreenEDGEteam @srfsport @VelonCC pic.twitter.com/qAYdE6J0C5
— Tour de Suisse (@tds) June 10, 2021
Luke Durbridge inconspicuously uploads his rides to Strava under the name ‘Buzz Lightyear’ and it looks like he’s been getting into character over at Tour de Suisse…
Remco Evenepoel pleased with progress after taking control of Baloise Belgium Tour on opening stage
Remco Evenepoel was back to close to his swashbuckling best on the opening stage of his home tour yesterday. He did not get the stage win that his efforts deserved but he took control of the general classification thanks to his 28-second advantage on the road and 15 bonus seconds…and he expects to go even better in today’s time trial…
“I’m very happy, even though I feel that I can still gain a few per cent. It is not quite what it should be, but I am on the right track,” Evenepoel said. “I felt in Italy that the decline after the first ten days was serious, every day again. The goal was to gain as much time as possible on the chasers and we can be content with the way it panned out, as it’s a perfect start for us. Tomorrow in the time trial I want to extend my lead.”
Jason Kenny gives Laura Kenny a lift to the velodrome on a cargo bike
Things we love to see…four-time Olympic gold medallist Laura Kenny getting a lift to ‘work’ in a cargo bike pulled by six-time gold medallist Jason Kenny…that’s a lot of gold medals for one cargo bike…
Dame Sarah Storey wins 24th rainbow jersey with TT win at Para-Cycling World Championships
🥇 WORLD CHAMPION 🥇
🌈 #Cascais2021
🇬🇧 #GBCT pic.twitter.com/Qa3230ric3— British Cycling (@BritishCycling) June 10, 2021
Talking of Britain’s most successful cyclists…Dame Sarah Storey has won her 24th rainbow jersey today, winning the WC5 time trial at the Para-Cycling World Championships in Cascais in Portugal. It is her 11th on the road to go with 13 from the track, as well as just the nine cycling Paralympic gold medals (plus a few in swimming events too).
It was a one-two for Team GB, with Crystal Lane-Wright taking silver in the first event…11 other GB riders are in with a medal chance this afternoon…
Tadej Pogačar shows promising Tour de France form with dominant stage win at Tour of Slovenia
🥇He’s done it! @TamauPogi rode solo to victory in the stage 2 of the #TourofSlovenia 🇸🇮! 🎉#UAETeamEmirates #RideTogether pic.twitter.com/frhM73rqN0
— @UAE-TeamEmirates (@TeamEmiratesUAE) June 10, 2021
It might only be the Tour of Slovenia and the key stages of the Tour de France are still a month away but Tadej Pogačar has shown his early form winning the second stage of his home race. The 2020 Tour de France champion went away on his own and opened a gap of 1:22 by the finish, almost certainly securing the overall race win as well barring any misfortune. British rider James Shaw was in the first group behind the UAE Team Emirates star and earned a respectable sixth place on the stage.
Elsewhere, we’ve got what looks like a GC day in Switzerland and a TT in Belgium on the menu…
Prince of Wheels
Prince of Wheels. Prince Charles climbs on a bike to join representatives of the British Asian Trust and kickstart the charity’s ‘Palaces on Wheels’ cycling event at Highgrove. pic.twitter.com/AQBrQxwaSz
— Richard Palmer (@RoyalReporter) June 10, 2021
After a shaky start Prince Charles got it right second time as he saw off riders on the Palace on Wheels fundraising ride from Highgrove. The event aims to raise £1million for the British Asian Trust, which Prince Charles is the patron of. The Express reports Prince Charles joked about not being fit enough to wear Lycra as he was given one of the charity event kits before wishing the riders good luck…
Prince Charles also told reporters that he had not cycled in a few years but had been practicing ahead of the engagement…Practicing or training? I can’t really see Prince Charles nipping out for some hill reps…
Racing round up: Remco Evenepoel did what he said he would...Richard Carapaz impresses for Ineos Grenadiers
@RichardCarapazM (@INEOSGrenadiers) takes todays win! pic.twitter.com/OQ5IeoyD0O
— Tour de Suisse (@tds) June 10, 2021
He told you he was going for the Baloise Belgium Tour time trial…Remco Evenepoel got his stage win, beating teammate Yves Lampaert by two seconds on the pan-flat TT in Knokke-Heist at an average speed of 56km/h. With that he looks likely to have sealed the overall race win too…
In Switzerland, Richard Carapaz added his name to the growing list of Ineos Grenadiers GC riders peaking ahead of the Tour. Last week, Geraint Thomas won a stage and Tao Geoghegan Hart went close as Richie Porte won the Critérium du Dauphiné…this week Richard Carapaz has won a mountain stage of Tour de Suisse and now has 26 seconds advantage with more mountains, including a climbing TT to come…The Tour de France is getting more intriguing by the day…
And remember Miguel Ángel López’s Mont Ventoux domination on Tuesday? Well, the folks at climbingrecords have worked out it was the fastest ascent of Ventoux since 2004 and the 12th fastest of all time, just three seconds slower than Lance Armstrong at the 2000 Tour de France.
More rat-running drivers covering their number plates...
We’ve learned that a minority of heavy vehicle operators have begun covering licence plates in an aim to illegally rat run through side streets that have been filtered as low traffic neighbourhoods. This is extremely dangerous and selfish behaviour. pic.twitter.com/faN6fvZNT8
— London Cycling Campaign (@London_Cycling) June 10, 2021
Pictures and videos along the lines of this from the London Cycling Club have been popping up fairly frequently in recent times. Anything to avoid following the five minute route, I guess. Although it did remind us of this wonderful piece of karma for the driver who thought he could outwit Highbury’s LTN cameras only to be followed by a cyclist with a camera who got their plates perfectly…
Thoughts, comments and reaction to our live blog story of the day...the Danish Road Safety Council's cinematically brilliant (but slightly flawed) helmet campaign
Your comments have been flooding in all day on the Danish helmet campaign video…Wycombewheeler thought the message was perfectly clear: “So my take from the Danish helmet ad, is that if you go cycling in England you best wear a helmet because people will be trying to hurt you. Or was that not the analogy they were aiming for?”
On similar lines, IanMK wrote: “It’s funny but doesn’t stand much scrutiny. The Vikings were aggressors. The way they dress is designed to intimidate their victims, particularly farms that they went to raid i.e. their victims. If they did come up a bunch of equally well-trained warriors it was very difficult to get them to engage Shield walls. It often took a lot of “Dutch Courage”. However, the armour they wore was psychologically important in making them “feel” invulnerable. Many helmets would be poor quality and simply fall apart on impact and so did not protect the wearer against anything but minor blows…..oh hold on a minute, is that the point of the analogy?”
ChrisB200SX commented: “Perfect analogy I suppose. Wear a helmet because the roads are like going into battle involving swords and other weapons that kill and maim at the hands of others. But of course, the solution isn’t the people with the dangerous weapons trying to bully others into submission.” Maybe the Danes have created a masterpiece after all, it just takes a while…
HarrogateSpa wins ‘comment I least expected to read under the live blog today’…”There isn’t enough Anglo-Saxon history on road.cc for my liking. Would the Venerable Bede have been in favour of disc brakes? Would King Edwin of Northumbria have been a supporter of the extension to York’s ‘footstreets’ area, or opposed?”
A time when ‘lance arm strong?’ was only a question of how long a cavalryman could hold their weapon for…
10 June 2021, 08:06
10 June 2021, 08:06
10 June 2021, 08:06
Help us to bring you the best cycling content
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
65 Comments
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Latest Comments
@KiwiMike The pannier carrying capacity is similar 18kg vs 15kg. The quote was about carrying panniers not the deck. That aside I agree they are not really comparable but for different reasons: - the Tubus Duo is made of chromoly steel which won't crack anywhere near as easily as an aluminium rack - and to demonstrate Tubus' belief in their products they offer a 30-year guarantee vs the Old Man Mountain's "reasonable lifetime of the product" warranty which is entirely up to OMM whatever that means.
If you crash, obvs. If a weld fails or a boss cracks five years hence, chances are they’ll warranty it.
That’s … really not even comparable. In therms of weight capacity, mounting, top stowage, light mounting, etc. As per article, you can get the mass a fair way rearward of the axle using the OMM rack.
@Rendel Harris Hmm.... I stand corrected. I still think Obree had a /lot/ more talent. And Jan-Willem today clearly has dropped in levels, relative to those he's racing against.
I cycled a lot on the continent and have done fir many years. I've never been close passed, and only once had a scary overtake by an oncoming vehicle. Im close passed almost daily in the UK and dangerous overtakes are common. Some serious driver education is needed here, not to mention presumed liability legislation.
@TrainWalkWheel at least one person on here seems to have better understanding of these than I do but AFAICS the model is even less likely to lead to good outcomes than happened with eg. a certain UK bus company. The one notorious for moving into an area, putting the existing providers out of business by running more services for pence and losing money, then - having captured the market - jacking up the price and dropping services. At least in that case the intention was presumably to deliver a self-sustaining service in the end (albeit perhaps a worse, overpriced one). But AFAIK mass bike share itself has never made money directly. So one wonders what the end plan is if any one of these market-share-capture firms actually won? (Presumably that isn't important and it's all about trading / financial shenanigans in some way. I doubt they could hold the local authority to ransom for the extra cash...)
Alas it's another part of "because cars / 'change', we can't just copy a well-proven design eg. from NL" On top of this is the UK "not invented here" making it up / no expertise or standard designs AND a "we must fit cyclists in around existing road space" causing strange contorted layouts. So what happens is we get things like bi-directional cycle *lanes* (not separated cycle paths) because cheapest / easiest to patch in. So that means that pedestrians don't have a space to wait *after* crossing the cycle space and *before* they have to deal with the road. (It also puts another block in the way of cycling convenience at traffic lights - say at a T-junction - because unlike NL the lights then apply to cyclists going straight on, whereas in NL that would be an informal cycle path crossing for pedestrians with no lights applying to the cycle path part - so cyclists just keep rolling).
In 2019, Shanghai and other Chinese major cities implemented strict regulations and clean-up operations tp remove millopns of abondoned dockless bicycles that had created public nuisances and blocked pavements. One can't blame local authorities for taking actions in order to stop a messy situation triggered by unruly users.
@Jakrayan Criticising people for not riding primary is like criticising a victim of domestic abuse for cringing when their partner threatens them with their fist. People don't ride in the gutter because they want to, they do it because if they don't they know there's a better than even chance that in any given ride at least one driver will be so affronted by the ENTITLED BIKE NONCE TAKIN' UP THE WHOLE ROAD!!!11 they'll do a deliberate punishment pass that could kill you or leave you maimed for life. Getting over in the gutter isn't a great solution, but multiple uncomfortable but not life-threatening passes is better than one potentially catastrophic one. It shouldn't be a cyclist's responsibility to put their life at risk just to remind drivers to obey the rules of the road they should be doing regardless. And as for "just getting off and walking", putting aside the reality that a ridden bike takes up *less* space than one with the rider walking alongside and so I'd argue the most considerate way to use that inadequate infrastructure(presumably there are no safe alternatives within a reasonable distance or why would anyone on a bike be using it at all) would be to proceed across on the bike at walking pace and then stop and put your foot down if someone needs to get by you; plenty of people use bikes as mobility aids and so "just get off" isn't as simple as it's made out to be. A couple of years back I had the worst sprain of my life, I could barely even hobble for two weeks and had a huge honking brace on my foot, had to sleep on the sofa downstairs because climbing them was a no go. I could still ride my bike though, do my shopping, see my mates - plenty of people have impairments that aren't temporary, to them "just get off" is tantamount to saying "just stay home". Let's keep it a benjamin as the kids say: "shared responsibility" and "keeping everyone safe" are, literally, copouts. They've framed the entire campaign so they can justify only taking actions that don't piss off drivers, and don't require them to actually do any work except harassing a few cyclists as they do a lunch run to the local Greggs, because that's the level of seriousness police in this country - in an institutional sense - believe road crime deserves.
"Scott says that it ‘redefines cable routing in the mountain bike industry’. While we’re yet to see if that claim rings true" I have a Spark RC Pro (2022) with mechanically controlled components. Because we use the front brake lever on the drive (right) side in the UK I have the rear brake hose and two cable housings (dropper and shock) on the NDS entering the headset. On my current bike I use 3.0mm Jagwire housing with no problems. I can install them by just pushing them through the headset without dismantling it. The new 2027 Spark has two openings either side of the headset so it is set up for a rear brake to be on the DS (right). Maybe they are dismissing countries that have the UK's brake lever configuration.
65 thoughts on “Helmet safety has never been so fun…reaction to Road Safety Council’s Viking comedy worthy of Netflix; Prince of Wheels; Laura Kenny hitches a cargo bike lift; Buzz Bikeyear; Van Aert’s costly day in court; 24 rainbow jerseys + more on the live blog”
Perfect analogy I suppose.
Perfect analogy I suppose. Wear a helmet because the roads are like going into battle involving swords and other weapons that kill and maim at the hands of others.
But of course, the solution isn’t the people with the dangerous weapons trying to bully others into submission.
And also, the helmet doesn’t
And also, the helmet doesn’t grant invulnerability (or protection from a massive rock falling on your head.)
Impaled. By an axe?
Impaled. By an axe?
One of those giant butterfly
One of those giant butterfly axes that you get on the front of fantasy novels I expect.
It may be a funny video but
It may be a funny video but it makes me sad that even in Denmark helmet propoganda is starting to creep in.
But they only think you need
But they only think you need one in England (or Northumbria/Anglia/Mercia/Wessex as was for Hirsute’s benefit*). I suspect they’d come in handy for raids on Hibernia and Alba too, having ridden in both)
(*Other ancient kingdoms of Britain are available.)
There isn’t enough Anglo
There isn’t enough Anglo-Saxon history on road.cc for my liking.
Would the Venerable Bede have been in favour of disc brakes? Would King Edwin of Northumbria have been a supporter of the extension to York’s ‘footstreets’ area, or opposed?
Big questions, few answers.
I’ve learnt all my anglo
I’ve learnt all my anglo saxon history from reading the last kingdom novels.
Don’t tell me to wear a
Don’t tell me to wear a helmet
Just don’t hit me…
This facking idea that I’m fine with negligent or murderous wankers hitting me with their cars, cos I’ve got a bit of polystyrene on my head.
FFS
Captain Badger wrote:
I think you are the only one coming up with the idea that you are “fine with negligent or murderous wankers hitting me with their cars, cos I’ve got a bit of polystyrene on my head.” No one else was saying that. That’s just an excuse because you don’t want to wear a helmet. Don’t pretend otherwise.
SaintClarence27 wrote:
Unfortunately not Saint, if only. Have been told “don’t know what you’re worried about, you’re wearing a helmet” on more than one occasion.
I’m ambivalent about wearing one as it happens – it’s really useful for protecting the bonce from branches. It also helps protect from cycnical insurance companies in reducing their payouts – luckily I haven’t had to put that to the test yet, but I doubt they’ll catch me out.
Also somewhere useful to perch the GoPro….
No, my dislike of this shit is that it is victim-blaming and diversionary, and distracts from the only real way of reducing injuries, and that is by reducing collisions. Concentraing on PPE (of dubious efficacy) is a big statement that the present collision rate is acceptable, and/or impossible to tackle.
SaintClarence27 wrote:
I totally agree with the sentiment of Captain Badger’s comment and I do wear a helmet.
What is wrong with the message is that it puts the onus onto cyclists to protect themselves (not that a helmet will offer much protection if you get hit by 2 tonnes of metal travelling at anything above walking pace). I don’t think that most cyclists need to be told that. As cycoists are vulnerable road users the onus needs to be put on other road users to not endanger cyclists by dangerous driving. That is the message that should be promoted.
As funny as the vid is (and I
As funny as the vid is (and I thought it was hilarious) it reminds me of one of the last scenes in Blackadder Goes Forth where Lt George says he wouldn’t want to face the German’s machine guns without his stick. Wearing a helmet does very little if your’e hit by some prick in a car. It might if you fall off by your own hand but all this does is allow the “higher ups” to walk away satisfied that if a cyclist is in an accident (whatever accident that may be) and isn’t wearing a helmet then it’s their own fault.
It was funny though.
sparrowlegs wrote:
Spot on with the analogy, and you’re exactly right with the intent of these campaigns
I kind of agree with the funny, but only if taken out of context of its intent.
A helmet can do quite a lot
A helmet can do quite a lot if you are hit by some prick in a car, actually.
SaintClarence27 wrote:
it can prevent
lots of tut tutting from the medical professionals
reduction of compensation payout due to contributory negligence
does that qualify as ‘lots’
wycombewheeler wrote:
There has been a single case in the UK of reduced compensation because of failure to wear a helmet, in unique circumstances and it doesn’t set a precedent. Car insurance companies will often try to reduce compensation because of no helmet, but as far as I know, these are always withdrawn if challenged.
eburtthebike wrote:
It’s standard common law that they have to take the victim as they find them. It’s in every England-based legal system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull
eburtthebike wrote:
This is simplistic. Most compensation claims never go to court, but are negotiated with the insurance company. Do you mean that the insurance companies categorically do not ever reduce payout when a victim was not wearing a lid?
Or do you mean that it has only once been upheld when challenged in court?
There is a vast difference between the two.
Of course, then there are the cases where a claimant takes their case to court independently. Again are you saying that presence or absence of a lid is not taken into account when calculating compensation?
Captain Badger wrote:
There has been a single case in the UK of reduced compensation because of failure to wear a helmet, in unique circumstances and it doesn’t set a precedent. Car insurance companies will often try to reduce compensation because of no helmet, but as far as I know, these are always withdrawn if challenged.
[/quote]
This is simplistic. Most compensation claims never go to court, but are negotiated with the insurance company. Do you mean that the insurance companies categorically do not ever reduce payout when a victim was not wearing a lid?
Or do you mean that it has only once been upheld when challenged in court?
[/quote]
The info I recall from solicitors who deal with this kind of thing says the insurance companies will routinely deduct a percentage for lack of helmet, and that it is always withdrawn if challenged, sometimes at the doors of the court. The insurance companies don’t want it to go to court because they know their deduction will fail, and that really would set a precedent, and they wouldn’t be able to claim it in future.
As far as I know, there has only ever been that one court case, in unique circumstances, and if a normal case went to court and the insurance company lost, which is pretty certain, they wouldn’t be able to browbeat the ignorant into a reduced settlement.
eburtthebike wrote:
Sorry Eburt, my challenge was meant to be directed at Saint – but thanks for your extra data, pretty much confirms what I suspeceted
That’s the second time I’ve replied to you meaning to reply to someone else. I blame Raod.cc….
Captain Badger wrote:
Are you a Guradian reader perhchance?
eburtthebike wrote:
Giulty
It wasn’t called England back
It wasn’t called England back then.
They didn’t have full-colour,
They didn’t have full-colour, video photography ‘back then’ either.
Should I have written it in
Should I have written it in capitals ?
Hint: DOOR
I think the concept of
I think the concept of Englaland or land of the Angles dates back to Alfred the Great although a unified England probably post dates the heyday of most Danish raiding.
I’ll get my coat…..
“All weather lube”
“All weather lube”
Tested on a turbo trainer
Maybe their trainer is
Maybe their trainer is outside on the patio?
brooksby wrote:
do the doors have long handles……?
I think we ought to know…..
It’s funny but doesn’t stand
It’s funny but doesn’t stand much scrutiny.
The Vikings were aggresors. The way they dress is designed to intimidate their victims, particularly farms that they went to raid ie their victims.
If they did come up a bunch of equally well trained warriors it was very difficult to get them to engage Sheild walls. It often took a lot of “Dutch Courage”. However, the armour they wore was psychologically important in making them “feel” invulnerable. Many helmets would be poor quality and simply fall apart on impact and so did not protect the wearer against anything but minor blows.
…..oh hold on a minute, is that the point of the analogy?
so my take from the danish
so my take from the danish helmet ad, is that if you go cycling in england you best wear a helmet because people will be trying to hurt you.
Or was that not the analogy they were aiming for?
Very impressed with the
Very impressed with the educated readers of road.cc, demolishing so completely the ridiculous message behind the viking helmet promotion movie. I first saw it yesterday and commented on the website along the lines of most of the comments here, and was immediately banned. This is the fb post I put up:
“Wow! I knew helmet zealots were firmly fixed in their views and refused to see any alternatives, but I’ve just been suspended from a web group because I disagreed with one. Must be so tough when you can’t argue your case and just ban anyone who doesn’t agree with you.
“Account suspended until 9 June 3021: Helmets save lives. I’m sorry this disagrees with your reality.” BBS.BOINGBOING.NET
Not sure I’ll be around in 3021 when the ban ends.
eburtthebike wrote:
Yeah, I think that was a reasonable response to your post.
eburtthebike wrote:
would wearing a helmet increase the odds?
(No subject)
“Destiny is All”
or as the ancient Danes might
or as the ancient Danes might have said
Wyrd bið ful aræd
IanMK wrote:
That’s easy for you to say….
Wasn’t htat a Saxon saying
Wasn’t that a Saxon / old english saying from the books?
Quote:
And who hasn’t needed some premium all-weather lube from time to time…?
07.44: “Don’t worry, we’re
07.44: “Don’t worry, we’re not planning on having this descend into another tedious helmet debate”
09.39: “Concerns at underlying message of Danish Road Safety Council’s helmet video”
That went well then.
Yeah, bet they wished they’d
Yeah, bet they wished they’d kept a lid on it now.
*breaking* Joe Biden buys
*breaking* Joe Biden buys Boris a new bike!
AND HELMET!
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Why would he buy a helmet for a helmet?
eburtthebike wrote:
raspberries – sorry Eburt, answered in error
Captain Badger wrote:
None taken.
To sum up:
To sum up:
1) Wearing a helmet is probably a sensible personal choice.
2) Promoting helmet use is probably bad policy, particularly if it is done instead of tackling the causes of collisions which injure/kill cyclists.
AidanR wrote:
Spot on
Agreed
Agreed
1) Always wear a helmet, but ride like you are
2) Shout down the “Experts” who say we must wear helmets, because they are concerned for our safety
Of course, if the claim made
Of course, if the claim made in this helmet advert was true, we should all wear one. Sadly it doesn’t appear to be UK based so I can’t complain to the Advertising Standards Authority. Just more advertising BS; smellier than most though.
“This innovative smart helmet doesn’t just protect you from accidents, it prevents them altogether”
I’m just going to have to put
I’m just going to have to put it in again!
Christmas Eve 2020, ice, straight down on right shoulder, hip and side of head. It took me 4 weeks to get over the hip and shoulder bruising, but my head was (as far as I can tell) undamaged.
wtjs wrote:
JHC! Is there no end to these people who think that their uproven anecdote is not only proof that the helmet saved their life, but that it applies to everyone else?
“The plural of anecdote is not data.” Neither is the singular a datum.
JHC! Is there no end to
JHC! Is there no end to these people who think that their unproven anecdote is not only proof that the helmet saved their life, but that it applies to everyone else?
“The plural of anecdote is not data.” Neither is the singular a datum.
Bollocks with the false implication of learning is still bollocks. There’s nothing unproven about it- as I have written before: if you think the head impact which broke that helmet would not have impaired your brain from its present state, you’re probably right. Smashing your head hard against a road does not do your brain any good- it’s as simple as that. No, I do not wear my helmet coming downstairs because of some bollocks statistic ‘proving’ that most injuries occur in the home or whatever. I never tell people to wear helmets and I support Boardman’s position. However, I almost never cycle without one and for an individual like me there is no detriment to wearing one- the claim of increased risk of rotational injuries is clearly ‘clutching at straws’.
If I hadn’t thrown it away I
If I hadn’t thrown it away I could show you where the the tail of my old Bell helemt snagged the tarmac after I was knocked off by a dog causing me a rotational injury that would not have occured had I not been wearing a helmet.
What it boils down to is that
What it boils down to is that the statistics are complicated and open to manipulation. Odds ratios are difficult. So you resort to sense: does wearing a helmet affect the way you cycle? Obviously not. Does wearing a helmet affect the way drivers behave near you? Highly unlikely. Does having a helmet make either no difference or confer some degree of benefit to the wearer when his head hits something hard? Obviously yes. Does wearing a helmet make cyclists like me cycle less than I would without a helmet? Obviously not. Does the wearing of a helmet make some small fraction of head injuries any worse in real life when compared to the injuries in those not wearing a helmet? Highly unlikely. Decision for cyclists like me: obvious.
Trouble is you have decided
Trouble is you have decided on your responses to meet your conclusion.
Take the first one: risk compensation is clearly something to consider.
wtjs wrote:
Well, as a student of road safety in general and cycle helmets in particular, almost every one of your assumptions is wrong. Maybe use the facts next time?
wtjs wrote:
For the personal decision, your view as illustrated is a perfectly adequate decision tree. With the caveat that folk should not be demonised, condemned or punished in anyway for coming to a different conclusion using the same or different method, in the same way that people who chose not to wear a pedestrian or motorists helmet aren’t.
When deciding public policy however many more things come into play, and the biggest is takeup of cycling. If you don’t wish for that to fall, don’t make a big deal of helmets. In the greater scheme of things the benefits of helmets are small, and completely outweighed by the drawbacks.
The Danish movie explained:
The Danish movie explained:
“In the diverse world of traffic planning, advocacy and various movements for liveable cities, there is an odd group of outliers who broadcast conflicting messages. While “traffic safety” organisations seem like a natural part of the gallery and of the narrative, upon closer inspection they exist in a communication vacuum populated exclusively by like-minded organisations. There is little correlation with those organisations who advocate cycling, pedestrianism or safer streets. The traffic safety crowd are in a world unto themselves, with little or no accountability for the campaigns they develop or the messaging they broadcast. They are often allied with insurance companies who clearly take comfort in working with others who embrace scaring the population at large through constructed fear.”
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2017/11/traffic-safety-orgs-speak-for.html?fbclid=IwAR36f0v5AF0bJC36VNk7wiVvWQAPnDypIOPDAwrVdms5rC5buw8XmqNX7Rk
This is what we have to deal
This is what we have to deal with in the road safety industry; a whole article about cycling safety which doesn’t even mention the cause of the danger, and puts the onus solely on the victims, just like the vikings.
https://london.ctvnews.ca/sharing-the-road-june-is-bike-safety-month-1.5468014
Thanks for the link to
Thanks for the link to Canadian road safety campaigns. Really interesting.
Any chance of the references for those multiple “international standards” for research?
Rich_cb wrote:
No.
I’ll just chalk that up as
I’ll chalk that up as just another lie then Burt.
eburtthebike wrote:
That is an awful article. I didn’t realise that Canada is so far gone down the pro-car route.
This entire topic about
This entire topic about helmet use has been bedevilled by pseudo-erudition and the deployment of annoying trite, cliched ‘word-bites’ like ‘the plural of anecdote is not data’ and other such tripe. People bandy around words like ‘meta-analysis’ while failing to note that the overwhelming conclusion of these studies is that helmets reduce head injuries to some degree yet some frankly crazed helmet opponents persist in the view that helmets are useless. The common-sense view agrees with the majority of studies that helmets protect against serious head injury- the magnitude of the protection is uncertain, but my personal policy is that this protection is worth having because brains don’t get repaired. Add this to the disadvantages of helmet wearing being essentially nil, except to people more concerned about their hair, and you have the answer. Remove from the discussion the pretence of outrage at the proposals to make helmet wearing mandatory because there seem to be no such credible proposals in the UK. If you don’t want to wear a helmet when cycling in the UK, then don’t. It’s your problem.
PS Odds ratios are ratios of odds, not chances- by which most people mean some form of probability. However, the distinction is not important because the BMJ paper under discussion concludes with some pretty big beneficial effects of helmets, which means I don’t need to work my way through it.