Chris Froome mistaken for 'leisure rider' on French TV after being turned back due to forest fires; Presenter Storm Huntley hit by driver; Vigilante arsonist?; Schrödinger's cyclist; Vuelta team news; LTN thoughts + more on the live blog

brooksby wrote:

Apparently sometimes cable ties don't work...

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/speeding-biker-faulty-ma...

At least that motorcyclist is unlikely to do that again as:

Miss Evans defending wrote:

"He recognises the harm he caused to that gentleman.
He indicated regret and remorse in interview.
Miss Evans said her client would welcome a lifetime driving ban.
She added: "He won't be able, mentally or physically, to return to the road in any event."

Don't forget snow tyres (not recommended for rim brakes)

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

I don't know if the cars should have moved over for him but Ren deserves some punishment for filming a video off a computer screen. Lucky for him it wasn't in portrait otherwise it would have been a capital punishment offence. 

Sorry! I tried to pull it off the SD card yesterday morning but the computer kept saying it couldn't save it, so as I was in a hurry I filmed it with my phone. If I'd have known it would get 28,000 views I would have taken more time on it!

Quite enjoyed that thread.
"Some have even left their cars cluttering up the road whilst they go off for brunch. They should stick to race tracks and car parks."

The helmet almsot certainly reduced her injuries. That's a good thing and a good reason to wear a helmet.

But, promoting helmets is  - weridly - actively harmful. It promulgates the myth that transport cycling is dangerous (it isn't) resulting in fewer people cycling.
It also distracts from things that actually can make a significant difference; better infrastructure, better law enforcement, more ever penalties for those who break traffic laws.
In this case it's distracting from the actual cause of the accident - an, at best, careless driver. If the driver had been better trained, better skilled, more aware of cyclists the accident wouldn't have happened at all and arguments about helmets wouldn't be happening.

I'm off to comment on the Twitter thread - expressing sympathy for her injuries and anger with the careless driver who caused this. I won't be saying anything about helmets. I suggest we all do the same and flood the thread with people completely ignoring the ridiculous helmet arguments.

IanGlasgow wrote:

The helmet almsot certainly reduced her injuries. That's a good thing and a good reason to wear a helmet.

But, promoting helmets is  - weridly - actively harmful. It promulgates the myth that transport cycling is dangerous (it isn't) resulting in fewer people cycling.
It also distracts from things that actually can make a significant difference; better infrastructure, better law enforcement, more ever penalties for those who break traffic laws.
In this case it's distracting from the actual cause of the accident - an, at best, careless driver. If the driver had been better trained, better skilled, more aware of cyclists the accident wouldn't have happened at all and arguments about helmets wouldn't be happening.

I'm off to comment on the Twitter thread - expressing sympathy for her injuries and anger with the careless driver who caused this. I won't be saying anything about helmets. I suggest we all do the same and flood the thread with people completely ignoring the ridiculous helmet arguments.

I agree with everything you said, except for your first sentence.

We just aren't in a position to say that. The damage to the lid looked to me (on the picture that I saw) to be so minor as to be trivial, and not even definitely attributable to the collision - of which we know nothing, or next to nothing at most.

like I said, broad agreement, but teh prevailing culture of victim-blaming seems to put all of us on the defensive of lid efficacy, even when we are broadly sceptical.

IanGlasgow wrote:

The helmet almsot certainly reduced her injuries. That's a good thing and a good reason to wear a helmet.

You're right, it probably did.  But it probably prevented only superficial injuries, as helmets don't prevent concussion or brain injury, and they can exacerbate the most dangerous brain injuries, rotational.

There is only one reliable metric for helmets; the death rate, and that does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase, so despite all the "helmet saved my life" stories, they don't save lives.

The rest of your post is spot on though, especially the emphasis given to the helmet supposedly protecting her, when the most important thing is the driver knocking her off, which barely gets a mention.

eburtthebike wrote:

The rest of your post is spot on though, especially the emphasis given to the helmet supposedly protecting her, when the most important thing is the driver knocking her off, which barely gets a mention.

I came here for an argument and that's barely even a contradiction.

This site has gone so downhill.

Don't worry it will be ok on Saturday !

TheBillder wrote:

I came here for an argument and that's barely even a contradiction.

This site has gone so downhill.

No you didn't, and yes there is.
No it hasn't.

Captain Badger wrote:

TheBillder wrote:

I came here for an argument and that's barely even a contradiction. This site has gone so downhill.

No you didn't, and yes there is. No it hasn't.

thats not an argument, thats just repetitive denial.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

TheBillder wrote:

I came here for an argument and that's barely even a contradiction. This site has gone so downhill.

No you didn't, and yes there is. No it hasn't.

thats not an argument, thats just repetitive denial.

Well you would say that wouldn't you

I'm more concerned about the actual honours. Surely should be same for both. Either both knighted or both damed.

Geoff Ingram wrote:

I'm more concerned about the actual honours. Surely should be same for both. Either both knighted or both damed.

by this logic should Elizabeth be King Elizabeth?  Since Dame is just the female version of Knight

I cant help read those "Its just common sense" lines not in a Chris Morris Brass Eye or Simpsons Troy McClure voice style...its just good science

hirsute wrote:

Presumably 'common sense' would include a full assessment of all the risks, how to mitigate them, a review of all consequences and a behavioural review.

This is somehow exactly what "common sense" is not. To put it positively, common sense is what everyone can see, even if they're not an expert. More negatively (and more fun and usually not intended), it's what people think when they have no expertise.

Apart from the Helmet debate Storm Huntley thinks that being knocked off her bike by a car turning left was an accident. If she actually said this on the BBC as a BBC employee I think it would breach reporting guidelines. I think cycling can do without Storm as a spokesperson. 

IanMK wrote:

Apart from the Helmet debate Storm Huntley thinks that being knocked off her bike by a car turning left was an accident.

No suggestion that the driver should behave more responsibly; it's just "an accident".

She then repeated her advice to cyclists about how they should wear a polystyrene hat, as if it might prevent drivers hitting them. Not clever.

Yesterday morning I was nearly hit by a driver on a mini-roundabout because she was going too fast and wasn't looking out for anything smaller than a car. My bright yellow jersey obviously wasn't big enough.

Yep, tweeting advice out on the helmet, stating it was only an accident and then also stating her BF now stops her riding at all and she would have done the same for him if the same had happened, so essentially has been scared off the roads. 

So essntially perpetuating the myth that cycling is very dangerous whilst not blaming the reason for why it might be seen that way, and then deciding she is never going to cycle again for commuting purposes instead of asked for better infra / rules / enforcement so she could. 

As for the "Accident" and the pic, I'm trying to understand how she cracked the back right of her helmet if knocked off by a left turning car. Did she go right over the bonnet? Was she cycling off a pavement/ along a two way cycle path and was hit by left turning car into junction which pushed her right? Either way, still can't understand why she just wants to treat it like an accident.

How have I never noticed Helmet Row?  It's only a couple of roads past Look Mum No Hands!