Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Back to news
news

London cyclists warned to be careful... because of all the car fumes; Barrister asked if he was wearing a helmet - after being hit by a motorist; Viaduct reopens for cyclists and walkers; Is cycling linked to your education? + more on the live blog

Thank Coppi it’s Friday! Ryan Mallon is here to ease you into the weekend with the last live blog of the week
Fri, Jan 14, 2022 09:55
147

SUMMARY

No Live Blog item found.

London cyclists warned to be careful... because of all the car fumes; Barrister asked if he was wearing a helmet - after being hit by a motorist; Viaduct reopens for cyclists and walkers; Is cycling linked to your education? + more on the live blogCS5 cyclists (screenshot via London Cycles video Twitter)
14 January 2022, 17:50
Heading into the weekend like…

That’s it for the week folks! Thanks for keeping me company on the blog.

I don’t know about you, but I’m away for a lie-down. I was on the receiving end of a heavy tackle at five-a-sides last night, and my ribs have been sore ever since.

If only I’d been wearing my helmet…

14 January 2022, 17:06
Nextbike Cardiff (screenshot via BBC News report)
Ovo Bikes return to Cardiff after two month break due to thefts and vandalism

The Ovo bike hire scheme was reintroduced to Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan yesterday, two months after the scheme was suspended due to a high number of thefts and vandalism.

Before the suspension of the scheme in November, 300 Ovo bikes had been stolen and 260 vandalised. It was the first time operator Nextbike had been forced to withdraw its services in the UK.

Nextbike’s Krysia Solheim told Wales Online: “It’s a relief to be back on the streets of Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan. We know our customers have missed having access to the Ovo Bikes schemes.

"Bike share is a fantastic, affordable, and healthy way to move around our towns and cities – not to mention the fact that it’s one of the best ways of reducing harmful transport emissions.”

Let’s just hope it goes better this time…

14 January 2022, 17:10
14 January 2022, 16:55
CPA threatens to sue The Cyclists’ Alliance over ‘fake news’ prize money concerns

The pro season hasn’t even started in earnest yet and there’s already been some serious inter-organisational conflict (remember the ASO-UCI wars of the mid-noughties and mid-2010s? Surely another one of those is scheduled soon…).

This time, the Cyclistes Professionnels Associés (CPA to you and me) has threatened to sue The Cyclists’ Alliance (TCA) for what it described as defamation and false information after the TCA published concerns surrounding the administration of prize money on the women’s side of the sport.

Often criticised for its cosy relationship with the UCI, the CPA is the officially recognised riders’ representative organisation. Headed on the men’s side by Gianni Bugno, a women’s branch was finally set up in 2017.

While the CPA Women is made up of national riders’ associations, the TCA on the other hand operates a ‘one rider, one vote’ system. Also established in 2017 by ex-pro Iris Slappendel, the TCA has been praised for its close work with riders concerning contracts, retirement, career advice and education, and is viewed by many as the ‘true union’ for women’s cycling.

Surely, I hear you cry, the two organisations would work together to secure the continuing development of the women’s sport? Ah, but not so fast. It’s Friday afternoon so I’ll spare you the details, but this month the UCI’s Centralised Prize Money Management system (operating on the men’s side since 2017) was introduced for women. In this system, deductions are taken from prize money at races to pay for costs including doping controls, retirement funds and the development of national riders’ associations.

This week the TCA released a statement, claiming that the riders – who the TCA says the prize money “belongs to” – were not consulted about the scheme. The statement asked a series of pertinent questions about the new system and called for an independent third party to be involved, preventing a monopoly over the administration of cycling’s prize money.

The CPA has since responded in a confrontational press release, accusing the TCA “of defaming the CPA and manipulating the riders.”

“The TCA not only appears to be ill-informed but manifests superficiality in its communications,” the statement read. “The riders are enthusiastic about how CPM works. With this transparent system no prize money is lost and riders are paid faster. Alessandra Cappellotto and CPA Women are doing important work in partnership with the UCI and other stakeholders to ensure that the gap between women and men is gradually reduced.”

The accusatory and hostile tone of the CPA’s response has been widely criticised throughout the sport. TCA representative and world time trial champion Ellen van Dijk tweeted the following:

It is clear that both organisations are committed to growing women’s cycling, probably the most important issue in the sport right now. Disputes like this only do the opposite.

14 January 2022, 15:56
14 January 2022, 15:41
Sherlock Holmes and the case of the not-so-genius bike thief

Well that’s one way to get caught stealing a bike…

14 January 2022, 15:24
Cycling UK shares new Cyclists’ Defence Fund video as it aims to reinstate popular bike lane

This morning the bike charity Cycling UK shared a new fundraising video for their Cyclists’ Defence Fund (CDF). The CDF helps fight legal cases involving individual cyclists and cycling in general, especially those which could set important safety-related precedents.

The film includes examples of some of the cases fought using the CDF in the past, as well as Cycling UK’s current legal challenge against West Sussex County Council’s decision to remove a popular cycle lane on the Old Shoreham Road, used by children to get to school.

Cycling UK’s Sam Jones told road.cc that through this challenge, which was made possible by donations to the CDF, they hope to “set a precedent and make other councils take note before doing similar.”

Today’s fundraising call, Jones says, is “about helping us to prepare for tomorrow’s battles.” You can donate to the Cyclists’ Defence Fund on Cycling UK’s website. 

14 January 2022, 14:31
National Champs kits done right

There’s been a lot of talk over the silly season about poorly designed national champions’ jerseys (looking at you, UAE). So it’s refreshing when you come across one that ticks all the boxes, courtesy of Finnish champion Joonas Henttala and Team Novo Nordisk.

14 January 2022, 13:27
Tussling with the Tinker Man

Following Cycling Mikey’s alleged altercation with a texting motorist, covered yesterday on the blog, more London cyclists have come forward with reports of their own run-ins with phone-wielding drivers:

Nathan’s story led another Twitter user to recall one particularly harrowing experience on the same road with a certain maverick Italian football manager:

Going by the location, I assume this incident took place when Ranieri was in charge of Chelsea. Maybe the Tinker Man was too busy contemplating whether he should drop Damien Duff or not… Or perhaps he was texting his No. 8 to get him a coffee?

14 January 2022, 12:58
BoC Cards
“Roses are red, violets are blue, forget Valentines, I want Di2…”

Great news - we’re exactly one month away from the stupidest day of the year!

But have no fear, as you can make the guilt-infested capitalist showpiece that is Valentine’s Day slightly more palatable with these rather brilliant ‘honest’ cycling-themed cards from Band of Climbers. 

Although if you were really being honest with yourself, you would just go on your planned spin anyway and leave all of the unnecessary obligation to Hallmark. Have I made it clear how much I dislike Valentine’s Day?

14 January 2022, 12:25
Canyon Cycle to work scheme 2
Are university graduates more likely to cycle to work?

A newly published study in the Journal of Transport Geography has claimed that people with a university degree are far more likely to cycle for transportation than other city dwellers. 

The research, undertaken by Dr Ansgar Hudde at the University of Cologne, examined the socio-economic status of people who cycle to work, analysing over 800,000 journeys by 55,000 people between 1996 and 2018.

He found that, irrespective of age, gender and even location, individuals with college degrees were 50% more likely to ride bikes.

Dr Hudde’s study builds on earlier research which has shown that people choose their transport method based on travel time, cost, and its symbolic value – in essence, how others will perceive it.

Traditionally, this has been linked to motorists who buy large, expensive cars to signal their socio-economic standing - I'm sure we've all heard the old 'cyclist saving up to buy a car' joke - while also (perhaps unconsciously) pointing out that they don’t care that much about the environment.

“With the bicycle, it’s exactly the opposite,” Hudde claims.

“People with higher educational qualifications usually do not run the risk of being perceived as poor or professionally unsuccessful, even if they are on the road with an inexpensive bike. Rather, they can gain status by cycling.”

Riding a bike, according to the study, can also mark out an individual as “modern, health-conscious, and environmentally aware. In contrast, people with a lower level of education might be more likely to use an expensive car as a status symbol to show that they have ‘made it.’”

The growth in bike usage, Hudde argues, is therefore linked to rising education levels.

However, he believes that more should be done to encourage a wider demographic to cycle, and that the increase in cycling infrastructure in cities could actually exacerbate social inequality.

“We need targeted policies that reach those who stand aside from the current bike boom: people outside the bigger cities and with less education.”

So what do you think? Is bike riding as a mode of transport a status symbol intrinsically linked to your education? 

14 January 2022, 11:29
14 January 2022, 11:22
Bennerley Viaduct (image credit - World Monuments Fund)
“Iron Giant” reopens for cyclists and walkers

A Victorian viaduct, derelict for over half a century, has been reopened for cyclists and walkers.

Bennerley Viaduct originally opened in 1877 and runs between Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. It was closed due to railway cuts in 1968.

Despite several attempts by British Rail to demolish the “Iron Giant” – the only UK structure on the 2020 World Monuments Watch list – repairs to the viaduct have been under way since 1986. 

While there were initial concerns over what the bridge would be used for, it was finally decided that a cycling and walking route would be installed.

The newly revamped Bennerley Viaduct was officially reopened yesterday, with Andy Savage from the Railway Heritage Trust the first person to cycle across it.

14 January 2022, 10:35
“Were you wearing a helmet?”

Yesterday on the live blog we featured another example of the kind of standard-fare, pointless cycling safety question posited by backbench MPs with the sole aim of shifting the onus of road safety on to the most vulnerable users. 

Now, as the last week, or month, or years have shown, politicians may not feel that their opinions, attitudes, or indeed their actions have any real-life consequences. But judging by the experiences of barrister Martin Porter this week, after he was knocked off his bike by a motorist, some perceptions of cycling safety appear to align with those of the Honourable Member for Bosworth.

On Sunday Porter, who used to blog under the moniker ‘The Cycling Lawyer’, was hit by a motorist who was turning right and claimed the sun was in his eyes. Porter suffered two broken ribs and damage to his teeth.

What followed was a series of incidents which seem to underline the place of cycling and cyclists when it comes to road safety.

According to Porter, the police told his wife it was “an unfortunate accident”, and every clinician and dentist treating him inquired whether he was wearing a helmet.

Most tellingly, when Porter informed the hospital physiotherapist that he had broken his ribs before while out cycling, she apparently replied “and the moral is?” Blimey.

Of course, this is an isolated incident and certainly cannot be said to reflect general public opinion. But it does once again highlight the level of miscalculation in Transport for London’s controversial ‘See Their Side’ advert. Empathy, eh?

14 January 2022, 09:48
London traffic jam (licensed CC BY 2.0 by Garry Knight on Flickr)
Cyclists told to avoid London today… because of all the vehicle pollution

Londoners have been advised to avoid strenuous physical activity in the city today due to extremely high levels of pollution.

According to the government’s forecast pollution levels will reach band 10 on the Air Quality Index, the highest level on the scale.

A combination of light winds and an intense area of high pressure currently covering western Europe has resulted in a lack of air movement across the city, which means emissions from motor vehicles and other pollutants will linger in the air for longer and won’t be as easily blown away.

Older people and those with heart or lung problems have been warned not to undertake strenuous physical activity, while even healthy people should “reduce physical exertion, particularly outdoors, especially if you experience symptoms such as a cough or sore throat”.

So who will suffer the most from these extremely high levels of pollution caused by massive car congestion? That’s right, cyclists.

Cycling commentator and writer Ned Boulting summed up the paradox at the heart of the government’s advice:

In effect, the government’s advice seems to boil down to: “Maybe best not to cycle into work today because of all the car fumes. Could you drive instead?”

The Guardian’s Peter Walker had another solution:

This week London’s mayor Sadiq Khan said car use in the city had almost returned to pre-pandemic levels and that “if we do not double down on our efforts to deliver a greener, more sustainable future, we will replace one public health crisis with another – caused by filthy air and gridlocked roads.”

Simon Birkett, Founder and Director of Clean Air in London, was even more blunt: "Londoners are literally stewing in their own juice with our own fumes trapped in still air for days. It is a stark reminder of how much we need to reduce building emissions as well as traffic emissions. Please do not burn wood on Friday!"

Ryan Mallon

After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.

Add new comment

147 comments

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Craig Prosser | 2 years ago
10 likes

Craig Prosser wrote:

You get asked if you're Covid vaccinated if you call an ambulance, you're rightly mocked by the general public if not. Why shouldn't cyclists not be similarly mocked if they don't wear a helmet which will very likely save their life one day.

if I hit my head skiing and don't have a helmet on my travel insurance doesn't cover me. It's law on my motorcycle. Why not when you put the Lycra on?

Vaccination status is fairly important to medical staff so that they get an idea of what the severity is likely to be and also whether the patient is going to be more or less infectious.

"Likely" seems entirely the wrong word to use when cycling fatalities are rare and a bike helmet is unlikely to provide serious protection in a collision at speed (IIRC safety testing is only carried out up to 12mph). You could use the same argument with people being "likely" to slip in the shower and hit their head although in that scenario a bike helmet will be far more likely to provide protection as it should be within design limits. Should we mock everyone that takes a shower without wearing a bike helmet?

Skiing is a more dangerous activity than cycling, especially when considering that most cyclists are probably utility cyclists rather than racing. Obviously skiing takes place on a slippery surface and my view is that using a bike helmet when cycling in the snow is going to be a good idea too as there's much more chance of coming off and probably less chance of it being a collision with speeding tonnes of metal.

Motorcycles can go much faster than bicycles and motorbike helmets have a much stronger design (full face ones, anyway).

The main reasons that people don't wear cycle helmets is either because they don't have one or they find it uncomfortable to wear (more likely in hot countries) or it messes up their hair. Those reasons are more likely to be used by casual or utility cyclists, so it's reasonable to infer that mandating cycle helmets will act as a barrier to some.

Looking at places that have mandated cycle helmets, the evidence shows that there is a downturn in cycling and conversely, if you look at cities that normalise cycling, you find that the majority don't bother with helmets. This leads to a perverse situation where trying to improve people's health by mandating PPE will lead to less people cycling and thus a reduction in the population's health.

What tends to grind my gears is that some people (not accusing you) make a big deal about helmets and ignore much better alternatives to make the roads safer. Helmet mandates are also often used by unscrupulous police to target the poor and minorities who are more likely to be riding without a helmet.

For the record, I wear a bike helmet.

Avatar
giff77 replied to hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
6 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

...Motorcycles can go much faster than bicycles and motorbike helmets have a much stronger design (full face ones, anyway)...

Motorcycle bodies will recommend either a full face or 3/4 helmet with the former being preferred. They discourage the use of the old 'pudding bowl' helmet from around 50/60 years ago which in reality is much like the modern cycling helmet. 

As an aside Nordic Sking which is pretty much like utility cycling as a robust and economic way to travel. You will never see the skiers wearing a helmet. If they go over it's going to be an ankle or wrist that goes. I did see a YouTube clip of Dutch cyclists dropping their bikes on an icy corner some time ago. Pretty  much everyone who failed to keep upright, it was the hand, shoulder and hip that took the main force. But I'm rambling now...

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to giff77 | 2 years ago
0 likes

I've heard of motorbikers that have worn a pudding bowl style helmet (open-face?) and then having a collision with a car and catching their jaw on the car roof which doesn't end well.

Avatar
giff77 replied to hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
1 like

Yeah. Very open face. Pretty much only the skull above the ears and forehead is protected. I've friends in the police who have attended incidents where the bikers were wearing a pudding bowl or the 3/4 and said it was never pretty. 

Avatar
Rua_taniwha replied to hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
3 likes

I've heard of aliens flying to earth to perform anal probes. I think they said all's well in the end 

Avatar
marmotte27 replied to hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
2 likes

Re helmets for skiing:
These only started to take off, when narrow waisted skis made high speed descents possible even for not so skilled skiers twenty years ago.
You need a helmet in skiing mostly should you be hit by one of those with a helmet on.

Avatar
Chris Hayes replied to marmotte27 | 2 years ago
0 likes

I can't think of another pastime / sport where people are allowed to travel as such high speeds with so little control - and beginners, competent skiers, and alcohol mix freely. 

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to marmotte27 | 2 years ago
2 likes

marmotte27 wrote:

You need a helmet in skiing mostly should you be hit by one of those with a helmet on.

A good point, and there is vanishingly little evidence that skiing helmets save lives either; just like cycle helmets, the manufacturers saw a marketing opportunity, and the gullible rushed to buy them.

Avatar
Rik Mayals unde... replied to eburtthebike | 2 years ago
1 like

I had a nasty crash on a descent years ago when a cyclist did a U turn at the bottom of a hill right in front of me without looking. My helmet cracked into loads of pieces, but stayed intact. Apart from all my other injuries, my head was fine. I am completely sure that had I not been wearing a helmet, the outcome would have been much, much worse, if not fatal. So whilst I don't believe they should be made mandatory, I personally will never go out without wearing one, as I believe it saved my life.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Rik Mayals underpants | 2 years ago
1 like

biker phil wrote:

I had a nasty crash on a descent years ago when a cyclist did a U turn at the bottom of a hill right in front of me without looking. My helmet cracked into loads of pieces, but stayed intact. Apart from all my other injuries, my head was fine. I am completely sure that had I not been wearing a helmet, the outcome would have been much, much worse, if not fatal. So whilst I don't believe they should be made mandatory, I personally will never go out without wearing one, as I believe it saved my life.

So you don't blame the idiot for causing the crash, you thank your helmet for saving you from the idiot.  You may believe the helmet saved your life, but the statistics and data show that this was extremely unlikely.  https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Rik Mayals underpants | 2 years ago
5 likes

biker phil wrote:

I had a nasty crash on a descent years ago when a cyclist did a U turn at the bottom of a hill right in front of me without looking.

Bloody cyclists are on the pistes now? Bet they don't even pay slope tax (is this right?)

Avatar
mdavidford replied to chrisonabike | 2 years ago
0 likes

chrisonatrike wrote:

biker phil wrote:

I had a nasty crash on a descent years ago when a cyclist did a U turn at the bottom of a hill right in front of me without looking.

Bloody cyclists are on the pistes now? Bet they don't even pay slope tax (is this right?)

I'll admit I've cycled home a few times after being out on the piste.

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
0 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

Motorcycles can go much faster than bicycles and motorbike helmets have a much stronger design (full face ones, anyway).

True, but even motorcycle helmets are only rated as effective to about 16mph, from memory so don't ask for a quote.  Basically, stopping your head rapidly from speed is extremely damaging, and the ability of a helmet, any helmet, to reduce that decelleration is limited by the size of the helmet.  To be effective at the speed most people ride motorcycles at, the helmet would have to be extremely large 1m+ at least.

And besides, it is extremely doubtful that motorcycle helmets, despite their stronger construction, save lives.  But, just like cycle helmets, the myth lives on "A lie often repeated becomes the truth."  (Stalin or Goebells, take your pick.)

Avatar
Rik Mayals unde... replied to eburtthebike | 2 years ago
1 like

I remember many years ago my friend's brother came off his motorbike and hit some railings. He died instantly, when they removed his helmet his head had basically fallen to bits, (Don't know how else to describe it), inside his helmet due to the impact the helmet made on the road.

Avatar
giff77 replied to Craig Prosser | 2 years ago
8 likes

Craig Prosser wrote:

You get asked if you're Covid vaccinated if you call an ambulance, you're rightly mocked by the general public if not. Why shouldn't cyclists not be similarly mocked if they don't wear a helmet which will very likely save their life one day.

if I hit my head skiing and don't have a helmet on my travel insurance doesn't cover me. It's law on my motorcycle. Why not when you put the Lycra on?

oh goodie. been a while. 

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Craig Prosser | 2 years ago
0 likes

Because being tripled jabbed means you can't get covid? Or pass it one? Or be asymtomatic?

 

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Craig Prosser | 2 years ago
6 likes

Craig Prosser wrote:

Why shouldn't cyclists not be similarly mocked if they don't wear a helmet which will very likely save their life one day.

Very likely save your life; no.

Despite promises of helmets reducing cyclists' deaths by 85%, the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase.

All the long term, large scale, reliable studies show that cycle helmets don't save lives, let alone be very likely to save your life.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Craig Prosser | 2 years ago
4 likes

Craig Prosser wrote:

.... which will very likely save their life one day.

.....

Citation please

Avatar
brooksby replied to Craig Prosser | 2 years ago
7 likes

Craig Prosser wrote:

You get asked if you're Covid vaccinated if you call an ambulance, you're rightly mocked by the general public if not. Why shouldn't cyclists not be similarly mocked if they don't wear a helmet which will very likely save their life one day.

if I hit my head skiing and don't have a helmet on my travel insurance doesn't cover me. It's law on my motorcycle. Why not when you put the Lycra on?

So do I have an exemption? I commute by bike and I never wear Lycra 3

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to brooksby | 2 years ago
1 like

brooksby wrote:

.....

So do I have an exemption? I commute by bike and I never wear Lycra 3

Only if you've had a collision recently... But not in Australia....

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Captain Badger | 2 years ago
4 likes

Captain Badger wrote:

brooksby wrote:

.....

So do I have an exemption? I commute by bike and I never wear Lycra 3

Only if you've had a collision recently... But not in Australia....

But yes, exemption in Australia.  A woman, who's name I forget, has been arrested multiple times for not wearing a helmet while cycling, and when it came to court, was absolved because of her well-founded fear of the helmet increasing the risk of rotational injuries.  Last report I heard was that she's still riding helmet-less and the police don't do nuffink.

Avatar
Hirsute replied to brooksby | 2 years ago
1 like

Burn the witch !!

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Craig Prosser | 2 years ago
7 likes

Craig Prosser wrote:

[...] Why not when you put the Lycra on?

Top tip: cyclists - in addition to helping society by being a more healthy and cheerful individual, adding negligable pollution to the environment, failing to trash the infrastructure and kill hundreds of people a year, why don't you also contribute by more clearly identifying yourself as a weirdo and figure of abuse for certain types of obsessives by donning some marginally effective PPE?  Then revel in the moment when you plaintively suggest you've now done enough to be admitted to the rest of humanity only to have them say "I didn't see you, are you trying to get killed?"!

Avatar
IanMK replied to Craig Prosser | 2 years ago
2 likes
Craig Prosser wrote:

Why shouldn't cyclists not be similarly mocked if they don't wear a helmet which will very likely save their life one day.

I'm not sure that hospital staff mocking patients is the way forward. I don't know though maybe they should try a bit of fat shaming see if the silly idiots will cut down their food intake. I could go on. No, I thought not.

Avatar
Sriracha replied to Hirsute | 2 years ago
4 likes
hirsute wrote:

Was Martin wearing a helmet?

Do they help with broken ribs ?

No, wearing a helmet helps prevent a motorist blithely driving onwards despite being blinded by the sun, neither caring nor seeing what or who they are driving into. Obvious really.

Avatar
Craig Prosser replied to Sriracha | 2 years ago
0 likes

No wearing a helmet stops you getting your head caved in. There is 0 valid reason not to wear one

Avatar
Secret_squirrel replied to Craig Prosser | 2 years ago
9 likes

Craig Prosser wrote:

No wearing a helmet stops you getting your head caved in. There is 0 valid reason not to wear one

Cobblers.  The impact tests on helmets are so low speed (a drop from a meter from memory) that they have sod all to do with protecting your bonce at the accelerations you recieve in a crash. 

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to Craig Prosser | 2 years ago
8 likes

Craig Prosser wrote:

No wearing a helmet stops you getting your head caved in. There is 0 valid reason not to wear one

Does it? they are not designed to resists the forces involve din collision with motor vehicles, otherwise they would look more like motorbike helmets.

They are only designed to protect against a cyclist falling over. Something an experienced cyclist riding for transport as opposed to racing is very unlikely to do..

Equally we could say there is zero reason not to wear a driving helmet, biggest cause of head injuries is car drivers and passengers, not cyclists. health and safety campaigners are very reluctant to campaign for driving helmets

Avatar
mdavidford replied to wycombewheeler | 2 years ago
7 likes

wycombewheeler wrote:

They are only designed to protect against a cyclist falling over. Something an experienced cyclist riding for transport as opposed to racing is very unlikely to do.

Speak for yourself.

cheeky

Avatar
Hirsute replied to Craig Prosser | 2 years ago
13 likes

3 posts and

//cdn.road.cc/sites/default/files/styles/main_width/public/helmet-row_0.jpg)

Great start to your posting career !

This should also be the first helmet one of the year too.

Pretty sure though if the forces are sufficient to cave your head in, then wearing a helmet will make 0 difference.

 

 

Pages

Latest Comments